Senate majority leader Harry Reid is a member of the LDS Church in good standing, but some of his fellow Mormons consider him an apostate by virtue of his simply being a Democrat. And Reid’s instrumental support of the health care reform bill has put him further at odds with conservative majority in his church.
This animosity toward Reid manifested itself in a story that has the Mormon blogosphere—the “bloggernacle”—a buzz. From the Millennial Star:
[A] Stake Presidency in Nevada invited Harry Reid to speak at a “Why I Believe” fireside (Harry Reid has spoken at other such firesides in other stakes and at other functions). Members of that stake were apparently outraged at the suggestion that a Mormon with a different political viewpoint than their own might bear testimony.
A member of the stake described what happened in her personal blog, The Backordered Life.
Members of her stake apparently threatened to protest with signs and to heckle Harry Reid from the audience (in a fireside about a person’s testimony! — I would guess that these same people are the type who would strongly discourage clapping after a musical number at a fireside). It seems that Senator Reid even received some threats of violence causing concern for his safety that ultimately got the fireside canceled. Members of the stake allegedly sent emails to the Stake Presidency saying that Harry Reid was the most evil man on the planet and that the Stake Presidency must be evil too to have even considered letting him bear his testimony:
One man said, “If I see Harry Reid in the temple, I’m going to hit him.” Another told our stake president, “Harry Reid is the most evil man on the earth, and you and your counselors are next.” . . .
There were even people weighing in from out of state. One woman called from St. George, Utah; my husband took the call, and she gave him a message for our stake president: “You’re a wicked man for allowing this to happen.”
Having been a liberal Mormon, I really empathize with Senator Reid. It can be difficult feeling like a stranger in your own church.
I’d love for LDS leaders to unambiguously denounce the behavior of these Nevada Mormons. The church should also stress its political neutrality at this weekend’s General Conference. But should neither of those things happen, I hope our Mormon readers will at least read this church press release on political civility.
*As is often the case, I am indebted to Main Street Plaza for the story.
Or at the very least, attempt to stress it’s claimed political neutrality.
I can’t imagine the mindset that allows someone to think supporting a health care bill makes a person “the most evilest man evarz”.
*Rolls eyes* – You know that whole shtick about not judging someone else until you’ve walked a mile in their shoes? I can’t do it. I just can’t do it. These people are lunatics. I try so hard to refrain from contempt and “holier-than-though” statements, but this is nuts. I shudder at the thought that anyone in my ward–or, h**ven forbid (thought I should censor that word, given this blog) my family or circle of friends, might espouse a view like this. Wow. Just wow. Beyond fail.
Pingback: USU SHAFT » Senator Harry Reid shunned by fellow Mormons | Toss Congress
“I watch Glenn Beck and he’s taught me well.” –That’s all I hear when these people talk.
I’m very curious to see if the church says anything about this in or out of conference. They’ve been quiet about things like this before, but I don’t know that any of them have hit the public spotlight like this. Have they already forgotten President Faust, who as a very active Democrat?
I second Jon, I was also a liberal mormon and it can really suck sometimes. This actually ups the my respect level for Senator Reid because it’s one thing to stand for your religious beliefs, but it’s another thing entirely to stand for your religious beliefs AND your politics when your “religious peers” shun you altogether. Then add the doubt that comes with finding genuine idiots in your own religion…
Kind of reminds you of how much the Taliban in control of their congregation, so was the difference between the churches, when can you use your free agents or is that just a talking point in the church
Why is it so hard to understand why Mormons are against gays and abortion? Notice all other faith’s have become ok with it as society begins to decline. Mormons believe families were united in spirit before they were born. By being a gay person or aborting a child is like telling your family member they can’t come to earth because of your selfish decision. It’s actually pretty fantastic because the doctorine of the church makes these stances unchangeable.
