Posts
This is my own opinion and in no way do I speak in behalf of anyone else or the LDS church. It's funny I felt prodded to write such a thing in the first place.
OK. Climb aboard Matt's Politics Express. I will attempt to tread lightly.
So I have a fantastic friend (his word, not mine) Jim, who, a few years back, moved to Burbank, California to work in the TV industry. He called me today with some pretty incredible news.
Most of you who read this know that I am a practicing Mormon and Jim is as well. Jim's news had to do with his new calling (church service assignment) in his California ward. This assignment is to contact every ward member in his stake and ask them personally to work/vote against the gay marriage ruling that was recently passed in May and to donate $200 per family to the cause. He is basically an LDS lobbyist!
So why blog about this? Well, I find this fascinating and exciting as well. Here's why:
I am sometimes frustrated that my church doesn't give more direction to it's members on how to vote regarding MAJOR IMPORTANT political issues. Should we all be Republicans or Democrats? Should we be for or against the war? ETC. Wouldn't it be easier if the Prophet just told us all how to vote and create more of a unified front? (Don't EVEN bring up Lucifer's plan, I am just throwing this out there...) We could be major movers and shakers if we would all get on common ground! But alas, the LDS leadership encourages us to make our own decisions and form our own opinions after studying the issues (which most of us DON'T do). Unfortunately, our limited understand and abilities sometimes lead us down wrong roads (see Harry Reid).
Well, finally, there is one issue the church has found it necessary, nay imperative, to take a hard line stance and get TOTALLY involved politically. In LDS church buildings across the nation a few weeks back, a letter was read how we should all come together and fight FOR the protection and sanctity of marriage and family and against gay marriage. This letter was VERY bold and left no gray area.
Well, Jim's calling is taking that support one step further. Jim is reminding members of the covenants they have made which urge its members to support causes deemed appropriate by the church both laboriously and financially with all possible means necessary. In other words, Jim is telling members to step it up!
The L.A. Times writes about this particular judgement:
"In a 4-3 decision, the justices rule that people have a fundamental 'right to marry' the person of their choice and that gender restrictions violate the state Constitution's equal protection guarantee."
The last paragraph from the LDS Proclamation of the Family:
"The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ... Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."
So there it is. The raging war that is happening right under our noses which most of us don't even know is going on. The battle that the LDS church has chosen to fight on the front lines, where they have remained uncommitted and neutral in what could be interpreted as less important issues facing the church (i.e. Iraq war, economy issues, health care, social reform, budget deficit, etc.).
So, what do I learn from this?
Taking my personal faith into consideration, I feel I should choose a candidate/political party, that, first and foremost, aligns itself with with the one headline issue that my religion is fighting so fervently against: Gay marriage and for preserving the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.
I should start there regarding my personal political selection.
This is what I found regarding John McCain: (This quote comes straight from his website)
"The family represents the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society and John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It is only this definition that sufficiently recognizes the vital and unique role played by mothers and fathers in the raising of children, and the role of the family in shaping, stabilizing, and strengthening communities and our nation."
What/whom does your political affiliation support?
Holy Moly Matt,
Well, let me first say I agree with all of that and I feel we're in exciting times.. But with that said, I must say that the Prophet has called us to fight for the sacredness of Marriage to be between a man and a woman. I want this to be clear. This is not a fight against the "alternative lifestyle" When we don't stand for anything we'll fall for everything. And this is what we Stand for.
I'll Blog about this today.. it may be a 2 parter..
It will be interesting to see what happens..
Jim
You wrote: "Should we all be Republicans or Democrats?... Wouldn't it be easier if the Prophet just told us all how to vote and create more of a unified front?"
Ah, but what if the church came out and said we should all be Democrats? What then?
A--The church wouldn't tell us to all be Democrats :)
B--I would become a Democrat! That hurt even writing.
I am not suggesting the church to the thinking for us. I do however, think it would be nice to have a little more direction on MAJOR issues that effect us all, LIKE the stand they are taking with the conservation of marriage.
