LDSFF, BRIAN M. IN SL TRIBUNE STORY

[Thomas]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55876 ... r.html.csp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Among the first to post the talk was LDS Freedom Forum, a website for mostly conservative, libertarian and politically independent Mormons, where it met with approval. Mormons for Obama, however, put it on their site, outraged that an LDS leader would use his church post in such a way.

"It being a pro-freedom talk, with multiple statements in favor of free enterprise and self-reliance and against socialism, is something members of this forum are very interested in," Brian, LDS Freedom Forum administrator, wrote in an email. "They like to see that leaders of the church, at various levels, continue to sound the warning voice against those things that are destructive to freedom."

[Rose Garden]

:ymapplause: :ymapplause: :ymapplause:

Way to go, Brian.

[BroJones]

Hmmmm.... I distinctly remember the thread, and google-search (cached) remembers the thread also:

Best Stake Conference I Ever Attended - LDS Freedom Forum -
http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... 52974Share" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
11 posts - 11 authors - Feb 4
President De Visser ..... by DrJones » Tue Feb 05, 2013 5:12 am ... DeVisser! thank him for sharing via email, its quite a surprise really to hear ...

But, strangely, that thread has DISappeared... poof!

[sbsion]

Dr........you know, that conspiracies are everywhere, why would this be any different...POOF...LIARS are the rulers of the day

[farfromhome]

I think this thread may also disappear, along with our freedom of speech, bit by bit down the tubes.

Its great to see hurch leaders who are aware AND willing to speak out... I just hope Pres DeVisser does not get into trouble over this.

SLTribune:

Mormon stake president gets political at church, laments election results
Religion » Speech over pulpit wins cheers on right, jeers on left.

By Peggy Fletcher Stack

| The Salt Lake Tribune
First Published Feb 21 2013 06:18 pm • Last Updated Feb 21 2013 10:54 pm

An LDS stake president in Sandy did something in a speech earlier this month that other Mormon leaders have done many times: He warned that evil is corrupting the world.

Then President Matthew DeVisser did something few LDS leaders ever do over the pulpit: He rattled off a number of Republican talking points, lamenting that voters last year chose "socialism over capitalism, entitlements over free enterprise, redistribution and regulation over self-reliance."

President Matthew DeVisser's Talk by

The LDS Church’s policy

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is neutral in matters of party politics. The church does not:

Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms.

Allow its church buildings, membership lists or other resources to be used for partisan political purposes.

Attempt to direct its members as to which candidate or party they should give their votes to. This policy applies whether or not a candidate for office is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Attempt to direct or dictate to a government leader.

Source: lds.org
Join the Discussion
Post a Comment
Read All Comments (893)

DeVisser, who oversees a number of LDS congregations in the south valley, never referred to President Barack Obama or his Mormon opponent, GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, in his speech Feb. 3 to the Hidden Valley Stake Conference but did say 2012 would "prove to be one of the more significant years in our lifetime."

He cited evidence of the nation’s declining values, including an effort to raise taxes during "the worst economic times since the Great Depression," some states legalizing same-sex marriage, government-funded abortions and the frenzy leading up to the "fiscal cliff."

"The U.N. ambassador," he added, "was instructed by the White House to cover up what happened in Libya, attempting to minimize the deaths of four Americans who were murdered."

In the speech, DeVisser — who did not return calls seeking comment for this story — said he did not intend to be controversial or political, but was directed in his thinking by the "Holy Ghost."

He later emailed a copy of the speech to a Mormon in his stake and, within days, it was being forwarded, posted and linked online. Soon it had gone viral on the Internet, appearing on more than 200 websites, blogs and Facebook pages, generating heated debates between believers on the political left and right.

Among the first to post the talk was LDS Freedom Forum, a website for mostly conservative, libertarian and politically independent Mormons, where it met with approval. Mormons for Obama, however, put it on their site, outraged that an LDS leader would use his church post in such a way.