What is odd about this is that he is being shunned for a difference in prudential judgment rather than a difference over “intrinsic” matters. What I mean is this:
“Prudence” is the ability to discern the true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it. There is a range of opinions about the most prudent way to proceed in policy matters. Some might want to resolve the health care mess with more government, some with less. But more government is not intrinsically evil (evil in every possible case). It might be imprudent, but it is not intrinsically evil. For example: I don’t think prohibition laws (or current laws against pot) are intrinsically evil. But I think they are prudentially stupid.
Now I would say that some things are intrinsically evil. An intrinsic evil is an evil which, under no circumstance, can be justified. Rape comes to mind. Sexual abuse of children. And abortion. Capital punishment is evil but not intrinsically evil (one can imagine a circumstance where it would be necessary to execute in order to keep people safe). But with the invention of modern prisons about 200 years ago, it is no longer necessary and so we should reject capital punishment. War is evil but not an intrinsic evil. Nuclear weapons are, I think (and so did JPII), an intrinsic evil since they are ‘by definition’ indiscriminate weapons.
I am not here posting to get into the moral theology of all of this. My point is only this: It is interesting that Mormons are this pissed at Reid over a difference in prudential judgment. Their anger is about big government (a prudential disagreement) rather than about abortion in the health care bill (a matter of intrinsic evil). The abortion business in the health care bill should elicit more hostility than the difference in prudential opinion (though I am not proposing that we become violent over either debate). In other words, I don’t think they have their moral priorities in proper order.
Many Catholics are pissed at Pelosi and the other Catholic Lite politicians who helped ram this bill through. But while many of them might be upset over big government, the focus of the resistance to the bill for Catholics was on the abortion issue (again, had the Senate bill included the House language on abortion, I think the conference of Catholic bishops would have supported it). This is as it should be, given the moral priority of the issues at hand (even if big government is a prudential evil, it pales in comparison to the intrinsic evil of abortion).
Of course, the LDS church has a bit of a wishy washy teaching on abortion. They don’t seem to consider it an intrinsic evil (I believe the LDS church itself makes exceptions for rape and incest, though someone correct me if I am wrong on that).
Again, I am not posting this to get into the issue of abortion or anything else. I just find it odd that Mormons are getting upset over the wrong thing, or at least over the minor thing. Perhaps a clearer moral theology would help them put their moral priorities in order.
Catholics are idiots. Mormons above all faith’s find abortion wrong. Mormons believe in the premortal so by killing an unborn baby, you are stopping a person’s destiny. Catholics on the other hand let gays be gays and they change their stances on doctorine when they see fit.
Long post again, sorry
When I was still LDS we would read interviews of Hinkley where he explicitly said abortion was pure evil, but I don’t know if that seeped into all thought and practice. The instructor reading would then say “See? That’s why he’s the prophet, he has the answer to everything.” It was opinion, and perhaps a true one, but the point is here that I don’t know Hinkley was lost on his followers except dogmatically (they knew his words but didn’t understand them). Most LDS I know are pretty hard on the pro life side but I think I recall some saying there was leeway for rape, incest or emotional trauma of some kind (Jon could back or refute that if he knows or wishes.)
I agree with Harrison on this issue, abortion should far closer to the heart of value derived politics around here and yet they focused on the finances. Of course, blogs can be written by anyone, and anyone can answer a press question or send an email, so I’m not sure I’d take these too much to heart, but the violent threats are definitely a call for concern.
I think the confusion lies both in a lack of clear moral theology, clear and authoritative teaching of that theology, and a shift in fundamental individual value. There is a strange balance, at least one I experienced, between total individual libertarianism and authoritative tradition. The tradition is “right” and authoritative, and so the participators are in the right, but they are also so free from judgment of any authority beyond their god that they can do anything. For most mormons, this means they can drive like idiots and waste valuable water on lawncare. Jesus forgave them, so it doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks. But like a rifle or telescope, a slight degree off early on leads to a huge miss later. Bad driving can, and seems to do, lead to being perfectly fine with torturing and imprisoning a middle easterner with no evidence because it seems to keep them individually safe, and while abortion should be considered the graver evil, taking over health care is the bigger rabble rouser, because it concerns them individually. Not all mormons I knew and know are like this but I think its a large part of the populous culture, to willing to lead without seeing, and too willing to follow but not follow well.
