During his press conference this afternoon, President Obama actually offered praise for Governor Romney, softening his tone even further than during his acceptance speech on election night when he made overtures to working with Romney in the future. "There are certain aspects of Governor Romney's record and his ideas
that I think could be very helpful," said Obama. "Well, and to give you
one example, I do think he did a terrific job running the Olympics." Obama added, "He presented some ideas in the course of the campaign that I actually agree with."
Kind words, and perhaps spoken to compensate for a complete lack of kind words the President and his campaign had to offer concerning Romney over the past 6 months. Now that the President has secured his re-election and can switch out of campaign mode, is he undermining his entire campaign strategy of "kill Romney" by suddenly speaking about him in much more positive light? Unequivocally--yes. The President decided early on that his campaign would be built not on his record, but on destroying his opponents; not on the division of our ideas, but the division of our characters. In sum, President Obama sought to present Mitt Romney as a liar and even felon who was untrustworthy and the complete epitome of everything against which the President so nobly fought in his crusade to save the Middle Class. Mitt Romney was portrayed as the callous, greedy, out-of-touch, rich white guy who could never lead America because he could never understand America; prevented from understanding the country because of who he is at his core, who he has been bred to be, and because of character flaws so great and so prevalent that he would be precluded from accomplishing any good because he was, at his heart, everything opposed to that good. So far from being qualified to lead our country in any capacity, the President even felt it necessary to lecture Governor Romney on the nature of aircraft carriers, battleships, and the changes in our Navy over 100 years. Condescending and playing merely for a political zinger, the President nonetheless used this tactic to further widen the chasm he would have us believe separated him from the Governor. On one hand was the man we could relate to, on the other was the one who didn't have a clue.
Despite his efforts to convince us that Mitt Romney was not capable of serving his country because his flaws went right to the core of who he is, and his character was unworthy of such a pursuit, the President immediately reversed course, even in his acceptance speech, and now reverses course even further by offering some praise on the man he so recently reviled. Can it be that the President is conceding that Mitt Romney actually does have at least half a heart after all, and really isn't that bad of a guy? Is the President himself actually considering working with this man he just spent months convincing the American people isn't even worthy of the chance he is now himself offering? Work with us to serve the American people, the President says, mere days after telling the American people, there's no way he could work for you. President Obama has essentially clarified that his campaign tactics were nothing more than that, tactics, and not an accurate reflection on the character of the man who was more than worthy and qualified to lead the American people. Of course, with no record to run on, the President's campaign strategy is understandable, though still inexcusable. While dirt is often dug up concerning one's political opponents, and commercials are often aired with a negative connotation, they typically focus on policy divisions and not pure character flaws, and never before has an entire Presidential campaign been built on that strategy alone. And in 2012, just enough people bought into the lies and deceptions perpetrated by the President's campaign as they sold to the American people a fictitious man that many equated with Mitt Romney. The President's campaign team created Myth Romney and sold him to just enough people to lie their way to another 4 years in the White House, once the office of the most trusted and presumably upright leader in the world.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Dr. Jekyll & Harry Reid
Senate Majority leader Harry Reid has a wildly colorful history during his recent years in the Senate. Guided by his mantra of political expediency, people are left to wonder what he'll say next that completely undermines something he said yesterday, last week, or last year. Throughout 2005 and 2006, his political rantings against out of control spending while Republicans controlled the Senate under President Bush's tenure reached a fever pitch with accusations of insanity, recklessness, and other colorful metaphors to describe his political opponents. Of course, his tune changed once his own party took control of the country's purse in 2006 and, eventually the Presidency, in 2008. Since that time, deficits have tripled, the national debt has skyrocketed faster and higher than under any other U.S. President, and a budget hasn't been passed in 3 years.
More recently, Senator Reid opened his political heart once again and allowed us a glimpse into the amazing speed with which his political philosophy can so rapidly reverse course and completely change within a matter of days. He recently belittled and even mocked Governor Romney's overtures of bipartisan cooperation during the closing days of the Presidential election. Governor Romney consistently spoke about reaching across the aisle and bringing both sides together to find common ground. Responding to Governor Romney's message of bipartisanship, Harry Reid didn't merely downplay the possible effectiveness of any strategy Romney may pursue, Reid went even further by mocking such a thought as a "fantasy" and that the notion that the Senate would approve his conservative agenda as "laughable." When faced with the possibility of working with a new executive, Reid folded his arms, pursed his lips, and reacted in much the same manner a school yard bully would when faced with the possibility of not getting his way. Bipartisan cooperation would be, according to Harry Reid's words, not possible and something he would prevent from happening if Romney won. Of course, once President Obama won re-election only a few days after his comments, Senator Reid remarkably changed his tone, softened his stance, and now expected Republicans to do the very thing he refused to do only days before.
