Does Being Lds Limit One'S Political Persuasions?

[Sky]

Well, it shouldn't, at least according to this author in the Deseret News. I like the points that he brought up. It needs to be said.

[HairBear]

It doesn't limit someone's political persuasions here in the UK, though I can't comment on how it would work in the US as your political system is very different to ours.

[The Nehor]

If you are not pro-big military and pro-free market then you are obviously in opposition to the scriptures. Or so I am told. They do get very vague on which scriptures you are supposed to be opposing though.

[Saints Alive]

Does being LDS limit ones political persuasions?

No, but it should on some issues. Gay marriage, child welfare, liberty, among others.

[teddyaware]

Well, it shouldn't, at least according to this author in the Deseret News. I like the points that he brought up. It needs to be said.

The entire Federal Government of the United States is in a state of total apostasy from the enumerated powers, codified law and original intent of the framers of the Constitution. In fact, we are now living in a Post-Constitutional America. At best, the Constitution is given only lip service, while it's constantly violated at almost every hand. Whether we're speaking of either of the two major political parties, "they have all gone out of the way."

The Latter Day Saints are the only people on the face of the earth who actually know the one system of government of which the Lord himself approves -- not just for the United States, but for the entire world. The Lord's thoughts on secular government are written in the first person, right there in the book of Doctrine & Covenants:

80 And for this purpose have I (the Lord) established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose... (D&C 101)

And again;

5 And that law of the land (the United States) which is constitutional (our US Constitution), supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; (D&C 98)

7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

The two the main reasons why the US is so fouled up right now is because of the wickedness of too many of its citizens, and also because our lawmakers are always doing more or less than what the Constitution specifies should be done.

And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this (the Constitution of the United States preserved, protected and defended in the spirit of its original intent) cometh of evil.

Another thing: Most of our polititians (both parties included) are either dishonorable, dishonest, deceitful, corrupt, manipulating bullys; or else they're cowardly, craven, feckless and "pragmatic." There are only a few honest and courageous people left in Washington and they're all persecuted.

When I hear some members of the Lord's Church say they're Democrats, I cringe; and when others say they trust the Republicans, I try not to laugh. The people of this nation are being set up for a great fall by these politicians, and "we the people' elected them. So I guess we're getting the kind of leadership we deserve.

As a parting shot? I think it would be best if we LDS stood at arms length from the vast majority of these apostate politicians, lest their corruption rub off on and sully the reputations of the people of the Lord. Trust not in the arm of flesh.

Edited January 17, 2013 by teddyaware

[The Nehor]

Another thing: Most of our polititians (both parties included) are either dishonorable, dishonest, deceitful, corrupt, manipulating bullys; or else they're cowardly, craven, feckless and "pragmatic." There are only a few honest, courageous people left in Washington, and they're all persecuted.

Are you implying this is a new state of affairs? Should we go back to the good old days of Nixon or pro-slavery advocates getting equal time or personal duels amongst people in government? Nothing new under the sun.

[teddyaware]

Are you implying this is a new state of affairs? Should we go back to the good old days of Nixon or pro-slavery advocates getting equal time or personal duels amongst people in government? Nothing new under the sun.

I never liked Nixon, think slavery is an abomination (if the early United States citizens had lived by the spirit and letter of the Declaration and Constitution, slavery would have been abolished immediately), As for duels? let's not be silly.

My first point is that the Lord himself gave us our "inspired from on high" Constitutional form of government. My second point is that we don't follow it at all anymore, and in doing so we have proven the Lord correct when he said "whatsoever is more or less than this (the Constitution) cometh of evil.

Edited January 17, 2013 by teddyaware

[Mudcat]

I think LDS are generally just different shades of Libertarian, when it comes to politics.

[Duncan]

I 'll never salute the American flag (or as it's pronounced in the US" "Flogg") so maybe the article is onto something

[The Nehor]

I never liked Nixon, think slavery is an abomination (if the early United States citizens had lived by the spirit and letter of the Declaration and Constitution, slavery would have been abolished immediately), As for duels? let's not be silly.

Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr did not find them silly.

My first point is that the Lord himself gave us our "inspired from on high" Constitutional form of government. My second point is that we don't follow it at all anymore, and in doing so we have proven the Lord correct when he said "whatsoever is more or less than this (the Constitution) cometh of evil.

Actually we follow it quite a bit. We just came out of elections for example and the Constitution was followed in every particular I am aware of. Also, did God give in advance approval for every amendment we have ratified since?

I think LDS are generally just different shades of Libertarian, when it comes to politics.

Mostly, probably comes from our history. We like the ideal of the United States in principle but we have never comfortably gotten along with most of the leaders of the nation what with the denying us rights and driving us out all the time. Then when we run as far as we can to stop bothering everyone with our presence they send an army to pacify us. We ran into the desert to hide and then when we made it kind of nice everyone else followed. Where do we go next time we want people to leave us alone?

[teddyaware]

Actually we follow it quite a bit. We just came out of elections for example and the Constitution was followed in every particular I am aware of. Also, did God give in advance approval for every amendment we have ratified since?

The constsitution is violated constantly, That's why we're well over 16 trillion dollars in debt. The Federal Government was never intended to be this big and intrusive. So it's very likely going to collapse ecomomically in the not too distant future. Remember? Whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

What we have is the word of the Lord pertaining to the inspired Constitution as it was in 1833. As far as the other amendments are concerned, I don't believe the Lord has chimed in on that specific subject item since then.

Edited January 17, 2013 by teddyaware

[Mudcat]

Mostly, probably comes from our history. We like the ideal of the United States in principle but we have never comfortably gotten along with most of the leaders of the nation what with the denying us rights and driving us out all the time. Then when we run as far as we can to stop bothering everyone with our presence they send an army to pacify us. We ran into the desert to hide and then when we made it kind of nice everyone else followed. Where do we go next time we want people to leave us alone?

Unless space travel has been developed at that point, I was kinda thinking it might a Bruce Banner moment for the CoJCoLDS... "Don't make me angry. Mr. Evangelical.. you wouldn't like me when I am angry."

Edited January 17, 2013 by Mudcat

[The Nehor]

The constsitution is violated constantly, That's why we're well over 16 trillion dollars in debt. The Federal Government was never intended to be this big and intrusive. So it's very likely going to collapse ecomomically in the not too distant future. Remember? Whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

Ummmmm....the Constitution does not take a stance on national debt issues. In fact when the Constitution was written and ratified the government was millions of dollars in debt already and had defaulted on many loans from the Revolutionary War. The Constitution also does not specify the size of government in any way. In fact if we had kept representation in the House equal to what it was back in 1790 we would have about 20 times as many House members as we do now. A quick back of quick napkin calculation says we would have about 9135 representatives in the House.

You seem to be arguing that the intent of the framers of the Constitution was a small federal government balanced by the states (classical federalism) but the Constitution makes no declarations about the size of government other then the size of the legislatures. So, as abhorrent as you may find the concept, you cannot call that unconstitutional either.

May I recommend this Onion article for your amusement:

ESCONDIDO, CA—Spurred by an administration he believes to be guilty of numerous transgressions, self-described American patriot Kyle Mortensen, 47, is a vehement defender of ideas he seems to think are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and principles that brave men have fought and died for solely in his head.

Kyle Mortensen would gladly give his life to protect what he says is the Constitution's very clear stance against birth control.

"Our very way of life is under siege," said Mortensen, whose understanding of the Constitution derives not from a close reading of the document but from talk-show pundits, books by television personalities, and the limitless expanse of his own colorful imagination. "It's time for true Americans to stand up and protect the values that make us who we are."

