Thank you for taking the time to read our blog and being polite.

Thanks for the discussion. Just trying to understand, and you were helpful.

I look more to the statements and actions made by those who currently lead the church. I stand by my statement that taxes are not a kin to slavery.

Our electoral system is set up in a way that promotes extremism and discourages moderation, especially in Utah. I have chosen to follow counsel from current church leadership and to be politically active and have chosen the party that I think has the best ideas.

Honestly at this point I’m not sure what we’re arguing about. We agree that there should be some sort of safety net. You say for “the most dire of circumstances.” So if someone is going to die due to lack of medical care, food, or shelter. We both agree that government funds should be used to take care of them. To me that’s the same as saying someone has a right to health care, food, and shelter. We might disagree about at which point the government should get involved, but it seems we’ve just been arguing semantics.

Thanks for the response. Like I said, I am not all against the government using tax funds to help, but I think it should be reserved for the most dire of circumstances.

My comparison about slaves comes from a few quotes like this one:

Marrion G Romney – Oct 1976 "Elections often turn on what the candidates promise to do for voters from government funds. This practice, if universally accepted and implemented in any society, will make slaves of its citizens.

We cannot afford to become wards of the government, even though we have a legal right to do so. It requires too great a sacrifice in self-respect and in political, temporal, and spiritual independence."

Unfortunately we live in a political environment when both major parties are going to extremes. On one side, we have the idea that all taxation is theft and everyone should completely take care of themselves. On the other side we have the idea that everything you need should be provided by the government and others. Anything that is a good idea to have should be provided for all by all.

God’s original plan was that we had choices, and we used those choices to decide and act, for good or evil. People would be allowed to fail and be lost. Satan’s plan was that not one soul should be lost. Whether that was because we would be forced to act, not allowed to make bad choices, the consequences of our actions would be done away with, or agency would be taken away from us completely, I don’t know.

I don’t think either side of the political aisle is doing very well right now. But I think it is more important to give people their choice, their ability to succeed for fail as they choose, to help or not help others, even if some people are lost in the system. Some will choose not to help, and others will choose to help. And this choice is what provides spiritual growth. The closer we get to politically ensuring that no one is lost in the system, and doing so by force and coersion, the closer we get to Satan’s plan. There may be temporal security in what the Democrats do, but there is no spiritual growth or progress according to God’s plan.

One time when I was campaigning I was talking to a voter, and upon realizing that I’m a Mormon Democrat he asked me why I was a Mormon. My reply was that for a while I was inactive. While I was inactive I was miserable. Upon coming back to the church I was happier. I felt better. When we teach people about the church we ask them to pray and see how they feel. As members we are taught to do so in our personal lives. That every major decision should be made with prayer. So how to I decide what is “right”? I think about it. I read what I can related to the issue. And I pray. Then I make the decision based on what I feel is right.

So if we talk about the issue of education. I believe government should provide every resident a comprehensive education that will all that individual to be a productive member of our society. Now this would be something the government would actively provide to an individual by taking money from others. This makes sense to me as an educated work force is beneficial to the over all economy. So we each benefit. This also feel rights to me. The though of everyone having an education makes me feel good. Whether we call education a “right” or simple a good idea is semantics to me. What specific policies should we adopt is a far more interesting discussion to me than what English word we choose to call that policy.

We can take the more extreme example from before. We have many people in our country who can not take care of themselves. Historically they have lived in asylums, prisons, and on our streets. What is the best government policy for these people? Given the proper support many of them can contribute economically, so it makes sense to provide that support as we’ll all benefit. Many of them will never be able to contribute economically, but there is evidence that supporting them through government programs reduces crime and other issues that adversely affect society. It feels good to know that these people are being taken care of. The church issued a statement supporting these efforts, and sold land to the city to support a shelter. When I pray about about it I feel good about supporting these policies. So I support policies that help those that are not able to take care of themselves.