Hey, thanks for the reminder to check the blog. I was amazed at the number of members who were upset that the Church had taken a stand on the gay marriage vote in California. I tried to kindly suggest that the Church had taken that stand "in the beginning" and if they truly believed in what they were taught, it really wasn't an issue. What was most interesting was that the stake president has asked every member family to contribute $200. That goes back to the days before you were born, when the bishops asked members to contribute to the ward budget. Oh, the things that test one's testimony.
But this might be considered a landmark event, in that you and I agree on a political position, even though it is faith based, and since we have the same faith....I guess it isn't so landmark. Of course I think you need to acquire "further light and knowledge" when it comes to having the prophet give us a position on all political issues. First of all, more people live outside the U.S. than in it, so must he get involved in the politics wherever their are members? I would hope that he was better things to do, but most importantly voting and acting as one body has never served the Church well. Perhaps a brief review of history; does Palmyra, Kirtland, Independence or Nauvoo strike any chords? What scared the "gentiles" was that the Mormons would vote, buy and act as one entity; they would do whatever Joe Smith told them. That kind of blind faith frightens outsiders, and leads critics to call us a cult, brainwashed, extremists, jihadists (?!?), etc. It obviuosly did not serve the saints very well, and if there is any question that the "gentiles" today won't act the same way, you have some distant cousins in west Texas, and on the Utah/Arizona border who will tell you different. (In know way should that last statement be considered as support for the FLDS; they have a big problem with individual freedom.) I think when the prophet asks us to educate ourselves and cast our vote based on what/who we think is best, it shows great vision and foresight, something true prophets have.
There is my political rant for the month. It was fun.
Now for something completely different. The pics of grandma/grandpa's place were nice, and brought back many memories. Has dad seen them? If he hasn't, just one correction. That "thing" you called a butter churner is actually a separater; it separated the cream from the milk (which could then be churned into butter). You probably remember it from when dad was using it as a planter on the back porch. Na ja...
Hugs and tugs
rgb
Nice!
But...
You write,
"Of course I think you need to acquire "further light and knowledge" when it comes to having the prophet give us a position on all political issues"
I don't want ALL political issues addressed, just major ones that effect the broad majority LIKE the sanctity of marriage stance.
I wrote in my blog which you may have missed, "I am sometimes frustrated that my church doesn't give more direction to it's members on how to vote regarding MAJOR IMPORTANT political issues."
I don't want to be a 'slothful servant' who has to be commanded in all things. I like my freedom of choice. But, it is very nice in the pro marriage arena we KNOW EXACTLY where we should stand. I think some influence from a prophet of God would be extremely beneficial in other political arenas as well, that's all.
I liked the point on more members outside the church, but the fact that the brethren are focused on California suggests they are worried about causes close to home that cover a broad base. I think, like gay marriage, a similar argument could be made about the war and the support or rejection thereof. It would be nice to have a little more instruction from inspired leaders on issues that are fundamentally difficult to comprehend. I think such stances would help unite us as members and Americans alike. Gay marriage and unions effects those outside the country. But, I think the Iraq War does as well!
My main point is that McCain supports the sanctity of marriage and our political preferences as members of the church should START there.
Most Mormons vote together now anyway so I am not so much worried about that, I just want to help bring in the black sheep :)
Lastly, isn't the goal to be a Zionistic (word?) community. Last time I checked that meant one heart/one mind.
Why shy away from our true potential and quit worrying about what everyone else thinks, President? :)
Oh, and whatever that picture thing is, I still have no idea what it is, I just threw out butter thingy for the heck of it. Several people have tried to explain to me what it is but I still don't get it.
m
I am tempted to e-mail this to a friend (you met her...)
I just don't know if I REALLY want to open that can of worms.
But it makes me smile to think about doing it.
I bet if Mitt Romney ends up being his running mate the church will say something about it- they still won't tell you what to do, but it will be mentioned.
Either way never mind, I just am not going to go down this road.
