My FiL frequently says "You can't be a good mormon and vote democrat." He says it in jest, but I think he actually believes it to some extent (for instance the good people who vote democrat aren't aware of what they're actually supporting). For him it largely comes down to abortion.

I think some people also view the church's declaration of political neutrality as being said with a wink and a nod; that it isn't *really* true but we just have to say this to appease the bureaucrats and maintain our tax-free status.

I think I agree that abortion is the big issue currently. I often wonder if the two parties would change positions on this one topic, if there would be a big Mormon shift. Gay marriage might become a similar issue.

But I also think that there is some of the content of the Book of Mormon, and some statements from ETB, that might make politics seem like a war between good and evil.

Eric: you are spot on about ETB. I can't tell you how many times fellow Mormons have cited his views as reasons they are Republican, and when I point out how and why I disagree I am seen as "rejecting a prophet." Whoa!

Here is the thing, I have always considered the Democrat's economic theories (practice is another thing altogether) as a possible good. The problem is that they hold what I consider such abominable social theories (abortion and gay rights the vangard) that any redeeming qualities are swallowed up. Even the economic theories are too much based on force of state then true charity. And, opposition to war seems less Anti-Nephi-Lehi and more Kingmen.

So, what are my feelings about Mormon Democrats? I know that some of them don't agree with the more "morally repugnant" aspects of the party, but not all of them. Many I have found are Democrats just because it feels rebellious. Those that don't hold to the social beliefs of the Democrats are castigated and told to shut up. For an example, both Joe Lieberman and Democrat Orson Scott Card, have been "excommunicated" from the party because they don't toe the party line on some significant areas. My more charitable response to Mormon Democrats are that they know not what they do. That goes doubly for Obama supporters who I think are mostly uninformed about who the man really is as a politician. Probably the best response to both sides, although I personally can't hold this position because I am unapologetically partisan, is that there is good in both sides.

I think the best party for a Mormon (if it existed) would be social conservative and ecomonically liberal, although the latter more of a focus on personal charity than state programs. I am willing to concede that the Republican Party is too materialistic, but that doesn't say anything about Republicans who believe charity should be private.

As for ETB as the reason so many Mormons are Republican, I would have to disagree. They were Republican long before he had enough influence to change minds. Actual studies have shown, just like other socially conservative Churches, Mormons turned strongly Republican during the social revolution of the 60s. particularly the passage of Roe vs. Wade. The Democratic Party is still seen as carrying the torch of that era and they seem proud to be seen as such.

Jettboy:

My ETB comment had more to do with 'good versus evil' in politics rather than which party to belong to. I think is a little understandable why Mormons sometimes take politics so seriously, and often tie morality into politics.

Jettboy:

"For an example, both Joe Lieberman and Democrat Orson Scott Card, have been "excommunicated" from the party because they don't toe the party line on some significant areas."

It was not the disagreements with the party (though I am so glad to see Card go) but the fact that the endorsed and are campaigning hard for the opposing parties candidates.

"My more charitable response to Mormon Democrats are that they know not what they do."

That was charitable? Drop dead.

I agree with Chris H.

Jettboy, your comments sound a little condescending and self righteous.

I am a registered Democrat, but I really consider myself a moderate. I honestly believe that both sides of the aisle truly believe that their way is the right way. Many on both sides hold that they are even morally superior. I hold that we are all out here doing our best to try to make the world a better way, but we are doing it from a different point of view.

Would the savior reject me because I voted for Obama?

Re: Jettboy,

The problem is that they hold what I consider such abominable social theories (abortion and gay rights the vangard) that any redeeming qualities are swallowed up.

I find it ironic that these two issues garner so much rage among conservatives, while the justification of torture and denials of basic rights to detainees somehow doesn't strike them as a "moral" issue, much less an "abominable social theor[y]."

My more charitable response to Mormon Democrats are that they know not what they do. That goes doubly for Obama supporters who I think are mostly uninformed about who the man really is as a politician.

What about those of us who have closely followed his career over the last few years, scrutinized and meditated on his books and dozens of his speeches, and seriously considered his positions, political record, and personal decisions? I have done this (as have many others), and am strongly behind him (note, however, that I don't consider him a perfect politician). You're making a shallow argument that often gets repeated in political arguments--that if the opposition were truly informed, they wouldn't support the politicians and/or policies that they presently do. In other words, you assume that no reasonable person could possibly come to any conclusion other than the one at which you have arrived.

That's a pretty arrogant position, Jettboy. You sound like Ann Coulter ("If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans"). That's not meant to be a complement.