As a Mormon, and a convert to Mormonism, I am pro life with no exceptions. I believe God is in control. Case in point; My daughter recently gave birth to a son, born just 28 weeks after conception. To be sure, he needed a Neo Natal Intensive Care Unit. However, A child was born!
Life begins at conception, and is a process. You cannot identify any single moment of time as “life”. It is a process of growth. We experience that process each day of our life. Even in a tragic situation, like rape, if God blesses the mother with the process of life, it is God’s gift to give, and not ours to destroy. The body she inhabits is on loan to her too. The manner in which that life starts is secondary to the life of that child. If the mother to be does not want the child, then the child could be given to adoptive parents. Killing that life, no matter where in the process that life is, is simply – murder.
As for the politics of Harry Reid, I do not agree with his politics, and I do believe he violates the tenants of church teachings. I also believe him to be wrong on his support of the Health Care abomination and the democratic viewpoint of the debt reduction talks. He will answer for those actions to God, if not to his constituents, and others affected by his actions. I truly do not want to be in his shoes on that day. I do not hate him, and do not wish him ill. Politically, I wish him replaced with expediency, but I do not wish any harm to the man or his family. I would feel uncomfortable sitting next to him in church for my political values are not aligned with his, but that is a political distinction, and I would not move somewhere else. His soul is precious in the sight of our God, and I cannot go against the teaching to love one another as we would love ourselves. By the same token, I have done things in my life that I do not like either. Fortunately, my decisions do not affect the masses in the same way as Reid’s. As the old saying goes, I do not hate a skunk, I simply do not care for its odor. I have enough to answer for in my own life. I do not need more. I’ll Let Harry worry about his, and work to politically change and undo some of his handiwork while I remain on this earth.
I’ll also add (assuming Jon doesn’t try to kill me for such heavy posting) that I think one of the prime examples of this moral confusion lies both in the act and followup of the woman in Vernal who is the basis for one of our newest laws, both the cowardice in her act and (I think Harrison’s right about this) the inappropriate legislative response to try and solve it. Individual uncertainty in no way justifies such an act, and it stems from the cultural view, not law specificity.
I am always surprised by the strident libertarianism of most Mormons and many in the evangelical community. I certainly understand (and am often sympathetic with) small government conservatism. The principle of subsidiarity tells us that problems should be soled as locally as is possible and I think we should all be suspicious of political programs which seek to “revolutionize” the human condition (Aristotle rightly remarks that moderation is one of the most important political virtues). But conservative politics of most mormons is something more than just insisting on the principle of subsidiarity and moderation. At the end of the day, it is just libertarian political ideology.
I don’t think one can be a Christian (I am including Mormons here, even though they reject much of the tradition) and a libertarian. One basic tenet of libertarian political philosophy is the absolute and inviolable right to private property. For the libertarian, the right to private property is absolutely basic, and our other rights (free expression, etc) are in some manner or another dependent on the right to private property. Any taking of private property against the consent of the owner is “plunder”.
I am always reminded of John Paul II’s encyclical “On Human Work” when this matter comes up. There he argues against both Marxism and against “rigid capitalism”. He spends some time distinguishing the Christian moral tradition from libertarianism.
“[T]he difference consists in the way the right to ownership or property is understood. Christian tradition has never upheld this right as absolute and untouchable. On the contrary, it has always understood this right within the broader context of the right common to all to use the goods of the whole of creation: The right to private property is subordinated to the right to common use, to the fact that goods are meant for everyone.” (¶64).
