Is The Lds Church A Conservative/Republican Church?

[sunstoned]

Thank you Sky. What a blessed relief this was amongst the narrow-minded idiocy of the GOP lemmings.

What I find most offensive is not that they voted Republican, that's their right, but that they somehow consider appropriate to classify all Democrats as second-class Mormons who are betraying God.

I'm on the other side of the world and I find it enfuriating. I can't imagine how bad it must be in the (now thankfully dissapointed) Republican enclave of Utah.

+1000

[sunstoned]

From reading many of the previous posts, It is truly unfortunate that we are accepting the policies and practices of the world. There is likely no PARTY that truly is representative of the values espoused by the church membership, however is should be important for voters to choose those CANDIDATES those that most closely align themselves with our beliefs.

This does not necessarily mean that Romney was the only choice. However, If you had to choose between two candidates - which for the 2012 general election was basically true, it seems like someone that has our religious and family values, is able to attend the temple, and understands the importance of a chosen land would be the better choice of the two candidates.

I agree with previous writers that we should be Christlike and charitable (the ability to give freely), but we should not condone (the absence of objection) the perverse and evil practices of this generation.

We as a nation, will regret electing this president for a second term.

Het Beste - lwiscombe

From reading many of the previous posts, It is truly unfortunate that we are accepting the policies and practices of the world. There is likely no PARTY that truly is representative of the values espoused by the church membership, however is should be important for voters to choose those CANDIDATES those that most closely align themselves with our beliefs.

This does not necessarily mean that Romney was the only choice. However, If you had to choose between two candidates - which for the 2012 general election was basically true, it seems like someone that has our religious and family values, is able to attend the temple, and understands the importance of a chosen land would be the better choice of the two candidates.

I agree with previous writers that we should be Christlike and charitable (the ability to give freely), but we should not condone (the absence of objection) the perverse and evil practices of this generation.

We as a nation, will regret electing this president for a second term.

Het Beste - lwiscombe

From reading many of the previous posts, It is truly unfortunate that we are accepting the policies and practices of the world. There is likely no PARTY that truly is representative of the values espoused by the church membership, however is should be important for voters to choose those CANDIDATES those that most closely align themselves with our beliefs.

This does not necessarily mean that Romney was the only choice. However, If you had to choose between two candidates - which for the 2012 general election was basically true, it seems like someone that has our religious and family values, is able to attend the temple, and understands the importance of a chosen land would be the better choice of the two candidates.

I agree with previous writers that we should be Christlike and charitable (the ability to give freely), but we should not condone (the absence of objection) the perverse and evil practices of this generation.

We as a nation, will regret electing this president for a second term.

Het Beste - lwiscombe

You are entitled to your opinion, but I deeply, deelply disagree with you.

Edited November 22, 2012 by sunstoned

[slamarwi]

One of the great things about this country and forum is that we can disagree.

I would be interested to know which part you disagree with? Having an upstanding member of the church as president or regretting our current choice?

het beste - lwiscombe

[Calm]

Thank you Sky. What a blessed relief this was amongst the narrow-minded idiocy of the GOP lemmings.

What I find most offensive is not that they voted Republican, that's their right, but that they somehow consider appropriate to classify all Democrats as second-class Mormons who are betraying God.

Not all those who have demonstrated more conservative leanings or even stated they voted Republican make the connection of Democrate=second class Mormons...etc.

I suspect in fact that it is a small minority that do if one is careful in one's reading and doesn't make assumptions that simply because they agree in some things with the more extreme positions, they agree in all things. If I am right, it seems to me at least as wrong to generally condemn Republican LDS in such a way as it does to generally denounce Democrat LDS.

Edited November 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[harfad]

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 Church encourages its members to become engaged in the political process, and to vote for the party or candidate of their choice; but it does not officially support any political party or candidate. It does not advise its members which party to support or which candidate to vote for. That is what being politically neutral means.

[harfad]

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.

