I was very excited overall for the elections this year. It was a breath of fresh air to see people get elected who have a passion for freedom and less government intrusion in our lives. It was great to see the electorate as a whole speak up with their votes.
I felt the same way as many others throughout the country this year. Since Obama has stepped in, it has been appauling to see how much intrusion the government has in our lives. As such, I spent a lot of time volunteering time and money into our state senator’s race (Dino Rossi, WA) and a couple of the representatives in our state as well. I was very frustrated to see Rossi lose by just a couple points. I found it ironic that our state voted the incumbent Democrat back into office, yet we voted by an overwhelming majority to not impose an income tax on us, which the Democrats support.
I was also very dissapointed to see that Harry Reid was re-elected. His re-election got me thinking about some things. As Mormons, we believe in free agency. In fact, free agency was the key debate in the pre-existance between Satan and Jesus. How can a Mormon vote Democrat (such as Harry Reid) who supports programs that limit our freedoms such as the healthcare reform? I thought further about our nation, which has about 85% of the population that claims to be Christian. I know that the abortion issue is a huge one for Christians and Democrats are pretty liberal on that issue. With the nation claiming to be Christian, and with Mormons big on free-agency how could someone who claims to be Christian or Mormon vote Democrat?
I realize there are many other issues on a platform than just the two that I mentioned above. However, these two issues hit the heart of most Christians. This Christian author writes a good argument about how he is Christian and Democrat in the article entitled Could a Christian vote Democrat?
After reading his article, I can see how someone could be a Christian and vote Democrat. However, I personally have fundamental issues with the Democrat (and most recent Bush-era Republican) tendencies to have the government control so much. This violates individual freedoms that the LDS believe in.
If you are a Democrat and Christian, I would like to hear why? If not, feel free to share your views as well.
Author’s note: for a follow-up on this post please view the post entitled Democrat and Chrisitan: I”m ok and you’re ok.
Grace for Grace 
110 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 6, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Paul
If your assumptions are right, then it is because they are devil-worshippers. If your assumptions are wrong, there are other reasons.
LikeLike
November 6, 2010 at 11:32 pm
ama49
Hi Paul,
I’d like to hear the other reasons. I know there are a lot of issues on a platform and the two I pointed out aren’t the only issues, but the freedom issue was a big one this time around. What other reasons do you think there are?
LikeLike
November 6, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Jonathan
About two years ago, I discovered this blog and was intrigued by the balanced views it expressed on gospel topics. I have followed it ever since. After this post, I will no longer be counted among your followers. The last thing I need for spiritual growth is more Carly Fiorina-esque propaganda.
Lest you fear for my salvation, I am not a Democrat.
LikeLike
November 6, 2010 at 11:31 pm
ama49
Hi Jonathan,
Sorry you feel that way and that one post out of hundreds caused you to quit reading. Hopefully some of the other insights you’ve gained along the way have helped you out.
LikeLike
November 6, 2010 at 11:05 pm
Chris H.
I am a Mormon and a liberal Democrat. If it makes you feel better, people like you make me want to use my agency and leave the church. Congrats!
LikeLike
November 6, 2010 at 11:29 pm
ama49
Chris,
Honestly, it baffles my mind though how someone can be a liberal democrat and LDS. I’d like to hear your side. As for you leaving the church and congratulating me on it, that’s pretty lame.
LikeLike
November 6, 2010 at 11:52 pm
Chris H.
Not really you…I could care less and find you insigniificant. It is the million of other clueless drones like you. Not clueless because they are Republican, but because they ask stupid question like the one in your post. Clueless because they take beautiful concepts like agency and turn them into very stupid arguments about taxes.
No worries, I am leaving because i love my wife and kids. I also loathe people like you too much. Letting you get to me would be like you winning. I can’t have that.
There have been hundreds of blog posts on this topics. Try Google. I am keeping mmy pearls to myself.
LikeLike
November 7, 2010 at 1:20 am
Craig
Frankly Chris (and Jonathan), it is people such as yourselves, on both sides of the political spectrum, who make political dialogue difficult. A simple question, asked with a desire for understanding, solicited your very unbecoming responses. So people who see things differently than you are “clueless” and “drones” or “Carly Fiorina-esque”? Wow! Instead of taking the time to help someone see your point of view, you resort to ad hominem attacks. Which, frankly, makes you look foolish and wrong.
I have read enough lds blogs to have a feel for why some mormons vote democrat. While I believe they are mistaken most often, I do believe they have a right to their opinions. I am still waiting to hear (or read) a persuading argument, from a mormon democrat, on the merits of voting for democrats and their political agenda.
LikeLike
November 7, 2010 at 1:11 am
Paul
Hi ama49,
It is almost always naive to make direct links between fundamental gospel principles and political parties. It is also naive to expect that certain political theories will produce happiness or prosperity. For example, the debate about government regulation or ideal size of the government is irrelevant if the vast majority of individuals are corrupt and dishonest, since such individuals make society a living hell. The “right” political philosophy can fail if societies don’t deal with crucial problems in wise ways. The “right” party won’t produce happiness. That is why Alma Jr. quit his political day job to do something that he thought was more useful. There is an awful lot of wisdom in the church’s remaining strictly neutral in political matters, even though lots of LDS people don’t take church leaders at their word.
A broader practical point of view might be useful. Because lots of countries have different systems, one possible way of judging a system is by life expectancy or health. There are also happiness measures. Is human life or happiness the measure? Or is it money (per capita income would be an average measure)? Or low taxes? If you want low taxes, you might want to move to Albania. If you want little government regulation, you might want to move to Somalia. If you want to live longer, a Western European system seems to produce longer lives than the U.S. system. By system, I mean the political philosophy and relevant aspects of culture and values. It is worth noting that the gospel places a high priority on human life and on human happiness. Which socieities are the longest living and happiest?
LikeLike
November 7, 2010 at 3:51 am
ama
Hi Paul,
I think you bring up some very good things to consider, especially with the church being a world-wide church and the various societies it enters. As you can see from some comments, voicing an opinion on political matters can get heated and the church has enough “heat” as it is so to speak. I would add though that the side they’ve taken on the gay issue does make them lean towards a more conservative party.
Thanks for your points to consider and your objective perspective.
LikeLike
November 7, 2010 at 1:20 am
Ezra
FWIW, Ama, I think you ask a valid question.
(NOW you might begin to wonder! ha ha :))
Surely, everyone remembers Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton asking the same question during the ‘o8 elections, yet in reverse. She couldn’t see why Christians could vote Republican.
I don’t recall people going apoplectic or freaking out like Chris H. and others.
Perhaps Chris and others eagerly cut her a check. :))
Most of us just laughed at the absurdity.
Granted, it is pointless to ask if Jesus would vote democrat or republican or if he would have sided with the north or the south in the civil war.
Jesus simply let Ceasar be Ceasar and let God be God.
His kingdom was not of this world–just as our citizenship is with God.
The founders of the country were not united in their religious teachings–the diversity was incredible–but they had a general agreement that God had endowed us with certain “unalienable rights” and vowed to grant citizens protections from an over-reaching government. In recent years, the prevailing liberal notion is to go the other way and over-write those protections with a proclamation that government trumps our individual freedoms. This line of thinking is age-old and is the basis for tyranny and everything foreign to our republic.
Thanks for the conversation, Ama. You are right on track.
imho-fwiw.
Blessings in Christ.
