Gordon Smith on Iraq – Did the Elders Make Him Do It?
It's no surprise that Smith is opposing the troop surge - now that he's got the go ahead from the Mormon leadership. A troop surge would be hard to support given Mormon Prophet Gordon Hinckley's comments about war, "what a fruitless thing it so often is, and what a terrible price it exacts."
So did Gordon Smith’s recent announcement of his new-found opposition
to the
Smith’s Mormon commitment is real and deep. This commitment
may be a part of what makes Smith the super straight-laced guy many admire, but
it also means he has great loyalty to the Mormon leadership.
Damon Linker , writing about another Mormon political leader,
Mitt Romney, in this week’s New Republic,
asserts, “the man who holds the office of the
president of the LDS Church is also considered to be a prophet -- ‘the
mouthpiece of God on Earth,’ in the words of Mormon theologian and Apostle
Bruce McConkie -- whose statements override both scripture and tradition.”
In my recent research, I found that President Hinckley, as
he’s referred to in the church, had strongly supported the war in
But by the time of their last meeting,
|
January 9, 2007 |
Jeannie Berg | Comments (78 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Jeannie | Jan 9, 2007 2:07:08 PM
Pamela,
I agree that Hinkley's comments could be taken many ways but, combined with the Wallace report, they are a marked departure from his earlier remarks.
I don't think Smith is "blindly" following the elders, I think he regards Hinckley as the conduit of the "word of God".That's consistant with LDS theology. I also think that we should not ignore the influence of the Mormon church on Smiths politics. He is reportedly a bishop in the church and his family history is deeply intertwined with Mormon history.
It's true that some Mormon politicians have departed from Hinckley's stated positions on this and other issues. Has Gordon?
Posted by: BlueNote | Jan 9, 2007 2:41:25 PM
This post appears to be a thinly veiled attack upon Gordon Smith's religious affiliation. As a Catholic who lived through the John Kennedy campaign hysteria (the Pope will rule the USA!!!) , I take great offense at anyone - Dem, Repub, Green or Commie - who uses religious beliefs as the basis to criticize a candidate.
Posted by: pamela | Jan 9, 2007 2:54:30 PM
No, because there are no stated positions that the church expects politicians to follow. It just isn't that way in the church. If I knew that Hinckley was against this war, I would still be for it. The only guidance the church gives members concerning politics is to follow their conscience and vote for moral people to fill public offices, whatever their party, for the good of the country.
I really believe that President Hinckley is not against the war. I think it's a stretch to say that his few comments about war in general show that he is against this war. The church (especially in the Book of Mormon)strongly teaches that liberty should be defended. The comments he has made about this war have been supportive. I think if his feelings had changed over the past few years, he would have made it more evident. After all, he denounces many things that he feels are wrong, whether or not it is popular for him to do so. Mike Wallace just simply seems to have it wrong.
As for Gordon, he was a bishop at one time. He is a moral person, and I do believe that religious principles are a guiding influence in his life, (just as they are to many people in politics) but do I think that he trys to match what he does to fit whatever he thinks the leaders of the church want him to do? Definetely not.
Posted by: Jeff Frane | Jan 9, 2007 2:59:56 PM
While a little of the original post's language reminded me of the anti-Catholic comments about JFK, the question can certainly be asked without being an "attack" on Smith's religion. It's a question that can easily be asked in regard to other politicians, and has been raised repeatedly over the last decade or more in regard to politicians heavily influenced by evangelical leaders. And it is certainly a question to be asked, even if the answer turns out to be "no". No one would bat an eye if the politician happened to be a Scientologist, and the question was raised; why is it any different when the politician is a Mormon?
Posted by: Kent Larsen | Jan 9, 2007 3:11:19 PM
HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, ...
Let me join with virtually all Mormons in laughing heartily at your ridiculous assertions. Even your use of the term "Elders" demonstrates that you are clearly in over your head. You might want to actually learn something about Mormons or perhaps talk to some before you come to conclusions like this.
Yes, Mormons regard Pres. Hinckley as a prophet. And when he speaks, Mormons try to follow what he asks. But I think most Mormons would NOT interpret the words you quote the way you are.
Had Pres. Hinckley been more specific (actually saying "I think the US should get out of the conflict in Iraq", for example), then you might have a case. But I know many Mormons interpret the quote you listed as simply another anti-war statement by the prophet, similar to statements made by EVERY prophet since Joseph Smith (and by many of those in the scriptures as well). War has often been easily justified in the face of such statements.
In fact, prophets frequently make statements of principle like this. But while such statements are always taken seriously, and members do try to integrate them in their lives, Mormons also believe in personal revelation from God, which allows members to decide how the prophet's statements work in their lives.
This is the reason that Linker is dead wrong about Mormon politicians. Only rarely does the prophet give direction that is so specific that a politician has to make a yes or no decision about following the counsel. More often, a good member of the Church will look at his actions and beliefs carefully to make sure he feels like they are compatible with the prophet's statements.
