Post by Joseph M-

Dan Spindle from some Fox News affiliate in Phoenix, Arizona has an article/news piece, entitled, "Can a true Mormon vote for Obama?"  (The video is attached to the article, but don't bother to click on it; it doesn't seem to be working at the present.)

But seriously?  My first issue is that this whole topic has already run its course in the news cycle.  To borrow President Obama's joke from this past debate (which he borrowed from some frat guy): Hello, Dan? March 2012 called and wants their junior-college essay on "Wow there are Mormon Liberals!" back.  Apparently this writer missed the flurry of news stories about Mormon Democrats that appeared online throughout the Democratic National Convention.

But honestly, that isn't my real issue this piece - because I wasn't bothered in the least when the KSL covered Mormon Democrats in a news story a few weeks back - and in fact, it featured Hannah and Ben from BYU Democrats and we wrote about it here on Mormons for Obama.  My true issue is Dan Spindle's use of the word "true" in posing his titular question.  He follows it up with, "Can a faithful Mormon be a Democrat? We wanted to find out."  He proceeds with his investigation by interviewing several Mormon Democrats, and he cites the examples of Harry Reid and a general authority who used to be a Democratic state congressman.  Ultimately he ends by quoting the Church's position on neutrality, and he also includes a quotation from Jill Henrichsen, a Mormon Dem.  She says, ""For a church that tries to teach the gospel to others, of course all these people are going to come from different backgrounds and have different beliefs and there absolutely has to be room for that, and more tolerance."

So I guess that means the answer is yes, a true Mormon can vote for Obama?

Well, the answer is clearly yes for the many of us who have (or will) cast our vote for President Obama on November 6th and then turn right around and sit in sacrament meeting on Sunday, November 11th with our conservative Mormon brothers and sisters (regardless of who wins).  Of course we'll all breathe a sigh of relief that it's not fast and testimony meeting, because that might force a few of us out into the foyer.

But the real question is what does Dan Spindle mean by "true Mormon?"  Because I think true might also mean that if you say one thing during the Republican primaries, you would say the same thing now.  Or true could also mean that if you promoted a health care plan that extended coverage for most of the citizens of your state (and did so with an eye to running for president with that plan tucked under your arm,) that you would continue to support that plan regardless of its political expediency in the present.  Or true would also mean that if you spent hours upon hours (and a good amount of your own money) serving others while Bishop (pastor?) or Stake President, that you would also support public policy that benefitted those same people you'd privately helped.  And true should also mean that if you are going to constantly talk about the 23 million people in America who are out of work, you would not then malign these same people by inferring that they're irresponsible and lazy while speaking privately in front of your super-wealthy homies at a fundraiser.

Contrary to my better judgement, and Marianne's advice, I have worn a bit sensitive to the questioning of my faith because I support President Obama.  So journalists out there: please don't even ask the question about who is a true Mormon and who is not.  Leave it to us Mormons to argue about that among ourselves; also you can rest assured that we will be certain to include our friend and fellow Mormon, Mitt Romney, in the debate as well.  (And Dr. Gregory Prince has already gotten this started for us.)

Well... unless Dan, you are Mormon yourself... (And you just might be, considering you are from Phoenix, Arizona, which is like baby Provo, and you have a BYU/GAP haircut, and you called the Church by its correct name, and you knew where to find all those Mormon temples.) If you are LDS, then just forget I wrote any of this, and nice tie by the way.

I am doing something a bit different and posting a couple of light-hearted clips from the Jimmy Kimmel Show from a week ago.  As Marianne pointed out, a few of us might need to take a step back and not take ourselves so seriously -- so here is a look at some "man-on-the-street" commentary about the presidential and first lady debates (debates that didn't happen!)

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UrOmhH2PeI?rel=0]

 

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EohGmG-QUhA?rel=0]

 

But I guess there must be someone out there who doesn't want to be lighthearted or take themselves less serious, and they should definitely bemoan the fact that these people's votes are worth just as much as their vote. And for that they must surely say God bless the America.