In recent statements, Senator Reid urged Republicans to "turn away from divisions of the past & join us in cooperation & compromise." Going even further, Senator Reid acknowledged that "Americans need more jobs, economic certainty, opportunity & fairness. It is within our power as a Congress to quickly address these needs." Acting quickly as a Congress seems to have eluded Senator Reid, however, on adopting a budget--something they have failed to do for 1300 days. Economic certainty and jobs have also been something that have plagued us for the past 3 years, as jobs continue to be lost at rates faster than they can be replaced while tepid and declining economic growth in the face of a fiscal cliff has brought about a first ever forecast of a potential recession in 2013 if fiscal problems can't be addressed. Of course, as Senator Reid has shown us through his recent remarks, compromise is much easier when you're the one wielding the power and giving up what you want is much harder than asking the other party to give up what they want. In any case, it's even easier when you have a media condoned fall back plan of blaming Bush and branding those as obstructionists who aren't willing to kowtow to your unmitigated demands. Thank you, Senator Reid, for making our job much easier of knowing who to brand as an obstructionist when nothing gets done in Washington.
More recently, Senator Reid opened his political heart once again and allowed us a glimpse into the amazing speed with which his political philosophy can so rapidly reverse course and completely change within a matter of days. He recently belittled and even mocked Governor Romney's overtures of bipartisan cooperation during the closing days of the Presidential election. Governor Romney consistently spoke about reaching across the aisle and bringing both sides together to find common ground. Responding to Governor Romney's message of bipartisanship, Harry Reid didn't merely downplay the possible effectiveness of any strategy Romney may pursue, Reid went even further by mocking such a thought as a "fantasy" and that the notion that the Senate would approve his conservative agenda as "laughable." When faced with the possibility of working with a new executive, Reid folded his arms, pursed his lips, and reacted in much the same manner a school yard bully would when faced with the possibility of not getting his way. Bipartisan cooperation would be, according to Harry Reid's words, not possible and something he would prevent from happening if Romney won. Of course, once President Obama won re-election only a few days after his comments, Senator Reid remarkably changed his tone, softened his stance, and now expected Republicans to do the very thing he refused to do only days before.
In recent statements, Senator Reid urged Republicans to "turn away from divisions of the past & join us in cooperation & compromise." Going even further, Senator Reid acknowledged that "Americans need more jobs, economic certainty, opportunity & fairness. It is within our power as a Congress to quickly address these needs." Acting quickly as a Congress seems to have eluded Senator Reid, however, on adopting a budget--something they have failed to do for 1300 days. Economic certainty and jobs have also been something that have plagued us for the past 3 years, as jobs continue to be lost at rates faster than they can be replaced while tepid and declining economic growth in the face of a fiscal cliff has brought about a first ever forecast of a potential recession in 2013 if fiscal problems can't be addressed. Of course, as Senator Reid has shown us through his recent remarks, compromise is much easier when you're the one wielding the power and giving up what you want is much harder than asking the other party to give up what they want. In any case, it's even easier when you have a media condoned fall back plan of blaming Bush and branding those as obstructionists who aren't willing to kowtow to your unmitigated demands. Thank you, Senator Reid, for making our job much easier of knowing who to brand as an obstructionist when nothing gets done in Washington.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
How to Judge the Character of a Man
It has often been said that "you can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." Unfortunately, in politics, everyone has the potential to do something for a figure running for office. Running for public office is perhaps the best cure for amnesia conceivable--everything from the past is brought to light, the good and the bad is thrown into the spotlight, and experiences you may have forgotten, or never engaged in to begin with, are suddenly brought back to your remembrance. The barrage of character evidence can often be overwhelming, and downright confusing, for those of us who make up the voting bloc. Coupled with the fact that 95% of the country subscribes to the Judeo-Christian ethic of "Judge not that ye be not judged," we have the additional challenge of balancing what we hope is a fair and charitable judgment with having to sift through the evidence before us, which has often already passed through several other unique layers of various individual's own judgments.
When it comes to the race for President, I'm willing to wager that 99% of the people voting have never personally met either of the candidates, let alone had any meaningful interaction with them on a personal level that would enable us to observe them sufficiently to pass what we feel is an accurate and confident judgment of their character. As such, we're left to hear judgments passed by their opponents, news outlets, people from their past, and a myriad of other sources. Of course, we are further challenged in these situations because we must ask ourself if we are really passing judgment on the candidate, or someone else's judgment of that candidate. A judgment on a judgement of another judgment from a different judgment is hardly the formula for accuracy. What we believe is truth is often a carefully crafted hodgepodge of evidence to support or perpetuate a preconceived notion of what the candidate truly stands for and what they represent. While we may acknowledge this influence on the evidence presented to us, we often overlook it in ourselves as we fail to consider how our worldview paradigm and own life experiences in turn exert an influence on how we pass judgment on others. Too often, we don't ask why they behaved the way they did, but how WE would have behaved or what we would have done in the same situation. While that may enable empathy, it does not accurately reflect the measure of the candidate's character, though it may illuminate some light on our own.