Slaves were held in captivity. They were forced to work at specific jobs. They were forbidden freedom of speech, assembly, and religion. They were often sold away from families. Their marriages were not recognized. They could be killed by their owners.

My taxes are used to fund Medicaid. My labor(or at least the money that my labor generated) is being used to provide health care for someone else. That doesn’t come close to making either me or the doctor who provides the treatments a slave. The comparison is terrible. You have a right to vote for politicians who oppose Medicaid. You have a right to organize protests against Medicaid. You have a right to post in blog comments about why you think Medicaid is bad. If you end up disabled and unable to work you would be able to benefit from Medicaid. The distinguishing difference between having a portion of your pay taken from you to provide for someone else and being a slave is that slaves had no rights. They didn’t choose their jobs, they didn’t choose where they lived, they didn’t get to vote, they were often denied church attendance and education. They were often killed with out consequence. Contributing to Medicaid is nothing like being a slave.

Sorry, just saw your last comment. So how is government assistance the right thing to do if there is no love, charity or compassion in doing it? Maybe is is the right thing to have done to you as the receiver, but it is not the right thing TO DO.

If you don’t hold me accountable for the whole Republican party, I won’t hold you accountable for the whole Democrat party ;)

I have another question that bothers me if you don’t mind. You state in that same last post to JB, “I believe these people have rights to health care, enabling technology, education, food, and shelter.”

I think this is where Democrats are going wrong, in their definition of a right. Before I assume too much, what is your definition of a right? Where does a right come from, and what obligation accompanies that right?

You say you do not see “a significant difference between a law compelling me to pay for health coverage for the sick versus a law that compels me to to not cause harm to others.” I assume you would say that because you see health care as a right, and not being harmed by my as a right.

For most Republicans, a right is something that the government does not grant and cannot deny (ignoring extreme circumstances). I have a right to speak freely, but I do not have a right to make you listen, or for you to buy me a microphone. I have the right to live my life as I want, but not have you support my lifestyle. I have a right to travel freely, but not to have you buy me a car or plane ticket. And I have a right to seek health care, but not make a doctor treat me.

In your example, you do have a right to keep me from attacking you, to defend yourself. Government can assist you in protecting that right. But if you have a right to health care, does that mean you have a right to make a doctor treat you? Do you have a right to make people work for your benefit? What is the distinguishing concept between you having a right that makes others work for you or provide you their labor, and the right that a slave owner claims to have a slave work for them and provide the slave owner their labor? On a spectrum between one extreme and another, how far along that spectrum does it go before it no longer becomes your right to ask for my labor and support?

If you were to ask me about a person with no chance of self reliance, I would still support government assistance for that person. Because I believe it’s the right thing to do that person, even if I don’t get any blessings for it.

If you were to ask me about a person with no chance of self reliance, I would still support government assistance for that person. Because I believe it’s the right thing to do that person, even if I don’t get any blessings for it.

I agree that being compelled to give does not grow you as a person. I know others who contribute to this blog may make some different arguments, but mine are generally more economically focused. Taxes well spent increase taxes later down the road. A good education system, a good health care system, and a healthy environment go a long ways towards improving over all self reliance in a community. That’s why when I ran for office my slogan was “Self-reliance through education. health, and opportunity”.

We do get a lot of die hard libertarian commentators on here so I tend to make that assumption. I should know better, and should have sought to clarify your beliefs before making assumptions. As my post states, I come from a family of moderate republicans, and still share most of the same beliefs about public policy with my parents. However I feel like the modern republican party is not some place for someone like me.

Yes, sorry, you are right. They sold the land, I said they donated it. Thanks for the correction.

You are focused a bit more on one side of the equation that I was not really worried about. I’m not a die hard libertarian that says all taxation is theft. I understand the need for taxes, and I am not completely opposed to taxes being used, especially if it is being used to help people that are in the most dire of circumstances.

