Congratulations! You are now fulfilling the Bible which says “Come now, and let us repeat together.”
Be sure to repeat what Walvoord, Lindsey, LaHaye, Ice etc. repeat what their own teachers repeat what their own teachers repeat etc. etc. etc.!
Repeat that Christ’s return is imminent because we’re told to “watch” (Matt. 24, 25) for it. So is the “day of God” (II Pet. 3:12) – which you admit is at least 1000 years ahead – also imminent because we’re told to be “looking for” it?
Also repeat the pretrib myths about the “Jewish wedding stages” and “Jewish feasts” (where’s your “church/Israel dichotomy” now?) even though Christ and Paul knew nothing about a “pretrib stage” and neither did any official theological creed or organized church before 1830!
You should read “Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty” on the “Powered by Christ Ministries” site to find out why you shouldn’t repeat everything your pretrib teachers repeat.
Do I have to repeat this?

[saw the above on a website - Orson]

As opposed to “less engaged”? I agree that the Church is only involved in campaigns on a rare basis, but what I meant by “less” was not the number of campaigns – rather the level during those campaigns. I can understand that the Church may have a stake in issues, such as the ERA or Prop 8, but I would prefer them to be leading the charge spiritually to win souls rather than effecting law. I am familiar with the debates going around as to whether or not the Church “told” members how to vote, and that their is some disagreement here. recognizing the disagreement, I still think that is a good idea to avoid even the impression, to borrow a phrase here, of bloc voting patterns.

http://www.issaquahpress.com/2009/03/16/program-links-neighbors-in-emergencies/

Of course, our default position is that we’d rather find a way to include you in our church as much as possible than to exclude you. But I remember a few years ago when one ward member’s Baptist-flavored Mormonism was particularly tiresome and he was very convinced of his correctness. Yet we’d rather have him “in the fold” than outside, right? (He moved away. I have no idea what his status is now.)

Greg’s point is valid perhaps for the organizational church (that entry into politics is done defensively and reluctantly). However, there is equal harm done when individual members at the grass roots level start forming these alliances. There do seem to be members who are prone to misunderstand our own doctrines (e.g. evolutionary stance, abortion stance) due to these associations; it is a form of mingling scripture with the philosophies of men.

I really don’t have a lot to say about this subject, but I did want tell you that much of what you write is very well done including this. Thanks for your input on this board! Not that a thanks from me will buy you much around here…

Throughout the world’s long history, there was no question about the definition of the term “marriage.” However, during my lifetime, those who would like to change that definition had to first identify the issue as a political problem which required a political solution. This was quite a stretch, but the government fell for it and now the church has been forced to take a stand. A moral issue was re-branded as a political issue and now our church stands accused of inappropriate meddling in politics. It’s a vicious trap which, to me, is far more insidious than one church sniping at another over the finer points of doctrine. Prophets, seers and revelators specifically told us that the defeat of Proposition 8 would lead to more restrictions against our religious liberty. I accept that assessment.

We are told to teach (and learn) correct principles so that we can govern ourselves. None of the organizations or individuals listed at the top of this page should have a strong enough influence to sway us from that course. If so, then we have neglected to learn CORRECT principles.

“On the religious right making exclusive truth claims that seek to find who is “in” and who is “out” are the norm.” I think this is the reason the LDS Church can’t do well with the religious left. The philosophies are just not the same. Mormonism is, by its very nature, exclusive and therefore fits better with the religious right. It also holds to hard core moral positions that the left doesn’t. Hardly a perfect fit and I think this post assumes that Mormons engaged with the Religious Right don’t have the same unease. They, speaking of the conservative LDS membership, are very suspicious of the religious right. The sentiment is: What can you do?

Perhaps yes and no. I don’t think anyone is asking Mormons to step out of the political process, just the Mormon Church. Frankly I’d prefer to see the Church less politically engaged, from the perspective of Campaigns, though I have no objection to the Church expressing it’s views.

