COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback. Comments may not exceed 700 characters.

Privacy Policy

Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

Terms of Service

JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.

A great article, but to add to it, another interesting tid bit is that not only did Joseph Smith run for President of the United States, he ran on a Federalist platform.  He felt politically that it was as a result of states rights that the Saints dealt with so much persecution.  Even more interesting is that I learned this at LDS Business College.

Further, both David O. MacKay, who was the leader and prophet of the Church during the 1960’s, and James E. Faust, who was in the first Presidency during the 1990’s and 2000’s, were Democrats.  In fact at one point, Faust was the leader of the Utah Democrats.  Likewise, while more Conservative in the US, outside of the States, more member’s are more liberal.  Not in social issue as much (gay marriage) but in other things like the role of government.

Comment by Jason Martin Schlierman on 10/31/10 at 9:21 pm

“Most active Mormons have a food storage program in their home and an emergency preparedness kit for each family member.”

If this were a Wikipedia article, I would add a little [needs citation] after this claim.

It seems to me that emphasis on food storage has dramatically tapered off in recent years, and I would be very surprised if your claim proved to be true. Of course, I don’t think the Church releases numbers as to its membership’s activity, so there’s probably no way to know…

Comment by E. Ashcraft on 11/01/10 at 4:04 am

There is one small problem with the title of this article, most Mormons are not Americans.  Therefore it is not possible that most Mormons are Republicans.

Comment by Dale Porter on 11/01/10 at 6:46 am

Not only do conservative LDS members disagree with Democrats on several social issues, we vehemently oppose the Democratic obsession with “managing” the economic situation by taxing, spending, and government manipulation.  I would characterize the typical Mormon Republican as desiring lower taxes and government control in business (which would bring about a change for the better in the ecomony), and a return to upholding the Constitution, rather than judicial activism and extreme liberal interpretations which have been undermining liberty in this country for several decades.  The size and influence of the federal goverment is overwhelming the free market.  The liberal activism clearly turns a deaf ear not only to the LDS “voice” but also to the majority of the American people, who have been shown in poll after poll to hold more traditional values than the “progressive” agenda of the current administration.

Comment by Karen on 11/01/10 at 7:26 am

The food storage issue has NOT tapered off at all. Most LDS families do in fact still have food storage and 72-hour kits. This is a present issue talked about a lot in the LDS culture.

Comment by Alexandria on 11/01/10 at 7:36 am

Mormons are social conservatives and traditionalists. They believe in sustaining the constitution as it was written and supporting laws that maintain traditional moral values. And though they believe in providing for the poor, they are also big on self reliance. I think that most Mormons believe that the governments broad process for taking care of the needy may do more harm than good to individual character. Also, to a group that teaches freedom of choice as one of it’s most important doctrines, big goverment is too controlling. I think that this is why most US Mormons are republican.

Comment by peterl on 11/01/10 at 8:46 am

You should also not underestimate the effect of communism.  While many Jews were ambivalent or even supportive of communist theory (though not the countries that were Communist), Mormons are very hostile.  ET Benson was particularly vocal about this issue.  Arguing that Communism was a Satanic false substitute for Mormonism, in much the same way that Satan substitutes lust for love.  To many Mormon intellectuals, Communism is Mormonism’s evil doppelganger.  Thus stridently anti-Communist Reagan had significant appeal to Mormons.

Comment by Cicero on 11/01/10 at 8:48 am

Our ward’s joint men-&-women meeting yesterday was about emergency preparedness, much of which was focused upon food storage.
.
@Karen, many LDS do oppose Democratic efforts to manage the economy by taxing and spending, however they miss that Republicans also manipulate the economy through taxation, in the form of incentives/credits/reductions for favored issues, and Friedmanesque managing the money supply through administrative, not market-driven, increases and decreases in interest rates.

Comment by manaen on 11/01/10 at 8:51 am

You point out that every politician would immediately condemn an attack on a synagogue, but mob attacks on our temples lead to a deafening silence. I believe synagogues and black churches can sponsor candidate forums, with only token mention of political neutrality, but the tax exempt status of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would be under attack immediately if we were to follow suit. That’s not right, but that’s the way it is.

Comment by Larry Lawton on 11/01/10 at 8:58 am

James E. Faust was a Democrat but President David O. McKay most definetly was not. When JFK ran against Nixon, both men visited Utah and personally sat down with President McKay. “If you are successful, we will support you,” Kennedy was told. “I hope you are successful.” The Prophet told Nixon. That comment caused a considerable flap among BYU English and Theatre professors.

Comment by Gary Davis on 11/01/10 at 9:17 am

Larry - other churches and synagogues enjoy the same tax-exempt status that the LDS Church does, and that doesn’t stop them from holding candidate forums. The only IRS prohibition is against endorsing or funding candidates. There is no problem with holding an information meeting for the LDS community. I agree with the author that the time has come for church leaders to consider this.

