“Silence is not neutrality; it is complicity.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.
I’ve seen several posts by people who are alarmed by the murder of American citizens in Minneapolis by masked ICE agents, followed by lies from the administration and retribution on widows and state government who oppose these actions and support the citizens using their First Amendment rights to protest, film, and publish the criminal actions of these enforcement agencies. Some of this alarm, at least among church members, is that the Church continues to say nothing about the violence and injustice.
In response, some have correctly pointed out that the Church has never spoken out against injustice, or at least not in a specific actionable way, and that they have been on the wrong side of all of these major events:
- Civil Rights. Church leaders’ statements of that time were so deeply racist they are really hard to read.
- Women’s Equality. The Church is widely credited (including in the excellent series Mrs. America) with single-handedly causing the ERA to fail. Pres. Oaks today likes to talk about the importance of women receiving equal pay for equal work, but that was not a position the church held when this fight was underway.
- Slavery. While Joseph Smith went back and forth on this topic (which the Church loves to focus on in how it describes its own history), Brigham Young legalized slavery for black Americans and Native Americans in Utah from 1852-1862, and Utah did not participate in the Civil War to end slavery. Only after the Union prevailed did Utah finally decide abolition was the right cause.
- Naziism. The Church did not oppose the Nazi regime, instead focusing on staying “apolitical.” Many German church members who were Nazis were embraced when they moved to Utah, and their loyalties to the Nazi regime were never an issue.
There are other social issues I could add here (LGBTQ issues, prohibition, polygamy), but you get the point. The Church can claim it is politically neutral, but it has used plenty of funds fighting against equal rights and against “progressive” issues, that it later finally accepted as necessary. Pres. Oaks has both overseen electro-shock used as conversion therapy on gay BYU students, and has also supported the concept of “legal unions” for gay couples as an alternative to gay marriage.
You may recall the Church’s milquetoast statement after the George Floyd murder that Dave B blogged about here, and then Andrew S also blogged about here. The church used very anodine language to decry both racism and the looting that resulted from it, as Andrew pointed out using even stronger language to condemn the unrest than was used to condemn the injustice that led to it. Likewise, when leaders condemn “violence” without specifying who is being violent, they are getting both sides to become emotional for completely opposite reasons. A few years ago, there was an ad during the Superbowl that showed political violence being committed by mostly white people on January 6, then violence committed during protests against the murder of George Floyd. Conservative viewers tensed up during the George Floyd riots then relaxed during the January 6th storming of the capital.
Just for fun, I went back to the statement that both Dave B and Andrew S blogged about, a call against racism made by Pres Nelson after George Floyd’s murder, and I ran it through ChatGPT to suss out whether the statement was using any of these tactics. Here was the original statement:
We join with many throughout this nation and around the world who are deeply saddened at recent evidences of racism and a blatant disregard for human life. We abhor the reality that some would deny others respect and the most basic of freedoms because of the color of his or her skin. We are also saddened when these assaults on human dignity lead to escalating violence and unrest. The Creator of us all calls on each of us to abandon attitudes of prejudice against any group of God’s children. Any of us who has prejudice toward another race needs to repent!
During the Savior’s earthly mission, He constantly ministered to those who were excluded, marginalized, judged, overlooked, abused, and discounted. As His followers, can we do anything less? The answer is no! We believe in freedom, kindness, and fairness for all of God’s children!
Let us be clear. We are brothers and sisters, each of us the child of a loving Father in Heaven. His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, invites all to come unto Him—“black and white, bond and free, male and female,” (2 Nephi 26:33). It behooves each of us to do whatever we can in our spheres of influence to preserve the dignity and respect every son and daughter of God deserves. Any nation can only be as great as its people. That requires citizens to cultivate a moral compass that helps them distinguish between right and wrong.
Illegal acts such as looting, defacing, or destroying public or private property cannot be tolerated. Never has one wrong been corrected by a second wrong. Evil has never been resolved by more evil. We need to foster our faith in the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. We need to foster a fundamental respect for the human dignity of every human soul, regardless of their color, creed, or cause. And we need to work tirelessly to build bridges of understanding rather than creating walls of segregation.
I plead with us to work together for peace, for mutual respect, and for an outpouring of love for all of God’s children.
So, how did the statement hold up? There were a few things that didn’t pass muster which Andrew S already identified in his excellent OP:
- Equivalence framing that redirects focus. “We are also saddened when these assaults on human dignity lead to escalating violence and unrest.” This shifts the focus away from causes of unrest to the consequences of those causes, creating an equivalence between condemning racism and condemning the protesting of racism. This soothes those who are uncomfortable with protest and reasserts the institutional order which allowed for the racism to flourish.
- Undefined authority claims. “Any nation can only be as great as its people. That requires citizens to cultivate a moral compass…” This frames social problems as primarily the failure of individuals, making structural or institutional critique a secondary or absent concern. It also presents this concept as a self-evident truism.
- Clear Behavioral Limits, No Obligation to Act. “Illegal acts such as looting… cannot be tolerated.” This is clear injunction against unwanted anti-institutional behaviors. “Do whatever we can in our spheres of influence…” This is so vague that it can mean anything or nothing at all. The listener is under no specific obligation to do anything at all. The focus is on maintaining the existing order, while individuals can do things like being civil or kind to other individuals and somehow that’s enough. Nothing to see here, folks, move along. Let us do our jobs (while murdering and beating citizens who try to hold them accountable).
So why does the Church not speak out when American citizens are being murdered openly and then slandered as domestic terrorists when the video clearly contradicts the claims of the regime? Why did they wait 6 days to congratulate Biden on his win? Why did they say nothing about the January 6 insurrection that the current administration is rewriting before our eyes, when we all watched it happen?
“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” George Orwell, 1984
I’m astounded by how many of my LDS friends are defending these murders committed by ICE agents. I can’t imagine they would do so if the Church took a real stand. At least these so-called “saints” would stop being so full-throated in their defense of these unlawful actions. One friend (not LDS) who posted “I like my country like I like my drinks. Full of ICE” within a few hours did a second post that was much more humble and chagrined in tone, saying that she wasn’t political or well informed, that everyone should wait to find out more as investigations unfold (of course, these are investigations that the regime immediately said they wouldn’t do, smearing the victims, hiding evidence from state officials by barring them from the crime scene, and trying to use the operation as a bargaining chip to get access to voter files). I haven’t seen any of my LDS friends dial down their rhetoric. Of course my Facebook feed is so full of ads, I barely see human posts anymore anyway.
I can only conclude that the Church (or some of the leaders), like these LDS people I know, agrees with these actions, that they think state-sanctioned violence and murder are acceptable when the victims are Democrats. The first and second amendments only apply to January 6 rioters, not to protestors of state-sanctioned violence. There are three factors that turn silence into complicity:
- Moral authority. For church members, the church definitely has moral authority. They certainly exert it when they want to, such as in opposing LGBTQ allyship at BYU or trans rights and dignity in LDS churches. Any church that claims the ability to define right and wrong for its members qualifies as having “moral authority.”
- Credible knowledge. While this is the area where they may be able to claim they have the least weight, in the case of Alex Pretti’s murder, the video is clear. We saw it with our own eyes. He was murdered after several agents beat him on the ground. He posed no threat to anyone and only approached them with his phone in his hand, filming their brutality as they pushed a hispanic woman to the ground. (She wasn’t even their intended target). If church leaders are only consuming a steady diet of Fox news, they might be less informed, but even some of the Fox news people found this most recent murder of a VA nurse concerning. It’s bad enough that it’s apparently shifting Trump’s focus away from waging terror on the city of Minneapolis.
- Real influence. I suppose we learned during Covid that there were some limits on this among the membership, that some refused to follow mandates from HQ, but that doesn’t mean that overall the church leaders’ moral stances have no influence. On the contrary, those LDS people I know who are defending the murders are using talking points from conservative sources. They are certainly willing to repeat talking points are they are given. They just aren’t being given any by the church.
The church might not see the injustice and murders as harmful or in need of being addressed. After all, there aren’t that many Mormons in Minnesota, the victims so far haven’t been Mormons, and the church supports immigration crackdowns as legal, even if they are being done in ways that are not legal (eliminating due process, using state-sanctioned violence, giving officers carte blanche, assaulting non-violent protestors, and entering homes without judicial warrants). They might fear retribution from the Trump regime. Perhaps fear of retribution overrides morality now, including for churches. Pres. Oaks, a constitutionalist who absolutely knows that this is wrong, may be too feeble to handle it right now. There may be disagreement among the remaining apostles.
What silence communicates is:
- This does not rise to the level of concern.
- Maintaining unity is more important than confronting harm.
- Those affected are on their own.
- Order is more important than justice.
This stands in contrast to the church’s stronger stances on things like sexual morality, family structure or personal behavior. When they are quiet about racial injustice, abuse, economic exploitation and state violence, they are demonstrating that they value hierarchy and order over individual freedom, lives and justice.
When churches choose not to use their influence to speak out against injustice, it’s often because of one or more of these reasons:
- Fear of internal division. Unfortunately, there are many MAGA church members. Oaks doesn’t seem to be one of them, but it has to give him pause to know that many of them are more loyal to Donald Trump than they are to him or the church. They certainly feel comfortable sharing their views openly in LDS pews.
- Desire to protect the institution’s reputation. The Church wants acceptance from other conservative churches and doesn’t care about broader influence. It’s settled into a kind of “pick me” mentality over the last few decades, trying really hard to be accepted by those (Evangelicals and conservative Catholics) who are most strongly convinced it’s a cult.
- Alignment with political power. By not opposing the Trump regime openly, or even letting a whiff of criticism leak out, leaders may think (rightly?) that they are staying out of the retribution cross-hairs, and that they have power within the party. They also see themselves as completely committed to conservatism.
- Theological frameworks that individualize sin. Most church leaders talk about sin in terms of individual behavior, not systems that oppress or commit violence. If only the masked ICE agents could be more civil, maybe they wouldn’t murder citizens.[1] Or as in the George Floyd murder, many were content to say that the officer was just “one bad apple,” ignoring the litany of prior complaints for excessive force that were on his record and went unchecked.
- Belief that the church should stay out of politics. This one is rich. The church’s neutrality is conveniently pulled out when they don’t want to act, but they are happy to pay Kirton-McConkie big bucks to write amicus briefs opposing gay rights and trans rights and women’s equality and churches’ rights to prevail in abuse cases. Those are also “political” issues. They apparently just oppose civil rights and progressive causes.
Speaking out against injustice and state-sponsored violence doesn’t require endorsing a party or providing a detailed policy. It just involves naming the harm clearly, centering the victims, aligning the words with the church’s moral stance, and being willing to risk discomfort as an institution. I suspect this is a failure of courage. The stakes under the Trump regime are high. Any criticism is seen as grounds to be targeted, stripped of rights and wealth, barred from power, vilified and slandered.
One question to consider is “If the injustice were happening to the Church itself, would silence be considered faithful?” I am reminded of a misguided social media post that went around during the George Floyd protests that tried to claim Mormons were much more persecuted than black people ever were because of the extermination order and being forced out of Missouri. Yikes. 100 points from Griffindor for that nonsense.
If the church knows better, claims authority, has influence and chooses stability over justice, then silence is participation through omission.
Are there any harms from the church not taking a stand when public opinion is not yet settled (because some people are willing to go along with the regime’s lies)? Here are the harms I can think of:
- Church members who are poorly informed or willing to defend anything done by their political team will continue to spread propaganda, misinformation and slander against victims.
- Church members who are ICE agents are part of immoral and illegal acts that are not being prosecuted by this administration.
- Some Church members may compound these moral errors by working with ICE or informing on others, leading to violence against those individuals or unrelated bystanders.
- Church members will continue to feel that a lack of empathy is a virtue. Given Oaks’ and Nelson’s statements that pitted the second great commandment against the first, this might be their desired outcome. While I personally always have believed that we show our love of God through our love of our neighbor, they have taught that loving one’s neighbor is secondary to loving God (which usually means fighting gay rights in the context of what they have said).
Those are all moral arguments, but I suppose what the church would care more about is new converts and continued commitment from existing members who pay tithing and fill callings. Does the lack of a moral stance affect these? It probably does only in terms of continuing to make it clear that the Church is politically conservative and will not be a welcome place to those who are not.
By contrast, other churches have made statements to their flocks:
- Catholic leaders called for prayer, respect for life, dialogue and peace. They specifically called for prayers for the victims of shootings.
- A significant number of Protestants and Universal Unitarians have participated directly in anti-ICE protests, peacefully demonstrating against the violence tactics used. Some have been arrested.
- Jewish groups have condemned the state violence, called for justice (linked to “tikkun olam”–a value in their theology that refers to a foundational Jewish concept emphasizing the responsibility to fix, improve, and heal the world through actions that promote social justice, equity, and environmental stewardship).
- Other Protestant leaders have focused on protecting religious spaces from intrusion from protestors or conversely from ICE agents performing raids.
Let’s see what our readers think.
- Why do you think the church was mostly silent about the state-sanctioned violence being committed by ICE? Do you think it’s because they are waiting for the dust to settle, don’t see this issue as important, Oaks is not in good enough health to truly lead, or something else?
- Do you think a Pres. Uchtdorf would have made a statement? What kind of statement?
- Would the church taking a stand influence church members or are their political influences stronger than their religious views?
- Is it important for churches to take a stand on issues of injustice? Why or why not?
- Which of the stands other churches have taken do you think strikes the right tone?
Discuss.
[1] The soon to be booted Bovino even claimed that the ICE agents were the only real victims in their brutal murder of Alex Pretti.
Wheat & Tares 
I’m reminded of the cowardly prophet Jonah, who was too scared to preach repentance. I also suspect that plenty of General Authorities, including most likely a couple of the 12, are very much MAGA.
And THIS is the Democratic/Socialist Party”s Platform. Embrace and Protect Ilegality – and Have Contempt for U.S. Citizens. Yes, it was a tragic shooting; and I have empathy for his family – for him – not so much. He deliberately created the situation leading to the event. Personally, I find it interesting that you rarely (if ever) address the illegality at the core of corruption, generational theft, decay and improper immigration forced upon the American people; who are legal citizens.
