Is a Sustaining Vote a Political Vote?

[SmileyMcGee]

Really I just want to solicit your thoughts on a topic that seems to be underpinning a number of other threads currently going on the forum. That is, what are your initial feelings towards the Church's activity in Utah politics? 

As a sort of disclaimer, I think the Church engages in politics in the state of Utah the same way that thousands of other organizations participate around the country. So perhaps this question gets at the general topic of lobbying. I don't think the Church is doing anything illegal, nor do I think it is violating any rules/regs related to the separation of church and state. I think the country as a whole is trying to decide what religious freedom means and I think it may be separate issue, but you may disagree. 

I think the relationship between the church and the state of Utah is interesting. While I don't think the church has monopoly power in the Utah political marketplace, I think there is good evidence that it does have a material influence on the outcomes of legislative votes; i.e., when the Church speaks, the Utah legislature appears to take note. My biggest concern is whether the outcomes are representative of the residents of Utah. Though a significant chunk of the state is LDS, I don't know that all Utah LDS necessarily agree with all positions taken by the Church, nor do I think that many of these people find the positions very beneficial to themselves or others. Which I think raises the question, how representative of Utah residents is Utah legislation? What is the point of these state elections if legislatures can be so easily swayed by press releases a single organization? Are we really just electing our public representatives when we participate in the sustaining vote at General Conference? 

I just feel a bit uneasy about it as I would with any organization in a similar situation. If I lived in a town where a single company provided most of the economic activity and that company materially influenced legislation then I would probably feel uneasy.

[thesometimesaint]

I consider myself a good member though I don't live in Utah. I have absolutely no qualms about telling people, including the local/world wide, leadership of the Church, where to get off if they even try to tell me how I must vote. 

[carbon dioxide]

The Church have every right to declare its opinion on a subject.  The elected representatives can listen but how they choose to act in their office is their responsibility.  There are also elected to represent all the people in their area and not just LDS or LDS that hold to a certain opinion.  I sustain the General Authorities when it comes to their duties in the Church but I have no problem with disagree with them on social and political stuff if I don't agree with them.  Sustaining our leaders does not mean we give up our right to have an opposing view on a given issue especially if it is not central to the gospel.

Edited February 20, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[Teancum]

9 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

The Church have every right to declare its opinion on a subject.  The elected representatives can listen but how they choose to act in their office is their responsibility.  There are also elected to represent all the people in their area and not just LDS or LDS that hold to a certain opinion.  I sustain the General Authorities when it comes to their duties in the Church but I have no problem with disagree with them on social and political stuff if I don't agree with them.  Sustaining our leaders does not mean we give up our right to have an opposing view on a given issue especially if it is not central to the gospel.

  I agree with this.  But the rub is really for those in office who are faithful members and how they react to what the Church says.  Does it unduly influence their views?   Are they influenced any more or less that a good Catholic would be by what the pope says or a good Baptist by the comments of his pastor?   A concern mostly from disaffected Mormons about a Mitt Romney Presidency was his temple covenants and the idea that he could be unduly influenced by the LDS leadership as a result of them.  Was that a valid concern?

[CV75]

On 2/19/2016 at 0:58 PM, SmileyMcGee said:

I just feel a bit uneasy about it as I would with any organization in a similar situation. If I lived in a town where a single company provided most of the economic activity and that company materially influenced legislation then I would probably feel uneasy.

As for the OP, I believe a sustaining vote is not a political vote. I recognize the Church's right to speak and influence ploitics as much as I do my own or any organization that opposes her position. I think this is part of the covenant we make in sustaining Church leaders. If I were to find myself disagreeing politically, I would still sustain the leaders in their right to engage in political activity while voicing and voting my conscience. Politics typically involves a process of personal compromise; keeping the covenants do not. It is interesting to me that sometimes, and in some cases, through compromise we keep a higher law and covenant.

I do not live in Utah, but I think the Church has every right as a "citizen" of the State to participate in any political discussion she chooses.

What is the source of your discomfort if the Utah political process allows every citizen to participate? My own philosophy is that the politics and economics are basically the same thing, which fits well with my understanding of the temporal applications of the Gospel in dealing with people and things around us (which applications are really spiritual anyway). If there is a big fish in the pond, and the pond is conducive to liberty and freedom for all, he is being supported by someone. In the USA, there are usually are a few big fishes in the states.

[provoman]

I see it as a sign of weakness that an elected official would wait for a Religion to speak when it comes to creating and passage of the laws of man. If a law affects teligion sure speak up. 

A law is going to provide for protection of religion and a group who generally has disfavor with religion; then religions should not speak out

Edited February 20, 2016 by provoman

[theplains]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

  I agree with this.  But the rub is really for those in office who are faithful members and how they react to what the Church says.  Does it unduly influence their views?   Are they influenced any more or less that a good Catholic would be by what the pope says or a good Baptist by the comments of his pastor?   A concern mostly from disaffected Mormons about a Mitt Romney Presidency was his temple covenants and the idea that he could be unduly influenced by the LDS leadership as a result of them.  Was that a valid concern?

The 'Church' is really the members. I don't mind if other members share where political 
representatives stand on various things. In the end, all individuals must vote with where 
their conscience leads them.  If Mitt Romney became President, I highly doubt (unless he 
were a hypocrite) that he would follow Christian teachings in the ward but walk opposite 
in his governmental duties.  Likewise, a Catholic President is not a mouthpiece for the 
Pope.

Thanks,
Jim

 

[Jeanne]

5 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

The Church have every right to declare its opinion on a subject.  The elected representatives can listen but how they choose to act in their office is their responsibility.  There are also elected to represent all the people in their area and not just LDS or LDS that hold to a certain opinion.  I sustain the General Authorities when it comes to their duties in the Church but I have no problem with disagree with them on social and political stuff if I don't agree with them.  Sustaining our leaders does not mean we give up our right to have an opposing view on a given issue especially if it is not central to the gospel.

Thank you for this!  My answer is no.  There is only one candidate...and he always wins.

Edited February 21, 2016 by Jeanne

[theplains]

On 20/02/2016 at 6:56 PM, Jeanne said:

Thank you for this!  My answer is no.  There is only one candidate...and he always wins.

Three votes were required for Official Declaration 2.

"President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received
this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred
rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and
approved it (vote #1). It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who
unanimously approved it, (vote #2) and was subsequently presented to all other General
Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously (vote #3)."

Thanks,

Jim