The Church released a statement concerning the DACA debate.
Take a moment to read it for yourself; the post will be here when you return. 🙂
As a military analyst this is somewhat outside of my specialty, though I have tons of experience with people using selective proof texts to support their position. That is why I wanted to post this now, and then see radical right wingers try to explain away the church’s support for some kind of path to citizenship. I know it will happen because I found that people with the desire will minimize or maximize the statements, scriptures, and talks to their own benefit. (Some of them do it to such an extent that the church has to issue a clarification.) I’ve seen it from every political persuasion so I’m not just attacking one side, though it was a conservative that blatantly ignored the church statement on immigration back in 2011 that crystallized this concept for me.
Because I’ve noticed it for so long, it still happens, and it will likely happen this weekend, I’m re-posting something I wrote in 2012 that illustrates an example of an annoying radical libertarian that beat people over the heads using quotes that agreed with him, but minimized the statements of prophets that disagreed with him. While its not the same exact subject, it’s important to be aware of the filters through which we understand, apply, judge, discount, or change the words of LDS officials. (For bonus points it also expresses my annoyance with a particular blogger that happened to be a complete jerk this week. Some things never change I suppose.)
With 6 years of hindsight I would change a few things about the post, such as making the prose a bit stronger, clarifying a few ideas, addressing the authoritative status of newsroom statements (which are higher than most think), and discussing the likelihood of Christ having pr guy if he lived today. I also address a slightly different topic so where necessary you can change the nouns to “hard line anti-immigration” or “radical no borders liberal,” but the main point remains timely and applicable.
********
A short time ago I wrote about the duplicticty of the anti war critic. I argued that when the prophet agrees with their political views the critics mistakenly attach too much weight to that statement. Then they use those words as a cudgel with which to beat their opponents. When a prophet does not agree with them, they use various qualifiers to negate their words. These include arguments that they are only speaking as a man, speaking under the cultural influence of the day, or simply giving their non-binding opinion. While this sounds disrespectful towards a prophet, the last reason is actually the correct approach as outlined by the church. So critics proof text their favorite quotes which agree with their political leanings, and then apply an inappropriate amount of weight to them. They take their cherry picked arguments and beat their opponents over the head with them. And they cast aside their words when they don’t agree.
With this summary you should be able to gather why I disagree with large parts of this interview here. Boyack sponsored a billboard called war like people and his words are a classic example of cherry picking non-binding quotes to support a political agenda.
But in the interview Boyack also makes it clear in answering question 9, and in comment 7, that he uses prophet’s words that support his viewpoints, and ignores those that don’t. (If you haven’t already, please take a moment to see the answer 9 and comment 7 for yourself.) This is a word for word example of the duplicity of the antiwar critic. Church doctrine resides in the scriptures and official proclamations. Statements outside of that are well considered opinions and not binding on the church, especially political opponents.
The problem comes when Boyack wants the freedom to ignore church council based on “circumstantial” statements, but then sees the need to cherry pick quotes in his warlike site, and in his foreign policy views and books, so he can then castigate those with whom he disagrees.
While Boyack is simply the most current example, this happens all the time. So I will summarize my feelings on the matter below:
1. I feel it is inappropriate to proof text a prophet’s words to support your political position. Anti-mormons use Brigham Young quotes to say all sorts of things that don’t represent Mormon doctrine. Yet antiwar quotes get a different treatment from some people. Randi Bott used words from past prophets and was soundly censored by the church. President Kimball said:“Please avoid, even by implication, involving the Church in political issues. It is so easy, if we are not careful, to project our personal preferences as the position of the Church on an issue.”
2. It is even more inappropriate to question the spirituality of those that disagree with your proof texted position. (I call people wrong all the time, but I’ve never called anybody names or personally attacked them. Although Geoff B. at the Millennial Star is sure tempting me.)
3. The problem is compounded because the church has clearly specified where doctrine comes from; it is not from a smattering of talks or isolated statements from past pacifist prophets.