But, as always, your “Virtue Signalling” setting is at Maximum.
I took a trip to New Orleans with my wife a could of weeks ago. White there we attended an Episcopalian service which has some amazing music. At the service we noticed that among the deceased prayed for was Renee Good.
Unfortunately so many Mormons resort to an apologetic tone with these shootings. Mealy-mouthed and poorly argued excuses. If this were the other way around, if it were conservative protestors shot and killed unjustly by federal agents, they’d be up in arms. What worse than the silence is the stonewalling and eyerolling you get if you bring up ICE murders. In my family any issue I bring up I’m treated as if I’m exaggerating. You’re given license to make an occasional jab at Gavin Newsom or some Democratic politician, but never is anyone allowed to criticize Trump, a Republican, or a Republican/Trumpian policy. You’re being overly political if you do.
“As a wife of a chief homicide prosecutor I can tell you 98% of his homicide cases are committed by illegals. I’m sick of hearing from judges “oh our prisons are over crowded that’s why they are released early!” Every week he’s in court, and my first question is are they illegals? A lot of the parents are and they don’t give a a crap what their children are doing with guns in the middle of the night. There are gangs in my hometown Spanish Fork and I thought I’d never see that in my lifetime. They are coming here from California via Mexico.”
“He deliberately created the situation leading to the event.”
This is an authoritarian mindset. Not a freedom mindset. We have the right and freedom to challenge through protest, even forms of protest that may be annoying and cumbersome, government actions that we find oppressive. When government authorities are acting in ways that you think are unconstitutional and that violate with impunity the 4th, 5th, and 8th amendments, you can’t use your legal rights to stand in opposition??? Even the right-wing’s sacrosanct 2nd amendment is being called into question here. This isn’t a question of what Pretti, or Good for that matter, should or shouldn’t have done, it is a question of what they had the right to do and what the agents had the right to do. Did Pretti have the right to concealed carry a weapon with him with a permit? Yes, of course. Did he have the right to record a video in public? Of course. Did he have the right to approach ICE agents? Of course. Did the agents have the right to arrest him on grounds of probably cause of a misdemeanor or crime? Yes. Did they have the right to shoot and kill him? Only if their lives were clearly in danger? Did Pretti endanger their lives? No. Therefore they had no right to shoot and kill him. In fact the officers removed his gun from his person before they fired their first of ten shots. The agents are clearly in breach of the 8th amendment here.
This authoritarian mindset of yours removes agency from the agents themselves. Can they not overstep their bounds? Can they not commit crimes themselves? Can they not be held accountable? Part of being a law enforcement agent is being put in all sorts of interesting and intense situations where you need training and protocol to turn to in order to properly handle the situation and ensure the utmost safety for citizens and yourself. The ICE agents didn’t abide by protocol. They didn’t act in ways that ensured public safety. They acted with reckless abandon. They acted criminally. Same goes for how they acted in relation to Renee Good.
So there you have it. We shouldn’t protest. We shouldn’t leave our homes and try to take videos of oppression. We shouldn’t question authorities’ actions. We shouldn’t try to hold authorities accountable to the law. Grizzerbear, I thought you were a libertarian? I thought you were all about freedom? Funny how when your guy is in power, a convicted criminal mind you, you justify any and every authoritarian action as if the Constitution doesn’t matter. As if rights don’t matter. As if freedom doesn’t matter. You’re a complete phony.
Grizzerbear, as to your second comment, you’re relying on anecdotal evidence to claim that illegal immigrants are committing most of the crime in the US. Statistical data shows the opposite. Citizens statistically commit more crimes than immigrants.
I don’t think anyone has a problem with ICE arresting, detaining, and deporting immigrants who have committed crimes. People aren’t protesting that. They’re protesting ICE’s detainment of LEGAL migrants. They’re protesting ICE’s wearing of masks (police officers don’t wear masks and provide identification of who they are when asked, they have a badge and show it to you). They’re protesting ICE’s use of brutality. They’re protesting ICE’s arrests and detentions of citizen children. They’re protesting inhumane conditions of ICE detention centers, where some 30 people died last year. They’re protesting ICE’s deportation of US citizens, some 170 citizens were deported last year. They’re protesting ICE’s deportation of 200 legal Venezuelan migrants, only on suspicion of hang affiliation but without evidence or due process, to an El Salvadorean prison where they have faced torture. They’re protesting ICE’s detention and deportation of immigrants who are established members of the community, have committed no crimes, and who should have a pathway to legality and citizenship opened up to them.
I thought libertarians stood for human rights. I thought libertarians stood for freedom. I thought libertarians stood against government oppression and the government overstepping its bounds. What’s wrong with you?
Grizzerbear’s unattributed – and easily falsifiable quote from the supposed “wife of a chief homicide prosecutor” – needs to be taken down for spreading false information. Research shows that, when compared to native-born Americans, unauthorized immigrants are less likely to commit crimes, including violent and property crimes.
How dare people fact-check grizzerbear! Such authoritarians! So violent! So one-sided! So Socialist and Marxist to present facts! How dare we demand the rigor of fact? How dare we have empathy for a man killed by ICE when he was legally carrying? Empathy is the great sin of the day! Might over right! That’s the motto. Stop all these calls for compassion and rule of law. Stop with the facts. Grizzerbear doesn’t want all that. He just wants what the Dear Leader wants, and he wants it bad enough to sell his courage and his morals and his intelligence and his principles for it. What’s so wrong with that? Esau did it, right? So what that in this case, it’s not even a mess a pottage, but the promise of one from a con-man? What is wrong with all you people!?!?
I do love (highest sarcasm) those, like Grizzerbear, that can say with a straight face that he deliberately created the situation … Ok: he stood between a person the federal agent shoved to the ground. Sure, he put himself in harm’s way. Questions: (1) which of the people that passed by the man on the way to Jericho did the Savior say was justified in his actions? (2) does standing between a federal agent and someone that agent SHOVED TO THE GROUND (remind me where in any handbook of procedure that is considered proper, official federal agent conduct?) warrant being shot in the back while prone on the ground?
If it is referring to him having a holstered firearm that he was licensed to carry: Ok – he created the situation by having it on his person? What about the supposed inalienable right we all have to bear arms? Are you an Ammon Bundy supporter, who held firearms in front of federal agents but was NOT shot? If the act of carrying a gun was the thing that created the situation, why was that different? Are you a Kyle Rittenhouse supporter, who brought a gun with him and shot someone? In your view, aren’t those at odds? You should be decrying the deceased for NOT shooting the federal agent, because that would have been self defense right?
Sigh.
Going to the questions:
Why do you think the church was mostly silent about the state-sanctioned violence being committed by ICE? Do you think it’s because they are waiting for the dust to settle, don’t see this issue as important, Oaks is not in good enough health to truly lead, or something else?
-I don’t think that the apostleship are MAGA, but that might just be me. I think it is more short-sighted church self-interest, not wanting to paint a target on the church’s back when they have so much to lose (I imagine the institutional memory of the late 1800s is long – the feds have done it before, they can do it again). Perhaps they do think it is important, but have decided (appropriately or not) that it is more important for the church as an institution to survive and pursue its missions of preaching, redeeming etc than getting “shut down” by a vindictive, authoritarian wannabe. But that is pure speculation on my part.
Do you think a Pres. Uchtdorf would have made a statement? What kind of statement?
-I doubt it. But if he had, it would have been more on the milquetoast side per your description. I don’t think it would have had both-sideisms, but I think it would have simply decried violence and encouraged everyone to love each other.
Would the church taking a stand influence church members or are their political influences stronger than their religious views?
-I doubt it. I think the church taking a stand – e.g., clearly articulating how ICE actions, and federal overreach in general we’re seeing right now – would have been received (or will be received) in about the same attitude as President Nelson’s emphasis during the pandemic of respecting mask requests and vaccinations. It would not pass through the MAGA filter.
Is it important for churches to take a stand on issues of injustice? Why or why not?
-I do, but I also struggle to articulate a clear metric on how to decide when it is appropriate/warranted. Here, where church leaders have a history of vaunting a constitutional order (looking at you, President Oaks!), I would absolutely think it important to speak up early, and often, to constitutional issues. Even when they are beyond your pet obsession of just the religion clause. This current time is fundamental, and so beyond the pale that it should be a no-brainer. But beyond that? Just not sure! How to discern between issues of fundamental injustice, and issues that may in the long run (think eternity) not be truly issues of injustice?
-I do think there has to be a point where the church DOES let people choose for themselves how to chart their course in life. The church should not be a place that tells its members, via what it speaks out on, whether they should be a member of X political party (and, yes, I do find it persuasive that the history of official conduct has easily veered membership in the United States towards one of the political parties more than the other).
Which of the stands other churches have taken do you think strikes the right tone?
-to my recollection of what was said, I would point to Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde and her approach. I have found her words to be direct, yet still coming from a place of love and godliness.
My sense is that most of the Q15 are generally in the category of non-MAGA conservative, though there may be a few MAGA types among the lower level GAs. They are probably troubled by a lot of things going on at the moment, and probably feel a little paralyzed about what to do about it. Making a statement would require breaking with precedent, and precedent looms large in the mind of a lawyer who once sat on a state supreme court. That precedent at the moment is to be silent on nearly everything happening politically, unless it’s one of their convenient exceptions for culture-war “moral issues”.
You mention Uchtdorf, but really the question is whether any of the senior apostles would be willing to break with precedent if they were in charge. I’d say no on Oaks and Eyring, based on both age and personality. I’d say maybe on Uchtdorf, but I think he may feel very cautious about issuing public comments that seem addressed specifically at American concerns, both because it’s an international church and because of his outsider status as a non-American. Bednar is a bit of an enigma to me. I see a bit of an independent streak in him, so I actually think he would be willing to break with precedent as a general matter, but unlikely on this particular question.
Grizzerbear, you do even know what half those words mean and how to properly use them or do they just serve as extra coloring on top of your meaningless MAGA misinformation word salad?
Hawkgrrrl, thank you for this post. This has been a topic most troubling to me–the silence of church leaders–especially when I grew up with their rhetoric of “do what is right, let the consequence follow.” The prophetic tradition of the OT is to take the personal risk to call out gov’ts and nations–not to post some vague nothing sandwich on the church newsroom site. Yes, there are consequences for standing up like that–I totally understand that. Yet, isn’t that what prophets are supposed to be all for? Not being liked very well by actual leaders of nations for calling them to repentance? It’s easy to take pot shots at minorities like LGBTQ people. The power dynamics in that instance are way in favor of the church. But, when you’re the little guy (like every prophet in the OT was), that’s when you really show your metal. And so far, the church has taken its default approach to pretty much everything challenging–ignore it and hope it blows over. I know that internally they are probably deeply troubled by all this. According to Jim Bennett, who apparently knows people close to the inner circle, none of the Q15 voted for Trump, which surprised even him. And while that may be all well and good, if they don’t make public their concerns and troubles (on camera, front and center) with the current situation, nothing changes–especially for the MAGA mormons who think church leaders are in their court on supporting these human atrocities. I mean look at the reaction of that segment of church when all the stuff about Tim Ballard came out–you’d have thought the world was toppling over for them to have the church make a negative statement about their white Captain Moroni (not be confused with Trump, who is their orange one).
I used to wonder how the Jews missed Jesus….I don’t have to any more, I’m watching it right before my eyes in my own church. Trump is anti-Christ in almost every way possible, yet none of that matters for those that voted for him as long as they remain in power.
I am sympathetic to the concerns expressed here, but there is another dimension.
We want the church to make a statement, to take a position. But does the church really speak for its members? Will the church take the pulse of its members, and speak accordingly? What if the church issues a “maintain order” statement instead of a “demand change” statement?
No church leader has ever cared about my opinion on anything. If they (church leaders at either local or general level) were to make a declaration, it would not be based on any input from me or any concern about me. So maybe it is better if the church does not make a statement — if it did, wouldn’t it be a “maintain order” statement instead of a “demand change” statement?
Our church is different from others. Ours is not representative of the members — it is not of, by, and for the people. Our church exists in its own separate legal sphere. Our church tells members what to think, it does not represent its members.
As an example, if the local mayor wanted to know how the LDS members in the community felt about a certain political or policy matter, I would hope the mayor would put out a request for input to our whole community rather than simply asking the local stake president. If the mayor asked the local stake president, would the stake president survey stake members before answering? No, of course not — he would simply reply with his own opinion on the matter and declare that all the LDS members agree with him.
So, since LDS leadership does not represent the members, maybe it is better if LDS leadership does not make a statement.
What church leaders could do is give permission for individual members to engage directly in political matters without hiding their LDS identities. Yes, silence is complicity, and our church culture does enforce silence.
I don’t know that I want church leaders to issue a statement after any and every injustice. There would be too many statements. As new facts come out, would the church need to update or revise their statements? Maybe daily or weekly? Who draws the line as to when a statement is released? Who writes the statement: a PR guy, an apostle, a committee? and who reviews and approves it for release? When does an issue become so compelling that it requires a statement? Should the church issue a statement on x situation in the USA, but remain silent when an apparently identical x situation occurs in Russia, Botswana, India, or England? Should the church condemn how some Hindus treat women in India? Should the church issue a statement decrying Muslim polygamy? When a parent or other relation commits an honor killing in Pakistan, should a statement issue promptly? Maybe the church should try to teach correct principles to its members, and then let people govern themselves. I’m fairly confident that the church has already decried political violence, has stated its support for peaceful assembly (at least in the US, as this is not legal in some places), has asked its members to vote for good people, and has taught that, at least in the US, a “bad” election result can be rectified at the ballot box in a few years. Church leaders have denounced racism, and have called for peacemaking. They have asked for people to treat aliens with kindness. Does the church need to respond by issuing a statement for every day’s big headlines? Did the early Christian church leaders speak against the inequities and wickedness of the Roman Empire? Or did they teach their members to avoid evil themselves and to do good individually without reference to what the emperors in Rome were doing? Is the early church a pattern that has any relevance today?
ji: I tend to agree with you that anything the church might say would be meaningless or even erring on the wrong side, which is why I included the statement Nelson issued in response to the George Floyd protests. Not only have they been on the wrong side of history every single time people’s rights were on the line, but they can’t even condemn police brutality (or state violence) without blaming the victims for expressing their outrage. They are institutionalists through and through.