The policy decisions of the Church are made by the leadership of the Church, not collectively by the membership. It is a top-down organisation. The Church does not balot its members when making a policy decision, nor change it's position once made because some Church members may not like it. When required and it is appropriate, it takes sides on important issues, such as on same-sex marriages for example (whether some Church members like it or not). But on party political issues, such as whom to vote for, it remains neutral, meaning it does not advise its members whom to vote for. It lets them make that decision for themselves.

Edited November 22, 2012 by harfad

[harfad]

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?

When the Church officially declares the word of the Lord, it speaks as one Person—the Lord. Even if all Church members disagreed with it, it would still remain the immutable word of the Lord. If the Lord commanded all Church members to vote for Obama, then that would be the official position of the Church on that issue. But the Lord has said that he will not give the Church that kind of commandment. He wants them to make those kinds of decisions for themselves (D&C 98:10; 101:78).

Edited November 22, 2012 by harfad

[jwhitlock]

Thank you Sky. What a blessed relief this was amongst the narrow-minded idiocy of the GOP lemmings.

What I find most offensive is not that they voted Republican, that's their right, but that they somehow consider appropriate to classify all Democrats as second-class Mormons who are betraying God.

I'm on the other side of the world and I find it enfuriating. I can't imagine how bad it must be in the (now thankfully dissapointed) Republican enclave of Utah.

My,my. After self-righteously bemoaning Democrats being classified as second class Mormons, you proceed to denigrate Republican Mormons. Thanks for providing additional proof that the phenomenon of church members putting political affiliation ahead of the gospel is not limited to those in the U.S.

[jwhitlock]

Well folks, I just want to share this scripture with you from the Book of Mormon, and then I'll say goodnight and forever hold my peace. King Benjamin says beautifully one of the main points I'm trying to make. And Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours, by the way. How you interpret this scripture in relation to the modern political parties and their policies, I'll leave up to you. But by now I think everybody knows where I stand. Anyway, here it is:

The only point to be made by this is that King Benjamin talks about principles related to the gospel that we should embrace according to our agency. There is no political party in the U.S. - or in the world, that I'm aware of - that either embraces these principles or implements them according to gospel principles. Embracing any political party platform as being consistent with the gospel is misguided.

I still am amazed at how people can look at - in your case- the Democrat's party platform and think that because they say so, they must really care for people. Anyone looking at how they implement their agendas will realize that the exact opposite is true. The same applies to the Republican platform.

[Calm]

I still am amazed at how people can look at - in your case- the Democrat's party platform and think that because they say so, they must really care for people. Anyone looking at how they implement their agendas will realize that the exact opposite is true. The same applies to the Republican platform.

While I believe that as a whole the actions demonstrate much of what you say is true, that as individuals there are many among the Democrats and Republicans who are there, trying to accomplish something through political means for unselfish reasons, precisely because they sincerely care for people and are attempting to put their needs first.

Also I believe there is a significant and powerful portion among all the parties that is there for their own benefit first, whether for power, fame or money or all of the above, but in recognizing that I don't think we accomplish anything by tarring everyone associating with them with the same brush.

[Bikeemikey]

The only point to be made by this is that King Benjamin talks about principles related to the gospel that we should embrace according to our agency. There is no political party in the U.S. - or in the world, that I'm aware of - that either embraces these principles or implements them according to gospel principles. Embracing any political party platform as being consistent with the gospel is misguided.

I still am amazed at how people can look at - in your case- the Democrat's party platform and think that because they say so, they must really care for people. Anyone looking at how they implement their agendas will realize that the exact opposite is true. The same applies to the Republican platform.

If we vote for a political party we have used our agency.

If we vote for a political party with clear understanding we will pay more in taxes to help discharge our duty to the poor we have used our agency to do it.

If there is a party that is proposing to take care of the poor and are asking citizens to help with this by paying more taxes and voting for them then the choice not to support hem is the choice to not use your wealth to help the poor.

For those not familiar with democracy, we get to periodically use our agency to select a govt that represents our principles.

