LDS Democrats

admin — Wed, 15 May 2013 12:59:48 +0000

May

Family Home Evening: Nature-Evidence of Heavenly Father’s Love

Scripture: D&C 59: 18, 20 “Yea, of all things which come of the earth, in the season thereof, are made for the benefit and the use of man, . . . And it pleaseth God that he hath given all these things unto man; for unto this end were they made to be used, with judgment, not to excess.”

Suggested Song: My Heavenly Father Loves Me (CS p. 228)

Everything in our environment evidences in all its wonder, both in the way it functions so efficiently and in the way it enriches our lives with its beauty, that God organized the universe for his children (See Alma 30: 44). The body is a marvel of engineering. Families, the church, societies, and even governments were inspired for our growth and security. God revealed the plan of salvation with agency, responsibility, and repentance for our exaltation. He sent his son to show us the way.

Activity

Take a nature walk with your family. Stroll around your neighborhood and point out how beautiful the things are that you see around you every day. There may be some special places near your home, such as a wood, the seashore, the mountains, or a desert. Take advantage of these places to inspire a love of nature in your family.

Create a nature collage or scrapbook. Draw pictures, use pages from magazines, and have the older children match up scriptures with specific scenes. (Psalms 65: 9-13, 96: 11-12, 106: 1; Isaiah 32: 18; Romans 11: 36; D&C 59: 16-21; Moses 3: 9; Abraham 5: 9)

Challenge: While we appreciate all that heavenly Father has given us, he has charged us to tend to these gifts as well. What ways can we encourage good uses of the earth? How can we protect the earth? Can we experience our own little bit of creation through growing of gardens, exploring the outdoors?

It’s a new world

steve — Sat, 11 May 2013 13:57:58 +0000

I know all Democrats don’t agree with me on this one, but I think New York Times columnist Tom Friedman is a national treasure. In a recent article entitled “It’s a 401K World“, Friedman makes an excellent summary of how our new world of technology and globalization “empowers individuals to access learning, retrain, engage in commerce, seek or advertise a job, invent, invest and crowd source — all online.” Friedman goes on to say, “But this huge expansion in an individual’s ability to do all these things comes with one big difference: More now rests on you. If you are self-motivated, wow, this world is tailored for you. The boundaries are all gone. But if you’re not self-motivated, this world will be a challenge because the walls, ceilings and floors that protected people are also disappearing. That is what I mean when I say “it is a 401(k) world.” Government will do less for you. Companies will do less for you. Unions can do less for you. There will be fewer limits, but also fewer guarantees. Your specific contribution will define your specific benefits much more. Just showing up will not cut it.”

Your typical conservative is pointing at us Democrats right about now and saying, “Yeah, I told you so. You liberals who believe in an entitlement society have got it all wrong.” More than any other of the lies told about us, this one makes me tear my hair out! Democrats do not believe in an entitlement society! No one would be more thrilled than me if that single mother out there had the tools to provide food, clothing, shelter and medical care for her children without government assistance.

The difference is in the best way to get there. Conservative philosophy seems to be pretty simple; everyone’s on his own.

Democrats have a different view. I am currently enrolled in a class on the Toyota Production System at work. One characteristic of the coursework is you get to learn a bunch of Japanese words. One of these is “nemawashi”. It’s the word for properly preparing the soil to plant a tree. The tree won’t grow if you don’t prepare the soil. The application of this principle in the business world is obvious, but in our changing society, it especially applies to people. We can’t expect those being left behind by our new economy to grow and thrive without some soil preparation. If you just plunk them down in the dirt, they will perish just as surely as all those trees I’ve tried to plant out in the crappy, alkaline soil in Plain City.

So, back to Friedman’s column: “I find a lot of this scary. We’re entering a world that increasingly rewards individual aspiration and persistence and can measure precisely who is contributing and who is not. This is not going away, so we better think how we help every citizen benefit from it.