The final Presidential debate was... disappointing. It was filled with some great one-liners that will have some funny memes ('the 1980s called, they want their foreign policy back' 'We have these things called aircraft carriers and planes land on them. We have ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.').

Read more

Post by Joseph M -

We have about 2 weeks until the election, and the polls are up and down - hot and cold, like a middle school crush.  However, some interesting endorsements hit the internet this past week, and Obama is looking to regain some momentum in the Monday evening debate.

Joanna Brooks, author of Book of Mormon Girl: A Memoir of an American Faith, wrote an editorial piece for CNN's Belief Blog entitled, My Take: Hard truths matter; I’m Mormon, and I’m voting for Obama.  While Joanna Brooks has written about the election before on her website, Ask Mormon Girl, this endorsement lays out clear reasons for voting for President Obama in the light of being a mother, an educator, and a Mormon.  According to her article, she has been listening for the two candidates to speak to the "hard truths."

...as a Mormon, I grew up with a healthy sense of respect for worst-case scenarios. I was raised, after all, with a religious aversion to debt and a year’s supply of canned wheat, beans and powdered milk in the garage, as instructed by LDS Church leaders. The Mormon food storage tradition isn’t about end-times-paranoia: It’s a lesson passed down from our pioneer ancestors, who knew the importance of being prepared for difficult seasons so you can do right by your family and community.

Joanna Brooks reports that she has seen that truth-telling in President Obama: "I have seen Obama work steadily, patiently through a difficult season. I have seen him face some hard truths and accept that there are no easy fixes. And I will vote to give him a second term."

I would add that I found Joanna's book in Target on Friday; I have been planning on ordering it from Amazon for some time.  (So now for a different type of endorsement: I am only a couple dozen pages into it, and I am already mesmerized by her prose and her insight.)

Also, The Salt Lake Tribune shocked everyone (or confirmed everyone's suspicions, depending on who you ask,) with their endorsement of President Obama for a second term.  Admittedly, they posted the editorial with title, "Too Many Mitts," in bold letters, while "Obama has earned another term" was positioned limply in smaller type underneath.  This may imply that the piece is more of a rejection of Mitt Romney than a whole-hearted endorsement of the president, and that might be right.  Much of the endorsement shuffles around in the junk drawer of Romney missteps, false starts, reversed positions, and political "shape-shifting," while a shorter summary of Obama's accomplishments is enumerated towards the end.  The final paragraph is telling:

Therefore, our endorsement must go to the incumbent, a competent leader who, against tough odds, has guided the country through catastrophe and set a course that, while rocky, is pointing toward a brighter day. The president has earned a second term. Romney, in whatever guise, does not deserve a first.

[caption id="attachment_2712" align="alignright" width="300"] This young man is an avid reader of the Tribune[/caption]

Regardless, this endorsement is a bold move for the Tribune, considering that Salt Lake City and its surrounding municipalities are comprised of more that a few Romney-leaning Mormons.  Although I guess we shouldn't be too surprised considering that The Salt Lake Tribune has always been kind of gangster in that it opts to retain its Old English tattoo-looking script for its logo while some newspapers create bland fonts like Escrow. 

On a side note, I am certain that the Tribune's endorsement won't stir up anger the way the Seattle Times has done here locally.  They are actually running a series of pro Rob McKenna ads for free.  McKenna is the Republican gubernatorial candidate - and you can read more about this on (where else?) the Seattle Times website.   People are not happy; I'm not happy.  I am concerned that my newspaper is sliding down the hill towards biased reporting, and I can't shake the feeling that little piece of Fox News is being delivered to my doorstep each morning.  In protest, I will cancel my subscription tomorrow.

I will end this post with one other endorsement: my own.  I received my ballot in the mail a few days ago, and I will send it in tomorrow.  This ballot was one of the easiest to complete - with only the King County Sheriff race not clear in my head.  I voted for President Obama first.  And I am excited for another four years with Obama as president.  Let's make this happen folks!