LikeLike
November 7, 2010 at 1:51 am
DavidH
Chris H, I think the question posed here is asked sincerely–not challenging, but trying to understand, your decision and my decision (and the decisions of many others) to be and vote as democrats. Many years ago, when I was a registered independent but voting as a republican, I asked the very same question of my bishop’s wife, how she and her husband (both were democrats) dealt with it. I cannot remember her answer. But I ended up becoming a democrat some years later. [I view this as an opportunity to “plant a seed”. 😉 )
The Brethren have stated that how we vote and which party we join or support are individual matters, and that the Church is neutral. For me, deciding which party to support is like many other decisions: something to study out in our own minds, reach a decision, and, if we choose, counseling with God about it.
It took many years for me, but finally, in 2004, after a lot of soul searching, thought and prayer, I registered as a democrat. At the same time, however, I joined a group called Democrats for Life, a group of pro-life democrats who, as the name suggests, internally push for pro-life policies and support pro-life candidates.
The spiritual confirmation I received through prayer was not that God was a democrat (or a republican). It was that for me, DavidH, being a democrat was in accordance with God’s will.
I am much more comfortable being a (pro-life) democrat than being a republican. I know many committed and believing evangelicals, Catholics and Jews within the party. For me, the democratic party is better place for people of faith who care about the poor, the powerless, education, diplomacy, fairness in taxation, equal treatment of all people, and reasonable regulation.
I realize many republicans who are LDS disagree with my perception. But that is how I see it; I just feel like there is no (or not much) room for compassion, mercy and care in the GOP and that there is plenty of room in the democratic party. (In my opinion, the pro-choice position of the party is inconsistent with its other positions on protecting the poor and the powerless.)
Elder Marlin Jensen (a general authority who is a democrat) gave some of his thoughts about this on assignment from the First Presidency in a 1998 interview. http://www.kevinashworth.com/ldr/transcript-of-marlin-jensen-interview
LikeLike
November 7, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Chris H.
Sincere? Oh, you are far more trusting than I.
LikeLike
November 7, 2010 at 11:35 pm
ama49
Hi DavidH,
I respect very much that you made your decision on politics a matter of prayer. Who can argue with that? 🙂
From the thoughtful comment that you shared, I can better understand how one would vote Democrat. Personally, it is very hard for me to go that way unless they were a very moderate Democrat that wouldn’t vote to increase taxes on individuals and businesses and over-extend government regulation.
That being said, the link you shared to Elder Jensen’s interview was very, very good. Thank you for sharing it. I like what he said about how parties change over time and chuckled at what he said about how most Mormons used to be Democrats and their leaders told them “God needs Republicans too” and that from then on Mormons claim if you’re not Republican, you’re not on God’s side. From this article, I’ve gained the perspective of really paying attention to the person before assuming they believe a certain way just because of the party they are in.
LikeLike
November 7, 2010 at 1:53 am
Guest
First, one must understand that neither “liberals” nor “conservatives” share the same position as the LDS Church on abortion. Social conservatives say “No time, no reason” while liberals say “Any time, any reason.” The church’s official position is that life holy and should not be taken (leaning conservative) but that circumstances such as rape, incest, or health of the mother may justify an abortion (leaning liberal).
Thus, a Latter-day Saint must use her or his agency to choose among options that do not represent the best course. Or, even better, a Latter-day Saint may choose to go out in public and lobby for a better way.
LikeLike
November 7, 2010 at 11:14 pm
ama49
Guest,
Many issues like the one you mention seem to be pretty black and white. In many issues there can’t be an absolute black and white answer. Thanks for the good thought to consider.
LikeLike
November 7, 2010 at 2:02 am
Scw
I vote Democratic because Republicans are willfully ignorant, despise scientific fact, and lead by fear. Oh, the torture thing too.
LikeLike
November 7, 2010 at 3:04 am
Doug
Ama-you have opened a can of worms and you have some pretty ticked off LDS people hot on your tracks! However-I can relate! Growing up in the liberal (they prefer the word progressive) northeast and being a conservative republican has been a trip! White evangelicals tend to be republican-and we tend to be guilty of wrapping our Bibles in the flag-at times the merging of the two has made me uncomfortable-some worship services I’ve attended can almost be idolatry-don’t get me wrong either. I love this country and like the song says “I’m proud to be an American for at least I know I’m free” (another song we love to sing in church on the fourth of July!) but our worship goes to Almighty God and not the flag-sorry about that as I have gone way off topic. Back to the issue at hand-what I have noticed about white evangelicals (and this is probably true for a lot of LDS too) is they tend to react to issues like same sex marriage (not for it) abortion (no way) and government (keep it small). All issues I agree with. Our black brothers and sister focus on social justice issues like poverty and race relations-in their eyes that trumps everything and therein lies the reason that blacks tend to vote liberal democrat despite their moral convictions regarding those other issues. I would guess that is true for those liberal-I mean progressive-Mormons. As a conservative I am pleased at the outcome of this election-I just hope they deliver what they have promised.
On a related issue-can I confess something to you LDS folk: I pray that your Mitt (and not my Sarah) is the front runner in two years. The thought of President Palin is almost as frightening to me as President Obama (almost!)
LikeLike
November 7, 2010 at 11:11 pm
ama49
Hi Doug,
I feel your frustration. Here in the Northwest it is the same, hence this post.
I think it is hard to separate religion and politics since my religious views govern how I view the world to a great extent. I’m sure that’s how most people feel though and whichever way they choose to go is with good intentions.
Within the LDS church, they remain very neutral on political issues, which as you can see from this post and comments is a pretty wise idea! I’ve never heard anyone ever get up in church and talk about politics over the pulpit. I never really thought about it until this post, but you really do bring up a good point that we should go to church to worship the Lord and not anything else.
LikeLike
November 7, 2010 at 3:42 am
Proud Daughter of Eve
Ama, I’m sorry so many seem to have taken your post for being harsher than it is. It sounded fair to me; you shared your view points and respectfully asked others to share theirs. That they haven’t returned the respect is sad but kinda seems par for the course these days when it comes to politics. It saddens me to see how divided we’ve become.
As for me, I consider myself Independent but I do lean to the right for the issues that I feel matter most and I think that’s the key to anyone’s political affiliation. I lean right for socially conservative things like family, i.e.: support of marriage (including a wish that the criteria for divorce was stricter and that adultery were re-criminalized), the importance and responsibility of the parents in the home and an opposition to abortion except in cases of rape or where the health of the mother is fatally compromised.
However, I’d say I lean left on issues of social responsibility, like health care and social assistance. I’d say it’s our Christian duty to care for those who cannot do so themselves. So those Christians who lean Democrat may be doing so because they feel supporting such endeavors is more important than supporting the family issues.
To further exemplify: for me, I vote for the greater social issue of family integrity and in my personal life do what I can to support others in need, through charitable giving and such. Someone else may vote for the greater social issue of Charity and in their personal life do what they can to support family integrity. They don’t necessarily support things that you and I may see as against the Gospel or they may feel that supporting it serves a greater Gospel principle. (I.E. the rich’s agency to spend their money as they please is trumped by our duty to provide for those in need.)
About Health Care:
I live in Canada and I completely fail to see how my agency has been compromised by the one-payer system we have here. Yes, taxes are high but I promise you, it’s worth it. Just before Halloween my four-month-old daughter was diagnosed with Kawasaki’s Disease. Between the hours spent in Emergency, the bloodwork, the EKGs, sedation, cardiac sonogram, the medicine she needed, the IV and the three days in hospital, this could have broken us. My husband got curious and asked his forum how much this might have cost us in the States. The lowest estimate was $5k. It would have been a significant dent in our savings but we could have survived that. Other estimates went from $20k to as high as $50k. The first would have wiped out all our savings; the second would have broken us. And that first $5k? Absolutely would have broken our best friends had it happened to them.
