I'm a Mormon Democrat

(the following is a guest post from Dr. Sue Brady)

As a Mormon woman Democrat I believe in the following:

  • Minimum wages and progressive taxation (higher rates for higher income brackets)
  • Support for a broader range of social services
  • Stronger involvement in anti-discrimination laws and environmental regulations

 

  • Decrease in military spending and stricter gun control legislation
  • A belief that government should be of the people, by the people and for the people
  • It helps all of society to assist the weakest and poorest of all
  • The country should work together to create jobs during a weak economy
  • Everyone is entitled to health care regardless of his ability to pay
  • Equal pay for equal work

Of course there are additional reasons why I am a Mormon Democrat, but the main reasons are listed above.

It is a puzzle to me why everyone doesn't choose to be a Democrat!

Dr. Susan L. Brady (Harkness)

Principal, Salt Lake School for the Performing Arts and a former Stake Relief Society President

Showing 9 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • commented 2017-09-08 07:19:47 -0700
    I hope it want anything I said Eliana. Like you I disagree with more of the political opinions I hear in church than those with which I agree, but I find invariably that my disagreements with other members have more to do with what political mechanisms are used, or with regard to the true status of things, than different desires to spread God’s love, true joy, and eternal life for all mankind. Despite different short term preferences we nearly always are in sync with the long term objectives of the plan of salvation. Members might be political, but the gospel, and the mind of Christ is not. I look forward to each week seeing eye to eye on eternal matters with those who normally see worldly things differently. But I have to change before I go to church,
    I have to adopt the mind of Christ. Everything then falls into place, and when they don’t it’s because I am not having the mind (and love) of Christ myself. Are you going to church with your mind it the mind of Christ? I think that makes all the difference. You can start by having less pride in your political party, whatever it may be, than in the gospel of Christ. I’m convinced in the next world everyone will be embarrassed that they ever thought their political associations meant anything worthwhile at all.
  • commented 2017-09-07 15:50:48 -0700
    The comments here are basically why going to church is when I feel most alone of the whole week. Don’t think that is the point of the gospel but it is the effect of my ward and stake—and oh so many saints, despite my faithful Democratic 3 out of 4 Mormon grandparents.
  • commented 2016-07-27 14:13:30 -0700
    Those with the money and disposition to pay for the health care of others, may already do so. It is wrong that so many people who do not have the money to pay for the health care of others, are being forced to do so, while many people who could work choose not to, because they can get so much for free. I have worked for years helping the poor to get and keep a job, so I have first-hand experience, and I care about the poor. Some of the poor do need a hand out, but many need an EMPTY hand offered to help them UP! As for minimum wages—I post job announcements online and in the newspapers for a living, and in Northeast Kansas we have have a dire shortage of applicants for full-time jobs paying $10-$13 with benefits. I don’t think this area is unique. I believe we need to re-enthrone work as a guiding principle in our society. By pricing jobs outside the reach of teenagers we inhibit a great many young people from getting the work experience and rewards that have helped previous generations to develop good work habits. And if you have to choose between paying more for something or less, won’t you pay less? Well that’s what employers have to do to stay in business—they will reduce labor expenses by having employees work less, replacing some manual tasks with self-serve soft-drink machines in their restaurants, or machines, or online sales, etc., etc.
  • commented 2016-07-27 14:08:52 -0700
    Just take one point …. your first point. God’s law of economics / funding is a flat tax. 10%. Why is it that you are wiser than he.? I love how Democrats are always so willing to be charitable with other peoples money. Research shows that the lowest charitable contributions per capita are in the most liberal states, and conversely, the highest charitable contributions per capita are the most conservative states>
  • commented 2016-07-27 12:22:41 -0700
    As an addendum to my comment … I did not intend to suggest that Dr. Brady thought those who were not Democrat were not as good of people. That was directed more to JB who suggested she was lying in her temple recommend interviews about being honest – really an inexcusable thing to say, JB.
  • commented 2016-07-27 12:14:47 -0700
    Posts like this I believe are useful when they say “This is why I am ___”, but not when they say or insinuate that “since your party loyalty is different you can not be as good of a person (mormon, etc)”.

    The reality is that most political positions have elements designed to make the adherents feel noble. Every republican is more likely to claim they’re practicing tough love rather than claim they’re being greedy, just as every democrat is more likely to claim they’re giving to the needy than claim they’re enabling a corrupt and ineffective government. As always, when it comes to the works and the governing of the natural man the truth is somewhere between vice and virtue … some love, greed, charity, waste, etc. And that’s just with welfare … the same goes for defense spending, education, 2nd amendment rights, etc. The truth is almost always not at the extremes … every time you do something for the intent of good there is a chance that it will do more harm – and a great chance when it’s dependent on the actions of others … even more so when those “others” are people you don’t know, who have broken accountability (no closed loop wherein performance can improve, or just not go to pot).

