Republican vs Democrat


CatholicLady
 Share

Recommended Posts

If the opportunity ever presents itself I would love to do so.

 

Look, I'm not condemning anyone; I know individuals who belong to the Democratic Party, "the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to...unloose."

 

I just can't wrap my mind around the fact that they belong to an organization that is CLEARLY in favor of principals which the Church (and God) are CLEARLY opposed to. What's worse, the organization actively fosters (via legislation) those same principals!

 

How a "good" member of the Church can be part of such an institution is simply beyond me? :confused: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the opportunity ever presents itself I would love to do so.

 

Look, I'm not condemning anyone; I know individuals who belong to the Democratic Party, "the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to...unloose."

 

I just can't wrap my mind around the fact that they belong to an organization that is CLEARLY in favor of principals which the Church (and God) are CLEARLY opposed to. What's worse, the organization actively fosters (via legislation) those same principals!

 

How a "good" member of the Church can be part of such an institution is simply beyond me? :confused: 

 

Sound like a failure of your imagination then

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"there are Apostles and other GA's who are democrats."

 

I believe you're only half right.

No doubt there are "GAs" who are registered democrats, but as for the First Presidency and Apostles it appears that there were no registered democrats among them in either the 2012 or 2014 elections.

Besides, it really isn't germane to the question, which I would pose this way: In light of the Democratic Party platform, how can membership in that organization be squared with question #6 in the Temple Recommend interview?

 

Maybe some of you with better imaginations than I have can help?

Edited by Capitalist_Oinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we were to not register for a political party who has an item in their platform that may be contrary to one's faith... no Mormon will register for a political party.

 

I can find nothing within the Constitution Party platform or the Republican Party platform that is contrary to our faith. Of course Republicans for the most part rarely adhere to their own platform, but that's another issue entirely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"there are Apostles and other GA's who are democrats."

 

I believe you're only half right.

No doubt there are "GAs" who are registered democrats, but as for the First Presidency and Apostles it appears that there were no registered democrats among them in either the 2012 or 2014 elections.

Besides, it really isn't germane to the question, which I would pose this way: In light of the Democratic Party platform, how can membership in that organization be squared with question #6 in the Temple Recommend interview?

 

Maybe some of you with better imaginations than I have can help?

How did you find that info of the Apostles and how they voted ??
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did you find that info of the Apostles and how they voted ??

 

Isn't party registration public information?  The Salt Lake Tribune reported in 2012 that...

 

"Eleven of the 15 apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — including LDS President Thomas S. Monson — are registered Republicans, according to public records obtained by The Salt Lake Tribune.  The other four did not affiliate with any political party when they registered to vote and none of them voted in this year's Democratic primary. All 15 voted this November."

 

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/55391586-90/church-lds-republican-mormon.html.csp

 

How they voted, of course, is secret.  (Ask Alison Lundergan Grimes about her experiences with secret ballots.)

 

[Corrected typo.  Editor]

Edited by PolarVortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't party registration public information?  The Salt Lake Tribune reported in 2012 that...

 

"Eleven of the 15 apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — including LDS President Thomas S. Monson — are registered Republicans, according to public records obtained by The Salt Lake Tribune.  The other four did not affiliate with any political party when they registered to vote and none of them voted in this year's Democratic primary. All 15 voted this November."

 

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/55391586-90/church-lds-republican-mormon.html.csp

 

How they voted, of course, is secret.  (Ask Alison Lundergan Grimes about her experiences with secret ballots.)

I found that article after I posted my question. I always love it when other members ask how a member of the church can be a democrat.

 

[Corrected typo.  — Editor]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why some Christians vote Democrat: They perceive that Democrats . . .

 

1.  are more concerned about minorities and the poor

2.  care more for the enviornment

3.  protect American jobs from foreign competition

4.  are more humane in times of war

5.  won't deport my family or I

6.  will help me with grants, aid, etc.

7.  will make things more even between me and the rich

8.  respect women and their opinions more

ETC.

 

Not saying I agree with any of those...but if someone sincerely believes some of these types of ideas we may fault their wisdom, but we ought not judge their spirituality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Palerider wrote:

"I always love it when other members ask how a member of the church can be a democrat."