I don’t really agree with you that other churches represent their members, though. I think Catholics are top down led even if they are much larger. They care about the moral statements the Pope makes, and they are either proud or ashamed of those statements, just as Mormons are. I think the Catholic call for prayer was kind of useless in a justice sense, but it at least reminded people to center the victims.
On the issue of whether or not the church should make more statements, it should be noted that it 2011, the Church issued this statement on undocumented migrants:
“The Church supports an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship. In furtherance of needed immigration reform in the United States, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supports a balanced and civil approach to a challenging problem, fully consistent with its tradition of compassion, its reverence for family, and its commitment to law.”
I think that it couldn’t hurt to reissue this statement in light of recent activity.
Also, this isn’t a question of whether or not the Church should be involved politically. They already are and have been selectively, and as the OP points out, often in ways that puts them on the wrong side of history. The Church needs to sort out how exactly they are to be involved politically. Which causes they should prioritize. In light of the fact that many of the Church’s members are undocumented migrants, it seems that it would be important for them to continue speaking out on this matter. The rise in racist and hateful rhetoric, too, would be a good opportunity for church leaders to speak out in condemnation. Trump is a stain. Call out the Trumpists and Trumpism now before it is too late. Don’t let the Trumpists infiltrate the local leadership in the church. Take a stance now.
This post is very well-written and doesn’t try to softpedal the Church’s responsibilities as a moral authority in the lives of its members. Thank you for that. The Church frequently speaks out about the morality of sex, reproduction, and gender and encouraged its members to vote for people who would pass laws against abortion, for example. Surely there is a moral responsibility to speak out against government-sanctioned murder, especially when so many of its members are supporting the murderers.
Georgis’s list of ‘whataboutism’ questions are easily answered. The Church should speak out against racism and murder in the same communities in which it speaks out against abortion and transgender rights. Afaik, that’s mainly the USA. Unless someone can point to a time the Brethren weighed in on morality concerns in India? What hawkgrrl’s excellent post points out is the hypocrisy in the Church speaking out about abortion in the USA, and then staying silent about government murders of protesters in the USA.
And thanks for the callback to the analysis of the Church’s statement after George Floyd and how weak it was.
I believe the Church is quiet because it is afraid, and it is divided on what to do so it defaults to doing nothing. I bet the attack on the LDS Church congregation in Michigan rattled the leaders at very high levels. Despite all the effort made to be accepted into the Christian community, the Church isn’t there. Setting off more rightwing hatred, by speaking out against rightwing hatred and violence, is probably considered a risky move. That’s the most charitable assumption I can make. A less charitable assumption is that the Church is a billionaire, and billionaires support authoritarian regimes. Stability before justice. Anything that roils the stock markets could endanger that multi-billion dollar portfolio.
I agree, Hawkgrrrl, but there is still a difference. In Catholic culture, as far as I can tell from the outside, one can have a difference of opinion and can even share or explore that opinion within the culture far beyond what would be tolerated within Mormon culture. And, a Catholic can leave one parish and affiliate with another parish.
Excellent and thought-provoking OP. Posts such as this keep me coming back to W&T.
It is not enough to simply express outrage at recent events. The U.S. has reached an inflection point. Either we tolerate murder in the streets, and a total lack of human decency, or we act. What that implies is different for each of us. It may be writing a congressman or simply marching in protest, but it is time to take action.
On that note, the total silence from Church leadership is disgusting. The lack of moral courage on the part of the Q15 is antithetical to the teachings of Jesus Christ. I no longer hope that even Uchtdorf will have the courage to take a stand. The outright hypocrisy of Mormon leadership is stunning.
I view the primary reason for the Q15’s reticence is their realization that many active Mormons worship at the altar of MAGA Republican Fascism. One of the many ironies is that the vast majority of MAGA zealots represent the least educated and most immature among us. So, does the Church fear alienating this demographic at the expense of losing younger, more intelligent members? Or is it merely an act of appeasement to maintain cash flows?
Years ago, there was a well written Dialogue article entitled “How Much Tolerance Can We Tolerate”. Words for our time.
First, many of the calls I hear or read for Church leaders to speak out on current issues/events are along the lines of “If LDS prophets are special because they speak for God, then what use are they if they don’t speak out on these important issues of the day?” This is a very reasonable question. It surely would be nice to have access to God’s perfect guidance on these difficult issues.
I’ve said many times in comments on W&T that the biggest problem the Church faces today is its insistence on prophetic infallibility. This desire that people have for LDS prophets to communicate God’s will on current events is another symptom of this problem. I am firmly of the opinion that the Q15 receive just as much revelation or inspiration on any given topic as any other member of the Church—or any other human being on the earth—does. Therefore, to those members clamoring for God to speak through LDS prophets on any issue I would say, it is highly unlikely to happen. The men who sit in the big velvet chairs can’t discern between right and wrong any better than you can. Lower your expectations!
If we are operating with the correct understanding that the Q15 is just a body of men generally doing their best to determine what is right, then we understand that they have a difficult task in deciding how and what to say in response to issues of the day. As the OP pointed out, they don’t have a very good track record with this historically. Their conservative biases—and again, their lack of divine inspiration—lead them to take public stands that were simply wrong. Do we really want them issuing public statements on more issues?
Dallin Oaks has issued stinker after stinker of GC talks for decades. I suspect that his April 2023 GC talk, where he exclusively just quoted the words of Christ from the scriptures without any of his usual ugly commentary or opinions, was probably done kind of tongue-in-cheek to prove to critics that he was a follower of Christ. However, in my opinion, this was the best talk he has ever given in GC—by far. Do we really want Oaks and people like him issuing their guidance based on their personal biases (because, again, they don’t generally speak for God) on today’s issues, or would it be better if they stick to quoting Christ? I personally think I may be a lot happier with Oaks remaining silent or literally quoting Christ in response to current events as opposed to hearing his personal opinions on these things.
On issues of social justice specifically, it may be useful to examine what BYU has done with its relatively new “Office of Belonging”, created in 2021. When it was created, it was specifically stated that it wasn’t going to be doing things the “world’s way”. Instead, it would be bringing “belonging” to BYU “Christ’s way”. Right. Of course, this means that “Christ” apparently wants LGBTQ students to feel “welcome” at BYU while the Honor Code specifically prohibits them from holding hands or having any sort of romantic relationship like the straight kids can.
Additionally, my daughter happens to be an officer in a BYU club for females. It’s a very benign club that just provides support and opportunities for females in a field that is heavily dominated by males. “Women in Physics”, “Women in Math”, “Women in Engineering”—something just like that. They have women professors and women professionals come and talk to them. They have social events so that the females can support each other. Stuff like that. A few things that have happened since the “Office of Belonging” was created that affect this club:
1. Men have to be allowed to join (it’s a club for females!) and (even if they haven’t joined) attend any and every activity held by this club. According to the Office of Belonging, excluding men from attending an event targeted at women who historically have a hard time finding their way into this male-dominated field would make the men feel like they don’t “belong”. And indeed, there are a number of male BYU students who make a point of attending these events. The female leadership does what they can to discourage these men from attending, but they still come anyway. And, when they come, they really do significantly hinder the whole purpose of the club. That is apparently “Christ’s way” of supporting women in a male-dominated field.
2. Events sponsored by my daughter’s club have to be planned much further in advance than those of other BYU clubs because they have to go through a special approval process through the Office of Belonging simply because they are a club whose purpose is to support females, so there is a chance that they might sponsor an activity that, I guess, is contrary to “Christ’s” idea of belonging. Other BYU clubs don’t have to go through this process.
If the Office of Belonging is how the Church handles social justice at BYU, do we really want it speaking out publicly on social justice issues for the entire body of the Church?
I guess my viewpoint is that since Church leaders aren’t receiving any more divine inspiration from God than anyone else, and the Q15 appears to be largely a conservative echo chamber, it is better that they limit their public statements. If Church leadership were to change such that it actually had thoughtful representatives on both the left and the right (and had some younger people and some females, and some more racial diversity, and some more educational/professional background diversity, etc.), then maybe I’d be up for engaging more deeply in a discussion on how and when the Church ought to express opinions on current events, but given the status quo, I think it may be best that the Church remain largely silent.
The Q15 didn’t hesitate to make a statement when Charlie Kirk was shot. I wonder why that particular incident warranted such attention.
Excellent post Dot! And the Mormon hypocrisy train keeps rolling along unabated – largely because members are afraid to speak their minds. We don’t want some rogue bishop to yank our ticket to the great and spacious building.
Chrisdrobison: Amen!
“The prophetic tradition of the OT is to take the personal risk to call out gov’ts and nations–not to post some vague nothing sandwich on the church newsroom site.” 💯
Prophets in the O.T. specifically functioned to call out injustice of any kind, particularly oppression of vulnerable and poor people, including strangers. Think Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micah, who is known for 6:8: Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly with God.
Prophets were not protectors of the institution- that was was the job of the Priestly class- who became the Saducees- yes, the ones that Jesus railed against!
So, who is doing what today?
To riff off part of Adam F’s comment above…
When the federal “thugs” came for Cliven Bundy’s illegal cattle, said cattle and the heavily armed and openly brandishing “protesters” that showed up to oppose those federal agents were treated with much more humanity than when the federal thugs came for the potentially illegal Minnesota human beings and their set of protesters.
What’s truly telling is that at least in my neck of the MAGA woods then as now, those cows, illegal or not, seem to be held in much higher regard than human beings, illegal or not, in Minnesota.
We are so screwed.
”…largely because members are afraid to speak their minds…”
And yet our own scripture declares that one of the purposes of the restoration is ”But that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world…” D&C 1:20.
I wish our church culture allowed every member to speak. We can sustain hierarchy even while allowing individual thought and expression. Somehow, I think that is how our God really wants it to be.
Hawkgrrl: Great post, thank you for so clearly putting today’s events into perspective.
Here are my thoughts triggered by your post.
I think the biggest problem is that we in the church like to use words that we “define” one way, but aren’t really defined in the world. Take Governor Cox’s State of the State address, where he talked about “Virtue.” He didn’t define it because he knows so plainly what virtue is. The thing is that virtue is different to different people.
When we sit in our Priesthood/RS/Gospel Doctrine classes we have lessons and discussions that use words like this and never define them realistically. There will be that teacher that will flip through the scriptures with lightning speed or quote general authorities or prophets but they’ll define it with more words like it that aren’t defined as well. Then, if they do use a real-world example for a word like virtue, it will come down to LGBTQ issues, or the Family Proclamation which is again built on those kind of undefined words that can be applied in multiple ways. If you talk about virtue as equal housing or access to credit or immigration and ICE, it’s either crickets or someone saying we don’t want to get political.
So the church as created it’s own type of microculture and everyone feels fine because they “know” what is what. Problem is the world is big, has lots of problems and they don’t know how to talk about it because they haven’t “pondered” what the beautiful words really mean. They also twist meanings to fit their world view, which the leaders are so unwilling to confront. I feel it’s because the church is built on tithing and not the gospel of Christ. The Gospel of Christ is used to get people to the temple to be an eternal family and you can only do that if you pay tithing. Getting to the temple is following a few rules like the Word of Wisdom, and sexual purity but honesty with you fellow man, since it’s not defined is always answered, “of course I’m honest.” There is never any serious reflection about issues like paying an honest wage vs. giving a full days labor, helping the strangers vs. immigration, following the law vs. driving the speed limit or rolling coal in your truck, or taking off safety emissions.
Prophets in the Old Testement warned the people directly about direct issues that many times were political. Countries rose and fell with prophetic warnings. Even the New Testiment and BoM prophecies about war and the state of our society today are poltical.
The fact that the Q15 hasn’t made a comment about the debacle in Minneapolis demonstrates serious moral cowardice to me. Over the years moral cowardice has been their stance on anything that doesn’t have to do with sex (LGBTQ rights and marriage, contraception, abortion, women’s bodily autonomy, families etc) or protecting their right to discriminate against anyone who doesn’t pass muster in their book by claiming religious freedom. For an international church they seem to have a very narrow view of the world. And yet they continually claim to be God’s only authorized spokesmen. That’s a massive contradiction. They can’t have it both ways. Jesus was absolutely fearless in calling out and condemning evil and injustice and was willing to pay the price in order to make sure that the people understood that he meant what he said.
Are the Q15 afraid that they will lose even more members because their stand for truth would alienate all of the MAGA members? Are they afraid that their businesses and inordinate wealth would take a huge financial hit? Are they terrified of doing something different than what the church leaders have always done in the past? The church is so hide bound in far too many ways which is the complete opposite of the teachings about “progression” to become better and holier people that I was taught throughout much of my time as a member. Perhaps “progression” is one of those teachings that the leaders now disavow like so many others we were once taught. Whatever the reasons for their reticence regarding the evil taking place in Minneapolis and all over America the world will pay attention and will take note of this cowardice and judge the church accordingly.
The reason LDS leaders don’t speak out against tyranny, injustice, and inequality is that such a regime reflects their strongly-held beliefs and that of 75% of the membership. I’m sure that they think “mistakes were made,” but certainly the overall goals of an authoritarian dictatorship is not inconsistent with their beliefs.
Dot, regarding a statement about Charlie Kirk, I would at least throw out there that because it happened in Utah, and Utah’s association in most peoples’ minds with Mormons, they perhaps felt more urgency for that. But the underlying point is still worth calling out as you have. Perhaps if all this was playing out in SLC the church would have been much quicker to make a statement…
I’d like to see a better system for ferreting out the worst offenders–and letting the non criminal illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. while they get their papers in order. Even so, a quick perusal of this site suggests (to my mind) that it’s not always a simple thing to come down on one side or the other of a particular issue–and that the church has to walk a fine line with its messaging:
https://www.dhs.gov/wow?page=0
“But does the church really speak for its members?” What it needs to do is speak TO its members. This is the Gospel of Jesus: that ye love one another as I have loved you.’ Anything less than that is at best cowardice, at worst approval.