4. The prophets have, at the very least, contradictory positions on warfare. So what ends up occurring is something I call “prophet bashing”, where people take their various proof texted positions and proceed to beat each other the head with them. (I borrow the term from “bible bashing” that occurs so frequently on a mission.) So you have people who take the GAs that agree with them, like Clark from the 30s and 40s, while explaining away those that don’t, such as Hinckley from 2003, and vice versa. I feel this is not a behavior that loving Latter Day Saints should use against their brothers and sisters in the gospel. Again, it is extremely inappropriate to declare a position buttressed by your reading of non-doctrinal texts to browbeat and label your opponents as unrighteous.
5. Since the standard works proclaim doctrine and isolated talks do not, I focus on the former. It is a major reason why I have a website devoted to the study of the warfare in The Book of Mormon.
********
Thanks for reading and keep an eye out for those minimizing and maximizing statements.
What do you think of the church’s statement?
Does it change your views, why or why not?
Now that you are older and hopefully wiser, are there any moments you regret but want to share anyway about prophet bashing?
Did you ever see that billboard in Utah Country? Was it as annoying as it seemed?
Wheat & Tares 
I don’t know anything about the billboard.
I think the statement is fine. Neither side in the U.S. immigration debate can use it to declare that God and the church are on their side, although both sides will see some words they like. Rather, it calls for honest discussion.
As I began reading the statement, my initial reaction was one of rolling my eyes. It seems that in the first two paragraphs, a lot of words are used to essentially say nothing at all. All the middle paragraph does is acknowledge that the issue is heated, contentious, and can be viewed from many angles. I see how Mormons of all political persuasions will be able to point to language in that second paragraph as support for their views. This was frustrating because it accomplishes nothing. However, the 3rd paragraph was welcomed by me. I think the 3rd paragraph comes down very clearly, not on any specific proposal, but on the general idea that whatever solution arises, Dreamers should be permitted to remain in the country. Personally, I don’t look to church statements to help me make political decisions, but I realize that there may be a certain number of members who, unpersuaded by the pleas of Democrats in the Senate, might take a different perspective on DACA in light of this statement by the church (an organization that they might be more willing to trust than the DNC). Overall, I think this is a very positive thing and I’m happy to see my religion coming down on the side of acceptance and love.
Umm, without prophet-bashing, the bloggernacle would collapse. 😉
I’m not a big fan of politics, so I didn’t really have a position one way or another for the church’s statement to affect, but I’ve been fascinated by the reactions of others. Take this comment on the W&T Facebook page: “Radical right wingers? Grow up! Papal infallibility is a false doctrine. One may disagree with LDS leadership and be completely in the right in the eyes of God.
This statement is not revelation and should not be treated as such.”
And then on the Mormon Newsroom Facebook page, there are several upset reactions with members questioning why the church has suddenly dismissed the 12th article of faith. While other members are glad that the church has found a way to balance justice and mercy.
Honestly, we all cherry-pick prophetic/scriptural statements that fit our preconceived notions. We *have* to, to some extent. Just like with bible-bashing, there’s a statement to back up whatever position you might ever want to take on a topic.
About 18 months ago, a blogger on a prominent conservative LDS blog wrote a post stating that undocumented immigrants shouldn’t receive callings and shouldn’t attend the temple, and that they should all be “turned in for deportation regardless of religion or family relations.” “Support” for his position came from the 12th Article of Faith (of course) and the Constitution. The post has since been removed (I imagine the blog administrator didn’t like the post any more than I did), but I’m certain the author will have a response to the current statement. Unfortunately, that kind of view is not uncommon, especially in the more conservative parts of the Mormon Corridor, where Fox News and talk radio often trump the prophet.
I was glad the 1st Presidency message didn’t take sides with any legislative options; other than to recognize the sovereignty of every nation. They also expressed the hope that any decision would be done in the spirit of Jesus Christ; something too many in the debate are ditching.
I didn’t like the name-calling in this post. Someone with a different opinion a jerk; those with a different perspective radical right-wingers. I thought W&T was going to disallow stuff like this.
It is nice to see that we finally have a prophet with all of his cognitive abilities, and the church can issue statements such as this. Does anybody think this would have happened if TSM was sill alive (but not well)?
