May 18
I Guess I Was Wrong…Huntsman WON’T Help Spread the Gospel
2009 at 6:36 pm | posted by Rep. Craig Frank 29 comments
First of all…this website is just my dumb little personal blog. It’s like an on-line journal where I keep a record of a few of my thoughts regarding issues and current events that pop up from time-to-time. Underthedome.org is not an official website of the Utah Legislature (or any of its affiliates). I’m not just a representative, I’m also a human being…a father, a husband, a member of the LDS Church, a small business owner, a taxpayer…and occasionally, I golf. This website is not paid for with taxpayer money. The fact that someone would even care to refer to something I posted is…well…beyond me.
You can read the Salt Lake Tribune Article HERE…if you want to.
Nonetheless, some have called attention to my own personal “speculation” from this, my on-line journal. Whether their supposition is right or wrong…it doesn’t matter. Unless, in fact, the Prophet of God has granted a special dispensation to Brother Jon M. Huntsman, Jr., he is under the same obligation as any member of the Church to share the gospel “throughout the world.”
So, don’t worry…it’s just me thinking out loud, again.
29 Responses to “I Guess I Was Wrong…Huntsman WON’T Help Spread the Gospel”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
May 18th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
So Professor Christensen,
I guess if we follow your logic…If f Bro. Hunstman isn’t under the obgligation as a member of the Church to spread the gospel (Matthew 28, D&C 4) while he’s in China, does he still have to obey the word of wisdom, be loyal to his wife or follow any other gospel tennant while serving as Ambassador?
May 18th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Craig, even the Trib article said he would lead by example and in a country with feasts that include tea and alcohol, he will stand out. Just think – now even more people know that you are not just a “Sunday Mormon”, but someone who lives and breathes his religion every day – as I hope Mr Ambassador will do as well….
May 18th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Keep blogging, Rep. Frank. You are one of the most accessible members of the Leg. through this blog and that is to be commended.
May 18th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
…and occasionally, I golf … and occasionally you have a caffeinated beverage, a cold caffeinated beverage.
Don’t even think about taxing my caffeine man.
May 18th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Thomas, you’ll be OK…the Caffeine Tax proposal is really about the Cigarette Tax…unless, of course you smoke…then it’s even better…
http://underthedome.org/?p=581
http://underthedome.org/?p=694
May 18th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Tom, thanks…it’s not my intention to stop posting on my personal on-line journal (blog). BTW, how’s Law School going? I believe you’re done with year one?!
May 18th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
AMEN BROTHER! If the worst thing that you do as a state representative is expressing your beliefs about your Religion and talking about how to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ then KEEP IT UP >>>>>>>
WE NEED MORE ELECTED PEOPLE WITH SOME KOHONES TO REMIND AMERICA THAT THIS COUNTRY IS FOUNDED ON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES, AND AMERICA”S FOUNDATION IS BASED ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH.
May 18th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Martin, just so long as those “Christian principles” you speak of are Episcopalian I’m cool with them, Amen!
May 18th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
With Huntsman’s pandering to the homosexual lobby lately, I’m worried that he might pander by accepting booze at events that he’s invited to in China.
I hope I’m wrong.
May 19th, 2009 at 12:58 am
Religious triumphalism will be the scourge of the 21st Century. Please Gov. Huntsman, please don’t try and spread any more of it, whether in China or anywhere else.
May 19th, 2009 at 1:09 am
Simple Utah Mormon Politics, you hoped you were wrong and you are.
A lot of Mormons see things differently concerning “right and wrong”, including about homosexuality. More all the time. Expressing their views has nothing to do with either pandering or politics. The Governor in his personal views was right on this one. Eventually the majority of Mormons will come around. Otherwise, you’d just as well be in the 1960’s and against Civil Rights: on the losing side. When same sex marriages become legally protected, as they eventually will be (even here in Utah), traditional marriages will still account for 95-97% of marriages. Neither your marriage, the Mormon church nor society will be threatened. And you can still preach against homosexuality in Sunday School same as you preach against tobacco and alcohol. Life will go on.
May 19th, 2009 at 10:17 am
‘Simple Utah Mormon Politics’, I take a sip of booze every Sunday – in church! And I take that communion right alongside homosexuals.
Remember, Mormons are not the only folks who worship God here in Utah.
That was one of the things I liked about Huntsman, he understood that Utah is not monocultural.
