Search the Community

When I vote, issues tend to drive my decisions. In order of priority, here are my top few: 1. Religious Liberty -- As an example, a humanist group is fighting to have a war memorial torn down because it includes a cross. The memorial has been up for decades. Why tear it down? Does it hurt the beliefs of humanists? I doubt it. However, it certainly hurts the feelings of those family and loved ones who honor those fallen soldiers. I want candidates who will elect judges with respect for spiritual heritage. Likewise for Christian bakers/florists etc. No one should be forced to participate in religious/political messaging that goes against their faith. 2. Pro-life -- The Kavanaugh hearing was infuriating. Baseless allegations should never have made it to public portions of the senate. Even from a secular viewpoint babies deserve the benefit of the doubt. If we don't "know" when life begins, the presumption should be in favor of the child. 3. A distant third would be the myriad of policy positions I favor. 4. Party affiliation -- There is a party that more closely aligns with my views, and I tend to favor candidates from it. However, I will pull the other lever when a candidate shows love for religious liberty and unborn life. 5. Lesser of evils -- I had to vote for an establishment member of a party I oppose because his opponent is a full-on socialist. I'm intentionally not naming parties or candidates, but really looking for a discussion of broader issues. So jump in! 🙂

As the election draws closer, polls are showing that nearly 60% will vote against a candidate they hate, rather than for one they support. The apostle Paul, commanded Christians to pray for Caesar. Yikes! Roman leaders were immoral, anti-Christian despots. Don't trust government leaders? Think them unwise? Pray even harder!

Hi all you history experts, I am looking for official records and also historical accounts (journals, diaries) of the practice of Common Consent in early Church History. I know there must be more accounts out there than I have found so far. It seems during this time Common Consent was a far more democratic activity compared to what we experience today. Back then in conferences and other meetings - numerous dissenting votes were the norm and personal concerns and opinions were openly expressed prior to the vote. Also some nominating occurred by the members and it was allowed. Any proposal or motion had to be seconded but a simple majority vote (by the Church members) was all that was needed to pass a proposal. (Quorums had greater restrictions to pass a proposal). An unanimous vote in a conference by the members was so uncommon that when it occurred it was always significantly noted. The diaries of people who voted "NOT in favor" or "opposed" and why is of interest. Also how did the leaders, Church organizations and the members treat them after-wards is of interest. How did all that work out for everyone - the leaders and members alike? Did some leaders vote "opposed" on other leaders? I am also looking for additional events and records of "Conventing to Recognize, follow and Sustain" the existing leaders who had be voted upon at a previous conference. I am aware of it occurring only once in Kirkland and once in Nauvoo by Joseph and am I right in thinking it also occurred again with Brigham as the Saints left Nauvoo? I need a reference. (No dissenting votes or objections or opinions were called for at these - or were they called for?) These only occurred at specially called gatherings and not at regular conference were the members freely voted YES or NO and expressed person feelings and opinions regarding the leaders and proposals presented before them for their consideration - which no doubt made things interesting. Any help in this areas would be greatly appreciated, the people must of recorded something in their Journals at these examples of the principle of Common Consent in action? Thanks