Read this link here for more stories of families who have been helped by the health care legislation in the States:
http://www.mormonmommywars.com/?p=2265
There are still downsides to health care in both Canada and the States but can you really say you feel your agency over your money is worth more than an infant’s life?
LikeLike
November 7, 2010 at 6:03 pm
ama
Daughter of Eve,
I’m running out the door for church and will check out your site when I get back. My initial thoughts on the healthcare issue is that I think it is good to have an option for people to have care. However, with the most recent laws, I am charged a fee from the government for not getting a physical this year I feel that they have overstepped the line. Chances are I would get the physical anyways, but I don’t like being fined if I choose not to.
LikeLike
November 7, 2010 at 7:38 am
Stan Beale
My first response was going to be nearly the same as Chris H., but I spent my life as a teacher fighting ignorance, thus one more attempt is reasonable.
First, you do not understand party platforms. They are political documents written to win votes and to satisfy special interests. Politicians generally do not pledge their fealty to each and every section. For example, one of the best Democratic Governors in the last 30 years, Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, is “pro life.” In addition, if a political leader makes a pledge to do something, it doesn’t follow that he or she will do it. Remember the Republican Congressmen that pledged themselves to term limits in 1994 and found reasons not to follow through later?
One really needs to know the candidates and their character as well as their views on issues. The Democratic Party has a large variety of political types, not just people who are a mirror image of a party platform. Remember Will Rogers quote, ” I don’t belong to an organized political party – I’m a Democrat.”
Personally, that has meant that except for six times in forty six years I have been able to vote Democratic. I did because I found Democratic candidates that stood against institutionalized racial and ethnic prejudice, for sexual equality, for the enviornment, for freedom of speech and expression, for education and for the poor and the middle class. Way too many Republicans fought such things
LikeLike
November 7, 2010 at 11:04 pm
ama49
Hi Stan,
I appreciate you stopping by and leaving a thoughtful comment. I like your approach to the issue by viewing people, not parties.
Out of curiousity, why did you choose to vote 6 times for someone other than Democrat?
LikeLike
November 7, 2010 at 11:06 am
Doug
Ama, I disagree with your comment regarding the gay issue-there are a number of issues including abortion and homosexuality which are moral issues that have become politicized in recent years-speaking out on them is the church’s duty and obligation. If one party tends to agrees with our stand-that’s great! However that makes no differences regarding whether we should speak out on it-the Lord compels us to.
LikeLike
November 7, 2010 at 11:01 pm
ama49
Hi Doug,
Very good point. Thank you for your thoughts on that. It is easy to get caught in the whole political world and forget it is the Lord that compels us and who we should be going to for everything. Truth is truth regardless of political affiliation.
LikeLike
November 7, 2010 at 11:06 am
Ken Knickerbocker
Yet another righteous member seduced by the modern-day Gadianton robbers. (Helaman 6:31-41) Too bad.
Your question, on the surface, is innocent. Yet it belies an arrogance and ignorance that will eventually lead to our downfall as a nation.
Not only do I vote D almost every time but I willingly give hours and dollars to help Democratic candidates get elected.
Why?
Because in all the scriptures not once does God mention big government or taxes as issues I should be concerned about. Rather, how I look after the “poor and the needy, the sick and afflicted”, a term repeated many times in the scriptures, is how the scriptures tell me I’ll be judged.
The solutions Democrats come up with to help the poor aren’t always pretty or elegant, but at least they’re trying to do what the scriptures teach.
The rich can take care of themselves. The poor need my help. Thus I vote Democratic.
Ken
PS. By the way you ought to closely examine the church’s stance on issues like abortion, stem cell research and immigration before you cast dispersions toward Democrats. My experience is that most church members are clueless when it comes to knowing the church’s actual position on any given issue. Your post gives every indication you fall into that category.
LikeLike
November 7, 2010 at 10:58 pm
ama49
Hi Ken,
I can agree with you on the need to care for the poor. Where I disagree is forcing people to do so. That’s not what Jesus taught.
I will also agree with you on the church’s stance on abortion. When I read the Democratic platform on abortion, it falls close to where the church stands where abortion is only for extremely rare cases and up to the mother to decide.
LikeLike
November 9, 2010 at 2:02 am
Cal
Ken, are you the same Ken we were talking to last week?
LikeLike
November 9, 2010 at 2:04 am
Cal
No, you don’t sound like him at all. Sorry.
LikeLike
November 7, 2010 at 11:07 am
ray
If you can’t be a Democrat and a good Mormon, how can all those socialists in Scandinavia who are members of the church be good Mormons? To judge someone spiritually by a narrow American political definition is pretty lame. And just for the record, would you please list all the ways President Obama has limited your freedoms? Where is the evidence of this accusation you have made?
LikeLike
November 7, 2010 at 10:55 pm
ama49
Hi Ray,
The first way Obama has limited freedom is the note I received in the mail the other day from my benefits department that, due to Obamacare, if I don’t go get a physical this year, I will be fined. Herein lies the issue. While it is good to get a physical and stay in shape, I disagree with fining me if I choose not to. It goes back to my original thought of the whole freeagency issue for LDS and the pre-existance. Both plans were good. However, one plan forced people to obey and the other gave people a choice.
LikeLike
November 13, 2010 at 7:43 am
Ryan
fining you for not doing something is not removing your free agency, and in fact I think suggesting that’s the case is an insult to the principle. NOBODY can take away your free agency under any circumstances. What you have described is a situation where the consequences of your actions are now different than they used to be. You are still as free to choose as you always have been. This, to me, is the key misunderstanding of those who try to apply free agency principles to politics.
What satan wanted was a world where nobody was even capable of choosing sin. No earthly power can do anything of that sort. Tell me this, if you don’t pay tithing you will not receive celestial glory. Is your freedom to choose to pay your tithing infringed upon because the consequences for not doing so are severe? No. And neither is your agency infringed upon because the consequences for not getting a physical are now more severe. They are exactly analogous situations.
Taxes don’t infringe on your agency, healthcare reform doesn’t infringe on your agency. It is a God-given right and God is not so weak that a simple majority vote can tarnish that gift.
LikeLike
November 14, 2010 at 7:39 pm
ama49
Healthcare reform a God-given right?
LikeLike
November 7, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Cal
I liked ama’s post. The meanness of some of his opposers does not defend their spiritual maturity. Jesus said, “You’ll know them by their fruit.”
I don’t think ama was accusing anyone of not being a Christian because they vote Democrat. He was asking, “How can they?” He was giving them a chance to come up with some good reasons.
Doug came up with a couple answers. He mentioned social justice issues like poverty and race relations. But I read a survey a few years ago (which I preserved on my computer) showing that the average Republican gives more money to charity than the average Democrat. I think Democrats often look like they care more about the poor because they believe the govt. should play a bigger part in supporting the poor. But if you think about it, they are really not giving their own $$ away. They are giving OUR $$ away, but voting for extravagant pay increases for themselves. On the other hand, Republicans are, according to the survey, giving more $$ out of their own pockets.
I also preserved a survey which appeared in our local newspaper, done by Barna.org I believe, that showed that the more people read the Bible, the more apt they are to vote conservatively. That tells me a lot.
I might add that the Bible makes one less racist.
There’s more I’d like to say but time doesn’t allow. . . .
P. S. God loves Democratic Christians.
LikeLike
November 7, 2010 at 10:52 pm
ama49
Hi Cal,
You see it exactly as I do. The point isn’t that conservatives want to hoard all the money and not give to charity. Nor is it that they want to get all rich and greedily hang on to it. The point is the government mandating or forcing people to give and also whom to give it to. There is a huge difference.
