Neo-Liberal Mormonism

[jskains]

I had a run in with someone on Facebook who is neo-Liberal. They had the kinda Harry Reid feeling that only "Liberal Democrats" are true LDS people. They also went as far to say that only neo-Liberals are critical thinkers, and conservatives are clueless... I countered and got banned. Classic "only my views allowed here, thanks".

Whatever, anyways I am asking this question:

Is there a political party that is best suited to match the values of the LDS Church? I understand the non-political stance of the Church, but I am asking more opinions.

Do issues like:

Abortion

Self-Reliance vs Welfare

Immigration

Capital Punishment

Capitalism vs Socialism

Constitutional Literacy vs Constitutional "Living Document" mentality

And so forth factor in? Can someone really be pro-Abortion and a good standing member of the Church?

Remember, Catholicism deals with this a lot too. I have seen numbers of political debate forums where people talk about policies being in line with good standing in the Catholic Church. Can one take a political stance and be outside the standards of the Church itself?

JMS

[Lightbearer]

Can one take a political stance and be outside the standards of the Church itself?

JMS

Wanted to get my 2 cents in before this is closed for being a political thread. Can one divide one's political beliefs from one's religious beliefs? Not in my opinion, But that is just me, I also do not believe one's scientific theories should override one's faith either. I could not see how one can divide one's beliefs like that. That's like journalists who claim they can be neutral on any issue (also an impossiblity)!

[Sky]

This thread is opening a whole can of worms and might get closed. But you must look at the issues that are the most important to you, and then decide which political party comes the closest to meeting those ideals. The Church has said that principles of the Gospel are espoused in both parties.

[Jeff K.]

The church can exist under almost any type of government which allows for religious freedom. However some issues which we deem political have a moral aspect to them that places our political views and preferences in a tenuous position.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Part of the problem Josh, is that none of these issues are only two dimensional. You ask about abortion - and probably being pro-abortion is something that the church is (and should be) opposed to. But, then the issue isn't really about abortion, its about choice. Is the church pro-choice, or anti-choice? Can you be pro-choice but anti-abortion at the same time? I think so. Additionally, it is really only the social conservatives who want to make abortion a major issue within politics. I think the vast majority of Democrats and moderates simply don't see the need to make abortion such a major issue. Those who believe that the republican party ought to follow more closely a pattern of fiscal conservatism (and only to a lesser extent a platform of social conservatism) have far less interest in this issue. Furthermore, LDS doctrine does not support the extreme position of life beginning at conception, or the notion that a fertilized egg should represent a human being.

Immigration is another hot topic. There is something actually quite coward-like in my opinion with asserting that we should obey the law of the land, but then creating laws that do not treat people with the respect and dignity that they deserve as children of God. Much of the recent wave of immigration legislation which aims at limiting or minimizing the influx of non-U.S. citizens, and attempting to remove illegal aliens from the country seems to violate the principles of the gospel. Along-side this, the church is not the same as the United States. Ultra-nationalism would seem to be counter to the principles of the gospel.

You mention welfare versus self-reliance as an issue - but again, that seems to be a false dichotomy. The gospel clearly preaches that we are to care for the poor and the needy - to take care of the sick and afflicted. When we set up such a dichotomy, the only reasonable response (in my opinion) is to come down on the side of welfare (within the gospel). Those that have more than they need have a moral obligation to support those that don't have enough (independent of any issue of self-reliance). We aren't allowed scripturally to turn away the needy or the poor simply because we have issues with the reasons for their poverty. So to list this as an either or creates a rather artificial demarcation for followers of Christ's gospel.

Capitol punishment is always a bad thing in any situation where we have a jury which might, from one day to the next, deliver a sentence of capital punishment or not depending on their collective frame of mind. Our court systems do not seem reliable enough to make me want to grant it such power generally speaking. While we may believe that capital punishment is good in some circumstances, do we really think that our judicial system gives us enough of a guarantee that we feel good about extending them this power?

Then we have another sort of flawed dichotomy - socialism versus capitalism. Clearly capitalism is not a moral instrument. It replaces the notion of good and bad (or good and evil if you prefer) with a simple statement of profit or loss by its shareholders. It does not consider the public good, or even, often, the good of its consumers. Without some kind of moral entity regulating it, capitalism is not itself representative of the gospel. But then, neither is socialism, which suffers from its own kinds of potential problems and abuses. Do we really want to assert that either one represents the gospel in some way?

In the long run, I don't think that any of our political parties is better suited as a gospel platform - particularly when those parties move far from the center. As long as your political views are well grounded, I think that you can be either a republican or a democrat (or any of the non-major parties) and still be a member of the church in good standing. The key is to place living the gospel above a simple declaration of support for a political party. And of course, we need to refrain from calling those apostate who have different political views from our own - after all, they may prioritize different aspects of the gospel in a way that is different from our own.

Ben M.

[sethpayne]

Is there a political party that is best suited to match the values of the LDS Church?