Everyone must be treated with respect. Every One . I call BS to the excuse that LDS is an international church. So what? Are Christ’s teachings to be ignored and not preached because there are member who live under different systems? The Church, of course, has an equality problem because of its history of institutionalized racism, misogyny, and homophobia. But the message is clear: do not support violence, even against the worst of the worst. Yes, even those as horrible as 5 year-old, Liam Conejo Ramos, The 14th Amendment, has, until the Nuremberg Supremes, who know on which side their RVs, vacations, and mortgages are buttered, started whittling away at it, stood for the proposition that every person in the United States, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or belief, was entitled to Due Process. The message of Christ is even broader.
“that you love one another as I have loved you.”
Since my retirement from the US Military some 15 years ago, I have had the opportunity to state my views that are sometimes opposing the views of the President of the US, (POTUS). The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) prohibits officers from being outspoken politically. That was 15 years ago, and while I held a regular commission requiring dedication to my Oath of Office, namely protecting the Constitution of the United States of America, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, at my age, 65, I am essentially “off the hook” for a recall of retirees except in the most severe of events.
So, here is my take on the OP’s words and all the others above mine: I am grateful that I live in a Constitutional Republic, where thoughts and ideas can be discussed openly, particularly in light of the deaths that have occurred at the hands of ICE agents that appear for all intents and purposes, to be on a “high alert” and a Fire!, Ready! Aim! form of deployment. Obviously the command structure of ICE in Minnesota needs to be refurbished with individuals that have the ability to lead it’s State organizations to a calmer approach. Even in the event that a peaceful protest may be moving to the brink of unpeaceful. Particularly, the killing of Pretti was a result of officers perceiving a real or imagined threat, and instead of relying on their, (hopeful), training to de-escalate a situation, allowed it to get out of control. The officers and their leadership needs to be held responsible, possibly, criminally, (to be determined in a court of law), after all the evidence is made available. Either way, none of the 2 events should have happened. Any law enforcement agency needs to be held to a higher standard than has been exhibited in Minnesota. POTUS has the ability to change the tension immediately, but he has not exhibited the ability to be a true leader and accept responsibility for the high tension, let alone the ability to deescalate the situation. I don’t believe I have ever seen a grown human to be so butt-hurt anytime someone disagrees with him.
I have never liked President Trump. My wife and I have registered Independent as a result of his running for office. We have not voted for him and have either not cast a vote or voted for other candidates. I usually find it amusing when ward members make a comment or statement to me thinking that I am a trumper as a result of my military service. I will normally respond in such a way as to acknowledge their ideas while gently telling them why I don’t agree with them on a given subject. I personally think that Trump is the epitome of narcissism in it’s grandest sense.
While I agree with probably 85% of what has been said by the OP and several respondents agreeing with her, I have one beef that I feel I must relay:
Hawkgirrrl, I am certain you would kick my rear in a debate about anything, even though I tend to agree with most of your writings. But your numerous quotes of the “Trump Regime” only incites emotion. You know as well as any writer that calling the trump presidency (no caps intentional), “a regime” is disingenuous, as is any news service that does so. The prize Jackass was overwhelmingly voted into office. He did not take it over by non-democratic means. Our Constitutional Republic deserves much more respect than to infer several times that a “regime” exists here. I would say that your use of the term shows that you may be losing respect for the checks and balances that exist in our republic, I hope not. Have faith that the system will work and that things will change when this prize A-Hole and Jackass is out of office.
Other respondents: calling half of the political spectrum “fascists” or “nazis” appears like you are not aware of the true history of people that truly were fascists and nazis, or the terror they inflicted upon those in their own country. We do not have any such people holding office in the US. Those people exist in remote an or hidden corners of our nation, ahemmm…NW Idaho. I know, based on my reading of most comments, that folks here are much more astute than to need to retreat to the use of those words out of context. Doing so dishonors the people who had to endure the pains and horrors of true fascist, nazi regimes.
For anyone that gives this response an “up” or “down” vote, can you respond in a few short words as to why?
Cheers to All – Mongo
I’ve said this before elsewhere, but it’s worth repeating: The silence of DHO is incredibly frustrating here, and he is failing to meet the moment. During COVID, faithful members were gushing about what a blessing it was to have a physician as a prophet in the middle of pandemic. The Church wasn’t perfect in it’s response to that crisis, but it did take some very practical measures, including endorsing vaccinations, masking, distancing, and cancelling in-person Church meetings for a time, and while I won’t spare criticism of RMN, I’ll give credit where credit is due. Today, we happen to have a constitutional scholar/former state supreme court justice as a prophet in the midst of a national constitutional crisis, but I have yet to see any “blessing” come from that. There is no reason why DHO can’t issue a full-throated public condemnation of all who seek to trample the rule of law and violate the constitutional rights of others (which includes the current administration and those who support it) and call them to repentance, with the authority and intellect of a justice issuing a landmark majority opinion. He can easily frame it as a moral issue rather than a political one. If the current administration threatens the Church’s tax-exempt status in response, let them; DHO can unleash his army of lawyers, take the case up to SCOTUS, which in it’s current composition, will likely find in favor of the Church, while also further exposing the bigotry of those in power. Do what is right, let the consequence follow.
I voted your comment up because it is well -reasoned and sincere. It speaks to a need for restraint and thoughtfulness ,which I certainly need more of. However, I do not agree with your reluctance to describe the current administration as Fascist since it seems to fulfill every single definitional standard. Not everyone in Germany during Third Reich was a member of the party., That said, I could use the words oligarchy or kakistocracy. (Today, on a podcast, I heard a young man say that the invasion of Poland by the Third Reich was justified because the Third Reich wanted to regain territory it lost in WWI. He went on to say that if the USA needs the resources or strategic location of another country, referring to Greenland and Venezuela, the wishes of its citizens are immaterial because the USA is “stronger.”
Thank you Jack for your link!
Now if you go to ice.gov/detain/detention-management and scroll all the way to the bottom and click on 2025 ICE statistics you can download the excel file.
On the footnotes tab, it says that ICE threat levels (ADP) are 1-3 with 1 being the highest and 0 meaning they have NO criminal convictions.
If you go back to the Facilities FY25 tab you can see that of the 47,551 detainees from Jan-Sept 2025, 40,274, or 84.7% of those detained, have NO criminal record. But thanks for the misleading splash page Jack. There’s a reason this administration loves the uneducated.
As for the church I could care less what they say or don’t say. As others have mentioned, they will be intentionally vague so that members can see what they want to see and weaponize their portion of the press release to other folks they don’t want at church. The George Floyd example above is Exhibit A.
Unlike the OP, I’m not surprised that Mormons are defending this. What did surprise me is being aligned with the NRA this week. I truly didn’t see that coming.
17RRider: I voted up for your comment along the same lines as vajra2. You are sincere and well-reasoned. But I disagree with you regarding the use of the term regime. The difference between a presidency and a regime is *not* simply whether the leader was democratically elected. We all know that Trump was decisively elected by both the electoral college as well as a narrow popular vote win. Harris got 75M votes (48.3%) vs. 77.3M (49.8%) for Trump. When I have lived abroad, people don’t understand when Americans refer to an election as a “landslide.” A landslide in other countries means like 90% of the vote. Here it’s always a squeaker. The largest popular vote win in American history was only 61.1% (Lyndon B Johnson) vs. 38.5% (Barry Goldwater). That’s what an overwhelming victory looks like for the US. A 1.5% spread is not overwhelming. Nearly all modern presidencies have pissed off half the country who just deal with it for four years.
Regarding the difference between a regime and a presidency, the difference is not whether someone was democratically voted in. Hitler won elections (never a majority, and his ultimate rise to power was when the Chancellor appointed him–Nazi popular vote peaked at 43.9% in 1933, after which Hitler ended democracy by attacking German institutions and jailing or killing his opponents), but nobody quibbles over calling his rule the Nazi Regime.
A presidency is defined by limits: 1) time-bound, temporary office, 2) clear legal authority, 3) separation of powers, 4) accountability (courts, legislaure, elections, press), 5) the office-holder is replaceable, 6) loyalty is to institutions and laws, not to the individual. A regime is defined by control and power: 1) power concentrated around a specific leader or inner circle, 2) institutions exist but are weakened, captured, or bypassed, 3) loyalty is to the person, not the law, 4) opposition is delegitimized, 5) rules are changed to protect those in power, 6) accountability is at best selective or symbolic. You and I may disagree whether this is a regime or a presidency, and I’ve heard pundits argue it credibly, but the evidence I see is that Trump hits every single description of a regime and fights against every constraint of a president. Now, you may say the systems will hold, and let’s hope you are right. I see a man who bragged that he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and get away with it waging war on Minneapolis because they didn’t vote for him. I can’t call it anything nicer than a regime, and I could certainly call it worse.
Lastly, I realize I’m not the target of your comment on the use of the term Nazi. I’m a little unsure on this one. I do agree that rhetorically everyone using terms like “fascist,” “communist,” “Nazi,” and “Hitler” does little to advance understanding, if such a thing is even possible anymore. I think the problem is that some people restrict the term Nazi to refer to members of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, but growing up in the 80s, the term was used by skinheads to describe themselves. They embraced the ideology of Naziism. Are they not Nazis? Which means that Naziism, to some of us at least, is not just a historical reference but also a set of ideologies. Those ideologies are in fact embraced by today’s GOP: 1) racial hierachy, 2) authoritarian nationalism, 3) cult of a strongman leader, 4) rejection of pluralism and liberal democracy, 5) use of violence and intimidation as political tools, 6) mythic past combined with grievance-based politics. Which of these things do not reflect today’s GOP? You might say some people within the GOP don’t hold these views, but Turning Point certainly does. The Proud Boys do. There is a real problem with both parties when they see no enemy to the right or left. There’s a German saying: “If there’s a Nazi at the table and 10 other people sitting there talking to him, you got a table with 11 Nazis.”
Dot, excellent point about the church making a statement about Charlie Kirk. Although, yes, it did happen in Utah and that itself may have been cause for choosing to make a statement. But I think that the church has to think this over better. For a few reasons.
1. The church commands the respect of a quite a number of influential Americans. What they say can have an impact. Not Pope-level, but an impact nonetheless.
2. The church has never been an apolitical organization. Their claims to be such do not square with their history. The church has been very political when it has wanted to be. Prop 8, anyone?
3. The church actually knows that its leader’s past political positions, especially on civil rights, have been problematic. Its response? Scrub what the leaders actually said. Ezra Taft Benson strongly came out against civil rights activists in Mississippi in 1963 and after the Neshoba County murder in 1964, he came out again in General Conference in 1965 saying, “What do you know about the dangerous civil rights agitation in Mississippi? Do you fear the destruction of all vestiges of state government?” Yet nowhere is this quote to be found on church websites that I can see. The church needs to own up to this and condemn Benson and his Jim Bircher pro-segregation talks. They want to show that they’re serious about racial equality and integration? Take stands in these directions.
4. Know the future. It ain’t Trumpist. This is but a phase. The backlash is building against the rise of the new right. It is going to explode. Be on the right side this time, church leaders.
5. Trumpism revealed the rot of conservatism. It used to be believed that conservatives were mostly just about low taxes and less government regulation. More pro-business, etc. What Trump did was excite the true base, which is unapologetically racist, violent, authoritarian, and full of lies and conspiracy theories. Draw the limit, church leaders. We can’t have racists and conspiracy theorists running the local leaderships. You know that’s bad. What you say carries weight. Win the future.
Great post Hawkgirl. This is an appropriate and well written post which should not be a bipartisan issue but a simple matter of honoring human dignity.
As the post’s title suggests, “silence is complicity”, and that dynamic feels uncomfortably close to what Jesus scandalously names in Matthew 23:23–24. His rebuke is not aimed at devotion itself—tithing mint and dill—but at a religious leadership that becomes meticulous about pious, low-risk righteousness while neglecting the far weightier demands of justice, mercy, and faithfulness. When an institution speaks at length and with confidence about doctrinal precision yet remains cautious or silent when real people are harmed and civil rights are at stake, it risks straining out gnats while swallowing camels. Jesus’s warning exposes how easily religious order, propriety, and institutional self-protection can eclipse the very heart of the law, and it challenges faith communities—including the LDS Church—to ask whether silence in moments of public injustice is not neutrality at all, but a failure of moral witness.
To be fair, first-century Jewish leaders were not cartoon villains; they were trying to recover and preserve the God who had once delivered them, in a world where survival depended on religious coherence and political restraint. Living between ordinary citizens and an overwhelming empire, they learned how to manage risk: exhort those below them toward obedience, piety, and order, while exercising great caution toward anything that might provoke the powers above. Yet this is precisely the tension Jesus exposes. His rebuke names how easily religious leadership, when positioned as a mediator between people and empire, can default to disciplining the vulnerable while remaining silent toward structures of power. In that light, Matthew 23 is less a condemnation of bad intentions and more a warning about what happens when preserving stability takes precedence over justice, mercy, and faithfulness—and how silence toward empire can quietly become complicity, even when motivated by fear, prudence, or the desire to protect what is sacred.
Todd S, interesting take, and thanks. I agree that Jesus found fault with the Sadducees and the Pharisees, the religions leaders of the day. But I don’t see where he criticized them for how they mediated between the people and the Roman Empire. There absolutely was collaboration between the Sadducees, the political ruling class and the rulers of the temple establishment, and the Empire’s governors, but does Jesus criticize this? Or does he instead criticize the leaders for their self-enrichment and self-aggrandizement, and for their oppression of the poor? I agree with you that the religious leaders had to figure out to live their faith while not upsetting the Romans, but Jesus did not pronounce woes on the the Pharisees for their balance of Empire and religion. Jesus criticized them for their hypocrisy, their oppression of their people, and for how they taught the people, among other things. I don’t see in Matthew 23 any criticism of Pharisees for how they dealt with the Roman Empire. I see criticism for how they lived their religion, and how they imposed it upon others, quick to find fault and quick to humiliate people.