@markagblog
I totally agree. …Or if one does want to employ name calling, it’s hard to then take seriously the critique of prooftexting which was done for the same rhetorical result,
I dunno about the church making official statements like this w.r.t political issues. Just a short while ago, official statements from the church decried gay marriage as a scourge and imminent threat to families. Now an official statement decries the elimination DACA as one. For the LDS church to come down on one side or the other on political issues invites divisiveness. For example, it leads to posts that say, “See, see, I was right and the other guy truly was a jerk.” It leads to feelings of, “Whew! I’m so glad we have *this* first presidency and not the stodgy old TSM.” What good purpose does that serve?
Besides, the newsroom statements don’t ever seem complete. They can never address all the complexities and consequences of the issues. And they’re often inconsistent with other church statements or gospel principles.
As for me, I want my tithing dollars and spiritual support going to a church not distracted by whatever issue-of-the-month is on CNN or marching downtown. I can do that (march or get distracted) entirely on my own. I look to my prophet for spiritual refuge; not to hear more noise.
I thought the statement was timely and likely a result of the new First Presidency addressing an issue that President Monson didn’t have a strong opinion about, but needed addressing. I feel that many people were discouraged by the church’s looking past the 12th Article of Faith in regards to those who live here without proper documentation. This new statement is well thought out and to my mind is a plea for mercy (“compassion”) for those who were brought to this country by their parents. Also, with the idea of keeping families together (unfortunately, we are left to our own definitions of how far the “family” extends), what I got out of this wasn’t a call for amnesty or a mass deportation, rather a solution that would allow Dreamers to stay here. I’m pleased that the leaders of the church are clear about their primary goal (eternal salvation) and yet recognize the challenges faced by real world scenarios. I feel that the church is advising those who live here without legal status to obey the laws of the land, at the same time hoping the laws of the land change to allow such people to stay. I can see solutions, even if I doubt the political parties involved will go for them. This coming from someone who has wanted the wall to be built and favored mass deportations. Now, I’m moving to provding legal residency status–not citizenship–to Dreamers and certain of their family members, contingent on certain qualifying criteria. The church’s statement gave me a better framework to identify the type of solution that might work.
Thanks for commenting Mark. I don’t know what expectations you have of W&T and I’m admittedly new, but I’m going to continue to write the best that I can, and show my personality.
In the case of calling somebody a jerk, that wasn’t because he had a different opinion than me. In fact, I’m a conservative. the blogger in question admits that he likes to “spice up” his tone and that many people don’t like it but he will do it anyway. (check out the comments on his Adam Miller post where he says this.) So I look at his behavior (both this week and cumulatively over the years), which he admits rubs people the wrong way, and I use a different word to describe it.
As far as radical right wingers go, it does tend to be over used by those on the left. I write for several conservative magazines, (as I say in my cover letters, you can see my articles on Fox News, Las Vegas Journal Review, Washington Examiner, Lifezette and so much more), and when I look at the comments on those publications and especially on their social media feeds it is amazingly angry and radical. These are the kind of people that Tim described, and the kind that will find a way to see what they want to see in this immigration statement, which was the point of this post. So in short, again, I didn’t call them radical right wingers because they have different opinions, but because their behavior is so bad that as a conservative I’ve had to unfollow most of the conservative feeds on social media just for my mental health.
Admittedly we can all work on our patience, and when I’ve been attacked by radical libertarians for so many years I tend to show my annoyance with them. But honestly, your complaint seems like pettifogging a mild word to describe somebody’s lousy behavior, or used a term you didn’t like to describe conservatives. Based on years of experience I think both are amply justified. While I’m wearing my dunce cap for being such a horrible blogger that is ruining the site, feel free to check out my post on the entrada of 378, detailed and almost exhaustive military analysis, different scripture reading styles, and battles in Chinese history, which are the last few months of posts from me.
What I get from this statement is a call to greater kindness. How can that be bad?