How does this come into play regarding the 2012 Presidential election? By way of full disclosure, let me state that I intend to vote for Mitt Romney. Let me also say that I believe both candidates are good men, who both possess their own variety of character strengths and weaknesses. I believe both men love America and want what's best for our future, but disagree significantly on how this is to be achieved. In a race that seems to be focused more on character than policy, how do we know who to trust or how to judge? To be sure, there are a number of people coming out of the woodwork regarding past events in the lives of both candidates. For good or ill, each candidate has their share of supporters and detractors who have no shortage of desire to make their voice heard in touting their evidence of the TRUE character of the man. Each one has various motivations, which sometimes may be the same, but what is different to each one is the perspective they possess about the event they share, the influence that time has had on their memory of the event, and what effect their current motivation may have on their perception of that event viewed through a new and different paradigm than the one they originally viewed the experience when it occurred years or even decades ago.
For the examples I share I will focus on Mitt Romney, primarily because the 3 specific episodes I will share are contemporary to each other, all occurring approximately 25-30 years ago, they all involve families during a time of extreme emotional turmoil as they struggle with major health issues, and they have all come to light during the Presidential campaign. First, the negative example. Over the past few months, a story has spread like wildfire through liberal blogs and left leaning news outlets. The story revolves around a Carrel Hilton Sheldon who was in Mitt's ward when he served as a Bishop. In 1983, Carrel was pregnant but her pregnancy took a turn for the worst and doctor's believed her life was in jeopardy. Her Stake President, a Harvard doctor, assured her that an abortion was appropriate in this situation. Carrel was shocked, however, when her Bishop showed up--Mitt Romney--and did not believe her comments concerning the Stake President, and did not show any concern or empathy for her but only for her unborn fetus which he counseled her not to abort. The experience was a primary factor in Carrel's decision to move across the country and to leave the Church soon thereafter. What cannot be argued is that this was a traumatic and tragic episode in the life of Carrel and her family and friends.
During this same period in Mitt's early life, he also had experiences with two other families in his ward who, like Carrel, were dealt a cruel hand by unexpected and tragic circumstances that arose in the form of health complications. The first is the experience of Pat and Ted Oparowski, whose teenage son was diagnosed with cancer in the 1970s and was befriended by Mitt Romney (it is worth noting this experience occurred several years prior to Mitt's calling as a Bishop). During the course of their 14 year old son's decline, Mitt frequently visited the family in the hospital due to a friendship that was struck with the boy. After learning about Mitt's background in law, their son asked Mitt to help him develop a will and get his affairs in order so he could ensure his toys and possessions were given to the proper individuals upon his death. Mitt helped the boy settle his affairs using a legal pad and pen. When the boy succumbed to his illness several months later, Mitt gave the eulogy at the funeral at the boy's own request. The other experience occurred a few years later, when Mitt was newly called as a Bishop. A member of his ward, Pam Finlayson, gave birth to a baby girl with severe birth defects and health complications. She describes Mitt's constant presence and expressions of comfort to her and her family over the course of several months, even preparing Thanksgiving dinner for her family and cooking the food himself and delivering it with his boys to her home, unexpected and unannounced. While her daughter survived, she eventually succumbed to her health complications during the Republican primaries in 2011. Pam received a personal call and an expression of sympathy from Mitt, who learned of her daughter's passing, and offered to assist in any way he could.
I believe all 3 of these episodes are true. I also believe all 3 of these families are confident in their assertion that they know the real Mitt Romney, that their experience is the true proof of the measure of his character. So how do you reconcile the seemingly contradictory responses of the various experiences? How can such a cold, and unsympathetic Bishop in Carrel Sheldon's hospital room be the same man described as warm and genuine by others? Can both perceptions be true, and all 3 experiences have occurred? Yes, and yes. I am not going to try to explain or defend Carrel's remembrance of her tragedy, nor will I make a case that any one of these 3 experiences somehow speaks louder than another. As an observer, I can consider all three and accept that the experience occurred just as reported, but as an observer, I must do just that--take them all at face value without ignoring the ones that may refute the conclusions I seek to prove that also bolster the image of a man I want strengthened, not questioned. Similarly, when considering the character of our President, we cannot be selective in believing everything we read on conservative leaning websites but ignore the positive experiences touted by those of opposing political leanings. The only truth is that once a debate is begun about what experiences speak louder or are more important, it will never end or be settled. The only truth that will emerge is that no saint was ever President, and no candidate is the devil. Can it be that we are all equally saint as we are sinner? How then, to truly judge the character of the man we hope will lead us? The answer is different for all of us. No one else has lived the life we have, and in turn developed the paradigm we each uniquely possess that determines the perspective with which we judge the life and actions of others. So long as we are all open-minded, understanding, and respectful, we can at least have confidence that truth will speak louder than bias, though not eliminating it, and respect will be more mutually unifying than politically divisive.