I think it’s high time we switch the Wheat and Tares OPs and commentators with the Q15. Let the W&T cadre run the church and leave the Q15 to drive from the back seat.
Hawkgrrl and Vajra2, thanks for going easy on me. 😉 While I see the basis of your points regarding identifying a regime and agree with your definition, I see trump attempting to accomplish those points, but he won’t be successful, and he doesn’t have the time.
Back in 1991, very shortly after the US booted Saddam and his military out of Kuwait, I landed there to help set up a command and control center. Our location was a hangar with a building inside of it that could be air conditioned for long term computer usage. The entire floor of a 10,000+ square foot hangar was covered in dried blood from the dozens of innocents that were hung and garroted from the 30′ high rafters. The bodies were still laying on one side of the hangar waiting to be properly treated according to Muslim rites. I’ve seen a similar situation in Africa. That was the remainder of a regime run amok in Kuwait. Thankfully, in December of 2006, a very good friend of mine had a nice little convo with Saddam while he was chained to a table. He died 2 days later, much the same way as those innocents did. So, while I agree with all of your points regarding the very well defined, academic descriptions of a regime as well as fascism or nazism, my simple brain is only capable of defining what I have seen. When large leaps, in my opinion, are made to define an opposing political view, by using these terms, regime, fascist, nazi, I see it as a bridge too far. It is sensationalism to make a point. To state that the entirety of the GOP (not that you said the entirety), exhibits those tendencies, is again, a bridge too far. Trump may want to operate that way, but he will not be allowed to do so as a result of congress and the judicial branch.
There are 4 things I know in this life: My wife loves me, my children love me, Jesus loves me and our Constitutional Republic is the best form of government on the planet. Politicians are merely temporary fuel for the republic, and like most fuel, you can’t stand to be around them too long, the fumes will make you sick. The truest thing ever taught to me was my US History teacher in HS in California. He said “always remember that a politician’s number one priority is re-election.”
The failure of the two primary political parties in this country was evident with the choices of candidates that were presented in this last election cycle. The Dems are complicit with their horrific handling of the diminished capacity of President Biden. They failed the country because they were more intent to hold their political power than making a decision on a viable candidate early. I believe that it was a “one off” and that the republic will survive the current cesspool we the people are currently wading through.
PS: Regardless, people on this blog represent calm, reasonable, points that aren’t being said by others. It’s certainly time we as a society step back and look at the inflamed rhetoric we have participated in. We need more civil discourse and respectful debate rather than slinging insults or caring about what “team” you’re on.
Cheers Friends – Mongo
17RRider, You seem to be saying Trump hasn’t established a “regime” yet, and that it will be impossible for Trump to establish a “regime” because our constitutional system will protect us. I fear you are overly optimistic. I believe concern and vigilance on the part of the people is appropriate and necessary, and I am glad a few citizens are expressing concern.
A baby or child is both amazingly robust and very fragile at the same time. Likewise, our republic.
I remember a little while back posting somewhere that if Trump asked for an enabling act modeled after the 1933 version in another country, our GOP-controlled Congress would give it to him — and that might still be true. Trump’s actions of villain-izing a portion of our population through angry rhetoric and violence, seeking out foreign “enemies” to agitate against, and presenting himself as a strong man to solve those problems seem to be following the playbook of that 1930’s person in another country. I think it is appropriate to be concerned. Trump isn’t as smart as that other person, thank goodness, but his minions are equally mean. I hope we survive Trump, but even so I believe our republic will have been damaged.
17RRider: I really appreciate where you’re coming from on this point. With your experiences in both Kuwait and Africa, my understanding is that you witnessed the results/remains of regimes as they ended, after they had already been in power. It’s similar to the preserved ruins of Auschwitz and Dachau and other concentration camps, though your experiences were much more immediate to the atrocities.
I am very careful with my word usage. It is rare that I use the word “hate” to things I have even a strong distaste/revulsion toward. And I think the words that you focus on in your comments fall near to hate on my list of words I tend to avoid. They are attention-grabbing and used all too often.
I think the difference between your experience in those countries and what we’re witnessing today is the perspective whence we view the events. Kuwait and Africa were after the fact. Here and now we are witnessing events that bear strong similarities to the events that gave rise to Hitler’s reign and the nazis. In trying to warn others and draw attention to these correlations, these voices probably don’t include an introductory phrase that could more accurately convey what they are trying to express. For example, and this isn’t a quote from anyone else, “The deportations without due process and the rhetoric surrounding an easily identifiable minority group (in this case immigrants) has much in common with the early actions that lead to the rise of nazis and fascism in Germany.” So the phrase “lead to the rise of” carries a lot of weight here. It means that I haven’t called anyone a nazi or fascist, but points to my concern with current events.
The problem being that the mere presence of “nazi” and “fascism” draw all attention away from the rest of the sentence.
To sum up, I agree that these words get bandied about too much. Sometimes on purpose “for the views” and sometimes quoted without their entire context.
To the point of the original post, I do believe that there are cases where staying silent makes me complicit. I am not particularly brave. I don’t like large groups of people or strong emotions. I’ve thought several times about traveling to Minnesota to lend my one voice to the protests there, and those thoughts terrify me. But I do what I can. I’ve contacted my national representatives. I’ve made posts on facebook, risking the loss of relationships with my very conservative-leaning family members. I may not be brave enough, or close enough, to participate in the protests, but I can speak up.
I wish the church would make a statement regarding the targeting of immigrants and the deaths at the hands of ICE. The one stance the church took that sticks out to me was the letter from church leaders read over the pulpit in support of California’s Prop 8, urging members to vote for it if they lived in CA and asking members to urge their family members and friends to do the same. This was when I lived in the Jell-O belt.
Hawkgrrrl, thank you for the great post. You are a voice I have come to trust and one that I look forward to reading. 17RRider, thank you for your thought-provoking comments.
I think regime is appropriate usage. Other US governments can be referred to as administrations since they anticipate and accept transfer of power upon the results of elections. Trump has long pushed and even gone beyond the legal boundaries of power. There really is no historical analog to this in either Democratic or Republican-led administrations. Never once has Trump shown acceptance of loss or a willingness and commitment to a peaceful transfer of power in the event of loss. Never once in my 45 years of life had I doubted the legitimate transfer of power based on elections, until the 2020 election. Now I’m not so sure that Trump and his team of sycophants won’t try to interfere in, suppress, and corrupt the results of the 2026 midterm and the 2028 presidential elections. Trump has a criminal record. He has several other pending indictments against him for which he has yet to stand trial. The Trump Organization was found guilty of fraud. And Trump was found civilly liable of sexual abuse. Had that case been tried earlier, I have every reason to believe that he would have been found criminally guilty of rape. There really is no soft-pedaling who this guy is.
I understand the desire to appear neutral and not politically charged. But here we have a case in which “criminal,” “sexual assaulter,” and “election tamperer” are not politically-charged hyperboles used for exaggerative effect, but simple statements of fact. To push back on these is actually the charged language, to use these terms outright is neutrality. Trump has said that he would be a dictator on day one. Just last week at Davos, Trump said, “Usually they say he’s a horrible dictator-type person…I’m a dictator. But sometimes you need a dictator, but they didn’t say that in this case. And now it’s common sense.” So we can add dictator to the list of descriptive, non-charged words to describe Trump, by his own admission. And dictators have regimes. They have sycophants. And they don’t peaceably engage the opposition but threaten them with imprisonment and punishment and to militarily invade the regions of the country where they form a majority.
Let’s face it! Institutional morality or ethics is not the business or the interest of the church. Compliance to institutions is.
I just invested the last hour reading the OP and all the comments as yet. Thank you Hawkgrrrl and everyone who has taken the time to respond. You have given me diverse perspectives to consider.
In particular, Chrisdrobison: “The prophetic tradition of the OT is to take the personal risk to call out gov’ts and nations–not to post some vague nothing sandwich on the church newsroom site.” Brilliant.
Todd S: thank you for the example of Matthew 23:23-24 regarding “low-risk righteousness while neglecting far weightier demands of justice, mercy, faithfulness”. You found the words I was trying to articulate.
AdamF: I’m with you in your admiration for Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde. Imagine the benefit we would gain if the Church had such women speaking out from the top.
Mountainclimber479: thank you for the information on BYU’s Office of Belonging and your daughter’s experience with the club for women in male-dominated fields. Good grief, is there any other office the club could be organized under so that its very purpose is not cancelled by the sponsoring office? Next thing you know, men will be asked to preside in those meetings.
17RRider: thank you for your perspective, especially in light of your military background. You make good points. While I do not intend to water-down the historical meaning of “regime”, I agree with others who think it is appropriate for our current situation. The January 6, 2021 insurrection did not end the next day. The current occupant of the oval office appointed the tear-down team that is carrying out the dismantling of our government that the Heritage Foundation/Project2025 wants to make room for their new form of government. Even though that hopefully never comes to fruition, the damage done so far is extensive and we will have years of rebuilding ahead.
The one thing I’ll admit is that the Progressive/Liberal/Socialist/Democrats have a huge problem on their hands; and it’s one that (despite all of your virtue signalling, screaming, thesis writing, hand wringing, pearl clutching, slogan chanting, story telling – myth making, property destructing, lying and stealing actions and attitudes) you’re NEVER going to be able to solve or do away with. You know what that is? There is at least 1/2 of the voting public (almost 80 million people) who are totally fed up with your nonsense, your lack of good judgement, your being driven by rage, emotion and “feelings” rather than solid reasoning and your lack of any significant moral boundaries; and 80 million people are just not going to take it anymore – regardless of how hard you try to shove it down our throats and “force it”.
So, what if your “party” takes back total political power in the next few years? So what? What then? I’m sure that some will attempt to use governmental power to force fit all of this again; honestly I hope they don’t – by they probably will. What then? You’ll cheer and dance in the streets for a time (maybe even wear your “vagina beanies” again) But, you should ask yourselves “are these 80 million citizens just going to roll over again”? Personally, I don’t think so. I think it will be the end of the Republic – and the country and economy will quickly collapse – perhaps ending in civil war. (Who knows, this may even happen in the next few months – given what’s happening in the precious metals and bond markets worldwide.) Anyhow, enjoy your “virtuous” campaign and cause for the short time you’ll have. Sadly, I don’t think you’ll have long for celebration.
Just a reminder: the Final Solution was put in place 8 years AFTER the author of Mein Kampf took power. The building blocks had to be put in place. The people had to have their fear and bigotry maximized.
It takes a while for the frog to realize that the water is boiling. By then it is often too late.
One of the least self-aware comments out there. Projections are your forte. A man in Plato’s cave. Thank you, Grizzlebear, for the wonderful post that displays the downfall of right-wing ideology. It’s been coming a long time. And it has you all as scared as can be. Keep it up my man, you’re only helping the left. Thanks for the completely unintelligent slop. It’s seems that’s all you’ve got. You don’t respond to real comments or criticism. You comments are tribalism to a tee. A pawn. A nothing burger. The dustbin of history has much more interesting and helpful comments in it. Yours will not be missed and have done nothing here but remind us your filth is what we are up against. Banality, grizzlebear is your name.
grizzerbear55: I hate to break it to you, but you are untethered from reality. Can you even hear yourself? Your ranting describes yourself much more than your perceived enemies. If you have a grandchild, perhaps you could ask them what they think of your politics.
Hey Brother Grizzerbear, See below – fixed your post for you. You’re welcome:
The one thing I’ll admit is that the Undereducated/Conservative/Fascist Republicans have a huge problem on their hands and, despite all their outright lies, cruelty, hypocrisy and murders, common sense will eventually prevail either by an uprising of the righteous or at the ballot box. After all, they can only worship the antichrist for a short period.
Since paragraphs are my friend, let me also point out that the majority of educated, smart people are fed up with lies, murders and disregard for human dignity. Your lack of any moral boundaries and obsessions with revenge will catch up with you. Remember the needle always swings to the middle.
What happens when the sycophants of the antichrist are no longer in power? The reasonable among us will celebrate a return to a time when we can engage in constructive dialogue and openly love our neighbors – regardless of their ethnicity or religious persuasion.
De Novo: You’re not only incredibly naive but – you’re certainly not one to speak for Christ. The Anti Christ? Really? What madness.
Dear St. Brian: It’s remarkable that someone so holy, so righteous, so self aware….really so very Christian… is allowed to walk this barren, evil earth with the rest of us “Fallen Ones”. I pray thee….pour out thy wisdom and thy goodness upon the masses; so that peace may again find the earth; even though it’s never really existed for any appreciable length of time. What grace it is to be touched by thy holy word. Yes, it’s true that I may very well be banal – but, at least I’m not trying to pretend to be anything else but a human being trying to survive; just like everyone else……with (of course) the exception of the holy thou/thee/you.
vajra2: I don’t even know what to so to you (while laughing at loud). Buddy, get some help – get a prescription or two. I’ll leave you to your own personal madness and insanity. Mein Kampf? You’re smoking some bad, bad juju.
Well, we can all sleep soundly tonight, friends. The bluster has been revealed as nothing more than a jester seeking attention while the grown-ups dine and chat. We’ll fight just as fiercely for him when the demons come his way, but for now it’s probably best to leave him be. A little time to reflect on his own might calm his troubled nerves. I mean, really, grizzlebear? The best you have is trite, cliche, fear-mongering. We aren’t phased by anything more than your toddler-like tantrums. Some people here from both sides have tried to engage on honest, sincere dialogue. Not you or me. Maybe we should see ourselves out and you can return to your shadows on the wall and I’ll return to the outside light and breathe in the fresh air. Your interest in the discussion was a fancy, a pretense to attempt to convince us your shadows still have value. Perhaps another day you’ll be more interested. Enjoy your shadows if you must, but they simply don’t hold our interest now that we’ve stepped outside. I’d wager most of us have been in that cave next to you at some point. You aren’t the only one with a conservative pedigree. The difference is that you’ve never seemed to have questioned the shadows and we have. It’s a much bigger, brighter, hopeful, and beautiful world out here. I sincerely hope someday you decide to let the chains go and you can experience it as well. Until then, sleep well. We’re not the ones who are going to stab you in back for a buck
Well, so much for that conversation.