According to Mortensen—an otherwise mild-mannered husband, father, and small-business owner—the most serious threat to his fanciful version of the 222-year-old Constitution is the attempt by far-left "traitors" to strip it of its religious foundation.

"Right there in the preamble, the authors make their priorities clear: 'one nation under God,'" said Mortensen, attributing to the Constitution a line from the Pledge of Allegiance, which itself did not include any reference to a deity until 1954. "Well, there's a reason they put that right at the top."

"Men like Madison and Jefferson were moved by the ideals of Christianity, and wanted the United States to reflect those values as a Christian nation," continued Mortensen, referring to the "Father of the Constitution," James Madison, considered by many historians to be an atheist, and Thomas Jefferson, an Enlightenment-era thinker who rejected the divinity of Christ and was in France at the time the document was written. "The words on the page speak for themselves."

According to sources who have read the nation's charter, the U.S. Constitution and its 27 amendments do not contain the word "God" or "Christ."

Mortensen said his admiration for the loose assemblage of vague half-notions he calls the Constitution has only grown over time. He believes that each detail he has pulled from thin air—from prohibitions on sodomy and flag-burning, to mandatory crackdowns on immigrants, to the right of citizens not to have their hard-earned income confiscated in the form of taxes—has contributed to making it the best framework for governance "since the Ten Commandments."

"And let's not forget that when the Constitution was ratified it brought freedom to every single American," Mortensen said.

Mortensen's passion for safeguarding the elaborate fantasy world in which his conception of the Constitution resides is greatly respected by his likeminded friends and relatives, many of whom have been known to repeat his unfounded assertions verbatim when angered. Still, some friends and family members remain critical.

"Dad's great, but listening to all that talk radio has put some weird ideas into his head," said daughter Samantha, a freshman at Reed College in Portland, OR. "He believes the Constitution allows the government to torture people and ban gay marriage, yet he doesn't even know that it guarantees universal health care."

Mortensen told reporters that he'll fight until the bitter end for what he roughly supposes the Constitution to be. He acknowledged, however, that it might already be too late to win the battle.

"The freedoms our Founding Fathers spilled their blood for are vanishing before our eyes," Mortensen said. "In under a year, a fascist, socialist regime has turned a proud democracy into a totalitarian state that will soon control every facet of American life."

"Don't just take my word for it," Mortensen added. "Try reading a newspaper or watching the news sometime."

[The Nehor]

Unless space travel has been developed at that point, I was kinda thinking it might a Bruce Banner moment for the CoJCoLDS... "Don't make me angry. Mr. Evangelical.. you wouldn't like me when I am angry."

I could get behind this.

[teddyaware]

Ummmmm....the Constitution does not take a stance on national debt issues. In fact when the Constitution was written and ratified the government was millions of dollars in debt already and had defaulted on many loans from the Revolutionary War. The Constitution also does not specify the size of government in any way. In fact if we had kept representation in the House equal to what it was back in 1790 we would have about 20 times as many House members as we do now. A quick back of quick napkin calculation says we would have about 9135 representatives in the House.

You seem to be arguing that the intent of the framers of the Constitution was a small federal government balanced by the states (classical federalism) but the Constitution makes no declarations about the size of government other then the size of the legislatures. So, as abhorrent as you may find the concept, you cannot call that unconstitutional either.

May I recommend this Onion article for your amusement:

The enumerated powers granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution are few and specific. The politicians have been overstepping the bounds of those enumerated powers for generations. Hence the fact that the Federal Government is going to collapse. When that happens, the enemies of the Constitution and of limited government are going to have a field day. Only God can save us then.

Here is a modern prophet's testimony concerning the political health of this nation.

"I testify that wickedness is rapidly expanding in every segment of our society. It is more highly organized, more cleverly disguised, and more powerfully promoted than ever before. Secret combinations lusting for power, gain, and glory are flourishing. A secret combination that seeks to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries is increasing its evil influence and control over America and the entire world. (See Ether 8:18–25.)" (Ezra Taft Benson October 1988 General Conference)

That was almost 25 years ago. Things have gotten even worse since then.