When it comes to the race for President, I'm willing to wager that 99% of the people voting have never personally met either of the candidates, let alone had any meaningful interaction with them on a personal level that would enable us to observe them sufficiently to pass what we feel is an accurate and confident judgment of their character. As such, we're left to hear judgments passed by their opponents, news outlets, people from their past, and a myriad of other sources. Of course, we are further challenged in these situations because we must ask ourself if we are really passing judgment on the candidate, or someone else's judgment of that candidate. A judgment on a judgement of another judgment from a different judgment is hardly the formula for accuracy. What we believe is truth is often a carefully crafted hodgepodge of evidence to support or perpetuate a preconceived notion of what the candidate truly stands for and what they represent. While we may acknowledge this influence on the evidence presented to us, we often overlook it in ourselves as we fail to consider how our worldview paradigm and own life experiences in turn exert an influence on how we pass judgment on others. Too often, we don't ask why they behaved the way they did, but how WE would have behaved or what we would have done in the same situation. While that may enable empathy, it does not accurately reflect the measure of the candidate's character, though it may illuminate some light on our own.
How does this come into play regarding the 2012 Presidential election? By way of full disclosure, let me state that I intend to vote for Mitt Romney. Let me also say that I believe both candidates are good men, who both possess their own variety of character strengths and weaknesses. I believe both men love America and want what's best for our future, but disagree significantly on how this is to be achieved. In a race that seems to be focused more on character than policy, how do we know who to trust or how to judge? To be sure, there are a number of people coming out of the woodwork regarding past events in the lives of both candidates. For good or ill, each candidate has their share of supporters and detractors who have no shortage of desire to make their voice heard in touting their evidence of the TRUE character of the man. Each one has various motivations, which sometimes may be the same, but what is different to each one is the perspective they possess about the event they share, the influence that time has had on their memory of the event, and what effect their current motivation may have on their perception of that event viewed through a new and different paradigm than the one they originally viewed the experience when it occurred years or even decades ago.
For the examples I share I will focus on Mitt Romney, primarily because the 3 specific episodes I will share are contemporary to each other, all occurring approximately 25-30 years ago, they all involve families during a time of extreme emotional turmoil as they struggle with major health issues, and they have all come to light during the Presidential campaign. First, the negative example. Over the past few months, a story has spread like wildfire through liberal blogs and left leaning news outlets. The story revolves around a Carrel Hilton Sheldon who was in Mitt's ward when he served as a Bishop. In 1983, Carrel was pregnant but her pregnancy took a turn for the worst and doctor's believed her life was in jeopardy. Her Stake President, a Harvard doctor, assured her that an abortion was appropriate in this situation. Carrel was shocked, however, when her Bishop showed up--Mitt Romney--and did not believe her comments concerning the Stake President, and did not show any concern or empathy for her but only for her unborn fetus which he counseled her not to abort. The experience was a primary factor in Carrel's decision to move across the country and to leave the Church soon thereafter. What cannot be argued is that this was a traumatic and tragic episode in the life of Carrel and her family and friends.
During this same period in Mitt's early life, he also had experiences with two other families in his ward who, like Carrel, were dealt a cruel hand by unexpected and tragic circumstances that arose in the form of health complications. The first is the experience of Pat and Ted Oparowski, whose teenage son was diagnosed with cancer in the 1970s and was befriended by Mitt Romney (it is worth noting this experience occurred several years prior to Mitt's calling as a Bishop). During the course of their 14 year old son's decline, Mitt frequently visited the family in the hospital due to a friendship that was struck with the boy. After learning about Mitt's background in law, their son asked Mitt to help him develop a will and get his affairs in order so he could ensure his toys and possessions were given to the proper individuals upon his death. Mitt helped the boy settle his affairs using a legal pad and pen. When the boy succumbed to his illness several months later, Mitt gave the eulogy at the funeral at the boy's own request. The other experience occurred a few years later, when Mitt was newly called as a Bishop. A member of his ward, Pam Finlayson, gave birth to a baby girl with severe birth defects and health complications. She describes Mitt's constant presence and expressions of comfort to her and her family over the course of several months, even preparing Thanksgiving dinner for her family and cooking the food himself and delivering it with his boys to her home, unexpected and unannounced. While her daughter survived, she eventually succumbed to her health complications during the Republican primaries in 2011. Pam received a personal call and an expression of sympathy from Mitt, who learned of her daughter's passing, and offered to assist in any way he could.