Comment by Rob Eller on 11/01/10 at 9:24 am

Rob, I agree that judges SHOULD even-handedly enforce the law, and LDS leaders SHOULD be free to hold non-partisan informational meetings, just as we see at synagogues and other churches. That’s just not reality, as I’ve observed it. I practiced law in California for many years. After Prop 8, LDS businesses were picketed until their “donations” to gay causes equaled what they had contributed to support Prop 8. Mormons who had exercised their constitutional rights to support that proposition were forced to resign their jobs. LDS churches and temples were vandalized, and the general reaction was often, “That’s what they deserve.” There were frequent and strident calls to revoke our tax-exempt status, even though (as I recall) tax exempt organizations can spend up to 40% of what they take in to support causes.
I haven’t checked recently, but the percentage is ZERO for the support candidates.  Our system of lay leadership means almost everyone who speaks at such a gathering could be deemed a “church official”, and their remarks construed as candidate support, utilizing church facilities to do so. 
So far as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is concerned, the first amendment only seems to apply to politically correct speech – well, at least in California.

Comment by Larry Lawton on 11/01/10 at 10:30 am

Larry - I’m a little confused here. A stake president, flanked by both gubernatorial candidates, announced from the pulpit, “We’re here tonight to hear from both candidates for governor. The Church has a policy of neutrality, which I fully support. We do not endorse either candidate, but we are interested in hearing them address issues of concern to the LDS community.” How exactly could that be construed as “candidate support?”

Comment by Rob Eller on 11/01/10 at 10:40 am

Sadly, in 2010, the divide between “Republican/conservative” and “Democrat/liberal” is greater than it has been in this country - IMHO, this is due to the rhetoric coming from the left-wing describing those who oppose their political views as “enemies”, etc.
(PLEASE do not offer the usual equivalent “both sides do it”.  They do not.  I grew up in a small “d” democrat black home in the 60’s, became politically interested/active in the mid to late 60’s - One blessing my mother offered (widow) was not preaching to any of my siblings and myself about what to think politically - she allowed us to form our own opinions - half my family is left-wing, other half what one would call conservative.  That I became a Mormon during my early 20’s when I was forming my political beliefs validated to me anyway, why I leaned towards conservativism - Mormons believe the Book of Mormon, which in their minds lay out the purpose of government (to protect the rights and liberty of individuals) and the opposite (to usurp the liberties and rights of the individual to empower and enrich an elite group).
That is one of the basic reasons many American Mormons are Republican/conservative.

Comment by J. on 11/01/10 at 11:01 am

Rob, it’s not the stake president who bothers me. It’s the question time afterwards, when 9 of 10 questions clearly reflect the social conservative bias of church members in the western United States. (Remember the very liberal 9th circuit covers most of the western United States.) They’re all elders, that is, “church officials”. The audience heartily applauds their points, mildly expresses disapproval at anyone daring to express a democratic or liberal view. It’s unreasonable to say these “church official” are acting as such, but not to the extremely liberal courts in the far west.
Farfetched? Remember the elder who, with more courage than discretion, stood up at anti-Mormon presentation in California years ago. He presented a brief response to the distortions of the speaker. Although he emphasized he was speaking only for himself, the church was named as a defendant in a defamation suit, because the speaker was a “church official.” Now, we all know every active adult male in our faith is an elder, but the church was NEVER dismissed as a party to the suit. It took a lot of money for legal fees, and YEARS to resolve the case. (Though I must admit the church eventually prevailed. In my observation, all too often there is one rule of law for the LDS church, a separate one for every other group.

Comment by Larry Lawton on 11/01/10 at 11:40 am

One point, not directly related to the jist of your article.  Even Mormon’s have evolved in their view of government.  At the core of Mormon beliefes is self-reliance.  We also believe strongly in caring for our neighbors.  We generally find government (forced) wellfare as abhorant and counter productive.  All wellfare should be voluntary and willfull, just as the Mormon Church runs it today.  Democrats believe wellfare is a federal issue, Mormons believe it is a personal issue.

Comment by Rich on 11/01/10 at 11:53 am

Mark, your points are correct as far as reasons that contribute to a large percentage of Mormons being Republicans, but you missed the biggest point. A belief in limited government is actually enshrined in our doctrine. We Mormons believe that the principles of liberty and limited government that are in the US Constitution are inspired by God.
I linked to your posting and comment more extensively on this in my blog: http://www.libertymusings.com/blog/?p=316.

Comment by David A. Hall on 11/01/10 at 12:32 pm

President David O. McKay was a lifelong Republican (David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism p. 324.)

Mormons in early Utah were not predominately Democrats. 

Prior to 1870, elections in Utah were non-partisan, and Mormons won most elections.  In 1879 the Liberal Party was formed as an anti-Mormon party.  In Response, Brigham Young formed the People’s Party, which won every state-wide election until it was dissolved in the 1890s.  This effectively one-party system was a major cause for delaying statehood.  In the 1890s both the Liberal and People’s parties were dissolved.  Most LDS joined the Democratic Party, since the Republican party led the anti-polygamy efforts and Grover Cleveland was more favorable to the church.  In order to balance out the parties, the church leadership assigned members to the two parties, resulting in a very politically balanced state.