If government assistance is necessary, and it is in some situations, then OK. It’s not the optimal situation, but it happens. As I said, there are people that need to be clothed, fed and sheltered, and the receiver does get a benefit from having those things provided. It just needs to be done carefully with an end goal in mind of returning to self-reliance.

But I wanted to know your thoughts about my main point. That when someone is compelled to give, there is no benefit to them. There is no change of heart, no sacrifice, no blessings, and no increase in charity and love. And that should be of utmost consideration when applying the gospel to political matters.

The press release states that they sold the land. They took tax payer money in exchange for a property that is going to be used for a homeless shelter that is supported by taxes. People were compelled to pay those taxes that church received in payment for the land.

Bishops are counselled to be familiar with what government resources are available. People should be encouraged to work when they can, but using government assistance is not contrary to modern teachings.

“Question: Is it appropriate if an individual is receiving governmental welfare assistance to use Church welfare assistance as well?

Members may choose to use resources in the community, including government resources, to meet their basic needs. The bishop should become familiar with these resources."

https://www.lds.org/manual/basic-principles-of-welfare-and-self-reliance/the-welfare-responsibilities-of-the-bishop?lang=eng

I’m not against government, community, and civic leaders tackling this issue as the release states. If those leaders want to encourage these things, lead by personal example, and facilitate the ability of others to help, that is fantastic. For example, giving tax breaks to those that donate money or time would be fantastic. Donating government owned land would be fine. But what was being compelled here?

The Church specifically states they applaud the measures taken help the homeless become self-reliant and avoid criminal elements preying on them. As I mentioned, I have no problem with the government taking steps to prevent crimes from being perpetrated.

Then the Church goes on to state how they have voluntarily supported these actions and encourage members to choose to help. They donated land to use for the shelters, talked about the support they are giving, and it almost seems like they are talking about how the Church is doing this in order to take as much of the burden off the tax payers to do this as possible.

I see no praise of government forcing these things or an encouragement for government to use tax money to do this. Yes, you can assume tax money is being used, and you would probably be right. But this is not the focus of what the Church is saying here. They neither objected to tax money being spent, or encouraged it. Either of us could read between the lines and make assumptions, but that does not help either of our points.

And like you said, being taxed to pay for a homeless shelter does not make you a better person, or a worse person for that matter. There is no test of character there. There is no sacrifice or turning to the Lord. There is nothing. That is my point. Yes, these things may help the receiver, tho we may disagree on how much. There are an abundance of quotes from Church leaders talking about how government actions like this create dependence and a sense of entitlement.

If the end goal were to have people fed, clothed and sheltered, then yes, lets go all out on government taking care of those needs. But that is not the main goal. God can clothe, shelter and feed people. He cannot change the heart of someone that is being compelled to give. We need to focus on helping God do what he cannot do, not what he can.

Thanks for your response. I read through your other responses to JB, and I can tell you want to have an honest and sincere conversation. I hope I can do the same.

I’m not claiming that me being taxed to pay for a homeless shelter makes me a better person. There is however great benefit to the receiver for such act. The church has recently commended government leaders for efforts to build new better homeless shelters. In the press release they point out that they have frequently worked with governments on such efforts. I see no mention of objections to tax money being used for these purposes.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/responding-needs-homeless-communities

Sorry, I am a bit late to this discussion, and not sure if anyone is still paying attention, but I am very interested in discussing this a bit further.

Kyle, you say the following in your last post, “If I speed I might get a ticket. This does not remove my agency. I am free to act and make decisions. I don’t see a significant difference between a law compelling me to pay for health coverage for the sick versus a law that compels me to to not cause harm to others. Both are government interference in my life for the benefit of others and myself.”

I think this touches on a significant difference between democrats and republicans, or progressives and conservatives. I do see a significant difference between the two.

