Warning: Sensitive political question

[bytor2112]

Of the many distinctions between Republican and Democrat, Liberal and Conservative, the social issues have the affect of causing a deep divide. Question......... If you vote for a candidate of a party that supports abortion or gay marriage...will you be held accountable for this? Some view this as supporting immoral acts that only can lead to eternal consequences and heartbreak. Perhaps another divisive issue that Republicans see as an economic issue and the Democrats see as a social issue is economic equality and support for the poor. Truly the scriptures implore us that we should care for the needy and have-nots......whether they are in there situation by chance or by choice.

Any thoughts?....and be nice...

[terryk]

I think we need to look at ore then just 1 issue, such as abortion, true this is a big issue, but there are other issues that need to be looked as well. for example, say candidate A supports abortion, but leads a clean campauign, and candidate B does not support Abortion, but is corupt, and inept then perhaps Candidate B would be a bad choice, I think we need to not go by party but should go by looking at everything the candidate stands for and all of what they propose to do, and can do, to make the proper decision

[skippy740]

I'm all for social programs - if it can be PAID for and administered well.

We can only do the best we can with what we have to choose from. Unfortunately, I think in politics, it's many times a choice between the "lesser of two evils".

My business partner is from Russia. He believes in Capitalism. He likes social programs, but doesn't like the government to administer them. He thinks that the government should fund social programs through churches and other non-profits, instead of the government assuming direct control.

Unfortunately, the government likes more control over many things, so I don't think we'll be seeing that kind of shift anytime soon.

Will we be held accountable for who/what we vote for? I believe that it will be only to the degree that it helps to build up/tear down the Kingdom of God here on the earth.

[Guest]

If you knowingly vote for a candidate that is evil, with evil desires from their actions then yes we will be held accountable (voting for Hitler because you knew he would be attempting to exterminate the jews, as an example).

I think the question is more philosophical than a simple yes or no.

As I understand it, we'll all be held accountable for our actions on this earth. If we become part of the problem, we'll have a lot of explaining to do at the pearly gates. I can only guess that if you vote for the "cool" candidate without considering the reprocussions, versus being an informed voter and doing some praying and soul searching, you had better have a good reason. Why, then, do we still have people voting for one versus the other...that's where our free agency comes in I guess?

[a-train]

If, of all the Candidates, only a single one was pro-life and pro-family would you pick him even though his name was Adolf Hitler? These hot-button issues are being used to abuse the people. Republicans and Democrats are two faces of the same wicked aristocracy that seeks to ultimately oppress us all. They are at the pennacle of salesmanship. They have the masses convinced that there is no competition and that we can do all our shopping with them for a product that we absolutely need.

I vote freedom first.

-a-train

[MarginOfError]

As someone who has voted Libertarian, Republican, and Democrat, all I can say is you have to weigh as many issues as you can as best as you can and then choose the candidate you have the most faith in. You pick the candidate that you think will get the most word done in a way that you're comfortable with. And then you live your own life as best you can and try to influence those around you to do the same. Ultimately, the greatest changes in society will happen at the micro level, and you're involvement there will do more to change the lives of individuals than any national or state elected official.

[mnn727]

Even those candidates who say they are against abortion do nothing about it when they are elected, its all smoke and mirrors, and much of the U.S. public has been falling for it for decades.

[urb0123]

To answer the question directly, yes. Supporting those who support evil causes is something we will have to answer for. Though terryk is right, it is often more complicated than that.

I think being forced to support social programs through taxes is not what was intended as "charity". I also believe that the vast majority of the social programs out there are only creating more problems. If the tax funded social programs only supported those who were truly disabled and in need, I would support them. But I have seen FAR too many lazy people abusing the system and leeching off of the rest of us. "Glut themselves on the labors of others."

And I agree with a-train, I voted Republican not because I think they are the good guys, but because I believe they are simply the least evil. I was lured by the Constitution party, but I threw my vote away on Ross Perot years ago and realized I helped get the candidate I disagreed with most elected.