Do you have a link to the survey you mentioned?
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 2:56 am
Cal
http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/18-congregations/41-new-study-shows-trends-in-tithing-and-donating?q=tithing+2007
(Apparently my browser doesn’t know how to create links, but there’s the address.)
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 4:42 am
ama49
Hi Cal,
That’s an interesting article. Thanks for sharing it. Although it shows Republicans giving 10x more than liberals, only 10% of Republicans are shown as giving vs. less than 1% of Liberals. Nonetheless, it does prove the point that those who are quick to point the finger at Republicans for being so “greedy” seem to be in the population of the least willing to give. Sort of the mote in the eye thing Jesus talks about.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 3:00 am
Cal
Hey, I grew up on a farm, too—in Vermont!
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 4:37 am
ama49
Hi Cal,
That’s cool you grew up on a farm. It was probably cold during the winters up there eh? What kind of farm was it? I grew up on a dairy farm in southern Idaho. Winters were very cold and provided inspiration for me to earn a degree and get an inside job! 🙂
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Cal
A dairy farm. I like a combo of outdoors and in.
The wild, wild west of Idaho? Wow. Branding, lassoing, riding the storms? 🙂
LikeLike
November 9, 2010 at 1:25 am
ama49
Everything but lassoing! 🙂
LikeLike
November 7, 2010 at 4:03 pm
john willis
The notion that you cannot be a good Christian/Mormon and vote democractic is one of the most false and pernicous ideas out there and is a real threat to the unity of the body of christ.
I will not get into a argument about specifc policy issues or candidates. I will just ask those latter day saints/christians who have voted Republican since the Reagan era of 1980 if they have seen any real reduction in the availability of abortions. They haven’t ,and in the last eight years of Bush#2 we got the worst economic recession since the 30’s and a disasterous and unecessary war in Iraq. Is that worth a symbolic and meaningless vote against abortion and gay marriage??
If you are interested in a reasoned and insightful view of this issue I would refer you to a book by Douglas Kmiec written in 2008 ” Can a Catholic support him”. Just substitute Mormon for Catholic and his arguments would be just as valid.
Kmeic is a well known conservative lawyer who held posts in the justice Department in the Reagan and First Bush Administration. He participated in arguments to reduce the availability of abortions before the Supreme Court.
He supported Mitt Romney in the primaries and then endorsed Obama.
In other articles he talked about his work with umarried college women who were faced with a unplanned pregnancy and were faced with a decision between having the baby or an abortion. He and his wife tried to counsel them to have the baby and support them afterwards.
He felt this work was more meaningful and worthwhile that his legal work before the supreme court.
Latter Day Saints who are truly interetsed in reducing the numbers of abortions should consider this type of Chirstlike service as a real alternative to knee jerk voting for conservative republican candidates who oppose abortions.
LikeLike
November 7, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Christians and Democrats: I’m OK-You’re OK « Grace for Grace
[…] magazine entitled “Learning in the Light of Faith.” Last night, after I had written a pretty controvosial post on being a Christian and Democrat, I was led to this article after saying my prayers. After […]
LikeLike
November 7, 2010 at 7:48 pm
Seth R.
I wonder if the author of this post resents the Republican campaign against “free agency” in the abortion area.
That said, this whole bit about free agency of the American citizen is a myth.
You are presented with a choice. Do you want to be constrained by red tape, government bureaucrats and such?
Or do you want to be constrained by powerful and amoral corporations out to steal your livelihood?
Take your pick. Because you ain’t free – and your never going to be. The only choice you have in this country is who you are going to surrender your rights to.
Take all that noise about “death panels” back during Obama’s health care push. You know…. the idea that some government bureaucrat might have authority to deny or authorize life-saving treatment – and everyone just thought that was SOOOO horrible.
I was just laughing during that whole thing – because what main street America doesn’t get is that we ALREADY HAVE “death panels.”
They’re called insurance companies. You know – the guys denying your claim? Yeah – those guys. Death panels.
So it’s not a matter of choice vs. bondage. It’s just a matter of which party you would prefer to pull the plug.
Given the stellar record of corporate America in the past twenty years, I can happily say, I would much rather have the government in that position, than the credit card industry, the insurance giants, and all the rest of them.
Government oversight?
Bring it on. I much prefer it to corporate oversight.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 4:44 am
ama49
Hi Seth,
I can see your points there. We are all dependant on something. I just think the most recent healthcare thing was rushed and not well-thought out. Sure there needed to be reform, but not at the huge cost and penalties and loss of freedom for small businesses and individuals throughout the country. That’s the key issue, in my opinion.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 6:17 am
TomE
But why was it rushed and not well-thought out? Precisely because the USA is so ridiculously polarised and partisan – and at least in part because of the opposition-at-all-costs approach of the Republicans, we ended up with very imperfect legislation being forced through.
Even if they are against nationalised healthcare, I think most people would still agree that the US healthcare/insurance system needs reform at some level – it is too expensive for a start. You would have hoped that in a country with a history of the very best in innovation and invention, an acceptable bi-partisan solution could have been reached. But no, the whole debate descends into political point scoring and bickering.
This is speaking as a bemused Brit who considered himself moderately conservative before moving to the US two years ago. I now feel like a raving liberal.
LikeLike
November 9, 2010 at 1:25 am
ama49
Hi Tom,
I agree with you that there needed to be reform, but the way it went down was not bipartisan at all. It couldn’t be. There were no checks and balances since Democrats controlled all branches of government. Clearly America as a whole didn’t like how it went down as we can see from these elections. Hopefully now that there is more balance, they can come up with something that isn’t so one-sided.
LikeLike
November 9, 2010 at 7:26 am
Seth R.
If the bill was one-sided, that’s as much the Republicans fault as the Democrats.
The way big legislative bills work is that the one party proposes a law, and then the opposing party starts CUTTING DEALS.
You know, key Senate and House Republicans offering to vote in favor of the bill IF certain concessions and compromises are made.
It’s give and take. It’s the way adults create legislation.
It’s something that the GOP – for whatever odd reason – decided to forgo this time around. Instead, they decided to stonewall and not be a part of the political process.
So it seems to me that they don’t really have a right to complain about the result.
LikeLike
November 9, 2010 at 11:38 pm
ama49
With the significant amount of Dems vs. Republicans that were there the Republicans were hardly in a position to “cut any deals”. They are now though so we should be seeing more balance.
LikeLike
November 13, 2010 at 7:51 am
Ryan
Healthcare policy is what I do for a living and I’m happy to say you’re wrong if you think the healthcare reform bill was partisan. As many have pointed out, the democratic party is very diverse and because of the narrow majorities in the senate the contents of the final bill were determined pretty much entirely by the conservatives members of the dem party. And since Obama was so set on getting at least a couple republican votes, the moderate republicans made large amendments to the final text before finally deciding not to vote for it anyway.
Here’s something telling, look at the healthcare reform plan that Mitt Romney laid out during the primaries. It was MORE LIBERAL than the “Obamacare” bill that was eventually enacted. I promise you, I do this for a living. The foundation was exactly the same with an individual mandate, healthcare exchanges, large subsidies, expanded medicaid, etc, but it included public plan provisions and other elements that conservative democrats wouldn’t let through.
And please, the first draft of this bill was written a year and a half before it finally passed! I know, I read every iteration as it was created. This was not rushed through by any means. For those of us who were following this closely, the process was agonizingly slow. The result was not perfect, but that was largely because there was too much slow-paced compromise and negotiation going on, not because there wasn’t enough.