There are basically 2 types of active actions we can take (ignoring passive actions for now). The first is an action that actively harms others. Do not kill, steal, speed, cheat, lie, etc. These actions are actively harmful to others. A vast majority of people on all sides of the political spectrum agree with these types of laws.

The other type of active action is something that helps others. Giving to charity, treating others nicely, spending time with others, etc. A vast majority of people on all sides of the political spectrum also agree that these are good things to do.

If the whole focus of the Gospel of Jesus Christ was to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and shelter the homeless, then why does God not do that? Why does God not come down from Heaven and do all that good? It is certainly within his power, and if that were the end goal, it would be done and everyone would be saved. In other words, why is God letting those people suffer when he could immediately relieve their suffering?

As members of the LDS Church and access to prophets and a fullness of the gospel, we know the answer to that question. Because the goal is not to alleviate suffering alone, but to change hearts and minds. To make the giver and the receiver into a godlike person.

There is no benefit to the giver when they are compelled to give. No heart has ever been changed by someone being compelled to be good. God’s plan for charity, giving, and benevolence is to accomplish something he cannot do himself. Have his children learn love and charity of their own free will. He cannot compel that. And no one learns that by being compelled.

If being compelled to help were enough to change hearts, Trump would be the most charitable president we have had in years. His 2005 tax return alone, where he paid $38 million is possibly more than any president in history. Exxon Mobile would be the most charitable and benevolent corporation in history, as they pay more taxes than any other corporation.

If you force me to pay for the health care of a 3rd person, there is no charity or love that is learned by either of us. In which case, God could just as well have healed that 3rd person and spared them suffering. It is not the end goal of having people fed, clothed, and sheltered that is of utmost importance. It is the lessons I learn and the test of this life that is observed by God and Jesus as to whether I will make the choice to help, or turn a blind eye to that suffering.

Federalist 42 explains why regulation of interstate commerce can not be left to the states. States levying tariffs against each other was THE SINGLE BIGGEST REASON for the constitutional convention, but I don’t see anywhere in the text where Hamilton claims it should be the only involvement of the federal government in commerce. If you look at his policies positions as treasurer you can see he didn’t believe that at all. Look up “A Bill for Manufactures in the Americas” read that then tell me that Hamilton believed the federal government should play a large role in the economy. Some founding fathers believed in an extremely limited federal government, others did not(they called themselves federalists for a reason). We could argue about who said what and what it meant all day. Smart people disagree about these things. There’s a reason the supreme court reverses itself from time to time.

A point I’m frequently trying to make to other Democrats is that their is a misunderstanding on both sides about what the other side is about. What their reasons and motivations are. There are racists and selfish people in both parties, who are motivated to vote based on those traits, but I think most people vote based off of misinformation about the OTHER party. Unfortunately many leaders and allies of both parties have decided the best way to get ahead is to tell lies about the other party. So I appreciate your willingness to read my posts and give me chance to explain my thinking. This is what we have been counselled to by by the brethern:

https://www.lds.org/religious-freedom

If I speed I might get a ticket. This does not remove my agency. I am free to act and make decisions. I don’t see a significant difference between a law compelling me to pay for health coverage for the sick versus a law that compels me to to not cause harm to others. Both are government interference in my life for the benefit of others and myself. The vast majority of spending on welfare in the US is Social Security and Medicare. Recipients of these systems have been productive and paid into these systems. Most recipients of Medicaid and SNAP are employed. You are making untrue assumptions about the people who benefit from these systems.

You spend a lot of time talking about the rights of those who are able to find work, and have health care. You don’t talk about the rights of those who are sick, disabled, uneducated, impoverished children, or victims of domestic. I believe these people have rights to health care, enabling technology, education, food, and shelter. I believe we all benefit economically by providing these people access to these things. My support for Democratic policies are both economic and moral.