I think McCain is a hawkish person of questionable integrity with a rash approach to decision-making. I think he would make an awful President. My strongest convictions tell me that his election would lead America further down the unfortunate path on which Bush embarked. But I do not believe that mine is the only reasonable or rational opinion. Many of my most intelligent and rational friends will vote for McCain in November.

I think the best party for a Mormon (if it existed) would be social conservative . . .

I daresay Joseph Smith or Brigham Young would have disagreed (recall that in the 19th century, we were the ones challenging established social and moral norms), but I digress...

"My more charitable response to Mormon Democrats are that they know not what they do."

What a coincidence! My more charitable thought about republicans, Mormon or otherwise! :)

Oh, it's probably not right for me to comment here, because suspect I will engender anger and angst aplenty. But I am pro gay rights because they are the same civilly protected rights of all citizen adults in the Constitution (but not in some people's faith or belief system). And I am pro choice...but I also want to provide strong reality based education to teenagers so they don't WANT to have unprotected sex, so they don't WANT to risk getting pregnant, so it's not an attractive option to them. And enough contraception options so they aren't likely to get pregnant, whether as teens or young adults.

Because the reality is that they will have sex. So finding ways to limit the need for abortion is my idea of a supportable platform. Pretending that abstinence is the best education theory has never worked, even in my day when good LDS girls got pregnant right and left...the Rigby HS drill team (99% LDS at the time) was known as the "marching mothers" in the early 70s.

So which party at least pretends to care about these and other socially relevant issues? The Democrats. And I remember telling one of my English teachers, who was very proudly a Democrat back in the mid 70s, that he couldn't be a good Mormon and a good Democrat, too. He respectfully disagreed with me.

Politics is so very difficult to discuss, very personal and very visceral. As personal and visceral as your faith/religion or lack thereof. However, those who can't respect others' differences in either are not following the teachings of their leaders or prophets, or the Constitution of our country.

By the way, I was a Hillary supporter who switched to Obama in January, but McCain has always been interesting to me because I thought his candidacy was worth exploring. So, his George Bush-style decision to name Sarah Palin as his VP candidate tossed me on my ear, because it caused me to seriously doubt his ability to make rational decisions on serious issues. I guess you can tell I no longer believe it's impossible to be a good LDS person and be a good Democrat at the same time... ;-)

When I first read the comment on my blog the other day I was really shocked. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized I shouldn't have been TOO shocked.

I have always been fairly vocal about being a democrat. I don't go around announcing it all the time or anything, but if something comes up at church about politics, I will let people know my views. Of course I know many people who vote democrat most of the time who go out of their way to make sure people do not know that they are politically liberal. Because the truth is that once people realize this about you it starts to taint the way they see you. But I feel it's important to let other people know how I feel so that they will know we don't always have to march in lockstep with the republican party simply because we are members of the mormon church.

There are many reason why I usually vote a democratic ticket (though there are times when I do vote for a republican) - though I feel that ultimately neither party matches my own ideals exactly, on balance, the democratic platform more closely provides a match.

I received an email from someone in response to this political drama on my blog basically stating that she disagreed with the way that anon. handled the comment(s) but that she had been confused for years by my ability to vote with people who approve of abortion and gay marriage. This seems to be the bottom line for many mormon repulicans.

In my return email I gave a fairly long explanation of my views but the bottom line is that I cannot cast my vote based solely on those two issues and I'm very confused as to why members of the church seem to feel that they are compelled to vote based on only that. To my way of thinking the economy and the poor and foreign policy are equally important issues. Roe v. Wade has been the law most of my life - through multiple republican administrations, and nothing has ever changed. Why would I cast my vote based on that one narrow issue? I don't agree with abortion but I don't agree with a lot of things - I have to look at the bigger picture.

It's been an interesting thing to watch many of my conservative friends stand up for me because they understand the assumptions this person has made about me are completely out of line with who I am. I wish we could have a third party that more closely represented the ideals of latter-day-saints - but until that day comes (and I doubt it ever will) I have to vote my heart and that usually means voting democrat.

For whatever reason growing up in Rexburg Idaho I always thought it was okay to be mormon and democrat, maybe because some of my family were republicans and some were democrats and I thought it did not have anything to do with whether or not you were a good member of the church.

As I've said before, the social issues are largely used by Republicans to win over voters who otherwise would run away from the GOP's economic policies.

I just published a post about (Mormon) Utah County Democrats that is an interesting foray into some of these issues.