I happen upon this statement while searching for prophecies concerning DACA. God speaks to me about a lot of the issues of life; He spoke to me concerning Donald Trump becoming President and now DACA is an issue on my heart. I understand how God works through me and the same as it was with the Presidency I research to see what God is saying to others concerning the issue on the table. I am somewhat bother because God haven’t spoken much about DACA yet it comes to me as being a concern something America should be concern about. A statement was made to the fact of how Jesus would handle this situation if He were here today and John 1:1 came to mind right away. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God; verse 14 and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us…. The scripture is revealing that the Word is Jesus Christ therefore if Jesus was still upon the land these things would not be. There would be no illegal person in the land because of the words that are written in Romans 13:1-5 and God will not go against His own Word. So how is one to deal with this subject, I believe we must not lean to our own understanding but wait on the revelation from God. I also believe that it is the reason why the Trump Administration is prolonging the process, you need a word from God in times like these.
I think the statement is shallow, a political tap-dance and ignores the root of the problem.
I have this sort of adopted daughter who married a really hard working, admirable Mexican guy. I have watched them struggle financially and in other ways . He is an American citizen but some of his “relatives” are not. He provides jobs for them although his business is not entirely above board on all the regulations. Using illegal labor and cutting corners gives him a competitive advantage. Even then he has been bankrupt twice and had to start over. Our family is like extended family with them and I have gone to their big family/friends celebrations and broke bread (tortillas) with these people many times and had long conversations and asked them pointed questions. I have listened and learned far more than what is being excreted by the media.
One thing that surprises me is that most of the ones who were not born or brought here as small children would rather NOT be living here. They love Mexico and want to live there. They are driven here by desperate economic conditions and by violence. Many of the ones who were born here would like to live in Mexico if they could figure out a way to do it comfortably. This is not unlike the desire of many (but not all) Mormons to live in Utah where the church is strong. I am certain there are many free loaders and criminals and it would be in our best interest to keep them out. But the vast majority of them are decent people trying to survive and make a better life for their children.
The deeper question is why is Mexico so poor and so violent? Much blame could be put on their own corrupt government. Indirectly their system has been influenced by authoritarian catholic traditions that allowed corruption to flourish and they have been exploited by colonialism and imperialism in the past. When child mortality rates dropped from better public health, child birth rates did not drop because of entrenched religious teachings and this resulted in a population explosion which is not helping them. This should serve as a warning to any religion that becomes too powerful and authoritative and too focused on economic success above all else, especially that made at the expense of struggling people. (Anyone looking in the mirror?)
But today, far more blame for violence and poverty in Mexico can be put on the shoulders of Americans who use illegal drugs such as heroin and cocaine that is either made there or shipped through there. The Mexican drug cartels have more wealth and power than the local governments and at some point they become like a parasitic, foreign occupying army. Decent men and almost all women and children suffer under their tyranny. They soon have no jobs, no businesses except criminal activity, no safety, no hope. They hook their own youth into selling/using drugs, murdering each other and they feed on themselves.
America needs to build a wall, to protect Mexico from our drug money flowing across the border where it does untold damage. Eventually it will impoverish us and the drug cartels will bring us under their control if we cannot curtail the opiate/meth/cocaine epidemic.
An even more pointed question is why are so many young Americans using drugs? Why are the counties and zip codes with the greatest increases in drug use somewhat correlated with the counties and zip codes that experienced the biggest swings toward Trump in the last election? How did we end up with that clown in the White House in the first place? The answers to these questions are related to the answers to the illegal immigration problems more closely than one might expect.
It is my testimony that if we really dry up the drug trade, we will be begging people from Mexico to either stay here or come here. Because so many of them will go back there.
” the shoulders of Americans who use illegal drugs such as heroin and cocaine ”
No, it’s the (federal) government that is repeating 1920s prohibition violence, at least back then they had the intellectual honesty to make it a constitutional amendment, when in modern day the DEA’s violence has no such authority.
Morgan, I also don’t care for Connor’s rhetoric and arrogance towards those he disagrees with, even when he’s right–but as others have pointed out, seems to be the pot calling the kettle black.
Thanks for the post. If you can show me where I’ve called people: Gadianton robber, propagandist, insane, lying, war mongering, anti christ prick that commit crimes against humanity for disagreeing with me then I would agree. Those are just the low lights and don’t include things like the tone of their regular posts. I would get you links for all of those, and they all come from the same handful of radical libertarians, but this is really a silly debate and I don’t care to spend the time.
