Having moved to TN from MI four years ago I have learned just what the expression “Bible belt” references. The local Baptist church puts out their white crosses during the dark of night for November’s election day. Each one representing those aborted. The polling booths close at 8PM and the crosses are quietly taken down and packed away only to show up in two years (for national elections). It is their sutle, but extremely influencial, means of taking their parishioners ‘prisoner’ when exercising their voting right.

I do not support late term abortion, but do want my daughter-in-laws and granddaughters to have the right to chose - I believe, if faced with having to make a decision, will make the right decision - with Gods help. I also find it so sad that so many cast their vote for President of this great country based ONLY on the moral issue of abortion, but will never question the innocent deaths of mother’s children in Iraq or Darfur that have been given a name and held by a loving parent. My religious belief tells me this is highly immoral! It also leads me to believe God’s words support the importance that our President MUST be elected on their stance on political issues, not solely on their moral values.

Nick, my point was to point out the normative directions that influence the marriage-based decision from the Church’s view. While I have fleshed out the argument myself I don’t want to threadjack the post into another squabble about gay marriage.

To hawkgrrl and Jeff, I think the argument on global warming is more of an argument in unnecessary consumption. This, in and of itself, is its own moral economic imperitive. Unfortunately, the global warming debate has been hijacked into a means to create global socialism IMO, so I find no moral imperative to give away my country’s sovreignty. On the other hand, we have the means to solve it in the free market, but oil and gas are just too darn profitable. For me it’s a political quandry I can’t quite wrap my arms around. There isn’t much personally I can do except to stop living my life so that I won’t have to drive a car or breathe, but that would conflict with the greater commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. I can get invovled politically, but the whole thing’s a mess and President Monson hasn’t told me what to do, so I’m taking a pass on this one. Maybe they have a line into God and he’s told them that opposing gay marriage is more important. So be it, I’m lifting my hand in support. Perhaps they’re wrong, but so could academia, the APA, Hollywood, the Democratic Party, and the gay lobby.

Your comparing apples to oranges here. You cant really believe that if everyone stopped emitting carbon that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere would not decrease?

Im not sure what all the other issues you bring up have to do with personal responsibility and the environment other than to derail the original point with what I see as non related doubt.

It can’t be about personal righteousness when it’s not clear individual actions will solve the problem. It’s a macro problem to solve. Our very way of life would have to change dramatically. We would have to become farmers and live in cooperative communities with shared localized power sources. Not eating beef wasn’t on your list above, yet it has been suggested it is more impactful than recycling (reducing bovine excretions). Is that true? Who knows at this point?

Check Matthew 6:1-4 - http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=matthew+6%3A1-4

#8: “However, there are plenty of scripturally based arguments that using the government to fight poverty is immoral.”

This is news to me. In any event, what’s the argument that keeping distilled spirits out of convenience stores (while allowing them to be sold in liquor stores) is “clearly ‘right,’” as opposed to using governmental programs to fight international poverty (which, according to your scale, does not measure up)?

#9: In hopes of avoiding a total threadjack, I’ll resist the temptation to use this comment to rant about the war. Suffice it to say, stupid or not, the issue is the death and destruction of human life. We, as a Church, should take a stand against it, politics be damned.

#12/#13 — thanks for the kind words
#14: “honestly do not understand the obsession with opposing gay marriage. I believe that emotional and physical abuse and neglect by HETEROSEXUAL SPOUSES is a far greater threat to the FAMILY than two of my gay neighbors being legally married.”

Very well said. I agree.

“The church doesn’t need to put out a press release that says “World Poverty is a Problem” or “Genocide is Bad”.”

The issue is not simply a declaration from the Church. You’re right; that alone would be a redundnacy. But what I would like to see is the Church taking the lead to combat these problems in a more public way, instead of fighting local Utah political issues. Think of all the good will such efforts would generate!

Shawn, you seem very interesting in defining what the guidelines are for when the church should be engaging in issues. You are very interested in knowing what is a “moral” issue. But I think is that it’s impossible to distinguish, and the church’s statement doesn’t try to. The statement that the church gets involved in “moral” issues, not “political” ones, is not a complete statement of policy. It is intentionally vague, and it should be. Any attempt to be more specific would be impossible. A moral issue is what the church determines is a moral issue. You want a way to predict if any particular issue will be important to the church. I submit that you can’t predict it. You’ll know the church considers it a moral issue when they speak on the issue (not to say that the opposite is true–just because the church doesn’t speak does not mean it is not a moral issue).