And even when the prophet's statements are clear on political matters, Mormons don't always follow lock step. Remember which state put the repeal of prohibition over the top? That's right, Utah, in spite of the strenuous objections of the prophet at that time, Heber J. Grant.
While I won't go so far as to say that a Mormon politician would never change his mind because of the statements of the prophet against the views of most Americans, I do think that it is about as likely to become an issue as it was for John Kennedy to blindly follow the Pope's orders.
Thanks for the laugh.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jan 9, 2007 3:16:01 PM
BlueNote... As my friends know, I don't look kindly upon religious discrimination. I've got friends and relatives of nearly every religion, and believe in the role of faith in our politics.
That said, to ignore Senator Gordon Smith's timing - as reported by Jeannie - seems to ignore the obvious.
- Summer '05: Hinckley expresses concern.
- Summer '05: Smith gets (secretly) concerned.
- October '05: Hinckly denounces the war.
- November '05: Smith denounces the war.
It's only a "thinly veiled attack upon Gordon Smith's religious affiliation" if it's based on his religion and brought up without factual basis.
But the facts are sitting there, and it's the religious aspect that seems to explain them.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jan 9, 2007 3:16:46 PM
Sorry, those second two dates are '06.
Posted by: Doc | Jan 9, 2007 3:16:57 PM
So let me get this straight, your criticisizing a candidate for deciding the war in Iraq is a bad thing. If this is due to religious leaders, we certainly need more of such religious leaders.
As a practicing Mormon I find it very odd that one puts that much stock into the President's stand on foreign affairs affecting Mormon senator's views. I have to believe his constituency, public opinion, continued bad news, lack of direction in running the war all seem infinitely more plausible reasons.
But while were spreading conspiracy theories, Did you here how Gordon B. Hinkley is behind the Sept. 11th.?
Posted by: Jeannie | Jan 9, 2007 3:17:25 PM
Bluenote - I believe a discussion of the impact of a candidate’s faith on his politics is not an attack on that faith. Linker anticipated your criticism in his piece on Romney - I hope you'll read at least these paragraphs from it.
"The religious right has been enormously successful at convincing journalists not to raise questions about the political implications of a candidate's religious beliefs. Analyzing the dangers of generic "religion" to the nation's political life is considered perfectly acceptable--indeed, it has become a cottage industry in recent years--but exploring the complicated interactions between politics and the theological outlooks of specific religious traditions supposedly smacks of bigotry. The focus on Kennedy's Catholicism in 1960, for example, is today widely derided as a shameful expression of anti-Catholic prejudice that ought never to be repeated.
This is unfortunate. However useful and necessary it may be to engage in theoretical reflection on politics and "religion," the fact is that there is no such thing as religion in the abstract. There are, rather, particular religious traditions, each of which has its own distinctive history of political engagement (or disengagement, as the case may be). And, certainly, the political history of pre-Vatican II Catholicism--with its overt hostility to modernity, democracy, liberalism, and religious "error," as well as its emphasis on the absolute authority of the Pope in matters of faith and morals--raised perfectly legitimate questions and concerns about what it would mean for the United States to elect a Catholic to the nation's highest office.
A very different, though arguably more troubling, set of questions and concerns are posed by the prospect of the nation electing a president who is an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS). In some ways, Catholicism and Mormonism present diametrically opposed political challenges to liberal democracy. With Kennedy's faith, the concern was over the extent of his deference to a foreign ecclesiastical authority. The genuine and profound loyalty of Mormons to the United States and its political system is, by contrast, undeniable. Indeed, LDS patriotism flows directly from Mormon theology. And that is precisely the problem."
Our religious beliefs influence our politics, no matter who we are. We should hold politicians accountable for any beliefs that impact their political decisions religious or not. It's fine that my vote would be impacted by the religious beliefs of a politician if he believed that we could ignore caring for the environment because Christ was coming soon just as it would if he believed in raising the minimum wage because the Gospels direct us to care for the poor.
Posted by: Jeannie the Bigot | Jan 9, 2007 3:20:56 PM
Unbelievable! I thought you Democrats were the "party of tolerance" and yet here Jeannie is openly criticising Senator Smith's Mormon faith.
Read her post, and where she says "Senator Smith" put in "Senator Wyden" and where she puts in "Mormon" put in "Jewish". If a republican had written something like this, every one of you would be outraged and call the author a bigot.
Without question, the purpose of this trashy post was to question the ties Senator Smith has to his religion. That is completely unacceptable.
I hope you guys go after Senator Smith for his religious beliefs. Keep it up Jeannie, you will only be guaranteeing Gordon's re-election.
Kari, it is posts like this that bring down the reputation of this Blog. I think you ought to ban Jeannie from ever posting an original article ever again.
