Why I am a Mormon Democrat: Pamela Burt

I am invariably amused when I am asked, either with horror or with confusion, "how can you be a Mormon Democrat?" My answer is, "how could I not be"? 

Pamela_Burt.jpg

Democrats believe in using government to help ALL of us, the "least" of us, and the "greatest of us". Does that sound at all familiar to anyone who's ever read the Bible or any other scripture? Democrats believe that healthcare, money, education, and all other resources are to be shared equally by all of us as we are all equal and therefore all equally deserving. Seems like I've heard a few million times in church that we're all God's children and He loves us equally, and not according to race or economic status. As Democrats, we are asked to think, research, and judge for ourselves if ideas or social institutions are valid and worthwhile, whereas our brothers in Red are told "don't think-just be afraid, and we'll do your thinking for you." I was taught my whole life that that was Satan's way, and that God asks us to think and judge for ourselves and to use the agency and brains He has given us to make our decisions.

Above all, I cannot understand how the beautiful, loving, and Christlike people I see all around me every Sunday can stand to listen to the ugliness, hatred, anger, and fear that the other side of the aisle is constantly serving up like so much rancid meat. It does not jive in any way with the way I see them live their lives with selfless devotion and treating others with sweetness and charity. I can only assume that fear, that most powerful of weapons, has altered their ability to reason clearly when it comes to politics. As a Democrat and a Mormon, I don't believe that fear and faith can exist side by side; nor can happiness and hate. I choose to live with happiness and faith, and that is why I am a proud Mormon Democrat.

Showing 5 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • commented 2016-09-24 08:26:39 -0700
    I’d like to see a copy of that social contract and have my legal obligation in it pointed out to me. If I violate that contract, can I be taken to the court of law and be forced to pay damages? When the progressives say “Hey, here is a class of people in need. Hey look, there is a class of people that have wealth. Lets petition the government to take from those that have and give to those that have not” That is the very definition of plunder. Government going outside of its legitimate authority of the things it is supposed to tax for and putting extra strains on the tax payers to pay for those things. Pamela stated that she believes in using government to take care of the “least of these.” It’s in the bible, don’t you know. Show me where I can get a copy of this social contract, show me my obligation to it, since I legally did not consent to a single thing, show where it is Constitutional and show me where I sin if I defy it. All I want are explanations. If this is not plunder, explain where I’m mistaken. Take my favorite lobby. As a taxpayer, I am paying an organization to provide birth control products to women so that they can use there bodies as amusement park rides. I don’t think it is morally right to tax me for that. But progressives do. Plunder. I guess if you deny its existence, it makes it moral and honest.
  • commented 2016-09-17 12:20:41 -0700
    While some of these comments come from a sincere perspective, I believe they are essentially strawman arguments. The Gospel does not teach that compulsory anything from society is evil. The analogies to Satan in the preexisitence to free breakfasts at school are utterly preposterous.

    No liberal believes that govt force in enforcement of the tax code which is distributed by a popularly elected body of representatives BTW, is a subsitute for a willing heart. No one believes compulsory charity will save you. That is not the point. Your willingness to see those tax dollars go to help bring minimal sustenance is probably a sign of good things though. That’s an individual thing and it’s on you.