This idea that govt. welfare is forced coercion via the state undermines the use of agency by those who voted for such a govt. it is also an very limited to a small subset of the US electorate.

I will continue to vote for those who ask me to pay more so those who are poor and needy can be supported. The only coercion going in is the coercion of those who are unwilling to to help the poor and the needy via govt.

The many countries around the world who deal with poverty via govt all show that their method is superior to that currently employed in the USA.

[Calm]

If we vote for a political party with clear understanding we will pay more in taxes to help discharge our duty to the poor we have used our agency to do it.

I would be much more comfortable in paying taxes if I knew for certain the money was going to actually end up with the poor rather than in administrative costs or derailed by someone for their own personal benefit. I would be even more inclined to be comfortable choosing that route if it was clearly outlined what percentage of the taxes were actually going to the poor and not just given to a program or even being given away to someone who qualified for the program, but was not necessarily in need of it (I don't believe the majority of those receiving help from government programs don't need it, but there will always be some fraud involved and I would like to see the government at least looking vaguely aware of who was receiving the help). I've been in too many homes that demonstrated they used their personal money to buy luxuries that many who didn't receive help didn't have while taking government help to buy the necessities. OTOH, I've been in homes and been aware of many more who weren't receiving the help they needed due to lack of funds. IOW, if I were to rely on government to take care of the poor, I'd like to see more effective control to make sure that the needy were being taken care of. If they were being taken care of inspite of the fraud, I wouldn't feel that bad about the fraud but when fraud increases the suffering of those already suffering, it concerns me deeply. Edited November 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

The many countries around the world who deal with poverty via govt all show that their method is superior to that currently employed in the USA.

I would highly disagree at least in the two cases I am aware of.

Canada, I saw a lot of positive things but also a lot of abuse that led to those in need not getting what they needed and they were set up at least in our area to highly penalize those attempting to become more independent in that they pulled almost all funding and doubled or tripled costs at the same time rather than slowly lowering subsidies so that additional income could cover that loss but more was not demanded forcing them to not get part time jobs etc because they then couldn't cover the higher rent for example that was more than the increase of their income. I am not saying that Canada is not superior in some ways to the US, but they are not superior in all ways in taking care of their poor.

The poor in Russia were suffering tremendously and were not even close to the level of care I have seen generally in the US. I can't speak to other countries not having firsthand experience there.

Edited November 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[jwhitlock]

While I believe that as a whole the actions demonstrate much of what you say is true, that as individuals there are many among the Democrats and Republicans who are there, trying to accomplish something through political means for unselfish reasons, precisely because they sincerely care for people and are attempting to put their needs first.

Also I believe there is a significant and powerful portion among all the parties that is there for their own benefit first, whether for power, fame or money or all of the above, but in recognizing that I don't think we accomplish anything by tarring everyone associating with them with the same brush.

You're correct; there are individuals who do so, but they are becoming less and less common. As I noted in a previous post, there have been some politically involved people and politicians that I've felt that way about, but over time they either have retired or been voted out of office and do not tend to be replaced with people of that same caliber.

The church used to encourage people quite a bit to be involved in the political process. I don't get the impression that they push that so much anymore. Perhaps there's a tacit recognition that too much involvement in the political process corrupts people, even church members.

What I do have a concern with is people in the church who tout any one particular party's platform as being close to or consistent with Church doctrine or practice. I see no evidence at all of that being true for either political party, especially when you look at what they really do when elected. I was disturbed during the Bush elections when some church members would celebrate about having "their" candidate elected, as if it was some kind of validation that their political views were endorsed by God. Similarly, I've been disturbed by some church members who voted for Obama - and vocally against Romney - who then celebrate what they did as some kind of enlightened superiority that proves they're better and more courageous and more in touch with reality than the so-called conservative "majority" in the church. Both attitudes have been demonstrated by some on this board.