Comment by Bill English on 11/01/10 at 1:16 pm

Sorry, typo. Should be in 1870, not 1879

Comment by Bill English on 11/01/10 at 1:18 pm

@ Dale Porter - you’re correct that most Mormons are not Americans, but this article was obviously about American Mormons and the upcoming U.S. elections. Thanks for the clarification.

@David Hall - thanks for reposting my blog post to your blog. However, your point is a very America-centric one. I’ve spoken in Europe three times in the last two years, and can assure you that most European Mormons have no problem with big governments. Limited government is not viewed as divinely sanctioned there, and Mormons who voted for FDR’s and LBJ’s programs apparently also believed that they were in harmony with gospel principles.

@Larry Lawton - could we hold the event if there were no Q&A session afterwards?

Everyone - thanks for taking the time to write.

Comment by Mark Paredes on 11/01/10 at 1:31 pm

Mark,
Your point is well taken about European Mormons, who have a hard time relating to LDS beliefs about the US Constitution.
As far as FDR and LBJ, yes, many Mormons supported them. During the New Deal, in fact, some of the LDS Church leadership became very frustrated with the members, as they were preaching against some of FDR’s policies while they watched Utah help re-elect FDR. It was after this that the Church adopted the policy of completely backing away from partisan politics. And being old enough to remember LBJ very well, I can say that back then, there was not the widespread public perception that he was departing from constitutional principles. This perception is a very recent development, and I believe is the reason that Mormons, who were more evenly divided politically in the past, have moved so strongly to the Republican party in recent years.
For its first 80 years, Utah had eight Republican senators and five Democrats. There were only a couple of brief periods when it had two Republican senators. However, we now have an unbroken string of almost 34 years of no Democrat senators from Utah. That illustrates that this is a modern trend.

Comment by David A Hall on 11/01/10 at 2:02 pm

Mr. Paredes:  When I saw the title of your article, I couldn’t help to guffaw.  I am curious, Why are most Jews Democrats?

Pat

Comment by Pat on 11/01/10 at 2:04 pm

Re: Dale Porter above,

Have you ever lived overseas and witnessed a foreign area authority speak of the divine nature of the US constitution as the pattern for all nations of the world? I was awestruck to hear this.

Most of the leadership position Mormons I’ve come across outside of the US tend to be a lot more conservative both politically and religiously.

I’ve been pleasantly surprised that every leader I’ve been in contact with had their heart in the right place and were not ideologues, but rather believed in the types of principles which combined charity with agency. Forced charity may achieve a financial distribution, but all things belong to the Lord. Shuffling around the goods/wealth for its own sake is not part of the plan of salvation. Rather, the point is what you are on the path to becoming by doing it of your own free will and choice.

Comment by chris on 11/01/10 at 3:22 pm

@Alexandria - “Most LDS families do in fact still have food storage and 72-hour kits.”

If you have anything more substantial than anecdotal evidence to support this claim, I would be very interested in seeing it. Until then, I’m skeptical.

Comment by E. Ashcraft on 11/01/10 at 5:15 pm

I think one area where LDS Mormons could converge w/a more radical, left-leaning Jewish segment would be in the anti-war arena.  The only thing preventing that is that not very many of them have made the connection between what their scriptures tell them about the evils of pre-emptive warfare and the wars we are currently conducting in foreign lands, overt or clandestine.  If there was more awareness of their scriptural passages on this subject and a linkage with current realities, it might tend to pull them even more in Democrat direction.

Comment by Brad L on 11/01/10 at 7:47 pm

Mr. Paredes summarizes a number of important issues that bear on his title question. He leaves out one that I think trumps all of them: American Latter-day Saints are concentrated disproportionately in the intermountain West. That’s an area that supports states’ rights, guns, and other issues that tend to line up in the Republican camp for reasons having nothing to do with abortion or marriage or other social issues. In my experience, there are more Democrats among Latter-day Saints who have grown up outside the intermountain area (and, perhaps, among those whose parents have too).

Comment by Kevin Black on 11/01/10 at 9:37 pm

I am fascinated by the fact that so many Jews vote for the Democrats, and have never been given a satisfactory answer why, not by individual Jews (one said you have to be Jewish to understand!) not from Cohen of the NYTIMES whose answer wasnt even worthy of a 10 year old school kid, and not from non Jews.
I mean the contradiction is just so vivid - its the right wing republicans that would do everything to protect Jerusalem and are without a doubt the Jewish peoples most important friend in the world, yet that support is not reciprocated.

Is it an example of the ultimate Jewish joke?

Would love to hear a serious explanation from anyone.

Incidentally I am not Democrat or Republican, I live in Australia and the only ‘ism’ I support is rationalism.

Comment by Gerry Sinclair on 11/02/10 at 3:15 am

Mormons that really understand Christ’s message are more liberal. Really, which side do you honestly think He would be on? The side of the rich, powerful white men (GOP) or the side of the poor, the working class, the minorities, the downtrodden, the humble?

Comment by Mark on 11/02/10 at 3:29 am

Somewhere on here someone referenced Joseph Smith running on the Federalist platform because persecution of the Church was by and large perpetrated by state governments. 

