Comments about ‘Mormon Democrats announce new national, state organizations’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, April 4 2013 1:00 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Iver
Salt Lake City, UT

You mean moderates, right?

Jens J
SEATTLE, WA

So LDS folk support the Republican Party because they think the Republican party shares their values?

Really? I just don't think it's congruent with Mormon values to support a party that launched a war with bogus claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. This ill-advised war has cost the U.S. over $800 billion dollars. Add the war that the Republicans started in Afghanistan, and you have war costs racking up to over $1.4 trillion.

Remember too that Bill Clinton, a Democrat, gave the country a balanced budget. The Republicans took over, promptly cut taxes for the rich, started two wars and ran the economy into the ground. These are not Mormon values.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

Well, I'm convinced after reading all the comments that to be Democrat and LDS is not compatible. I'll have to change one of them.

DN promotes Republican candidates, stances and parties further bolstering the idea that the Republican platform aligns more closely with the LDS church.

re:KristaCook

Feedback to your blog

Democrats believe in a strong military for defensive purposes.
Democrats believe in personal responsibility recognizing that few people in life never need assistance from outside sources. Luck plays a large role in determining success in life.
Democrats believe religion and charity, in addition to the govt. can and should play a role in providing/helping the disadvantaged. The Catholic Church, which does a tremendous amt of charity work, also believes govt. have a role to play in relieving suffering.

Was King Benjamin talking about all taxes being evil OR was he talking about taxes that are imposed to personally enrich those in power as evil?

Were the key words "lawyers and judges" or were the key words "unrighteous?" It seems you are suggesting a majority of lawyers and judges are unrighteous, hence the reason many donate to Democrats.

Your conclusions reveal quite a leap of "reasoning."

1aggie
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

"It would also contradict the intent and purpose of the Church, which acknowledges and protects the moral agency of each of God's children, President Uchtdorf added. "As disciples of Jesus Christ, we are united in our testimony of the restored gospel and our commitment to keep God's commandments. But we are diverse in our cultural, social and political preferences.""The Church thrives when members take advantage of this diversity and encourage each other to develop and use talents to strengthen one another, he said."

@Krista Cook - See above. I hope you're paying attention to General Conference.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

Can they escape extreme, dogmatic, emotional nineteen fifty based mentality? Can they turn off Hannity and Limbaugh?

Beaver Native
Garland, UT

There are conflicts with gospel principles within both parties. In my opinion, the Democratic party has gone way too far left on basic moral issues. The Republicans have gone too far to the right. I see distortions and downright lies from both parties. Therefore, I vote for the person based on his values, rather than the party's values. Most often, this has led me to vote Republican or third party, with three or four local and state-level Democrats over the last 35 years. Occasionally, I have written in a name when no acceptable candidate could be found.

While it is probably true that more of the apostles are registered Republicans than registered Democrats, I know of a few in recent history that have been Democrats. President Faust was an example, proving that you can be a good member of the Church and a Democrat. The evidence indicates that party affiliation doesn't matter as much as whether or not you stand up for the things you value the most. Instead of condemning your fellowmen because of party affiliation, we should praise them for working within the party of their choice to change the party for the better.

Tahoemormon70
Bountiful, UT

@Clifton Brown, So you came home off of your mission being as hard-core conservative as you probably ever were. Through your life's experiences, you slowly swung your personal pendulum over to the liberal(maybe, demo) side. Were those experiences due to a desire to be more like the Savior or where they because you didn't want seem affiliated with the typical conservative Republican member of the Church? Also, the Church in an official sense states political neutrality although when it comes to questions of moral matters, it will pick a side(same-sex attraction and marriage, abortion, cloning, etc...). Can you tell me, did your internal paradigm shift have anything to do with those matters that the Church has told its members to vote for or against? If yes, how can you reconcile personal choice with the Church's stance on socio-political issues? That is the thing I have with my mission president is, is yes, he does have his right to choose his political views, but being a liberal democrat, he can only venture so far before his views start to polarize greatly with that of the Church's.

Claudio
Springville, Ut

Tahoe

It is disingenuous to state that the Church instructed its members to vote on a specific issue in a particular way. If you are thinking of Prop 8, Elder Clayton of the Presidency of the 70, the leader specifically tasked with dealing with that issue, explicitly stated that members in CA should feel free to vote on the issue as they wish and would be temple-worthy, members in full fellowship regardless of how they voted.

Gregg Weber
SEATTLE, WA

There are Democrats in my ward (in Seattle) and I try to understand them, but can't. One said that he followed what King Benjamin said but I see a difference between individual charity and government enforced charity just as there is a difference between freely doing good and being forced to do good (so that none shall be lost). I won't say IMHO who wants the honor.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

Re:GreggWeber

Agency gives us all the ability to choose our thoughts, attitudes, feelings no matter the circumstances in which we live.

You live in a democracy and get to vote your conscience, though there may be policies and laws enacted which you don't agree with. Left or right, we all experience frustration when things don't go our way.

You have the choice to view the taxes you pay designated to help the poor, elderly, disabled and children as forced charity.
I choose differently. If the taxes i pay are used to feed a child, give an elderly or disabled person a measure of dignity it is well spent and i am glad for a system that requires everybody to "chip-in" because a totally volunteer system would result in much suffering and death. I also believe that paying taxes isn't enough--volunteer charity is essential as well.