LikeLike
November 14, 2010 at 8:22 pm
ama49
Hi Ryan,
And that is exactly why Romney won’t be on the conservative ticket. His state is bankrupt as a result of Romneycare in Massachusetts.
LikeLike
December 25, 2010 at 11:33 pm
CindyB
Hi Seth:
Well Said. I have a bumper sticker that says “Democracy not Plutocracy”. As a former LDS, it amazes me how many of my LDS friends have no idea what it means. But they vote.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 3:19 am
Stan Beale
In response to your question about the six races in which I did not vote Democratic (and for those who do not care, skip the following it now):
1. In 1972 I voted for John Anderson. George McGovern
was a very well meaning individual who most likely
would have been a weak and ineffective President.
2. In two cases the Republican Party had outstanding
candidates of great ability and character who were
moderate in outlook. They were the best choice.
3. I voted for a very conservative Republican for
Secretary of State. He is a very honest and capable
individual, perfect for that job. Obviously, I could not
vote for him when he ran for the U.S. Senate as his
political beliefs and legislative agenda were near
reactionary.
4. One Democratic candidate was our version of Meg
Whitman. She bought the nomination with her
money In addition, the political insiders that I knew
had zero respect for her and the people around her.
5. The saddest case involved our Democratic
Congressman. He actually represented our district
very well for a number of years. Right after the
primary in 1976 it came out that he had a second
family with his secretary and was having an affair
with a Korean Central Intelligence Agent (as well as
possibly allowing her access to classified material he
carried).
His case was a walking argument against
gerrymandering. In gerrymandered districts where
there is a popular incumbent, the minority party
often runs very poor candidates with little money.
You usually do not find good people who are willing
to run and spend all that time and effort as well
as to lose income, just to have their rear end
handed to them in the election. The Republican
that chose to run was totally incompetant and
only lacked a propeller for his tin foil beanie. Bob
Leggett, our Congressman, actually won one more
term. It was clear from polling that any half way
decent Republican would have cleaned his clock.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Ken
Its so funny hearing conservatives talk about the loss of freedoms and liberties. It would be commical if it wasn’t so sad.
What happened to morning in America? Or is it morning only when a Republican is in the WH?
We live in a day when 2/3rds of the world’s population lives on less than $2 a day and our grandparents and great grandparents never even dreamed of the blessings, opportunities, freedoms and liberties the average American enjoys.
Doesn’t make sense.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Cal
The American Center for Law & Justice says that Obama-care is pro-abortion. I don’t know exactly how, but that’s a big issue with me. There are lots of other issues, and I’d much rather have a big godly government than a small ungodly one if the choice came to that (which it hasn’t), but I don’t want God to see on my conscience on judgment day the blood of the innocent unborn—not to mention the harm abortion does to the mother.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 10:38 pm
Conifer
I’ve been keeping out of this because as a mom with little kids at home and lots of presses on my time, I don’t like to contribute unless I feel I have something really worthwhile to say.
But Cal, I’ve got to ask you to revise the way you look at abortion. That last line where you say that you don’t want abortions on your conscience or the harm done to the mothers who have them shows a certain arrogance, whether you meant it that way or not. If a woman chooses to have an abortion, that choice is hers and hers alone. It’s not on your conscience. It’s her job to look at the pros and cons herself and make the decision. The idea that you would want to take that responsibility and accountability from her by claiming that those choices affect your conscience are demeaning. That kind of thought really disrespects the rights of women to make choices about themselves. Your language suggests that it’s your place to protect her from herself, and I find that offensive in several ways, not least of which is that every woman has God-given agency to choose what she wants for herself and to be responsible for the repercussions.
Anyway, I’m sorry if that comes off as rude, but I feel strongly that you should revise the way you think about and talk about abortion and where the responsibility lies. I understand that you’re saying that through legislation you should stop her from doing that and that it would be on your conscience if you failed to do so through that method, but the way you talk about it is condescending and suggests that you’re doing it because she’s too stupid or misguided to be able to choose for herself.
I could go on about what I think agency has to do with abortion and what the right way to try to lower abortions is, but really, that’s not the point I’m trying to make. Just please think about the way you view the women in this scenario.
LikeLike
November 9, 2010 at 1:31 am
ama49
Hi Conifer,
I think Cal means that if he voted in favor of abortion he wouldn’t want God’s judgement on him. I believe (he can verify) that he feels abortion is comparible to murder since the heart starts beating at conception. Therefore, it is the woman’s choice if she has the abortion, but the baby that is alive inside the mother doesn’t have the choice.
LikeLike
November 9, 2010 at 2:58 am
Cal
I do verify what ama said.
Conifer, I’m glad you told me how you feel. I like to know people’s reactions so I can learn to be, by the grace of God, as sensitive as possible. I’m sorry I sounded condescending. I had no intention to be.
Actually, I think the whole human race, especially me, is pretty stupid compared to God.
Did you have an abortion? Forgiveness is available because of what Jesus did on the cross for you. If you did, I believe your baby is in heaven waiting for you without any grudge against you. This is based on accounts I’ve read of people who have gone to heaven and come back.
LikeLike
November 9, 2010 at 6:24 am
Conifer
Cal, thanks for your apology. I’m glad you didn’t mean it to come across that way. Can you see how it could be interpreted that way? Phrasing can be touchy. 🙂
And no, I haven’t had an abortion. That made me laugh, actually. That really blindsided me that you might think that, but I can kinda see why. I, in my standards for myself, am firmly anti abortion. I do think that that’s a choice I should always have the right to make for myself, however.
LikeLike
November 13, 2010 at 7:59 am
Ryan
ama94, the heart does not start beating at conception. I’m not sure where you got that particular idea. I think you will also find that the LDS church specifically does not believe that abortion is equivalent to murder, and that point has been made in general conference on several occasions. Also note that when individuals are interviewed for baptism, a confession of abortion requires only a quick check with the mission president while a confession of murder requires an interview with an apostle.
LDS prophets have speculated on many occasions about when life begins with the most popular guess being at the “quickening” or when the baby begins to move in the womb.
I’m not sure when life begins myself, but it sure is not conception. 50% of conceptions fail to attach and another 25% of those that do don’t make it the rest of the way. We know that there is no reincarnation and once the spirit enters the body that’s your only body. That being the case, if the spirit entered the body at conception, something like 65% of God’s children would end their earthly life before being born. Combine that with the very large early death rates in the past and something like 75% of the spirit children sent here would have died before the age of accountability and gone straight to the celestial kingdom. That doesn’t really make a lot of sense does it? For those reasons and others, the idea that “life begins at conception” is wholly incompatible with the gospel.
LikeLike
November 14, 2010 at 8:24 pm
ama49
Ryan,
Heart starts beating at 22 days. You’re right it’s not exactly at conception. I guess a definition of “life” is where the issue lies. If life doesn’t begin when the heart starts beating, when does it begin?
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 7:24 pm
JrL
re ama49 “The first way Obama has limited freedom is the note I received in the mail the other day from my benefits department that, due to Obamacare, if I don’t go get a physical this year, I will be fined.”
Either you misread the notice, or your benefits department is lying. There is no such requirement in the new federal law, now nor in the future. I wish this were the only example of things being blamed on the new law.
LikeLike
November 9, 2010 at 1:31 am
ama49
JrL,
I wish I had misread the notice, but that’s what it states. I had heard that Obamacare would be like that, but when I actually saw it in writing that ticked me off.
LikeLike
November 13, 2010 at 8:02 am
Ryan
yeah that’s definitely not in the healthcare reform bill. That is likely a requirement of your particular insurance company. Many companies now are giving you discounts on your premiums if you take basic steps towards prevention. My insurance company has required me to have a physical or pay a fine since I signed on 5 years ago. I also get a discount if I lose weight.