It has to start, argues Ryan Burke, the director of jobs and workforce for Hope Street, with changing our education-to-work system to one that enables and credits a variety of viable pathways to needed skills. But for students and workers to take advantage of the opportunities open to them in a ‘defined contribution’ world, they will need much better information to inform their decisions. Right now it’s much easier to evaluate a choice about buying a car or picking a mutual fund than to find the competencies employers are looking for and the best cost-effective way to obtain them.”

This isn’t going to be easy. It will take work and creativity, Which means simplistic answers won’t do. One final quote, from Friedman’s book Hot, Flat and Crowded: “There was a lot about Reagan’s economic policies that made sense when it was first introduced. We did need to unlock talent, energy and entrepreneurship that had been bottled up in our economy. But like all good things in politics, for everything there is a season and limits. Reaganism, which coincided with the collapse of America’s mortal enemy, the Soviet Union, ushered in a period of history in which more and more public officials denigrated government and offered painless bromides for prosperity. The market was always right. Government was always wrong. And any government proposal that involved asking the American people to do something difficult – to save more, drive more fuel-efficient cars, study harder, or to be better parents – was ‘off the table’. You could not utter such phrases and expect to be elected to any high office in America.”

The time for those “painless bromides” are past. They won’t work. It will take a lot of effort and sacrifice to prepare the soil in America so all her citizens can be self-sufficient and prosper in the new economy.

Comparing Republican and Democratic Platforms to the LDS Church Position on Abortion

Rep. Brian King — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 17:46:49 +0000

(post submitted by Rep. Brian King)

My friend and legislative colleague, Representative David Lifferth, and I have been discussing which political party’s position on abortion is closer to the LDS Church’s position. I say the Democratic platform and David says it’s the GOP’s. You can see Rep. Lifferth’s last statement in our discussion at: http://davidlifferth.ning.com/profiles/blogs/comparison-of-abortion-platforms-of-republican-party-groups. This is my response.

First, let’s summarize the LDS Church position on abortion. The Church makes clear that the circumstances under which an abortion is permissible from a religious and moral perspective are unusual. It condemns abortion for “personal or social convenience . . ..” Unusual circumstances that may justify an abortion are when:

• Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or
• A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or
• A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

Even if one of these circumstances exist, abortion, ” . . . should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct.” In addition, “the Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.”

The Utah State and Utah County GOP platforms are a bit different from each other on abortion. The state GOP position implies that all abortions other than those necessary to preserve the life of the mother or for pregnancies arising out of rape and incest should be criminalized. On the other hand, the Utah County GOP platform explicitly states that abortion should be illegal except ” . . . where the life of the mother is at serious risk, or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.” Both the Utah State and the Utah County GOP platforms would criminalize abortion even where the fetus has severe defects that will not allow it to survive beyond birth. This deviates materially from LDS Church teachings.

The national GOP platform deviates even more from Church teachings by creating greater restrictions than either the Utah State or Utah County GOP platforms. It explicitly supports a human life amendment to the Constitution to place a fetus’s right to life from conception on a par with the life of the mother. The national GOP platform criminalizes all abortions without exception. The Church’s position simply cannot be reconciled with the national GOP platform.

The national Democratic platform supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose as framed by that decision. Contrary to how many pro-life advocates characterize it, the national Democratic platform does not call for supporting abortion rights at all stages of pregnancy. It emphasizes that abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor and her clergy.

The GOP platforms at all levels impliedly or expressly call for abortion to either be made illegal across the board or illegal subject to narrow exceptions. Part of the moral or religious basis for the national GOP position is that life begins at conception. Of course, believing that life begins at conception is not a prerequisite for believing that all abortions should be prohibited or for promoting a Constitutional amendment recognizing personhood at conception. But if you believe life begins at conception it provides the factual and moral foundation for the legal conclusion that the fetus has just as much a right to life as the mother.