I believe all 3 of these episodes are true. I also believe all 3 of these families are confident in their assertion that they know the real Mitt Romney, that their experience is the true proof of the measure of his character. So how do you reconcile the seemingly contradictory responses of the various experiences? How can such a cold, and unsympathetic Bishop in Carrel Sheldon's hospital room be the same man described as warm and genuine by others? Can both perceptions be true, and all 3 experiences have occurred? Yes, and yes. I am not going to try to explain or defend Carrel's remembrance of her tragedy, nor will I make a case that any one of these 3 experiences somehow speaks louder than another. As an observer, I can consider all three and accept that the experience occurred just as reported, but as an observer, I must do just that--take them all at face value without ignoring the ones that may refute the conclusions I seek to prove that also bolster the image of a man I want strengthened, not questioned. Similarly, when considering the character of our President, we cannot be selective in believing everything we read on conservative leaning websites but ignore the positive experiences touted by those of opposing political leanings. The only truth is that once a debate is begun about what experiences speak louder or are more important, it will never end or be settled. The only truth that will emerge is that no saint was ever President, and no candidate is the devil. Can it be that we are all equally saint as we are sinner? How then, to truly judge the character of the man we hope will lead us? The answer is different for all of us. No one else has lived the life we have, and in turn developed the paradigm we each uniquely possess that determines the perspective with which we judge the life and actions of others. So long as we are all open-minded, understanding, and respectful, we can at least have confidence that truth will speak louder than bias, though not eliminating it, and respect will be more mutually unifying than politically divisive.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Latter-day Lincoln: A Mormon Defense of Our 16th President
Please leave a comment if you read this article. It has had MANY page views but no comments and I am wondering if real people are reading it. Please let me know if this is being read by actual people. Also, an update is forthcoming. I have been conducting more research in Church archives and will report on it soon.
While I often strive to produce scholarship that is purely academic without any religious undertones, as I am currently doing with my work analyzing the tension between libertarians and Abraham Lincoln, I am at my core a full fledged, dedicated, and committed member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As such, my thoughts, motivations, and actions are driven by my faith. Although I often produce work which does not overtly state or indicate my religious beliefs, those beliefs nonetheless influence my work--both in the approach I take in my research as I try to be honest, open, and fair, as well as in the final result that hopefully presents my conclusions and views with respect, dignity, and objectivity.
During my time researching Abraham Lincoln these past few months, I have taken some time to engage in a religious study of the man even though that research will not be utilized in my final academic paper. Over the course of my studies, I have focused on the words of living prophets and any time they have referenced Lincoln. During my life alone, there have been nearly 200 references to Abraham Lincoln by Church leaders and in Church publications. Despite an enormous amount of references, I have only found positive things concerning Abraham Lincoln's life, accomplishments, and mission. Of particular interest were any references from Ezra Taft Benson, the most politically astute prophet of our dispensation. In addition to President Benson, three other prophets have spoken out substantially concerning political and Constitutional issues. Heber J. Grant, George Albert Smith, and David O. McKay were also very vocal in their support of our Constitution and Republican form of government. As such, they all had some very pointed things to say concerning Abraham Lincoln as well.
Before addressing the references made by President Benson, however, I will briefly present some of the teachings from other Latter-day prophets in regard to our nation's 16th president. Beginning with President McKay, he expressed a sentiment that is reiterated by other prophets in grouping Lincoln with the inspired and elite class of men who were the Founders of this nation. Expressing this sentiment, McKay stated "We should be grateful for our Founding Fathers, for Washington and Lincoln, and for our boys and other great men who have fought and died for our freedom" (Source: Man May Know for Himself 387-88). President McKay was not the first prophet to speak of Lincoln in such glowing terms.
George Albert Smith, McKay's predecessor, declared that Abraham Lincoln "gave his life because of his desire for the perpetuation of the liberty that was guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States." This single statement seems a direct contradiction to the views many Latter-day Saints subscribe to which have been perpetuated by modern libertarian thinkers who advocate that Lincoln was a tyrant who ignored the Constitution. President Smith further described Lincoln's dedication to the Constitution by stating that "when the duty was placed upon him to battle for the liberties of mankind, he dedicated his life to this purpose, and in due time, our Father in heaven accepted his offering, and his name is emblazoned upon the pages of history as a great and noble man who dared to do right, and his praises will be sung and his virtues extolled throughout all time" (emphasis added, "Lincoln and This Land," 77). Despite serving as a prophet for only a brief time, George Albert Smith was an ardent patriot and vocal supporter of the Constitution. For a collection of his many teachings in regards to the inspired document, our need to defend it, and the attacks it will face, see http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/latter-day-prophets-and-united-states-constitution/8-george-albert-smith. Unfortunately, President Smith would seem to differ in sentiment with several modern Latter-day Saints in his assessment that praises would be sung to Lincoln and his "virtues extolled throughout all time." There are many today who subscribe to the revisionist interpretations of Lincoln's legacy and character, interpretations put forth by progressives, libertarians, and liberals alike.