If you are blaming this on “obamacare” your anger is misdirected. These kinds of misunderstandings are extremely common.
LikeLike
November 9, 2010 at 3:03 am
Ken K
I hesitate to turn this thoughtful discussion into a (hopefully just as thoughtful) conversation about abortion.
First, a question. Has anyone ever read the church’s position on abortion. Sadly most church member’s position is closer to the Republican party’s platform that they are to the church’s position. Its worth researching.
Second, here is an editorial from the June 7, 2004 edition of the Church owned Deseret News on the subject. The editorial chides the Utah state legislature for too tightly restricting abortion. I paste it here in full and word-for-word to illustrate that abortion is not the black and white issue some would like it to be.
Overhaul new abortion law
Deseret Morning News editorial
June 7, 2004
The critics warned legislators against implementing further restrictions in Utah’s abortion laws. They warned of the harm that could come from tying the hands of physicians and other health-care providers women turn to in times of need.
Despite the warnings of health-care professionals, the Utah Legislature amended the state abortion law to make it a crime to perform an abortion at a hospital that receives state funding, except under certain exemptions. Those do not include fatal deformity of the fetus.
Since then, the real-world implications of the amended law have been realized. A Roy couple whose unborn child had grave deformities and could not live outside the womb could not obtain an abortion at a nearby hospital because of the new restrictions in Utah’s abortion law. The couple was told to go elsewhere because Utah hospitals have stopped terminating pregnancies involving doomed fetuses for fear of losing state funding.
This particular state law was born out of an uninformed and provocative debate during the last session — a debate that at times degenerated into discussions about whether there are different degrees of rape, and whether some rape victims should be eligible for abortions while others aren’t. This unfortunate debate led to a law that ties the hands of physicians in cases of severe fetal abnormalities. Most likely, the law is unconstitutional.
We share many lawmakers’ concerns that far too many abortions are performed each year for no reason other than convenience and that a climate of abortion on demand demeans the sanctity of life. However, this was hardly the way to address those problems meaningfully.
People who are placed in the position of terminating a pregnancy because of fatal fetal defects want a child. Many have prepared nurseries, picked names and otherwise prepared for the blessed event. For them, a wanted pregnancy has gone awry. These are human tragedies. They have nothing to do with promiscuity or immoral behavior.
To compound a couple’s misery by forcing them to get help from caregivers other than those with whom they have an established relationship is wrong. Imagine the frustrations of physicians and other health-care professionals who have to turn away longtime patients just when they need them most.
Utah needs to change this law before a court forces it to. The health-care profession should be free to provide compassionate care when these very tragic circumstances arise.
LikeLike
November 10, 2010 at 12:37 am
ama49
Hi Ken,
I agree with you that in few cases abortion could be something to look at and isn’t as black and white as we sometimes like it to be. You’re also right that the church’s stance on abortion isn’t that it is never under any circumstance allowed. Also on abortion, the democratic platform is closer to the churches. You are right about that.
The issue on both sides of the aisle is that once laws are passed for or against it, the laws are black and white, as your article suggests and it leaves little room for extreme situations. On the flip side, if laws aren’t passed against it then people could run around getting abortions while the tax payers are paying for abortions that in most cases aren’t necessary.
LikeLike
November 9, 2010 at 7:32 pm
jay
Ama 49. I agree with JrL. This “manadatory physical” or a fine is not part of Obamacare. It must have been a political ad. I would suggest you call your insurance company to verify the validity of the letter. It appears you have been duped by a fake letter.
LikeLike
November 9, 2010 at 11:37 pm
ama49
Jay,
It is from my benefits department at the company I work with. It clearly states “due to recent healthcare regulation…” and the fine is up to $660 for not taking the assessment.
LikeLike
November 9, 2010 at 11:43 pm
Seth R.
I think it’s pretty clear that neither political party wants abortion to be on the agenda at the national level. Republicans only want to use it to mobilize the base, but don’t want to kill their shot at general elections by passing an actual law on it, and Democrats realize that doing anything about abortion is just going to lose them moderate votes as well.
In short – both parties are just fine leaving things exactly the way they are.
LikeLike
November 10, 2010 at 12:39 am
ama49
Hi Seth,
You’re probably right about that.
LikeLike
November 10, 2010 at 8:00 pm
Doug
Too bad the concept of “Free Agency” doesn’t extend to the unborn. Having gone through infertility issues (but by the mercy of God having two boys) has only strengthened our conviction that all human life is precious and should be protected.
LikeLike
November 10, 2010 at 8:12 pm
Ken K
Doug,
I have never seen anyone take issue with the value of human life nor be pro-abortion.
Neither side of the debate has exclusive ownership of either of these values.
LikeLike
November 10, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Seth R.
Doug, the LDS Church has never endorsed the personhood of the unborn. They take no stance on whether a fetus does, or does not constitute a “human life” in any legal sense.
This is an argument from the rest of the pro-life movement, not from the LDS Church.
The rhetoric from LDS apostles such as Dallin H. Oaks on the issue has always been one of how we should take responsibility for our choices, and how we should have respect for the procreative process. They almost never use rhetoric about the rights of the unborn person, or the nature of a human fetus. And when they do, the rhetoric is completely inconclusive.
If you want to pursue this line out of personal belief, fine and good. But it’s not something the LDS Church has a position on.
They oppose abortion on grounds other than the rights of the unborn.
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 2:51 am
Cal
Ken K said, “I have never seen anyone take issue with the value of human life nor be pro-abortion. Neither side of the debate has exclusive ownership of either of these values.”
I’m glad you brought this up, Ken. It’s a point that I didn’t want to admit at first. You and Conifer have helped me be more sensitive to “pro-choicers.” I’m not changing my position of course—I still have a conviction that abortion, except in rare cases, is simply wrong in God’s eyes. I’ve seen many women on TV talk about the detrimental effects abortion had on their souls—until forgiveness through Christ set them free.
But now I see that it was short-sighted of me, even ridiculous, to assume that all pro-choicers don’t care about unborn babies.
It appears that for many the issue is more about the proper role of government (?).
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 7:02 am
Conifer
For me that’s very much where it lies. I believe that outlawing abortion is one of the worst ways to reduce it. Things like making adoption easier and cheaper, providing better resources for teen and single parents, and better sex education and availability of birth control could go a long way, I think, toward helping people choose not to have abortions (and not have unwanted pregnancies) in the first place.
I also think that any laws against abortion are unlikely to stop abortion. It will just raise the number of unsafe, illegal abortions. I’d rather have it, like others have said, be safe, legal, and rare. But the rare part would come because we, as a nation, decide to support women in not getting pregnant in the first place with children they don’t want and then helping them adopt out the ones who are conceived to families that want them. It’s a system of empowerment, not suppression.
LikeLike
November 13, 2010 at 8:07 am
Ryan
I’m surprised this is a revelation to you. I’m moderately pro-choice and am personally very much against abortion. Its just that outlawing abortion turns out to be a very poor way to reduce abortions! As Conifer points out, education and pro-adoption policies are so much better! When a woman is going to terminate a pregnancy, I’d rather have her do it in a safe environment, where people can inform her of her other options, than in an ally by herself using dangerous means. And that’s exactly what happens in an environment of strict abortion regulation.
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 3:07 am
Ken K
Cal, I like how President Obama and Hillary Clinton phrased their view of abortion during the 2008 campaign; “Safe, legal and rare.”
While I personally will always remain pro-choice, I’ll simultaneous work to make abortion rarer and rarer until it is eliminated as a matter of personal choice.