I strongly disagree. The LDS church won't throw their support behind any candidate. I wish they would, buy they won't. They will however adress issues and advise us to seek out the appropriate candidate, which is I guess how it should be.
Come on, Heather, have some fun! Go down that road!
That was amazing! So down-to-earth and straight forward but with just a hint of humor, enough to take the edge off...loved it!
YOU ROCK!!
I'm just glad that the only man I've ever had romantic feelings for is Matt!!! j/k
Very interesting! I wasn't aware the Church was going down that route with the members.
I'm glad our leadership doesn't give us more direction on issues, because I think many of us would find we are not in line with their thinking more often then we'd like to believe. I know its from the City Weekly and all, but some valid points are made in this article: http://www.slweekly.com/index.cfm?do=article.details&id=1CABF4BF-2BF4-55D0-F1F4229A0F8BC1EE.
Often when Church leaders DO speak, we don't follow what they say. This article specifically references the MX Missile issue under President Kimball, efforts toward gun control, and the ever-divisive issue of abortion, with which, believe it or not, many on the right are not quite aligned, and many on the left are not "misaligned".
Just trying to make my point that I'm glad the leadership doesn't give us direction on many issues and that I think they don't for one BIG reason...they don't matter in the eternal scheme of things. Policies and positions are merely ways we've developed as Americans, Mexicans, Canadians, or what have you, to deal with politics: who gets what, where, when, and how.
As far as the presidential candidate goes, I lose no sleep and feel tremendously proud to vote for Barack Obama. He has stated publicly that he is also against gay marriage (I feel the very same), but also points out it is more of a state by state issue. He's right. In truth, it is much more an issue that our local legislature have to do with than does the President. So as for the notion that good mormons can't vote for someone other than McCain, I think its a major misnomer.
I hope the amendment to California's constitution passes this election season, but I'm not going to let the issue in California determine how I vote this November in a national election where both candidates seem to be in line with what the church has proclaimed thus far.
Ben K.
PS this is Gaby signing in now. I thought I'd add my two cents -- when campaigning for a democratic senator, I learned some invaluable things about how the church handles candidates. She met privately several times with general authorities. My boss at the advertising agency, told us when he was nominated as the party's congressional candidate to run against rob Bishop, he was given a blessing by Elder Holland. So while the church does not support any candidate publically, they give their love and support privately. They want balance in our state and they want solid active LDS democrats to help take leadership in our communities to avoid corruption and absolute power, which is so much of what we hear on the news recently. I would just invite anyone who goes through the political truth seeking process to keep their eyes and heart open, because there are great republican and democratic candidates on all levels on government who we can feel good about representing us. That's all. Maybe we need to rant some more on our blog! Thanks for providing a place to talk about this! Love ya!
PSS And hello, congrats on the twins, that's amazing! I need to call Jenny. Give her a big hug for me.
Thanks for the comments Ben and Gaby! I enjoyed them!
First, I am not suggesting, which maybe I did not do an adequate job communicating, that the LDS leadership make most political decisions for me. I only appreciate that the church has taken a hard line approach in the conservation of marriage arena behind which I can stand proudly. I wish they would do this in more arenas so that you and I wouldn't have to have this conversation and our votes cancel themselves out!
If the LDS leadership, whom I sustain and support, feel it necessary to back this cause both financially and laboriously, then I should be on board as well. From my research, McCain in much more aligned with this train of thought than Obama.
Second,I thoroughly enjoyed the article you mentioned and I think it was an interesting read. However, for me today and for the upcoming election, the article is irrelevant to my conclusion from the original post. Again, I suggest that since the only issue on which the LDS church is actively pursuing and supporting is the protection of marriage, we should support the candidate who best falls in line with this council, which is clearly McCain. If it is important enough for the LDS church, it is important enough for me. And the fact that the Brethren don't get involved with other political issues suggests even more the urgency of our November vote.
Lastly, you wrote:
"He has stated publicly that he is also against gay marriage (I feel the very same), but also points out it is more of a state by state issue. He's right. In truth, it is much more an issue that our local legislature have to do with than does the President."