In reality, I think that church members today embrace current political ideology of any party at their own peril. And I emphasize the word "embrace". I find that getting emotionally vested in being either a Republican or a Democrat leads one away from the gospel. One can be, perhaps, narrowly involved in the process with a particular goal in mind, but that person needs to know when to get out before they get sucked in. I see far too many members who are heavily involved politically in any party create discord among the Saints, rather then effecting any real or lasting change for good through the political process.

[Calm]

You're correct; there are individuals who do so, but they are becoming less and less common. As I noted in a previous post, there have been some politically involved people and politicians that I've felt that way about, but over time they either have retired or been voted out of office and do not tend to be replaced with people of that same caliber.

It seems that way at the higher, more influential levels. It is very depressing.

Local governmental officials seem to me to be a majority of sincere individuals (though sometimes inept) trying to help with the anomaly being the corrupt or selfish individual, though that might be a result of the cities I've lived in. It starts getting problematic at the State level though I find many state politicians to be very admirable people (again this probably depends on location). National...the sincere, principled individual seems to be the exception rather than the rule, especially the longer they are in office.

Edited November 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[jwhitlock]

If we vote for a political party we have used our agency.

If we vote for a political party with clear understanding we will pay more in taxes to help discharge our duty to the poor we have used our agency to do it.

If there is a party that is proposing to take care of the poor and are asking citizens to help with this by paying more taxes and voting for them then the choice not to support hem is the choice to not use your wealth to help the poor.

For those not familiar with democracy, we get to periodically use our agency to select a govt that represents our principles.

This idea that govt. welfare is forced coercion via the state undermines the use of agency by those who voted for such a govt. it is also an very limited to a small subset of the US electorate.

I will continue to vote for those who ask me to pay more so those who are poor and needy can be supported. The only coercion going in is the coercion of those who are unwilling to to help the poor and the needy via govt.

The many countries around the world who deal with poverty via govt all show that their method is superior to that currently employed in the USA.

Do you have any idea of the problems that a welfare state creates? Are you aware of the dysfunctional families that have been enabled by the welfare state in the U.S., not to mention the rest of the world? Have you lived in a socialist welfare state, like I have, and witnessed first hand what government handouts really do to people?

Your assertion here that those who think that government welfare is problematic are somehow mean-spirited and don't care for the poor is simply ridiculous. The reality of how government implements welfare, and how destructive it really is, is demonstrated amply in the real world.

Our duty to the poor is based on our own charitable giving, and NOT on forced government redistribution of wealth, which is inconsistent with gospel principles. Anyone who thinks that supporting government-driven welfare discharges their responsibility to the poor is misguided.

[jwhitlock]

I would highly disagree at least in the two cases I am aware of.

Canada, I saw a lot of positive things but also a lot of abuse that led to those in need not getting what they needed and they were set up at least in our area to highly penalize those attempting to become more independent in that they pulled almost all funding and doubled or tripled costs at the same time rather than slowly lowering subsidies so that additional income could cover that loss but more was not demanded forcing them to not get part time jobs etc because they then couldn't cover the higher rent for example that was more than the increase of their income. I am not saying that Canada is not superior in some ways to the US, but they are not superior in all ways in taking care of their poor.

The poor in Russia were suffering tremendously and were not even close to the level of care I have seen generally in the US. I can't speak to other countries not having firsthand experience there.

The welfare system here penalizes people for being married, if they're receiving welfare. There is an incentive to remain unmarried and living together so that welfare benefits can continue to be collected. While taking care of the poor is necessary from a gospel standpoint, having the government implement it instead of individuals being involved in charitable organizations is the wrong thing to do for a variety of reasons.

[jwhitlock]

It seems that way at the higher, more influential levels. It is very depressing.

Local governmental officials seem to me to be a majority of sincere individuals (though sometimes inept) trying to help with the anomaly being the corrupt or selfish individual, though that might be a result of the cities I've lived in. It starts getting problematic at the State level though I find many state politicians to be very admirable people (again this probably depends on location). National...the sincere, principled individual seems to be the exception rather than the rule, especially the longer they are in office.