In fact, the LDS Church, unlike the Catholic and some other religions, has never specifically identified the point at which life begins. The range of answers to that question from various LDS Church leaders goes all the way from conception to the point at which a newly born baby takes its first breath. A Church member may, as a personal matter, choose to believe that life begins at conception. But, to the extent they think about it at all, an LDS Church member could also be justified in believing that life begins when the fetal heartbeat begins, or when movement begins in utero, or when the fetus becomes self-sustaining outside the womb, or when a baby draws its first breath. As with many other doctrinal points within the LDS Church, the matter is theologically unsettled. As such, there is simply no definitive LDS Church statement to support the position taken by the national Republican platform that life begins at conception as opposed to some other point later in the developmental process of a fetus.

Rep. Lifferth points out that the LDS Church and the GOP positions are similar in that they both denounce abortion. It is true that both do agree that certain types of abortion should be prohibited under either law (GOP) or are not in accordance with church teachings (LDS). But Democrats have not come out in favor of unlimited access to abortion. They simply support Roe v. Wade and oppose any limits on a woman’s choice that go beyond that case. No one disputes that both federal and state law impose significant restrictions and criminal punishment on many types of abortion that do not fall within Roe v. Wade. So the LDS Church, Republicans, and Democrats all agree on that.

Rep. Lifferth states that the LDS Church and GOP positions are similar in using terms such as “sacred” and “sanctity” when referring to the unborn child while the Democratic platform does not use such terms. But this similarity doesn’t really help Republicans demonstrate that the GOP is closer than the Democrats to the LDS Church position on abortion. It just shows that on this, as on so many other issues, the GOP frames political debates in religious terms as often as possible. Is that a helpful or productive thing in terms of advancing understanding about what would be good public policy? I don’t believe so. Decisions about public policy should be based on facts, not ideology or a particular religion’s moral values. Nothing about LDS Church doctrine advocates fusing church and state policymaking based solely on religious or moral principles. In fact, both generally and in the context of the abortion debate, the Church supports the First Amendment and long-standing Constitutional doctrines about the need to separate church from state in our political affairs.

Rep. Lifferth goes on to state, “the LDS Church position is that ‘elective’ is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. This is a direct contradiction of the National Democratic Party’s position which states [that it] “strongly and unequivocally supports . . . a woman’s right to make decisions.” Rep. Lifferth suggests that the LDS Church would support efforts to see its position on abortion channeled directly into civil and criminal law. But the Church says no such thing. In fact, it expressly states that it does not favor or oppose legislative proposals involving abortion. In other words, the Church explicitly recognizes the importance of separating church and state. Rep. Lifferth’s statement inaccurately and improperly attempts to combine the two.

It’s the Church that makes the right call on this point. The position of the GOP and Rep. Lifferth, advocating that certain conduct be made a crime on the basis that it is proscribed by religious or moral principles, is contrary to LDS Church doctrine. The Democratic platform is more in line with the Church’s position because the Democratic platform does not frame the debate in religious terms and it does not insist that because particular conduct is deemed “immoral” by a particular religion that is must be criminalized. The LDS Church position is that its moral teachings do not reach to the political sphere and that its religious position does not dictate public policy.

Rep. Lifferth concludes by stating: “there is nothing in the LDS Church’s position on abortion that supports ‘Roe v. Wade’ or a woman’s right to an ‘abortion’. On the contrary, none of the ‘exceptional circumstances’ listed ‘automatically justify and [sic] abortion.” True. But it is likewise true that nothing in the LDS Church’s position on abortion advocates for the reversal of Roe v. Wade or a woman’s legal right to an abortion. In fact, as noted above, the Church specifically differentiates between the two.

The idea that a particular religion’s spiritual tenets should not necessarily be adopted as public policy is something we, as Utah legislators, understand very well and accept in other contexts. For example, tobacco use is strongly and unequivocally forbidden by LDS Church doctrine. Church teachings proscribing tobacco are more clear-cut than its statements about abortion. Yet there is no thought by the Utah State legislature of criminalizing tobacco use. Why not?