Just some food for thought... from Apostles & Prophets... from the pulpit...

"Now I tell you it is time the people of the United States were waking up with the understanding that if they don’t save the Constitution from the dangers that threaten it, we will have a change of government." -- Joseph Fielding Smith, April 1950

"we stand in danger of losing our liberties, and that once lost, only blood will bring them back; and once lost, we of this church will, in order to keep the Church going forward, have more sacrifices to make and more persecutions to endure than we have yet known." -- Pres. J. Reuben Clark, Jr., April 1944

"I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. … Let every man and woman know, by the whisperings of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not." -- Pres. Brigham Young, JD, vol. 9, p. 150

"the ravening wolves are amongst us, from our own membership, and they, more than any others, are clothed in sheep’s clothing, because they wear the habiliments of the priesthood." -- Pres. J. Reuben Clark, Jr., April 1949

Talk amongst yourselves...

Intresting how so many US LDS equate the Republicans with church doctrine while outside the US probably most non-American LDS if they could vote would support the Democrats. Certainly that would be the case in Europe and the UK.

Hey Bandanamom!

My parents were Rexburg democrats (mostly). A rare breed.

Hey Eric -

I thought your parents might be democrats. I had your dad for Geography and World Affairs in college (loved him and loved that class) - he certainly never discussed his specific politics but anyone who joins the peace corps is a suspected liberal right?

My parents were republican but my uncle (Brent Bell) was heavily involved in local democratic politics in Rexburg.

Bandanamom (lezlee)

I disagree with a lot of what Senator Obama is pushing for, and also Senator McCain--they have much in common. The main issue for me is abortion, where he, and Senator Biden, are definitely different from Senator McCain and Governor Palin. Other than that issue, I don’t see that much difference between the two, except maybe how they may appoint to the Supreme Court.

Here is some food for thought for this discussion, excerpted from an article in the “California Catholic Daily” (http://www.calcatholic.com/), the Friday, September 12th issue: ‘Some issues always involve doing evil’

...With the approaching general election this November, we believe this to be an important moment for us to address together the responsibility of Catholics to be well informed and well formed voters....

At the same time, it is important to note that the Catholic Church in the United States has always cherished its right to speak to the moral issues confronting our nation....

Catholics have a special responsibility to be well informed regarding the guidance given by the Church pertaining to the moral dimensions of these matters. In the end, Catholics in good conscience can disagree in their judgments about many aspects of the best policies and the most effective candidates....

There are, however, some issues that always involve doing evil, such as legalized abortion, the promotion of same-sex unions and ‘marriages,’ repression of religious liberty, as well as public policies permitting euthanasia, racial discrimination or destructive human embryonic stem cell research. A properly formed conscience must give such issues priority even over other matters with important moral dimensions. To vote for a candidate who supports these intrinsic evils because he or she supports these evils is to participate in a grave moral evil. It can never be justified....

In another circumstance, we may be confronted with a voting choice between two candidates who support abortion, though one may favor some limitations on it, or he or she may oppose public funding for abortion. In such cases, the appropriate judgment would be to select the candidate whose policies regarding this grave evil will do less harm. We have a responsibility to limit evil if it is not possible at the moment to eradicate it completely....

Could a Catholic in good conscience vote for a candidate who supports legalized abortion when there is a choice of another candidate who does not support abortion or any other intrinsically evil policy? Could a voter’s preference for the candidate’s positions on the pursuit of peace, economic policies benefiting the poor, support for universal health care, a more just immigration policy, etc. overcome a candidate’s support for legalized abortion? In such a case, the Catholic voter must ask and answer the question: What could possibly be a proportionate reason for the more than 45 million children killed by abortion in the past 35 years? Personally, we cannot conceive of such a proportionate reason....

It would be wrong for us to use our numbers and influence to try to compel others to accept our religious and theological beliefs. However, it would be equally wrong for us to fail to be engaged in the greatest human rights struggle of our time, namely the need to protect the right to life of the weakest and most vulnerable....

It is particularly disturbing to witness the spectacle of Catholics in public life vocally upset with the Church for teaching what it has always taught on these moral issues for 2,000 years, but silent in objecting to the embrace, by either political party, of the cultural trends of the past few decades that are totally inconsistent with our nation’s history of defending the weakest and most vulnerable.