Also, I don’t think the church needs to explicitly state every condition on the earth which it wishes didn’t exist and thinks should be done away with. If that were the case, it would probably take the entire general conference and more to go through the list. The church doesn’t need to put out a press release that says “World Poverty is a Problem” or “Genocide is Bad”. I think that’s pretty clear. Of course those are moral issues, but they don’t need any further clarification from the church. I agree with Cicero that how best to deal with those issues is not a moral question. The church does not employ foreign policy experts to my knowledge. The church sticks to what it is an expert on: personally morality and charity.

I’m not saying I agree with every stance the church makes or doesn’t make, but I think some here are being unrealistic in their expectations of what he church should be doing. It seems obligatory to bring up the familiar scripture:

D&C 58
26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.
27 Verily I say, men should be aanxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;

How is Global Warming not about personal righteousness? Every single living being has a carbon foot print that each individual has power to change.

The church has by the way spoken out about GLobal Warming - way back in 1991 - see: http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=3613b850e318b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

The article includes these things individuals can do to help:

“How You Can Help

Here are a few ideas you might consider in trying to take better care of the earth:

• Find ways to reduce unnecessary personal consumption of energy, water, wood products, and other products that come from scarce resources.

• Stop using products that damage the environment.

• Recycle metal, glass, plastic, and paper products.

• Be conscientious in disposing of chemical wastes properly.

• Learn more about natural processes and earth science.

• Cultivate a garden where possible; learn the art and science of composting.

• Adopt a conservation rather than a consumption attitude.

• Be grateful.”

1. The Church probably intervenes when and where it thinks its involvement can make a difference. Because the Church has more political clout in some places than others, (e.g., Utah the most, outside of the U.S. the least), it is naturally more politically active where it has more influence.

2. I agree that there are other issues that are greater “moral” issues in my estimation in which the Church could be a benefit. But the question is the method the Church uses to make a difference.

3. I’m not sure that political activism is where the Church should focus its efforts to make a positive difference in the world. There is so much “moral” work we could do with humanitarian efforts, education, etc. We don’t need Washington D.C. in order to do good.

4. I honestly do not understand the obsession with opposing gay marriage. I believe that emotional and physical abuse and neglect by HETEROSEXUAL SPOUSES is a far greater threat to the FAMILY than two of my gay neighbors being legally married.

I agree with JfQ - great post, Shawn! Very much got me thinking.

I often hear it raised how much US voters get motivated (angry) by macro issues but don’t inform themselves well on local issues, especially community issues, where they arguably have the most effect. (I’ve seen this in the misinformation or “motivated apathy” in local Utah issues like school vouchers, hazardous waste storage, fluoridation, etc.) Therefore, it might be argued that the LDS Church record shows they have focused on “moral” issues that most affect its local community. (Of course finding consistency and reconciliation even in this perspective is challenging.)

As the church becomes more global (and positions itself as more global) I agree that its silence, not only on macro, global issues, but helping to distill that down into locally-driven moral imperatives, is troubling. Look at the Pope meeting with Bush on the plight of persecuted Christian minorities in Iraq. You haven’t seen an LDS President articulate issues that way.

We don’t see a record of the LDS Church taking a stand and clear leadership on preemptive war, debt relief, humanitarian causes, environmental issues, care for the poor, globalized captitalism and the distribution of wealth, etc. Yes, the church has humanitarian programs to effect positive results in some of these areas, but they are not as clear, IMO, in leadership, nor is there spending as expansive as other churches as a percentage of the budget. (But verifying this is a little challenging with little public reporting happening.) I’ll admit, both macro/globally and locally, that the LDS church hasn’t aligned itself to a stance of moral leadership which personally motivates me was a contributor to my disaffection. But it wasn’t the cause I changed faiths. Nor do I think the LDS church immoral. It is just a matter of differing loyalties and personal motivations.

Thanks to Shawn for articulating the issue how he did. It made me consider a new perspective I hadn’t thought of before. Apart from differing moral perspectives or issues allegiances, the greater issue to me is a lack of membership-driven moral issues imperatives. It seems to me what the LDS Church does get involved in are more a reflection of top-down Corporate allegiances (as good as they may or may not be) rather than a organizational reflection of the moral commitments and climate of the local LDS membership experience. Yes, the Church uses grass-roots efforts to carry out the political-moral issues to which it allies itself, but the issues chosen to be backed, IMO, are less a reflection of “foundation-forward” grass-roots moral crusading.

