WASHINGTON, D.C. -- It was a meeting of two presidents today: The president of the United States and the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Church officials brought Pres. Obama a gift.
That gift was a leather-bound, five book record of President Obama's family history.
Presidents and religious leaders often meet at the White House, but this meeting is happening amid complex wars and conflicts overseas. There are cultural differences and divisiveness here at home, too, such as an economy struggling to recover and a looming health care crisis.
Politically, today's meeting, though fairly routine, is still a sign of mutual support on what unites us.
Political pollster Dan Jones said, "Pres. Monson wants to get across to the people of the United States and the world that we want our president to succeed."
After receiving the five-book volume of his family's genealogy, the President said in a statement: "I enjoyed my meeting with Pres. Monson and Elder Oaks. I'm grateful for the genealogical records that they brought with them and am looking forward to reading through the materials with my daughters. It's something our family will treasure for years to come."
Pres. Monson said, "Pres. Obama's heritage is rich with examples of leadership, sacrifice and service. We were very pleased to research his family history and are honored to present it to him today.
Nevada senator Harry Reid arranged the meeting, which was also attended by Elder Dallin Oaks.
"The Church has great resources and experience in genealogy work, and we are proud to have researched such a unique and impressive family history," Oaks said. The Church has also presented personal histories to other U.S. Presidents, including George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
This is only the 14th time that an LDS Church president has been invited to the White House. This meeting is evidence that members of the LDS Church do have political clout and that President Obama respects that.
It's the first time President Obama and President Monson have sat down face to face. First Lady Michelle Obama met with LDS apostles M. Russell Ballard and Quentin L. Cook on behalf of her husband during a campaign stop last year in Salt Lake.
After reading comments about this on another LDS forum that was saying unkind thngs about this meeting due to their own animosity with President Obama, I tried to remind them that "Our Side" is actually a Church rather than a right-wing political organization that they apparently thought it was.
I'm glad to see that President Monson extended the hand of friendship to President Obama. It would have been stupid to do otherwise. With the Democrats in control of the White House and both houses of Congress, the need for nonpartisanship is more urgent than ever. The Republicans are out. Those who would have wanted to make the Church a Republican organization were not doing the Church, or Utah, any favors.
I also thought it was interesting that the meeting was set up by Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader from Nevada, who also happens to be LDS. While frequently demonized by Republicans, including Mormon Republicans, Reid is the highest-ranking Mormon in American goverment - and easily the most influential. To estrange the man because he belonged to the "wrong" party was just more stupidity on a stick.
Family histories have been provided to Bush, Jr & Clinton. I wonder if this is just becoming something that will go forward with all presidents.
All politics aside, I think it is cool. I think what the Obamas have received is truly a treasure, and it is something that can be passed down for may generations.
It's nice to see the 'common' human side of both Presidents' Monson & Obama.
The giving of a gift like this is a form of tribute, short of either bribery or endorsement. It's a gesture of respect. The Church wants its rights protected under a new administration. The President wants as much of an endorsement as possible, to gain access to and influence upon the votes and wallets of the church's membership. Both parties gain status conferral by a shared photo-op.
I'm sure Obama's people know that Utah is solidly Republican and that it voted for McCain by a wide margin, but there are opportunities for making gains in "enemy territory." In 2008, McCain won his "home" state of Arizona but a number of key states flipped, including Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, Ohio - and three western states: Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico. It was to be expected that Arizona would vote for its favorite son, but when three of the six states bordering Utah flip like that, it presents an opportunity. The West isn't worth much, electorally. The big numbers are on the Pacific coast, and they're all solidly Democrat. But being an adroit basketball player, Obama knows the importance of the Book-of-Mormon admonition "by small things are great things brought to pass." The relatively empty mountain west presents an opportunity for a little electoral padding as well as big chunks of blue on the electoral map. Breaking up the solid mass of red - from south to west - was a major feat for a man once dismissed as a mere "community organizer."
For both parties, the photo op was also an opportunity to reach beyond differences. The Church's token genealogy gift (which was presented to Obama's predecessors) is a reminder of the Church's focus on family as well as a light hand of friendship. It's no secret that Utah's solid vote for McCain (with Obama losing all but three counties - Summit, Grand and Salt Lake) reflects how far Obama would have to go to win Utah over. Was it just because he was a black man in a state dominated by a church that didn't give black Mormons equal rights until 1978? Probably not, given Utah's long history of going Republican - election after election. Obama's biggest win was Salt Lake County, by a margin of one-tenth of one percent. McCain still took the state by a whopping 62% but, compared to 2004, it's actually a shift. Bush took the state by 71%. Kerry's showing was 26%, eight points below Obama's. In 2004, the Democrats didn't win a single county. To win even three, in 2008, represents progress for their side, especially when one of those counties - Salt Lake - represents the largest group of voters in the state.