 

Why do you "love it"? 

Or in reality, why does it bother you?

 
Why is it not a legitimate query in light of question #6 for a temple recommend?
Would you also "love it" if instead, the question was, "how can a member of the Church belong to the Communist Party?"
Or how about the American Nazi Party?
 
Why is being a democrat sacrosanct in regards to the recommend question? 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not saying I agree with any of those...but if someone sincerely believes some of these types of ideas we may fault their wisdom, but we ought not judge their spirituality.

 

I’m not judging anyone’s “spirituality", Chaplain. As I said in a previous post, I know some democrats, “the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to...unloose.” They are far more Christ-like than I am. 
 
And whether they cast their votes for democrats isn’t the issue. 
 
The issue is how they can belong to an organization that clearly promulgates principals that are opposed to those accepted by the Church, and at the same time answer this question, "Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual", with a "No"??
Edited by Capitalist_Oinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Palerider wrote:

"I always love it when other members ask how a member of the church can be a democrat."

 

Why do you "love it"? 

Or in reality, why does it bother you?

 

Why is it not a legitimate query in light of question #6 for a temple recommend?

Would you also "love it" if instead, the question was, "how can a member of the Church belong to the Communist Party?"

Or how about the American Nazi Party?

 

Why is being a democrat sacrosanct in regards to the recommend question?

Why do I love it.....because when members say that ....they are wrong. We are encouraged to vote for who we think will do the best job. We are not told to vote Republican. The candidates you vote for has nothing to do with a Temple Rec question. It's not a sin to vote for a Democrat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I’m not judging anyone’s “spirituality", Chaplain. As I said in a previous post, I know some democrats, “the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to...unloose.” They are far more Christ-like than I am. 
 

 

 

 

You say your are not.  But your question is inherently judgmental.  Any democrat who reads your post can easily reach two conclusions from your comment.  One that you don't think that they are worthy (Which is clearly a judgement and not one you have any authority to make) and two that their Bishopric's and Stake Presidencies got it wrong if they signed them as worthy. There are big issues with both of those

 

You are clearly focusing on a few Democratic policies that you disagree with strongly... and that is tunnel vision so much that you can't even image that some one of sound mind and sincere faith might think the positives of the Democratic party (Prisonchaplain outlined a few for you) outweigh the things they do not like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's odd. I thought I shared a video in reply to a post on page 4, I think. Maybe the lag I've been experiencing prevented my submission. If a mod deleted it, I guess that's fine, but could someone tell me if I broke a rule or if I just offended someone? I thought it was a legitimate reply to a serious problem we are facing not only in the US, but worldwide. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is how they can belong to an organization that clearly promulgates principals that are opposed to those accepted by the Church, and at the same time answer this question, "Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual", with a "No"??

 

 

I did not have a particular poster in mind when I published my post.  In fact, I vaguely recall a church pastor who told his congregation (during the last election) that anyone who voted for Party X should resign their membership in the church (local congreation).  The bottom line is that I believe the pastor ended up resigning instead.  :-)

 

Nevertheless, as an outsider, looking at your question--which I assume is a formal question asked of members (perhaps in TR interviews?)--and recalling that one poster said that 11 of the 15 leaders were registered Republicans, then I would hazzard to guess that at least one of those 4 others is a Democrat.  Further, there are a few high-profile LDS who definitely are.  So, simply by example, I'd have to assume that belonging to the Democratic Party would not be considered a violation of that question.

 

Hey, I sympathize.  Democrats oppose religious exemptions for pharmacists and doctors.  They tend to be pro-choice, even urging public subsidies for abortions.  They favor free speech for pornographers, and for those who would mock Christianity, but seem ready to black-ball anyone who expresses anti-gay marriage positions.  I could go on, but I get why you ask the question.

 

Clearly, your church does not consider being a Democrat, or even a political liberal, to violate the question.  So, to answer your question, I'm thinking that question should be interpreted narrowly.  The organizations it has in mind are those that often get labled "Anti."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this topic interesting, and I've been trying to think of a GOP position that would conflict with the LDS Church.