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 4:07 am
ama49
Hi Ken,
If abortion is made legal only in “rare” cases, who and how is it determined what the definition of “rare” is?
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 7:04 am
Conifer
I think he means not that it would only be legal in rare cases but that circumstances would be changed so that people would only choose to have abortions rarely.
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 5:21 am
Doug
“safe, legal and rare” is a smoke screen-Ama your point goes to the heart of the issue. In the end those not in the Pro-life camp would argue that it is the woman’s choice and therein lies the dilemma. In regard to Seth R. and his statement regarding the LDS church and it’s stand (or lack of) on the abortion issue-if what you say is true-I am disappointed. With a belief system that puts so much importance on family and the value of children-I am surprised. Believing in pre-existence as the church does-I would have thought they would be pro-choice. At what point does the pre-mortal spirit enter the unborn child in LDS thought? (now there’s an issue for you to explore Ama!) However, Seth R, as I am not LDS it makes absolutely no difference to me or my convictions on this important issue.
LikeLike
November 12, 2010 at 6:27 am
ama49
Hi Doug,
Here is the LDS church’s official stance on abortion taken from this link.
In today’s society, abortion has become a common practice, defended by deceptive arguments. Latter-day prophets have denounced abortion, referring to the Lord’s declaration, “Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it” (D&C 59:6). Their counsel on the matter is clear: Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. Church members who encourage an abortion in any way may be subject to Church discipline.
Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.
When a child is conceived out of wedlock, the best option is for the mother and father of the child to marry and work toward establishing an eternal family relationship. If a successful marriage is unlikely, they should place the child for adoption, preferably through LDS Family Services (see “Adoption”).
LikeLike
November 13, 2010 at 8:10 am
Ryan
I would like to point out that nothing in that statement, nor in any other church statement I’ve seen, implies that it should be illegal. We know abortion is morally wrong just as we know that fornication is morally wrong. But for some reason we believe its important to outlaw the first but would see it as a violation of individual liberty to outlaw the second.
I think this is where many members get confused. Its definitely wrong, and I don’t think they should be dispersed freely. Late term abortions should be illegal. But in other cases, I lean towards letting the individual choose.
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 5:32 am
Seth R.
Simply being anti-abortion in sentiment does not make you automatically anti-choice.
The LDS Church does not usually give its members instructions how to vote except on rare occasions. It considers abortion a bad thing in general and then leaves it to it’s members how they want to incorporate that stance into their political ideology.
As such, I can see a Mormon with Ken’s attitude of “safe, legal, and rare” being justified in feeling he is in full compliance with his religious commitments as a believing Mormon. I can also see a pro-life activist who wants to make abortion legal similarly feeling he is likewise in keeping with his faith.
The LDS Church however, does not say which of them is right. It’s stance is that – yes, you have free choice – and you should USE that freedom to avoid abortions except where necessary.
Beyond this, they do not go.
I wouldn’t have it any other way.
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 5:33 am
Seth R.
Sorry – that should have read “pro-life activist who wants to make abortion ILLEGAL.”
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 9:55 am
Ken K
Ama asks, “If abortion is made legal only in “rare” cases, who and how is it determined what the definition of “rare” is?”
The individual. After all who is it that will be held accountable. Never do the scriptures talk about a society or a government being brought before the judgement bar. Rather, it is always the individual who will be judged and not coincidently atoned for.
I am comfortable leaving the matter in His hands.
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 9:59 am
Ken K
Doug wrote, “At what point does the pre-mortal spirit enter the unborn child in LDS thought? ”
The answer is, we simply do not know.
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 10:21 am
Ken K
Another contentious issue on the nationals stage beyond abortion is immigration.
While hardliners in our congregations have taken a conservative ‘obey the law of the land’ stance oft mimicked by talking heads and politicians on the far right, the church has taken a much more compassionate and comprehensive approach.
While conservative Utah law makers have grappled with imposing restrictions on immigrants from Mexico in this country without documentation, the church states these are our brothers and sisters, fellow children of our Father in Heaven and while they are here amongst us we will administer to and nurture them as such. Immigrants in the country illegally hold temple recommends, partake of the sacrament, hold church callings, even serve full-time missions.
A story. Four years ago in the Sunday morning session of our stake conference, the visiting general authority used his entire time at the pulpit, about 30 minutes, to lay out the case for, at the very least, reserving judgment on those in the United States illegally. The three impossible to refute observations he made were these people 1) are hard working, 2) do quality work, and 3) are very generous towards their families back in Mexico (he cited the statistic that remittances from the family members working in the US was the second leading source of income in Mexico between petroleum and tourism).
A very different stance indeed than taken by all but a few conservative candidates or electors and a far cry from the stance taken by Mormon legislator in Arizona who wrote and advocated for that state’s most current anti-immigration ‘reform’.
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Doug
Ken-if you don’t know at what point a pre-mortal spirit enters the unborn child-doesn’t that create a moral conflict?
I don’t personally believe in the doctrine of pre-existence however I’m trying to understand LDS thought on the abortion issue.
Regarding the illegal immigration issue I believe all people who enter this country must go through the process as my German and Irish ancestors did. I understand the misery that leads people to want to leave their homeland-I get that. My father’s family came to America during the Irish potato famine when 1 in 5 Irish starved to death. I read with growing concern the breakdown going on in Mexico. We have Latino members of our church and I cherish their friendships. Our organist is married to a Mexican woman-but she has gone through the immigration process legally.
I bristle when I am accused of being a racist (I can relate to George W) because of my stand regarding immigration.
LikeLike
November 12, 2010 at 4:57 am
ama49
I agree with Doug, but it is a dilema when someone comes in here illegally but then has a child here. It’s a sticky situation. I have a family member who had a husband that came here illegally and then got married in an LDS temple and wala! He became legal. I think the LDS church is probably wise to not get too involved in the political issues with immigration and put forth generalized statements like the one Ken highlighted.
LikeLike
November 13, 2010 at 8:14 am
Ryan
The church gets very involved in immigration in Utah. Three apostles released a public letter to the state legislature while I was there that asked the legislature not to remove the ability for illegal aliens to have drivers licenses. Which is already a more “liberal” law than is in place in most states in the US.
They also said, through a spokesperson, during one state debate that immigration is an infraction like jaywalking, not a sin like stealing.
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 8:30 pm
Ken K
Just issued today:
Utah Compact declaration on immigration reform
Published. A declaration of five principles to guide Utah’s immigration discussion
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700080758/Official-text-of-Utah-Compact-declaration-on-immigration-reform.html
Mormon church expresses strong support for said compact.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700080772/Mormon-Church-supports-principles-of-Utah-Compact-on-immigration.html
Its actions like these that make it easy for a liberal like me to follow the brethren and pull the D lever (most of the time).
I am a Democrat and a liberal after all because I am a Mormon.
LikeLike
November 12, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Doug
I have read about the Latino influx into places like Utah. A compassionate Christian response is certainly necessary-however we have to think of the message we are sending to people on the other side of the border as well. If we appear too flexible, too accommodating and too welcoming-the flood gates will open even wider. What message is that communicating to those who seek to enter our country legally? With the growing chaos in Mexico-the numbers currently crossing into our country are only going to grow.
LikeLike
November 12, 2010 at 6:23 pm
Seth R.
I would suspect that there is only one thing on the minds of most illegal immigrants from Central America – how much money can I make before I get caught?
I very much doubt that the degree of friendliness or unfriendliness our society bears toward such people is going to act in any way shape or form as either an incentive or disincentive. These people aren’t thinking about whether Colorado schools are bilingual. They aren’t thinking about whether cops tend to profile Hispanics more. The aren’t thinking about whether the white folk want them there.