But, on further reflection, I think you are right, and I want to elaborate on your point. If abortion doesn’t require legislation (you can allow it, but teach your adherents not to have one), then why doesn’t gay marriage fall into that same bucket? You can allow it and teach your adherents not to do it. Isn’t abortion damaging to the individual that engages in it? However, there is also some evidence that allowing abortion eases some societal burdens (e.g. argument laid out in Freakonomics that crime rates dropped 20 years after Roe v. Wade). Allowing gay marriage is new, directly challenges traditional notions of marriage, and contradicts the proclamation on the family. But is it really going to tear the fabric of society? Doubtful. Gay marriage doesn’t make more people gay. But legalizing abortion may make more people get one.

I hope I didn’t just corrupt your line of thought beyond recognition. Just wanted to explore it a little.

However, it has also been very patriotic- in the old traditional sense of supporting your country once it is at war. This can create tensions that are no longer capable of expression in the post-Vietnam era.

There is also the issue that the Church is very anti-communist. This led to us essentially choosing sides in the Cold War, and I think a lot of people are still trying to reorient themselves in a post-Cold War world.

Additionally, on the issue of the Iraq War, there is a big difference between stupid and immoral.

Saddam Hussein was not a good guy, and he had repeatedly engaged in actions that traditionally are considered acts of war, including shooting at American planes. Despite all the hoopla about WMD, if you look at the actual resolution authorizing the Presidents use of force WMD is not the only justification given to go to war. In fact it was Britain that convinced President Bush to make WMD the center piece of justification on the grounds that it would provide the best chance for gaining international approval.

In short there are many logical arguments that can be made for the Iraq war being a moral one. (The fact that we have not simply conquered and annexed the place with whole sale slaughter of anyone who opposes us ought to be a sign of something). The real question is was it a stupid war or not.

Unfortunately in the United States we tend to assume that if wars don’t end sweet and easy then obviously we must be in the wrong somehow. I have never understood the reasoning behind such a thought process.

Several others have already identified important considerations. I’m not sure I quite understand this one, however:

whereas gay marriage is an opposition-to moral stance reflect a defensive stance against a unraveling culture fabric. This cultural fabric is necessary to allow us to be personally liberal in our proactive service and love of others.

Perhaps the author can explain how opposing marriage equality allows LDS to be “personally liberal” in their “proactive service and love of others.” To put a finer point on it, how would marriage equality prevent LDS from serving and loving others? I don’t immediately grasp the connection.

In addition to some of the thoughts above, I think there’s an additional element involved. With the Hinckley administration, it appears that public relations took on a more significant role in LDS decision making. I would suggest that expected public perception plays a role in what issues are considered “moral” enough to warrant official LDS intervention. For example, the LDS church officially declines to comment on any proposed legislation regarding abortion (though Hinckley did once refer to partial birth abortion as “abominable”). Clearly, abortion is an important “moral” issue to the LDS church, but look at the public perception generated by many anti-abortion activists. Many of them have gone overboard in their tactics (even to the point of murdering doctors who perform abortions), and as a result, they’ve been perceived as nutjobs. Perhaps this has something to do with official LDS reluctance to actively lobby on the issue?

By contrast, official LDS lobbying to oppose marriage equality presents the LDS church in a way that is highly favorable to what might be considered its target conversion demographic, i.e. religious conservatives. I pay a considerable amount of attention to the activities and writings of anti-gay activists. Having done so, I see that the LDS church has actually adopted the specific language (verbatim) of christian evangelicals on this issue. Shifts in the official LDS declarations regarding homosexuality have closely followed the same shifts in the evangelical “ex-gay” and “anti-gay” movements. Further, Mitt Romney revealed in an interview with Christianity Today, that Hinckley met with Jerry Falwell in order to discuss how they could work together to defeat marriage equality and gay rights measuers in California. I don’t think it’s overly cynical, given these facts, to conclude that official opposition to marriage equality is at least partially intended to help the LDS church look more “christian” to so-called “mainstream” christians, and as a result, to positively influence LDS missionary work.

