Comments about ‘In our opinion: Some things divide, but love of and concern for family will always unite’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, Sept. 9 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Really???
Kearns, UT

Families have amazing power to help people through difficult times. People seem to do better when they have loved ones pushing them on and encouraging them. Why then, are we working so hard to keep an entire group of our citizens from benefiting from the power of families? Why are we trying to make sure they go through life alone?

Gildas
LOGAN, UT

What is the American Dream, please, so we can discuss with more understanding?

It seems, from this article, one aspect is seen as a united family and another aspect as "prosperity", which seems to mean more material wealth.

Surely in the quest for wealth many families are neglected and divided; mothers leave the home and divorce is mostly caused by financial quarrels, children learn that the almighty dollar is the proper object of worship.

Phillip M Hotchkiss
Malta, Mt

FAMILY: Stands together, in different points of view

Be Practical
Sandy, UT

While the Deseret News should be commended for pointing out the commonality between the two parties of "Love and Concern for Family", the contrasts this year are so sharp that people of faith, particularly the LDS must recognize that this election is about more than just political ideologies. George Albert Smith said, "When I have been tempted sometimes to do a certain thing, I have asked myself,which side of the line am I on?"

May I suggest that if your Church proclaims one thing about abortion, but your political party proclaims another, you are on the wrong side of the line. If your Church takes a stance on same-sex marriage but your political party takes another, you are on the wrong side of the line. If you believe in Jesus Christ but your political party removes all references to God from its political platform, an expression of core beliefs, and is roundly booed and shouted at an attempt to reinstate those references on the convention floor, you are on the wrong side of the line.

When will you quit making excuses for being on the wrong side of the line?

Phillip M Hotchkiss
Malta, Mt

@BE practical. I agree with you we all should stand for something or sit through everythingBut i see no harm in seeing the good each party has .i agree with the church and were it stands on aborrion and same sex marrage. I will vote the way i am because of that belief. The church also tells us we need to vote for our selfs .some members of the church are Democrats. I cannot tell them how to vote and respect them for voting the way they choose

Hellooo
Salt Lake City, UT

Thanks DNews for this fine editorial. Please send to the Commander-in-Chief as he seems to have forgotten his family that live in abject poverty, while he lives in grandier on the public dime.

Gildas
LOGAN, UT

@ Be Practical:

Agreed but I would add: if your party does not support the Constitution of the United States you are also on the wrong side of the line. That eliminates both major parties except for a few individual candidates.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

Be Practical... it is interesting that you choose a quite by my grandfather to make your point, where as if you knew him, you would also know that the acrimony shown in the church because of politics would have upset him much more so than what party one belong to.

George Albert Smith was president of the church during the reconstruction of Europe. There he had to council members who at one time fought against each other across battlefield tranches. He had to have europeans and Americans stretch out their hands to help the German people rebuild their country, all with no attention paid to what side of the conflict they were on. He would have never tolerated members castigating other members because of nationality or political affiliation.

He served on the board of directors of Union Pacific, ZCMI and U & I sugar. There he served with and supported people with whom he did not agree with, nor support their politics.

Being a Democrat (which I am not) no more means you support abortion than does being a Republican mean you support pre-emptive wars that resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands. Both are contrary to the gospel.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

By the way DN, nice article. My wife and I have been mentioning that this is the first time in a long time we haven't had a candidate that has some form of infidelity or something like it hovering around the campaigns. How refreshing it is to see that both these men, despite their political ambitions, neither has sacrifice family in that pursuit.

Lets home this is not a one and only occurrence.

  • 12:14 p.m. Sept. 10, 2012
  • Like (1)
  • Top comment
Be Practical
Sandy, UT

@Utah Blue Devil,
I appreciate your insights into your grandfather's life. I think, however, you may be missing my point. The political climate you described may have existed in the recent past where being a Democrat generally meant you supported social justice programs and being a Republican meant you supported lower taxes and less government; two perfectly reasonably positions. In recent years, though, we have seen a polarization where one party has become the party of the non church going secular progressives and the other party has become the party of all things religious. For better or worse that is how the majority of party members see themselves within each of their respective party. So then as LDS members, we ask ourselves "which should we join"? Certainly individuals can be Deomocrats without personally believing in abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. However, we cannot support individuals or party platforms which do and then act surprised when things like Roe v Wade or the repeal of DOMA are enacted.

Con'd

Be Practical
Sandy, UT

@ UtahBlueDevil con'd

You said Pres. Smith would never have tolerated members castigating other members because of political affiliation. Would he have castigated them for having an elective abortion? Would he have castigated them for entering into a same-sex marriage? Those are excommunicatable offenses. Even if you don't personally support those activities but support those who do you are, at a minimum, advancing that agenda, in my opinion. Being part of a political party is sort of like being part of a church. You can't cherry pick which tenants or positions you are going to choose to follow and you cannot serve two masters.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

"Being part of a political party is sort of like being part of a church. You can't cherry pick which tenants or positions you are going to choose to follow and you cannot serve two masters."