"He tries to say it is not a political talk," said Crystal Young-Otterstrom, chairwoman of Utah’s LDS Dems Caucus, "but then he uses buzzwords of the Republican Party."

Young-Otterstrom reiterated Thursday that neither Obama nor the Democratic Party is socialistic.

story continues below
story continues below

Movie review: ‘Snitch’ long on message, short on action
Published Feb 22, 2013 10:27:49AM
Film review: ‘John Dies at the End’ is a weird, wild trip
Published Feb 22, 2013 10:27:49AM
Movie review: ‘Happy People’ rambles through life in Siberia
Published Feb 22, 2013 10:27:49AM
Local Sounds: King Niko to release new album on March 16
Published Feb 22, 2013 10:27:49AM

"He may not have said go out and vote for Republicans," she said, "but he is clearly biased. Where in the Scriptures does it talk about capitalism as a great economic system?"

Steve Olsen, vice chairman of the LDS Dems, said DeVisser’s speech was "way out of line."

"As a former bishop, I believe we who have been given the awesome responsibility to preside in an organization that believes in revelation must approach that responsibility with great humility and restraint," Olsen wrote in an email. "I believe there is nothing that displeases the Lord more than claiming revelation for something over which we have no authority."

But those on the other side of the political spectrum applauded DeVisser’s assertions.

"It being a pro-freedom talk, with multiple statements in favor of free enterprise and self-reliance and against socialism, is something members of this forum are very interested in," Brian, LDS Freedom Forum administrator, wrote in an email. "They like to see that leaders of the church, at various levels, continue to sound the warning voice against those things that are destructive to freedom."

Even so, he said DeVisser’s second counselor in the three-member stake presidency asked Freedom Forum to take down the speech.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a strict policy of political neutrality, a stance it reaffirmed repeatedly throughout the 2012 campaign as a Mormon candidate headed a major party ticket for the first time. The Utah-based faith forbids members and leaders from using church buildings, membership lists and other resources for partisan political purposes.

"Stake presidents and other local leaders," says the church’s leadership Handbook, "should not organize members to participate in political matters or attempt to influence how they participate."

How to understand this? "
"Stake presidents and other local leaders," says the church’s leadership Handbook, "should not organize members to participate in political matters or attempt to influence how they participate.""

How about the leading Seventy at BYU organizing a Commencement to honor Dick Cheney, with talks and an honorary PhD? I guess that's a good thing, not "attempt[ing] to influence [members] how they participate"?

[Fairminded]

How to understand this? "
"Stake presidents and other local leaders," says the church’s leadership Handbook, "should not organize members to participate in political matters or attempt to influence how they participate.""

How about the leading Seventy at BYU organizing a Commencement to honor Dick Cheney, with talks and an honorary PhD? I guess that's a good thing, not "attempt[ing] to influence [members] how they participate"?

I honestly don't know how to understand it. Everything that's happened involving inviting LDGs to speak, giving them honors, and firing honest people from their jobs for searching for the TRUTH all smack of a horrible double standard.

[uglypitbull]

“The ravening wolves are amongst us, from our own membership, and they, more than any others, are clothed in sheep’s clothing because they wear the habiliments of the priesthood. We should be careful of them.” ~ President J. Reuben Clark, Jr.

[moonwhim]

Well, we can still educate our member friends.....are we doing that?

[Col. Flagg]

How to understand this? "
"Stake presidents and other local leaders," says the church’s leadership Handbook, "should not organize members to participate in political matters or attempt to influence how they participate.""

How about the leading Seventy at BYU organizing a Commencement to honor Dick Cheney, with talks and an honorary PhD? I guess that's a good thing, not "attempt[ing] to influence [members] how they participate"?

I honestly don't know how to understand it. Everything that's happened involving inviting LDGs to speak, giving them honors, and firing honest people from their jobs for searching for the TRUTH all smack of a horrible double standard.