I was taught that Democrats get elected by promising voters that if they vote for them that the voters will be given money with out having to work. That this money will be provided by them by taxpayers. I have met every elected Democrat in this state, I have ran for office myself, not once have I ever heard any Democrat make such a promise. We are focused on funding education for EVERY child, not just those who’s parents are involved in their education. We are focused on providing health care to those who are too sick to work(including mental health issues), not just those currently holding full time jobs. We are focused on providing support to those who are victims of violence.

The last part of your post is true. It is easier to have more of a say in things that take place at a local level. How ever on my ballot I could pick between Republican Congressman Chaffetz who uses his position as my federal representative to dictate to the residents of Washington DC what they can and can’t do, or Steven Tryon who would not do such things. As I said previously Republicans elected officials, do not vote in a manner indicating they support local control. State official often claim to support local control while demanding more control from federal officials while at the same time stripping cities(especially Salt Lake) of power to make decisions for themselves. In the end there are trade offs between local and federal control and I think we need to find the right balance for each issue.

For the record my state rep is the leader in cutting funding to education and blocking health care access for the working poor. For this reason I have ran against him twice. I have lost twice. I believe the reason I lost is because people believe lies about me as a Democrat. That is why I contribute to this blog, inorder to set the record straight. I believe individuals should be as self reliant as possible, but that we all benefit economically by helping them when they can’t.

J.B., Jesus busted out a whip one time, so sometimes a little passion is a good thing. You started by saying I was coveting your property, which is quite an accusation, and explains why I described your view as self-righteous. Maybe I am human too, and I react sometimes instead of just stating my views. I humbly acknowledge I can do better there and am will.

I will add that Article 1, Section 8 says Congress can tax and spend for the general welfare. You’ll notice though that most welfare programs are actually legislated and governed by the states, and just subsidized by the federal money. The Supreme Court agrees this is all acceptible.

The Mormon principles you mention are separate from the legal issue, but are equally important. In a recent statement about providing healthcare to needy families, they state both the importance of self reliance, and the need of helping families who don’t have access to adequate health care. That asked for thoughtful approach:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-encourages-principled-approach-health-care-coverage-needy-utahns

I will admit, that when I started replying to this site as a conservative, that I took some defensive stances. Those were a result of my face to face confrontations with progressives that I did not solicit. But Kyle Waters was able to calm me down a bit and get me to open up about some of my doubts. The last couple of responses I got, made me feel good. I think my last post was pretty heart felt, and I had no intent on pissing anyone off. It was my perspective on the Gospel and some of the doubts I had. Kyle has shown good charity toward me, and I think he and I could be friends. Justin on the other hand, you are just a jerk. Instead of mocking me and what I wrote, how about taking a couple of my points and use some persuasive language and Christ like charity to show me where you think I can be corrected. But no, you have to name call and mock. That shows the depth you are willing to think. I hope you feel great taking the sacrament today. So, I’m done. I will participate no more. Kyle on the other hand, I will seek you out on Facebook. I’d like to take you to lunch sometime.

Anyone else other than Justin. Name for me the one thing that the poor have that triggers my legal obligation through government taxation and regulation, because I’m not seeing it. Discussing Gospel Principles, the words of the Prophets, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Commandments should not elicit such a response from a fellow member of the Church. It is not over simplification(the Gospel is simple), it is not asinine and it is not a warped perspective on reality. If you don’t want me to try seek understanding here and try to get answers to my questions, let me know, and I will go on my merry way.