Come on, Ben. For you to suggest that the conservation of marriage be interpreted on a state-by-state basis is just silly and this is why:
You wrote "I'm glad the leadership doesn't give us direction on many issues and that I think they don't for one BIG reason...they don't matter in the eternal scheme of things."
It is BECAUSE marriage matters in the eternal scheme of things that the Brethren are getting involved. For Obama to suggest this moral issue be INTERPRETED on a state to state level is only demonstrating his cowardice in not taking a stand on his "beliefs" and in turn, SUPPORTING gay marriage. Period. McCain has the courage to take the right position, and I am going to get behind him.
This isn't about Republicans or Democrats, or whether we should have a two party system. It is about following the council we received in church last month and doing everything in our power to put people in office, Republican or Democrat, who will follow this council as well. In my ever so humble opinion, that person is NOT Obama. My vote is for McCain.
OK I will bite. I first of agree that we should all fight to keep marriage between one man and one woman and I will be voting to McCain.
That being said I do not understand how left wings think. Over the last 100 years America (which I love) has experienced a lot of "progress" I am happy for some of this like the right to vote and automatic dishwashers, but most of it has gotten us in a lot of trouble. Women's lib has left thousands of kids in day care, even worse women are now having babies without fathers around because "who needs a man". We have a generation that are waiting for the new president to fix everything instead of pulling there own heads out and fixing there own lives. We as a country are going down a bad road. In the Book of Mormon you see it over and over again the people are humble and work and keep the commandments and then they gain prosperity and get lazy, remember what comes next? King Noah whom we can all agree was bad taxed his people one fifth of all their increas well I would love to only pay one fifth. With all of this progress we have higher crime rates lower school ranks and people going bankrupt right and left. We have been carefully led away from what is right. America is supposed to be majority rule with minority rights, now let everyone do what ever they want because we might look mean. I say we should go back to traditional values.
Marcia
Wasn't able to post until now and I didn't want to let what you responded to my last post go unanswered.
First, to address what you stated when you said: "For you to suggest that the conservation of marriage be interpreted on a state-by-state basis is just silly...For Obama to suggest this moral issue be INTERPRETED on a state to state level is only demonstrating his cowardice in not taking a stand on his "beliefs" and in turn, SUPPORTING gay marriage. Period. McCain has the courage to take the right position, and I am going to get behind him."
I'm not sure your position is quite waterproof for the following reasons. 1) I'm not suggesting nor is Obama suggesting that marriage SHOULD be interpreted by the individual States. That's not the case at all. I'm saying that this IS what happens. Really, think about it. What does the Federal Government have to do with your marriage? You're issued a marriage license by the county (a state authorized entity), and your marriage is conducted by an authorized representative of the State. I am certainly no lawyer but I do understand how Constitution works. It enumerates SPECIFIC authorities to the Federal Government. Marriage and Family law have NEVER been interpreted as included in those enumerated powers. Moreover, the 10th Amendment specifically reserves those rights for the States that are not SPECIFICALLY enumerated in the body of the Constitution. That being said, Marriage and Family law have NEVER been governed at the federal level. That is the basis of the State by State issue. It has nothing to do with moral clarity or courage. If it does, then as far as I've been able to understand McCain's position on the issue, he has not exhibited the courage you attribute to him. (See http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/14/mccain.marriage/)
The only way that marriage can be dealt with at the federal level is 1) through a constitutional amendment (the story above specifically speaks to McCain's position to that. For Obama's position, please see: http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060605-floor_statement_5/.
(You should find that the two positions are rather similar.) Or, 2) through a Supreme Court interpretation of the constitution. Admittedly, McCain would probably appoint justices to the Supreme Court that would tend to interpret on the traditional side of marriage. However, given how much he has changed his position on this issue over time, I don't know that his current stance is anything more than catering to a base of voters.
My point in the whole thing...McCain or Obama on this issue...doesn't make a difference.