I believe at least part of the reason is that most people recognize that there would be enormous practical problems with trying to make all tobacco use illegal in Utah. Doing so would require the commitment of significant resources to enforce the law. What effect would criminalizing such fundamentally personal and private behavior have on our law enforcement resources, our personal relationships, our community relations, the public image of the state, efforts to bring economic development to Utah, tourism, etc? In addition, legislators are, and should be, wary of using coercive government influence to regulate personal and private choices of individuals. This is true even if everyone recognizes those choices may, directly and indirectly, kill and seriously injure the person who engages in the conduct and bystanders as well. Why do we not consider and discuss the same types of, cultural, social, economic, logistical, political, and philosophical factors when it comes to abortion? These issues are no less prominent, valid, and difficult with regard to abortion than with tobacco, alcohol, or a host of other behaviors arising out of personal choices the Church prohibits or deems immoral.

The problem with the abortion debate is that it has come down to two sides simply yelling slogans and platitudes at each other. The real world effects of going in the direction that the national or state GOP wants to take us are rarely discussed. If those realities and the effects of banning all abortions as the GOP platforms call for were considered in any detail, I’m very confident more Utahns would support the Democratic than the Republican position on abortion.

April: Jesus is my Example

admin — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 12:53:14 +0000

April

Family Home Evening: Jesus is my Example

John 8:12 “I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.”

Suggested Song: Teach Me to Walk in the Light (Hymn 304, CS p. 177)

What is an Example?

Play “Do as I do”. Each member of the family takes a turn as leader. The leader stands in front of the others and performs an action, like clapping, touching his nose, winking, or saying something. The rest of the group imitates his actions. Parents or the ones conducting the family home evening may want to be leader after the others have had a turn so they can introduce a few examples of reverent behavior for others to follow.

Discuss the idea of using Jesus as our example.

Mark 10: 13-16 He loved the little children
Mark 6: 53-56, 7:31-35 He helped the sick and those in need
John 4: 6-10 He was kind
John 8: 32 He taught the importance of truth

For the teenagers and adults:

“Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these,”

Roger sat at the dinner table, tired but happy. He had spent his entire Saturday at the university library studying for exams. His roommates had all gone out on dates or to the football game, but Roger stayed in, determined to keep his high grade point average. He had finally finished all his studies, and was beginning to prepare his Gospel Doctrine lesson about following the example of Christ for the next morning.

When the doorbell rang, Roger reacted with a frown. “Who would be coming here on a Saturday night?”

When he opened the door he found an unshaven, scraggly dressed man about forty years old. The man’s breath smelled of tobacco and liquor. “I just drove into town,” the man said, “and my car stopped right here in the middle of your street.” The man explained how he hadn’t eaten all day and that his friend had a son attending the university whom he wanted to find. “Could you spare me a bite to eat, and then help me find out what’s wrong with my car? You could probably help me find my friend’s son too, couldn’t you?”

Roger tried to think of an excuse. There were several other houses on the street in which families, not students, lived. They probably had more food. They probably didn’t have to worry about teaching a Sunday School lessons and weren’t as tired as he was tonight. Besides, this guy might even ask to stay the night. What would his roommates think if they came home to this man in their apartment?

On the other hand…Roger did know something about cars…

What would you do if you were Roger?
What would the Lord have you do? Why?
Read Matthew 25: 31-46 and discuss.

Challenge: Find ways to care for others in the next week. Write them down and discuss them. What can we do to help those we don’t see every day? What good can we do to help those we may never meet?

Why I support the Affordable Care Act

steve — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 00:59:08 +0000

Author: Josh Hogan

As an LDS Democrat I support the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Here are my reasons:

1. It is the law of the land, duly passed by Congress, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court. As such I think Utah should participate. There is “no need to break the law of the land” (D&C 58:21).

2. People need access to healthcare, even if they are poor. Healthcare is expensive, so if we can help millions of people get care we should. I believe in helping people who are in need.

Some people say it will be too expensive. Congress doesn’t think so. It is yet to be seen. Let’s make sure we do all we can to help as many people possible in a fiscally responsible way.