 

The only one I can think of is the Equal Rights Amendment.  I was surprised to learn that the GOP platforms in 1952, 1956, 1960, 1972, and 1976 endorsed the ERA (thanks, Huffington Post).  The gap between 1960 and 1972 probably occurred because the ERA didn't really heat up until Congress passed the amendment in 1972 (and Nixon immediately endorsed it).  In 1980 the GOP backed off and changed its endorsement to a "no position," reportedly because of Phyllis Schlafly's endless agitation around this issue.

 

I don't know if the LDS Church took a position on the ERA, but I seem to recall that it did oppose it in some form.  If so, then one could argue that the Church and the GOP were in conflict at some level.  As of today, only seven states have never ratified the ERA in either chamber of their state legislatures*, and Utah is one of them.

 

I think it's possible to be a good Democrat or good Republican without supporting 100% of the party platform.  I have a business colleague who is a gay Republican, and he has no problem embracing most of the GOP platform and shrugging off  or even criticizing the parts that are unfriendly (or insufficiently friendly) to GLBT causes.  

 

*One state (I forget which one) has a legislature with only one chamber.  I don't think it's Minnesota, but I do know that Gov. Ventura pushed hard for a unicameral legislature for his state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Church was firmly against the ERA, seeing it as a moral issue. In retrospect, I agree with them completely. Removing all legal distinction between men and women would have been a nightmare. For example, it would have introduced the homosexual "marriage" idea at least a full generation earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I’m not judging anyone’s “spirituality", Chaplain. As I said in a previous post, I know some democrats, “the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to...unloose.” They are far more Christ-like than I am. 
 
And whether they cast their votes for democrats isn’t the issue. 
 
The issue is how they can belong to an organization that clearly promulgates principals that are opposed to those accepted by the Church, and at the same time answer this question, "Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual", with a "No"??

 

 

So, just to be sure... you affiliate with Republican, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do I love it.....because when members say that ....they are wrong. We are encouraged to vote for who we think will do the best job. We are not told to vote Republican. The candidates you vote for has nothing to do with a Temple Rec question. It's not a sin to vote for a Democrat.

 

This conversation is fascinating. 
With all due respect, Palerider, would you please just read what I write rather than reading into what I write?
 
I have said NOTHING about voting. 
I have never said or implied that voting has anything to do with question #6 in the recommend interview. 
I have never said or implied in any way that it is a sin to vote for a Democrat.
 
Just for a moment let's pretend that words actually have meaning. I know in this day and age that's asking a lot, but just for giggles let's pretend.
Once again, here is the question.
"Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?
 
If words actually have meaning, the question is unambiguous. Anyone who is a registered democrat certainly "affiliates" with that "group". There simply cannot be any argument here if words actually have meaning.
Nor can there be any argument that this particular "group" has "teachings" that are "contrary to" and "oppose" those accepted by the Church. 
 
In light of these two facts, and again assuming that words actually have meaning, how can any member of the Church be a member of that "group" and at the same time claim that he/she does NOT affiliate with a group "whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."?
 
The question has nothing to do with how an individual votes, and I agree wholeheartedly that it would not be a sin to vote for a democrat! 
LEAVE the party and then vote for democrats to your heart's content, but answering question #6 while you ARE a member of that party is dishonest in my view, and so far neither you nor anyone else has offered a clearly defined reason why it isn't?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say your are not.  But your question is inherently judgmental.  Any democrat who reads your post can easily reach two conclusions from your comment.  One that you don't think that they are worthy (Which is clearly a judgement and not one you have any authority to make) and two that their Bishopric's and Stake Presidencies got it wrong if they signed them as worthy. There are big issues with both of those

 

Let me ask you something, estradling. 
Let's pretend you are a bishop (or a bishop's counselor) and you are conducting a temple recommend interview.
 
It is mid January.
 
The interview is with a man that you know very well. You know what his profession is, you know precisely what his salary is, and you know exactly how much he paid in tithing the previous year. 
You know (and when I say "know", I mean KNOW) that the man's gross salary is $93,000 and change.
You also know that he paid $2000 and change in tithing the previous year.
You understand math well enough to know that even if he were merely paying on his net income rather than his gross the $2000+ doesn't add up.
 