Well, for those who are worried about civil war, aside from Grizzerbear, it’s estimated that only around 16% of Americans currently identify as MAGA. About 27% are either Republicans or Democrats. Are some of these Republicans fooling themselves and pollsters about their loyalties? Sure. But for them to self-identify as they do implies they aren’t “all in” on every fool thing that Trump does, including stoking violence. The remaining 45%, a record high, currently identify as independent as of (checks watch) January 2026, up from 43% (fun fact, Trump only won the popular vote by 1.5%, remember?). Obviously most independents lean right or left (like me at this point). All I’m saying is that I think that aside from some of the hardest core who still self-identify as MAGA, I doubt many of them are willing to actually upend society in a blood quest to murder their neighbors on behalf of a rapidly aging buffoon who is the laughingstock of the free world (but embraced by the dictators of the world). Nearly all Republican legislators are titty-baby enablers protecting their jobs (including access to insider trading and lobbyist dollars). As for Dems, holding up a sign isn’t the same thing as murdering your neighbors, and Dems care way too much about being the good guys (“virtue signalling” to GB, who apparently doesn’t care about such things).
I don’t see someone who claims to be independent being willing to fight hand to hand combat over it. So at least we’ve got that going for us.
“There is at least 1/2 of the voting public (almost 80 million people) who are totally fed up with your nonsense”
Most voters are uninformed. They are unaware of most issues, let alone the culture wars, and vote based on how they perceive what’s going on in their immediate lives. They are hard to reach by any sort of information from any party, period. Trump won again because of COVID, which spurred a rise in right-wing politics around the world. Because most voters are unaware of what is going on around them, they were unaware of the why the government interventions into their lives because of COVID. They voted for a person who was in power during a time when their lives didn’t have COVID restrictions in it, or COVID-caused inflation in it, or other sorts of chaos which they associated with COVID.
” But, you should ask yourselves “are these 80 million citizens just going to roll over again”?”
The challenges of the future only the Democrats, liberals, and progressives are attempting to answer. Republicans are now built on a cult of personality of Trump who stands for nothing and has no ideas of how to confront these problems. Trump has nothing but hatred and lies, and he has clearly poisoned your brain as well. When Trump is gone, who leads this principleless movement? It is already fracturing with one conspiracy theorist trying to out-conspiracize the other (Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes running amok in the conservative world is a sight to behold)? What message does this movement convey to meet many, many looming economic and environmental challenges facing Americans today? What legacy is Trump going to leave? You seriously think that he is going to be remembered as some hero? Please. Americans honor people who stood for values, freedom, justice, and the people. They honor Franklin, Hamilton, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and Kennedy. Not frauds and cowards like Trump.
The problem as I see it is not the Church or it’s leadership, really. As the OP points out, they’ve been showing who they are and what they really value for decades. The problem is expectations. Many of us want a forward facing, fearless Church modeled after Jesus lived his life, and instead we’ve got a hunker down apart from “the world” and wait for Jesus to come back and fix everything Church. That’s how it’s been since 1830 and it’s probably never going to change. We want ecclesiastical leadership that behaves more like Karl Malden in “On the Waterfront,” and less like Karl Malden in “Pollyanna,” (he plays a clergyman in both roles). I’d settle for 70-30 “Waterfront” to “Pollyanna” ratio. Even 60-40. We want messaging that exudes moral clarity, compassion, vision and courage, and instead we hear mostly about temples, tithing, clothing and callings. And let’s be honest, most normal Mormons are totally fine with that.
St. Brian has spoken….The Water Stills…..There is peace in the World and all is well. God Bless you as you ride off into the sunset….be careful getting down off of that large, white (pure) horse and taking off your polished, glistening armor of virtue. We clearly have a modern day Solomon in our midst.
Brad D. All worthy questions. Who knows what the future will bring – or how history will be written. The one thing I believe Trump will have (in whatever his legacy becomes) is that he replaced a sad, pathetic, demented old man; who allowed great harm to come to this country. You might find it interesting (maybe not) but, I don’t adore Trump – nor worship him – in fact many of his personal behaviors disgust me. But, for now, I’m really glad he’s there. Personally, I think a continuation of the Biden vision – would have been much, much worse.
I know this will probably make everyone’s heads explode…but, I really don’t much care. But, I think in many ways, the disastrous Biden presidency delivered the Presidency back to Trump. The majority of the country was so fed up with what was happening – they would have voted for a fencepost; rather than continue the current course. Paradoxically, I kinda/sorta blame the Uber Left for giving the Presidency back to Trump; all giftwrapped.
I have very much enjoyed reading this thoughtful, well-reasoned post and the commentary that followed. I am completely on board with the notion that the deafening silence emanating from Salt Lake City is not neutrality but complicity. I hunger for the LDS Church to demonstrate moral courage and fortitude.
Now, I’m new here, so please take this next comment for what it’s worth. While I very much disagree with the points that grizzerbear55 makes, I do admire their courage and fortitude to jump in and make their case in what is clearly hostile territory. It’s been helpful for me to see, first hand, how the far right thinks about these things. But, frankly, I am dismayed at how some of those who are legitimately responding to grizzerbear55, do so in a manner that suggests a lack of education, maturity and intelligence. This kind of snooty attitude among the progressive/left is a major contributor to why we got Trump 2.0. Can’t we please just tone that down?
dbanders: I salute you. Very well narrated.
“Personally, I think a continuation of the Biden vision – would have been much, much worse.”
My question is how and in what regard. Conservative Trumpist media have long portrayed Biden and other Democrats incorrectly. They commonly resort to exaggerations and omit important information. If you’re relying on conservative, libertarian, or other slanted media to inform yourself of the Democrats, liberals, and progressives, you’re getting an extremely biased and unfair view. My sense is that this is an immigration thing, so let’s look at that.
According to the Migration Policy Institute, a non-partisan thinktank, Biden was the most active president on immigration, taking 535 immigration actions in his first three years, surpassing the number of actions that Trump took in his first term. Close to the end of Biden’s term, he brough migration levels down to significant lows and was on the cusp of passing a bipartisan bill that would increase border security. Biden expelled 2.8 million migrants during his presidency. He relieved the stress on border patrol by creating an online application so that migrants from a number of countries could apply for asylum in their home countries instead of just showing up at the border.
Migration to the US increased rapidly during the first part of Biden’s term, this is true. COVID drove a lot of those numbers. Also bear in mind that these migrants were in demand in the US. Employers had a difficult time filling jobs. Immigrants helped the US make a huge economic turnaround after COVID. It is because of them that the US grew faster economically than other countries.
Biden was the best president of my lifetime. Give me any issue, I’ll show you how Biden was phenomenal. Then I’ll ask what Trump’s vision is on the issue and how exactly he is solving the problems that lie ahead of us.
You’re a contrary voice here, grizzerbear. But I invite you to be less dickish (you know you are) and reactionary when you engage people.
grizzerbear: While I didn’t think the entire Biden presidency was a disaster (the inflation, for example, was a byproduct of the pandemic and possibly inevitable as it was happening globally), his failure to get out of the way, and his appointment of feckless Merrick Garland and inability to prosecute Trump for his crimes in a timely manner did hand the presidency back to Trump. The reason Garland was chosen seems to be the same unforced error the Dems do over and over: taking turns and giving someone “their due” for waiting until it is “their turn” rather than going with the strongest candidate (same reason Hillary got the nomination in 2016 while Sanders was maybe more popular). POTUS needs to be a good communicator, and while Biden had a few fiery salient moments, he was overall never that good at communicating. He never would have won in 2020 unless it had been for the pandemic leveling the playing field. He absolutely should not have been running and probably should not have been president for the last year of his presidency. I guess your comments (you can do just one comment to reply to multiple people, BTW, vs. a comment for each one) make me wonder two things about you as a voter: 1) is there anyone among the Democrats that you would vote for or admire as a candidate, and 2) why so much anger when your guy and party won everything across the board? You are in charge. Who are you fighting exactly? What are you still so fired up about?
You mention you think a continuation of the “Biden vision” would have been disastrous, but as someone who voted for both Biden and Kamala, I’m not sure what the “Biden vision” even was that you were concerned about. To me, it would have been a continuation of normal. What about that was so concerning? I do think it’s hard to argue that Kamala was a weak candidate–she didn’t win the nomination in 2020 for a reason, and Biden did nothing to bolster her credibility or prepare her. When she ran, at the 11th hour, she didn’t have time to craft a message or platform and was in the impossible position of trying to keep Biden supporters while adding her own. There wasn’t time, and she should have been more willing to strike out on her own in defining her platform, but she didn’t. That’s also his failure, IMO, because it takes some time and his ego prevented him stepping aside like he said he would. I don’t think she would have been a transformational president. Perhaps that’s your concern?
I agree with those who are asking for a call to be more curious and less insulting in their replies here. I really would like to understand exactly where the disagreement is.
The Church is silent because the inhuman recycling process of human beings is part of the system that is the USA.
Notably, a number of democrat representatives recently voted with republicans to increase ICE spending, and democrat talking heads talk constantly about “reforming”, “better training”, and “transparecy” when it comes to ICE.
The correct moral position is that ICE needs to be abolished entirely. Like I have stayed many times in my comments on this website, the kids in cages did not go away when Biden took over.
These systems of explotation and mass violence against a conveniently designated “other” are part of the fabric of America and, on the whole, the democrats are just as on board with this as the republicans, they just wanted better optics.
The intensification of the whole thing is just a sign of the slow implosion of the American empire, its doing a colonialism on itself within its own borders. For years now, some of us actual leftists have pointed to the ongoing genocide in Palestine and said “if we don’t stop this, that’s coming home” and liberals and democrats scoffed and hid behind “but do you condemm Hamas?”
and lo and behold, here we are, this isn’t going anyway any time soon, and if you think that Trump getting out of the picture will solve the problem and everything will be better when have more D’s sitting in the seats of power you are going be sorely dissapointed
The political economy of the USA needs to be complety dismantled and rebuilt from scratch. And the Church is wed to this idea that the constitution is divine and that the USA has some special status to God, and they’ll be dragged kicking and screaming into the reality that is not only not true, but that we’ve been the bad guys all along.
Excellent article – and mirrors many of my thoughts. The disgust I feel towards the church on ERA and other civil rights they have opposed is not mild. I think they do stay silent because they care more about keeping their conservative flock happy. I was in a stake presidency when Trump was elected the first time. I was not quiet in my opinion on the matter. I thought it was telling when the area president put out a request that some of us be less political in our social media. I forget just how it was worded, but it was clear to me at the time, that it was more geared towards people like me than the MAGA lovers.
As for tithing, I stopped paying when I could stand all of it no longer. There was no way I could continue to fund their use of tithing dollars to support causes I was opposed to. In our case, my wife and I were definitely the largest tithe payers in our ward (I know this because I had also been bishop before the stake presidency stint). So hopefully with time, more will quite paying and that in itself will at least say something.
The problem with many Mormons in the last election was that they could not or would not give Biden a second thought because he kept talking about the values of Democracy and WE solving the problems. They were enticed by Trump and his message that HE could solve all the problems. They believe in following the prophet with no questions asked, not thinking for themselves, so it made it easy to pick Trump’s solution vs. Biden’s. Even if the prophet said to make sure they vote according to their conscience, their traditions based on previous prophets were to vote Republican, and they didn’t think/ponder/consider another option like voting for a Democrat. I think they would have had to have been told to vote Democrat, and that’s where the silence of complicity kicks in, because the Church knew if anything was said, they’d lose members who were steeped in the traditions of their fathers (being Republican/MAGA), who would have justified thinking for themselves to vote for Trump. They may have even left the church and quit paying tithing. It takes a long time to be able to think for oneself, reject past practices, believe in we instead of following “the leaders,” and not leave the church or lose your belief in God. The silence of complicity makes it easier to maintain order. Changing members’ minds about secular matters or politics and how it relates to the gospel would be too disruptive.
Instereo,
I can only speak anecdotally–
I think most folks here know that I’m a “TBM” and a rather staunch social conservative to boot. Even so, one of the primary reasons as to why I *didn’t* vote for Trump in 2024 is because of the first presidency’s counsel to seek to place people of integrity in office.
My parents have told me that they despise Trump but say that he is “good on policy.” My mom has said that “he is a good businessman.” After his second election win, I told them that they needed to stop talking politics around the dinner table because they make me incredibly angry. My family frequently waxes political in a most frustrating way. They don’t engage in thought-provoking discussion within a palatable Overton window of differing views. Instead they engage in jab and retreat drive-by comments against the liberal boogeyman that allow no space for the expression of a differing view in any comfortable way. I sent them a political parting letter expressing my love of the family and gatherings but that these were difficult to maintain if politics were to be discussed. I expressed how Trump was a criminal, a fraud, and rapist who belonged in prison, how the media surrounding him was full of propagandists and liars who dupe people into supporting untruths and half truths, and ended with Mitt Romney’s comments on his utter failure as a businessman.
But Jack, did you actually vote for Harris? Or did you vote for a third-party candidate, or not cast a vote for president? Either of those options still puts you in the silence = complicity camp.
Sullivan, you sound like you’re saying that there was only one legitimate act in Nov 2024, and that was to vote for Harris. Anything else, even staying home, is bad. Is that right? So maybe we don’t need democracy at all, and maybe some elites can select who we need to vote for, like in Russia and some other places. Is that your suggestion? While someone might vote differently from me, or not at all, I would be very slow to suggest that they voted wrong, so long as they came to their decision without coercion.
Jack:
Some people vote for policy, and some vote for a person. Usually, they go hand in hand. I’m reminded of one thing from the BoM. When the wicked rule, the people mourn. It’s good to show strength to vote against tradition by following the prophet’s voice.