As for the other issues you want the leadership of the Church to speak to so as to provide more clarity for you and I as members, I don't know that I explained my argument well enough. What I meant to say is this: The Church doesn't weigh in because they don't care. The Church is concerned with the eternal welfare of our souls. Though the individual leaders have perceptions and practices they grew up with, the Church as a body has no formal position on issues like Iraq, the economy, taxes, etc. These are just issues that come up here on earth and will not carry over into the eternities.
Anyway, just wanted to point out that McCain's moral clarity seems to only have come of late...not sure he's the guy who'll champion the family to the end. (http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/26189764.html?location_refer=Commentary)
(this is my brother who responds only via email so i am posting it for him.)
Did you just say I had a “nice…butt”?
I guess I am confused by those who don’t KNOW EXACTLY where we should stand on marriage. The law of chastity, temple work, temple sealings, eternal family, etc., are fundamental gospel principles. Anyone who has listened to, or at least heard about conference has heard the prophet and apostles teach about the sanctity of marriage, not to mention the Proclamation on the Family. However, that still doesn’t take away the opportunity for individuals to exercise agency, to demonstrate faith in the principles they have been taught, and to choose.
This choice is easier because it is a MORAL choice, and the Church has clearly established its position on morality. The Iraq War is a POLITICAL issue, not a moral issue, especially if you look at it as a global issue, not a U.S. issue. I wonder how many temple recommend holding Latter-day Saints there are in Germany, Spain, Jordan, Argentina, U.K., that agree with the U.S. policy in Iraq? I would suspect there would be more members of the Church that would vote against the war in Iraq than support it. Does the prophet represent the opinion of the minority or the majority, or just the Savior? If you say the Savior, and he prophet says support the Iraq War, then what you are saying is that the Iraq War is a religious jihad, or holy war, which I’m confident it is not. I fully agree with the Church’s standing to stay out of politics. And what if the prophet said the U.S. was wrong and needs to leave Iraq immediately? What a disaster that would cause, no?
I would also suggest that to be “of one hear and one mind” is a moral position, and not a political one, because in a true Zion state, there is no democracy; the Lord picks the political leaders…if we were to vote we would pick whomever the Lord picked, and if we didn’t there would be no Zion. Zion exists under a theocratic state governed by a benevolent dictator. Maybe our first step to becoming of “one heart and one mind” particularly as a global church, would be to seek to help those who are less fortunate than we are, instead of spending billion$ to build a fence to keep them away from our unwanted jobs and health care system J That sounds more like Zion to me.
Randal G. Baker, Ph.D.
Director, Travel and Tourism Program
Department of Geography
St. Cloud State University
720 Fourth Avenue South
St. Cloud, MN 56301-4498 U.S.A.
320.308.2271
320.308.1660 (fax)
Thanks Ben! I love it when you post, so keep them coming!
I recognize that states all have the right to interpret laws individually and gay marriage, abortion, capital punishment, etc., all fall on the states shoulders. Well, Republicans have been trying to put Marriage on the Federal front burner, and Democrats (Obama) have been shooting it down, leaving it to the individual states to determine. This action by the Democrats WILL allow gay marriage to take place in some states. Period. I think marriage is important enough to be evaluated on a Federal matter and I think it is a national blanket issue. McCain is taking this stance now.
Thank you for posting that URL on Obama's stance on marraige. I am reposting it here because everyone MUST read it!
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060605-floor_statement_5
Note Obama's careless, brush-off approach to this subject. His "why are we even talking about something so irrelevant" attitude towards this topic because it "won't pass." I can totally see him rolling his eyes as he discusses the topic that my faith considers (perhaps) the most important issue facing us today! Seriously everybody, read it and I would love to see if you feel the same!
You wrote, "Admittedly, McCain would probably appoint justices to the Supreme Court that would tend to interpret on the traditional side of marriage." This is a no-brainer. I think one could also assume that Obama would appoint judges that would be on the non-traditional side of marraige as well. This should be our concern and yet another reason why we should not vote for Obama!