[JohnBirchSociety]

Of the many distinctions between Republican and Democrat, Liberal and Conservative, the social issues have the affect of causing a deep divide. Question......... If you vote for a candidate of a party that supports abortion or gay marriage...will you be held accountable for this? Some view this as supporting immoral acts that only can lead to eternal consequences and heartbreak. Perhaps another divisive issue that Republicans see as an economic issue and the Democrats see as a social issue is economic equality and support for the poor. Truly the scriptures implore us that we should care for the needy and have-nots......whether they are in there situation by chance or by choice.

Any thoughts?....and be nice...

Ideally we would vote for the Candidate who would follow their oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution. Any other issue is seconday to that oath (and there is a reason for that).

In this past cycle, the only Candidate who even came close to being able to do that was Dr. Ron Paul. Unfortunately America picked the idiots, again, and now we are going to live through the fruit of that stupid decision.

When God says that anything more or less than the Constitution "cometh of evil", I personally find that to be some strong language.

Yes, we will answer to GOD for our actions on behalf of our liberty. Yes, we will answer to GOD for our actions on battlefields. I don't believe the members of the German army that knew of the evils of Hitler but "just were following orders" will be held blameless by GOD in the last day...I don't think we can hide behind the "just following orders" or the 12th Article of Faith.

The Book of Mormon says we are to defend our liberty by the shedding of blood if necessary.

[Starfish]

I agree with all of you so far.

[skalenfehl]

Regarding the second issue you asked about, I think we can benefit from the examples of government and the faithful of the church in the Book of Mormon, which I believe to be a very close and almost ironic parallel to ours in this modern day.

I must first preface my post with the following quote: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."--John Adams

That said, I know that the Nephites didn't have a government constitution, but they were a moral and religious people. Prophets and leaders of the Book of Mormon have always told the people that they should impart of their substance to the poor and the needy and that they should never turn them away. Kings Mosiah, Benjamin and Mosiah II did not elevate themselves above the people. Even King Benjamin worked right along with his people, reaping what he sowed.

The government was one of kings, judges, chief judges and lawyers. It's not too difficult to see the parallels in their government and ours here in the US today. But it was not the government's responsibility to impart of the people's substances to each other. It was up to the people themselves to do this as believers and followers of God and Christ and the principles of the gospel including sacrifice and "doing unto the least of these."

Whenever people began to be lifted up in pride, they began to lose their moral compass and their moral compass was their belief in Christ and His teachings about giving and imparting to the poor and needy. Today our society increasingly seems to be losing the moral compass of our founding fathers. People are lifted up in their pride and think only about themselves, leaving behind may social problems in their wake and the government is forced to intervene and pick up the slack and clean the mess.

In Christ's government where the law of consecration will be followed there will be no have-nots because everyone who upholds this law, having proved their faith in Christ by paying their tithes and offerings will be a part of that government. But Christ's government is one where everyone pulls their own weight equally and contributes equally. That is not the case in today's society.

But I do believe that we as individuals should be generous in imparting of our substance and if we cannot give to those who don't have because we are also struggling, but would if we could, then I believe we can stand blameless before God.

Mosiah 4:21-25

21 And now, if God, who has created you, on whom you are dependent for your lives and for all that ye have and are, doth grant unto you whatsoever ye ask that is right, in faith, believing that ye shall receive, O then, how ye ought to impart of the substance that ye have one to another.

22 And if ye judge the man who putteth up his petition to you for your substance that he perish not, and condemn him, how much more just will be your condemnation for withholding your substance, which doth not belong to you but to God, to whom also your life belongeth; and yet ye put up no petition, nor repent of the thing which thou hast done.

23 I say unto you, wo be unto that man, for his substance shall perish with him; and now, I say these things unto those who are rich as pertaining to the things of this world.

24 And again, I say unto the poor, ye who have not and yet have sufficient, that ye remain from day to day; I mean all you who deny the beggar, because ye have not; I would that ye say in your hearts that: I give not because I have not, but if I had I would give.

25 And now, if ye say this in your hearts ye remain guiltless, otherwise ye are condemned; and your condemnation is just for ye covet that which ye have not received.