I think it's rather apparent what the church is doing... it does not want to ruffle the feathers of the beast right now and so it chooses to make it appear on the surface that it is ignorant to the evils being perpetated upon the nation politically, financially and militarily while showing support for those in charge of our country and probably the most important, the church has a $30 billion corporation and assets to protect and cannot afford to risk losing its 501c3 tax-exempt status by challenging the evils being spewn by a thoroughly corrupt federal government. With respect to Cheney coming here and addressing graduating BYU students... he strongly requested to be allowed to come here and speak... it was not an invitation and what a coincidence as well that soon after he and Bush met with the First Presidency in Salt Lake City that Dr. Jones was being placed on administrative leave from BYU for his pursuit, research and outspokenness of the truth regarding the events of 9/11. 2+2=4.

[Fairminded]

Unfortunately the Church can't stay neutral at this time. Situations force them to either toe the line or face hits to public image and even retaliation.

The fact that lately the Church has come down hard on any member saying anything that would damage their public image, while at the same time honoring the enemies of freedom, gives the impression that the Church supports these evil men and has no intention of ever going against them.

I'm just wondering if it will help. There are plenty of prophecies that the Church will face growing persecution, and the people they're falling in line with are openly the enemies of righteousness. They'll use us until they don't need us, and then destruction comes.

This is just personal speculation, though. An equally horrifying possibility is that the Church will become a sanctioned religion of these evil men, allowed to operate as their lackeys. I wonder if any bishops are being corralled by the federal government to tell their wards to obey the government in all situations, like other clergy have been co-opted.

I have to hold to the hope that when the time to stand up for righteousness comes the Church will finally step forward. But even then there's a very huge risk that members will say "Hold on. For the last few decades Church leaders have supported and praised these men. And now they tell us to oppose them? Isn't "God the same yesterday, today, and forever?"

I hope God has a plan to make good come of this situation, but in my limited understanding I can't see it.

[Col. Flagg]

Unfortunately the Church can't stay neutral at this time. Situations force them to either toe the line or face hits to public image and even retaliation.

I agree, but the church is doing its darndest to stay silent and remain neutral.

The fact that lately the Church has come down hard on any member saying anything that would damage their public image, while at the same time honoring the enemies of freedom, gives the impression that the Church supports these evil men and has no intention of ever going against them.

I don't think it's a matter of supporting them... it's a matter of protecting the church's financial well-being, tax-exempt status and institutional operations. IMHO, they're simply employing the strategy of 'keeping your friends close and your enemies closer'.

I'm just wondering if it will help. There are plenty of prophecies that the Church will face growing persecution, and the people they're falling in line with are openly the enemies of righteousness. They'll use us until they don't need us, and then destruction comes.

I'm starting to wonder if maybe that prophecy has to do with the persecution coming from its own membership for their weak stances in so many areas and failure to defend truth and righteousness while coddling those destroying our nation and deceiving in the name of money, power and control, all to protect its own interests?

I wonder if any bishops are being corralled by the federal government to tell their wards to obey the government in all situations, like other clergy have been co-opted.

There doesn't seem to be any evidence of this... yet anyway. :-s

[skmo]

Hmmmm.... I distinctly remember the thread, and google-search (cached) remembers the thread also:

Best Stake Conference I Ever Attended - LDS Freedom Forum -
http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... 52974Share" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
11 posts - 11 authors - Feb 4
President De Visser ..... by DrJones » Tue Feb 05, 2013 5:12 am ... DeVisser! thank him for sharing via email, its quite a surprise really to hear ...

But, strangely, that thread has DISappeared... poof!

But wasn't it just a duplicate of this thread? Or am I confusing this talk with another one?

[e-eye]

I think I am more surprised by the comments in the article. Over 1k comments and many of them negative a lot of which are from members #-o

It did say in the article that Brian was asked to take down the letter from LDSFF and that would explain why the thread no longer exsists.