Some people say it takes away agency by “forcing” people to pay more taxes. Our government is representative. When you are out voted it may feel that you are being forced to do something you don’t want to do. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve felt that way. But, “[I] believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” (12^th Article of Faith) Thankfully, we have civil means whereby we can challenge, and even change, laws. If we can’t do that we have the freedom to leave, not as states, but as individuals. Let’s consider everyone’s point of view and improve the ACA to address our concerns.

One thing I think should be changed is obliging people to adhere to the law by going against their religion. I believe in freedom of religion. I think we can make sufficient changes so religious-sponsored health institutions are comfortable participating in this new way of doing things.

Josh Hogan

Executive Committee, Utah County LDS Democrats

Saving the traditional family

steve — Sun, 07 Apr 2013 21:08:33 +0000

We don’t yet know the Supreme Court decisions on California’s Prop 8 and DOMA, but it appears the general consensus is correct on this subject: No matter what the Court does, same-sex marriage is coming to America. The tide of public opinion is moving so fast in that direction that nothing can stop it.

Here’s my own personal opinion: I had hoped that civil rights could be guaranteed for non-traditional families without changing the definition of marriage. I believe gay rights activists would have been open to that kind of solution early on, and it could have avoided some of the hard feelings between the two camps. But the march of history has eliminated it as a subject for negotiation. News reports this week indicate Orrin Hatch may be finally supporting the concept of civil unions, but he’s a little late to the party. The horse is out of the barn.

So, for those of us who are concerned about the health of the traditional family, what do we do now? To hear some talk, the apparent victory of same-sex marriage proponents is a sign of the Apocalypse; the Messiah will surely come and destroy the world for its wickedness. All there is left is to barricade ourselves in our homes and wait for the fire and brimstone to start falling.

I am rather of the same mindset as Gordon B. Hinckley in his book “Standing for Something”: I am an optimist. I think we misread the teachings of the Brethren if we think that gay marriage is the only threat to traditional families, or even the worst threat. I think you will hear that subject discussed much more in your average High Priest group meeting than in General Conference. You will hear many more sermons on pornography, tender love and care to spouses and children, keeping debt levels manageable, boring old-fashioned heterosexual adultery, the importance of education and marketable skills etc. For those who truly care about the family, there is much that can be done – and should be done.

Speaking of President Hinckley, one of the most prophetic sermons given on the family was his October 2006 address in the Priesthood session. Here is a memorable quote:

“I call your attention to another matter that gives me great concern. In revelation the Lord has mandated that this people get all the education they can. He has been very clear about this. But there is a troubling trend taking place. Elder Rolfe Kerr, Commissioner of Church Education, advises me that in the United States nearly 73 percent of young women graduate from high school, compared to 65 percent of young men. Young men are more likely to drop out of school than young women.

“Approximately 61 percent of young men enroll in college immediately following high school, compared to 72 percent for young women.

“In 1950, 70 percent of those enrolled in college were males, and 30 percent were females; by 2010 projections estimate 40 percent will be males, and 60 percent will be females.

“Women have earned more bachelor’s degrees than men every year since 1982 and more master’s degrees since 1986.

“It is plainly evident from these statistics that young women are exceeding young men in pursuing educational programs.”

This problem of young men in America falling behind in achieving marketable skills, so prophetically proclaimed in President Hinckley’s talk, is getting a lot of attention among academics and political leaders recently. In his recent article “Straight Marriage Is The Real Issue”, respected conservative commentator David Frum took on this subject of young men being left out of the nation’s economy. One quote from sociologist Michael Greenstone is thought provoking: “”I think the greatest, most astonishing fact that I am aware of in social science right now is that women have been able to hear the labor market screaming out ‘You need more education’ and have been able to respond to that, and men have not. And it’s very, very scary for economists because people should be responding to price signals. And men are not. It’s a fact in need of an explanation.”