Finally, in Obama's floor speech, he says:
"It's a consensus between a majority of Americans who say, "You know what, maybe some of us are comfortable with gay marriage right now and some of us are not. But most of us do believe that gay couples should be able to visit each other in the hospital and share health care benefits; most of us do believe that they should be treated with dignity and have their privacy respected by the federal government."
And we all know that if this amendment were to pass, it would close the door on much of this - because we know that when similar amendments passed in places like Ohio and Michigan and Utah, domestic partnership benefits were taken away from gay couples."
I agree with Obama about some of these rights being applicable to same-sex couples (hospital visits, inheritance distribution, etc.) But this can be acquired in other fashions other than marriage, like Power of Attorney privileges and other legal approaches. That statement from Obama, although he SUGGESTS marriage is between a man and a woman, clearly defines his stand FOR gay marriage. It is a hot issue that he doesn't have the courage to give a straight, clear statement. He wants to sweep it under the rug and pretend like it isn't an issue. From what I interpret, my church and I think differently.
Thanks again, Ben. This is fun!
Amen, Brother! I'm all about avoiding "calamities" fortold by ancient prophets.
Thanks for the post, it was the most interesting political thing I've read in a long time.
Kami Averett
Obama wasn't thumbing his nose at the ISSUE of gay marriage, he was thumbing his nose at the Amendment they were debating that day on the floor. His specific statements were that the amendment (which McCain also voted against citing his desire for States to solve this issue on their own) had NO chance of passing even with his vote, and that it was brought to the Senate floor by the Republican leadership as a catalyst to get republicans nationwide excited about participating in that election. Read his comments carefully.
Again, for the issue to really become a federal matter, it has to be through an amendment of this sort or through a suit making it to the Supreme Court. There is virtually NO chance of a federal amendment to the constitution (which is why Obama thumbed his nose at it in 2006), and who knows about the Supreme Court taking the issue up. I'd like for a legal expert to weigh in on that. My guess is that legal precedence and stare decisis will make the Supreme Court remand any decisions to lower courts and will not rule on the issue.
I hope you read the pieces about McCain's positions on this issue. Still safe to say he's been all over the board. Because of that and his recent "enlightenment" where he has taken up the issue, I don't really believe him. Furthermore, I think he's adding this to his list of flip-flops to try and motivate the under-motivated republican core this year. I frankly feel that he's saying it to get elected and I'm not going to throw all the other issues I care about to the wind in hopes that McCain will champion traditional families when he really can't do ANYTHING about the issue and doesn't have a record of championing that cause. In case you didn't read of McCain's changing position, you can here: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/14/mccain.marriage/
and here: http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Civil_Rights.htm
and here: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.samesexmarriage.html
and here: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53743
Just some interesting reads and I wonder what your take is on them.
OK. This has been fun but it is time to wrap this up.
Bottom line.
McCain is for preserving the sanctity of marriage and will select judges with similar philosophies. Obama will select RADICAL judges that will suggest such issues should remain at the state level and will not have the courage to take on such moral battles. Omission is still a sin.
I don't know if there is a bigger flip-flopper ever than Obama! How about just TODAY Obama changing his mind on off-shore drilling! (see http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700248363,00.html?linkTrack=rotator-cvr-6859)
Here is an article on his top four flip flops:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022402094.html
Maybe McCain hasn't always been
right regarding Marriage, but today he is and Obama isn't. I read Obama's stance (http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060605-floor_statement_5/. ), and my interpretation is he is for gay marriage. Period.
Not to mention he is wrong on every other issue as well. Wait! He isn't wrong on everything. Since he changed his mind today on off-shore drilling and joined McCain! I guess he is right on one thing.
I guess when its your blog, you get the last word, but I will just say...laughable at best!
It has been fun, sorry it has to end.
Ben
Interesting post. Off the top of my head neither Obama nor McCain think marriage should be redefined to include same-sex couples. I'll write more later.