After reading President Uchtdorf's recent statement in favor of President Obama's immigration plan, I was struck by the separation between what the Church teaches and what our conservative brothers and sisters expect us mormon liberals to do.

We as Mormons have two choices as individuals: 1) follow, in lockstep, all of the Church's positions on all political issues, or 2) make our own political decisions, as informed by our own personal research, including research on the Church's institutional positions.

Many Mormon conservatives seem to embrace #1, hammering anyone who supports or votes for anything they view as out of line with the Church’s institutional positions. Therefore, many conservatives harshly condemn anyone who supports increased rights for our homosexual brothers and sisters, anyone who supports a woman's right to choose related to abortion, or anyone who supports the supposedly satanic plan of wealth redistribution.

What gets us, though, is that there seems to be a double standard. Many Mormon conservatives go against the Church’s institutional political position.

For example, Mormon conservatives cheered when they learned this vernal man charges liberals more than he charges conservatives (read the comments to see examples of this cheering), and when they learned this business owner fires two employees based largely on their liberal politics (the lack of wide outrage in Utah suggests that many Mormons are okay with this, if not openly supportive).

This behavior is directly against the Church's stated position on politics: It asks Mormons to

“engage in the political process in an informed and civil manner, respecting the fact that members of the Church come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences and may have differences of opinion in partisan political matters,"

urges Mormon lawmakers to

“make their own choices based on their best judgment and with consideration of the constituencies whom they were elected to represent”

and assures that

“[p]rinciples compatible with the gospel are found in the platforms of all major political parties.”

Clearly, the Church as an institution is forcefully against the type of prejudice that Mormon Liberals are facing today.

A final example, in light of President Uchdorf's stirring endorsement of liberal immigration politics: a few years ago Church leaders supported--they attended the signing ceremony to applaud its passage--an immigration bill known as HB116. You would think, if Mormons truly embraced #1 above, that every Mormon in the state would have embraced this without question. That is not what happened, though. In fact, many county GOP organizations from across the state issued an official protest against the Church-approved measure. In a state with 70% of its citizens identifying as Mormon, county after county symbolically rejected the immigration stance institutionally supported by the Church.

And here's the thing: we think this is just fine, and so does the Church. Many Church leaders have even explicitly suggested that #1 is not the way to go. For example, Elder Marlin K. Jensen said,

"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 been in the past. But I think there's room for that and the gospel leaves us lots of latitude."

The Church makes it very clear that, except for in very specific situations, Church members are to behave politically however they want to. The Church as an institution has intervened specifically just a handful times, including in support of "Prohibition" alcohol laws, in opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment,  and in favor of California’s Proposition 8. Even in those specific situations, the Church didn't command its members how to vote. It strongly urged one way or another, but didn't say "vote this way or you're out of the Church." In other words, the institutional endorsement of the Church is not meant to dictate the personal political stances of its members.

Here's why this is important: many Church members cite various parts of The Family: A Proclamation to the World in defense of their personal feelings about gay marriage and abortion. But those very passages can also be used to defend many liberal positions on this same issues. The Gospel isn't as cut-and-dried as many seem to think it is, and there are many ways to follow the teachings of Christ. We happen to believe, after careful research, that liberal politics are generally  more in line with the Gospel than other political philosophies.

And, in this Church, that's okay. The beauty of the Church is that it embraces #2. Wholeheartedly. The Church draws a line between what The Church as an institution supports and opposes, and what the church membership as individuals support. They don't always have to be the same thing. And that goes in both directions.

By Boyd Peterson. Republished with permission.

A Sandy, Utah stake president’s recent speech ignited a frenzy on Facebook and Twitter after it was posted on the internet by one of his stake members. President Matthew DeVisser’s words of warning about a general decline in values and admonition to prepare for turbulent times ahead was nothing revolutionary, but it soon morphed into a political rant that emphasized right-wing Republican talking points, lamenting, for example, that Americans had chosen “socialism over capitalism, entitlements over free enterprise, redistribution and regulation over self-reliance.”

Read more

Ten years ago, in March 2003, our country went to war with Iraq. There were two reasons given: that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and that Saddam had links to al-Qaeda. The mistake about the weapons claim is now history; less discussed is how ridiculous the second claim was. America was Bin Laden's enemy only by association; his real target was secular leaders in the Arab world like Hussein and the Saudi family.

I voted for Bush in 2000, and during the buildup to the war, I was telling everyone who would listen: Look, the man's a Texan. He's a born poker player. He's got to make the bluff look credible to get Saddam to buckle under, but there ain't no way the man is crazy enough to actually send in the troops. Surely his dad has informed him what a quagmire that would turn into.

Boy, did I ever get that wrong. You just read one of the significant reasons I became a Democrat (and a big fan of Andrew Bachevich, who has the clearest vision of what our foreign policy should be in the current century).