I started reading this post and all the thought provoking comments during the fast & testimony meeting this morning. I love my ward family even though post faith crisis I often find it boring or even aggravating to listen to what is being shared. I really appreciate the wonderful discussion here. I relate to most of the comments (even when they conflict with each other 😂).
I don’t need any direction from church leadership as to how to think or vote. But I remember when I did. I was for Marriage Equality until the church came out against it and then I changed my mind. It took me many years to understand and see that the church’s theology and narrative cannot fit the realities of my actual life.
The church has great power and influence over its members who have not developed their personal moral and spiritual autonomy. Because of this influence they have a great obligation in how they lead.
I am very concerned about our democratic Republic. I fear that we may be on a path towards fascism and even totalitarianism that may be difficult or impossible to reverse. The horrible things that have occurred in other countries didn’t happen all at once. They started with situations that are actually occurring in our country now. I believe that it is going to take every effort and all our influence to reverse the direction we are moving. It is very possible that Trump will use his Homeland Security troops to suppress voting rights in swing states at the midterms. Eventually he may use them to remove disabled people, autistic people, mentally ill people, homeless people, transgender people and allies to detention camps. While this sounds over the top he has designated transgender people as terrorists. He has talked about moving each of these marginalized groups to camps or institutions.
While this may not occur, he has reached his goals with CBP & ICE in Minnesota. He has scared white people to show us we must be silent and comply to be safe. He has shown that his troops can kill us and then he can prevent accountability by preventing investigation or pardoning them. The goal is complicit silence. Every person and institution must do everything they can do to reverse this course, even if it puts us at risk. When the day comes that I am dying and if I see we have become a fascist and totalitarian country, I don’t want any regrets. I want to know I did everything that I could do, even taking risks, to secure the rule of law, and constitutional democracy to the country my children inherit. Oaks is an incredibly educated man, on law and the constitution. Wrong or right, I believe he sees and knows what is happening right now to the rule of law. I want him to speak up clearly and decisively to influence members to vote, act and speak to preserve our democracy and rule of law. The silence from the church feels oppressive to me.
Oh, and grizzerbear, while disagree with you on much that you write, I agree that the Democratic party could have done better in preventing this crisis. In my opinion they delivered the country to Trump. I have been voting against my Republican political party since 2016. I would rather vote for a hat rack than for Trump, or any of his supporters. Yes. We all need to do better.
lws329
I think you hit the nail on the head—it’s fear. Fear is a powerful tool of manipulation and control. It has been used effectively by every major religion and political regime to get the masses to do what they want. When I look at grizzbear’s comments, I see major fear underlying everything. I don’t understand the fear. He says the economy will collapse under the Dems, but the data shows that over the last 100 years across 30 metrics, Dems are almost always better for the economy than the GOP. The GOP is just better at marketing.
I took my family up to Idaho for a long weekend at Lava Hotsprings. We ate at one of the local restaurants and they had Fox News blasting on every TV in the establishment. It made me sick because it was a firehose of fear. They weren’t even talking about real democrats, they were just strawmanning, making up some scary boogie man they pretended represented a real democrat and then made the viewers believe it was an accurate representation of them to keep them afraid. That is just propaganda. But I’ll be honest, I had to stop watching Brian Taylor Cohen because the hyperbole concerning the right got really old. Although, considering how far the right has gone this time round—the hyperbole turned out to not be that far off.
If you stop and listen, almost everything in church is framed in fear or a threat. A theologian pointed that out a couple years ago and now I can’t unsee it. It’s exhausting. My father-in-law was very right and he was constantly afraid. He was afraid of Dems, the financial market crashing, everything. He voted for Trump because he thought that was the only way, which I just didn’t understand. Only way for what? He was so afraid that at one election he believed the conspiracy theories that Dems were going to stage a coup (he didn’t seem to have a problem with Jan 6 that I can recall). He told his wife to have her phone charged in case they needed bug out. And my question to him was, and go where? You can see the fear leaking out—in the way ICE pursues immigrants, in the way Trump talks about others, in the MAGA support for all this crappy behavior, in this toxic relationship we have with firearms—it is all because they are afraid of something their news sources say they should be afraid of. It is a powerful, very addictive drug.
“I refuse to be emotionally manipulated by political rhetoric. Call me hateful. Tell me I’m a bad Christian. Insult me and call me names. That doesn’t change a thing.
You laughed when Charlie Kirk was shot while unarmed and simply having a conversation.
You were silent when Laken Riley was beaten and killed by someone here illegally.
You ignored the brutal attack on Iryna Zerutska on a train while minding her own business.
You disregarded Jocelyn Nungary, who was only 12 year old when she was raped and murdered by two illegals.
I have never heard you use your voice for 11 year old Aiden Antonio Torres De Paz, Mollie Tibbits, Kayla Hamilton or Rachel Morin or many others.
I wish that Renee Good and Alex Pretti were still alive. Any loss of life is tragic, especially when it was preventable. But here’s something that is being lost in the headlines. The narrative being sold to you isn’t the full story.
Rene & Alex were not peaceful bystanders. They chose to insert themselves into dangerous, escalating situations with law enforcement. They are not martyrs. They were misguided by a narrative that tells them confrontation is heroic.
What happened is being used to justify a broader political agenda, one that frames ICE and border enforcement as inherently evil and anyone who disagrees as uncaring or cruel.
I will not be lectured on Christianity by people who would never open their homes to those in need and yet demand open borders for our country.
Those same voices said nothing about immigration enforcement when it happened under previous administrations.
Silence in the face of crime and then outrage when implementation occurs is moral inconsistency.
Supporting law enforcement doesn’t make you heartless. Disagreeing with the narrative doesn’t mean you have no compassion. You can practice empathy and still have boundaries.
We have opposing views? So what? We can respect our differences or you can hurl the insults but either way, I refuse the manipulation.
I flat out refuse.”
Chrisdrobison: This has nothing to do with fear; just cold, hard, pragmatic reasoning. There is no question that millions of us are in a contest of will and belief – and we’re just not going to swallow what you represent. So, I suppose we’ll just “meet you on the field”.
Iws329: Isn’t it interesting that when (on any given day) the usual Liberal pablum is rolled out as a treatise here on Wheat and Tares – y’all will get (on a good day) 20-25 comments from the same people; over and over again. However, when you entertain (pretty much ANYTHING) which wavers from the script you read from, you get 75-80 comments. Interesting paradox, eh?
Wheat and Tares hasn’t always been this way – it was once really great at discussing the LDS Church and it’s impact (good and bad) on each of us. I think we can all now safely agree that W&T is nothing more than a Liberal broadcasting platform – with little to no value outside that bubble. Perhaps with one exception (at least for me) – I like to drop in now and then and see how the latest “Liberal/Socialist Doctrine” is affecting (what I pretty much believe to be) a group of people that generally aren’t worthy of my contempt.
Correction: Golden Glue – you’re the exception. I hold your comments in absolute contempt. My land – I’ll fight your nonsense until the very end. What you’re advocating for – truly is madness.
I think we can all safely agree when on any day the usual MAGA swill is rolled out in a troll’s post we can all ignore it in the future by just thinking, “Isn’t he special…”
Grizzle, it appears you are equating a criminal’s use of force to kill someone and a government employee’s use of force to kill someone, as if both fall into the same category. Or perhaps you’re even arguing that the criminal’s use of force is a greater threat to the country.
Gish Gallop. False assumptions. Anecdotes over statistics. False equivalencies. Drive-by comments. Refusal to engage in nuanced thinking. Etc.
I don’t respect the differences. Period. They’re based on fallacious logic and are informed by right-wing propaganda. If I were grading your paper I’d give you an F. Why? Because your opinions are shot through with bad argumentation, half-truths, and lies. You can’t just believe whatever you want to. You can’t just say whatever you want to and expect people to respect you for it. Your opinions are crap. They’re complete garbage. Next time you post. At least think. Knowledge is difficult. Put some effort into it. Don’t just spit out crap and then play the victim.
grizzerbear55, the next time you decide to pass judgement or perpetuate rhetorical garbage about people like Renee or Alex, maybe make sure that you first actually know what you are talking about or have gone out of your way to actually personally get to know them. Turns out, I have immediate family that knew Renee personally. And you and all the conservatives that have been desperately looking for ways to dull the dissonance of their deaths have been taken for a ride by the propaganda machines on who these people were and what they represented. It just doesn’t fit into your world view that there are people with principle out there that would push back strongly (much like Jesus) on systems of power that cause harm–that put themselves in harms way to stem the tide of self-destruction. You said, “The narrative being sold to you isn’t the full story.” Exactly! You don’t know these people and neither do your news sources. You are constructing totems in your mind and imagining they are real. No one here laughed when CK was killed. No one is demanding open borders.
I’m thinking you’ve never had a real in-person conversation with an actual liberal. Almost every freedom/comfort you now enjoy in the US was brought about by someone pushing back, inserting themselves in risky situations, being civilly disobedient. It turns out, the teachings of Jesus are inconveniently woke–they call people to do exactly what Renee and Alex did. You’ll see a lot of people call themselves Christian, but never actually quote Jesus.
Jesus did push back strongly against systems of power that cause harm, provided those systems were the religious systems in His land. He clearly and bravely raised issues with the Pharisees and Sadducees for their religious leadership of the people. But He still commanded the people, including his disciples, to obey them: “Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do” (Matt 23:1–3). He told his followers to obey the religious leaders. He did tell them not to follow the religious leaders in their hypocrisy or in their oppression of the poor or in their other wickednesses, but otherwise they were to obey those who sat in Moses’ seat. As for systems of temporal power that caused harm in the Jesus’ day, such as the Roman Empire, Jesus seems to have been relatively silent, except to tell the people to render to Caesar what was his (taxes), and unto God what was God’s. If someone has examples of Jesus speaking against the policies or laws of Caesar in Rome or Pilate in Caesarea, please share.
Jesus was crucified which was a form of capital punishment Rome used for enemies of the State.
Also there’s this: “So Jesus called them and said to them, “You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. 43 But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all.”
I advocate for open borders
if people can make make it here with or without papers then good for them
it’s only fair that the people displaced by our imperial crimes and overseas economic repression be given a chance to pick up some of the crumbs that fall from the table
I’m not worried about evil people sneaking into the country to do whatever, because the most evil and depraved people are American citizens that were born here, they’re a cabal of pedophilic rapists and they run the government and our major industries
I’ll take the central american or somalian immigrants over them any day
The contextual layers of Torah common law legalism. Opposed by the NT Protocols of the Elders of Zion substitute theologies.
The Torah apparent contradiction reflects different contexts and legal frameworks within the Torah common law legal system. Sh’mote 20:5 refers to a key concept of the oath brit accepted at Sinai; Torah curses based upon the 10 plagues Par’o and Egypt endured. A direct fundamental Torah commandment for all Jews to remember the judicial injustice which the Egyptian slavery eternally recalls within the hearts of the chosen people who alone accept the Torah revelation to this day.
The 2nd verse from משנה תורה which Goyim refer to as Deuteronomy, the Greek word meaning “second law,” utterly fails – perhaps purposely attempts to conceal – this Book as meaning “Common Law”. The Hebrew name, contained within the very language of this Book משנה תורה mandates powers of “Legislative Review” to the Great Sanhedrin Federal Court in Jerusalem.
In rabbinic literature, this issue – addressed extensively. For instance, the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael (a midrash on Sh’mote) and later commentators like Rashi interpret Devarim 24:16 as applying specifically to human courts and judicial proceedings, where individual accountability, enforced without intergenerational punishment. This leaves room for divine judgment, as in Shmot 20:5, to operate on a broader, providential level—potentially through natural consequences of sin rippling across generations, or only when descendants continue in those sins. Targum Onkelos, explicitly qualifies the verse by adding that punishment falls on “rebellious children” who “follow their fathers in sinning,” a reading echoed in Rashi’s commentary to avoid grammatical or theological strain. Similarly, some rabbinic sources distinguish between intentional rebellion against G-d (where collective impact might apply) and other transgressions, viewing the texts as complementary rather than conflicting.
The Xtian framers of their “Old Testament” substitute theology and revisionist history prioritize belief in theology as religious faith rather than the Torah vision only for the chosen Cohen people who alone accept the revelation of the Torah; faith defined as the righteous pursuit of judicial Sanhedrin court room common law justice which has the power to not only veto laws imposed by Executive Authority/Powers such as a king, but re-write that statute law based upon precedents established court-room Common law.
A proof precedent gleaned from the separate Goyim NT which has no portion nor shared authority with the Hebrew T’NaCH, their Apostle Paul declared to Goyim: “they are not under the Law” in Galatians 3:24; he claimed that Goyim belief in the NT false messiah JeZeus had replaced the law. This declaration has no legal Torah precedent. In point of fact, halachic common law as codified in the Talmud, based upon the Torah mandate which establishes Sanhedrin Federal common law courtrooms has jurisdiction only when Jews rule the oath sworn lands with political Independence. This condition did not exist in the lifetime of the NT Apostle Paul who lived during Roman rule and occupation of Judea. Furthermore Paul’s writings fail to distinguish the day vs. night obvious differences – gulf – which separates Torah common law from Roman Statute Law.
Galatians 3:24: Paul’s distinction that Goyim are “not under the Law” introduces a theological shift that many believe undermines the continuity with Jewish law. His perspective arose during the tensions of Roman rule, impacting the context of his writings. By juxtaposing Galatians 3:24 against Romans 6:14: “not under the Law but under grace”, Paul switches the narrative away from Torah common law courts to a Xtian theology/religious belief system. Where the Church prioritizes “Grace” – the 5th Oral Torah revelation at Horev to Moshe on Yom Kippur 40 days after the sin of the Golden Calf where assimilated and intermarried Israelites “substituted” the word-name אלהים for the Holy Spirit Name revealed in the first Sinai Commandment.