I triggered Justin. All I have done is look at this from the perspective of the commandments, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Priesthood. You are a Mormon right? Commandments and Gospel Principles should not be in dispute. How is that twisted? Your regulation and taxation still steals a portion of the fruits of my labor to pay for someone else’s “woman’s health”. All I asked from a legal standpoint, If I have not participated in the activity or activities that requires a woman to seek birth control, pre-natal care or an abortion, how to I owe her to have dollars taken from me through taxation and regulation? Where is the origin of my legal debt to her? I love President Monson’s three R’s of choice. But according to you, rights are separate from responsibility and they are separate from the results. She has the right, I have the responsibility. So following the Prophet, following the commandments and Gospel Principles is over simplification. Here we are again, I’m simple minded. Well, the Gospel is simple. Believe me, I’m far from righteous. I fall like everyone else. But I don’t understand the progressive Mormons telling me I need to pay for other peoples stuff, by force no less. You aren’t coming from a position of coveting by saying I need to be taxed and regulated for the benefit of unproductive citizens? That’s not self righteous? All I want is to choose not to support the things I don’t support rather than through the coercive forces of Government that acts outside of its boundaries. You think government is justified to regulate my health insurance. Be specific, Article and Section, where does this authority come from? Your specific on what I should pay for. What is the one thing the underprivileged have that triggers my legal obligation? How do I benefit when you force yourself on me? Limited principles, the Gospel is full of them. Yet you want unlimited government. It’s common defense and general welfare, which is defined by the enumerated powers. The programs you love are not listed as a power. We do belief in the line of authority as Mormons.

J.B. we have a system of representation that gives the state authority to regulate, tax and perform other acts for security, and the general welfare of the people. Politics is the process of deciding who gets what, when and how. It’s that simple.

My politics, as a Mormon, may differ than yours without your self-righteous indignation. I don’t look at your property and decide I want to give it to harlots so they can have sex. That’s an oversimplification on an asinine level. What I do decide is that as a matter of saving society money, making sure women don’t get pregnant and have babies who don’t want to might actually be better for everyone… so requiring insurance companies to provide birth control as a part of health is good. It can also be used to regulate other aspects of women’s health!!’ Wowzers!

So frankly, you are looking at this from a warped perspective on reality.

I like truth. On the legal/government point of view, there is a Bill of Rights, that would be true. The Bill of Rights outlines the rights of the people and the states, the things that the Federal Government is not supposed to violate. That would be true. Article I section VIII outlines the enumerated powers of the Federal Government. That would be a true statement. There is no where in Bill of Rights, the Constitution, the Enumerated Powers nor in Tax law anywhere that legally obligates one citizen to support another. That is a true statement. There is no specific clause in the Commerce clause that states government can force a citizen into commerce. That would be true. Federalist 42 defines the regulation of commerce as not allowing the states to charge each other tariffs and to create harmony and proper intercourse between the states. That would be true. According to Article III, the judicial branch has no power to interpret or change the definition of words. That would be true. Were not going to agree on that, fine, but it’s out there. What is also true, the Ten Commandments and the Arch and Covenant of the Priesthood, being honest, being self sufficient, staying out of debt and the Law of Chastity. Progressiveness takes these principles of light, and calls them darkness. Progressivism and Progressives, including the Mormon ones, habitually look at the property of others. If one follows President Grant’s council on being self sufficient, that person can live up to that, to the point of living a modest lifestyle, yet still have money, the progressive will look at that and scream “social justice”, as if he has done something wrong. Light to dark. We aren’t supposed to bear false witness, yet if you have a man that obeys the law of chastity and lived the right way, gets married and has kids, the progressive will point at that man with their social justice view of the and say that he has a legal obligation to pay for a woman he doesn’t know for her “woman’s health” in the form of birth control, pre-natal care or an abortion. Taking light and calling it darkness. If a couple strives to stay out of debt by following President Hinkley, they have all their possessions payed off, the progressive will look at that with their social justice glasses, and petition government, then government will tax that couple and create a never ending debt between them an some other unknown person that most likely is not producing. Same thing. Doctrine and Covenants 101:79 states that it not right for one man to be in bondage to another. Yet, that is what progressives seek to do. It bothers me that the Mormon progressive likes ambiguous wording, in order to twist the law into somehow making plunder legal. It is one man defining the rights of another, and frankly, I don’t trust. It’s smelly. It stinks. If you want specific power over me, you better be able to specifically site where you get this power, not site a short sentence and say “see there.” Progressives want the law to be this flexible thing to equalize outcomes. Guess what? There will never be equal outcomes on this Earth. Not every member has a temple recommend. If this life is the time to prepare to meet God, then why does the Mormon progressive seek to take so many decisions out of the hands of free individuals and have Government (which are just people) make those decisions for them? I don’t see it. Anyone reading this, needs to rethink, do I covet, do I lie, do I bear false witness, do I care about debt, should people really be self sufficient, if citizen A has never met citizen B, how did citizen B fall into citizen A’s debt and have a legal obligation? You can justify your stance that Elder Faust was a democrat. He wasn’t a social justice warrior. I doubt highly he would support Planned Parenthood. When the law seeks to be charitable, it is not equal to the citizens. That is a true statement. When the government breaks the law to create a law, its only legitimacy is its monopoly on its exclusive use of force by threat of the armed agent of government to threaten the citizen. Then law would be whatever is the whim at the time. That is also a true statement. There is nothing unrighteous in my desire that the federal government be whittled back to Article I Section VIII. Then, according to the 10th amendment, which is a right under the bill of rights, all other responsibilities would fall to the states and to the people. Then rather trying to get through Orin Hatch’s office with no result, Kyle, you and I could drive up to the Capital in Salt Lake and seek out our state representatives. I’d even drive and buy you lunch. But I can’t accept this national social justice view of the law and reconcile it with the Commandments,Gospel, Priesthood and a free society. That is what was intended for our nation.

