Let me try to charactize the two thoughts I’m hearing as kindly and as Christian-like as I can:

One party suggests that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are under obligation to seek the confirmation of the Holy Spirit on what they have heard taught by the heads of the Church, and acknowledges that sometimes a member might have a reasonable difference of opinion with one or more of the heads of the Church on a political matter.

Another party suggests that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should trust the heads of the Church and follow their counsel on all matters, even political matters, as a matter of faith and support.

Well, I can quote dead prophets in support of both of these sentiments. I won’t, because I don’t want to step into this fray and re-open contention. But I do want to express a thought that the spirit of brotherhood that should exist between Latter-day Saints isn’t always evident when they begin to quarrel. In my view, I sustain Dan’s notion that individual members may have differing political views, but I think he’s a little pig-headed in pushing so hard and calling the Utah Republican Party corrupt — maybe it is, I’ve never lived in Utah. And I appreciate Connor’s concern for sustaining the heads of the Church, but I think he’s a little pig-headed in his intensity in apparently insisting that the prophets require uniformity of political thought. Both have a kernel of right in their views; I caution each to be careful and kind.

I know of no other writing which sets forth with such clarity the tragic consequences to societies that follow courses contrary to the commandments of God. Its pages trace the stories of two distinct civilizations that flourished on the Western Hemisphere. Each began as a small nation, its people walking in the fear of the Lord. But with prosperity came growing evils. The people succumbed to the wiles of ambitious and scheming leaders who oppressed them with burdensome taxes, who lulled them with hollow promises, who countenanced and even encouraged loose and lascivious living. These evil schemers led the people into terrible wars that resulted in the death of millions and the final and total extinction of two great civilizations in two different eras.

Pres. Hinckley says the Book of Mormon is as current as todays newspaper : Ambitious and scheming leaders – burdensome taxes – hollow promises – encourage loose and lacivious living – evil schemers – terrible wars – death of millions. Sound familiar? Time to wake up Saints!!

““The “lay” members of the Church are under obligation to accept the teachings of the authorities, unless they can discover in them some conflict with the revelations and commandments the Lord has given.”

What does this mean? I discovered a very interesting property of laws. If a law is a good one, it will reveal a reality . Some reality which may have been previously unconscious. When it passes, it places the citizens of a country a level of responsibility which was not previously there.

In the case of equal rights, its a just law which explains that its good business practice not to discriminate on certain characteristics a person has. The responsibility of an employer is to obey that law as best as they understand it. If they do not they can be sued, but they also carry with them the natural consequences of not obeying the law, even if no legal action is taken.

Sure you can dispute a law, its any persons right to challenge a law. But if you expect to have an influence, you should be prepared to present evidence which shows that its not fitting with the reality you observe.

Thank you for that good reminder. It seems I’m forgetting the real point of the Gospel, and should spend less time blogging and more time studying the gospel.

Just want to correct one thing:

Dart in, stab, run away; circle, looking for a weak spot, or some clever combination of words, stab again.

When I didn’t feel like digging for some comment Connor may have made, I took my comment back.

As to the rest of your comments, there’s no need to reply. This would only get bad.

A First Presidency statement in April 1942 VERY MUCH sustains what President Hinckley said about men and women in uniform. Just one such phrase, among many: “God will work out in His own due time and in His own sovereign way the justice and right of the conflict, but He will not hold the innocent instrumentalities of the war, our brethren in arms, responsible for the conflict.”

You need not aver that my knowledge of history is woefully deficient. In fact, your habit of inverting names such as J. Reuben Clark’s, among still other minor demonstrations of inexperience with Church sources—besides fringy complainers—could draw far more attention than I will spare upon it.

As for myself, and the ongoing thoughts on mortal frailty: “I did think, and I now think, that I am personally as well acquainted with my own weaknesses as any other mortal is with them, for this is my fortune, my good fortune and blessing, and I am ready to acknowledge that it is more than many have got” (Brigham Young, JD, 4:21). This is the most libelous thing I will say: may you be so blessed. You thump your chest and declare “I am a man of God too”: certainly not of the caliber of those you malign. Nor am I, but I have the decency to admit it. In fairness, at least you set it forth as your OPINION that “you are closer to the real gospel of Jesus Christ as a Democrat than a Republican or a libertarian.” So you would warp my every word on the need for Church unity for just such an assertion as this? (See 1 Cor. 3:3-13.) The only time you glory in Christ is when you conclude that He’s on your side, after giving repeated evidences of distancing yourself from His teachings and His servants. (See Matt. 10:40-41, with cross-references and Ether 4:8-10.) I emphatically refer everyone to D&C 121:16-17; lest some should contend that this refers to Latter-day Saints generally, I hasten to add that many prophets have not applied it so broadly. Elder Maxwell often gave the maxim that those who detract the prophets reveal more about themselves than the prophets.