    For my part, I’ve come to believe party association is somewhat a necessary evil … perhaps something to be embarrassed about … kind of like hanging a sign on one’s forehead advertising “space for rent”. Rather, the Mormon person (or anyone seeking the best for their fellowman) should focus on true principles, not manufactured programs. True principles endure and deserve devotion … and are not so corruptible nor willing to sell their loyalties for a slick message full of fear, innuendo, and lies (the stuff 2016 campaigns are made of). For me, as a Mormon (since that was the intent of the original post), there is no greater principle in LDS doctrine that is directly related to politics than self-determination. Both the Republican and Democrat Party positions (programs) stink to high heaven in the treatment of that matter: self-determination. Stick to principles, not to party loyalty.

    I also have to say …few things are a bigger turn off to me than when I read anything claiming moral superiority where a previously held calling is used as a platform of legitimacy. People are called by revelation for any number of reasons, which may include: because they needed to learn something (and there’s no guarantee that the did), or because the faith of a person or persons within their stewardship needed testing, or simply because they had certain skill sets the Lord needed at the time despite other skill sets that might have otherwise disqualified them. I’m certainly not saying that is the case with Dr. Brady … in fact I’m certain she is as charitable as she was when she was a RS President, and while an RS President she was as charitable as anyone, I suspect, and definitely served with honor and virtue. I have however seem ex-bishops who’ve left the church over what seemed to me petty differences and then used their former calling as a platform of legitimacy (despite that they are by far, horrendously in the minority among ex-Bishops). Once you are released the platform is gone, and when in effect it is never a platform that gives one leadership over those not part of the intended stewardship, neither is it a blanket platform signifying expertise on other matters … such as politics.
  • commented 2016-02-08 21:06:41 -0800
    I’m always amazed at how easy it is to be completely ignorant about our form of government. The government gets it powers from the governed. This one standard allowed this great country to grow and become the great country that it is. Where citizens were the sovereigns and where the government worked for them. Dr Susan L. Brady and the entire Democratic Party would flip this structure on its head.
    Since I know of no citizen with the right or authority to take my paycheck for their or someone else’s personal gain how did the government suddenly have this right if it gets its powers from the governed. I am sure that any good Democrat that makes over the national income average donates all of their excess income to government to set an example to us conservatives who do not believe the government has this right. The founding fathers knew that there is no way to satisfy the voracious appetite of people that think they have the right to other people’s income through government confiscation. That it is too much power in the hands of the government. It also brings out the worst in people. It eventually tears apart a country i.e. Venezuela or Argentina.
    George Bernard Shaw said it pretty good when he said, “Socialism means equality of income or nothing… under socialism you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you like it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live you would have to live well.” This is a common thread among democrats progressives socialists(national, international, or democratic). The force is so common and pervasive that the people proposing these forms of government or programs don’t even consider it when they push it on others. In other words what yours is mine and what’s mine is mine even if I have to have the government take it from you through force. Then I can feel good because the government will be so much better than the average citizen and do all of these wonderful things. There is just one thing wrong with this scenario. Once Pandora’s box is open you can’t control it. This is precisely why the founders established a government that got its powers from the governed. No divine right of kings. No greater good façade, just pure
    In 2013 three trillion dollars was spent on helping the poor by federal state and local governments. This does not include the cost of welfare forced upon private citizens such as rent controls etc. This is equal to $10,000 for every man woman or child in the US or $40,000 for every person in poverty. This is also before the cost of Obama care kicked in. This doesn’t include welfare. This begs the question, where did all of that money go? We have a national debt of 18 plus trillion dollars and unfunded liabilities of 200 trillion. The Obama care website cost almost a trillion dollars and didn’t work. Dr Susan L. Brady and the Democrat ”progressive” Party thinks that blowing more money and enslaving everyone to the government without ever asking where is all of this money going and how are we going into debt at the same time. By the time the Democrats are done we will all be poor defenseless (no military) and in revolt because there will come a complete collapse at some point. There is no satisfying the socialist/progressive mindset. It is so evil that to claim that helping the poor while destroying all that is good with crushing debt and force is beyond description.
    The founders got it right. By keeping the government power in check and not giving it the right to take peoples life, liberty and property for the benefit of another the people were free to progress as far as they wanted. So please quit putting lipstick on this pig (socialism) and call it what it is pure destructive force.
  • commented 2016-02-08 21:06:37 -0800
    I’m always amazed at how easy it is to be completely ignorant about our form of government. The government gets it powers from the governed. This one standard allowed this great country to grow and become the great country that it is. Where citizens were the sovereigns and where the government worked for them. Dr Susan L. Brady and the entire Democratic Party would flip this structure on its head.