Frum goes on to say, “As men (on average) finish less education, as male wages (on average) decline, men become less attractive as marital partners. As Harvard’s Christopher Jencks — a left-leaning academic, it should be stressed — said: ‘Single-parent families tend to emerge in places where the men already are a mess…. But how do we make men without a college education less of a mess? This is the master problem of American society’. (There is) a widening divergence between the family patterns of the college-educated top one-third, where family life is increasingly stable, and those of the non-college-educated bottom two-thirds, where family life is increasingly disrupted. It’s the family life of the bottom two-thirds that is the family policy challenge of the 21st century. The debate over same-sex marriage is yesteryear’s issue. It’s settled, whether the Supreme Court knows it or not. But how to ensure that the next generation of American children enjoys the more equal chance and the wider opportunities from a more universal commitment to marriage — that debate needs to begin.”

(Frum also makes an interesting point in his piece: In pushing for the right to make their relationships more legally binding, gay rights activists are asking for less freedom for themselves, not more. Whether we agree with gay marriage or not, the debate should serve as a call for us heterosexuals that we should take our own marriage covenants more seriously.)

Stop and think for a moment: For all of human history until just a few decades ago, the vast majority of men provided for their families by “the sweat of their brow”; in other words, through manual labor. Not only that; until a century ago, the vast majority of that manual labor was farming. Males of the human species have millennia of social and genetic conditioning that leads the majority of them to manual work. It has always been a tiny minority of men who have worked with their minds instead of their muscles. However, in a period of time equal to the blink of an eye in human history, that paradigm was violently turned on its head. Modern technology and global capitalism have largely eliminated the means by which the vast majority of men historically provided for their families.

Many things threaten traditional marriage and families in our society. But maybe the most important thing we can do to save the family hinges on this question: How can we provide opportunities for men who don’t have the talent or inclination to be doctors, scientists or Wall Street bankers to contribute to our economy, and to be sufficiently compensated for their contributions to allow them to support a family? The Church’s inspired Perpetual Education Fund is one model for solving this problem. We also shouldn’t be shy about looking elsewhere in the world for examples. The northern European countries have actually been successful in reversing this trend the last decade. The result should be shocking to Americans: A teenage girl has a greater probability of living with her biological father in Sweden than in the United States. I don’t know about you, but I find that fact extremely embarrassing. I certainly don’t believe we should copy their policies verbatim, but there seems to be something to learn here. Since this new world, where manual labor has little economic value, is so revolutionary, by definition old ideologies will not be up to the challenge.

Unless we find a practical solution to this question, those well-known alarming statistics on the health of the traditional family in America will continue.

Family Home Evening

admin — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 19:52:18 +0000

LDS Dems Family Home Evening Program

LDS Dems and the Democratic Party have created a program to enrich the spiritual and political lives of members, encourage deep conversation, and invite others to participate in civic and Democratic activities. This program is based on the family home evening planning guides provided by the Church, and does not attempt to deviate, translate, or infer party politics on gospel truths. The LDS Dems FHE program is a tool for us to open up our homes to our communities, provide answers, understanding, and opportunity to participate in the great democratic process in Utah and our country.

These guides will be monthly. Invite friends, family members and neighbors to come over for a relaxing, informative, and uplifting gospel lesson. Feel free to use these guides and adapt them as you see fit.

March

Family Home Evening: Citizenship

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

Scriptures: Doctrine and Covenants 134; Mosiah 2:17

Gospel Truth

Being a good citizen means more than just obeying the laws of the land. It also means being actively involved in making our community the best possible place for all to live. As we become good citizens of our community, we are doing the will of Heavenly Father in that regard.

What are ways that we can become active in our community?

Have family members find examples of good citizens in the newspaper or magazines or think of someone in your city, at work, or in school who would qualify as a good citizen. Have them explain why the person they chose is a good citizen.

Challenge: List ways for each person in your family to become more active in the next month. Complete one of those suggestions as an individual or as a family.

What’s important, America

steve — Sat, 23 Mar 2013 12:08:53 +0000

The following quote by Robert F. Kennedy (click here for recording and video) is a sobering indictment of how far we have strayed from our values, and is more true today than in 1968.