Our viewpoints on this are heavily influenced by where we live. Here at the local level (and I live in a predominantly Republican county in a Democrat oriented state, so I see if from both sides), the mainly Republican school boards and local officials are not something to write home about. I've seen a deterioration in the quality of candidates and their agendas in both parties at the local and the state level here. There have been some very sincere people of principle involved, but they are a very, very small minority now. Such people don't tend to last long in the political system here.

In some areas in the country, it's very bad (the Chicago political machine comes to mind). In other areas, I'm sure that there are some good working relationships at the local level going on. However, that's not the way it's headed where I live, and it's certainly not that way at the national level where there's no sense of reality inside the DC beltway.

[Calm]

What I do have a concern with is people in the church who tout any one particular party's platform as being close to or consistent with Church doctrine or practice. I see no evidence at all of that being true for either political party, especially when you look at what they really do when elected.....

In reality, I think that church members today embrace current political ideology of any party at their own peril. And I emphasize the word "embrace". I find that getting emotionally vested in being either a Republican or a Democrat leads one away from the gospel. One can be, perhaps, narrowly involved in the process with a particular goal in mind, but that person needs to know when to get out before they get sucked in. I see far too many members who are heavily involved politically in any party create discord among the Saints, rather then effecting any real or lasting change for good through the political process.

You and I are of one accord on these points.

[Calm]

While taking care of the poor is necessary from a gospel standpoint, having the government implement it instead of individuals being involved in charitable organizations is the wrong thing to do for a variety of reasons.

I would see an ideal solution would be the government to be the one to take care of the exception, to be a safety net but not the primary provider. Rather they take care of the very few that have no other options in a society where charity is seen as a major function of private individuals. Unfortunately from what I know of history and seen in the current world, that is an idealist view that is not at this time very practical to implement. Too many in society at all levels are too concerned with multiplying material possessions (and I won't deny me and my family are likely among them though I believe we do make our choices based on comfort and could care less about status at least). Edited November 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[Storm Rider]

I have never considered gov't to be the answer to helping poor people. Heck, I don't even think gov't should be the business of passing out welfare on a permanent basis for healthy, capable adults. I firmly think it is appropriate for gov't to have a social net for situations that develop where people are displaced, unemployed, or in need of alternative training. However, these are temporary measures and should never evolve into multi-generational tools. I think it is healthy for a society to determine that if you don't work, and are able, then you don't eat. I have no problem creating large, self-sustaining farms that are manned by those are without jobs or are incapable of otherwise maintaining a job. If we did have such situations then homelessness would be completely absent in society. What I reject is that a citizen chooses to be homeless, chooses to not work, and then demand to be cared for by the state and other citizens. If you don't think that is a reality within the homeless community, then I invite you to get out and work with homeless in a large city and find out for yourself. The moment we train people that there is no need to work and they will be cared for is the moment that we destroy our society. The issue is assisting in emergencies and providing a dole. Government seems incapable of distinguishing between the two and in so doing they enfeeble society.

[jwhitlock]

I would see an ideal solution would be the government to be the one to take care of the exception, to be a safety net but not the primary provider. Rather they take care of the very few that have no other options in a society where charity is seen as a major function of private individuals. Unfortunately from what I know of history and seen in the current world, that is an idealist view that is not at this time very practical to implement. Too many in society at all levels are too concerned with multiplying material possessions (and I won't deny me and my family are likely among them though I believe we do make our choices based on comfort and could care less about status at least).

This is a very complex issue with no good solutions. We've let the camel into the tent, so to speak, and we're not going to be able to get rid of it.

The goal of any welfare program that truly cares about people is to get people who use that program out of it as quickly as possible. That's not the way government welfare works; it is structured, as you noted, to penalize people who try to get out and take personal responsibility for their own needs.

I think that many Americans want and try to be involved in charitable giving. That attitude, however, is slowly but surely being suppressed by what the government does with welfare dependency. You're correct that there are many who are preoccupied with accumulating wealth, but there is still a strong core of Americans who want to do what's right, who want to help others, and who recognize that the government program is inferior and destructive.

