Posted on 09/07/2009 11:23:19 AM PDT by Colofornian
When I was growing up in Utah, Calvin Rampton and Scott Matheson were our Governors, Frank Moss was one of our Senators, and Gunn McKay was our Congressman. All were Mormon Democrats. My father was a steelworker who believed that the Democrats were the party that ended the Depression, won the War, and fought for the rights of working people.
Evidently many Utah Mormons agreed with him. It was not until the mid- to late-1970s that the Democratic party fell out of favor among Utah Mormon voters. That shift resulted, I believe, because the public debate about morality became more narrowly focused on sexual issues like abortion. But the Mormon retreat from the Democratic party has been detrimental to both the party and the LDS Church. Furthermore, there are moral issues that, I believe, are better represented by the Democrats than by Republicans.
At election time each year, a Church statement of political neutrality is read in LDS congregations throughout the nation, which "affirms [the Church's] neutrality regarding political parties, platforms, and candidates." Importantly, it also stresses that, "principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties." Implicit in this statement is the notion that gospel truth may be found in the Democratic party's platform.
In an interview in 1998, Elder Marlin Jensen, a Mormon Democrat, spoke of the need for political diversity in the Church. Jensen outlined three main concerns Church leaders have with the misconception that the Republican party is the Church party: First, the Church's reputation suffers with the waxing and waning tides of national political fortunes. "There is a feeling that even nationally as a church, it's not in our best interest to be known as a one-party church," stated Jensen.
The late Elder James E. Faust, also a Mormon Democrat and a counselor in the First Presidency, reiterated this point: "It is in the interest of the Church to have a two-party system . . . . Both locally and nationally, the interest of the Church and its members are served when we have two good men or women running on each ticket, and then no matter who is elected, we win."[1]
Second, Elder Jensen suggested that the overwhelming Republican affiliation of Mormons in Utah and throughout the intermountain West weakens the checks and balances of good democratic government. As Elder Jensen put it, "any time you don't have the dialogue and the give-and-take that the democratic process provides you're going to be poorer for it in the long run."
Third, Elder Jensen stressed that it would be "very healthy for the church -- particularly the Utah church" if the common misconception that one cannot be a good Mormon and a Democrat "could be obliterated." Elder Jensen continued, "everyone who is a good Latter-day Saint is going to have to pick and choose a little bit regardless of the party that they're in and that may be required a lot more in the future than it has in the past."[2]
Jensen's call for political diversity recognizes an important truth about political parties and public morality -- there are many moral issues and none of the political parties has a monopoly on them. "I am a Democrat," stated Senator Harry Reid, "because I am a Mormon, not in spite of it."
Like Reid, I believe that the Democratic party takes the strongest position on many moral issues. For example, King Benjamin's address in the Book of Mormon admonishes us to prioritize, "feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants" (Mosiah 4:26). I believe the Democratic party works harder to protect and defend these moral priorities.
Elder Faust stated that his reading of the Book of Mormon also influenced his political views: "I believe what is said in the Book of Mormon, that the Lord values all of his children equally -- black and white, bond and free, male and female, Jew and gentile." As a result, Elder Faust said, "I like to see all people enjoy every advantage, every blessing, every opportunity that comes to them by reason of citizenship."[3]
Furthermore, the LDS scriptures' call to educate ourselves, "to seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith" (D&C 109:7), is, I believe, more constantly supported by the Democratic agenda. I also believe LDS scriptures' insistence that the world and all living things were created spiritually prior to their physical creation calls us to environmental stewardship, another moral issue defended more robustly by Democrats.
Finally, I am a Democrat because I believe LDS scripture and prophets have urged us to live within our means, to be fiscally responsible. Democrats believe we need to pay for any programs we create, and Democratic administrations have, since the Great Depression, consistently lowered deficit spending, while the Reagan and two Bush administrations have greatly increased it. Democrats have a strong record of fiscal responsibility.
Many Mormon Democrats like me are pro-life, and find no pressure to change that view. Senator Harry Reid once told how, when an abortion issue came up for a vote during his first year in the Senate, some senators were expressing to him the importance of his vote. Reid recalled how Senator Barbara Mikulski, "at that time the only woman in the Senate and one of the nation's feminist leaders, told everyone to leave me alone, my vote was a matter of character." Reid's pro-life stance in the Senate has not hurt his career -- in 2006 he became the Senate Majority Leader, the highest-ranking Mormon in Washington.
I believe Mormon Democrats can make a difference, not only like Reid in Washington, but in their own local party. I have witnessed first-hand how Mormon Democrats in Utah county have worked to make the county platform more in-line with LDS values.
Boyd Petersen is the Program Coordinator for Mormon Studies at Utah Valley University, the biographer of Mormon scholar Hugh Nibley, and a former candidate for the Utah State legislature.
[1] Quoted in James E. Bell, In the Strength of the Lord: The Life and Teachings of James E. Faust [Salt Lake: Deseret, 1999], 86.
[2] Dan Harrie, "LDS Official Calls for More Political Diversity," Salt Lake Tribune, 3 May 1998.
[3] Op. Cit., 86
Absolutely on the money! No question about it.
Same to ya’! Hope all is well with you and the Mrs...
Same to ya’! Hope all is well with you and the Mrs...
I’m sorry, but anybody who tries to make the government do the work of the Lord is NOT doing a good thing.
Democrats don’t espouse christian principles by having the government feed the poor; they interfere with God’s moral training of His people, who are supposed to see need and respond to it.
Democrats don’t want to have to respond to needs, so they want to tax other people and have government do it, so they can pretend they are righteous and exclude the lower class from their parties.
Democrats believe that OTHER PEOPLE should pay for any program they create.
