You just knew I wouldn’t be able to remain silent. I have finally organized my thoughts sufficiently on this subject into an opinion I can put on paper. Previously they were random with no connecting thread. I found the connecting thread. It was an address given by Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve on February 29th, 1992 to the Brigham Young University Management Society, Washington D.C. Whether you believe Dallin H. Oaks wears the mantel of a modern day Apostle is irrelevant. His office and calling do not detract one iota from the clarity and truthfulness of this message.
In fact, understanding where the root of this message is derived only gives it a deeper ring of truth.
I am offended by media pundits or other less enlightened citizens that bring into question the religion of a presidential candidate. Not the fact that they bring it into question but the ignorance and maliciousness in which it is done. Today it was suggested by one writer that Mitt Romney is the one that brings up the subject and the fact that he is persecuted so if he isn’t elected he has the excuse that it was the people that persecuted his religion that caused him to lose. How absurd!
This election is all about integrity, leadership, and who can get the job done. Who can manage the “business” of government. Who can draw from a pool of talented people with different philosophies to create business solutions that work for the American people. As opposed to someone who knows how to work the political system and create an ugly duckling solution that is not good for anyone. Who has less of an axe to grind? Personal agenda to push? If anyone really understood the “Mormons” they would understand how low on the priority list the following achievements are; Rising to the top of the heap and holding the most powerful office in the world. Having your portrait engraved on a coin or printed on a dollar bill. A statue, memorial. A street or school named after you.
A true Mormon’s legacy is not found in a library in his home town at the end of his term. A true Mormon’s legacy is written in his home, his family. The selfless service given to others along the way. The giving and sharing of love and charity. Helping feed the poor, housing the homeless and caring for the afflicted and persecuted. Those are the core beliefs true Mormons subscribe to. What’s wrong with a President with those attributes?
According to the politically intelligent if those attributes stem from religious belief and conviction they are not worthy of the public platform. Let me quote from Dallin Oaks address.
“Many differences of opinion over the role of religion in public life simply mirror a difference of opinion over whether there are moral absolutes.”
… “Some moral absolutes or convictions must be at the foundation of any system of law. This does not mean that all laws are so based. Many laws and administrative actions are simply a matter of wisdom or expediency. But many laws and administrative actions are based upon the moral standards of our society. If most of us believe that it is wrong to kill or steal or lie, our laws will include punishment for those acts. If most of us believe that it is right to care for the poor and needy, our laws will accomplish or facilitate those activities. Society continually legislates morality. The only question is whose morality and what legislation.”
I could never have written words more inspired and clear. The only question indeed is, “whose morality and what legislation.” What if voters took that thought into the voting booth and judged each candidate based on that point alone. The poles may show a different leader. It appears that historically, with the aiding and abetting of the press, the misinformed public seek out and rally behind a candidate that is ambivalent about moral absolutes. Leaving room for the popular interpretation of the day. Not necessarily the correct interpretation.
The concern with Mitt Romney is the fear that he would push the LDS definition of the moral absolute on our country. Tongue in cheek I say, what’s wrong with that picture? Absolutely nothing! Dallin Oaks continues in his address on this perceived dilemma.
“I have a hard time believing that the teachings of religions or churches deprive their adherents of any more autonomy in exerting the rights of citizenship than the teachings and practices of labor unions, civil rights groups, environmental organizations, political parties, or any other membership group in our society.”
As citizens of this country we have been victimized by lobbyists pushing private agendas and private definitions of moral absolutes. We seem to be OK with the thievery, dishonesty, self-serving political motives driving these lobbyists. But we are willing to assume that a citizen running for president who was raised drinking from a cup of honesty and integrity and sound moral absolutes would be detrimental to the rights and privileges our constitution guarantees. Once again I say, what’s wrong with that picture?
I don’t care who you vote for. But do you want more of the same? Do we need moral leadership? Or do we just need leadership? After all, Hitler was a great leader. Does the business of government need to be repaired? Why don’t we try a successful businessman this time instead of a successful politician? Why don’t we try someone who is more concerned with how he will be remembered by his family and a right and just God rather than how he will be portrayed by the political spin doctors in media.