While this is true, I’m sure if Joseph had lived as long as Br. Brigham did his view point would have changed.  At the core, Joseph supported the Constitution, which he believed was inspired of God.  In his experience, state governments were picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution were to be enforced and it was apparent that some groups enjoyed the protections provided by the Constitution more than others.  Hence his belief in the Federalist platform—the Constitution should apply equally in all states—not be set aside at the whim of a state government.

But when the Saints were expelled from the US and established their own territory outside of the US, the Federal government took over the role of persecutor, marching the US Army against us, stripping our elected officials from office and appointing their own, etc.  You could not run for President of the United States for decades in this country unless you established that your candidacy was anti-polygamy—which was in essence announcing your position on “the Mormon problem.” 

I believe that by the time Congress was enacting laws that stripped Mormon women of their voting rights and that required all Mormons to take an oath against their religious beliefs before they could vote (with the Supreme Court validating those laws) I think Joseph Smith would have come down on the side of state’s rights.

It is always a balancing act between the two. 

In any event, I believe that if the Democrats were not so entrenched with movements that threaten traditional families and if they were not so liberal in their spending policies, most Mormons would find themselves willing to entertain joining the Democrats.  I noted in the last election cycle that the environment for Mormons (aka Harry Reid) amongst Democrats is more welcoming than the environment for Mormons amongst Republicans (aka Mitt Romney).

Comment by Teresa on 11/02/10 at 5:28 am

@Teresa. Wow, perfect example of a good ol’ Republican-state education. Congress did not enact “laws that stripped Mormon women of their voting rights” because women did not have the right to vote in the USA until 1920! It took a Democratic president (Wilson) to champion the cause before it happened. Who fought against it the most vehemently? The good ‘ol white boys of the GOP!

Comment by Mark on 11/02/10 at 7:23 am

@Mark—actually, Teresa is correct. Look up the Edmunds-Tucker Act on wikipedia. It did disenfranchise Mormon women (Wyoming and Utah granted women the vote in the late 1800s).

Comment by Kevin Black on 11/02/10 at 7:56 am

@ Mark. The constitutional amendment granting women the right to vote merely federalized what had been a matter of state law. I grew up in Wyoming, convinced we rightly deserved the title “Equality State.” Only as an adult (by then an enthusiastic Mormon), did I learn Utah Territory granted women the right to vote LONG before Wyoming did in the late 19th century. Similarly, college education for women was encouraged by church leaders at a time when such ideas were considered radical.
The persecution of Mormons by the Republicans did not end with the disenfranchisement of women. Federal law prohibited ANY member of our faith from voting, serving on juries or holding elected office. Thus, the government of Utah Territory was solely in the hands of the very small minority who were not members of the LDS church. In those days, settlers in inhospitable Utah were mostly two groups: Members of the church and strident anti-Mormons. More remarkable, the U S Supreme Court upheld these blatantly discriminatory statutes.

Comment by Larry Lawton on 11/02/10 at 10:31 am

Good ‘ol white boys of the GOP!?  Not entirely; at least in Utah.  Wasn’t it B. H. Roberts,  a Democrat, who vigorously campaigned against putting a clause granting suffrage to women in the proposed Utah Constitution?  Later, after Utah became a State, he gained the Democratic nomination in the campaign of 1898 to be one of Utah’s first Representatives; though the House unseated him.\

Of course his reasoning for opposing the suffrage, was that if it was granted, Utah would stand less of a chance of becoming a State.