As I've mentioned before, there is a need for fence mending. Utah's love affair with the Republican Party - and its influence on church-state relations under the Bush administration - has created a potential issue, now that the shoe is on the other foot. Back in 2000, the Republicans owned the White House and both houses of Congress. Now, the Democrats do. What might have seemed advisable - in terms of cozying up to the Republicans - is now ill-fated. It's a basic political truism that the district of the mayor's biggest rival is usually the last to see road improvements. Sun Tzu advised his general to give spoils to the conquering troops. Since Andrew Jackson, the "spoils system" has been a prominent part of the political changing of the guard. The last guy you want to be is the one who spent his resources trying to keep the new king from coming to power.
This is particularly important when you consider that 57% of Utah belongs to the federal government. The policies of the BLM and the Department of the Interior affect Utah's economy, both in terms of what is mined and where cattle are grazed. Past conflicts over land management are one reason Utahns trend so heavily toward the Republican Party and its message of limited government and states' rights. (Of course, it doesn't hurt that the state was invaded by the federal government under James Buchanan, a Democrat, though much of the later persecution of the Church occurred under the aegis of the Republicans and statehood was granted, in 1896, during the administration of Grover Cleveland, another Democrat.)
If I were a Utahn, I would want to make nice to the Democrats. If I were Obama, I'd want to do what I could to plant some seeds. It would be quite a coup if Utah went Democrat in 2012 but then again, it was quite a coup that Obama flipped three of its neighbors in 2008.
In the spirit of political "bipartisanship" I will keep my comments postive. I will acknowlege that Obama is very good at running political campaigns, and he is very good at navigating the muddy waters of the political scene in Washington. That being said, I agree with Bill in that this is more of a political statement more than anything else. Do I really think it will make a difference in the long run? Not really, but it certainly is a nice gesture on the part of the Church.
I think it was a good idea for President Monson to visit Obama and give him that gift. I, personally, do not like Obama especially since he said that the United States was not a Judao (spelling?) Christian Nation. I am posting a link below. I hope it is functional. If not, please copy and paste it into your browser address line and hear what Senator Forbes had to say about the matter. During his campaign, I was told that Obama was a Christian. But it would seem to me, that a true Christian would not make such a statement, as this country was founded on the basis of religious freedom and our motton is In God We Trust.
I think it was a good idea for President Monson to visit Obama and give him that gift. I, personally, do not like Obama especially since he said that the United States was not a Judao (spelling?) Christian Nation. I am posting a link below. I hope it is functional. If not, please copy and paste it into your browser address line and hear what Senator Forbes had to say about the matter. During his campaign, I was told that Obama was a Christian. But it would seem to me, that a true Christian would not make such a statement, as this country was founded on the basis of religious freedom and our motton is In God We Trust.
Are you that easy to manipulate? Did you read the story from which it was taken or just some idiot blog posted by a partisan as part of a well-organized attempt to demonize the president? I might as well conclude that you're no Christian, or at least a stranger to the Bible, since your Ten Commandments doesn't go to ten, not without, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
Obama was in Turkey. Turkey is a nation that straddles both the Middle East and Europe. Turkey is a country with Christians and Muslims. Turkey is a country that has tried very hard not to be like the hardliners. One of the great controversies over there is having a secular constitution, rather than Sharia (hardline Muslim) law. The enemies of the secular, tolerant, constitution were arguing that the United States was not to be trusted, that the U.S. was a "Judeo-Christian" nation, meaning a nation that favors Jews and Christians, to the detriment of Muslims.
Obama was trying to say that our law treats all equally. I'm sure you've hear of the First Amendment. Try reading it sometime. This is what Obama said to the enemies of America:
"One of the great strengths of the United States is ... we have a very large Christian population -- we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."
That was hardly a statement against Christianity. You, and your idiot partisan nitwit lying right-wing lugnuts, owe the president an apology. You have misrepresented both his words and his intentions. Don't lecture me about being a Christian until you learn to act like one.
I too am a Christian. And how do you know just what Obama meant by what he said? His words were very clear to me. And yes I have read the first Amendment. Occasionally I go back and read the Constitution to refresh my memory as I am getting older and often have to go back and reread things. Yes, Obama has the right to freedom of expression, but proclaiming that we are no longer a Judao Christian nation was a slap in the face of what our forefathers fought and died for. I don't recall bearing false witness against anybody. Obama said what he said. I merely gave my opinion on what he said. If you believe in Obama and what he stands for that is your right. Just as it is my right to disagree with him. By disagreeing with him, does not mean I have broken any commandments. Perhaps you should read in Matthew where it says, "Judge not that ye be not judged." I was not judging Obama, I was just making a rational decision based on words that came out of his own mouth.
Senator Forbes seemed to thing Obama was out of line with this statement also. Did you even watch the video? The Bible says by their fruits you shall know them. I am only going by Obama's fruits that he has shown since he has been in office.
My statement was not an attack on you so why did you jump on my post with all four feet? I, too, have the same right according to the first amendment as Obama and any one else does. Just because I say something you don't like does not mean you have the right to insult me as you did. Your post was very caustic and I do not appreciate the tone of it. If you cannot speak to me in a more cordial manner, please refrain from replying to my posts unless it is one that is posted directly at you.
So moksha, you like spitting into the wind?