    Providing minimal needs to our citizenry is a form of investment and arguably domestic security, and it’s decided on by our elected representatives. Calling it plunder is asinine. Look up social contract.
  • commented 2016-09-17 09:36:27 -0700
    Why is it that when a conservative gets philosophical with a liberal, the discussion ends? The underlying belief of the progressive, Mormon or not, is that progressives are smart, conservatives are dumb. Intelligence, or the appearance of it is important to the progressive. I could site the contributors that announce their impressive academic pedigree as a reason they are progressive. And yet, when clarification is requested about mixing progressivism and the true Gospel of Christ, nothing. If the conservative is dumb and wrong, the progressive should be able to slam dunk his or her point. I spent years living outside of Utah and moved back. What I deal with frequently is what I call the “finger wagging Mormons.” The Mormons that think the mission Christ and righteousness should come through government. It’s not enough that one tries to live his life as he sees the Savior would want him to. No, the finger waggers look upon him and make a judgement that he is not doing enough. I have ben told that I need to pay more taxes, I must drive a smaller car, or even, some of my property should be confiscated from, through government, then I would be righteous.
    So explain. What I see the what liberal Mormons want is plunder. Plunder through government, plunder through taxation. From a gospel stand point, justify plunder. I asked before, if plunder is legal, is it honest? I have an income. I have a duty to my family. How to I have a duty to someone else that a portion of my income should be taken from me? Tommorrow’s lesson is on being honest. I wonder at times if we truly believe in being honest. C’mom, tell me how I have this wrong.
  • commented 2016-08-27 18:12:49 -0700
    The difference between “liberals” & “conservatives” was clearly shown in the pre-existence. The people who self-identify as “liberals” and “progressives” are essentially conforming and/or aspiring to a mode of living under government compulsion. Liberal “charity,” a.k.a.“redistribution” at the point of a gun or threat of imprisonment, is not Christ-like charity. It much more closely conforms to the plan offered by Lucifer in the great debate over the two plans presented to all of us. The bigger we allow the government to grow, the more we will ultimately come to suffer under its constraining and arbitrary rules.

    The so-called “conservative” position ideally should reflect what the Prophet Joseph Smith famously said: (We) teach them correct principles and then let them govern themselves." As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the choice should be clear – do we want a government of Bernie Sanders, Barack 0bama and Hillary Clinton, or do we want a government limited to providing national defense and essential, constitutionally-
    permitted services? I would hope that all of us would choose to follow the prophet.
  • commented 2016-08-27 07:17:23 -0700
    I’m quoting Pamela, "Democrats believe in using government to help ALL of us, the “least” of us, and the “greatest of us”. Does that sound at all familiar to anyone who’s ever read the Bible or any other scripture? Democrats believe that healthcare, money, education, and all other resources are to be shared equally by all of us as we are all equal and therefore all equally deserving."
    Here is the problem I have with Progressivism mixed with the true Gospel of Christ. I’ve looked through the Gospels, Nephi 3, conference talks back to 1971 and I can’t find anywhere that states GOVERNMENT should be used to fulfill the charitable mission of the Savior. This is not a tenant of Gospel. In fact, the only interaction Christ had with government at the time, as far as I can tell, is when he had to pay taxes and when he was crucified.
    Unfortunate for the Mormon Progressive, me as a non-party affiliate, the belief I have is my full participation in the Plan of Salvation. Meaning, the maximum opportunity for me to chose for myself in what ever the topic is. Christ has both hands stretched out to us, offering himself fully. We have the choice to accept him or not. While government, has one palm stretched out offering the recipient the free stuff, while the other hand is in a clenched fist, demanding from the provider. There is no choice, only the threat of force. Government is force. Plain and simple.
    Pamela believes that as one who is assigned to pay taxes due to my income level, I should be forced to be provide for here charitable purposes, which she believes she stands side by side with Christ. This coicides with her statement, "Democrats believe in using government to help ALL of us, the “least” of us, and the “greatest of us”. And if I decide I don’t want to participate in her charity, I would face and armed agent of government to either convince me of my wrong ways, fine me or cast me into prison or even through violence.
    I firmly believe that no one has the authority to act over be save he/she can sight through law (and gospel principle) where they have such justification. Here is what I ask of Pamela and any other progressive Mormon who believes what she states in her quote from above. Clarify this for me, because I don’t get it.
    Site the specific part of the Constitution, Section and Article, that give the Federal Government authority to have this unlimited power to tax one person for the purpose of another. By the way, the General Welfare clause is defined by the enumerated powers.
    Show me the scripture or conference talk that tells me I am damned to hell if I am not coerced into charity through taxation.
    Show me how I incur a debt when one falls in need without any agreement or contract.
    Show me how I am more righteous when my freedom to choose for myself whether to support a thing or not is taken away from me through government force and taxation.
    Then to add to my confusion, progressives always toss around separation of church and state. This believe is mixing them together. How does this work?

Subscribe Share

connect

get updates