@ Furry1993Sometimes 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 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.
@ Furry1993"All that is necessary for evil to triumph if for
good men to do nothing." Edmund BurkeI'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.
To Be PracticalFor 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
@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.
"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.
"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 , 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.
@ UtahBlueDevil con'dYou 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.
@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
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.
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
@ 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
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.
@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
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?
FAMILY: Stands together, in different points of view
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.
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?