Posted by: Sean | Jan 9, 2007 3:22:54 PM
Jeannie,
There's a little rule of thumb in stretching before you exercise--don't overdo it! Both you and Linker stretch so far to make your conclusions that I'm afraid you're both going to hurt yourselves. Please don't tell me you really believe that Gordon Smith is opposed to a 20,000 soldier troop surge because he heard President Hinckley express his personal sorrow about the war. You're obviously not aware that Sen. Harry Reid has been challenging Bush on the war for years, or that Rep. Tom Udall voted against the war. Both of these are (shock) Mormon Democrats! Although I don't think Reid or Udall are particularly concerned about their membership being revoked. If you really think that Mormons follow in lock-step the personal feelings of the Prophet on political issues, you are clearly wrong, my friend.
You are also obviously not aware that the LDS Church does not comment on political issues unless they are also moral issues. Members of the Church are encouraged to think for themselves on political issues, and the Church does not encourage members to vote for any particular political party or issue, unless it is a profoundly moral one. Such issues on which the Church has recently made official statements are gay marriage and abortion. The Church has made no statements concerning the legality/morality of the war. If you want to know the official position of the Church on matters, I suggest you visit the Newsroom at www.lds.org. For your information, that is how the Church makes official statements on political issues.
And it is simply ludicrous for you to imply that President Hinckley received the Presidential Medal of Freedom because he supported the Iraq War! Where do you get your information, sister? You get the Medal of Freedom for outstanding service to the country. If you are interested, President Hinckley's bio is also available at the website I referred to above. Plus, you obviously didn't listen to President Bush's remarks at the ceremony, because he directed them mostly toward the humanitarian service conducted by the Church itself.
Sen. Smith may have some serious concerns about sending more troops into Iraq at this particular time. He is free to make his own conclusions. Frankly, we live in a different political time than we did in 2002-2003. Attitudes are certainly shifting away from the war. A vote for the war and a vote against the current buildup are not necessarily at odds with one another.
Please, stop making unfounded, uninformed assertions about Senator Smith's politics as they relate to his church membership. You might as well just tell us you have absolutely no idea why Sen. Smith opposes the troop buildup.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jan 9, 2007 4:10:50 PM
Smith can believe whatever the fuck he wants. If someone is here saying that Smith's beliefs on Iraq disqualify his credibility to serve (or even his right to serve), then they have stoled Virgil Goode's IP address. But that wasn't what was said. What was said was that Smiths' religious beliefs may be influencing his views on the war, more definitively than other inputs. And while he's also entitled to use whatever source he likes to influence his beliefs, we have the right to examine his choices and attempt to divine (pun intended) on what basis he chose them.
Posted by: Jeannie | Jan 9, 2007 4:21:03 PM
Sean,
You'll notice two of my links are the LDS site you mention. They are to Hinckley's statements supporting the war. Apparently it's a moral issue.
Another "moral issue" was the Equal Rights Amendment which the Mormon Church actively organized against. You can find that chapter in Utah history at the link below.
Most political issues have moral components.
Sure the Mormon Church allows dissent but that doesn’t mean their members don’t take the “word of God,” coming from Hinckley or the Bible, very seriously. If Hinckley has an impact on the politicians we elect we should be aware of that.
If you don’t think support for the war plays a role in Bush’s decisions regarding the Medal of Freedom you should read the Washington Post article below. It’s pretty clear to me.
I don’t seem to be creating the links correctly, so you may have to cut and paste these into your browser.
http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/utah_today/equalrightsamendment.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63623-2004Dec14.html
Posted by: BobTucker | Jan 9, 2007 4:41:22 PM
Well…this is VERY uncomfortable. I have general disdain for the way so many liberals will defend diversity, or even talk about faith - then quickly turnaround to bash LDS as a "cult". A week or two ago a Slate article called is "Scientology plus 100 years: or something to that effect. That said, I don't quite read that into the author's effort here. While the line of attack feels a little uncomfortable and swerves close to the line, here's why it's relevant for some level of exploration:
We've already got a president who thinks God is speaking directly to him and affirmatively guiding his presidency like an 8 year old boy guides a GI Joe action figure. Elected officials are supposed to protect and defend the constitution and enact the will of the people, not just do so when they've been given authorization by their religious leader and/or their delusions of direct God-to-their-ear direction. Consider Bush’s approach – God tells me what to do; I’m the decider; therefore I can do what I want over and above the constitution because God is higher than the constitution; George Bush believes he is infallible because God is infallible and God is telling him what to do.
Gordon Smith is in the Senate to represent the people of Oregon, and no other organization - religious or otherwise - should have veto power.
I'm not completely sold on the author's assertion - though up to a point it's reasonable to question who Smith is representing and how he's making life and death decisions. This is even more important given the president’s belief in his being divinely chosen, and the fact that guys like Falwell and Pat Robertson have Bush and half the R's on speed-dial AND that Bush and the R's take them seriously as representatives of the Lord.
Yikes.
As to the anti-Catholicism Kennedy (and Al Smith before him) faced, it was unfair and sickening…but let let’s not pretend that churches HAVEN’T exerted extreme influence on leaders and heads of state. Look at Saudi Arabia and the entire Muslum middle east now, or Europe not too many centuries ago when the Catholic church was overtly involved in trying to control governments. The western examples are old, but the possibilities always remain, as GW has reminded us.
With that, I still say - liberals, tread lightly on this ground. Mormons are good people - question Smith's decision making hierarchy, but please don't swerve much further into attacking this particular (or any other) denomination.
Posted by: BobTucker | Jan 9, 2007 4:43:17 PM
Well…this is VERY uncomfortable. I have general disdain for the way so many liberals will defend diversity, or even talk about faith - then quickly turnaround to bash LDS as a "cult". A week or two ago a Slate article called is "Scientology plus 100 years: or something to that effect. That said, I don't quite read that into the author's effort here. While the line of attack feels a little uncomfortable and swerves close to the line, here's why it's relevant for some level of exploration:
We've already got a president who thinks God is speaking directly to him and affirmatively guiding his presidency like an 8 year old boy guides a GI Joe action figure. Elected officials are supposed to protect and defend the constitution and enact the will of the people, not just do so when they've been given authorization by their religious leader and/or their delusions of direct God-to-their-ear direction. Consider Bush’s approach – God tells me what to do; I’m the decider; therefore I can do what I want over and above the constitution because God is higher than the constitution; George Bush believes he is infallible because God is infallible and God is telling him what to do.
Gordon Smith is in the Senate to represent the people of Oregon, and no other organization - religious or otherwise - should have veto power.
I'm not completely sold on the author's assertion - though up to a point it's reasonable to question who Smith is representing and how he's making life and death decisions. This is even more important given the president’s belief in his being divinely chosen, and the fact that guys like Falwell and Pat Robertson have Bush and half the R's on speed-dial AND that Bush and the R's take them seriously as representatives of the Lord.
Yikes.
As to the anti-Catholicism Kennedy (and Al Smith before him) faced, it was unfair and sickening…but let let’s not pretend that churches HAVEN’T exerted extreme influence on leaders and heads of state. Look at Saudi Arabia and the entire Muslum middle east now, or Europe not too many centuries ago when the Catholic church was overtly involved in trying to control governments. The western examples are old, but the possibilities always remain, as GW has reminded us.
With that, I still say - liberals, tread lightly on this ground. Mormons are good people - question Smith's decision making hierarchy, but please don't swerve much further into attacking this particular (or any other) denomination.
Posted by: Sean | Jan 9, 2007 5:41:54 PM
OK, Jeannie, I'm not as perceptive on the websites you've used. Way to go.
But you need to read a little bit more in the Wallace article. There you'll find this: "LDS spokesman Dale Bills was quick to say the church 'has no position on the war in Iraq' and that Wallace's comments were 'his own characterization of a private conversation.'"
And contrary to the image you give of President Hinckley's message to BYU, it was not a lambasting of the Iraq War. The Deseret News article shows he merely made a basic, "war is terrible" statement that you, or I, or anyone in their right mind would make: "He referred to visits to military cemeteries and said, 'As I have visited these various cemeteries I have reflected first on the terrible cost of war. What a fruitless thing it so often is, and what a terrible price it exacts.'"
I have a hard time understanding how Gordon Smith would take these statements the way you claim. I think that most of the people who read your story feel the same way.
Meanwhile, President Hinckley's statement in the Newsroom article was not an official Church statement on a moral issue. It was President Hinckley's talk at General Conference. And he was not speaking about the Iraq War. Better read it again! The talk was given on October 7, 2001, soon after the World Trade Center attack, and before there was any mention of attacking Iraq. I remember the talk vividly. President Hinckley cried when he heard that war had started in Afghanistan. He made a general statement of support for President Bush in fighting terrorists. I can't think of many people who would have disagreed at that time.
On the Medal of Freedom, you have educated me that the Medal was established in "1954" as a way to honor those who supported the war effort... in 1954. Let's see, on the day President Bush gave the Medal of Freedom to President Hinckley, he also gave it to Doris Day, Pope John Paul II, Este Lauder and Arnold Palmer, among others. All war supporters, I'm sure. Oh, wait... one noticeable exception glares out here--wasn't the Pope one of the most recognizable anti-war activists? See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2654109.stm if you disagree. It looks like the purpose of the Medal of Freedom has evolved quite a bit over the years. And if you really want to know why President Hinckley received the Medal of Freedom, you should look for yourself: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040618-13.html.
But overall, I have been impressed with your professionalism in responding to comments. Many kudos.
Posted by: Sean | Jan 9, 2007 5:50:33 PM
In anticipation of your response, yes, the Church does put more than just official statements of policy on its Newsroom cite.
