Is The Lds Church A Conservative/Republican Church?

[Ahab]

I know that, officially, the Church says it is neutral in regards to partisan political matters. It even went so far as to congratulate President Obama on his reelection victory.

I'd like to know what that particular representative of the Church meant when he/she said the Church is neutral. Neutral? How could that be? We vote, collectively. We don't sit back on the sidelines and just watch, collectively. I know individual members are all over the spectrum, but how can someone say we are neutral, or what do they mean by that, I wonder.

Yet why is it so easy for more liberal or Democratic leaning members to sometimes feel like outsiders in the LDS Church?

I think it's based on how Utah votes, as a whole. It's been a Republican state during my life as far back as I've seen, rather than one of those swing states that can go either way. Look on the map and you'll see that it's a red state, rather than a blue state. Kinda makes the Democrats among us feel at least a little awkward, I think.

Why does the question seem to continually come up if it's possible to be a good Mormon and a Democrat?

Different people are usually asking the question. We each need to find the answers ourselves, don't cha know.

What about those Mormons who supported Obama, and are (or try to be) just as loyal to the Gospel as their conservative Mormon counterparts?

What about em? You seem to have just now summed up their position fairly.

Maybe location has something to do with it too...I suppose it's much easier to be a Mormon Democrat in places like Boulder or the west coast than along the Wasatch Front.

Yeah, I live in Washington state, which has usually been a Democrat state, so I think I have less of a problem than I would in a Republican state.

Thoughts? I don't want to see this thread shut down; please keep it civil and respectful.

In my perspective, the Republican party is more in line with my position on moral issues while the Democratic party is more in line with my position on economic issues, and while I try to find someone in line with my position on both moral issues and economics, I tend to lean more toward economic issues when I'm voting for a person while I can be more selective when voting on an issue.

If I had my druthers we'd just vote on issues, individually, rather than voting on a particular person.

[volgadon]

I appreciate hearing from other members outside the US. Don't feel so alone politically that way.

[sheilauk]

I'd like to know what that particular representative of the Church meant when he/she said the Church is neutral. Neutral? How could that be? We vote, collectively. We don't sit back on the sidelines and just watch, collectively. I know individual members are all over the spectrum, but how can someone say we are neutral, or what do they mean by that, I wonder.

It means that the Church has no position on which is the "correct" political party, nor does it instruct its members which party to vote for. Likewise, leaders are not supposed to suggest which political party or person to vote for (even if some do - we are all fallible). Obviously, individual members are not neutral but you can't say that the Church is Republican, only that most of its members in the USA are Republican. The Church as an entity does not vote or belong to a political party. It may be considered conservative because of the values it espouses, but that is not the same thing and will vary, depending on the values of the world at the time and place it is in.

Edited November 20, 2012 by sheilauk

[BCSpace]

Yet why is it so easy for more liberal or Democratic leaning members to sometimes feel like outsiders in the LDS Church? Why does the question seem to continually come up if it's possible to be a good Mormon and a Democrat? What about those Mormons who supported Obama, and are (or try to be) just as loyal to the Gospel as their conservative Mormon counterparts?

The reason is that LDS doctrine matches Conservatism quite closely. There is no place for modern Liberalism in any doctrine of the Church. For example, besides multiple moral issues, one can't use kings Benjamin or Mosiah to justify a large welfare state (a common left wing argument), because neither set up such a state but rather taught individual charity. Also the fundamental principle of the Law of Consecration is private property (see my siggy for the official source). And the list goes on and on. I can certainly imagine they feel like outsiders because to speak up often means to conflict with doctrine.

When the Church says there are "good principles" in both parties, I note 1) It doesn't mention what these are and 2) I also note that both Conservatives and Liberals want to help the poor (we had a thread not long ago on how more religious and conservative states win in the charitable contribution category in case you don't believe me). So, especially given the doctrine above, that membership in the Church does not justify support for Socialism and the Welfare state as these issues bear directly on the fundamental doctrines of agency and personal responsibility.

With the political neutrality thing, it has to be maintained else we cut we eliminate potential converts from the mix. If we believe the doctrine, then we believe in it's power to change hearts. There is a problem in the Church with people teaching watered down or incorrect doctrine or saying such a doctrine doesn't matter very much and anecdotally I'd say a majority of these are people of liberal bent.