[Col. Flagg]

I think I am more surprised by the comments in the article. Over 1k comments and many of them negative a lot of which are from members #-o

It did say in the article that Brian was asked to take down the letter from LDSFF and that would explain why the thread no longer exsists.

Here's my question though... wasn't the letter that he posted in the private section of the forum, meaning it wasn't available publicly for anyone to see?

[Fairminded]

I don't think it's a matter of supporting them... it's a matter of protecting the church's financial well-being, tax-exempt status and institutional operations. IMHO, they're simply employing the strategy of 'keeping your friends close and your enemies closer'.

I'm sure they aren't intentionally supporting them, and in fact find them repugnant in the extreme. But when all is said and done the Church is coming away with the appearance of providing that support. And the LDGs will be able at any time to provide at least circumstantial evidence of that support and twist it to their own ends. They already own the media and control public perception. And being able to make it look like the Church supports evil is perhaps one of the most vicious attacks they could make.

[jonesde]

I wonder what percentage of church members would cry out if LDS Church reps at the highest levels spoke out against the very programs that members use to avoid work, responsibility, charity, and other virtues taught about in church and church materials (including scriptures and modern books written by prophets).

Even though there is only so much overlap between gospel principles and libertarian ideals, one thing I have noticed is that conservatives label them as liberal ideas, and liberals label them as conservative agenda.

[Col. Flagg]

I don't think it's a matter of supporting them... it's a matter of protecting the church's financial well-being, tax-exempt status and institutional operations. IMHO, they're simply employing the strategy of 'keeping your friends close and your enemies closer'.

I'm sure they aren't intentionally supporting them, and in fact find them repugnant in the extreme. But when all is said and done the Church is coming away with the appearance of providing that support. And the LDGs will be able at any time to provide at least circumstantial evidence of that support and twist it to their own ends. They already own the media and control public perception. And being able to make it look like the Church supports evil is perhaps one of the most vicious attacks they could make.

I don't necessarily see it that way - why or what could the LDG's use as leverage against the church for supporting them? IMHO (and this is really a hope), the day is coming soon when our prophet, whoever he may be, is going to go Samuel the Lamanite on not just this nation but especially our own government and when that happens, it is going to sift the wheat from the tares, bring persecution the likes of which we have never known and isolate the church... big time.

[e-eye]

I think I am more surprised by the comments in the article. Over 1k comments and many of them negative a lot of which are from members #-o

It did say in the article that Brian was asked to take down the letter from LDSFF and that would explain why the thread no longer exsists.

Here's my question though... wasn't the letter that he posted in the private section of the forum, meaning it wasn't available publicly for anyone to see?

Good Question. I can't remember as I have access to both and don't pay attention to which is which. Someone must have hijacked it as it said that it had gone viral all over the internet. Who was the member that posted it originally?

Regardless it was a great talk.

[uglypitbull]

IMHO (and this is really a hope), the day is coming soon when our prophet, whoever he may be, is going to go Samuel the Lamanite on not just this nation but especially our own government and when that happens, it is going to sift the wheat from the tares, bring persecution the likes of which we have never known and isolate the church... big time.

It wont be a prophet bro, it will be a plague.

[Col. Flagg]

IMHO (and this is really a hope), the day is coming soon when our prophet, whoever he may be, is going to go Samuel the Lamanite on not just this nation but especially our own government and when that happens, it is going to sift the wheat from the tares, bring persecution the likes of which we have never known and isolate the church... big time.

It wont be a prophet bro, it will be a plague.

Maybe, but I think the Lord will allow us one last chance to repent and will issue that warning through his mouthpiece on the earth before the purple-blotch plague strikes and begins the cleansing process.

[Fairminded]

I don't think it's a matter of supporting them... it's a matter of protecting the church's financial well-being, tax-exempt status and institutional operations. IMHO, they're simply employing the strategy of 'keeping your friends close and your enemies closer'.