Eric and bandanamom,

I am currently a Rexburg Democrat and can testify that it is a lonely place. I have had an Obama sign in my yard since last September. It took awhile for some neighbors to start talking to me again (one asked if it was my students playing a prank, but I assured him that I had paid for it). At BYU-Idaho there are a fair share of Democrats (though many are more non-Republicans than they are Democrats). In my ward, I think that being a Democrat makes me just another odd duck (in the Burton area we have plenty). Unfortunately, it never gets me out of any callings.

I had one student this semester come up to me the first day and ask whether it was true what he had heard from a friend. Was I really a liberal Democrat? I said: Yep. I think he was waiting for me to deny it or explain that I was not one of those crazy liberal-types. Of course, that is exactly what I am.

To the larger question:

Political I am a liberal. I support legalized abortion (while I do think that it is a sin) and gay rights. I am not much for gay marriage, partially because I am not sure why gays would want it (is the backlash worth it?).

Economically I am a socialist. Not the boogeyman version that conservatives talk about. I am a 21st century European-style social democrat.

For me the question is not whether I vote Democrat or Republican but whether I donate and campaign for the Democrat or whether I just vote for the Democrat while holding my nose.

I see no need to repent (politically that is, plenty of other reasons). I am a liberal and a Democrat with no apology. I am also a Latter-day Saint with no apology. I would not have it any other way.

Chris H.

Chris H. your comment amused me and made me like you, though I don't know you.

I grew up in Hibbard so I know a little about the odd ducks lurking about in the "country". My best friend lives in Burton and she tells me some rather interesting anecdotes about her ward.

My son is at BYUI as a freshman this year - I purposefully tried to glean the politics and/or leanings of some of his professors based on comments on "rate my professor" in order to avoid him having any ultra conservative professors. That was probably 1. not necessary and 2. futile at any rate because it's impossible to really know. He is fairly liberal himself and was given fair warning about what it would be like to go to school there. So far he is holding his own in his American Foundations class where he apparently fought for his position on guantanamo bay recently which ended with the professor agreeing with him (though I believe his professor is quite conservative).

Anyway, it makes me happy to know there's an Obama sign somewhere on a lawn on the country roads of Burton.

I teach American Foundation! Who does he have? Feel free to use initials. I should be pretty easy to figure out who I am at this point. I am glad that he is standing up for himself, it is hard being outnumbered.

While I am the liberal east coast suburban kid, I just love it here. Check out my post about a Burton Testimony Meeting here.

Thanks for your response. It has been a rough day.

I don't understand why any reasonable human being would tell a gay person they can't marry a legally consenting person of the same sex. For an example of this discrimination; let's say there is a candidate running for office who will try their hardest to pass a law that makes it illegal to worship God because they don't believe in a god. They are just passing this law because you aren't like them. You don't pose any harm to them, Why do they feel this need to force their view on you? Why shouldn't you be allowed to enjoy your worship? Why? Oh, and by the way, what does your worship of god have to do with keeping the country safe, or helping each other, or the economy, or education, etc.....

Chis H. - His class is taught by Webb.

I definitely wish we could have known earlier and we would have registered for your class!

I haven't had time to read the entry about Burton, but I'm looking very much forward to it!

No worries. Bother Webb is very good.

Brother Webb that is. I really can spell.

Bandanamom and Chris H.

Since you both know my father a bit, I might pass along that he was life flighted to Idaho Falls Hospital last night with severe chest pains.

I am sad to hear that. I will pass the word along to the department, unless I hear otherwise.

Oh, and I will keep him (and you) in my prayers. I hope that everything turnsout well.

Thanks Chris.

Sorry for the personal note. They put a stint in somewhere, we hope that helps. For now he is doing okay.

"We cannot know, or remember, until the Lord reveals it, what we covenanted to do in the premortal world with respect to a particular relationship here…Perhaps in the premortal world we covenanted to make certain sacrifices in order to be with certain people in this world, people whom it would not be easy for us to be with, so that by trying to work through our problems with them, we would learn the very things we most needed to learn in this mortal experience….it seems that usually [the Lord] wants us to mend rather than sever relationships.

"It is important for me to learn that the people in my life are not given to me to satisfy me, necessarily. Rather, they are my teachers – unwittingly most of the time. We do not need ideal relationships to be happy. Our marriage does not have to be ideal, or our parenting does not have to be ideal, for us all to be happy in those relationships.

"…all of us have experienced, or are now experiencing, troubled relationships…I grew up in what the psychological world today calls a dysfunctional family….In my experience as a member of a troubled family, these are some of the things I learned to do without realizing I was learning them: I learned to try controlling other people, I learned to be critical in order to feel more secure in my own self-righteousness, and I learned to require satisfaction from others' behavior. I wanted certain responses from people, and if I didn't get them I was unhappy or angry.