The revelation of the Torah at Sinai forever separates the Divine Names earlier employed in the Book of בראשית/Genesis. Those Divine Names such as אל, האל, אלהים, אל שדי express a vision of God in the Heavens. Whereas the Sinai revelation permanently changes this narrative לא בשמים היא that the spirits of the Divine Presence revelation as further clarified and defined by the 13 Oral Torah middot revelation where Grace functions as the 5th attribute of the Holy Spirit Name revealed at Sinai! Acceptance of the revelation of the Torah caused these 13 tohor Divine Spirits to live within the Yatzir Tov hearts of the chosen Cohen people alone for all eternity.
The NT by stark contrast JeZeus instructs his disciples to pray to “their father in heaven”. While the Pauline theology’s substitute theology replaces Torah common law faith unto Grace & JeZeus as messiah. This substitution of religious theology for Torah common law courts radically shifts the narrative – on par with the Aramaic declaration “Abracadabra”, where a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat! The later Church priests declared the Oral Torah as non existent while declaring Xtian believers under Grace and not under Law. An obviously absurd declaration seeing that all societies and civilizations without law fall into chaos anarchy Tower of Bavel like Civil War.
The Oral Torah 13 middot serve to define the Divine Presence Spirit Name revealed in the first Sinai commandment which affixes the life of this Holy Spirit within the Yatzir Ha-Tov of the chosen Cohen people living on this Earth and not in the Heavens as the prayer of JeZeus instructs his believers how to pray.
Heaven and Earth separates Torah judicial justice as faith where the middot Spirits of HaShem live within the Yatzir Ha-Tov hearts of the chosen Cohen people who live on this Earth, from church theological substitution beliefs that JeZeus sits on Mt Olympus together with his Father in Heaven. A gulf so huge that only Jefferson’s Constitutional First Amendment which separates Church from State – even remotely comparable! Jefferson’s principle emphasizes that governance should not be unduly influenced or dictated by religious doctrine, similar to how Jewish practice operates within its own legal and ethical framework, independent of external theologies.
Bottom line: Torah judicial common law only applicable to when Torah blessings cause Israel to stand as an Independent nation, such as the two Wars of Independence fought in 1948 and again in 1967 achieved. G’lut exiled Jewry – despised refugee populations scattered across the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe past Russia – Christ Killer Cain Jews – have no rights nor authority to impose judicial common law courts, and even less authority to have prophets enforce those judicial rulings through prophetic mussar in any foreign land where Goyim despise and abhor Jews as sub-humans only fit for Shoah extermination.
The Jewish legal tradition is built on din, middah k’neged middah judicial authority of justice. Xtianity historically framed Jews through theological polemic, supersessionism, and later political power. The brit at Sinai binds Israel, not humanity. Torah law not a NT revisionist history universal religion. Torah as Constitutional law draws a sharp border boundary beween theological av tuma avoda zarah.
Xtian theology, from its earliest layers, contains supersessionist ancient Greek static deductive logic and actually denies Talmudic inductive logic as existing at all! Their poemic “Old Covenant” portrayed as replaced and fulfilled. The Jewish people are reinterpreted as spiritually obsolete. The authority of Torah law, Xtian rhetoric propaganda frames as bondage or curse. The Church becomes the new Israel. This substitute replacement theology along with its false messiah JeZeus – embedded in the foundational texts of its foreign alien traditions – Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Mormon etc. Enshrined through Roman imperial Xtianity, medieval canon law restrictions, accusations of deicide, forced disputations, expulsions, pogroms, public Talmudic book burnings, three Century Ghetto-gulag war crimes, all of which served as precedents for the Xtian Europe Shoah.
The gulf between Torah jurisprudence and Xtian theology is so vast that only a Jeffersonian separation of church and state is comparable. Xtianity – a universal salvific theology. A gross lie to declare this av tuma Torah abomination of avoda zara as “a daughter religion”. This same din equally applies to the av tuma Koran abomination of avoda zarah.
Torah = constitution, law, national identity, land, courts, sovereignty. The latter day Goyim religions = belief, salvation, universalism, metaphysics, grace, false prophesy. The latter exist on a completely different separate axis than does Constitutional law first established through the Torah and later through the current Constitution of the United States. Herein explains why Paul’s statements about “not being under the Law”, not merely theological disagreements — they represent a complete redefinition of what “common law,” “Torah brit which eternally creates through wisdom commandment/time oriented mitzvot,” and “faith” even mean.
Torah judicial common law only functions when Israel rules in sovereign national Independence. Xtian theology developed when the Romans had utterly destroyed and up rooted Jews living in Judea and scattered across the face of the Planet – starting with the non Jew Herod appointed as king over Judea.
Better to exist as Herod’s dog than be a violently murdered son or wife of that maniac. Post Shoah the power dynamic reversed, Xtianity wears the shoes of exile; the EU when it attempted to write a Constitution made not a single reference to the church which formed and shaped Xtiandom from Constatine till Pope Pius XII ally and partner of Hitler.
Justice in Torah simply and only juridical, Constitutional, and reciprocal—rooted in concrete obligations, not abstract theological Creed based belief systems. If justice – blind, a famous metaphor, then Judges who prioritize their “Ego I” over “eye witness testimony” directly “fulfill” to the Torah negative commandment against bribery.
False prophet attempts to include all Humanity in the Sinai revelation which all Goyim to this very day absolutely and most fundamentally reject – they define the k’vanna of the Golden Calf as it “Universally” applies to all Man Kind. Canon law as alien to Torah common law as the two false prophet based “Daughter Religions”. Both theological belief systems stand now in exile post Shoah.
UN blood libel slanders which unilaterally declare dhimmi Arab stateless refugees post the Arab defeats in 1948 and 1967; which attempt to determine the borders of the Jewish state as if it remained a League of Nations protectorate territory; nations who presume that they have the right to determine the Capital City of the Jewish state as well as a non existent Palestinian people and state as vile and corrupt as the blood libels and host desecrations slanders of the Middle Ages. Both the ’48 & ’67 Wars Arab leaders vowed to throw the Jews into the Sea and complete the Nazi Shoah!
The statement that classical Judaism does not assert that the Divine Presence dwells exclusively in Jews, but inclusive to Goyim as well. Ontologically (A branch of metaphysics philosophy which addresses the nature of being, existence, and the reality of entities.) Goyim excluded from the Torah oath-brit – simply because the Talmud instructs that both Esau and Yishmael refused to accept the Torah. The assimilated and addicted to Greek philosophy, no different from the Tzeddukim during the Hanukkah Civil War, the post sealing of the Sha’s Bavli, Spanish Reshonim – Rambam at their head – ruled that mesechta Sanhedrin aggadic portion 56–59, and Avodah Zarah 64b – Gere toshav operable only when the Yovel in force. The Sha’s Bavli written and compiled after the Roman destruction and exile of Jews from Judea. The Romans renamed that captured province “Palestine”. The Rambam statute law code by contrast ruled that the Talmudic language “bnai Noach” applied Universally to all Goyim – based upon his avoda zara belief that the revelation of HaShem at Sinai – an Allah Universal God. Consequently Rambam erroneously ruled that Jews could daven in Mosques!
Violation of the 7 mitzvot by “gere toshav” residents qualifies as a Talmudic Capital Crime which requires a Sanhedrin Court to impose the death penalty upon such a criminal. Obviously since the Sanhedrin court only has jurisdiction restricted to the borders of an Independent Jewish state in Judea, then the 7 mitzvot bnai noach cannot and do not apply Universally as the Rambam erroneously poskined.
An Israeli today, who commits a capital-offense: not bound by that Sanhedrin common law because the vision of Zionism has yet to mature and inspire a commitment to restoration of Sanhedrin common law courts as the “LAW” of the land. A Jew today can publicly chilul Shabbat without any legal obligations. The language of Rambam (Hil. Melakhim 8:11), resembles that of the Apostle Paul! Greek metaphysics concealed like a wolf dressed in sheep clothing.
Modern legal positivism – sovereignty based theories of law – closely resembles the vision of Talmudic common law courts; to serve as the model when Jews reconquer our homelands from the Goyim. G’lut beit din courts fail to delegate on of the three judges as prosecutor another as defence where both present opposing Talmudic common law precedents, a debates as which precedent qualify as closer to the current case heard before “this” ideal g’lut Torts court of damages. The aggadic story of Noach no more binding upon Goyim today than aggada determines halachah. Only the Rambam among Reshonim scholars held that aggadita determines halacha. The Rambam opinion which argues that Islam denies corporeality, & multiplicity in divinity – absolute narishkeit. Montheism violates the 2nd Sinai commandment based upon the 10 plagues which judged the Gods of Egypt and the sworn oath cut at Sh’Cem prior to the wars to conquer the kingdoms of Canaan who worshipped still other and different God like Baal.
The Ramban in his commentary to the Chumash, Vayikra 18:25 and related passages (also Devarim 11:18), ruled that g’lut Jews only do mitzvot to remember that Torah mitzvot once existed. The first Sinai commandment, the language of Egypt describes all g’lut – in all generations. Henceforth g’lut Jews cannot observe the Torah לשמה, because they remain yet in “Egypt”. Mitzvot in galut merely & only rehearsed, so as not to forget. Hence Judaism replacement theology prioritizes religion no different than does Xtian and Muslim theologies.
Only while living in the oath sworn brit lands can Jews achieve National Independence and dedicate to rule these lands with righteous judicial justice, policed by prophetic mussar לשמה. The brit of blessings opposed by the brit of curses serves as the obligatory “book-ends” of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.
The slide unto assimilation and intermarriage defines the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai commandment, based upon the NaCH Book of Kings and Book of Ezra. The Rambam Greek metaphysical claim, not only not jurisdictional which the Torah requires, but worse! The Zohar kabbalah language of Shechina, bases itself upon the משל\נמשל revelation of the Mishkan which separates forms from substance. The substance of the Mishkan, that the tohor Oral Torah spirits define the Spirit first Commandment Name, and that these tohor spirits live only within the hearts of the Chosen Cohen people. The Rambam’s spirituality which makes the 7 mitzvot bnai noach aggadah applicable to all Goyim duplicates the Pauline propaganda rhetoric which did the exact same thing.
Ramban holds mitzvot in galut are only rehearsal. כדי שלא יהיו עלינו חדשים כשנחזור לארץ Therefore they are not truly לשמה because the curse of g’lut slaves can neither own property or rules as independent judges. G’lut courtrooms exist as vertical courts rather than Torah horizontal courts.
G’lut-Judaism transformed into “religion”, consequent to the collapses of the Roman road system and fear from robbers. As a consequence, virtually all inter-state travel ceased. Scattered Jewish communities, required a simplified version which clearly defined Jewish culture and customs to prevent Jewish assimilation and intermarriage. The Ramban in his מלחמת השם challenges the Baal Ha-Maor precisely on this need which justified the Rif codification of halacha.
The Rambam statute halachic code utterly rejected the B’HaG and Rif common law halachic codes which mirrored the Talmud as common law judicial Gemara halacha as legal precedent to interpret the language of the Mishna based upon different perspectives of courtroom eyewitness testimony. Hence, his alien Greek/Roman statute law code embraced Pauline and Islamic Universalism of Monotheistic Gods and abandoned the local Sinai god, as well as the compound “SIN” – the Rambam’s philosophy as recorded in his Moreh embraced Greek metaphysics just as his legal statute law code totally abandoned T’NaCH and Talmudic common law.
In point of fact, the Rambam’s Sefer HaMitzvot limits Torah commandments to the טיפש פשט literal reading of the words of the Chumash as Torah commandments. This negates the revelation of the Oral Torah at Sinai on par with the Karaim and Tzeddukim. Wisdom commandments/time-oriented mitzvot clearly inclusive of Talmudic halachic mitzvot as דאורייתא. His Yad code abomination destroys the warp/weft fabric of halacha\aggada through his absolute failure to include his sources of where his Gemara halachic rulings re-interpret the language of a precise and specific Mishna. The common law codes by stark contrast ALWAYS include the Primary Source Mishna. The later down stream commentaries thereafter likewise showed how Gemara halachic rulings make a משנה תורה – changed witness perspective which views the language of the Home Mishna from a completely different “facet” viewpoint.
An example of the Rambam טיפש פשט narishkeit stupidity. The Rambam in his introduction 14 shorashim whereby he defines what defines mitzvot as דאורייתא, he rebukes the B’HaG ruling that tefillah a Torah commandment! Yet in his 5th positive commandment he contradicts himself and rules that the mitzva of tefillah qualifies as a mitzva from the Torah. The Ramban conclusively proves that the language of the Shemone Esrei “tefillah” as דרבנן. What both Reshonim failed to grasp, that the first Mishna of ברכות teaches that kre’a shma – the mitzva of tefilla דאורייתא.
Another example: the mitzva of tefillen required to swear the Torah oath of kre’a shma. Tefilla requires swearing a Torah oath just as does the mitzva of קידושין another rabbinic commandment that if elevated to a wisdom commandment time-oriented mitzva makes an aliya to דאורייתא. The Reshonim failed to explicitly validate kre’a shma as tefillah from the Torah as they equally failed to emphasize the k’vanna of the Rashi tefillen affixed to the מקום קבועה of the oath sworn at Gilgal; while the Order of the Rabbeinu Tam tefillen affixed remembering the oath sworn at Sh’Cem. T’shuva requires remembering and not repentance for sin as Xtian avoda zara declares. The precedent for the Torah commandment for t’shuva, on Yom Kippur Jews “remember” that Moshe reminded HaShem of his oaths sworn to the Avot that they and they alone would father the chosen Cohen people.
The Baali Tosafot ruled that wisdom commandments/time-oriented mitzvot acquire full de’oraita status when performed with proper k’vanna (e.g., tefillah as d’oraita via kavanah, on Berachot 13a). The Rambam largely erases this critical nuance with his flat static halachic rulings, such as tefillin and tefillah. His code destroyed the facet-shifting logic of Mishna → Gemara → Mishneh Torah that mirrors courtroom precedent, as seen from the statute law super commentaries written thereafter. The impact effect: Rambam “flattens” the warp/weft of halacha/aggadah, converting the oath brit sworn obligations, procedural Talmudic fabric into a linear statute-like Greek/Roman code.