Posted by: Garrett | Jan 9, 2007 7:31:20 PM
You know...I went to high school in SLC. I know plenty of very nice Mormons and I know plenty of really bad Mormons. I'm going to try to tread really lightly on this one. I know its going to piss a lot of people off after reading some of these posts.
After my experience with a culture that was predominantly run by Mormons I wonder how anyone wouldn't question whether one should be elected. I don't think if we elected a Mormon President that they would be beholden to their prophet but I do think they would force their beliefs down your throat. They would do it with a smile on their face which is different than the evangelicals out there who want to MAKE you a believer. I mean...we are talking about a church that didn't treat African Americans as equals until 1978 and even after they allowed them to hold the Melchizidek Priesthood they still openly discriminated against interracial marriage. Personally, if Gordo was a member of a church that was supportive of that when it was going on then he was supportive of that as well. Mormons may not be a cult...I would definitely question whether I would elect one the SAME exact way that I would question electing an evangelical who wants to bring about the rapture or a psycho zealot like Sam Brownback (he's switched religions so many times I'm not sure what he is nowadays). I have nothing wrong with religions but I sure don't like it when they shove it down my throat. If you lived in Utah as a non-Mormon and didn't get that feeling then I'd be surprised.
I know that I'm going to get jumped on for saying that all but that was my experience. The religion is so secretive that outsiders just don't know exactly what their officials would tell a Mormon politician.
Posted by: HiveRadical | Jan 9, 2007 7:49:47 PM
Haven't really read many of the comments, but touching on the article I'd point out that simply emphasizing the horribleness of war and the great distress at it's occurance is not an inherent opposition to it, any more than decrying the terrible effects of extreme chemo-therapy treatments. In areas in which medical science still has much to learn many of their actions and efforts cause pain and suffering, and often with little result, that doesn't mean that a person pointing such out is against the implimentation of modern medicine or that they are inherently against all atempts by doctors in fields they have yet to master.
Posted by: Daniel Peterson | Jan 9, 2007 8:08:57 PM
I think it's extraordinarily unlikely that Senator Smith is, or sees himself as, taking any orders from Gordon B. Hinckley. There are faithful and committed Mormons on all sides of the issue of the war in Iraq.
As for Damon Linker's remarks about Mormonism and politics in the New Republic, they should be considered in light of the response to them (also in TNR) from Professor Richard Bushman, of Columbia University.
Posted by: ERosolie | Jan 9, 2007 10:33:25 PM
Please show me where Smith is against this war in principle. Only now is he against how Bush has conducted the war but not against the war. Please don't fall for Smith's double-speak. I still can't find one place that clearly states Smith is against the Bush escalation, he maybe skeptical, he may have questions, but has he said "I oppose the deployment of more troops to Iraq." No he has not. He has misrepresented the position of those that want to stop the funding of this insanity: "It would be a dishonorable thing for the congress to budget away the bullets at a time when their commander-in-chief had ordered them to hold their place in the battlefront." (page 3, Oregonian, Jan 9, 2007) Well Mr. Smith it was dishonorable to send them there based on lies and it's dishonorable to keep them there based on ego. You can cite all the religion you want the fact remains Smith still likes the war in Iraq.
Posted by: Erik Sorensen | Jan 10, 2007 12:46:00 AM
I seriously doubt that Senator Smith is "taking orders" from the Mormon Church leadership. With the tons of lobbying going on by many religious groups and non-religious groups both in Oregon and in D.C. for withdrawal, I would be inclined to think he is succumbing to pressures all around.
Senator Smith is not an imbecile--he knows which way the political winds are blowing and he is just re-tacking his sail to get the best speed to win re-election in 2008. He has less than two years to convince Oregonians that he is listening. My question is: will his recent change of heart on Iraq help him in 2008?
Posted by: David English | Jan 10, 2007 1:24:57 AM
I know a lot of people are claiming Smith is being bashed for his religion, but the point I'm taking from the article is that Smith's change of heart is due more to religious, then political reasons. Again, that's just my take based on what I'm reading.
That being said, I don't think I buy it. I think Smith paniced for purly political reasons and it had nothing (or very little) to do with religion. Yes, maybe the dates (which Kari posted) are suspicous, but I still think it's a stretch.
Posted by: Violence Worker | Jan 10, 2007 5:12:20 AM
Ms. Berg, Harry Reid is a Mormon. No one has kicked him out for being a liberal.
You are ignorant of the Church. You are also a bigot. You are disgusting.
VW
Posted by: Justijn | Jan 10, 2007 5:18:03 AM
Speaking of Romney:
Hey... did you know that you can get your own Fundraiser ID for Mitt and get credit for bringing in donations? Mind you there's no "cut" or "percentage" but you do get recognition... AND your help elect Mitt... which IMHO is a good thing.