Edited November 8, 2008 by skalenfehl

[Starfish]

Doesn't it just boil down to:

1. personal responsibility, doing all we can to provide for ourselves and our family, in addition to

2. generous and appropriate help to the poor and needy, through

3. agency, as true charity is not forced

[a-train]

I was lured by the Constitution party, but I threw my vote away on Ross Perot years ago and realized I helped get the candidate I disagreed with most elected.

Don't fall for those lies. The claim that any vote is thrown away, the ol' "A vote for the Libertarian is a vote for the Democrats" is a joke. It amounts to fear-mongering. The Republicans and the Democrats are the same, their Presidents staff their administrations with the same Council on Foreign Relations members, who churn out the same Council on Foreign Relations policies regardless of the D or R after the President's name. A third party vote is not a vote for a Republican or a Democrat and all this talk of how different are the two faces of the one great evil is hot air. We are expected to pick either the right or left arm of the same liberty destroying machine. Let us choose liberty and reject the machine. Don't fall for the lies that only build votes for the same machine.

-a-train

[john doe]

I voted for a third party candidate for governor even though I knew what the outcome would be. My wife still gives me 'the look' when we talk about it. But I just couldn't bring myself to vote for the liberal republican incumbent. I almost voted for a third party candidate for president, but changed my ballot before it became official. I decided in the end to vote for Sarah Palin. She was the only one left who most reflected my values the best who had a legitimate shot at winning. And if I had to put up with that clown she was running with for a couple years, well that's a chance I was willing to take at the time. Would I do the same thing again? I don't know.

[Palerider]

I have thought about voting Libertarian(sp) changed my mind after diving into their platform.....there are some things I could not go along with....:)

[funkymonkey]

Of the many distinctions between Republican and Democrat, Liberal and Conservative, the social issues have the affect of causing a deep divide. Question......... If you vote for a candidate of a party that supports abortion or gay marriage...will you be held accountable for this? Some view this as supporting immoral acts that only can lead to eternal consequences and heartbreak. Perhaps another divisive issue that Republicans see as an economic issue and the Democrats see as a social issue is economic equality and support for the poor. Truly the scriptures implore us that we should care for the needy and have-nots......whether they are in there situation by chance or by choice.

Any thoughts?....and be nice...

Howdy Bytor. Interesting question! You just like this style of stuff don't ya buddy!

If the voters were eternally responsible, everyone that votes for a candidate that supports an unjust war would mean the deaths of all the innocent people involved would be on the voter's hands. To me, it doesn't sound like that makes sense.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't I guess...All the politicians will run on one platform and something entirely different will be the result...just an example, conservatives were in control for 6 years and still weren't able to change the abortion laws. Something that people put so much value in to determine their vote, and it couldn't even get past the congress floor.

[Elgama]

i have voted on different parties at every election - only one I do vote for regularly is my SNP MSP - who is a really good Member of the Scottish Parliament on a personal level - when I write to him about anything he matter is responded to and dealt with and he really knows our area and fights for it. He is approachable to his constiuents

The SNP are very socialist (although do find it interesting that any LDS polictical candidates in UK stand for socialist parties have yet to know one stand as a Conservative or that many vote that way), but they also know how to govern and represent the people they are standing for and their votes of conscience on matters like abortion/same sex marriage etc tend to come from feedback gained by talking to people. And thats what they are voted in to do represent the people who elect them.

I also have been known to vote for a good Green candidate or Conservative or even Liberal. I did vote for the Labour guy at a local election because he was a good and decent man and approachable - that is the main requirement I look for is are they going to listen to the people who vote for them.

-Charley

[Fiannan]

If, of all the Candidates, only a single one was pro-life and pro-family would you pick him even though his name was Adolf Hitler? These hot-button issues are being used to abuse the people. Republicans and Democrats are two faces of the same wicked aristocracy that seeks to ultimately oppress us all. They are at the pennacle of salesmanship. They have the masses convinced that there is no competition and that we can do all our shopping with them for a product that we absolutely need.

I vote freedom first.

-a-train

Why do people always bring up the Hitler issue? I thought that there was an unwritten rule in cyberspace that once Hitler is brought up in a discussion then the point was moot?