It’s your choice. Vote your conscience, but remember, that’s a moral absolute too!
Here is the link so you can read the entire address of Elder Oaks. It will enlighten you.
In fact, understanding where the root of this message is derived only gives it a deeper ring of truth.
I am offended by media pundits or other less enlightened citizens that bring into question the religion of a presidential candidate. Not the fact that they bring it into question but the ignorance and maliciousness in which it is done. Today it was suggested by one writer that Mitt Romney is the one that brings up the subject and the fact that he is persecuted so if he isn’t elected he has the excuse that it was the people that persecuted his religion that caused him to lose. How absurd!
This election is all about integrity, leadership, and who can get the job done. Who can manage the “business” of government. Who can draw from a pool of talented people with different philosophies to create business solutions that work for the American people. As opposed to someone who knows how to work the political system and create an ugly duckling solution that is not good for anyone. Who has less of an axe to grind? Personal agenda to push? If anyone really understood the “Mormons” they would understand how low on the priority list the following achievements are; Rising to the top of the heap and holding the most powerful office in the world. Having your portrait engraved on a coin or printed on a dollar bill. A statue, memorial. A street or school named after you.
A true Mormon’s legacy is not found in a library in his home town at the end of his term. A true Mormon’s legacy is written in his home, his family. The selfless service given to others along the way. The giving and sharing of love and charity. Helping feed the poor, housing the homeless and caring for the afflicted and persecuted. Those are the core beliefs true Mormons subscribe to. What’s wrong with a President with those attributes?
According to the politically intelligent if those attributes stem from religious belief and conviction they are not worthy of the public platform. Let me quote from Dallin Oaks address.
“Many differences of opinion over the role of religion in public life simply mirror a difference of opinion over whether there are moral absolutes.”
… “Some moral absolutes or convictions must be at the foundation of any system of law. This does not mean that all laws are so based. Many laws and administrative actions are simply a matter of wisdom or expediency. But many laws and administrative actions are based upon the moral standards of our society. If most of us believe that it is wrong to kill or steal or lie, our laws will include punishment for those acts. If most of us believe that it is right to care for the poor and needy, our laws will accomplish or facilitate those activities. Society continually legislates morality. The only question is whose morality and what legislation.”
I could never have written words more inspired and clear. The only question indeed is, “whose morality and what legislation.” What if voters took that thought into the voting booth and judged each candidate based on that point alone. The poles may show a different leader. It appears that historically, with the aiding and abetting of the press, the misinformed public seek out and rally behind a candidate that is ambivalent about moral absolutes. Leaving room for the popular interpretation of the day. Not necessarily the correct interpretation.
The concern with Mitt Romney is the fear that he would push the LDS definition of the moral absolute on our country. Tongue in cheek I say, what’s wrong with that picture? Absolutely nothing! Dallin Oaks continues in his address on this perceived dilemma.
“I have a hard time believing that the teachings of religions or churches deprive their adherents of any more autonomy in exerting the rights of citizenship than the teachings and practices of labor unions, civil rights groups, environmental organizations, political parties, or any other membership group in our society.”
As citizens of this country we have been victimized by lobbyists pushing private agendas and private definitions of moral absolutes. We seem to be OK with the thievery, dishonesty, self-serving political motives driving these lobbyists. But we are willing to assume that a citizen running for president who was raised drinking from a cup of honesty and integrity and sound moral absolutes would be detrimental to the rights and privileges our constitution guarantees. Once again I say, what’s wrong with that picture?
I don’t care who you vote for. But do you want more of the same? Do we need moral leadership? Or do we just need leadership? After all, Hitler was a great leader. Does the business of government need to be repaired? Why don’t we try a successful businessman this time instead of a successful politician? Why don’t we try someone who is more concerned with how he will be remembered by his family and a right and just God rather than how he will be portrayed by the political spin doctors in media.
It’s your choice. Vote your conscience, but remember, that’s a moral absolute too!
Here is the link so you can read the entire address of Elder Oaks. It will enlighten you.