Be Practical.... I sort of use this as my litmus

"In 1979, Elder Howard W. Hunter admonished Church members to remember that “both the Jews and the Arabs are children of our Father. They are both children of promise, and as a church we do not take sides. We have love for and an interest in each. The purpose of the gospel of Jesus Christ is to bring about love, unity, and brotherhood of the highest order." (1979 Devotional Speeches of the Year [1980], 36)

Surely if we are told not to take sides between Jew and Arab, could we not apply this same council to our brethren with whom we politically disagree?

I am not going presume to guess if we can place guilt by association on members. Plenty of us work in industries where either directly or indirectly these companies perform business or provide services which are not in agreement with gospel principles, the examples are many. Hospitality. Medical. Media....

Be Practical
Sandy, UT

"Surely if we are told not to take sides between Jew and Arab, could we not apply this same council to our brethren with whom we politically disagree?"

UtahBlueDevil, I think that sums up the crux of our differing opinions. You see this as a political disagreement and I see it as a moral disagreement. I personally could not belong to a political party that openly advocates for elective abortions, same-sex marriage and chooses to remove all references of God in it's political platform. Those are deal-breakers for me regardless of how I might feel about the party's fiscal policies. Clearly, other good people have differing views and I can acknowledge that. That doesn't mean I'm not going to advocate for my position to the best of my ability and help them see the light. In my view, actively or passively promoting those positions will do more long-term damage to this country than whatever tinkering either party does with Medicare.

Wonder
Provo, UT

@BePractical -- You say you couldn't belong to a party that does not want to ban abortions and homosexual marriage. To me those are 2 issues out of many that are moral issues. Morality is more than sex. It's also how we treat others. I cannot vote for a party that I believe will make life more difficult for the poor in our country or one that I believe is more likely to start a possibly needless war. I mean that sincerely. To me it these things are as much moral issues as sex related issues. I look at it as a totality, and to me, in general, I see Democrats at this point in history being the party that will help the poor get a leg up in life and will not start a war that will kill many, many of our soldiers and other innocent people. Sometimes I think we get too obsessed about sexual issues and don't realize that other moral issues are also important. I think this is what the church means when it says there are good points to each of the parties.

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

To Be Practical

For me, the issue is more basic. Do we support allowing people their free agency to make decisions for themselves, or do we support the government imposing "morals" on people. I do not support abortion on demand (I follow the LDS Church's position that abortion is acceptable if the pregnant woman's life or health is in peril, if the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or if there is a fatal fetal deformity) BUT I also support the right of the woman to make this very difficult decision based on her beliefs and ethics. I believe that marriage is a relationship ordained by our Heavenly Father and is a contract between one man and one woman of appropriate age and consanguity BUT I also recognize that CIVIL laws must be applied equally to all people and that those who believe differently from me have a right to have their relationships governed by recognized civil contracts to give them equal rights and protections.

My husband and I are registered Republicans. We are staying with the Republican party to try to pull it back from far right fringe extremism -- back to reasonable positions where it belongs.

Green Eyeshades
Draper, UT

@ Furry1993

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph if for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke

I'm still 'Practical', just had to change accounts.

I was going to go into a long diatribe about protecting the innocent and preserving millennia old traditions and values but I realize that you have already heard those arguments. I'm just going to refer you to the above quote. Please think about it.

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

To Green Eyeshades
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph if for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke

. . . I'm just going to refer you to the above quote. Please think about it.

-------------------

I have, and we don't just "do nothing." We strongly fight the battle that we fought in the pre-mortal existence; the battle defending the right of people to exercise their free agency. We were on the side that won then, and we're not giving up the same battle now.

When asked our opinions on specific issues, we talk against abortion (except for the exceptions I mentioned above) and we strongly advocate for traditional marriage. We live the same way. My husband and I have been married over 43 years, the only marriage for either of us, and we were absolutely celebate before marriage and absolutely faithful after. I have endured six very difficult, dangerous pregnancies (two live births and four second-trimester miscarriages) and I CHOSE to continue each and every one of them even though they put my health and life at risk. We walk the walk. We just don't believe we should impose our lifeway on others.

Green Eyeshades
Draper, UT

@ Furry1993

Sometimes defending against evil requires us to do more than just express our opinions. If I can legally do something to stop elective abortion, I will. If I can legally do something to stop same-sex marriage, I will. That is my right to exercise my agency. There are certainly enough individuals (even within the Church) who are pushing the other way which is their right.

As a society, we deny agency to others all the time. I don't have the right to kill my child just because he's inconvenient, that includes even if I'm in poor health or I can't afford to take care of him, etc. I fail to see much of a difference just because he's outside the womb vs inside the womb but I do allow for the Church exceptions. I'm not allowed to marry my sister even though we're not hurting anyone else. Why? Because it's the law and it's a good law and I will do everything in my power to keep it the law because it conforms to my personal values and moral beliefs. That is my right. Now, substitute same-sex marriage.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments