I’m curious as to why certain political issues get branded as moral, while others do not. It seems to me that most political, and even economic issues are also moral issues, such as war, torture, social services for the poor, etc. It seems the we as Latter-day Saints should broaden our view of what issues are “moral.” On the other hand, just because something is not moral, doesn’t necessarily mean it should be banned by law. Some things, it seems, should be preached against, but not legislated against.

http://www.themormonworker.org

Also, I’m curious what you all think Joseph Smith’s stance on the California issue would be. My gut thinking is that he would be ok with the amendment, esp. since it’s a state enacting(presumably fairly popular) state legislation. But I don’t know.

In any case, I’ve gotten some angry IMs today from friends and coworkers reading this story: http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_9675600?nclick_check=1. I don’t feel like it would be appropriate for me to apologize for the actions of the First Presidency to my non-mormon associates, so I basically hem and haw, but I hope this isn’t the type of issue the church itself ends up apologizing for 10 years from now.

Your point about Pope Benedict XVI’s analysis is interesting; as you’ve articulated it, it seems to be a step back from post-modernism, rather than a solution to it. That is, it doesn’t sound like an acknowledgement that, in fact, culture and context and environment shape not only the form, but also the content of a particular experience/event/understanding.

Whether I’ve correctly understood his position or not, it seems to me that any principled basis for seeking to prevent others from acting in accordance with their conscience has to speak either of the effect of the action on the actor or the effect of the action on the object of the action. From an LDS perspective, the answer to your inquiry may be nothing more than, “…because we believe that God said so…” In the context of Pope Benedict’s statement, such a perspective might be understood as a similar retrenchment from post-modernist dis-integration of authority in the face of diversity, or it could be a perspective from a higher ordinate, akin to parents’ understanding of children.

Either way, I’m not sure it provides interesting theories to explain the historical gap in Church political arena efforts, but perhaps those result more from extrinsic pressures more than theoretical constraints (i.e., Church sought to avoid political limelight during early post-polygamy years for fear of additional governmental intervention/punishment; Church relatively impoverished and therefore unable to affect political discourse during mid-20s through early 60s).

Anyway, I found your post provocative of a number of thoughts, and I appreciate that.

My understanding of some major theological differences between the Catholic Church and our church is our unfettered and direct access to the divine through prayer and revelation, whereas Catholics seek access through saints, and via the clergy, rather than a direct relationship with God. I hope I have not misstated that position.

That sets up a difference then from the current Pope in that we still believe in individualism through seeking confirmation via prayer for what our prophets teach and the church espouses. Hence, I would say that in our theology, individualism is not by definition, anti-moral. It does set up an internal tension and paradox when the Church does take these stands on political and legal issues that are determined to have moral implications. The current letter to California members, however, is less ambiguous than the one I saw for Washington State last year regarding the Federal DOMA. That one said only to let your personal view be known to your Senators, and did not specifically say that should be only in support of the DOMA. This letter is more specific, leaving the individual less wiggle room for personal conscience. I perceive that to be a change from how the church has worded the letters in the past that I have firsthand knowledge of.

The “outrage” you describe (a word that does not describe my position–one of studied neutrality–on the issue) is curious. It stems from an idea that religion belongs in the private sphere and not in the public domain. That idea became widespread and socially entrenched in large sectors of American and other societies. A movement back into the public sector is an important shift that needs observation.

Please clarify the links you see stemming from the book of Mormon that explain the theology of society and religious authorities’ action within it.

I’m not sure your premise is justifiable. Among other things, the Book of Mormon is a treatment of the interrelationship between religious authority and political authority. The history of the Restoration is filled with religious authority and political authority being comingled, and moral law seen often in line with legislative activities.

I don’t know where you see a “shift” occurring, and when the church was not involved in politics, be it gambling or MX missiles or blue laws or prohibition or ERA (the support of which was rather overstated in your post — the church’s actions could not be said to be the determining factor in its failure to pass. Lots of other states besides Utah failed to ratify.) In fact, it’s not too hard to trace a bright line of political activity around moral issues back through Kirtland at least.

What has been shifting, perhaps, is the American politic, which has increasingly challenged issues that were seen as strictly moral ones. You may remember the arguments that ERA was a slippery slope to unisex bathrooms and same-sex marriages. At the time, such arguments were ridiculed as lacking seriousness. As the ground traditionally under the purview of the faith establishment has been brought into the political process, it seems unremarkable that the faith community has spoken up and mobilized as part of the debate.

What is remarkable, in fact, is that so many feel a sense of outrage that the faith institutions would dare speak up. That attitude, I think, is most interesting.