There is a place for private property (Marxism is wrongheaded), but the right to private property is not absolute. In fact, I do not have a right to the surplus that I have. As Aquinas points out, if a poor man in need takes my food then it is not actually “stealing” since he has a right to my food. On the contrary, In cases of need all things are common property, so that there would seem to be no sin in taking another’s property, for need has made it common.” (Aquinas, Summa II.II.66.7)
Stealing is always wrong, but under certain conditions what some might think it is stealing actually isn’t. If someone takes something that isn’t your due, then it is not stealing. One interesting result of this is that my giving to the poor is not really “charity” as usually understood (I am giving them something of mine out of the largess of my heart). Rather, when I give to the poor I am simply giving them something that is already properly theirs. Insisting on keeping it would actually be unjust, not just a lack of “charity” on my part.
Libertarians loudly gripe about what is “mine” and my right to what is “mine”, but the poor actually have a right to the things they need because the right of common use overrides any private property claim. John Paul II, in his encyclical, goes on to discuss how it might then be necessary to socialize certain means of production in order to ensure the right of common use (water is a good example, but health care might well be one too).
Well most Utah Mormons are authoritarian as shit, and don’t respect private property rights (private smoking bans, zoning laws etc.) and, according to you, “one basic tenet of libertarian political philosophy is the absolute and inviolable right to private property.” On the social side they are about anti-libertarian as it gets(gay marriage, abortion, etc.) so I don’t see any libertarianism here either. As far as I can see, Mormons are metaphysical libertarians, and that’s the only way they’re inherently libertarian, in any context.
You then say that stealing is not stealing when somebody “needs” what they are stealing. First of all, we don’t “need” anything. “Needs” are relative to wants. I “need” food because I want to live. What you are doing here is arbitrarily picking out the wants you deem okay and say that they are “needs.” I think you’ll try to dodge this by saying we have common wants, and this magically turns these wants into “needs”. The premise to this point is not even true, and it doesn’t establish the right to the food in somebody else’s pantry, or taxation.
Ben B is right to point out that there is considerable inconsistency and dissonance among Mormons on this point, and I did not mean to paint with too broad of a stroke. I have been told (have not seen the studies myself) that use of welfare in the state of Utah is among the highest in the country. And, as Ben B points out, Mormon politicians are only too happy to insert govt into all sorts of things that a libertarian would not approve of (liquor laws, etc).
But having noted the dissonance, a considerable portion (if not an outright majority) of Mormons at least profess to be libertarians. A bit of anecdotal evidence: I am teaching a Social Ethics class, and 100% of the class said they were either libertarian or “sympathetic with it” (I did a little poll).
The purpose of my post was to point out the dissonance between that professed libertarian bent (whether or not they un-hypocritically live it out) and the Christian tradition’s view of private property. (Ben B happens to disagree with this view of property and rights – a view which is largely rooted in the natural law and so would infer basic needs from basic human desires to exist, etc).
Pingback: “If I see Harry Reid in the temple, I’m going to hit him.” | Main Street Plaza
Courtney Smith asked in an earlier comment, “I’m very curious to see if the church says anything about this in or out of conference.” She might want to check out a press release called The Mormon Ethic of Civility” issued last October. A copy can be found at http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-mormon-ethic-of-civility.
I have posted a few comments on other blogs discussing this same issue…
While I believe that many people are behaving badly here and outside the teachings of the Church, I can understand some of the suspicion and anger.
Some Latter-Day Saints see that in a tight Senate race, Sen. Reid is using Church firesides as a venue for campaigning. As a self-proclaimed political junkie, I can say that deciding to participate in a series of LDS firesides during a close election year is guaranteed to raise suspicions stir controversy. Especially when considering that Jim Gibson (an area Seventy and member of the famous Democratic political family) has been pressuring many members to attend such meetings… more so than usual.
Just imagine if Senator Bennett was speaking at a number of firesides in Cache county? Now complicate things by throwing certain political-religious connections into the mix… There would be a tremendous outcry, and not simply because a number of Mormons believe that Senator Bennett and Satan himself are kindred spirits (and believe me, there are plenty of people in this Valley who feel that way)… it is because it appears that the Senator is using the Church inappropriately to campaign for his reelection, which is currently in jeopardy.