And well... if you're still undecided, just vote for somebody:

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVkfNUxRh7g]

Guest post by Marianne Monson

Right now I cannot honestly say I am proud to be an American. This is an extreme statement, particularly from someone who always votes, pays taxes, and inevitably chokes up a bit during the national anthem. But after reading the online comments posted in response to a CNN article about the most recent Presidential debates, I was left with an intensely bitter taste in my mouth: I believe it is disgust.

The banter in the comments went back and forth, soon deteriorating into a mud slinging, name calling, swearing mess wherein attacks were launched at the other person’s: political party, intelligence, religion, state of origin, mother, or all of the above. The chanting, all caps, and exclamation marks recalled the songs of high school cheerleaders: “OBAMA OBAMA OooooooooBAMA!!!!!!”

Last night on national television I watched two grown men behaving like testosterone-saturated teens, circling each other as they sparred, contradicted, blamed, and condemned each other as liars. At several points I watched with the same sick sensation you feel during an episode of Jerry Springer, when you know it’s going to get a bit revolting, but you can’t quite drag your eyes away.

This debate followed last week’s vice-presidential debate where the best question of the whole election was tidily sidestepped and ignored. Moderator Martha Raddatz quoted a soldier who said this presidential campaign has focused on tearing the opponent down rather than building up the nation.  She asked: “At the end of the day, are you ever embarrassed by the tone?”

Biden responded marginally to the question, acknowledging that “some” sources in the election may have overstepped their bounds, before hastily reverting back to the topic of the economy, while Ryan blamed Obama for all the blaming that has gone on (ironic a tad?) and then promptly returned to slandering Obama’s economic policies to fill the remainder of his time.

But the ignored question is perhaps the most pertinent of all. Should we as Americans feel embarrassed by the tone of these elections? Is it possible, when so much power and money and prestige is on the line, to even entertain the idea that such a discussion could happen respectfully? Would it be inconceivable that we might have an honest conversation about the best course of action for our country, without turning the whole thing into a sporting event where the other “team” is characterized as ridiculous, malicious, and even evil?

This has been a unique election for me personally. I was raised Mormon in a politically conservative household and my father worked with Mitt Romney for several years. My father has tremendous respect for Romney both as a person and as a businessman and feels his financial expertise would serve our country well at this time. On the other hand, I remain undecided. I voted for Obama four years ago and feel that in many ways he has done a fantastic job. He is an inspiring, articulate leader who moves me deeply and represents us well on the international stage. For the first time since I have been able to vote, I feel both options have genuine advantages. I also have close friends and colleagues on both sides of the political spectrum, and I guess this is precisely why the bitter, accusatory tone of these elections has been so hard to swallow.

Years ago I spent six months living in east Jerusalem. As an American student, I was able to travel freely between Israel and occupied Palestine. I came to know and admire both cultures, forming meaningful friendships on both sides. And the thing that distressed me most, was that every time I travelled between the two areas I was warned by both: “Be careful over there. Those people are_____.” You can fill in the blank. “They are dangerous. They are evil. They are dirty. They are dishonest. They will steal from you. Hurt you. Take advantage of you. They are not good or kind or friendly. Like we are.”

What is it about human nature that must find someone else to categorize as “other?” –as separate and distinct from oneself and therefore less? I am sick of Republicans calling Democrats crazy liberals who care more about polar bears than babies. And I’m equally sick of Democrats calling Republicans deluded religious fanatics who want to abandon the poor.

The honest truth is that there are genuinely good people on every side of every line you can draw on this earth. And perhaps the most dangerous, divisive weapon humanity holds is an inclination to define a group of people as “other,” and thereby justify treating them as less. That spirit of divisiveness is almost always the true culprit behind war and poverty and genocide, wielded by dictators and bullies alike. It negatively impacts this nation by forcing us to choose between “camps” rather than among complex positions. If we have to define ourselves as either Democrats or Republicans, we collectively lose the opportunity to choose between the best of both political spheres, subjugating the moderate majority to more extreme elements.