I don't believe so, no. President Hinckley was a Democrat. I know several stake presidents and bishops who are Democrats. I also know many who are Republicans.

Do issues like:

Abortion

Self-Reliance vs Welfare

Immigration

Capital Punishment

Capitalism vs Socialism

Constitutional Literacy vs Constitutional "Living Document" mentality

And so forth factor in?

Things are not generally that black and white. We have many good LDS people in Europe where a mixture of socialism and capitalism seems to work out OK.

A person can support some social programs and oppose others. For example, I think Federal Student Loans are one of the best things this country has ever done for its citizens. Is it a form of socialism? Sure. Does BYU accept Pell Grants and Perkins loans? Absolutely. I don't think it has anything to do with someone's "standing" in the Church, to use your phrase.

I used to be incredibly to the right on the issue of immigration until I lived in a ward where a member of the Bishopric was an illegal from South America. He came here to provide for his family because he had no options in his home country. Obviously the Church didn't have an issue calling him into a priesthood calling. There were several families in the ward in this situation. They come here to work hard and better their families. Since meeting these wonderful people I have taken a softer view of the immigration issue.

Can someone really be pro-Abortion and a good standing member of the Church?

I can't say I've ever met anyone who is pro-Abortion. I've seen some radicals on TV who may fall into that camp but I don't think any normal human being would actually actively advocate abortion.

The question is really: Should abortions be safe/legal for those women who chose to have them?

My person feeling is, yes. Why? Not because I like seeing babies being aborted but rather, I recognize that whether its legal or not, women will pursue abortions. My academic advisor at grad school was at Vanderbilt during and after Roe. V. Wade and shared with me and interesting anecdote. He said that he was good friends with the dean of the medical school and that prior to Roe v. Wade the most commmon emergency room issue seen was internal bleeding from botched abortions. After Roe v. Wade this problem virtually dissapeared overnight. The fact is that people will choose to do things I find morally wrong. I can't control them. I'd rather see them make it through the process safely. Having said that I think things like mandatory counseling prior to an abortion or a 3 day waiting period etc.... are perfectly reasonable regulations. Again, it's not black/white. Even the Church's official position isn't black/white and allows for abortion in the case of rape/incest and wisely states that the decision is one for the woman and her family in counsel with priesthood leaders.

My $.02

[Cobalt-70]

I had a run in with someone on Facebook who is neo-Liberal. They had the kinda Harry Reid feeling that only "Liberal Democrats" are true LDS people. They also went as far to say that only neo-Liberals are critical thinkers, and conservatives are clueless... I countered and got banned. Classic "only my views allowed here, thanks".

In my experience, most neoliberals are actually rather conservative. They were the "trickle-down" people from the Reagan/Margaret Thatcher eras, and their modern progeny. Are you sure this person on Facebook said "neo"-liberal? Or just liberal?

Edited January 21, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[volgadon]

I had a run in with someone on Facebook who is neo-Liberal. They had the kinda Harry Reid feeling that only "Liberal Democrats" are true LDS people.

How refreshing.

[jskains]

Sorry, with all the Mitt threads, I thought some low level political thread could exist, since we are talking about values and ideas.

I am applying the Neo-Liberal label, since he is more Progressive than Libertarian, to which my reading shows Libertarianism to be more closely related to Classical Liberalism.

JMS

[frankenstein]

Can someone really be pro-Abortion and a good standing member of the Church?

JMS

Why not look up what the LDS Church Official statement on abortion is?

A good standing member of the LDS Church would support access to abortion in those limited instances where the LDS Church states abortion is justified.

Yes. is the answer to question.

Edited January 21, 2012 by frankenstein

[Wants2know]

What exactly is the definition of "neo-liberal" mormonism? I don't know if this really addresses the thread, but personally, it has not been an easy thing for me to convert and also defend my "liberalism" as a branded "democrat". More than in any other church I've been part of, this appears to be an issue for people in the LDS faith. There are "liberal" jokes and quips a lot of the time at church and don't understand the need to put the church into a political box. Because of this I've had to defend my ideas of faith, as well as my politics to friends and family and it all seems so unnecessary. If there is such a thing as a feminist Mormon, I'm going to be it.

Does the church have to fit with a political party? I don't think so. In fact, I think its a BAD idea. Separation of church and state is around for a reason, even if it isn't a reality.

In the end, I don't know if it will work for me, but I'm giving it a try and nurturing the faith I have. I'm hoping that being pro choice and supporting equal rights for same sex couples will somehow work out with the church. But I honestly don't know if it will.

[The Nehor]

Is there a political party that is best suited to match the values of the LDS Church? I understand the non-political stance of the Church, but I am asking more opinions.

No.

I'm reminded of when C.S. Lewis was talking about the dangers of extreme collectivism and extreme individualism. He said that most people then feel an urge to say which of the two is worse and he was not immune to the temptation. He said the proper course is to not care..

This is how I view the two political parties.

[Ares]

Political and personal... a twofer.