It is true that Democrats didn't have as much trouble running up the deficit, because they did raise taxes to force others to pay for the programs they used to buy the votes of the poor and weak-minded in this country.
Utah hated the republicans because of Abraham Lincoln...
Let’s see how so called conservative Republican Utah has voted in the last 100 years...
1916 - Woodrow Wilson won in Utah in 1916.. Democrats took the Governorship and the US Senate
1924 - Democrat governor, No Senate race
1928 - Democrat governor, US Senator
Utah elected FDR 4 times...starting in 1932...
1932 - FDR for POTUS, Democrat governor, US Seantors,
1936 - FDR, Democrat governor,
1940 - FDR, Democrat governor, Democrat contol of the Utah legislature
1944 - FDR, Democrat governor, Democrat US Senator, Democrat control of the US Legislature
1948 - Harry Truman was the pick for Utah in 1948... Republican governor but controlling Democrat Legislature...
1956 - In 1956 a Democrat named Romney ran for governor...
1960 - Nixon just snuck past Democrat Kennedy for POTUS in Utah, Democrats continued their control of the Utah Legislature
1964 - Utah went with Johnson in 1964..Democrats won governor, US Senate
1968 - Democrat governor
1972 - Democrat governor
1976 - Carter had a good showing in 1976 but it was about
182,000 to Ford;s 336,000 votes.. Democrat governor,
!978 - Jimmy Earl Carter urges the Morg to change from their racist ways... Bad Karma..
1980 - Utah mormons thrashed those apostate Democrats
1980 - Big comeout for Republicans Reagan 440,000 votes to Carter’s 125,000 votes, EReagon won all 29 counties..Democrat governor but not by much, ..In the US Senaste the Republican won 438,000 votes to 150,000, Utah Legislature Republicans got 57 seats to 18 seats for the Democrats..
1984 - Utah mormons still holding a grudge against Democrats...
1984 - Reagan 470,000 to 155,000 for Democrat Mondale... Republican governor, Utah Legislature Republicans 61 seats Democrats 16 seats...State Senate 23 to 6...
1988 - Republican Bush 429,000 to 208,000 votes, Democrats shut out of everything
1992 - Clinton won the nation but not in Utah...only 25%.. the pther races were a turn around for the Democrats...
Since then both parties have been in and out...
Not because the Democrats have been forgiven...
But becaise more nonmormons who vote independant of a controlling religious institution have moved into Utah
My grandmother was born into a Mormon family, though she later left the church, and was a Roosevelt Democrat until her last breath.
Ya know but in some funny way your arguments about abortion have some merit...
Mormons in Utah are more concerned about same sex marriage and gay rights amongst adults who can defend themselves and fight back than they are about the barbaric deaths of millions of unborn babies who are defenceless...
Please name the mormons who have fought as hard for the unborn as they have against the gays ???
Who march on January 22, who speak out publically against abortion, who have included pro-life heavily in their political platforms or have voted against abortion while they were in office...
Any ???
Is it a non-issue ???
During 2008 I was told by mormons that I was a “one issue” voter because I had pro-life at the top of my list when looking at the candidates...
Those same mormons were aggressively against the gays, but that was different...according to them..
As long as one was anti-gay, it was OK to be pro- abortion, or “choice” or newly “evolved” into the pro-life movement...
Onny being pro-life was considered to make one a “one issue” voter..
Of course their rhetoric was all wrapped up in idolization of Romney and his 40 years of abortion pushing...
No...Children should never be used for political purposes.
And...I am not talking about doing things in a “good” way. For instance, If the Dems are planning an event, the conservative mole can get the information out on the Internet. The conservative spy ( or mole) can leak e-mails and memos. They can post things anonymously on YouTube...etc. They can work with conservative organizations in a way that will fatally embarrass the Marxist organization.
Too many conservatives ( Christian government teachers are especially guilty) work for Marxist dominated organizations and then turn around and promote the godless Marxist cause. No, the purpose for joining these organizations is for laying figurative landmines, spying, and to direct the Marxist organization to ends that further the conservative cause. If the conservative isn't doing this, then the are working against conservatism, not for it.
Some organization might be open to reform. For instance, if we got enough conservatives on the boards of some foundations like the Ford Foundation or Annenburg Foundation, the boards of colleges and universities, we could do some real good.
Other institutions are fundamentally socialistic at their very core. Government schools are an example. These organizations can't be reformed. They must be eliminated. If a conservative is involved in an institution that is fundamentally socialistic, the constant goal before them is the complete disintegration of that institution.
Now we get to some meat. King Benjamin, the Savior and other Christian leaders through the ages have decreed that Society has a responsibility to care for the less fortunate. It has never been stated that the State should confiscate from anyone to give to anyone else. This is an individual responsibility with individual accountability to the Savior. It’s fine to preach charity and promote charity but when you implement welfare funded by manditory takings it’s no longer charity. Not only does this destroy the agency of the ‘giver’ but it also denies him the blessings a charitable donation would ensue. Rather than producing empathy and love in both the giver and the recipient, you get distrust and resentment. Those are not gospel principles.
________________________________________________
Just WOW
Frankly, I don't think there's a dime's worth of difference between the Donkeys and the Elephants these days, at least as concerns elected officials. People need to come down on the side of what is right and what is Constitutional. The two parties can both get lost, as far as I'm concerned anymore.
I’ve never read in either the New Testament or the Book of Mormon where Jesus advocated using the power of the State ( Roman legion and armed forces, courts, law enforcement with weapons) to implement or carry out his teachings.
Excuse me? (and believe me, I’m being extremely charitable here)
Liberals wouldn’t know the truth if it hit them in the face. They live in lies.
Therein is the problem. The lies of his father used for indoctrination ultimately continue with his lies today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.