Again, I don’t like the vicious attacks on Senator Reid. And those Mormons who are using this event to attack the Majority Leader politically should be ashamed of themselves. Personally, I am proud that a man as accomplished as Senator Reid is also a Latter-Day Saint (and an Aggie). Our political differences remain outside this feeling of respect… Nevertheless, if I were to ever have reason to believe that Senator Reid was exploiting his relationship with the Church in order to further his political interests, I would be particularly annoyed.
For more information on Senator Reid and Elder Gibson, read this:
http://opinionated.coolestfamilyever.com/2010/04/04/the-untold-side-of-the-harry-reid-fracas/#comment-293
This is important to remember:
Why Too Many Babies Die in the United States
By Steven G. Gabbe, MD
Infant mortality, the number of infant deaths under 1 year of age per 1000 live births, is a singularly important indicator of the health of a population. Each year, approximately 35,000 infant deaths occur in the United States. This review focuses on the causes of infant mortality in the United States and proposes possible solutions to reduce this loss of life.
from:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Why+Too+Many+Babies+Die+in+the+United+States-a0206679578
This article goes on to explain how financial barriers present an obstacle that prevents poor mothers from seeking early prenatal care and pediatric care for their infants.
If this heath care bill helps to reduce infant mortality and ends of saving the lives of mothers and children, then Harry Reid should be thanked, not condemned.
Dear Federal Farmer,
I live in Utah where both Senators and our Representative are Republican. If we told all politicians that they could not speak or bare their testimonies in firesides during election years, we would never hear from them.
Why is it always ok for Republican politicians to participate fully and completely in all Church venues while Democratic Politicians are shunned and marginalized?
Interesting debate about a common ability to be able to have healthcare for everyone, I did not see anything in the parable of the good Samaritan where the Samaritan asked the Jew if he had funds to pay for the care. Did Jesus espies loving all…..
Ans as regards the so called evil of universal healthcare, if one checks any and all birth survival rates, longevity, fitness of general populus of the so called “evil” states which have socialised medical care is it not interesting to see the USA after all of them in level of care. It is on the CIA facts website – go check it.
Does this mean that actually as US citizens do not live as long of lose more babies at birth their care is better? The facts show otherwise, so where is the logic in saying we cannot provide a better level of social care than the awful socialised medicine countries?
If you cannot, then what is so great about the so called “God given” government here?
IF LDS members did indeed threaten anyone or say those things, then they need to reread the BOM, Bible and reread their priesthood manuals again….for I think they are the ones going to the telestial kingdom and should have their temple recommends taken away forthwith!!!
Mormonism is a quiet practice of faith that is viewed externally as a “Cult” or worse. Mormonism is exemplified by the pioneers who settled Utah after much persecution and without assistance from the government. In fact, the government was hostile towards Mormons. Mormons I know see themselves as holding a portion of the pioneer spirit – independent, self reliant, strong, frugal, and happy to show their Father in Heaven their love for him thru their labor. Mormonism teaches man cannot serve two masters. Man must be loyal to God, the commandments that God demands, and stand upright against any force that challenges their relationship with the All Mighty; the practice of their faith. Mormonism demands man be self reliant and shun being a burden upon his fellow man or his family. Ezra Taft Benson railed against the evils of Communism while working in the Federal Government and afterwards. Communism was evil because it stood at odds with Godly commandments and threatened the freedoms provided in our Constitution.
I assert Harry Reid and the Democrat party are working to implement the initial stages of Communism in America. The USSR and China did not assume Communism in one act. It dribbled in over time because people naturally object to losing their liberties. Over 100 million people were executed or starved when they objected to Communism. What Harry Reid’s political party wishes for America is not dissimilar to the early stages of Communism. I feel the restrictions of Democrat policy on my labors, my property, my family, and my wallet, my freedoms. The reach of government invades every aspect of my life and the lives of my fellow citizens. Reid and his party work tirelessly to deprive the property of the industrious and give what they take to those who will submit to being dependent upon the Democrat party and reward them with a vote.