It is not surprising that Lincoln was regarded so highly and referenced so frequently during the administrations of those two prophets, as well as Heber J. Grant. These three men served as President of the Church for more than half of the entire 20th century--a century where agency, freedom, and liberty came under attack like no other time in history. From 1918 to 1970, when Presidents Grant, Smith, and McKay led the Church, the world endured two World Wars, the rise of fascist, socialist, and communist governments, the aggression of those governments in the Korean and Vietnam Wars, and a destruction of freedom and liberty for millions upon millions of civilians throughout the world. Even at home, in the land of promise and the divinely inspired country of America, we were warned about the intrusion of these pervasive influences that could erode our liberties enshrined in our country's founding documents. President Grant declared FDR's policies as nothing more than "neo-socialism" and lamented the Saints support of the U.S. President despite his efforts to warn them of extremist tendencies. President Grant had himself been a Democrat until the rise of FDR, at which point he was driven from the party.
During his time as President, as he saw the greatest and most rapid rise of these elements opposed to individual liberty and agency--even within his own government and country--President Grant offered one of the most direct defenses of Abraham Lincoln which, again, stands in direct opposition to the rapidly rising discontent in the modern world concerning our 16th President. In the words of President Grant:
"Every Latter-day Saint believes that Abraham Lincoln was raised up and inspired of God, and that he reached the Presidency of the United States under the favor of our Heavenly Father. . . ...We honor the man that God honors. We honor Abraham Lincoln because we believe absolutely that God honored him and raised him up to be the instrument in His hands of saving the Constitution and the Union" (”Lincoln and Law” 73, 127).Again, there cannot be any doubt from this statement that Abraham Lincoln was not a tyrant bent on the destruction of rights while turning his back on the Constitution (Ironically, Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus, which is the clarion piece of evidence used by libertarians in proving Lincoln's disdain for the Constitution and his tyrannical nature, is a right itself granted by the Constitution in time of war or crisis. Although there can be debate about his performing this action that is given to congress, not the President, by the Constitution, is beside the point--in essence, this is an administrative debate, not one of the destruction of rights. Whether done by Congress or the President, there is nonetheless granted by the Constitution itself the ability to suspend habeus corpus. Ironically, the delegates at the Constitutional Convention themselves couldn't agree on whether this right should remain with the Congress or President, and only settled when they didn't care to debate it any further).
These three men all spoke out clearly, consistently, and repeatedly about the Constitution's prominence and the threats it would face. These three men also all spoke out in defense of Abraham Lincoln as a man raised up by God to defend that Constitution and save the United States of America. Following the period of time when these three men served, which ended with President McKay's death in 1970, Abraham Lincoln has continued to feature prominently in the teachings and remarks of the leaders of the Church. There have been 56 references to Abraham Lincoln in General Conference alone since 1971. During that same span, he has been referenced 173 times in Church magazines and 6 times in official Church manuals. Of these 235 references, none are critical of the man, his mission, or accomplishments. Perhaps the most glowing reference to Lincoln during this time was an address given during General Conference in October 1976. Elder Mark E. Peterson, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve and, like President Benson, one of the most politically astute Church leaders of our time, devoted an entire sermon to the inspired life of Abraham Lincoln. Entitled "The Savor of Men," Elder Peterson's talk opened with a succinct summation of what he would address. His purpose was declared immediately as he opened with the words,
"I would like to talk with you about Abraham Lincoln, man of God. President Lincoln was one of the great men of all time, and the reason for his greatness was his willingness to acknowledge and obey the Lord. He believed in God; he lived near to God; he prayed most earnestly and knew for a fact that he was guided by divine inspiration in his important work."
Although Elder Peterson was learned in the history of our nation and in political matters, he was simply a student of the man who is arguably the most politically astute, aware, and inspired man to ever serve in the leadership of the Church--Ezra Taft Benson. President Benson was given a blessing early in his Church service by David O. McKay, who was then serving as President of the Church. This blessing bestowed upon Ezra Taft Benson the ability to be perceptive of threats to the Constitution and a deep commitment to the founding principles of the United States of America, principles enshrined by our Founders, principles of individual liberty and agency. Throughout President Benson's vociferous writings of warning to members of the Church, he never spoke critically of Abraham Lincoln nor held him up as an example of one who weakened the Constitution. On the contrary, President Benson positively referenced Abraham Lincoln in such landmark speeches as "The Constitution: A Heavenly Banner", "Righteousness Exalteth a Nation," and "Americans are Destroying America."