[canard78]

Does being LDS limit ones political persuasions?

No, but it should on some issues. Gay marriage, child welfare, liberty, among others.

Given political threads usually get locked I'll try to avoid discussing politics directly.

The it answer to the question is no, it doesn't:

LDS Official Calls for More Political Diversity

The LDS Church, through a high-ranking leader, is making its strongest public statement to date about the need for political diversity among members, while expressing concerns the Republican Party is becoming the "church party."

Elder Marlin K. Jensen

"There is sort of a division along Mormon/non-Mormon, Republican/Democratic lines," says Elder Marlin Jensen, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy. "We regret that more than anything -- that there would become a church party and a non-church party. That would be the last thing that we would want to have happen."

Jensen said major national political parties may take stands that do not coincide with teachings of the 10 million-member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but that should not put them out of bounds for members.

Originally in SLTrib in 1998, but I can't find a link to the original article. Utah Dems have it here:

http://www.utahcountydems.com/content/view/178

An important statement is:

"...political parties may take stands that do not coincide with teachings of the 10 million-member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but that should not put them out of bounds for members."

The handbook says:

Members are encouraged to support measures that strengthen the moral fabric of society, particularly those designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

So some could argue that a certain party should be voted for based on whether they oppose or support a certain moral issue. But that's for the individual to judge.

The handbook also says:

While affirming the right of expression on political and social issues, the Church is neutral regarding political parties, political platforms, and candidates for political office. The Church does not endorse any political party or candidate. Nor does it advise members how to vote.

http://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies (21.1.29)

That's enough for me to vote as I see fit, balancing it all up.

For me, gay marriage is not one of the primary policies on which I would base my vote. Economy, foreign policy, social policy would come first. But I recognise others have a different list.

Even if it were a priority, in UK, gay marriage is supported by all major parties. If I made that my primary issue I would have to go to a far right party called the BNP, whose major policy is repatriation of people of certain ethnic groups. I wouldn't give that party a moment's consideration. I realise this isn't the situation in USA at present. But weighing up policies in the context of your religious, social, cultural values is still needed.

[The Nehor]

The enumerated powers granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution are few and specific. The politicians have been overstepping the bounds of those enumerated powers for generations. Hence the fact that the Federal Government is going to collapse. When that happens, the enemies of the Constitution and of limited government are going to have a field day. Only God can save us then.

People talk about the United States collapsing due to political problems as if it has been prophesied and written in stone. Why?

I think repentance is a better cure then limited government too. Salvation (even temporal salvation) does not lie in the ballot box.

Nor are conservative talk radio hosts the watchmen of the Kingdom of God (or even the United States).

[Nathair/|\]

I think that one should base their political principles on their understanding of the gospel, based on the best wisdom they have, Beyond that, no. Being LDS does not mean that you have to follow a particular political philosophy. King Mosiah seems to suggest that even limited Monarchy can be a good system as long as good people are in charge.

[Alan]

Does being LDS limit ones political persuasions? No, I don't believe so.

I am something close to a radical socialist really; when I have time to sit down and think about it.

[CV75]

Well, it shouldn't, at least according to this author in the Deseret News. I like the points that he brought up. It needs to be said.

Within reason, I would say, and especially with regards to how the politics are carried out (some have a militant or an otherwise coercive arm)--one exception I can think of might bring Godwin's law into play so I won't mention it. There is also a difference between being LDS (where anything goes as far as one's beliefs and behavior--so nothing, even that, is technically off limits for any LDS) and having the companionship of the Holy Ghost.