I have counseled with concerned/worried and publicly outspoken conservatives from time to time not to worry about Liberals speaking Liberalism in Church; that to teach the doctrine is the same as teaching conservatism so the proper response is simply to continue teaching from the scriptures, and the words of the prophets in the authorized publications. Similarly I have counseled upset liberals (usually both together because there was an argument) saying what's the problem if you believe the doctrine and the Church is true? Of course there is a problem if one doesn't believe the doctrine, but am I going to to counsel one doesn't have to believe the doctrine? Of course not.

Maybe location has something to do with it too...I suppose it's much easier to be a Mormon Democrat in places like Boulder or the west coast than along the Wasatch Front

Perhaps. But the doctrine is the same on the Wasatch Front as it is in Boulder. For example, the Church still considers homosexual behavior an "abominable sin" and that the doctrine on it has not and will not change.

http://www.mormonnew...nder-attraction

Edited November 20, 2012 by BCSpace

[DavidB]

Saints Alive, are you LDS? I ask because regarding prayer in school, the LDS were not represented in the vast overwhelming majority of public schools. As a Latterday Saint, I am greatful I did not have to participate in prayers which went against LDS beliefs.

Also, did you know that Mormons in Texas got prayer removed from public highschool football games. Those Mormons got tired of hearing - I believe Baptists pray at every game.

What religion, and I mean particular flavor, do you think the Government should promote as it did with mandatory prayer in schools.

And remember, the LDS Church Doctrine is not mingling religion with government to detriment of anothers beliefs. You can be asured that the days of State sponsored religion, were.days the State was promoting protestant religion to the detriment of all other beliefs.

Edited November 20, 2012 by DavidB

[thesometimesaint]

I am afraid your bottom line is wrong and so is you mischaraterization of the republican platform.

1. The Republican Party does not support a total ban on abortion, some far right exteremeist in the party might but not the majority of the party.

2. The Republican Party does not support discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but does maintain the tradition definition of marriage.

3. Democratic politicians have done more to restrict religious freedom than any other organization I can think of. We used to have prayers in school and the Ten Commandments at the court house, not anymore.

1. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/21/1122423/-CNN-Reports-Republican-Platform-contains-Constitutional-Amendment-to-Outlaw-Abortion

2. Only partly true. Few states allow for hospital visitation, adoption, inheritance, etc., etc., I mentioned and federal law prohibits Social Security benefits to Same Sex couples.

3. No one has been stopped from praying. The USSC determined that State sponsored public school prayers were an unconstitutional mixing of church and state. Again an unconstitutional mixing of church and state as determined by federal judges.

[Ahab]

It means that the Church has no position on which is the "correct" political party, nor does it instruct its members which party to vote for.

The Church has all kinds of positions on which party is the correct party. The Church is all the people who are members, collectively, and while there is no one person who represents the whole Church as if everyone is in agreement with what that one person says, each member has their own particular position which may or may not be in agreement with the majority position.

Likewise, leaders are not supposed to suggest which political party or person to vote for (even if some do - we are all fallible). Obviously, individual members are not neutral but you can't say that the Church is Republican, only that most of its members in the USA are Republican.

The Church is Republican and Democrat and Libertarian and pretty much all other parties, because those are the parties of the individual members of the Churche. The Church is the collective of all of the members, and each member is a member of some party, or no party at all.

The Church as an entity does not vote or belong to a political party.

Yes it does. The Church as an entity votes Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, and pretty much all other political parties, because that's how the individual members of the Church vote. The Church is the collective of all of the members, and "it" votes the way "we" vote.

It may be considered conservative because of the values it espouses, but that is not the same thing and will vary, depending on the values of the world at the time and place it is in.

Conservative generally, yes, I agree, if it's true that most of the members are conservative, but there are also liberals in the Church which is what makes the Church collectively both, even though the majority lean a particular way.

Just remember that no one person speaks for the entrie Church, as if there is one member who speaks for all of us as if we all agree with that one person. Even the President of the Church doesn't speak for the entire Church, because some members don't agree with him, either. The President of the Church is the spokesman for GOD, which is what makes him the Prophet for the entire Church, but he doesn't speak for the entire Chuch because the Church is not one in unity, as God is.

[DavidB]

Bcspace, a problem is that it is a terrible.mistake to make blanket judgments about entire groups of people. Are you of the opinion that no democrat and/or supports any aspect of the Gospel?

[seriously honestly]

The LDS church as a whole doesn't officially align itself with either political side, but Democratic members would find themselves feeling a little left out because the LDS position is more conservative it its values and beliefs (which by default would put it in closer alignment with the Republican party).

[BCSpace]

Are you of the opinion that no democrat and/or supports any aspect of the Gospel?

Of course not.

[Ahab]

The LDS church as a whole doesn't officially align itself with either political side...

I've tried to correct that false idea but some people don't seem to be listening:

- The LDS Church as a whole officially aligns itself with pretty much all political parties, because those are the parties of the individual members.

To think individual members of the Church are Republican, and Democrat, and members of other political parties, and yet the Church collectively is neutral or of no political party is just some weird and wrong thinking. It makes no sense, logically. Why do people think that, I wonder, when it's not true?

[Walden]

I am afraid your bottom line is wrong and so is you mischaraterization of the republican platform.

1. The Republican Party does not support a total ban on abortion, some far right exteremeist in the party might but not the majority of the party.

2. The Republican Party does not support discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but does maintain the tradition definition of marriage.

3. Democratic politicians have done more to restrict religious freedom than any other organization I can think of. We used to have prayers in school and the Ten Commandments at the court house, not anymore.

Regarding your argument that the GOP does "not support a total ban on abortion, some far right extremist in the party might but not the majority of the party."

From the official 2012 Republican platform...."we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children."

A declaration in the official GOP party platform that argues for enacting a Constitutional amendment to preserve the life of unborn children is not the result of "some far right extremist in the party,"; it is part of the official party platform.

As for your third argument, that liberals have done more to restrict religious freedom than any other movement, do you only consider the "Ten Commandments at the court house," or school prayer to be part of religious freedom? What if a community with a high population of Muslims wanted to erect a statue of the Koran at the local court house? Regarding prayer in school, it is still allowed if it is organized by student's and is done outside of class time; would you promote "religious tolerance" by ensuring that classroom prayer's are performed in the classrooms, and who's prayer do you propose the teacher recite, the Christian's prayer, the Muslim's prayer, the Hindu's prayer?

[seriously honestly]

I've tried to correct that false idea but some people don't seem to be listening:

- The LDS Church as a whole officially aligns itself with pretty much all political parties, because those are the parties of the individual members.

To think individual members of the Church are Republican, and Democrat, and members of other political parties, and yet the Church collectively is neutral or of no political party is just some weird and wrong thinking. It makes no sense, logically. Why do people think that, I wonder, when it's not true?

Because that's what the LDS church keeps saying

http://mormon.org/faq/political-beliefs

You can have members of a church hold a political view point without their church officially aligning itslef one way or another (and I'm pretty sure that if a church officially endorsed a political party they would loose their tax-expempt status).

Edited November 20, 2012 by seriously honestly

[ControlFreak]

I've tried to correct that false idea but some people don't seem to be listening:

- The LDS Church as a whole officially aligns itself with pretty much all political parties, because those are the parties of the individual members.

To think individual members of the Church are Republican, and Democrat, and members of other political parties, and yet the Church collectively is neutral or of no political party is just some weird and wrong thinking. It makes no sense, logically. Why do people think that, I wonder, when it's not true?

You are confusing the membership of the church with the church as an organizational body with official positions on many things, but no position when it comes to political alignment (also known as neutral). I don't think it is productive to try to mix the semantics up and claim that the position of the members as a group has anything to do with an official church position.

Most importantly, we need to understand that no member of the church has any right to push their particular brand of politics as righteous and holy when the church has very specifically and repeatedly stated that they do not take any stand when it comes to political party. To claim that one party is better than another in a church setting is not doctrinal, insensitive and inappropriate. If you want to try to sell your ideas to individuals, that's one thing, but too many try to pretend that their opinion on politics is somehow backed by the church when it very obviously is not as the church has explicitly stated otherwise.

[blackstrap]

There is a distinction between the Spokesmen/GAs who guide the membership and the general membership . The leadership does and must present a NEUTRAL political position. The membership can and do belong to/vote for whatever political party they wish.

[BCSpace]

The LDS church as a whole doesn't officially align itself with either political side...

I've tried to correct that false idea but some people don't seem to be listening:

- The LDS Church as a whole officially aligns itself with pretty much all political parties, because those are the parties of the individual members.

To think individual members of the Church are Republican, and Democrat, and members of other political parties, and yet the Church collectively is neutral or of no political party is just some weird and wrong thinking. It makes no sense, logically. Why do people think that, I wonder, when it's not true?

The problem is that since the Church takes a politically neutral stance, some members erroneously believe that to be sufficient justification to believe and teach certain things that are actually contrary to doctrine or to erroneously assume the Church has a doctrine other than what it actually teaches.

[volgadon]

The problem is that since the Church takes a politically neutral stance, some members erroneously believe that to be sufficient justification to believe and teach certain things that are actually contrary to doctrine or to erroneously assume the Church has a doctrine other than what it actually teaches.

Deja vu.

[Ahab]

Because that's what the LDS church keeps saying:

http://mormon.org/fa...litical-beliefs

We, the members of the Church, are what the Church is. Who is this guy (or gal) who speaks as if he speaks for all of us, and why do you choose to believe him (or her)? He (or she) is wrong, don't cha know. We are of all political parties, so that is what we (the Church) is.

You can have members of a church hold a political view point without their church officially aligning itslef one way or another (and I'm pretty sure that if a church officially endorsed a political party they would loose their tax-expempt status).

When you say Church, which person are you referring to? Do you think we all agree with that person? Do you thnk that one person speaks for all of the members, as if we all agree with that person? What kind of weird thinking is this?

[Ahab]

The problem is that since the Church takes a politically neutral stance, some members erroneously believe that to be sufficient justification to believe and teach certain things that are actually contrary to doctrine or to erroneously assume the Church has a doctrine other than what it actually teaches.

No, the problem is in thinking the Church is one person, as if that one person represents all of us (the members), and as if we all agree with that one person. There is no one person who we all agree with. We are not one in unity, yet, as God is.

[volgadon]

Who is this guy (or gal) who speaks as if he speaks for all of us

The prophet?

[Ahab]

The prophet?

No, he doesn't speak for all of the members, either, because not all of us agree with him. He speaks for God to all of the Church, but he doesn't speak for the whole Church because not all of agree with him. You know this already, don't cha?

[The Nehor]

Ii agree with C.S. Lewis. The problem is that most people want God as a partisan supporter for "their side" rather then in humility going to him as a student to a wise teacher. Neither party will establish Zion which is the ONLY order acceptable to God. So let them squabble. Those teaching the principles of either party in church are teaching the philosophies of men occasionally mingled with an out of context scripture or two and are thus sinning. Hopefully in ignorance.

So do not get annoyed at those sharing their political views as gospel. Pity them.

[Ahab]

Ii agree with C.S. Lewis. The problem is that most people want God as a partisan supporter for "their side" rather then in humility going to him as a student to a wise teacher.

He'll teach us his ways though and then once we know his ways we'll seek to establish his ways, if we agree with him.

So do not get annoyed at those sharing their political views as gospel. Pity them.

The gospel involves politics just as much as anything else does. What do you think politics is all about?

We can align ourselves with God just as much as we can join with anyone else.

[The Nehor]

He'll teach us his ways though and then once we know his ways we'll seek to establish his ways, if we agree with him.

The gospel involves politics just as much as anything else does. What do you think politics is all about?

We can align ourselves with God just as much as we can join with anyone else.

His way is Zion. Neither party and no candidate that I know of is pro-Zion.

The gospel has little to do with politics. It is something we sometimes need to use or influence but it is not truly connected with the gospel. The only fundamental change in politics endorsed by scripture is the Savior coming back to rule as a monarch. Until then we just have to not screw up too badly. At a simplistic level both parties are pro-sin so I just pick the least damaging one.

We can align with God as much as we align/join other groups but this annoys God. He wants all our devotion, love, service, etc. Giving that same allegiance to anyone or anything else is idolatry.

[Ahab]

His way is Zion. Neither party and no candidate that I know of is pro-Zion.

I think most of us are, even though some of us don't know or don't agree with God about how to achieve it.

What do you think Zion is?

The gospel has little to do with politics. It is something we sometimes need to use or influence but it is not truly connected with the gospel. The only fundamental change in politics endorsed by scripture is the Savior coming back to rule as a monarch. Until then we just have to not screw up too badly. At a simplistic level both parties are pro-sin so I just pick the least damaging one.

from wiki:

Politics (from Greek politikos "of, for, or relating to citizens") as a term is generally applied to the art or science of running governmental or state affairs, including behavior within civil governments, but also applies to institutions, fields, and special interest groups such as the corporate, academic, and religious segments of society. It consists of "social relations involving authority or power" and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy.^[1]

Don't think so much about the names of different religious parties. Try thinking about what the ultimate goal is.

... we all want to live in the best world possible, it's just that our way isn't always aligned with God's way, and vice versa.

We can align with God as much as we align/join other groups but this annoys God. He wants all our devotion, love, service, etc. Giving that same allegiance to anyone or anything else is idolatry.

Enoch did a pretty good job, and so did King Benjamin. Remember this?:

When we are in the service of our fellow beings we are only in the service of God.

We just need to learn that the best way to have the best world possible is to do things as God our Father wants us to do things.

It's not only because he says so, but because it is the best way possible.