In the first of these addresses, "The Constitution: A Heavenly Banner," President Benson spoke in his capacity as Prophet while addressing the students of BYU in a devotional on 16 September 1986. President Benson's entire address was dedicated to the Constitution, and he outlined several principles clarifying its divine origins, the threats it will face in our day, and our responsibility to defend and uphold its principles. Perhaps in the most glancing blow to libertarians who vilify Lincoln as one who deplored rather than defended the Constitution, President Benson stated the exact opposite. In his remarks, President Benson actually enlisted Lincoln as a member of his team comprised of those who defend and support the Constitution. In his second point of his address, President Benson implored us to "learn the Constitution and abide by its precepts." He even asks us, as Latter-day Saints, if we "are aware of its principles? Could we defend it? Can we recognize when a law is unconstitutionally sound?" He then clarifies that "The Church will not tell us how to do this, but we are admonished to do it." And who does he immediately quote, immediately after asking these questions, in order to help us know how to do this--how to defend the Constitution--Abraham Lincoln. President Benson then quoted the following words of Lincoln, "Let [the Constitution] be taught in schools, in seminaries,
and in colleges; let it be written in primers, spelling-books, and in
almanacs; let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative
halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become
the political religion of the nation."
"I recalled the terrible winter at Valley Forge and Washington on his knees in the snow, praying for divine aid. I thought of the words of Abraham Lincoln during another time of crisis as he said humbly: 'I have been driven many times to my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go.' Washington acknowledged God’s direction and stated, 'Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. . . . Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles.' (Farewell address.) Lincoln knew that God rules in the affairs of men and nations. He solemnly declared: “God rules this world. It is the duty of nations as well as men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow . . . and to recognize the sublime truth that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord” (p. 399).
In the last defense of Abraham Lincoln that I will offer from President Benson, the topic of America being destroyed by Americans is the topic which Ezra Taft Benson was discussing. These remarks come from a General Conference address he delivered in April 1968 when he was serving as an apostle in the Quorum of the Twelve. It seems that, of all places to implicate Lincoln as an anti-Founder who did more to destroy their work rather than support it, this would be the talk where that would happen. Elder Benson was not speaking of foreign influences, but rather of the cancer that would grow from within. Yet he still enlists Lincoln as a supporter of his argument rather than an example of that which he was warning us from. The following are excerpts from that talk:
"If American freedom is lost, if America is destroyed, if our blood-bought freedom is surrendered, it will be because of Americans. What’s more, it will probably not be only the work of subversive and criminal Americans. The Benedict Arnolds will not be the only ones to forfeit our freedom.President Benson again clarifies that there have been and will continue to be dire and immediate threats to our Constitution, but he also clarifies that none was posed by our 16th President, Abraham Lincoln. On the contrary, it is clear from President Benson's writings that Abraham Lincoln was a man who not only relied on the Lord, but on whom the Lord relied as well. He was a man of God, who did right according to the times and circumstances in which he lived. These sentiments have been reiterated by dozens of other Church leaders and prophets over the past 100 years. Abraham Lincoln lived during the greatest crisis this nation has ever faced. He led this nation at a time when no one could who didn't fully and wholeheartedly rely on the divine arm of Providence. It is no surprise that heated debate continues to surround his legacy today, as it does for anyone who stands up for what is right, proclaims what is unpopular, and acts in harmony with a divine will that is right despite what worldly opinion may claim.
'At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected?' asked Abraham Lincoln, and he answered, 'If it ever reaches us, it must spring up among us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher; as a nation of freemen, we must live through all time or die by suicide.' (Springfield, Illinois, January 27, 1837.)If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers–normally good Americans, but Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free – Americans who have been lulled away into a false security."
And so I close as I began, with the words of President David O. McKay concerning this great land of liberty and the role Lincoln played in preserving it:
"To live in a land in which each individual has the right to life and liberty is a glorious privilege. If any man in this country prefers a government ruled by a dictator, he should go where the dictator rules; but here in the United States of America the people believe in a government as Abraham Lincoln declared, 'of the people, by the people, and for the people'"(General Conference, April 1940, CR p. 118).**UPDATE** After writing my first draft of “Latter-day Lincoln,” I discovered an online archive of all General Conference addresses since 1851, thus enabling me to search for Lincoln references prior to the year 1971. Not surprisingly, I discovered that Abraham Lincoln has been the most referenced, discussed, and quoted individual in General Conference who was not, during their lifetime, a member of the Church. There have been 490 references to or quotations from Abraham Lincoln in General Conference since 1860. Lincoln has been referenced more than any other Founding Father, including George Washington. In fact, if you combine ALL references to Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams, you actually arrive at the total number of references to one man--Abraham Lincoln. On 6 occasions, Washington and Lincoln are mentioned as a pair, a pair which on all occasions was heralded as an example of righteousness and faithful devotion to the Almighty. (See end of article for exact reference numbers of various phrases and individuals)
Of the contemporary references to Lincoln during the 1860s, none are critical, though all are passing references and offer little either way in terms of commentary on the man himself. For the next several decades, Lincoln references are few and far between. In the 1920s, however, Lincoln references skyrocketed and he remained very much a part of General Conference through the 1970s. While I cannot prove this definitively, I would postulate that there is some connection between this dramatic spike in Lincoln references and the rise of Progressivism during the same time period, a period during which Lincoln’s legacy was being hijacked by Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and other Progressive leaders. This was also a period where the Constitution came under attack more than any other time in history save the Civil War, and a period of time during which dictators and tyrants around the world rose to positions of power on a scale never before seen in the history of the world. Freedoms were being destroyed for millions of God’s children throughout the world, and philosophies directly opposed to those of the Gospel were being promulgated on a large scale; philosophies such as socialism, communism, and fascism. During the decades where those philosophies were strongest and freedom was under the most vehement attacks, Lincoln references in General Conference were greater than any other time in history. I do not feel that this was a coincidence, and I do not feel that a man NOT called and raised up of God would be referred to so frequently by men who are also called and raised up by God. Lincoln was not a member during his lifetime, though the Church felt so strongly about his righteousness before the Lord that they performed all his vicarious ordinances on the 100th anniversary of his birth, and sealed him to his wife as well as to the sweetheart of his youth, Anne Rutledge, who died young and forced Lincoln into a long period of despondency.