Let us cast the burden of proof back upon you. Setting us in an uproar of defense distracts from true points. Why don’t you find for us more of a genuine nature like what Elder Jensen said? You pointed gleefully to that same source twice in one small response, which is not very imaginative. I don’t exactly trust the Tribune’s coverage entirely, though I don’t doubt the core of what was reported. Perhaps you can locate more for all of us on this subject of great concern to the Church, so that we can lend strength to your particular political party. What I hear in this one minor press interview is not a call to vote Democrat, but a repetition of what we’ve always known and love in President Hinckley’s sentiments: political differences don’t justify hatred or ill will.

Is it alright for you to say that Presidents Benson and Lee have “fought” against the official Church line, yet you can paraphrase statements made from a single news article as straight from President Hinckley, claiming he “authorized” each and every word? The way you first mentioned this source, I seriously wondered whether President Hinckley had established a political activism (or deactivism) committee and appointed Elder Jensen to oversee its efforts!! Even the somewhat cynical editors conceded that Elder Jensen was in the “third tier” of authority. A seventy carries no technical doctrinal authority as such—not that I cast aside what they say, but they cannot stand as a lone witness when set forth on matters of potent controversy. If Church curriculum is sometimes hesitant to utilize the Church News for quotes, since what the reporter wrote down hastily on the spot may not accurately reflect what the authorities intended for public consumption, how can we put our reliance upon this lone interview with a potentially jaded news staff? President Hinckley gave him a single assignment to respond respectfully to questioners in the community; no more, no less. It wasn’t prelude to a public awareness campaign; it wasn’t even a Conference talk. Many of us know how the press in question enjoys sensationalizing issues in Utah.

You are mean-spiritedly charging lots of people here with “whip[ping] out of their vast database” contrary opinions. Might that not mean they have a store of gospel knowledge to draw upon, rather than one’s own sparse personal authority? They are turning their thoughts lovingly to what will serve us best, while you relish every little “tidbit” you can find to tear down the Lord’s anointed, and every person who dares to say a word in their favor. It is not that I can’t see their humanity, but that you can’t see their inspiration except when they agree with you. That, I tell you soberly and meaningfully, is dangerous in principle and practice—and lays one open to inspiration from the wrong source.

Many here have given issues more thoughtful, careful, prayerful consideration than just sitting back and dismissing as uninspired everything that does not fit their own preconceived notions of the world (and then accusing others of that very deed). “Men may ridicule, they may scoff, but that does not constitute argument, nor evidence. They are the last arguments to which the vanquished always resort—ridicule, abuse, misrepresentation; and I suppose they will be applied to us” (Anthony W. Ivins, CR, Oct. 1923, 147). You are your own source. You cannot give the courtesy of locating Connor’s alleged “trivial” remark. Dart in, stab, run away; circle, looking for a weak spot, or some clever combination of words, stab again.

It is a difficult art to debate properly, truly, yet many of your retorts have left much to be desired. Early on I detected your “arrogant posturing,” as Mr. McKee (and coming from me that IS a mark of respect) has pointed out. You replied that I was caught in the act of at least once NOT referring to the presidents of the Church by their title, again missing the point entirely. My admiration for them is not in question in the least; however, yours is by virtue of conspicuously total ABSENCE of such usage in context of all other public statements. There’s no quota to meet. Whatever one’s opinion of President Bush, who hasn’t picked up on the media’s way of touting “Vice President” Gore and immediately afterward referring to “Mister” Bush? It is a method of verbal demotion, admission that one in no way acknowledges someone’s right to an office, withholding of all loyalty. It is generally ruder than simply disagreeing. What’s more, in our society, referring to one by their first name is widely held to be disrespectful, when they are our elders or our Elders.

Please show more respect…for everyone.

As for it not being in the program for the Lord to allow a leader to lead the Church astray, I think it was W. W. Woodruff who said that.

And he was not the only one…

Joseph Smith:
“I will give you a key that will never rust, if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray.” quoted by James E. Faust, Nov 1994

Brigham Young:
“You may go home and sleep as sweetly as a babe in its mother’s arms, as to any danger of your leaders leading you astray, for if they should try to do so the Lord would quickly sweep them from the earth.” JD 9:289

Harold B. Lee:
“God will never permit him [the living prophet] to lead us astray. As has been said, God would remove us out of our place if we should attempt to do it.” 8 July 1968

Joseph Fielding Smith:
“I think there is one thing which we should have exceedingly clear in our minds. Neither the President of the Church, nor the First Presidency, nor the united voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve will ever lead the Saints astray or send forth counsel to the world that is contrary to the mind and will of the Lord” Conference Report, Apr. 1972

Ezra Taft Benson:
“Though his prophet is mortal, God will not let him lead his church astray.” May 1975

Robert D. Hales:
“I know that in this day we have a living prophet of God who will never lead us astray.” Jan 1979