Even more disturbingly, divisiveness renders problem solving impossible because issues become so polarizing that friends and family, who care deeply about each other, no longer feel they can actually talk about the most pressing issues with those whose opinions matter the most.

There are crucial difficulties facing this nation today. Resolving them is going to require immense effort from both sides of every line that divides us. If we can’t put party politics aside and come together as Americans at the coffee shops and kitchen tables and campuses of this country, then how can we possibly expect our politicians to do what we cannot?

If we really want a bi-partisan America, then let it begin in the streets and on the blogs, and let it begin with a desire to see “others” as part of the whole, part of humanity, and part of this country—deeply connected to ourselves and our future, and yes, perhaps worthy of a little respect.

Marianne Monson is a freelance writer and children's author and currently lives in Portland Oregon.   

When President Barack Obama took the oath of office on January 20, 2009, the U.S. economy was in free fall. During the preceding year and half, some of the nation’s largest and most important financial institutions went bankrupt, including Bear Stearns, Countrywide, and Lehman Brothers, as risky loans and other investments failed. Many other large banks were on the verge of collapse. The downfall of the financial sector had been preceded by a spectacular end to a massive speculative housing bubble that almost instantly wiped out trillions of dollars of Americans’ net worth. When Lehman Brothers and AIG went into bankruptcy during the same weekend in September 2008, panic ensued all across the economy. It felt like 1929 all over again. The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which was signed into law by President George W. Bush and was implemented by President Obama, stopped the bleeding in the financial sector, but the damage to the broader economy had already been done as other sectors of the economy continued to rapidly deteriorate. The stock markets plummeted, losing more than half of their peak market capitalization just six weeks after Obama took office. Many retirees and workers nearing retirement saw their investment portfolio lose much of its value. Millions of people lost their jobs due to no fault of their own after the U.S. entered a recession in December 2007. Over 1.2 million Americans were laid off between the election and Obama’s inauguration. All told, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 8.7 million jobs were lost due to the Great Recession. No president since Franklin D. Roosevelt has begun their tenure in the White House under such dire circumstances. An evaluation of each segment of the economy around the time Obama took office compared to now shows that we are definitely better off four years later.

Read more

Author: Crystal

In 2010 I was mad. Hopping mad, actually. The US Congress had just passed the landmark piece of legislation, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). I was ecstatic. Sure, it's not a perfect bill (what bill is) but it made some vital changes to healthcare in this country. Young adults are covered until they're 26. Insurance companies can't deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. Insurance companies have to issue refunds if 80% of our premiums aren't used for what they're supposed to be used for, health care instead of profits. Our vice-president infamously called it a "Big F'in Deal", and he was right, it is.

But there was some rain on this parade for Utah's progressive voters. Our sole representative in Washington, Congressman Jim Matheson, voted against the BFD. We were livid. We screamed. We cried all over Facebook and Twitter. Hundreds of democrats became delegates for the sole purpose of beating Jim at convention. We saw those "Matheson = Pelosi" signs and said, "we wish!"

I still disagree with Jim's vote, but I've sat with him on several occasions and I understand his reasons now. I respect the careful thought he put into it. I respect his considerations for his constituents, his frank look at the bill's imperfections, and what it might cost Utah to implement. It was a grudging respect, to be sure, but through that conversation I've learned that this is just one example of the millions of ways in which he puts Utah first. That may be his campaign slogan, but the truth is that that is his reality. When citizen groups meet with Utah's delegation, most of the time they're pushed to aids, yelled at, ignored, or the Congressperson falls asleep during the meeting. Not Jim Matheson. Even if he disagrees with you, he sits down with you for extended periods of time to have a conversation with you and to hear your side. He'll talk about all the boots he's worn out walking across Utah. I'm pretty sure he's got to hold some sort of record for visiting the most schools, the most community festivals, and talking to the most Utahns. I still didn't think I could support a moderate like Jim, but I respected where he comes from.

