The following Church leaders were known as declared Democrats: President James E. Faust, Elder Marlin K. Jensen, President Heber J. Grant, President Wilford Woodruff, Elder Hugh B. Brown, Elder B.H. Roberts, Elder Charles C. Rich, Elder Anthony R. Ivins, Elder N. Eldon Tanner, Orson F. Whitney, Franklin D. Richards, Moses Thatcher, Abraham H. Cannon, Stephen L. Richards, Melvin J. Ballard, Joseph F. Merrill, Charles W. Penrose, John Rex Winder, John Willard Young, Edward Stevenson, Charles H. Hart, Antoine Ridgeway Ivins, Jacob Gates, and Henry D. Moyle.
The polarity of the two main political parties has changed a lot in recent years. If these leaders were asked to show where their votes are being thrown now it would look completely different. Check what the Democratic National Platform was like in the 1950's and it would look like today's platform for the Republicans.
Rather off topic, but...
No, I was not arguing for increased education to stop murder, I was trying to argue that some things need to be outlawed in order to stop it (or at least to have a consequence). I was using satire to state that the argument for unfettered Abortion is as wrong an argument as not regulating the killing of other individuals (I was not putting them on an equal footing, though I feel that an elective abortion that was not the result of rape or incest is, in my opinion, the killing of an innocent person.). I am not arguing to decriminalize murder, but that it need to be criminalized and a stigma attached to it. A stigma should be attached to Elective Abortion as well. In my opinion except in cases of Rape,incest or the Extreme health of the Mother that Abortion should be criminalized also. Anyway surveys of women aborting their babies indicate that 1% of them are doing so because of rape or incest. (Source: Forrest, J.D. & Torres, A. "Why Do Women Have Abortions?" Family Planning Perspectives). It is so small that the rates of abortions based on rape or incest to be negligable and should be separated from the vast majority of convenience abortions. As to abortion, it is in my opinion, between sexual sins and murder(in that it is very serious but not on par with the unpardonable sin of murder.). The church considers elective abortions very serious and considers it an offence that may result in excommunication in many circumstances. From the church handbook:
It is a pretty serious offence, but is acceptable, with council under very rare circumstances. |
dbackers,
QUOTE |
If abortion is abhorrent and if one believes that it is killing of a sencient life, they cannot in good conscience believe that it should be okay for a society to support this. |
QUOTE |
As to abortion, it is in my opinion, between sexual sins and murder(in that it is very serious but not on par with the unpardonable sin of murder.). |
QUOTE |
As long as "Abortion rights" are a central theme to the Democratic party (and they are), I feel that it is hard to say that you are a die hard Democrat and still say you also support the Church. |
Rather off topic, but...
This is a hard one to answer--though I can think of more reasons to believe that the spirit does not enter the body at conception. The church does not seal stillborn children to their parents. Why? I guess we don't know. Back in seminary I was taught that 3 Nephi 1:13 was often cited as a pro-abortion scripture. Christ is speaking to Nephi about his birth, which occurs the next day. Isn't his spirit supposed to be in Mary's belly? Of course, I was taught that this was divine investiture--which is where someone speaks on behalf of Christ instead of it being Christ himself. So, I guess we'll never know for sure. |
A person who commits an abortion, I believe can do it innocently. They may not know that it is wrong especially if their government sanctions the act. Murder, or shedding innocent blood is called such because generally speaking, and by divine design the light of Christ teaches the human heart that it is wrong to kill, and by that light, they know it is wrong. That is my opinion.
However, I do think that both acts can be considered murder, especially if a special judge (Mission pres, bap interviewer, Bishop, Stk pres, gen auth,) has determined that the person knowingly aborted a fetus.
If you baptized an individual and they have aborted a fetus, they were probably doing it unaware and the Spirit of the Lord prompted the person doing the interview. I believe, and maybe I am mistaken, that it requires a general authority's approval before anyone who has committed an abortion can be baptized. At least that is what I remember from my mission to Nebraska.
I wonder though if politics have played a role in blurring the lines between the shedding of innocent blood (murder) and Abortion? (as if it is not obvious) The Liberals have said that it is not wrong to abort a fetus. In fact, they tell people that our right to choose is at stake should we not be able to continue to practice abortion. They tell people it is better left to individual choice, or that it is up to the states to decide. Really? I am curious how abortion differs from shedding innocent blood. I really would like somebody to explain this difference to me. I mean really, who made the mistake, the unborn or the mother and father of the unborn. Who is being punished for it?
I believe the real debate should be centered around this question: At which state is the fetus considered an embodied Spirit child of God? How wrong is it to abort a fetus if the spirit hadn't yet been assigned to the body?
QUOTE |
If you baptized an individual and they have aborted a fetus, they were probably doing it unaware and the Spirit of the Lord prompted the person doing the interview. I believe, and maybe I am mistaken, that it requires a general authority's approval before anyone who has committed an abortion can be baptized. At least that is what I remember from my mission to Nebraska. |
I could be wrong, but if I remember correctly, I was required to have a GA approve a baptism for a person who has committed or been a party to committing an abortion. I was saying that if a person flew through the interview, the interviewer probably knew, by the spirit, that the person was not accountable for the sin of abortion. Or did it not knowing it was wrong. I am not sure about the policy these days.
I have disavowed association with any political party since 2003. I felt at the time that my morals and values were not in line with those espoused by any party. Over the years, I have increasingly felt that many politicians (and I'm afraid it might in reality be a majority) rely on deception and subterfuge to achieve their political objectives. I am constantly reminded of the admonition given to Joseph Smith to forego affiliation with any established churches in his day, who "honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me." Call me a joykill if you want, but while some would not have voted for Mittt Romney because he is mormon, I don't think I would have voted for him because he is a mormon politician.
When I vote, I mainly go to vote on propositions and other measures on the ballot.
In response to the recent posts regarding abortion (which perhaps belong in a topic addressing that issue specifically), I don't believe murder to be unpardonable. As I understand the scriptures, all who attain a kingdom of glory receive a complete remission of their sins, and receive the greatest level of glory that their soul can withstand.