    Since I know of no citizen with the right or authority to take my paycheck for their or someone else’s personal gain how did the government suddenly have this right if it gets its powers from the governed. I am sure that any good Democrat that makes over the national income average donates all of their excess income to government to set an example to us conservatives who do not believe the government has this right. The founding fathers knew that there is no way to satisfy the voracious appetite of people that think they have the right to other people’s income through government confiscation. That it is too much power in the hands of the government. It also brings out the worst in people. It eventually tears apart a country i.e. Venezuela or Argentina.
    George Bernard Shaw said it pretty good when he said, “Socialism means equality of income or nothing… under socialism you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you like it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live you would have to live well.” This is a common thread among democrats progressives socialists(national, international, or democratic). The force is so common and pervasive that the people proposing these forms of government or programs don’t even consider it when they push it on others. In other words what yours is mine and what’s mine is mine even if I have to have the government take it from you through force. Then I can feel good because the government will be so much better than the average citizen and do all of these wonderful things. There is just one thing wrong with this scenario. Once Pandora’s box is open you can’t control it. This is precisely why the founders established a government that got its powers from the governed. No divine right of kings. No greater good façade, just pure
    In 2013 three trillion dollars was spent on helping the poor by federal state and local governments. This does not include the cost of welfare forced upon private citizens such as rent controls etc. This is equal to $10,000 for every man woman or child in the US or $40,000 for every person in poverty. This is also before the cost of Obama care kicked in. This doesn’t include welfare. This begs the question, where did all of that money go? We have a national debt of 18 plus trillion dollars and unfunded liabilities of 200 trillion. The Obama care website cost almost a trillion dollars and didn’t work. Dr Susan L. Brady and the Democrat ”progressive” Party thinks that blowing more money and enslaving everyone to the government without ever asking where is all of this money going and how are we going into debt at the same time. By the time the Democrats are done we will all be poor defenseless (no military) and in revolt because there will come a complete collapse at some point. There is no satisfying the socialist/progressive mindset. It is so evil that to claim that helping the poor while destroying all that is good with crushing debt and force is beyond description.
    The founders got it right. By keeping the government power in check and not giving it the right to take peoples life, liberty and property for the benefit of another the people were free to progress as far as they wanted. So please quit putting lipstick on this pig (socialism) and call it what it is pure destructive force.
  • commented 2016-01-30 07:15:51 -0800
    I am puzzled why any Mormon who professes to be a disciple of Christ and have a firm testimony of the atonement and the truthfulness of the Gospel could ever be a democrat.
    Dr. Sue Brady believes the more money I make should be taxed at a higher rate. Why? Is it to pay for those basic, limited number of things that government is responsible for? No, it is for her charitable purposes, her broader range of social services. Why am is against this? First Dr. Sue Brady is coveting money that I that I have worked so hard to earn, in which I use to support my family.
    Second, Dr. Sue Brady thinks that since I have earned some extra dollars through my labor, (that I would like to apply to further support of my family), that I somehow owe someone else that doesn’t have as much. Dr, Sue Brady would petition government for the sake of that poor person that I have never met nor have contract with that Dr. Sue Brady believes I owe money to. I call this bearing false witness.
    Third, Dr. Sue Brady believes that that money should be taken from me through taxation. Charity is not an enumerated power of government. I would call this stealing.
    I believe in principles. Principles are principles because they are true, sound and eternal. Here is a principle I believe in: One man’s agency should not be subordinated for the purpose of another man. Here’s another: One man should not act upon another save he should be able to site his authority to do so. These are sound, true and eternal.
    Dr. Sue Brady believes an a broader range of social services. We could call this charity. But Dr. Sue Brady doesn’t give me the chance to look over these broader range of social services and allow me my agency to decide whether or not I would like to support them. Could we agree that this is also unrighteous dominion?
    I laid out that the Dr Sue Brady and the modern day progressive (Mormon or not) covets, bears false witness, steals and exercises unrighteous dominion. Not only that, when Dr. Sue Brady sits in front of here Stake President for a temple recommend interview and is asked if she is honest in her dealings with her fellow man, when it comes to her dealings with me, I don’t see how she is.
    My agency is important to me. Not even God can take it away. Dr. Sue Brady wants expanded charity though government and taxation. That means Dr. Sue Brady believes that if I don’t want to support her charitable purposes, then I should be met with an armed agent of government and a justice system that would fine me, jail me or both. I don’t recall anywhere in the scriptures where Christ and his disciples preached charity at the tip of the Roman spear. I guess if I am forced to be righteous, I am righteous. I thought that plan was rejected. This is why progressive thought and the Gospel are not compatible. If I am wrong, please list the principle that is true, sound and eternal that allows one man to take the agency of another.

Subscribe Share

connect

get updates