And then, with the Tea Party revolution of 2010, Congress shut down. Everything was blocked, bills went nowhere, and it's been endless gridlock and continuing resolutions in the two years since. It has changed my entire political viewpoint. When we are so caught up in our perfect partisan ideals, we lose our ability to converse and we become uncivil and immature. We don't go forward, we go back.

The last two years has shown me that America and Utah need civil servants who work across the aisle and who put bipartisanship, civility, and the needs of America before their own partisan visions of utopia. No two Democrats are the same, no two Republicans are the same. When a candidate doesn't line up perfectly with our world vision, let's look past our handful of personally pivotal issues and look to the big picture. Demand civil servants who put bipartisanship and solutions before party platform.

Now, I am the chair of the LDS Dems Caucus. When I say I like the ACA, I am speaking for myself and not my caucus. We aspire to be a big tent, and we are proud that we continue to be a home for LDS Democrats and independents who are conservative, moderate, liberal, and progressive. We even have Republican members. There are LDS Democrats who love the ACA and LDS Democrats who hate it. We certainly all agree that the healthcare system can improve and that America can do a better job giving hand ups to the people who have a hard time getting insurance to avoid hand outs in the emergency room. As a big tent, we are a living example of the power that is achieved when bipartisanship and tolerance of ideas are put before limited, specific visions.

America needs more kindness and civility. Voters need to choose candidates based on positions and records instead of internet rumors and insults. We need more civil servants with records of bipartisanship and civility. Their multi-party endorsements (or lack thereof) will show their character. We need more people like Jim Matheson, Ben McAdams, and Jon Huntsman. We need less talking head politicians who say extreme, shocking things just to be heard by the media or to please their base.

To my fellow progressive Democrats, I urge you to speak up for bipartisanship as a value worth fighting for, not calling it "caving to the electorate." To Republicans, especially my fellow Latter-Day Saints, I say: cast your vote for the presidential candidate of your choice, but don't just blindly push that straight party R button. Research the candidates, look for the people who will be advocates for bipartisanship and working together instead of apart. By their fruits you'll know them, by their records you'll know them, and by their bipartisan endorsements, you'll know them.

 

I was impressed with the eloquence of Teresa A. Stillo Swenson's spirited takedown of Mia Love's attitude toward the poor in this letter to the Trib. One line of her letter especially caught my eye:

"Love’s proposals are not only radical but also unrealistic, uncompassionate and naïve. Perhaps (Mia) should recall the biblical verse John 12:8, which says that "you will always have the poor among you." The point of government programs is not to eliminate poverty but to show compassion for the poor. Poverty is perpetuated when we fail to take responsibility for helping the poor. Eliminating poverty is not the point."

Some might call this radical. Eliminating poverty is not the point? So, just for my own enlightenment, I did a little research to answer the question: How much of government help goes to folks who ought to get off their backsides and get to work? The source is here on the Federal Government's website. Here's what I discovered.

Let's start with Medicaid. Currently, 86% of Medicaid spending goes to the disabled, children, and the indigent elderly (for things like hospice and long-term care facilities).

Continuing on, here are some other places your tax dollars are being spent:

• Food stamps will cost the government $113 billion this year. Sounds like a lot - but it's 3.0% of the total budget.


• Unemployment is being attacked as a big budget buster, and it's gone up since the Great Recession. It's expected to drop by half by 2016 as Americans go back to work - but even today, it's only 2.9% of the total budget.


• The Earned Income Tax Credit, a Republican idea to help the working poor make ends meet, costs $52 billion a year, or 1.4% of the budget. Note these are folks who are, by definition, working.


• Housing assistance for needy families, by definition providing a place to live for children, costs $59 billion a year, or 1.6% of total spending.


• Hospital and medical care for veterans: $52.3 billion a year, or 1.4% of spending.

I could go on, but there are two points to be made: The assistance provided by the government goes to a lot of different things. Lump them all together, and it sounds like a lot of money, but when you break things down - it's hard to find areas where massive cuts will not result in massive suffering. Mia Love says the poor need to go to work and quit being dependent on the government. Which poor? The disabled vet who sacrificed a lifetime of health for their country? Are we to go back to sending our children into the coal mines to earn their bread? Should we kick the old folks in nursing homes out in the street and make them go work as greeters at Wal-Mart? Maybe Mia thinks we should force the unemployed to lose their homes and live with their families at the homeless shelter until they get a job?

Teresa's words were emotional on the subject of the poor, but the cold, hard data support her emotion. She is right. We obviously need to encourage self-sufficiency, and with Bill Clinton's welfare reforms, we do. But the poor who cannot fend for themselves will always be with us, and we will be judged by God as a society on how we care for the poor, just as the Nephites were.

[caption id="attachment_2643" align="alignright" width="350"] R-Money: Photoshopping Romney's Message[/caption]

Post by Joseph M -

President Obama finally did it: he ended Tuesday evening's debate by calling out Governor Romney (to his face!) over the 47% comment.  Romney set himself up for it; he answered the last question by declaring that he cares about 100% of America.  This proved a temptation too great to for even Obama to resist, and Obama responded by referencing the behind-closed-doors 47% comment.

But on one point, Romney is correct: the Obama campaign has painted a picture of Romney as out of touch with the poor and the middle-class.  But Romney has also done a lot of this to himself; when he attempts to be candid, he invariable says too much, and this ultimately signals open season on the fields of (class?) warfare.  Romney's wealth, elitism, and disconnect from ordinary Americans have become his most salient features, and therefore this image of privilege has supplanted the real man.

And it seems that conservatives are getting rather testy about all this negative talk of Governor Romney's wealth - and also of rich people in general.  This also is the case with some members of the church as well, and I'm not sure when the shift began; it used to be that we were concerned about not speaking ill of the poor, but now the super-wealthy seem to be deserving of our charity and sympathetic glances.

Two examples: some months back, our Elder's Quorum lesson devolved into the semi-annual discussion of how should we respond to "pan-handlers" on the street; one comment from the group asserted that we should be cautious because homeless people are often hyped-up on meth and might kill you.  And then the next Sunday, another good brother commented on how there's such hostility towards wealthy individuals these days, and that he was surprised by the poor opinions that many people have of the rich.  (Yes, he used "poor" and "rich" in the same sentence as if to say, "those poor rich people.")

In an extreme case of political-correctness-hijacking, the wealthy are no longer referred to as "the rich," but now they are part of the protected class of  "job creators," "entrepreneurs," and "innovators."  I'm guessing that congress might even enact laws shielding them from hate crimes.  This is necessary because all of them own small businesses and hire lots of people to do lots of things; money trickles down from these wealthy folks like water flowing towards a floor drain after a long shower at the gym.

In a recent column, David Brooks extolled the virtues of a wonderfully ambitious job creator, Elon Musk, one of the minds behind PayPal.  He writes, "Government can influence growth, but it's people like Musk who create it...A few ridiculously ambitious people can change an economy more than any president."  Romney reiterated this when he reverted to his high school cheerleading days and attempted to lead a chant towards the end of Tuesday's debate, "Government does not create jobs! Government does not create jobs!"

So if David Brooks is correct, we shouldn't be looking to tear down Romney and his financial success - even if he did eliminate jobs in order to make companies profitable and more efficient.  The goal of a business is to make money; when a company makes money, its workers will benefit - the company can hire more workers. (Wait, is that what Romney meant when he said 'corporations are people?')

So this just begs the question: why all of this class warfare anyway?  and when did this feeling of animosity towards the wealthy begin? and who decided that it was okay to criticize someone just because of their riches?