Comment by Brad L on 11/02/10 at 5:34 pm

If elected leaders value the safty and stable enjoyment of religious buildings so little that they do not speak out against mob attacks on religious buildings, I doubt much can be done to change this fact.
  David O. McKay was a Republican, not a Democrat.  He expressed his personal hope that Richard Nixon would be elected president in 1960.  The fact that someone will assert he was a Democrat shows how little the political persuasions of famous Mormons are known by other Mormons.
  George Albert Smith was a Republican.  He campaigned for Republican candidates such as William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt, and held minor government positions as an appointee of Republican presidents.  Heber J. Grant was a staunch Democrat who nevertheless hated the New Deal.  Ezra Taft Benson was a Republican who held a post in the cabinet of a Republican President.
  Joseph Fielding Smith was also a Republican, although this is mainly discernable from things he wrote in his journal.  Statements on the politics of any other president of the Church would be guesses, but I think Joseph F. Smith was a Republican.
  The reasons that Mormons avoid involvement in politics have to be found in the history of Utah and the rules under which it gained statehood.  Prior to gaining statehood there had been the Peoples or Mormon party and the Liberal or non-Mormon party.  Until at least the 1920s the Church worked hard to avoid either a one-party system or total dominance of elected positions by Mormons.
  Thus Mr. Paredes theories about the political aspirations of 19th century Mormons are bizarre.  John Henry Smith was a Republican and a key voice for women’s sufferage in the 1895 Utah constitutional convention.  The first three governors of Utah were all Republicans.  In 1900 Utah went overwhelmingly for the Republican candidate in the presidential race.  1896 had been different, but Utah had been in line with other western states then.
  Mr. Paredes whole speaking of 19th Century Mormons being amazed at their 21st century counterparts politicis is inherently illogical.  The political parties of today are not those of the 1950s, let alone the 1870s. 
  For many of us avoiding direct discussion of politics in a religious setting is a worthwhile goal.  Politics divides while the Church seeks to unite.  No amount of “the Church is politically neutral” rhetoric would avoid the fact that many Church members would hold a particular view and this could easily alienate those who do not.
  The Church seeks for doctrinal and structural unity.  Neither of these things exist or are even sought in Judaism.  Thus what works for a group that accept that each synagouge can operate independently could not work for a group with centralized leadership.
  The relevant quesation is not, do Jews invite political discussions into their synagogues, but do Catholics invite political discussions into their Cathedrals.  If the answer to the later question is no than this can provide the precedents on why Mormons also do not do so.
  Mormonsim’s history of being attacked, and the rhetoric and methods of those who attack it, corresponds much more closely to anti-Catholic than anti-Jewish rhetoric.  When people attack the Jews, they are attacking the Jews.  When Catholicism and Mormonsim are attacked, it is largely the Churches that are attacked.  This means that Jewish organizations can do a huge amount of things without facing scrutiny, while the Mormon and the Catholic Churches get scrutinized for doing anything at a level that means the benefits have to far outweigh the costs. 
  The benefits of making candidates aware that there are Mormons in their disctict are unclear.  What exactly are the political concerns Mormons would have that would be unique to Mormons?  In many ways mr. Paredes whole article ignores the fact that Mormons are christians, and when dealing with government regulation, this is normally the controlling issue.  Mormons get told they can not put up crosses to memorialize fallen state troopers for example.

Comment by John Pack Lambert on 11/03/10 at 12:32 pm

Ashcraft,
  I doubt most bishops could tell you what percentagoe of their ward members have any given level of food storage or emergency prepardness kits.  I have never, ever been asked by a Church leader if I had such things, so I do not think the Church in any way has such data.

Comment by John Pack Lambert on 11/03/10 at 12:35 pm

In my current stake having adequate food storage is one of the main pushes of the stake.  This was the theme of the last set of talks given on high council Sunday.

Comment by John Pack Lambert on 11/03/10 at 12:37 pm

Bill English,
  Brigham Young died in 1877, thus he could not have formed the People’s Party in 1879.  The People’s Party was formed in 1870, and Daniel H. Wells was one of the first officials elected by it.  Wells’ son Heber was the first governor of Utah and elected as a Republican.
  The period when Utah was most dominated by Democrats was the 1930s.  This is despite the fact that staunch Democrat Heber J. Grant broke with the party because he disliked the New Deal.
  At the start of the decade Grant had a fellow democrat, Anthony W. Ivins, as his first counselor.  By the end his counselors were two Republicans, J. Reuben Clark and David O. McKay.  Clark had served as assistant secretary of state under President Hoover, who had actually said he wished he had made Clark secretary of state.  Hoover was also very good friends with Reed Smoot.  No Democrat senator from Utah managed to obtain the clout that the Republican Reed Smoot had. 
  To understand why Utah is such a conservative state, one has to realize that a high percentage of its population once lived in California and has seen the dysfunction of unrestrained liberalism.  California’s being in essential bankruptcy just reinforces the notion that without individual initiative and with oppressive taxation good does not result.

Comment by John Pack Lambert on 11/03/10 at 12:47 pm

Why does Mr. Paredes insist on speaking of “non-Orthodox” Jews?  Why can we not seek to build community connection with Orthodox Jews.  I still think this is far and away the most promising course of action.
  I also think Mr. Paredes has mis-read the current political climate.  It is excessive government regulation and taxation that has brought on our current problems.  The election of Raul Labrdor in the Idaho 1st district, making Idaho the second state with an all Mormon delegation in the house, is emblematic of how the current economic climate has turned people away from the central government power grad of the Democrats.
  The Democrats attempt to set up a new system to regulate education that bodes for the de-legitimization of religious schools is also a bad sign. 
  Mr. Obama said he supported man/woman marriage, but his actions have consistently shown that this was a lie. 
  Mr. Paredes also fails to realize that the army, FBI and the like are part of the central government purpose of protecting the nation and maintaining order.  Passing laws that force people to fund other people killing unborn children, which is exactly what enacting health-care reform was, is the antithesis of this.
  Some of the most conservative, pro-Sarah Palin Mormons I have met have been drivers of the welfare truck for the bishops storehouse.  In embracing the aid to others through this system these people have rejected the hand-outs that turn into oppression and desturuction that have been the way of the government.
  Lastly, the “Mormons” who voted for FDR were the same “Mormons” who voted for repealing prohibition, despite the vocal and unquestioned opposition to such an action on the part of President Heber J. Grant and the other leaders of the Church.  To properly understand 1930s politics in Utah, one has to realize that the electorate was dominated by people who did not really pay much attemption to the teachings and values of the LDS Church.  Unlike modern Mormons, these people also had abysmal rates of attending Church meetings.  The rate of sacrament meeting attendance in wards in Utah in the 1920s and 1930s was way below what it is today.