Posted by: Garrett | Jan 10, 2007 7:54:59 AM
Violence Worker...Have you ever talked to a Mormon about their opinion about Harry Reid? I have before and there are a good portion of them that think he should be excommunicated for his actions. Questioning religious motives does not make someone a bigot.
Posted by: JHL | Jan 10, 2007 7:56:38 AM
Ah, I remember now why I left the Democratic Party. When I vote against Smith, it's going to be for a lot of things... not one of those reasons is going to be his religious preference.
If this wasn't an attack on his religious affiliation, shouldn't it have a positive tone -- considering that the basic assertion is that the man's faith led him away from war? But the obvious (and obviously intended) undertone is that Smith is made to do things by mysterious LDS Elders! Woooo! (Ghosty sounds)
All this does is try to create suspicion about a person based on their religious beliefs -- creating unnecessary divisions between people where there are none.
It's certainly a topic that you're allowed to bring up in a free society, but it's sowing the seeds of intolerance and I think it's sick that it would be posted here on BlueOregon.
Posted by: B | Jan 10, 2007 9:00:50 AM
Senator Smith's statements reflect political maneuvering in light of a 2008 election in a liberal state. To say his recent statements are a result of Hinkley's comments is far-fetched and smacks of a weak conspiracy theory.
Although Berg doesn't sound like religious bigot, she does sound misinformed by her own research directed by a predetermined conclusion or bias.
Garrett, I've talked to several Mormons of their opinion of Senator Reid. Some may disagree with his politics or may tire of hearing him pine for Searchlight, NV, but I've never heard any say he should be excommunicated.
Questioning religious motives does not make someone a bigot, but veiling bias against differing beliefs by giving it the thin veil of substantive and credible journalism/research should be discouraged, especially by self-proclaimed progressives.
Posted by: Violence Worker | Jan 10, 2007 9:01:47 AM
Garrett, I am Mormon. I'm sure there are some who think that. I personally don't know of any, but I'm sure you can find some. Berg is still a bigot and you are one as well if you agree with her.
VW
Posted by: Ted Blaszak | Jan 10, 2007 9:53:21 AM
Ms. Berg is not a bigot. She is a kind sweet person. I have known Jeannie for a decade now. She was my supervisor on my first signature gathering campaign and I have worked with her off an on through these years. Her thoughts are those of love and justice. She does bode ill for anyone on the basis of race, creed, or faith. You may disagree with her analysis but do not label her falsley. She has spent her life work to better our world with equality, tolerance, and respect for all. She is a good person and does not deserve your hateful comments.
Posted by: B | Jan 10, 2007 10:10:29 AM
Ted, I assume you meant Jeannie "does NOT bode ill for anyone on the basis of race, creed, or faith." I agree, Jeannie doesn't sound like a bigot, but her analysis is weak. It's so obviously weak that it appears she performed very selective research to support a predetermined opinion.
Posted by: Da Fuhrer | Jan 10, 2007 10:25:43 AM
Garrett and Jeannie-
I totally agree with you. And Garrett when you say "After my experience with a culture that was predominantly run by Mormons I wonder how anyone wouldn't question whether one should be elected."
I would add:
After my experience with a culture that was predominantly run by Jews I wonder how anyone wouldn't question whether one should be elected.
and
After my experience with a culture that was predominantly run by African Americans I wonder how anyone wouldn't question whether one should be elected.
and so on. It is good to know that people like Jeannie and Garrett still live on this planet and enjoy persecuting people for their religious beliefs!
Go Team!
Posted by: Nathan | Jan 10, 2007 10:27:31 AM
Joseph Smith, the founder of the LDS (Mormon) church once said, and I'm paraphrasing, "When I speak the will of the Lord I'm a prophet, but when I speak as a man I'm a man. I have faults as well. Only one man was perfect, Jesus Christ."
We all have opinions, Gordon B. Hinckley included. Just because he expresses his personal opinion it doesn't mean he is being the mouthpiece of God at that moment. If it was an official statement, the stance of the church would change officially as well, which it hasn't.
Also, Smith's/Hinkley's opinions on the war seem to be mirroring much of the rest of the country, gradually coming to oppose the war. Is it that we're all Mormons? Or that we're all tiring of the war?
As for the statment by one poster that Reid, D of Nevada, should be excommunicated: He hasn't been because the church doesn't direct or dictate to politicians who are members. Like anyone they can express an opinion, but the politician is free to do as he/she feels is best for his/her consituancy.
Posted by: Jeannie | Jan 10, 2007 10:31:22 AM
Wow - Thanks Ted!
I do find it strange that alleging Smith's religious beliefs have an impact on his political decisions would ignite such a firestorm. Smith himself is often very upfront about the impact of his Mormon beliefs and heritage. His Mormonism is a huge part of who he his.