I'm sure they aren't intentionally supporting them, and in fact find them repugnant in the extreme. But when all is said and done the Church is coming away with the appearance of providing that support. And the LDGs will be able at any time to provide at least circumstantial evidence of that support and twist it to their own ends. They already own the media and control public perception. And being able to make it look like the Church supports evil is perhaps one of the most vicious attacks they could make.

I don't necessarily see it that way - why or what could the LDG's use as leverage against the church for supporting them? IMHO (and this is really a hope), the day is coming soon when our prophet, whoever he may be, is going to go Samuel the Lamanite on not just this nation but especially our own government and when that happens, it is going to sift the wheat from the tares, bring persecution the likes of which we have never known and isolate the church... big time.

I think we may both be saying some of the same things. I'm sure before too long the Church will be forced to take its stand. The problem is that when they do, the LDGs will be able to show pictures of Monson shaking Cheney's hand, all the redacted statements and official Church corrections of controversial topics, and the actions highly placed Church officials have taken against those trying to tell the truth, and say "Look! They're talking from both sides of their mouth! They didn't have a problem with any of this and even silenced their membership on these issues but now they're pretending they've been resolute the entire time. It's just a publicity stunt!"

[jonesde]

I'm sure they aren't intentionally supporting them, and in fact find them repugnant in the extreme. But when all is said and done the Church is coming away with the appearance of providing that support. And the LDGs will be able at any time to provide at least circumstantial evidence of that support and twist it to their own ends. They already own the media and control public perception. And being able to make it look like the Church supports evil is perhaps one of the most vicious attacks they could make.

I don't necessarily see it that way - why or what could the LDG's use as leverage against the church for supporting them? IMHO (and this is really a hope), the day is coming soon when our prophet, whoever he may be, is going to go Samuel the Lamanite on not just this nation but especially our own government and when that happens, it is going to sift the wheat from the tares, bring persecution the likes of which we have never known and isolate the church... big time.

I think we may both be saying some of the same things. I'm sure before too long the Church will be forced to take its stand. The problem is that when they do, the LDGs will be able to show pictures of Monson shaking Cheney's hand, all the redacted statements and official Church corrections of controversial topics, and the actions highly placed Church officials have taken against those trying to tell the truth, and say "Look! They're talking from both sides of their mouth! They didn't have a problem with any of this and even silenced their membership on these issues but now they're pretending they've been resolute the entire time. It's just a publicity stunt!"

This seems vaguely familiar... oh yeah, wasn't a certain prominent LDS politician known for doing this sort of thing?

Thanks Mitt Romney... should really smooth out the whole situation...

[BroJones]

Well, this forum is getting some well-deserved attention, IMHO -- over 1250 comments at slTrib on this article.

Note that it was a Stk Presy counselor who asked Brian to remove the TALK in question; I'm curious if it was on a private thread, though, if so -- how did "Outsiders" find out about it??

Kudos to Brian for answering well in the Trib -- here's the 2nd page of the article on-line:

LDS Church spokesman Scott Trotter did not comment Thursday directly on DeVisser’s speech but reiterated that "messages and statements from lay leaders are intended for the local congregations they oversee, and are not binding on the whole church."

Brian, who is Mormon, does not think DeVis­ser crossed the church’s line on politics.

President Matthew DeVisser's Talk by

The LDS Church’s policy

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is neutral in matters of party politics. The church does not:

Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms.

Allow its church buildings, membership lists or other resources to be used for partisan political purposes.

Attempt to direct its members as to which candidate or party they should give their votes to. This policy applies whether or not a candidate for office is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Attempt to direct or dictate to a government leader.

Source: lds.org
Join the Discussion
Post a Comment

"He wasn’t promoting a political party or any partisan politics. President DeVisser was only promoting correct principles, the principles that make people free. Modern prophets from [Mormon founder] Joseph Smith until today have all been teaching us correct principles, even regarding the proper role of government," Brian said. "That is not politics; it is simply truth as it relates to government."