Comment by John Pack Lambert on 11/03/10 at 12:57 pm

Mark,
  If there was no question and answer session, than the whole point of the event, to voice Mormon concerns to candidates, would be defeated.
  The fact that the Church was held liable for the actions of a “high priest” in relations to someone not a member of the Mormon faith, who came in contact with the person in question outside of the Church and that none of the actions occured in the Church in any way, shows to what extent the courts will buy the argument that holding a priesthood office in the Mormon Church makes someone an officer of the Church and their actions those of the Church.
  The fact that there are already people in California seeking a way to strip the LDS Church of its tax exempt status means that your whole idea would only give them a chance to bring more suits against us, and with the bias of various other groups in California, they would quite likely succeed.

Comment by John Pack Lambert on 11/03/10 at 1:09 pm

Mark,
  You are wrong that Mormon women did not have the right to vote until 1920.  Utah Territory granted women the vote in 1870.  I believe it was the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1888 that rescinded this right.  I am unsure how this was done, but I know that it was done. 
  In 1896 the Utah State Constitution re-established the right of women to vote.
  The right to vote is not restricted by any wording in the constitution, and the power of congress to regulate the right to vote has been never firmly established.  It may have come about as a result of the Voting Rights Act, but that was really just an enforcement mechanism for the 15th Admendment (a century too late, but still an outgerowth of that admendment).  The one possible violation of this precedent is the moter-voter act, but the full application of that law has never been tried.
  The criteria to vote was a state matter prior to 1920, and at least prior to the Edmunds-Tucker act the qualifications of electors was left to the territories, with the one caveat that people could not be denied the right to vote on the account of race.  Even that was not neccesarily held to.  The denial of Native Americans voting was not based on race, but being a different people.  Individual native Americans who assimilated into American society were allowed to vote. 
  The basic fact is that beginning in 1870 women in Utah could vote.  Beginning in 1896 women in Utah voted in presidential elections.  John Henry Smith, a very staunch Republican, was the leading advocate for women’s right to vote in the 1896 convention.  Democrat B. H. Roberts was the leading opponant.
  Also, the Church leaders did not assign parties.  Instead Church leaders encoraged as many people as possible to vote Republican in 1896 since the inclination was to vote for Democrats because the Republicans had lead the anti-polygamy crusades.

Comment by John Pack Lambert on 11/03/10 at 1:23 pm

Larry,
  Actually Wyoming granted women the right to vote in 1869, Utah did not do so until 1870.  However due to different election schedules, Utah women actually voted in a territorial election first.

Comment by John Pack Lambert on 11/03/10 at 1:25 pm

J.P.Lambert said: “A high percentage of [Utah’s] population once lived in California”
... What? I don’t think that is correct. Can you back it up with data?

Comment by Kevin Black on 11/03/10 at 2:56 pm

John said the Church leaders did not assign parties.  I don’t know how prevalent it was across the state, but my next-door-neighbor, who was in her mid 20’s when Utah became a state, told me that in our ward, the 32nd, in Salt Lake’s Pioneer stake, the Bishop announced from the pulpit that he was asked to divide the ward equally between Republicans and Democrats.  He announced that every family whose street address was even-numbered was assigned to be a Democrat, those with an odd-number were assigned to be Republicans.

Comment by Bill English on 11/03/10 at 7:15 pm

It’s hard to say both of the following things:

1.  That Mormons have a Libertarian streak.
2.  That Mormons oppose things like gay marriage and (for example) the legalization of marijuana.

A true Libertarian would view gay marriage, marijuana prohibitions, and a host of other social issues as none of the government’s business.

Maybe that’s what you mean in saying that Mormons have a Libertarian STREAK—that they aren’t true Libertarians, but rather are “Libertarians of convenience.”  They’re Libertarian when it suits them, and quite the opposite when it doesn’t.

Don’t take this as the rantings of someone opposed to the LDS Church: I’m an active returned missionary currently serving as a high councilor.  I’m just concerned with the way we pick and choose.  Either the government has a say in social matters, or it doesn’t.  Can’t have it both ways.

Comment by Matt on 11/04/10 at 8:40 am

My thanks to those who backed up my remarks on women’s voting rights in Utah prior to 1920.

Mark, I am sorry to disappoint but I am not the perfect example of “good ol’Republican state education.”  I didn’t grow up in Utah.  I don’t live in Utah.  And my facts about women’s suffrage in Utah did not come from Mormons or some Republican think tank.

It may interest you to know that I came across those facts through studying the Federal government’s hand in marriage law over the course of US history. 

It may also interest you to know that I no longer consider myself tied to any political party, as I believe the parties exist only to promote their own welfare vs. promoting the welfare of the country.  As such I vote for the candidate most closely aligned with my ideals and beliefs regardless of party.

As such I have voted for libertarians, Republicans, Democrats and Independent candidates over the course of the past several elections. 

The next time you read what someone writes, I would respectfully suggest you take off the political lenses you’re wearing.  You might discover there are a lot of people out there who have already removed theirs.