I don’t think Smith’s religion is the only explanation for his change of heart but, given the timing, it certainly seems to have played a role. Smith’s own inconsistencies in describing his change of heart also leave one thinking that it’s not all exactly as he would have us believe.
Anyone who thinks the Mormon Church doesn’t get directly involved in politics should read the story of the Church's fight to purchase Martin's Cove in Wyoming.
Posted by: Nathan | Jan 10, 2007 10:40:53 AM
Hi Jeannie,
I almost said that the church doesn't get involved, but caught myself. It does get involved in what it feels is in its best interest. Most organizations of its size will. But it doesn't tell members how to vote. On occasion it will support a measure (banning gay marriage for instance), but members are free to vote how they will. Members should never be asked or judged on how they swing politically by an official of the church.
Nathan
Posted by: Choose the Left | Jan 10, 2007 10:47:11 AM
This blog does not attack the church. But heck, if Gordon Smith is in fact being more influenced by some Mormon leader in Utah than his own constituents here in Oregon, then we have a right to know more about this religion. I want to know:
- Why mormons wear special underwear -- and why I'm not supposed to know about these and 10,000 other Mormon traditions and rituals. It's wierd. Why the secrecy?
- Why my mormon friends wear rings that tell them to "choose the right" instead of T-shirts that tell them to "choose the left." I know it's supposed to be a moral right, but why not "choose compassion" or "choose freedom"? It's the political right, too, is my guess.
- Whether Senator Smith is related to joseph smith, the handsome devil who fathered the mormon church and reportedly married a couple dozen women. Let's face it, this church does not have a history of supporting women and minorities, and it makes me a little nervous when right-wing groups have their people in influential policy positions. It's only fair that we question the influence there.
Look, I respect the right to practice one's own religion, or none at all. Given that the LDS Church is the wealthiest in the nation -- and increasingly powerful on the policy level -- then as far as I'm concerned, they're opening themselves up to this kind of scrutiny.
Posted by: Former Salem Staffer | Jan 10, 2007 11:04:21 AM
I can understand attacking Smith's positions on the issues, but this may be going too far. Has anyone else noticed that every other thread on here for the last few weeks has been an attack against Smith? I would think that a better use of that energy would be recruting somebody to run against him, as all the big names are apparently reluctant to do so.
You may disagree with Smith, but how about presenting an alternative?
Posted by: B | Jan 10, 2007 11:09:37 AM
Nathan, no poster said Reid should be excommunicated. A poster claimed that several Mormons think he should be. Big difference.
Jeannie, you seem to be backpedaling. Your original piece is ominously entitled "Did the Elders Make Him Do It?", and you provide a series of selective dates, articles, etc. that are arranged in a way to suggest that Sen. Smith's religion played a central role in his statements. Now you soften your tone by stressing that it only "played a role." Your last post greatly differs in tone from your original piece.
Since you referenced the David Linker article, you've hopefully read the subsequent exchange between him and Richard Lyman Bushman of Columbia University (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070101&s=bushman010307 or go to Google News and enter "Linker Bushman"). In it, Bushman describes your style of unbalanced writing:
"The art of writing in this mode is to mobilize all of the foreknown elements and arrange them to reach an expected conclusion."
The Linker-Bushman dialogue is also addresses your point about the LDS Church's involvement in policy:
"Mitt Romney's insistence that he will follow his own conscience rather than church dictates is not only a personal view; it is church policy. The church website makes this explicit: Elected officials who are Latter-Day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated church position. While the church may communicate its views to them, as it may to any other elected official, it recognizes that these officials still must make their own choices based on their best judgment and with consideration of the constituencies whom they were elected to represent."
Posted by: MarkDaMan | Jan 10, 2007 11:15:09 AM
When a public figure makes a dramatic change in their public statements, usually you'd expect the media and bloggers to look at what is causing those changes. Is Senator Smith's change of heart because of the continued violence, the lack of a plan, the loss of faith in the mission, the statements from his church?
Look, politicians have been marrying themselves to their religion for the past decade or so, especially the GOP. If they don't like people equating their decision making with their religious beliefs, than it is time to put those religious beliefs back where they belong, in the house of the Lord.
Senator Smith is against 'gay' marriage as he feels the 'sanctity' of marriage needs to be preserved. Does he feel this way because gays are ruining America, because gays entering a union will weaken his marriage, or because his religious beliefs tell him to oppose equality because they believe all them homosexuals are sinners? The same question could be asked about Senator Smith's opposition to assisted suicide, abortion, and a number of other social issues. Just because this is a national security issue doesn't mean his religious beliefs aren't dictating his direction of thinking.
I grew up LDS and have a very active family still in the church. As a dedicated Mormon, when the Profit speaks, you listen. To obey the Profit is pretty much equal to obeying the word of God itself. While we can discuss what the Profit's true stance is on the war in Iraq, and whether or not Gordon Smith has changed his opinion because of that, does it really matter since the Senator has already displayed that his religion does influence his decisions as a US Senator?