Virginia U. Jensen:
“The Lord has given some marvelous guarantees without any disclaimers. And this is one of them: He will choose the prophet, and He will never let that man lead us astray.” Nov 1998

M. Russell Ballard:
“Today I make you a promise. It’s a simple one, but it is true. If you will listen to the living prophet and the apostles and heed our counsel, you will not go astray.” Jul 2001

Gordon B. Hinckley:
“I solemnly testify that the Lord Jesus Christ, whose church it is and whose name it bears, will never let any man or group of men lead it astray.” Nov 1993
“I make you a promise that the authorities of this Church will never lead you astray” The Six B’s (Be True) 2001

I don’t think that the democrats or the republicans are going to have the answer to Iraq or Iran in the near future. I bet we will continue to follow our wicked ways with warmongering and destruction.

As for it not being in the program for the Lord to allow a leader to lead the Church astray, I think it was W. W. Woodruff who said that. I have never seen any scripture where the Lord has said that.

The trouble with our current two-party system is that they are two sides of the SAME coin

I agree that this is very true and discouraging to me anyways. I’m more attracted to policies and principles than party and platitudes and as an example I really liked Obama for President for quite a while until I noticed that the warmongers are fairly party agnostic as well – no sooner had Obama gathered a following then key leaders of the Project for a New American Century (the ‘lets stop mincing around and just take over the world by force and do what needs to be done for the good of America’ folks) started backing him. And suddenly Obama’s making the point that he’s not against aggressive warmaking per se . . . just the Iraqi war specifically so far. And though I like his actual statements and reasoning far more than any of the Republican contenders (minus Paul) I worry he’s starting to move to where Kerry did when at the last minute of the ’04 elections he clamored to clarify that he would have done ‘nothing different’ regarding the build-up to and invasion of Iraq (!)

Until we as a people start requiring accountability to more than just ‘think-tanks’, sound-bite ops, and corporate funding then we will keep getting what we’ve been getting regardless of supposed “party”.

The trouble with our current two-party system is that they are two sides of the SAME coin. The coin itself is in dire trouble.

I find myself much more aligned with the “Democratic” plank in regards to foreign policy. But I don’t necesarrily think the current crop of Democrats could make our current foreign policy disaster any better. For us to improve our foreign policy disaster we must have a revolution from the grass roots, or elect someone like Ron Paul and get back to real Constitutional principles.

When Ezra Taft Benson retracts his words that he thinks you can’t be a good faithful latter day saint and a liberal Democrat, then I will apologize. Until that point, my criticism of him stands as it is. You obviously take it as you like.

Unfortunately you do not seem to see what the problem is, Mr. McKee. You think that by me criticizing them, I question their worthiness before God. I do not. They ARE INDEED good men of God. However, they have opinions that are not factual, but based more on their own pre-conceived notions about human beings. I’m sorry to say, but that’s how it is. And questioning those beliefs of theirs does not equate with questioning their worthiness before God.

I am a man of God too, Mr. McKee. Will you apologize to me for all your scathing remarks towards me?

Do you discuss this topic on your site somewhere? I’d like to see the breakdown of how you believe this to be true, if for no other reason that to better understand where you (and others) are coming from.

I haven’t written about this on my blog yet. I guess I should. I think the reason I haven’t yet is because I really don’t want to tie my religion too much to political beliefs. But I will write up a post soon on how I see my Democratic principles fitting in with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Just how far we may progress eternally will largely depend upon just how far we are able to distance ourselves from pride and arrogance.

Many individual decisions made during this crucial temporal sojourn will depend upon our ability to follow the Prophet. I believe the Lord has said that He would never permit any Prophet to lead His people astray, and He has kept His word as no prophet has ever done so. It has not happened in recent history, and it certainly did not happen during the times of President Ezra Taft Benson, Harold B. Lee, or David O. McKay. It is also factual that J. Reuben Clark, and even W. Cleon Skousen have left behind far greater contributions than some who are attempting to vilify and denigrate these men of God. I personally feel they deserve an apology from those whose scathing remarks have been so arrogantly posited at times during this conversation. While you certainly have the freedom to choose your words, you also may, at some point, hope to retract them. Fortunately for you, these men will not hesitate to forgive your foolishly evoked remarks. When you truly learn to emulate them, you will see the Lord leading them to their eternal reward. Let us all hope we are not too far behind them.

It is actually my personal opinion that in fact you are closer to the real gospel of Jesus Christ as a Democrat than a Republican or a libertarian

Do you discuss this topic on your site somewhere? I’d like to see the breakdown of how you believe this to be true, if for no other reason that to better understand where you (and others) are coming from. I’ve never been a Republican or a Democrat and often wonder why people have such strong feelings about belonging to a particular party. Especially when the parties seem to change and evolve their philosophies over time.