What they are thinking about is hows the family farmland didn’t even produce enough to feed the kids this year. They’re thinking about their immediate national and local economy (usually in shambles). They’re thinking about survival.
And I doubt they really much care whether you like them or not.
In short, I don’t think your incentives or disincentives on the US side of the border translate even one jot into actual motivators or demotivators for people south of the border who are thinking of paying us a visit.
LikeLike
November 12, 2010 at 10:55 pm
Doug
Seth-there is truth in what you say. I wasn’t trying to make it over simplified. I’m looking at the principle and you are looking at the reality-desperately poor, hungry and hurting human beings. There are no easy answers and it is a complex issue. My part of Pennsylvania is even having to deal with it.
LikeLike
November 12, 2010 at 11:55 pm
Seth R.
I’m in Colorado. We’re kinda like ground-zero for this kind of stuff.
And I’m a bankruptcy attorney too – so I see plenty of the losing end of the economy. I happen to have a lot of Hispanic clients at the moment. I’ll take illegal immigrants too – as long as they pay before filing like everyone else.
(Note: you don’t have to be a citizen to file bankruptcy – all you need is a taxpayer ID number – and the IRS will give those to anyone – legal or not – they don’t really care, and neither do I).
LikeLike
November 13, 2010 at 2:49 am
Cal
Ken K said, “I am a Democrat and a liberal after all because I am a Mormon.”
I find this puzzling, Ken. Mormons strongly tend to be conservative, don’t they?
LikeLike
November 13, 2010 at 3:55 am
Seth R.
Yes Cal. They do tend that way.
Except in my case (and Ken’s) when they don’t.
LikeLike
November 13, 2010 at 5:07 am
Cal
OK. Have a good night.
LikeLike
November 14, 2010 at 1:03 am
Cal
While we’re still on the topic of politics, thought I’d paste in the first two paragraphs of a story that came to my mailbox from Charisma News Service ( http://webmail.myfairpoint.net/hwebmail/mail/message.php?index=1097 ) which I agree with:
“Prophetic Leaders Give Direction After Midterms”
By Felicia Mann
This week national prophetic voices gathered to assess the state of the nation and church following the midterm elections during a live broadcast.
While most agreed the outcome of the midterms moved the nation in the right direction, they insisted that prayer and repentance will bring true national transformation.
The one-hour online show G.I. Connect was hosted by Mike and Cindy Jacobs, heads of Generals International. . . .
LikeLike
November 14, 2010 at 8:27 pm
ama49
HI Cal,
Thanks for the link but it didn’t work. I think this link goes directly to your webmail. Do you have a different link for us to view?
LikeLike
November 15, 2010 at 2:31 am
Cal
There wasn’t much more to the story than that, actually.
By the way, for the record, I want to thank you for providing this forum. It’s been beneficial at times for me and for others as well, I know.
LikeLike
November 22, 2010 at 9:14 pm
Doug
Here is something, hopefully, we can all agree on-thanksgiving is an awesome holiday! I hope you and your families all have a wonderful thanksgiving! Praise the Lord that we live in such a country as America!
LikeLike
November 23, 2010 at 3:08 am
Cal
Yes! Thanks for the happy note. All the best to you and yours as well.
LikeLike
January 2, 2011 at 5:16 am
graceforgrace 2010 Year in Review « Grace for Grace
[…] most controversial post on graceforgrace was definitely “How Can a Christian or Mormon Vote Democrat?” I posted this shortly after the Republican candidate I was supporting lost and was still […]
LikeLike
January 7, 2011 at 7:20 pm
Bill
How is it that Mormons can vote Democrat? Simple:
1. By exercising their free-agency as protected by the Constitution and so earnestly ‘professed’ in popular Mormon culture;
2. By carefully considering the FACTS at issue – not just institutionalized dogma and emotion;
3.By resisting the urge to let others do your thinking for you – whether it’s one of the bombastic radio idealogues or a church leader inappropriately attempting to influence the electorate;
4. Finally, by not being afraid to stand up for your beliefs even if they seem to buck the political culture of your peers. I’m sure if ama49 checks her early Church history she’ll find many inspirational examples of this kind of courage. How soon we forget.
So am I a democrat? Nope – registered Republican in New York. However, it always pains me to see fellow Mormons using the Church as a foil to promote their own ideology – political or otherwise. It is a dangerous, un-Christian tactic which has repeatedly formed the nucleus for some of the most destructive regimes in history. That is a fact.
I am sorry if I have offended anyone, but unfortunately tolerance and open-mindedness are virtues which need much more air time within Mormon culture.
Best to everyone.
LikeLike
October 25, 2011 at 1:23 pm
Joe
Might I recommend the following book for another look into the subject:
“How Can You Possibly be a Mormon and a Democrat?”
LikeLike
January 14, 2012 at 1:08 am
mary
ama49, we Mormon Democrats have learned that when someone asks, “How can a person be both a Mormon and a Democrat?” it is almost always a rhetorical question. The person asking is really saying, “It goes without saying that you can’t be.” That is why you got some snarky answers. You also got some very thoughtful answers. But we tend to call out the people asking this on their insincerity and arrogance with a quip rather than falling in the trap of trying to explain to someone who has no interest in understanding another viewpoint. And the questoon IS arrogant. Speaking of arrogance, I personally don’t understand how anyone can be LDS and vote Republican. How does that feel? You ask why can a Mormon vote Democratic? Because we disagree with you on a number of issues. It is that simple.
I am also sick and tired of members intimating, by asking that question, that I’m not welcome in my own church. I did leave the church over this and similar rejecting comments, for about 20 years, then returned. I recently walked out of a church meeting when someone started ranting about socialism from the pulpit. It was the only way I had of informing them that I disagreed and disapproved, but I returned. I’m not going to let anyone drive me away from the church again.
LikeLike
January 18, 2012 at 3:50 pm
graceforgrace
Hi Mary,
I appreciate your insight.
When there are polarizing political or religous perspectives, it is hard to find common ground sometimes.
Since writing this post over a year ago, I’ve learned that although my views may be different than others, it is important to respect others’ opinions and not polarize them with rude comments.
Kudos to you for returning in spite of the imperfections and ignorance of others. Because of view points that you and others shared on this site, I have grown and appreciate your perspective, even though I may not agree with everything you believe, and that is o.k.
LikeLike
January 18, 2012 at 3:54 pm
Seth R.
Personally, I think the Tea Party is freaking nuts.
But I don’t bring that opinion with me to church. As long as that guy on the other end of the pew does his Home Teaching, tries to support our ward family and shares his testimony and faith with me – I don’t care who he votes for. I’ll clasp hands with him and happily pitch in at the next ward service project without hesitation. And I’d hope he’d do the same for me.
LikeLike
January 20, 2012 at 4:42 am
Ken KnickerbockerKen
Amen Mary. This sitting president has brought out the worst in our church family. I have been kept from participating, all be it briefly, in the temple and had to confront publicly a sitting member of the 70’s when he posted a death wish type ditty on Facebook against President Obama (he removed his posts! in a day or two). Their immature, childish behavior has served to harden my own liberal political stance but also softened my approach to discussing politics in the public square. The other guy or gal has as much right to be wrong as I do. With a single exception, I have refrained from criticizing any of the conservatives running for president. I don’t get them. I have no idea where they are coming from. None of them speak to an America I know. I am the least qualified to say ANYTHING derogatory about them. Instead I have found something good about each and make sure I share it when ever the politics comes up. So far, so good. The question is if I have enough self control to take me through November? We’ll see.
LikeLike