One of the unfortunate outcomes of that war is that, unlike Vietnam, we still have people in power and with influence that didn't learn their lesson. During the next month, you will be hearing a lot of revisionist history from these folks. This article by Peter Van Buren sets the record straight, and this post warns us to keep our guard up. Let's make sure no one forgets how much that unnecessary war has damaged America and the world.

In the past week or so we mormon liberals have come under attack. First, a Stake President in Utah wielded right-wing talking points over the pulpit, accusing liberals of hating freedom and helping society careen toward certain destruction. Then, last Sunday, a prominent mormon conservative blogger accused the "liberal agenda" of advancing Satan's cause through "moral rape."

As I've said before, I couldn't be happier about these attacks. They are perfect examples of what we mormon liberals endure on a regular basis. Despite the plethora of Apostles and Prophets who have made incredibly clear the notion that there are good Mormons all over the political spectrum, we mormon lefties get attacked all the time.

And these open, public attacks are doing nothing but bringing those everyday attackes out into the open. This isn't the first time we've been told we're advancing the plan of the Devil, nor will it be the last, until we address the political problem in the Church: the majority (conservatives) believe that the minority (liberals) are not good Mormons.

Don't be surprised, then, if a mormon liberal feels ostracized even in her own faith, even among her own people.

A recent post over at the blog "A Well-Behaved Mormon Woman" caught my eye. The post is titled "Stunning Obama Court Brief: No Morals In Order to Strike Down Prop 8." If you haven't read her post, head on over and check it out and then come back for my thoughts and response.

The author, whom I respect greatly and value as a fellow Mormon as we both try to make our way in the world, begins with a harsh assessment of the Obama Administration's filing of an amicus brief in favor of marriage equality. She says

It is difficult to put into words, without blowing it out of complete proportion . . . what I feel suggests the moral rape of this country, by none other than the President of the United States and in a formal document, no less, to the U.S. Supreme Court Justices.

This "moral rape," she goes on to say, is that "according to the Obama brief, if the Court has no "precedents", they, like society, must rule void of moral judgement." The Obama Administration argued that the Supreme Court should not use moral beliefs as the sole reason for upholding or striking down a law. Personally, I fully agree with this argument. I could imagine a situation where this would work in my favor, actually:

Let's say my family and I live in a town that is predominantly Catholic. And let's say that, because the Catholic Church believes birth control to be sinful, the town votes a law into place stating that birth control is illegal and that anyone found in possession of any form of birth control is to be thrown in jail. For them, this is a moral issue. For me, it is also a moral issue: my Mormon faith teaches me that decisions about birth control are entirely up to a husband and wife. No one else is allowed to intervene in this sacred relationship. And I would certainly hope that the Supreme Court would not rule in the town's favor, forcing me to live by their morals for no other reason than that they're their morals.

And this is precisely what the Obama Administration seems to be arguing: just because a bunch of people hold certain morals doesn't mean that those morals are as legally binding as the Constitution (which many believe was divinely inspired, anyway). There's nothing preventing my Catholic neighbors from living by their morals, and opposition to a Court order commanding me to abide by their morals is not a "moral rape" at all, but a protection of the rule of law. And a protection of the 11th Article of Faith:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Because of this, I am confused when the author of the blog post claims that the "liberal agenda" (her words) is to essentially do the will of Satan on this issue:

How unfortunate indeed, and yet in the scheme of things a perfectly fair move on the part of the Adversary, according to the rules of mortality as laid out in the great Plan of Salvation; featuring...  drum roll please....  the agency of man! Ta da!

Of course, we've already covered the issue of politics and agency quite thoroughly and stand by our belief that government legislation simply cannot remove, restrict, or take away anyone's agency. But the larger point deals with the idea that it is morally bankrupt to oppose an enforcement of morals solely on the grounds of morality. There are many many issues I believe are moral issues and yet I do not think should be enforced by law. I believe in the Word of Wisdom, and yet I don't believe we should pass laws banning coffee. I believe in the law of chastity but I don't believe we should pass laws banning fornication. I believe with all my heart in the moral issue of sharing the gospel, but I certainly hope no one ever suggests that missionary work be required by legislation. And does that mean I, and the Mormons who agree with me, have no morals, or that we're fighting on Satan's side?

According to A Well-Behaved Mormon Woman, apparently it does.

This is the fifth in our five-part series titled "Mormonism, Agency, and Politics." In the first post we discussed the importance of agency in Mormon doctrine. In the second we addressed Satan's strategy of limiting our agency. In the third, we addressed the view that agency can be restricted simply by restricting freedom. In the fourth, we examined the idea that agency can be restricted by removing differences between good and evil and explored its political implications.

Throughout this series we've contested the idea that government action (taxation, regulation, etc.) in any way limits our agency. We Mormon Liberals have been told quite a few times that such actions restrict agency, and that restricting agency is Satan's plan. So, by the transitive power of liberals-are-evil, that means that anyone who is for (responsible) taxation or (balanced) regulation is on Satan's team.