A few of the interesting references to Lincoln follow. The first mention that Lincoln was a man of God, raised up by God, and acted in harmony with God’s will, was made by apostle Hyrum W. Smith in 1905. In 1930, apostle Richard Lyman talked about the current trend to disregard the Constitution and actually addressed people who also ridiculed Lincoln. Elder Lyman believed that to attack the Constitution was equal to attacking Lincoln, and pined about why he felt both were under attack by progressives and other emerging political ideologies. Shortly after Elder Lyman’s remarks, in 1934, J. Reuben Clark spoke as a member of the First Presidency. In his remarks, President Clark elaborated on the character of Abraham Lincoln and expressed his belief that the only person alive at that time who possessed so noble and honest a character was Heber J. Grant, who was then serving as President of the Church. It would be Heber J. Grant himself who, only 6 years later, would write: "Every Latter-day Saint believes that Abraham Lincoln was raised up and inspired of God, and that he reached the Presidency of the United States under the favor of our Heavenly Father. . . ...We honor the man that God honors. We honor Abraham Lincoln because we believe absolutely that God honored him and raised him up to be the instrument in His hands of saving the Constitution and the Union” (Improvement Era, February 1940).
In regards to the quote from President Grant, I wanted to see the actual source. I have read it many times, and while I did not doubt the cited reference, I wanted to see the original statement for myself. The Church provided me with a copy of the article President Grant wrote for the “Improvement Era” in February 1940. The article, titled “Lincoln and Law,” was not penned as an opinion or editorial by President Grant, but was written as a declaration by the prophet with his title attached as President of the Church. The majority of the article is actually quoted scripture, taken primarily from Doctrine and Covenants. The article was actually written much as a “First Presidency Message” would be in our modern day “Ensign.” It was an official statement from the President of the Church, presented to the entire body of the Church via an established channel of communication to all members of the Church.
I have also encountered several articles written by Latter-day Saints who, just like me, have endeavored to present a LDS perspective on Abraham Lincoln. Sadly, I have read some that demonize and vilify our 16th President. The most vehement oddly ignore the words of Church leaders and are littered with quotations from ultra-libertarian scholars and other historians who have sought to vilify Lincoln. If they wish to bring religion into the debate about Lincoln, than they need to do just that--bring religion into it. You cannot claim to present a LDS perspective on Abraham Lincoln and ignore the massive amount of teachings from several Church leaders which directly and succinctly discuss Lincoln. Further, one author included some remarks from Brigham Young’s diaries and personal writings that were critical of Lincoln and attempted to elevate Brigham’s private ruminations to the status of revealed truth, an exercise of futility, to be sure. Additionally, Brigham’s opinion of Lincoln actually changed and it became one of mutual respect. This LDS author’s article is also, sadly, filled with outright lies. Perhaps the most apparent is his claim that Lincoln intentionally appointed anti-Mormon governors to the Utah territory. The truth of Lincoln’s appointments, is the polar opposite of that claim. Lincoln actually removed an anti-Mormon territorial governor, at the request of the Mormons themselves, and replaced him with a governor of more respect and one who shared Lincoln’s view towards Mormons to simply “leave them alone” and let them be.
There will be more updates to this article, I am sure, and I will post them as they are written. Please leave a comment if you read this so that I am aware of whether this is being read by real people are being viewed by automated programs. Also, see below for the list of General Conference references and the specific number of times each phrase in quotations has been mentioned in General Conference since 1851.
General Conference References:
“Lincoln” - 512 (22 were non-Abraham Lincoln references; 490 were referencing Abraham Lincoln the man)
“President Lincoln” - 30
“President Washington” - 2
“Abraham Lincoln” - 230
“George Washington” - 133
“Benjamin Franklin” - 62
“Thomas Jefferson” - 43
“John Adams” - 23
“Founding Fathers” - 85
“Washington and Lincoln” - 6
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)