May 19th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Oh my goodness. Don’t you realize that by stating, on your blog on the internet, that Huntsman might be good for the church, you’ve singlehandedly brought tons of scrutiny on his work in China and made it that much more difficult for him to improve the Church’s reputation?
The best thing Huntsman can do for the Church is to be competent at his job and to not try to force the issue of religion. The WORST thing he could do for the church is mix politics with religion; that will only shut doors.
It’s obvious that Huntsman — or ANY member of the church in a prominent position — has the opportunity to advance the cause of the Church. Not by proselytizing, however, but simply by being competent, respectful, articulate, and effective.
But now that you’ve forced the issue and the media has picked up on it, that will be all the more difficult.
And saying “this is just my lame little personal blog” is a very weak excuse. You are a public official, duly elected. What you say publicly matters. You should think a little harder about what you say on the internet.
May 19th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
What ever happened to separation of church and state? This is why I believe Utah is the black sheep of the country.
May 19th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
If you wanted to have your comment be treated as just your own personal thoughts on the matter and not as an official statement by a state representative, you ought to have posted them on a personal blog and not one that most people assume is for you to communicate with your constituents with. It is possible to have more than one blog at a time, separating your official comments from your personal ones.
May 19th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
I think Huntsman has been down this road before, don’t you? I think almost every political person who has a strong religious conviction goes down this road. Huntsman has shown that he is very competent to be the Ambassador. I would hope that those who scrutinize him will be more influenced on what he has done himself, and not what others say of him. If a few of us hope that the fact that he is Mormon opens the eyes of the Chinese government officials, then “woohoo” for us. Obviously, Huntsman is a professional and will represent the United States of America in the capacity that he is very competent to do. Don’t let this side note deter anyone from knowing Huntsman has the capacity to do the job well. But please, also, let us express our own hope for our own religious beliefs. Why should it “technically” matter if Huntsman is LDS or not? He has shown that he has fulfilled his duties extremely well in whatever capacity he has to this point. I personally may disagree with some of his decisions, but I respect Huntsman for doing whatever he’s been appointed to do in government well.
May 19th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
I noticed you aren’t getting much slack on your religion posts here, well, if it’s any consolation to you Craig I like your posts about religion and politics. I might disagree with you a bunch, but as long as you don’t actually try to tax my caffeine we should get along amiably enough. :^)
May 19th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Well, aren’t you just the cutest thing. To have an online “personal journal” posted on the world wide web with no notion others might actually read it. Come on. Grow up.
The implications for the LDS Church are huge because Hunstman will likely conduct himself in a professional and appropriate manner demonstrating for the world that just because one is Mormon does not mean one has to act like it in inappropriate ways. Huntsman is a pro, realizing there are times and places for religious prosletizing, and times and places where it is offensive and inappropriate. I wish you understood this concept better yourself, sir.
May 20th, 2009 at 7:30 am
Craig,
I agree with you. I think Huntsman in China will be a great example of his religion and will represent his country well. You were just stating reality which some people seem to have difficulty with.
May 20th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Two things:
First, the Church has two missions in India: Bangalore and New Delhi. I’m just sayin’.
Second, the Church puts students and faculty at the Jerusalem Center on strict requirements to avoid proselytizing out of respect for the religious/political situation in Israel. Why should China be any different? People don’t have to go door to door to be missionaries, as many of your commenters have already said. Your implication that Mr. Huntsman will do anything other than act professionally in the way he conducts his ambassadorial duties is an embarrassment.
May 20th, 2009 at 10:21 am
That’s wonderful, that we have missions in India. I stand corrected.
May 20th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Isn’t Huntsman also obligated by his own church’s 12th Article of Faith,
“We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”
Doesn’t China have a law against proselytizing, which is the only thing keeping the Army of Mormon Missionaries from spreading out to the 4th and largest corner of the earth?
Oh yeah, this is the same duplicitous institution that knowingly violates that article of faith by illegally transporting known illegal aliens across state lines, which is apparently justifiable to Mormons, as long as they do it in the name of Joseph’s Myth, who was so arrogant that he considred himself above the law, until he was proven dead wrong.
Hopefully Huntsman takes a lesson from the alley cat who started the religious delusion he used to fleece his flock, which Huntsman now uses to identify himself.
Fortunately the Chinese have had their fill of charlatans and they are wise to our American born delusions.