Just for clarrification, Hitler was not all that pro-family. He only supported measures that would increase the number of Germans. Abortion and pornography was legalized in nations Germany took over. Abortion was illegal in Germany unless thre was reason to believe the child would not be healthy. Hitler also wanted to do away with traditional marriage as he saw it as limiting the strength of the population (he was very much wanting a society based on the ideas of Plato as well as a eugenic policy based on Sparta).

Now to the main point, we have to weigh issues. Personally, if there were a candidate running who was a lesbian who favored gay marriage but she was pro life running against a guy who was in favor of Roe v. Wade but aslo against gay marriage then I'd vote for the lesbian. Abortion is a major issue as it relates to life. Other issues are important but not as important in my opinion. So yeah, if Dirty Harry Reid were runnning against a pro-abortion Republican and I were living in Nevada I'd vote for Reid.

[MarginOfError]

Why do people always bring up the Hitler issue? I thought that there was an unwritten rule in cyberspace that once Hitler is brought up in a discussion then the point was moot?

Just for clarrification, Hitler was not all that pro-family. He only supported measures that would increase the number of Germans. Abortion and pornography was legalized in nations Germany took over. Abortion was illegal in Germany unless thre was reason to believe the child would not be healthy. Hitler also wanted to do away with traditional marriage as he saw it as limiting the strength of the population (he was very much wanting a society based on the ideas of Plato as well as a eugenic policy based on Sparta).

Now to the main point, we have to weigh issues. Personally, if there were a candidate running who was a lesbian who favored gay marriage but she was pro life running against a guy who was in favor of Roe v. Wade but aslo against gay marriage then I'd vote for the lesbian. Abortion is a major issue as it relates to life. Other issues are important but not as important in my opinion. So yeah, if Dirty Harry Reid were runnning against a pro-abortion Republican and I were living in Nevada I'd vote for Reid.

1) What if your pro-life, anti-gay marriage candidate was a homosexual male? Don't be sexist now.

2) Did you just call Harry Reid a lesbian?

[Elgama]

1) What if your pro-life, anti-gay marriage candidate was a homosexual male? Don't be sexist now.

LOL I voted for one of those in my first election - I was just surprised when he was caught in a compromising position in a park with another man he had a wife. I'd just assumed he was gay when I voted for him

-Charley

[Guest Godless]

Bush's stance on issues like abortion and gay marriage were a significant factor in his reelection 4 years ago. I think it's safe to say that he let some people down. Personally, I think that there are far more important issues at stake when I go to the voting booth. I have my own personal opinions on abortion and gay marriage, but they are a very miniscule factor in who I vote for.

[a-train]

Bush's stance on issues like abortion and gay marriage were a significant factor in his reelection 4 years ago. I think it's safe to say that he let some people down. Personally, I think that there are far more important issues at stake when I go to the voting booth. I have my own personal opinions on abortion and gay marriage, but they are a very miniscule factor in who I vote for.

Exactly. The Christian right is being bamboozled. It floods to the polls to vote in someone who has no real care for it and its principles only because he/she pays lip service to pro-life and pro-family: GEORGE W. BUSH.

Then, the Christian right seems to have nowhere to turn because the Democrats are the only alternative. The only thing holding them back from a third party victory is their own disbelief.

-a-train

[Moksha]

The Christian right is being bamboozled. It floods to the polls to vote in someone who has no real care for it and its principles only because he/she pays lip service to pro-life and pro-family...

-a-train

And beyond the lip service to pro-life and pro-family, their policies only benefit a few families and, as you pointed out, run contrary to many other religious principles. For instance, greed is always antithetical to Christianity - except perhaps for some TV ministries.

[countrygirl66]

I think it is about why we voted for who we did, not who or what party they are. And if we don't vote at all I think that will be brought up as well.

[lilered]

It is my belief that our actions will seal our fate, therefore if we support/seek men/wowen who support evil/bad, then we will be held accountable for that, if we seek/support good men/women, then we will be blessed accordingly. We are to seek after good (see Articles of Faith) in all things.