Already this political season, there have been letters to the editor in the Daily Universe comparing candidates to Book of Mormon personalities and declaring that certain political positions do or do not coincide with the teachings of the Church. I don’t mind people bringing their religious views into political discussions as long as they do it with intelligence and respect. A dash of humility would be nice too (something we could all use more of). What has bothered me—because I expect better things of BYU students—is how often these letters have been ill informed or lacking in charity and respect.
Over the past week or so, letters have appeared dealing with such topics as creationism, abortion, and war and peace. It has struck me as slightly amusing and more than a little sad that sometimes the letter writers have sounded more like fundamentalists or conservative evangelicals than Latter-day Saints. I have great respect for evangelicals. But it is important for Latter-day Saints to understand that our doctrines and policy positions sometimes differ significantly from those of evangelicals. We also differ from many other Christians in having a policy of strict political neutrality. The First Presidency has even stated recently that “principles compatible with the gospel may be found in the platforms of all major political parties.”
Here is my take on three of the issues that have recently appeared in the Universe’s opinion page:
(1) Creationism: Creationism is an interesting religiously based view but is not a scientific theory comparable to evolution. (I’ll let the science people explain why.) Furthermore, creationism as commonly understood, with the earth created out of nothing in seven 24-hour days, is not consistent with LDS doctrine. Given these and other factors, my view is that science classes in the public schools should stick with mainstream science.
(2) Rooting out evil: I find it troubling that some young Latter-day Saints think they are called of God to rid the world of evil by violence. Perhaps this attitude confirms what President Spencer W. Kimball said a generation ago: “We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord.” He added: “Our assignment is affirmative: . . . to carry the gospel to our enemies, that they might no longer be our enemies” (Ensign June 1976). I believe the approach the Church counsels has been well expressed by President Joseph F. Smith: “Let us . . . conquer all the evil that we see around us, as far as we possibly can. And we will do it without using violence; we will do it without interfering with the agency of men or of women. We will do it by persuasion, by long‑suffering, by patience, and by forgiveness and love unfeigned” (Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith, chapter 28).
(3) Abortion: Officially, “the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience” but allows for possible (but not automatic) exceptions in cases of rape, incest, severe defects, and serious threats of the life or health of the mother. But “the Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals . . . concerning abortion” (see http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public‑issues/abortion). This is very different from legally prohibiting abortion in every case.
The Church’s position clearly leaves open to Latter-day Saints different ways of addressing abortion in the political realm. Individuals should feel free to argue passionately for their views on this matter. But since the Church has explicitly declined to take a position on legislative approaches to abortion, no one should claim that his or her view represents the Church’s official position.
Of course, on these and other issues I have strong views. On abortion, for instance, though I believe there should be legal allowances in cases of rape, incest, and threats to a mother’s well being, abortion for convenience seems to me socially, morally, and spiritually damaging, deadening our collective sensitivity to the preciousness of life. But given that we are dealing with the state of people’s hearts, I believe persuasion and positive examples are at least as essential as legislation in bringing about changes.
For me as for others, political passions sometimes obscure my vision and dampen the charity I should extend to others. On such occasions, I feel called to repentance when I remember statements made by two presidents of the Church. George Albert Smith warned, “Whenever your politics cause you to speak unkindly of your brethren, know this, that you are upon dangerous ground.” President Hinckley reminded us that “political differences never justify hatred or ill will,” adding, “ I hope that the Lord’s people may be at peace one with another during times of trouble, regardless of what loyalties they may have to different governments or parties” (see “Instruments of the Lord’s Peace,” Ensign May 2006).
No comments:
Post a Comment