J.B.,

You have a legal obligation to pay your taxes. These taxes are used for many different purposes, some of which are to benefit the poor. So under current US law you have a legal obligation to the poor. We have also been told in scripture and from modern church leaders to help the poor. So I would say you have both a legal and moral obligation. I have heard arguments that legal obligations prevent voluntary donations and deny people blessings. I don’t believe those argument, and think they conflict with current church doctrine. If that were the case church leaders would have condemned “Healthy Utah” rather than commending government officials for their efforts at providing health care to individuals and families through out Utah.

I’m not saying you can’t oppose Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, TANF, SNAP, Housing Assistance, Utility Assistance, ACA, FHA Loans, Student Loans/Grants, etc. I just don’t believe God is punishing people because those programs exist.

This blog exists largely to counter myths that are told about the Democratic party among the Mormon faithful. One of those myths is that one can’t be a Mormon Democrat. Elder Faust was a Democrat(he even served as state party chair at one point), Elder Renlund is a registered Democrat. I recommend this talk by Elder Oaks where he talks about the importance of looking at the apostles’ example when one has been confused by President Benson’s words.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/10/our-strengths-can-become-our-downfall?lang=eng

Hey J.B., if I were you, I’d feel the same way. People shouldn’t judge you for what kind of car you have, or pass judgement on you for any reason. I respect your views, and think they make a great deal of sense. I understand one way to look at taxation is theft or coercion, especially when it’s used for purposes you don’t agree with. I believe that is why our democratic system is inspired, because it enables us to participate in those decisions.

I sometimes feel like oil companies envy my money when they charge too much, get subsidies from the government. I sometimes feel that my money has been used to kill millions of people all over the world, like in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I do believe it would be wise to ensure that people have jobs, health care, food, shelter, an education, and a dignified retirement. FDR called it a second bill of rights. I view it as an investment in a stable, educated, and prosperous society. I think people are free to have different opinions about what the legitimate functions of government are without being accused of abandoning their faith.

Kyle,

So help me out. Is my obligation to the poor a moral obligation or a legal obligation?