Mormon libertarian Connor Boyack agrees.

"The LDS Church’s position of political neutrality deals with candidates, not issues," Boyack, author of two books dealing with Mormonism and politics, wrote in an email. "DeVisser did a good job of connecting the dots that, to many Latter-day Saints, might be unrelated. Political machinations and current events, both at home and abroad, have as much relevance to our faith as do the breakdown of the family and rampant immorality."

To Boyack, LDS leaders "need to speak much more about our faith’s application to these things, and not less."

Everyone agrees that DeVisser’s starkly political wording doesn’t happen often in the LDS Church.

"It is fair to say it is very, very unusual to see this kind of thing in an official church meeting," said Brigham Young University political scientist Quin Monson, who has asked about it on surveys he has conducted. "Personally, I can’t remember specifically in my 10 years in Orem hearing something political over the pulpit."

While DeVisser’s approach isn’t unprecedented, Monson said, "you’d have to go back to the 1960s with speeches by [then Mormon apostle] Ezra Taft Benson to find some examples."

Federal election records show that a Matt S. DeVisser, of Draper, gave at least three campaign contributions to Romney between May 2011 and June 2012, totaling $950.




LDS stake presidents are allowed to donate to campaigns, because they are not full-time church leaders, but speaking about partisan politics over the pulpit "gives extra weight to their position and implies some kind of officialness that isn’t there," Monson said. "What I see generally is the church bending over backwards in the other direction."

During Romney’s White House run, Monson said, "it was almost like [LDS officials] were playing a game of Twister to try to avoid commenting or engaging on any topic that seemed to tie the church to the campaign."

[creator]

Hmmmm.... I distinctly remember the thread.. But, strangely, that thread has DISappeared... poof!

It was re-posted here by another user after the original user wanted his post deleted:
http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... =1&t=27539" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It was also in the public area of the forum.

Even so, Brian said DeVisser’s second counselor in the three-member stake presidency asked Freedom Forum to take down the speech.

Actually she got that one wrong. It should read Brian said DeVisser’s second counselor in the three-member stake presidency asked A MEMBER OF THE Freedom Forum to take down the speech. There is a big difference there. No one asked me to remove the post, they only asked the forum member that posted it. Now that's it's gone viral and been posted on many websites there's no point in even worrying about taking it down.

Good Question. I can't remember as I have access to both and don't pay attention to which is which. Someone must have hijacked it as it said that it had gone viral all over the internet. Who was the member that posted it originally?

Durangout is the one to thank for it going viral . How could he have known? He complied with their request and had me remove it but by then it was already spreading like wildfire and another forum member re-posted the talk.

[bbrown]

IMHO (and this is really a hope), the day is coming soon when our prophet, whoever he may be, is going to go Samuel the Lamanite on not just this nation but especially our own government and when that happens, it is going to sift the wheat from the tares, bring persecution the likes of which we have never known and isolate the church... big time.

What makes that example so interesting is that Samuel came from outside of the church hierarchy. Was he a member? Probably, but he certainly wasn't in a leadership position. He was never seen more amongst the Nephites, and even Nephi didn't give his words the respect the Lord thought he should have. He was "a prophet", absolutely, but certainly not "THE prophet", and because Christ himself chastized Nephi for not including his words, they were added to our scripture. My question is, will this prophet you are hoping we see call us to repentance be from within the leadership of the church, or will he really be like Samuel and be a "nobody"...or will we see both?

Personally, I think we've passed the point of no return as far as the freedoms within this government system are concerned. That is not to say that we shouldn't continue doing everything we can to support freedom, whatever that may be, but I think it'll be the final call to repentance that we hear prior to the Lord showing forth His arm, and not just repentance for letting the LGD's reign over us.

CB