And, too all those that are up in arms over how inappropriate it is to 'slam a person because of their religion' please make sure you hold your own leaders accountable when they publicly hold their religion, and possibly yours, up for scrutiny by introducing it into the political realm.
Posted by: Choose the Left | Jan 10, 2007 11:34:33 AM
These ad hominem attacks on Ms. Berg are totally out of line.
Attacking the author is a distraction from the real, and legitimate question:
Does the LDS church has more influence on Gordon Smith than his own constituents do? It's a fair question. Asking such questions is part of the checks and balances process that protects your rights and mine.
Posted by: B | Jan 10, 2007 11:50:27 AM
Choose the Left, by "these ad hominem attacks" I assume you're referring to only two posters who called her a bigot. Everyone else has addressed her arguments, which is hardly a "distraction."
Your "legitimate question" may be fair (and I doubt that anyone opposes the question itself), but in developing the answer, shouldn't all arguments be explored, not just those that lend to a foregone conclusion? Also, Berg's question was not as broad as yours, but focused on Sen. Smtih's position on the Iraq War. Let's keep things straight.
Finally, thanks for this latest posting. From your first one, it was hard to tell if you wanted to be taken seriously.
Posted by: Choose the Left | Jan 10, 2007 1:25:50 PM
shouldn't all arguments be explored
Sure. I'm interested in knowing more about where Gordon Smith's votes are in alignment with the LDS church and where they are different. It's widely believed that his brief swerve into the pro-gay rights lane was more for political gain than anything else. But campaigning aside, is his Senate seat a vehicle for Mormon teachings?
If his votes align with the Mormon church, then the answer is essentially yes. In that case, we should all know where the Church stands on things and decide whether we want to live under the restrictions and paternal guidance of the Mormon church. I know I don't.
Posted by: Garrett | Jan 10, 2007 1:31:58 PM
Da Fuhrer,
I just wanted to clarify something. You said I am intolerant of religion. I am not. I had an experience with Mormon culture and govt. that was less than fun and semi-theocratic (Not officially theocratic mind you). I'm sure there are plenty of people that lived down south in an evangelical community where you knew who was really in charge and it wasn't the guy you elected to city council. I don't think you're intolerant of religion if you question whether a person is an independant thinker or not. I haven't seen Gordo do anything that makes me think he does think for himself. I don't think Sam Brownback thinks for himself either.
Posted by: Ashcroft | Jan 10, 2007 1:48:12 PM
Smith has readily admitted in the past that his personal religious beliefs are what drives his opposition to our Death With Dignity Act.
And while he's realized his original attempts to get the Act overturned at the federal level are no longer politically tenable, his early statements on the matter leave no doubt his religious beliefs influence (or single-handedly determine, in this case) his positions/votes on the issues before him.
That said, this was a pure political maneuver because he knows his career is on the line...all for public consumption. (Even though he really hasn't said anything of substance besides "the status quo doesn't work.")
Posted by: Dan | Jan 10, 2007 2:20:04 PM
You are truly ignorant if you think that Gordon Smith is changing his stance because of a quote made by President Hinckley. The LDS church does not operate that way and your ignorant statements only perpetuate the false stereotypes of the LDS church.
Posted by: pamela | Jan 10, 2007 3:15:03 PM
Please, those of you living in fear that the LDS church is controlling Smith, get a better hold on reality. It is simply absurd ~ there's no evidence whatsoever. You can't even begin to establish that Hinckley is against the war in the first place. Let's deal with the facts and not let our imaginations run wild.
Posted by: Erik Sorensen | Jan 10, 2007 4:32:19 PM
This is really becoming quite a wit of the foolish, isn't it.
I too have worked and have been friends with Jeannie Berg for many years and know for a fact that she is not a "bigot" as a few of you are labeling her. Many of you that are writing this garbage--those too affraid to use your real names--are being assine.
Questioning a persons motivations is not being a "bigot". If you disagree with her statements or wish to challenge the question she raised, like I did, at least have some dignity and respect in doing so. Jeannie simply raised a question and nothing more. Discussing coincidence in Senator Smith's decisions is not at all out of line or bigoted. For those of you that are continuing to defame her character, move on, cause those of us who actually know her aren't buying it.
Posted by: Erik Sorensen | Jan 10, 2007 4:35:45 PM
The word was supposed to be "assinine" on the end of the second paragraph.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: pamela | Jan 9, 2007 1:49:50 PM
I don't believe that President Hinckley is against the war. I think his comments were not interpreted correctly, and taken out of context. EVERYONE hates the violence in Iraq. The mormon church believes very strongly in defending freedom ~ which is what the war in Iraq is about.
Come on, Gordon Smith cares only about his re-election. If you think he is just blindly following the "Elders" you sadly misunderstand the church and the man. He only does what is politically expedient.