That said, we ought to remain vigilant to make sure our taxes are used for good purposes and not for fraudulent purposes.

LoveLife
Riverton, UT

Truthseeker,

I'm sorry, but you have a distorted view of "agency". The definition of agency is "the state of being in action or exerting power". I can't say I have agency if I don't have the power to give my own, hard-earned money freely to the charity or cause of my choice, no matter how hard I try to justify it. The government is taking enough of my income now that I am limited in my own personal cash donations. If I choose to be stingy and not give anything, then that is what I am judged on.

Free agency is not a state of mind-either you are able to make your own choices or you are not. Just because you "agree" with the big government spending mentality doesn't mean I "choose" it, and I really can't convince myself otherwise like you can.

Government wastes an exorbitant amount of money with a lot of fraud involved. Poverty, unemployment, food stamp use, etc. is very high. You should look into it. We are a welfare state.

Truthseeker2
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA

Re:Lovelife

I recommend you read Dallin H. Oak, "Free Agency and Freedom" where he states;

"First, because free agency is a God-given precondition to the purpose of mortal life, no person or organization can take away our free agency in mortality.

Second, what can be taken away or reduced by the conditions of mortality is our freedom, the power to act upon our choices. Free agency is absolute, but in the circumstances of mortality freedom is always qualified.

Freedom may be qualified or taken away (1) by physical laws, including the physical limitations with which we are born, (2) by our own action, and (3) by the action of others, including governments........Interferences with our freedom do not deprive us of our free agency. When Pharaoh put Joseph in prison, he restricted Joseph's freedom, but he did not take away his free agency. "

LoveLife
Riverton, UT

Truthseeker, which best describes a “free agent” in sports?

One who is free to decide which team he’d like to pursue and try out for?
One who has been traded to another team, with no input, even if he likes the new team?

Doctrine & Covenants 134:2 says “We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.”

How can I be judged on my works if I am forced to pay higher taxes for “welfare”, especially knowing that the money is being mishandled (i.e. green energy companies)?

You want to exercise your free agency after you’ve given up your freedom. Your interpretation of Elder Oaks' talk could justify communism. I want to keep my freedom (complete with consequences and laws that preserve individual rights, as Elder Oaks said, “some government limitations) and exercise my free agency accordingly.

Another good read would be Marion G. Romney “Is Socialism the United Order?” from April 1966.

Truthseeker2
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA

Re:LoveLife

You have choices. You simply don't like the consequences of all the choices. You could choose to not pay taxes, and risk being put in prison. You could choose to move to another country with a tax system more to your liking. You could choose to vote for different leaders. You can choose to become involved in fighting fraud. You could choose to become more involved with charitable organizations etc. Finally, you can choose to look at the issue differently.

Every American pays for things they don't use or agree with. Childless couples pay taxes to educate children. Pacificists pay for the big military complex and the wars we wage--(one of the biggest sources of fraud and waste in our economy). The list goes on. We live in a democracy, are free to donate to political campaigns and exercise our choices via the ballot box.

LoveLife
Riverton, UT

Obama can say, “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody” and “I do think at a certain point you've made enough money”. He can win elections by promising other people’s money.

Am I supposed to lie to myself and say that my money is going to a good cause when there is absolutely no evidence of that? This man who promised to fight for the poor with the money of “the rich” yet goes on $8 million vacations? Or I go to jail?

I have done several things you mentioned. I now have less disposable income to contribute to political causes. Convenient, isn’t it?

Elder Oaks (same talk): “We ought to focus on the legality or wisdom of a proposed restriction of our freedom.”

So I still don’t take Elder Oaks’ words to mean we just lay down with a “good attitude” when government takes away our freedoms. I’ll keep fighting the good fight, but I will not leave my birth country whose Constitution protects my inalienable rights.

I-am-I
South Jordan, UT

What I don't understand is why it is that where the Church is crazy neutral on most political things why it is that a political group would come together and try to compromise that stance by associating their political group with the Church.

I can understand how you people can jump to believing the teachings of Jesus Christ fall in line with the democratic party. I don't consider myself a republican but I prefer to associate with their political ideas. As conservatives we often overlook the fact that we tend to stifle personal liberties as well they just happen to be different personal liberties. Both sides of the political spectrum just tend to think their personal liberty stifling is justified.

I share a common hate for all political parties. I really wish we could get rid of them. I also really wish organizations such as this one that try to associate with something that is not associated with them would go away.

I-am-I
South Jordan, UT

I also think the all or nothing argument that has shown up in here is important. I think it is really unhealthy (as a country or specifically as LDS Church members) to become so aligned with political parties. Each situation is different. Each situation needs to have some measure of variability in how we approach its resolution. Aligning so strongly with parties limits our ability as a nation to resolve problems.

Aside from it limiting our ability to solve problems it also makes us hate each other. From this hate stems some pretty outlandish stereotypes. If you don't believe me just read the comments on this article(some of them are pretty good though). God is not a republican, nor is he a democrat. He's also not a (*insert any other political affiliation or non-affiliation).

to comment

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