You're correct in that there are relatively few who have no other options. Some of that "lack of options" is the result of government interference with true charitable giving over time. Unfortunately, becoming a ward of the state because you have no other options is not particularly appealing. The state is more concerned with rights than in doing what's right with those individuals, and so they languish and make no progress.

Over the last few years we've had the opportunity to become more acquainted with the realities of government welfare programs. There is very little lasting good that comes out of such programs for people who remain in them for the long term. The clear realities of how government implementation of programs negatively affects people are there for anyone to see who will look beyond the trite and shallow platform declarations of political parties.

[jwhitlock]

I have never considered gov't to be the answer to helping poor people. Heck, I don't even think gov't should be the business of passing out welfare on a permanent basis for healthy, capable adults. I firmly think it is appropriate for gov't to have a social net for situations that develop where people are displaced, unemployed, or in need of alternative training. However, these are temporary measures and should never evolve into multi-generational tools. I think it is healthy for a society to determine that if you don't work, and are able, then you don't eat. I have no problem creating large, self-sustaining farms that are manned by those are without jobs or are incapable of otherwise maintaining a job. If we did have such situations then homelessness would be completely absent in society. What I reject is that a citizen chooses to be homeless, chooses to not work, and then demand to be cared for by the state and other citizens. If you don't think that is a reality within the homeless community, then I invite you to get out and work with homeless in a large city and find out for yourself. The moment we train people that there is no need to work and they will be cared for is the moment that we destroy our society. The issue is assisting in emergencies and providing a dole. Government seems incapable of distinguishing between the two and in so doing they enfeeble society.

One of the negative realities of the extension of unemployment benefits in this country is that many people have simply ceased to look for jobs. The government then conveniently removes those unemployed from the unemployment figures, "because they're not actively looking for employment anymore". The politicians then, of course, trot out people on long term unemployment who tearfully claim that they simply can't find work, even though they're looking, as justification to keep increasing the extension of unemployment benefits. However, what the politicians don't trumpet is the fact that their economic policies (carbon caps, increasing taxes on small businesses and their owners, mandating universal healthcare and other entitlement benefits to be paid for by working people and businesses, energy policies designed to appease environmentalists and not to promote energy independence and growth, drilling moratoriums, blocking pipelines, increased government deficit spending, etc., etc., etc.) are stifling the creation of jobs and keeping those people unemployed.

It's a self-perpetuating system designed to bring us all down to the lowest common denominator, and not to raise everyone up.

[thesometimesaint]

We the people decide what we agree on and what we do not agree on.

Why would we as a people ever want to support something we as a people do not agree with?

I know we should tolerate other's weaknesses and shortcomings while realizing that none of us are perfect, yet, but at the same time we shouldn't approve of someone intentionally doing something we know is wrong. We should try to help people learn not to do what is wrong, which is why we sometimes need to make laws for people to follow. Those who then break those laws must pay the penalty for breaking those laws. We don't just toss the laws out the window because we realize people aren't perfect, yet, and one of the ways people learn not to do what is wrong is by having them pay the penalty for breaking a law.

We're now at the point where some people don't seem to realize that ssm is wrong, because it just isn't good. You're suggesting that I approve of ssm, if you're saying that I should vote for it. I won't vote for it, though, because I know it is wrong, and I am in favor of making and upholding a law to let others know that it is wrong. That's what I'm saying by voting against it, and if others don't agree with my position they can vote to approve it. That is the way democracy works. And I can continue to not agree with it even if the majority votes to approve of it. There will never be a point when I have to approve of it in our socieity.

Far more people oppose LDS beliefs about the eternal nature of Temple marriage. Should they be able to determine what we do in the Temple?

[thesometimesaint]

I guess my question is, if you are LDS and Democrat. What specifically does that party support that you feel is aligned closer to your beliefs?

I'm LDS and voted for the Green Party.