Comment by Teresa on 11/04/10 at 9:18 pm

Data to follow up my earlier opinion:
“Mormons in the western region of the U.S. are significantly more likely than Mormons from other regions to identify as Republican (68% vs. 55%).”—from the Pew Forum’s U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, http://pewforum.org/Christian/Mormon/A-Portrait-of-Mormons-in-the-US—Social-and-Political-Views.aspx

Comment by Kevin Black on 11/05/10 at 1:39 pm

Thanks to John and others for the lesson on voting history. I knew that women were allowed to vote in local / state elections in some states before the amendment, but did not think they could vote in national elections. Apologies for my ignorance.

As for lenses, this story and the comments are about parties. I was merely continuing in the same vein, but also apologize to Teresa for offending.

Finding myself on the moderate left of many issues because of my belief in Christ and his example - my only real underlying lens - I identify more with the Democratic party. But of course there are good and bad in both parties.

Comment by Mark on 11/07/10 at 12:19 am

Stumbled across this thread looking for something unrelated.  Wonderful, civil, educational discussion I have enjoyed reading.  My complements to all of the contributors.

Comment by Randy on 11/07/10 at 12:30 pm

After reading many of the comments, I am frustrated at my fellow Mormons total disconnect with the teachings of the scriptures. While I am extremely grateful for the official position of political neutrality by the Church, as a liberal Mormon activist, I have felt uncomfortable at ward socials and even in Church meetings. A Gospel Doctrine teacher referred to Bill Clinton as a modern day example of the Gadianton Robbers, I heard a comment that the Church should stop proselyting Democrats. At a Empty Nest meeting during the run-up to the Iraq invasion, I heard our Ward Missionary comment to an investigator that we should “nuke them before they nuke us.” We have, in effect, cut our proselyting base in the USA roughly in half.

I oppose gay marriage but I am pro-choice precisely as the Church condones abortion and see it as an issue of agency not government control. I find it strange that someone who claims to eschew large government would want them telling a woman that they had to bear a child that was conceived through rape or incest. Or under any circumstances. It should be a matter between the mother, father and God. It should be a sin, not a crime.

I submit that the common LDS aversion to government supported welfare programs and to “wealth redistribution” are driven by personal resentment to taxation than to scriptures. The common LDS mantra “welfare should be individual and voluntary” is scriptural sophistry. Clearly, we are commanded, both in the Bible and Book of Mormon, to share with the poor. Failure to do so carries the heaviest penalty that can be imposed, rejection from God’s Kingdom, and the only vehicle by which we can do this is government. Private charity just hasn’t got the job done and has been used more to make a profit than for helping the needy.

The 12th Article of Faith tells us we believe in being subject to government and that means we believe in being taxed. Section 134 of the D&C verse 1 reads:
WE believe that agovernments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

The Preamble to the US Constitution, which we believe was inspired by God, tells us that it is the responsibility of government, among other things to provide for the “common welfare.” That means government should prevent people from starving and dying for lack of health care.

I have no problem supporting my political and social beliefs with the Scriptures and I respect the rights of conservatives to believe as they do…but they should keep them out of our Church meetins, including socials as I do mine

Comment by Brooks on 11/13/10 at 7:27 am

Thanks Brooks. Good comments. You’re not alone, just a minority in the West. Come to the east coast or, better yet, leave the US to be amongst members that are much more liberal and Christ-like. Many of our brothers and sisters in the Western US have assumed the customs and idols of the locals - just like Israel falling in with the Canaanites.

Comment by Mark on 11/13/10 at 8:59 pm

Lots of people telling me why Mormons vote Republican, but absolutely no one telling me why so many Jews vote Democratic.

Comment by Gerry Sinclair on 11/13/10 at 10:16 pm

Regarding the assignment of political parties by church leaders.  When I was a political science major at BYU in the 60’s one of my professor’s (it could have been Stewart Grow) talked about this.

In some wards the division was all those on one side othe aisle were one party, those on the othr side were the other party.

In some wards members were set apart as members of one party or the other.  It was mentioned that it was tough to get those to ever change parties after that.

In Huntsville, where David O McKay was raised, every other house was republican or democrat.  David O McKay’s comment was that they were so embarassed about being republicans.  The only republican in town was the town drunk.  The family of Gunn McKay, who was a Democratic congressman from UT and a nephew of David O McKay lived next door to President McKay’s father.  Therefore one was a republican and one was a democrat.

The conclusion of the remarks was that finally, in the 60’s the voting appeared to be breaking away from those original assignments and voting appeared to be fallling more along socio economic demographics, just as it does in the rest of the country.

Comment by David Andrews on 12/01/10 at 6:40 pm

Mark, not sure if this is something you know, but it probably is… Most of the observant (Orthodox) Jews i know (and i know a bunch) are very, very in line politically with Republicans… I think LDS and Orthodox beliefs might be something worth looking into in a future story (not just Shmuley Boteach, by the way!)... Great blog post.