Justin,
I move back to Utah after living outside for 8 years. Liberal progressive Mormon number one says that I should be taxed at a rate that would allow the government to confiscate ALL of my income, because I work for a global company and “my CEO is a selfish, guy and I’m selfish too.” I have an old car that I bought back in college. I couldn’t get $200 dollars by selling it if I tried, but it runs great. I decided to let is sit on the side of my house, behind a gate for a couple of years until my oldest reached driving age. Liberal progressive Mormon number 2 says that car should be confiscated from me, by the Bishop no less, and I should lose my temple recommend because “I am living in excess and denying someone that really needs a car the opportunity to have one.” As if there is a shortage of used cars. A year after the birth of my 5th child, I sold my minivan and bought a low mileage, used Ford Excursion, which I paid cash for. Progressive Liberal Mormon number three tells me the government should confiscate that vehicle from me and destroy it because of the negative impact on the environment. Well, I do the calculation, I used as much fuel in that SUV in a year as Al Gore’s private jet does in an hour. Yet, I’m not the good steward. He told me I should have gone into debt like he did for a $42,000 Toyota all wheel drive van. I would have been as good has him. I haven’t met a Utah Liberal Progressive Mormon that doesn’t wag a finger.
Here is where I come from. You can put any adjective in front of the word abuse in the domestic sense, that is what I lived in my early years. As an adult, I have a firm belief that that NO MAN should act over me unless he can site where he gets this authority. I don’t care if it is work, my neighborhood, or government. Man A placing himself over Man B to define the rights of Man B just because he says so or can twist the law into his favor is not a thing that I can accept. More times than not, the liberal progressive democrat will exempt himself from his own liberal progressive democrat views. So, no. I don’t have a good opinion of Progressives. They make immediate judgement on me, they covet my income or my things, bear false witness to the government that I have committed an injustice or that I owe someone money that I have not met, do not have a contract or verbal agreement with a portion of my income for their purposes, and the steal through taxation. Then progressive liberal Mormons want to mix progressivism in some charitable sense of the Gospel. I can’t find where Christ went door to door with the publicans and Roman soldiers demanding charity. All I believe in is the maximum absence of coercion from government and it restrained to its legitimate functions. If this life is a time to prepare to meet God, I don’t want to be lectured on why I need to be taxed so the women bent on breaking the law of chastity can get free condoms, I would rather choose not to support that. But I can’t. The Lord made his statement in Doctrine and Covenants 101:80. Take your slavery question up with Him.

I did not mean to call you foolish. I did word my sentence poorly and strung two claims together. Only one of which I disagree with. I’m not denying that inspiration was involved in creating the constitution(I am disputing that the framers all supported the same limited federal government). I think the inspiration was in how they framed it in such way to get enough approval for it to pass. They did this through compromise and ambiguous wording that allowed them to continue to debate the proper role of the federal government while using the new frame work. I think very smart people can disagree about the proper role of the federal government. If you want to discuss the proper role of the federal government I’m happy to do so, but D&C 101:80 does nothing to convince me that the Medicare should be eliminated.

Is the slavery part “inspired”? And J.B., Jesus said love everyone. I’m not feeling a lot of love from you. But I know you are a smart person capable of understanding anything I can. Don’t judge prolifically. Liberals can be good people too! :-)

Kyle, thanks for the extra bit if attention.

The modern day liberal progressive democrat has two problems in my view. The first problem is arrogance. They have that because they are liberal progressive democrats, they are just smarter and more enlightened, and because I’m conservative, well, I’m not smart enough to comprehend the nuance of the liberal progressive democrat mindset or even the basic functions required to live my own life. I’m related to them, I work with them, I have learned that from experience.

So Kyle, address one thing for me. You say as a conservative, I have a “claim” that the Constitution was inspired. It’s only a claim. I must be foolish to believe such a thing. You are smarter, because, I only have a claim. But when I read Doctrine and Covenants 101:80 and find that the Lord himself declared He established the Constitution, that it is truth. I know of no other way the Lord establishes things on Earth, save through inspiration. So, how is it merely a claim when I say, “the Constitution was inspired from God?” The only way to argue that I only a claim would be to discredit Joseph Smith.