Similar lobbying by the LDS church in Europe would likely have the opposite effect, given the more predominately liberal culture there. Ergo, the LDS church has avoided such overtures in those countries. Right now, the American public is basically 50/50 on the issue of at least some kind of legal recognition for committed same-sex relationships. The percentage of Americans opposed to such recognition is dropping a few points each year. At some point, the balance will tip enough that it will no longer be considered worth the “perception risk” to actively engage in fighting marriage equality. When that times comes, I think you’ll see a change in official LDS tactics on the issue.

Surely combating poverty is a moral issue. However, there are plenty of scripturally based arguments that using the government to fight poverty is immoral.

So while the church is making several efforts to combat poverty (consider the PEF), it does not take a position supporting government policies to combat poverty as the morality of those methods are not clear.

That’s what I tried to point out. Just because an issue is “moral” is not enough, the must also be a clearly “right” position and a clearly “wrong” position. This is not the case on how governments should deal with poverty.

The main reasons I see the church being less involved in other countries politics are: 1) I do believe the mind-set hasn’t yet shifted to become truly a global church, 2) pragmatism due to the political nature of some of those countries, 3) lack of clarity around the legislative issues. On #2, our country’s political process is meant to be an ongoing debate. Most countries, even democracies, are not really about the ongoing argument. There is a difference between an evolving-argument based democracy like ours and just a government by the people with free elections.

“We believe that Zion (The New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American Continent, and that the Earth will be renewed to receive its paradiasical glory.”

That’s scripture.

I also don’t see the Chuch envisioning itself to intervene “morally” in ways that would decrease the likelihood of the loss of access in other countries. In this way it stays very neutral. We have luxuries in America to speak out, and thus, take appropraite action. I just think that its a return on investment. Spend the money in Europe and Canada to fight gay marriage, where the return on investment is less, you lose, and so does your investment. Invest in America, where you have a greater likelihood of success, keep the barbarians at bay in the home country, and you may live to fight a future battle in far off lands. Plain and simple, its strategic placement of assets.

I find the concern about environmental, poverty, and traditional liberal causes to be compelling, and it does seem that Church settles on moral issues that are traditionally conservative (marriage, gambling, etc.) but many of the modern liberal causes of poverty abatement and environmental stewardship have a marketably socialist bent to it, which the Church adamently opposes. I did hear Pres. Hinckly come out about 10 years ago against guns in public schools, so its not entirely conservative. The Church is decidedly more liberal in terms of personal economics, anti-greed, stewardship, service to the poor, but these ideas are not policy-based, they’re personally-based, and thus, non-political, whereas gay marriage is an opposition-to moral stance reflect a defensive stance against a unraveling culture fabric. This cultural fabric is necessary to allow us to be personally liberal in our proactive service and love of others.

The Church could be more anti-war. That’s a wish from me.

1) Support of Prohibition

2) Opposition to “Old Age Assistance” (Social Security) on the grounds that the government would spend the money instead of investing it, and as a result would need to continue raising taxes in order to meet its obligations.

Also, the Church has participated in some below the radar political activity in other countries. Small stuff, and usually base around influencing legislation before it is proposed rather than supporting or opposing after legislation is up for a vote.

First all, several of the issues which you identify as moral issues are no doubt moral issues- however, the methods used to deal with it are subject to great debate.

For example the most effective way to deal with poverty in South America is not really a moral issue, as both sides want to improve things, but disagree on the best method.

Surely the Church such avoid taking a position without an ability to clearly identify a position that is consistent with Church doctrine while the other positions are clearly in opposition. Unless God decides to give some revelation on the matter of course.

To me the ERA, gay marriage, and legalized gambling fall into this level of clarity.

The Iraq War and global poverty do not- however much you may feel they do.

The other issues are Utah specific. The MX missile base was more about the fact that the strategic effect was to make Utah a “nuclear sponge” so that in the event of war the USSR would have to expend most of its nuclear warheads on turning Utah and Nevada into a wasteland instead of nuking more valuable American territory. Naturally you can see why the Church could legitimately oppose that.

It seems to me that the Church has adopted a policy of not get as involved in politics outside of Utah, and even more so outside of the US. This seems sensible as the Church is more vulnerable outside the United States. Meanwhile the Church can attempt to set up the US as an example to the rest of the world, and Utah as an example to the rest of the US.

Another argument that could be made, though, is that the Church is only as strong as the legal system of the country in which it is headquartered, so it would naturally wish to do all in its power to promote political conditions that would be most favorable to its flourishment.