“Too much and for too long, we seemed to have surrendered personal excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our Gross National Product, now, is over $800 billion dollars a year, but that Gross National Product – if we judge the United States of America by that – that Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and counts nuclear warheads and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities. It counts Whitman’s rifle and Speck’s knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.

Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.”

It’s been ten years since we invaded Iraq

steve — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 15:18:33 +0000

Ten years ago, in March 2003, our country went to war with Iraq. There were two reasons given: that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and that Saddam had links to al-Qaeda. The mistake about the weapons claim is now history; less discussed is how ridiculous the second claim was. America was Bin Laden’s enemy only by association; his real target was secular leaders in the Arab world like Hussein and the Saudi family.

I voted for Bush in 2000, and during the buildup to the war, I was telling everyone who would listen: Look, the man’s a Texan. He’s a born poker player. He’s got to make the bluff look credible to get Saddam to buckle under, but there ain’t no way the man is crazy enough to actually send in the troops. Surely his dad has informed him what a quagmire that would turn into.

Boy, did I ever get that wrong. You just read one of the significant reasons I became a Democrat (and a big fan of Andrew Bachevich, who has the clearest vision of what our foreign policy should be in the current century).

One of the unfortunate outcomes of that war is that, unlike Vietnam, we still have people in power and with influence that didn’t learn their lesson. During the next month, you will be hearing a lot of revisionist history from these folks. This article by Peter Van Buren sets the record straight, and this post warns us to keep our guard up. Let’s make sure no one forgets how much that unnecessary war has damaged America and the world.

Stop Talking Crap About the BYU Democrats

steve — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 15:15:09 +0000

“I heard that all five of you BYU Democrats have been pretty active this year! *wink wink*”

“You’re a member of the BYU Democrats? Have they taken away your temple recommend yet?”

“They let you guys exist?!?!”

If you have ever thought about saying one of these things (or maybe you continue to say them)- please, in the wise words of our beloved President Uchtdorf: STOP IT.

As the current Co-President of this group, let me share with you a few things.

Did you know that we have about 30-35 people regularly attend our weekly meetings? Did you know that we have close to 700 BYU students on our emailing list and about 400 in our Facebook group? Did you know that the advisor for our club is the Chair of the Political Science Department? Did you know that none of us have gotten our temple recommends taken away for being a member of the club?

Did you know that every time you crack a joke about the BYU Democrats being lame or too inconsequential to make any difference, you diminish the possibility for recognizing their achievements and prominence, and by extension liberal Mormons as a whole?

The BYU Democrats is the largest College Democrats chapter in Utah. Dozens of us participated in campaigning for President Obama, with many of us taking weekend trips to canvass in Colorado and participate in weekly phone banks. Several BYU Democrats are currently serving internships with the Utah legislature, including as interns to two of the five Democrats in the State Senate (which are difficult spots to achieve). We have weekly club meetings with speakers, debates, and other activities like field trips to the state capitol, all of which have been well attended.

So please, stop talking crap about the BYU Democrats. We’re not the largest club on campus, and we haven’t single-handedly influenced any elections. But every time you jokingly (or not jokingly) spread these incorrect assumptions about the BYU Democrats, you disparage liberal Mormons and the possibility for the Church to be politically neutral. You send the message that liberal Mormons are still a joke, it is some feat of enormous courage and threat for excommunication to admit that you are a Democrat, and it is okay to diminish the successes of a minority simply for being a minority.

We deserve better, you deserve better, and the greater community of Mormons and people outside the church watching this dialogue unfold deserve better. So stop talking crap about the BYU Democrats. Instead, think about speaking about us favorably once in a while. Consider supporting our club, monetarily or by offering your professional services as a speaker at one of our club meetings if you’re ever in Utah. Let us know if there are any job openings or conferences in your respective fields that members of our club might be interested in. Instead of talking down about us, reach out a hand and help us be better- among us are members of the next generation of LDS Dems.

Feel free to contact Hannah at hannah.wheelwright@gmail.com