May 20th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
CF… According to the Church’s own canonized scripture (Pearl of Great Price), Joseph Smith was at least 16 (possibly 17) when he received the “First Vision”…
POGP JS-H 1:3… “… My father, Joseph Smith, Sen., left the State of Vermont, and moved to Palmyra, Ontario (now Wayne) county, in the State of New York, when I was in my tenth year, or thereabouts. In about four years after my father’s arrival in Palmyra, he moved with his family into Manchester in the same county of Ontario”
POGP JS-H 1:5… “Some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester, there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion. …” (The unusual excitement being the revivals – which led to the reading of James 1:5 – which led to the prayer in the woods and the First Vision).
So why does the Church teach that Joseph Smith received the First Vision when he was 14 (in contradiction with the Pearl of Great Price)?
When you’ve researched, and answered that question, then you’ll know the real obligation of Huntsman concerning his political capacity, his religious capacity, and China.
Your’s truly… A member of the Church.
May 20th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
William Law sounds like he came straight over from the daily feeding frenzy at americablog. It is possible to make a point without being intentionally offensive.
And as far as I can tell, Huntsman hasn’t committed any offense yet, seeing as how he still has to be confirmed by the Senate and actually go to China.
Relax.
May 20th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Hey Rep. Frank, I think you’re a stand-up guy. Don’t let em grind you down.
May 20th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
I amused by the fact that you “think out loud” to the entire world. Usually people think out loud by accident when they’re alone, or with friends, but thinking out loud to the world!?…I believe there’s a word for that…oh yeah,”Narcissism”. Think about what you write before you put it at the worlds’ fingertips and think about how that relates to everyone else.
Of course people are going to be disgruntled by your obsessions with the Mormon church. You’re a politician…The first amendment prohibits government interaction with religion. (I’m not saying that politicians can’t involve themselves in an organized religion, I’m just saying that using political status to spread religion is against the constitution).
Oh, and last I heard, China’s government doesn’t allow religion. They’re communist.
May 21st, 2009 at 9:25 am
Amused,
I actually voted FOR him because he “thinks out loud” I want to know how my Rep. thinks!
He “represents” me, and I need to know how he thinks, so I know who I’m voting for.
Seperation from Church and State does not mean the person has to seperate himself form his faith, only that he can’t mandate it.
Narcissism : An exceptional interest in and admiration for yourself.
Nothing there about sharing your thoughts.
June 7th, 2009 at 1:26 am
There are many Southern Baptists (certainly not all) in this country who have very similar viewpoints with those of Rep. Frank in the sense that they believe that Matt. 28 means that government officials should be using their government positions to be promoting their version of Christianity.
Problem is, they have different views of Chrisitianity.
Are there any LDS on this chain who support Rep. Frank AND WHO ALSO THINK that there is no problem with Southern Baptist government officials using their official positions (and “private” blogs) to proselytize that “Mormons are not really Christians”?
Do we really want taxpayer-supported government officials to be using their official positions to promote religious beliefs WITH WHICH WE DISAGREE? Or are those supporting Rep. Frank doing so with the narrow belief that it is only as long as THEIR OWN religious beliefs are being promoted by taxpayer-financed officials that it is okay?
Do we want US ambassadors who are Catholic using their official positions to be promoting Catholicism?
Rep. Frank: if you think it is okay for government officials who are Southern Baptists to use their official positions to promote the belief that “Mormons are not really Christians” — please say so. Or if you believe that ONLY LDS should be able to use their government positions to promote Mormonism — please say so.
June 7th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Earnest: I NEVER stated Mormons are the only Christians under divine obligation to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the world…in fact, the “charge” I used was from Matthew 28:19. All Christians are under the same obligation to “Go ye therefore…” Personally, I have absolutely no trouble with any sincerely motived Christian from spreading the “good news” at the proper time and in the proper place to any people who would follow the truth “if they knew where to find it.”
And, maybe a point of additional clarification: Sir, no matter where I am, no matter what I’m doing, no matter how or what I’m speaking…I am a Christian first (or should be attempting to be such). No doubt, sometimes, in the political arena it is difficult to remember my primary obligation. Perhaps it won’t be until after I depart from “political” office that I will truely feel comfotable again in my own skin…the skin of a Christian attempting to share the Gospel with my friends and neighbors…wherever I am. Because…I’ll always be a Christian…but I won’t always serve as an elected official.