Well, let's start here:

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.  And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.  (Matt. 19:23-24)"

Or Matthew 6:24: "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon."

And here:

"Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten. Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days (James 5:1-3)."

The Book of Mormon is also rife with admonitions as well; I'll just give the first one I found:

"Wo unto the rich, who are rich as to the things of the world.  For because they are rich they despise the poor, and they persecute the meek, and their hearts are set upon their treasures; wherefore , their treasure is their god. And behold, their treasure shall perish with them also (2 Nephi 9:30)."

So I guess when people ask where all this rich-bashing came from, I'll just say, "well, it's Biblical."

Of course, being "rich" is relative; with the advent of the middle class, most people would not think of themselves as "rich," but might feel like they're somewhere in the middle.  However, I wonder what wealth looked like during the time of Christ, a time when money changers were cast from the temple?  And for the young man who received Jesus' condemnation, what made him rich?  We are told that he had "great possessions," (but so do many of us, and we are clearly in the middle class.)

These questions are particularly hard for many of the super rich, who tend to view their "great possessions" with a sense of pride.  Chrystia Freeland, the author of Plutocrat: the Rise of the New Global Super Rich and the Downfall of Everyone Else, said on NPR on Monday that "in America we have equated personal business success with public virtue. And to a certain extent, your moral and civic virtue could be measured by the size of your bank account."

Freeland goes on to say that the "super rich" are angry because President Obama is pushing the idea that "what is good for the guys at the very top is not necessarily good for the people in the middle."  They see this as an "existential threat,"  because people don't just want to be wealthy and successful, they want to be good.  Therefore, any suggestion from progressive thinkers, Obama, or Jesus to the contrary is met with disappointment: "Wow, I'm not as full of virtue and goodness as I thought I was?"

Freeland notes that the numbers of  plutocrats has increased, and the gap between them and everyone else is huge; ultimately, they can be expected to "rig the rules in their own favor," while convincing themselves that what is good for them is in the interest of everybody else, (i.e., cut entitlements and shrink the national debt, while reducing taxes for the wealthy.)

However, I am not interested in pointing fingers at Romney - or to imply that any church members with several fancy cars and a horse are not going to heaven until they learn to thread a needle.  I guess I am more interested in understanding America's relationship with money.  Capitalism has become our national pastime - and I am not sure what this says about us.  But alas, that is also another post.

I think our prophet Brigham Young's fears for the Church and the Saints is of particular note:

"The worst fear I have about this people is that they will get rich in this country, forget God and His people, wax fat, and kick themselves out of the Church and go to hell. This people will stand mobbing, robbing, poverty, and all manner of persecution and be true. But my greatest fear is that they cannot stand wealth; and yet they have to be tried with riches, for they will become the richest people on this earth."

What did President Young see of our future when he said this?  The implications for America (or even for me and my own life) will make my head hurt if I think on it too long.  Clearly this is a truth that is hard for all of us (including the rich) to take in.  The pursuit of wealth is truly a moral conundrum; for what is so powerfully connected with self-worth in the American context is defined as a burden that drags one to hell in the scriptural sphere.

So I will end this for now.  I have the new episode of The Walking Dead saved on my DVR, and I am really excited to watch it on my 48-inch flat-screen LED TV with my Bose speakers!  (And my TV is a Samsung, because everyone knows that is the brand second to none when it comes to flat-screens!)

The verse quoted at the top of in various places around this website is Alma 1:30. It is important to note, however, what we mean when we use the word "liberal." First, here's the complete text of the verse:

And thus, in their prosperous circumstances, they did not send away any who were naked, or that were hungry, or that were athirst, or that were sick, or that had not been nourished; and they did not set their hearts upon riches; therefore they were liberal to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, whether out of the church or in the church, having no respect to persons as to those who stood in need.

This verse is describing the practical implementation of what is taught in many other places in the Bible and Book of Mormon: the need to take care of our brothers and sisters.

Read more