 

Read more

Written by Daniel

In his 2013 State of the Union Address, President Obama proposed raising the minimum wage to $9/hour. There was an uproar from people across the country, including me. I write this to state that I am highly offended by the thought of a minimum wage.  I am offended that one group of human beings cares so little about the other humans who they employ, that these owners are willing to pay their workers a wage that makes them so dependent on the government to cover their basic needs, that they would perish otherwise. I am offended that that we still are fighting to legislate slavery away.  If you, as a conservative, want to solve the 'problem of entitlements', you need to fix wages.  The reason costs for government benefits has increased is because wages have not increased, yet costs have increased significantly over the same period.

I write this to state that I have been a ’wage slave‘ and understand the horrors of it. I worked for a company that paid its workers over the minimum wage, but still below what is recognized as a livable wage, and then claimed tax credits for hiring these workers.  However most of whom still relied heavily on the government for subsistence, not because they wanted to but because they had to. When I took help from the government it was embarrassing & degrading. Every time I went to the store to get groceries, I did my best to make sure no one saw that I was using my SNAP benefits (AKA food stamps).  Contrary to popular belief, I was not/am not lazy;  I worked 50+ hours per week and I do not have a degree that has "no chances of getting people jobs." (I take issue with that statement anyway) as I have a degree in engineering.  When a company can pay you so little, and then get a tax credit for it, you can plainly see that the system is severely broken.

I write this as a call to remind us that in the late 1800's & early 1900's the Owners (read Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations if you need to understand my reference) paid their workers very little as well.  A movement started in the country & after the crash of 1929 many of their goals were realized.  We as a nation supported the middle class.  We stated that we didn't want kings of old, so we raised the tax rate on the wealthy so that we could avoid aristocracy.  We set up social safety nets, as a type of insurance, to allow business to take the reasonable risks. We also stated that we as a nation needed to better manage those risks.

I write this to say that both the Senate & the House of Representatives need to realize that Owners very rarely support the idea of a middle class.

I write this to state I support the middle class, unions, social safety nets, fair wages, and a whole litany of other progressive ideals.

I write this because, as a Mormon, I believe this is my duty.

I write this to state that I stand, because sometimes that's all we can do.

“I heard that all five of you BYU Democrats have been pretty active this year! *wink wink*”

“You’re a member of the BYU Democrats? Have they taken away your temple recommend yet?”

“They let you guys exist?!?!”

If you have ever thought about saying one of these things (or maybe you continue to say them)- please, in the wise words of our beloved President Uchtdorf: STOP IT.

As the current Co-President of this group, let me share with you a few things.

Did you know that we have about 30-35 people regularly attend our weekly meetings? Did you know that we have close to 700 BYU students on our emailing list and about 400 in our Facebook group? Did you know that the advisor for our club is the Chair of the Political Science Department? Did you know that none of us have gotten our temple recommends taken away for being a member of the club?

Did you know that every time you crack a joke about the BYU Democrats being lame or too inconsequential to make any difference, you diminish the possibility for recognizing their achievements and prominence, and by extension liberal Mormons as a whole?

The BYU Democrats is the largest College Democrats chapter in Utah. Dozens of us participated in campaigning for President Obama, with many of us taking weekend trips to canvass in Colorado and participate in weekly phone banks. Several BYU Democrats are currently serving internships with the Utah legislature, including as interns to two of the five Democrats in the State Senate (which are difficult spots to achieve). We have weekly club meetings with speakers, debates, and other activities like field trips to the state capitol, all of which have been well attended.

So please, stop talking crap about the BYU Democrats. We’re not the largest club on campus, and we haven’t single-handedly influenced any elections. But every time you jokingly (or not jokingly) spread these incorrect assumptions about the BYU Democrats, you disparage liberal Mormons and the possibility for the Church to be politically neutral. You send the message that liberal Mormons are still a joke, it is some feat of enormous courage and threat for excommunication to admit that you are a Democrat, and it is okay to diminish the successes of a minority simply for being a minority.

We deserve better, you deserve better, and the greater community of Mormons and people outside the church watching this dialogue unfold deserve better. So stop talking crap about the BYU Democrats. Instead, think about speaking about us favorably once in a while. Consider supporting our club, monetarily or by offering your professional services as a speaker at one of our club meetings if you’re ever in Utah. Let us know if there are any job openings or conferences in your respective fields that members of our club might be interested in. Instead of talking down about us, reach out a hand and help us be better- among us are members of the next generation of LDS Dems.

Feel free to contact Hannah at [email protected]

I want to take a bit of a meta-approach in this brief response to President DeVisser’s recent politically-tinged remarks at a Sandy, Utah stake conference. To be clear, I do agree with what others have said here about many of his comments being inappropriate for discussion from the pulpit, and am also glad that we have a specific text to make this discussion more concrete and focused than was perhaps possible before this talk went viral. But personally, in my conflict-avoidance way (which has its costs and benefits, to be sure), I want to talk about the methods we Mormon liberals employ to disagree with this talk and other discourse like it.

 

Read more