Some examples would be good. Since I work with leaders of the religious left all the time here are some things that have been said to me: “how can we help you with your work?”, “Would you consider being a board member?”, “How can we have better dialogue with Mormons?”, “Would you consider speaking at our event?” It’s really ugly!

There is a world of difference between the religious left and the religious right. On the religious right making exclusive truth claims that seek to find who is “in” and who is “out” are the norm. The religious left tends to values inclusiveness, and tends to be more ready to partner / accept people who are different. The secular left on the other hand does have plenty of silly things to say about religion in general and the religious left in particular.

On a more serious note, I don’t consider myself particularly right-wing or left-wing. But I know there are plenty of people here in my Utah Valley community who have expressed disdain for any level of–at least–tolerance (different, mind you, than encouragement) of religious-left perspectives. There are enough people in the general membership of our church with strong enough opinions, and enough people ready and willing to ascribe to us their perceptions of our opinions.

For the Church to stand up for more of these causes has two big problems that I see. First, as you point out, a lot of the moral/political causes out there aren’t fully in line with our beliefs. That would mean having to compromise some of our beliefs, which I somehow don’t think is likely to happen on that large of a scale, if ever. Second, we already have a bad rap and I honestly have a hard time seeing how it will get better anytime soon. Judging by the waves from the few causes we have made a public stand for, I’d say that it’s not a good plan to inject the Church (as an organization) into any more activism than is absolutely necessary.

To make scriptural comparisons (and before I do, I want to make clear that I’m sure there are flaws I’ve missed in this analogy, as I am in no way a scriptorian or historian; I know there are contextual differences between the two that I’m not presenting here), I would prefer taking the patient approach similar to Jesus writing on the ground “as though he heard them not” approach (though he clearly did hear them) (John 8), over the general chastising and commanding tone I’ve felt while reading in Paul’s epistles to the Corinthians.

I very rarely see the Savior show much of any outward anger in the accounts we have of his life. The cleansing of the temple comes to mind, but far more often I see him quietly expressing his love, and his sadness and disappointment in the things that some have done, but very, very rarely true anger. I think if we’re going to call ourselves the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then it’s probably best if we follow the pattern he laid down during his ministry.

Its only inevitable to the extent that Church leadership want to use the Church as a way of carrying out political programs. If the institutional Church chooses not to engage in direct politics, chooses not to advance specific political agendas then its a lot less of a problem.

This is particularly poignant given what Joseph Smith, even Brigham Young, tried to accomplish through the United Order and the “Beehive/Deseret” philosophies. Hardly Conservative in the social considerations.

I think that I enjoy the irony of these associations because we live in Dobsonville, home of Ted Haggard. In many ways, James Dobson is a political figure masquerading as both a minister and a child psychologist, for which he was trained. He loves the limelight and having an effect on politics, which the same as Jerry Falwell did and Rush Limbaugh does.

To show his true ministerial side, he ran as fast as he could away from Ted Haggard when his problems were made public, even though the two collaborated much of the time and their respective organizations are less than 2 miles apart.

I also find it ironic that members of the LDS Church embrace and share the political philosophies of people who, if they could, would wipe us off the face of the earth and have condemned us to hell for our beliefs. Whose beliefs are so far away from the philosophies of Joseph Smith himself, as to be funny, if it was not so sad.

The irony of the Religious Right is that doctrinally we consider them the “Religious Wrong” and yet we seek their approval.

It is also true that if one lies down in the mire with pigs one cannot help but get dirty.

I don’t have a whole lot to add at this point, except that I would prefer that the Church be much more hesitant about aligning itself with organizations on the “Religious Right,” even if our interests occasionally overlap. On the whole, the LDS Church is quite conservative (politically and otherwise), but I am grateful that it has taken a much more moderate and permissive stance on such issues as evolution and abortion. Aligning ourselves with James Dobson and company tends to reinforce perceptions (both from outside and within the Church) that, at least when it comes to politics, Mormons are de facto members of the Christian Right–and that LDS Church leaders endorse this alliance.

Theologically and morally speaking, I think Mormons are far less wedded to Christian Right politics than your average Evangelical church is. There is something to be said for maintaining that distance.