Comment by Karen on 12/22/10 at 12:18 am

It is beyond any human logic how good LDS Christians, can continue to support the Republican Party.  The Book of Mormon is continually teaching against selfishness and greed.  I feel offended when a christian says he believes in Jesus and yet hates the poor.  It is very obvious that the Republican party is for corporate greed and against the working poor.  I am a former member of the LDS Church and even though I still believe in the Book of Mormon,  coming back to the LDS Church is very difficult to me because of what it has become politically.

Comment by Carlo on 6/18/11 at 2:28 pm

Carlo, I know how you feel but they can’t chase me from my Church. I feel it is important to remain and be heard.

Comment by Brooks W. Wilson on 6/18/11 at 2:45 pm

Come back Carlo, don’t let a noisy, obnoxious minority run you out of the Church. There are more and more members that see what the Republican party truly stands for and shun it - rejecting the incorrect traditions of their fathers - and others that can simply look beyond the politics of our day in the attempt to follow Christ.

Comment by Mark on 6/19/11 at 1:40 am

@ Brooks and Mark.  Thank you very much for your honest input. I fee for you both struggling to keep sane in a place full of Sadducees and Pharisees.  I still do love the Church very much and feel this is it, the only True Church on the face of this poor Earth.  But explain to me please, how I could sit and listen to the Leaders of the Church. Even though they talk the talk, I feel deep in my Soul that they do not walk the walk.  They need to be honest with the membership of the Church especially in the Mountain West.  They need not say who to vote for, but teach the members to cast their vote upon the values of the Book of Mormon and the Gospel of Jesus Christ and not on their stocks and bonds kept sacred in the unholy church called:  Wall Street.  Jesus spoke out many times in favor of the poor and oppressed in ancient Israel.  Why can’t these so called religious Leaders and not just from the LDS Church, get together and go pay a visit to their powerful politician friends in Washington DC and demand in God’s name that the working poor in America be treated more fairly and not like objects to use and throw away.  That the sick need no die prematurely but given proper medical attention.  Why are these religious leaders so concerned about the unborn, and that is right, but at the same time completely ignore the plea of the living for lack of proper medical attention or fair wages.  Why are they so ready to criticize a person’s lifestyle but say nothing when billions are wasted for arms or given away to fat filthy Wall Street corporations?  Where is Jesus in all this?  No wander more and more people in our country, are so fed up with churches and religion in general.

Comment by Carlo on 6/19/11 at 9:34 am

I have the same questions as you, Carlo, and no answers. It’s frustrating! I love all my LDS brothers and sisters and simply cannot explain or dispel this total disconnect between how they treat people they see and how they treat, through their votes, people who they can’t. They will have to answer for it…as I will have to answer for my transgressions.

Comment by Brooks W Wilson on 6/19/11 at 12:42 pm

@ Brooks.  Thank you again for your input.  I pray for our Country and for our LDS Brothers and Sister to continue to ponder on the Scriptures and thus be inspired by the Light of Christ how to best help our Country and its People, in this very serious hour of need.  Let’s pray to put and end to all our current wasteful wars in both money and innocent lives,  and end Lobbying in Washington of powerful corporations which continue to support a very brutal capitalistic system, and the corrupt politicians that wrap themselves with our flag to appear to be patriotic and at the same time allow crooked corporations to continue to export thousands of American jobs abroad.  Yes and all this with the blessings of the various christian ministers in our Country.  Yes these very politicians that on one hand deny medical attention to the poor and on the other, go to church on Sundays with a stack of bibles or Books of Mormon to appear to be very christian, but in reality…....Less preaching and more compassion for our poor and oppressed.

Comment by Carlo on 6/19/11 at 1:39 pm

“politicians that on one hand deny medical attention to the poor”—I have sympathy for your overall point, but let’s be accurate: it is not a master of denying the poor medical care, it is refusing to force taxpayers to pay medical expenses for the poor.

Comment by Kevin Black on 6/19/11 at 3:07 pm

Kevin, LDS shouldn’t have to be forced to pay taxes to support medical expenses for the poor. They should do so willingly. That’s what this discussion is all about. There is no other way to reach all the poor except through public organization. We live in a democracy.

12th Article of Faith: We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in cobeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

Section 134 of D&C:
1 We believe that agovernments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

If you believe in democracy, you believe in accepting the majority position. If you believe in the Bible and The Book Of Mormon, you believe in helping the poor and sharing your wealth with them. If you support government that denies health care and wealth sharing, you are denying the validity of these scriptures. It really is that simple.

Comment by Brooks W. Wilson on 6/19/11 at 3:40 pm

Good Morning Brooks.  Great job,  I could have not said it better myself.  Today’s Republican party is Anti-Christ and Anti-Poor.  Whoever feels they are Christians and at the same time continue to vote for a party that is totally Anti-Social, abusing of low wage workers and no Health Care to the needy, needs to confront God on these very basic human issues.  The Book of Mormon and the D&C is page after page of helping the poor and not be greedy with our wealth.  Do you understand that you republican LDS people?

Comment by Carlo Caroli on 6/20/11 at 6:21 am

Post a Comment

Name:
Email:

Type the word you see below:

Comment:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

About this Blog

Blog Home
About the Blogger(s)
Contact

Blog Archive

• By Month
• Categories

• By Month
• Categories