How they reason that Mormon politicians?

in.How they reason that Mormon politicians? Sometimes when I hear the arguments of politicians who are members of the Church, both in Sweden and abroad, so hit me the idea of ​​how different they may be. There are liberal Mormons, conservative Mormons. If the church has a certain attitude on an issue, it can be expected that this attitude is reflected in the current politician? No, it's not. For example, to church officially supports for illegal immigrants generous Utah Compact. My Romney's settings to illegal immigration makes you start to wonder if he even heard of Utah Compact. Of course, he has it, but he chooses to follow the party line.

Another question concerns whether as Mormon politicians should let one's own ethical stance reflect off on political decision-making. If I for example have a restrictive attitude to abortion, should I support this politically? Various politicians various reasons and reason also in various ways during different phases of life. Harry Reid became the recently criticized for being a democratic politician. He represents a party that is for same-sex marriage and abortion. Mitt Romney has from the beginning been in favor of the woman's free will to perform the abortion, but has in recent years made a U-turn. How can it be so?

There are two things to be considered as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The first is of course that you try to spread the gospel, the good message, and try to live as Jesus has lived. One strives for a world in which the family is at the center, where everyone's equal worth is emphasized and where all life is the creation of God and must be protected. It's one side of the coin. The other side is specific to our church. It is the doctrine of man's free will. We believe God requested a plan of salvation in a prexist before we were born down to this earth. Two people offered their services. First, Lucifer was the one who wanted to force man to salvation and then take credit for what he had done. Then came the Jehovah - or Jesus Christ - and offered to give his life for mankind to atone for man's sins and let the man himself have the opportunity to opt between good and evil. The honor for this would be attributed to Heavenly Father. Yes, as you all understand, Jesus won the plan of salvation and Lucifer was cast out of heaven as an unbelieving angel. This doctrine helps members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also freedom of choice. We need to give people the right to choose his life and get to what we would regard as destructive decisions.

These approaches aukualiserades to me recently when an active politician in Sweden, who is also a member of the church, asked the following question on a discussion forum. Have the doctrine of the importance of human free will in the back of the head so hang you with the reasoning:

I think a lot about what should be done because I have become deputies in the municipal public health. This spring, "we" (I was not even then) a letter from the Swedish Asthma and Allergy Association, where they pleaded for the municipality to introduce tobacco-working, citing, inter alia, to allergies and asthma as particularly sensitive children may react to smokers and snus users who breathes out his tobacco air.

When we got it in the social welfare committee (of which I was then deputy), I imagined negative to this because it would have far-reaching consequences, it is not just the children who are affected by the so-called protection such a policy would entail. There, as proposed would apply to all workplaces in the municipality, which I saw as an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of people to destroy their body.

What do you say others? Is it reasonable that the municipality may require even employees refrain from tobacco during work hours?

Sure, it may seem surprising that a Mormon politicians in Sweden does not support the proposal that involves the Swedish population greater hold on what we in the Church calls for the Word of Wisdom, that the Church's law of health which among other things requires that we, as members may not use tobacco . I usually try to imagine how I would probably have acted if I had not been a member of the church. I might as allergies, do not see how a limited spatial opportunity for smoking, to infringe upon human free will. To me it is obvious that we must have a society that takes account of their fellow men, and to smoke in a public place is not to take into account. In addition, dies about 500 people in Sweden each year as a result of so-called. passive smoking. This member has in any case been running question of free will to a head.

Below a few youtub clips where Mitt Romney first advocates the right to free abortion and then change the matter. Probably, he has commuted from the doctrine that man has a free will to the more general Christian view that we will spread some kind of ethics in society. In his statements, one of the thirteen religious articles in the church also echoes

  • We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to our own conscience, challenges, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they want.
  • We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.