We are either ONE people united as Americans, or, we are sliding towards Marxism/Communism when we permit government to sanction, and codify into law, separate rights and advantages for the constituents of one political party and expect the political opponents to pay for the advantages offered preferentially. Harry Reid espouses this political philosophy and has broken his Oath of Office when he ignored the Constitution – bribery for votes, locked doors, excluding political opponents, violation of the Commerce Clause. Reid also violated the will of the American people – the public trust. What Reid advocates starkly stands at odds with Mormon doctrine too. Hypocrisy is an overused term generically applied to politicians. However, Reid’s conduct in office, when he sought to enrich himself while bending and breaking the laws of Nevada, while criticizing, and seeking to punish honest, hardworking Americans who become successful, thru taxation, is remarkable and sinister – hypocritical. In my opinion, Reid uses his Mormon faith as a political device too. Many Mormons reside in Nevada, and, Mormons will generally support fellow Mormons. I believe most Mormons who know and once supported Reid feel betrayed – personally, and in terms of the impact of Reid’s actions, and notoriety place upon their faith. Reid’s party is manically opposed to Christianity and its practice – Reid is silent on the matter. I will offer a prayer of Thanks once Reid is removed from office and I suppose many other Mormons will do the same. Reid is a blemish on the Mormon faith and it is unfortunate his rise to power was accomplished advancing policy antithetical to Mormon doctrine, Christian principles, and human decency.
The media has forced your choices – why? Pick the better of two bad possibilities – why? In order to have effective representation, you must truly have a representative that voices the will of the State and the people above their personal convictions, opinions or party demands. I, Jesse Holland, am offering that opportunity; to represent your will and voice! That is the legal requirement of a Senator. I am easily found online and encourage you to vote responsibly. Please give our State and Country a chance with legal representation. I will serve the Will of the State and the citizens therein. You are rightfully the owner of your government. Picking and choosing ideas based upon big money, special interests and party weight must stop.
I came quite late to this thread, but was struck enough by it that I wanted to reply. A conservative faction of the GOP has been very successful in convincing a large percentage of my fellow LDS people to think that a democrat cannot be a true believer.
I don’t believe our Saviour is either a Republican or a Democrat. I think he’d take planks from the platforms of both parties if he was asked which was better.
We have so many libertarians and those who approve of corporate oligarchy in the ranks of our religion that I just sometimes shake my head in disbelieve. These people ought to get out their Old Testament and read a very short book called the “Book of Malachi”. Among other things, this condemns employers who oppress their employees by offering bad wages and bad working conditions.
It is a huge honor for our church that we have elected not only many LDS people to US Senate and US House of Representatives seats, but that we have elected the man who is now Senate Majority Leader. He is the most powerful man in the whole Congress! On November 2nd, Harry Reid won a decisive victory over his opponent, Sharron Angle, in the Nevada Senate race. So, Harry Reid will soldier onward even at the age of 70. Harry is a man who has frequently been underestimated by those around him. We shall see, I think he has much still left to give both his church and his country.
I have no problem with Harry Reid being a liberal or a democrat, but just one example of a whole lot of dishonesty by him, Nancy Pelosi, President Obama, and most of the democrats in congress who voted for and passed the healthcare bill with underhanded means, like buying votes, going around longstanding constitutional rules, not reading what was in the bill, hiding a bunch of dishonest crap in the bill like 105 billion dollars to fund it that nobody claimed to know anything about…, and Nancy Pelosi’s ultra stupid comment “we just need to pass it so we can see what is in it”, its things like this that Reid has been involved in that make me wonder about his integrity, its nothing to do with his political affiliation, its about him in large measure being in lock step with a very dishonest, finacially irresponsible often times corrupt first two years of the Barrack Obama Machine. Oh and they did most of these things in spite of the majority of the american people objecting to them.