"…we have come to earth to learn the principles of peace and at-one-ment and to take them with us into the kingdom of heaven. . . . peace is a vital state for the spirit to flourish in. . . learning to establish real inner peace is indispensable to spiritual progress….it is sobering how readily we trade inner peace for something less, for some sort of upset. How readily we take offense and then escalate disturbance around us. How easily we have unsatisfied expectations of how others should treat us or what they should be doing for us; and we grow cold or irritable to retaliate for this real or imagined slight. How eagerly we may insist on being right at the expense of precious relationships.

"When we do choose to generate positive spiritual energy around us, which we have the power and the agency to do, the Spirit of the Lord is attracted to that positive energy, connects with it, and magnifies its power and influence for good. . . thus, we make poor relationships better and good relationships eternal….We may think that these relationships have to meet our own concept of the ideal. We may think that people have to feel and think the way we do in order to be happy with them, or that we have to think as they do in order to have the spirit of at-one-ment between us. We may feel that many of the people around us do not value what we do or do not fulfill our hopes and dreams. And we may despair that we will ever experience at-one-ment with some of the people that God has put into our lives. But I have learned that all the people that are in our lives are there for important reasons. Seldom are they give to us to satisfy us!

"As we grow spiritually, our feeling about life is influenced by how we act and even feel toward others….if we don't like what we are getting out of a particular close relationship, we may have to check what it is that we are sending into that relationship…The more we are able to control and discipline our thinking here, the greater power we will have to create the things we want around us…perhaps someone trespasses against you, and you feel this negative ripple through your system, and you face the moment of decision. Are you consciously aware of that moment of decision? You have the power either to neutralize the assault on you and return love for what happened or to let it flow out of you in intensified negative waves, increasing the bad situation. My happiness, my possession of the Lord's Spirit, depends on what I decide, from many options, to do.

"…What would happen if we dropped all charges against those around us and, for their sakes, happily sacrificed all bitter satisfaction, all retribution, all demand for repayment, all vengeance without regret or second thoughts?

"…Even though the Lord wants us to form relationships with others that are resonant and sweet, there is an inner part of us that must remain independent of what others choose to do; otherwise, we grieve too much over things that we have no power to change, and that alienates us from the Lord and decreases the blessing in our lives.

"…The more we lay down pride and old checklists of hurts and grievances, the more we send out healing, the more our relationships heal…."

To all, but specifically to Mike:

I would like to direct you to the LDS Newsroom Where Elders Wickman and Oaks address your very same question
here

I would encourage you to read the whole conversation so as to better understand how a 'reasonable human' might hold such a position. I have included the directly applicable response below.

Furthermore - if this does not satisfy your bewilderment, I would also like to encourage you to read an extremely
well written article by one of your 'liberal' peers that was published in the Los Angeles Times a day after your comment was posted.

I would hope you would be open, or yet, liberal, in your readings.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: What of those who might say, “Okay. Latter-day Saints are entitled to believe whatever they like. If you don’t believe in same-gender marriages, then it’s fine for you. But why try to regulate the behavior of other people who have nothing to do with your faith, especially when some nations in Europe have legally sanctioned that kind of marriage? Why not just say, ‘We don’t agree with it doctrinally for our own people’ and leave it at that. Why fight to get a Constitutional amendment [in the United States], for example?

ELDER WICKMAN: We’re not trying to regulate people, but this notion that ‘what happens in your house doesn’t affect what happens in my house’ on the subject of the institution of marriage may be the ultimate sophistry of those advocating same-gender marriage.

Some people promote the idea that there can be two marriages, co-existing side by side, one heterosexual and one homosexual, without any adverse consequences. The hard reality is that, as an institution, marriage like all other institutions can only have one definition without changing the very character of the institution. Hence there can be no coexistence of two marriages. Either there is marriage as it is now defined and as defined by the Lord, or there is what could thus be described as genderless marriage. The latter is abhorrent to God, who, as we’ve been discussing, Himself described what marriage is — between a man and a woman.

A redefinition of that institution, therefore, redefines it for everyone — not just those who are seeking to have a so-called same gender marriage. It also ignores the definition that the Lord Himself has given.