[Storm Rider]

I don't think it has any real bearing as far as direction members to a specific party. In many ways it would be easy for me to live under a monarchy. I am conservative both socially and fiscally, but neither party in the US bears any commitment to such parameters. Socialism at its heart is not a terrible system, but it just seems to contradict human behavior so much that it is often unworkable. Communism has similar problems. Regardless, I think I could live under most systems and find degrees of satisfaction in each. As an aside, I have found myself losing confidence in Democracy. The more stupid a society becomes the more unworkable democracy becomes. At present, the US populace has become exceeding stupid and is being lead by those without any commitment to leading the people into a better way of life.

[Tacenda]

I don't think it has any real bearing as far as direction members to a specific party. In many ways it would be easy for me to live under a monarchy. I am conservative both socially and fiscally, but neither party in the US bears any commitment to such parameters. Socialism at its heart is not a terrible system, but it just seems to contradict human behavior so much that it is often unworkable. Communism has similar problems. Regardless, I think I could live under most systems and find degrees of satisfaction in each. As an aside, I have found myself losing confidence in Democracy. The more stupid a society becomes the more unworkable democracy becomes. At present, the US populace has become exceeding stupid and is being lead by those without any commitment to leading the people into a better way of life.

It's a "gimme" time. Maybe the only good thing about war or the depression is the men and women that live through it are able to know what it means to sacrifice for what they want.

[thesometimesaint]

The constsitution is violated constantly, That's why we're well over 16 trillion dollars in debt. The Federal Government was never intended to be this big and intrusive. So it's very likely going to collapse ecomomically in the not too distant future. Remember? Whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

What we have is the word of the Lord pertaining to the inspired Constitution as it was in 1833. As far as the other amendments are concerned, I don't believe the Lord has chimed in on that specific subject item since then.

Please be specific. Show me where being in debt is against the Constitution. Actually the debt is coming down after 8 years of unpaid for tax cuts, two unpaid for wars, and a unpaid for prescription drug plan. It will collapse if we don't pay our bills. BTW Not paying our bills is against the Constitution.

So you're fine with slavery; only white, landowning, men over 21 years of age being allowed to vote.

In 1833 the Bill of Rights was interpreted to mean to only apply to the Federal government, not the individual States.

Edited January 17, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

Ummmmm....the Constitution does not take a stance on national debt issues. In fact when the Constitution was written and ratified the government was millions of dollars in debt already and had defaulted on many loans from the Revolutionary War. The Constitution also does not specify the size of government in any way. In fact if we had kept representation in the House equal to what it was back in 1790 we would have about 20 times as many House members as we do now. A quick back of quick napkin calculation says we would have about 9135 representatives in the House.

You seem to be arguing that the intent of the framers of the Constitution was a small federal government balanced by the states (classical federalism) but the Constitution makes no declarations about the size of government other then the size of the legislatures. So, as abhorrent as you may find the concept, you cannot call that unconstitutional either.

May I recommend this Onion article for your amusement:

Actually the Constitution does say that we have to pay our debts. We didn't default on either Revolutionary War debt, or on any debt since. Thought we do now have a certain political party that is demanding that we don't pay our bills.

True. It makes no mention of size. We are guaranteed proportional representation in the House, with the minimum being one, and just two Senate members.

There was no balance of power between the States and the Federal government mentioned in the Constitution. In fact just the opposite the Feds always are the Supreme law of the land.

I've always liked the Onion.

[canard78]

I don't think it has any real bearing as far as direction members to a specific party. In many ways it would be easy for me to live under a monarchy. I am conservative both socially and fiscally, but neither party in the US bears any commitment to such parameters. Socialism at its heart is not a terrible system, but it just seems to contradict human behavior so much that it is often unworkable. Communism has similar problems. Regardless, I think I could live under most systems and find degrees of satisfaction in each. As an aside, I have found myself losing confidence in Democracy. The more stupid a society becomes the more unworkable democracy becomes. At present, the US populace has become exceeding stupid and is being lead by those without any commitment to leading the people into a better way of life.

I love this post. I think democracy is a problem too because so often it gives people what they want, not what they need. Maybe you should to Dubai. My brother living there is quite fond of the autocracy system they have.