You don’t even have to hunt for links, you can go over to the Honest Questions for Adam Miller post and see for yourself what the lone dissenter (James) called “the weird group dynamic,” “such hostility” and off putting tone he received, (on a post about the off putting tone of Miller), which is exactly what I meant by using the word jerk to describe Geoff’s behavior,.
So what “seems” to you is not correct. Ironically enough, this conversation does follow the point that I’ve seen fairly often. I should come up with some cool name for it, like Deane’s Dagger, which says that any criticism of somebody else’s tone or accusation of judgmentalism automatically inspires the same accusation against you. And yeah, it came to pass.
Morgan, the commenter criticism that you appear to be devolving into personal attack in some parts of your OP is valid. Defending your expertise in defining what exactly is “radical right-winger,” “annoying” or a “jerk” isn’t a good excuse. Saying other blogs are worse so people can’t complain about us isn’t a good excuse. We’ve made it clear we are discouraging that type of discourse in commenting, so it’s only fitting we should follow suit in the posts.
jpv
I disagree that the federal government is the root of the problem with the drug cartels. That sounds so old and naive, like something my hippie friends would say when high on pot back when I was young. The DEA enforcement officers may not be perfect, they may be brutal or lazy or inept in a number of ways. But the root of the problem is when our youth lay down $20 for a hit of cocaine or for something else at whatever price. That money corrupts the hands of all who handle it.
Making alcohol legal was not without its problems. More people died from alcoholism than other drugs until the last few years. Making cocaine legal will not help, it does not grow in the US except maybe in Puerto Rico. It will still be imported and we will be unable to regulate it and there is just too much money to be made producing it. Crack cocaine is far more dangerous than alcohol. Increasing its use will increase deaths from it, far above current unacceptable levels. The rehab for coke, heroin, etc., compared to alcohol is horrendous and less likely to be successful.
Heroin is also produced more cheaply in Mexico than here, with its better climate for poppies and cheaper labor. A domestic US heroin industry is feasible but would not be able to compete well with foreign production. Heroin killed so many users back when I was young that it sort of dried up its consumer base. Meth can be made using a kit kept in a picnic cooler so it is already not being well controlled and the production of it can also blow your house up. To produce it safely would make it very expensive and therefore not eliminate the bootleg production and the problems with organized crime. Meth is very hard to stop using and it ruins health and mind in weeks to months not years like alcohol. It is impossible to use meth socially, addiction is inevitable and not consistent with a productive life of any sort. Sobriety or death is the only choice and usually rather quickly.
Clever chemists are now illegally making many new and extremely powerful narcotics such as fentanyl which is I think about 100 times as potent as heroin and carfentanyl which is said to be an unbelievable 10,000 times as potent as heroin. It could be the most potent and immediately deadly poison ever invented, so far. A person has to be very tolerant of fentanyl to even survive a small hit of it. The probability of death from using it once is extremely high, what legal company is going to assume that liability? Only a criminal organization would even consider that risk.
Another potent new drug called U-47700 (actually invented in the 1970’s but never produced) first appeared in early 2016 and killed many people in Europe and the US before it was declared illegal in late Nov 2016. It remains a problem but will fade and be soon replaced by something else. This is the future, new ever more dangerous drugs that are not even illegal, many deaths (not the DEA’s fault) before being declared illegal, only to be replaced by another new drug. Legal or illegal will become a mute point.
If jpv was right, we would have all stop using heroin and meth and happily abuse things like U47700- since it is not illegal and it is so fun and harmless (cough, cough, cough). The production of these thrill-producing poisons is going to be where it is the least regulated with the weakest law enforcement which is definitely not the USA. The consumption is by those with the money and disposition to do it. The money continues to flow where it does the most damage; in ways it is not taxed to build schools and hospitals and rehab centers and law enforcement..
If we don’t get this epidemic under control, the biological forces of natural selection will eventually take care of the problem, but at the expense of far too many of us.