ELDER OAKS: There’s another point that can be made on this. Let’s not forget that for thousands of years the institution of marriage has been between a man and a woman. Until quite recently, in a limited number of countries, there has been no such thing as a marriage between persons of the same gender. Suddenly we are faced with the claim that thousands of years of human experience should be set aside because we should not discriminate in relation to the institution of marriage. When that claim is made, the burden of proving that this step will not undo the wisdom and stability of millennia of experience lies on those who would make the change. Yet the question is asked and the matter is put forward as if those who believe in marriage between a man and a woman have the burden of proving that it should not be extended to some other set of conditions.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: There are those who would say that that might have applied better in the 1950s or earlier than in the 21st century. If you look at several nations in Europe, for example, traditional marriage is so rapidly on the decline that it is no longer the norm. If marriage is evolving, ought we to resist those kind of social changes?

ELDER OAKS: That argument impresses me as something akin to the fact that if we agree that the patient is sick and getting sicker, we should therefore approve a coup de grace. The coup de grace which ends the patient’s life altogether is quite equivalent to the drastic modification in the institution of marriage that would be brought on by same-gender marriage.

Oh no!!! Another person like "Anonymous" that none of you will understand, agree with, believe, and just make fun of.

Good for all of you!!

El Iguana #30, you make the case that the definition of marriage has been given by the Lord. In that case, let us remove marriage from civil government and bring it back to the churches, where the Lord is the ruler. Remove it as a civil function that is overseen by the government. Then, the churches can discriminate all they want, and say it is freedom of worship that allows them to do so. (Freedom of conscience is another thing).

But in governments, there are civil laws. They apply to all who reside in that country. In our country, we have a Constitution, which says that rights are afforded to all. And the government regulates the act of marriage and divorce and all rights and responsibilities associated with this act...so if it is giving this right to a certain segment of the population, it must afford that same right to all segments of the population, equally.

To assign a religious definition to the act of marriage is fitting and proper for a church. But it is not fitting and proper for a government.

The post was about being LDS and having a political viewpoint ascribed as a way to define if one was devout or misled by those working against the Lord. I still submit that it is folly for you to suggest that my particular political viewpoint is invalid simply because it is not your own, or that a person's relationship with their God does not support and allow for differing political positions from another who worships in the same belief system.

Mr. Marriot, #31. I am confused...are you just being snarky, or are you being supportive of the general flow of dialogue in this post and I'm misunderstanding your intent ?

Téa, as always, I enjoyed your post. Thanks for allowing me to post my less-than-popular viewpoint here.

Thomas J. Marriot and El Iguana-
Personal attacks and insults are not appropriate, and are in blatant violation of our comment policy.
This is your official warning.

I was hoping to find some meaningful dialogue. I am disheartened to find a site run by a "mormon feminist" (oxymoron), who must actually be anti-mormon (if she is mormon at all).

You have posted a caveat to people whose comments you obviously deleted, while allowing others who seem to share your venom to freely post garbage. Your motives are apparent and your lack of faith speaks louder than your censorship ever could.

As far as meaningful dialogue concerning the "waters of mormon", you are a parody of yourself and have nothing to do with scriptural truths. I am sure you will delete this as well, but I felt the need to wipe the dust off my feet and testify against your pretense.

Have a nice day.

Here's some actual doctrine for all of you drowning in these murky waters of mormon.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=b4b8db98e2b9c110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1#footnote10

President Faust was a Democrat.

Anyone have a problem with that?

No? Good.

I'm voting the Democratic Party this year, have a problem with it?

Re: Dissapointed

I'm sad to see that you cant' believe there is such things as Mormon Feminists........

It's actually rather ignorant of you to think that way.

Eric & Brian: I'm not sure if you are aware, but ETB had to be reigned in several times by the brethren, when he was in the Quorum of the Twelve, for injecting his political views into his comments.

If things proceed as the many, many polls out there suggest they will, Obama will win. I think it is interesting to note that this will push a Mormon into the highest, most powerful political position that one of us has ever had in the US in the form of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. (By that I mean that he will be in an advantageous position to get things done because it looks like both the Legislative and Executive branches of the government will be run by the Democrats.)

On a side note, as an Independent who could still potentially vote for either party, some of the discourse here from both sides doesn't seem very polite. Unfortunately, with the exception of the attacks on El Iguana Thomas J. Marriot, most of the impoliteness seems to be coming from those with more Republican-o-phile feelings. Religion and politics aren't the same thing. Sure, abortion is a spiritual issue, but so is torture and feeding the poor. Both sides have plenty to offer.

We all need to watch ourselves. God and Jesus can read our mind. What if one day, the lord says to us "I do not know you" Wouldn't that be sad?

"Love one another, as I have loved you"

Isn't love more than just a word?