You ask the man question #9. "Are you a full-tithe payer?"
His answer is "Yes".
 
Would you consider yourself "clearly judgmental" if you wondered to yourself how the man could honestly answer the question with a "yes'?
 
I ask this question because last month I experienced this exact scenario. Indeed I wondered how the man could answer the question with a "yes" and still consider himself honest and worthy to attend the temple? "Clearly judgmental' or not, those were my thoughts, and I don't believe there is much difference when it comes to a registered democrat answering question #6 with a "no". 
 
As far as "Bishoprics and Stake Presidencies [getting] it wrong if they signed them as worthy", I don’t think you understand how the process works. 
Whether or not it was originally intended to be, the temple recommend interview is basically conducted on the honor system now. Unless a Bishop or Stake President has incontrovertible proof that an individual is in violation of one of the principals annunciated in the interview (or perhaps direct intervention by the Spirit), he WILL sign the recommend even if he has his doubts.
I've been involved with the process for almost 10 years (not consecutively, but close), and in that 10 years I know of only TWO instances where a bishop has refused a recommend despite the individual answering the questions correctly, and I know of none that have been refused by a Stake President (doubtless because they didn't get past the Bishop).
 
 
So did I sign the man's recommend? Yes, I did. There really wasn't a choice. Despite my justifiable doubts about his "full tithe", I wasn't issued a calculator and tax documents before the interview, nor am I sorry I wasn't. Had the man paid nothing in tithing the previous year I would have balked, but having paid SOMETHING I had little choice but to accept his word that the amount was a full tithe. When all is said and done, HE is the one who declares his worthiness to enter the temple. 
 
And just so you know, I have signed numerous recommends held by registered democrats. 
While I don't understand how they can honestly answer question #6 with a "no", (which is what I thought this discussion was about), I never felt they should be denied a recommend because of it. Ultimately that is between them and the Lord.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nevertheless, as an outsider, looking at your question--which I assume is a formal question asked of members (perhaps in TR interviews?)--and recalling that one poster said that 11 of the 15 leaders were registered Republicans, then I would hazzard to guess that at least one of those 4 others is a Democrat.  Further, there are a few high-profile LDS who definitely are.  So, simply by example, I'd have to assume that belonging to the Democratic Party would not be considered a violation of that question.

 

Clearly, your church does not consider being a Democrat, or even a political liberal, to violate the question.  So, to answer your question, I'm thinking that question should be interpreted narrowly.  The organizations it has in mind are those that often get labled "Anti."

 

Not that it matters much, but the four Apostles who weren't registered republicans were unaffiliated---none were democrats.
 
As for belonging to the Democratic Party not being considered a violation of question #6 you are obviously correct, otherwise we would see a substantial reduction in temple recommends (at least in Salt Lake County).
 
What I am saying is that (based upon the wording of the question) I don’t understand why it isn't?? Or at least I don't understand how someone can belong and yet answer the question with a "no"? 
 
That is all I've said.
I have said NOTHING about how a person votes or whether the person is "liberal" or "conservative". 
 
In fact I'll go so far as to say that if the decision was ENTIRELY up to me as to whether registered democrats could hold temple recommends, and despite the fact that I don't see how they can honestly answer question #6 with a "no", I would issue the recommends anyway.
As I said in the previous post, ultimately it's between them and the Lord.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What I am saying is that (based upon the wording of the question) I don’t understand why it isn't?? Or at least I don't understand how someone can belong and yet answer the question with a "no"? 
 

 

 

I would expect different behavior from you if this was truly your agenda.  I would expect you to LISTEN when people posted answers and follow up questions that showed you feeling out the answer and trying to make sense of it.  Instead you dismiss any and responses as flat out WRONG.  That is not the actions and responses of someone trying to understand.  Those are the actions and responses of someone trying to prove a point.  Of someone judging.

 

But instead of addressing how you are coming across.. you choose to attack and belittle the judgements, experiences, and opinions of those who are choosing to try to discuss this with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share