God's plan in Politics- part 3, Foreign affairs

Turning our attention to foreign affairs in our quest to find out how God's plan would work in politics, the biggest issues that tend to loom are war and intervention - mainly when to do them. I tried to remember what policies each end of the political spectrum had but I had trouble so I looked it up. It turns out that it's not that easy to figure out, especially for the right. It seems the parties have changed their stances through recent history so this won't be very helpful in deciding which I prefer at the end of this experiment. But, I can at least work on God's plan as it relates to foreign affairs in general.

Let's start with war because I think that might be easier. It's clear in the scriptures that God dislikes war (Isaiah 2:4, Psalms 46:9) but that He also knows that it is sometimes necessary (Ecclesiastes 3:1,8). The question is when is it right to go to war or start a war and when is it wrong? I believe, from my upbringing in the LDS church and my studies in the scriptures that the only two good reasons to go to war are for self-defense or when God specifically says to. In the Book of Mormon, it is clear that it is ok to go to war in self-defense. The Nephites had to do this a lot because the Lamanites attacked them, their families and their freedom. In one such instance, the Lord tells the Nephites, "Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed." (Alma 43:47).

In the Old Testament, we find an instance of God telling the Israelites to go to war. God gives the land of Israel to the Israelites and they must go to war with Canaan to get it. In the book of Joshua, you can read where God has told him to do this. "now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel." (Joshua 1:2) In this instance, God was explicit that they were not to take of the spoils of the war - everything was to be destroyed.

Other than these reasons, it is hard to justify a war. I think even the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are hard to defend because we could reasonably have bolstered our own homeland security, which we did, and gone after terrorist cells using special forces, which we also did. We could reasonably say that it is self-defense to go after these bad guys in this way since they're the ones eager and capable of coming after us. But, to invade a whole country, whose government is not actively attacking us, is not really in the realm of self-defense. You may argue that the government was harboring the terrorist cells but it would be a much more prudent action to impose sanctions, get a coalition together to do the same and pressure the government to assist us in getting the bad guys or allow us to come in and do it ourselves. This would be much more along God's ideas of how we should conduct ourselves than going to an all-out war, which endangers many more innocents.

Another arguable reason to go to war would be humanitarian - a brutal regime oppressing its citizens, such as what we see in Syria or in the case of the Taliban in Afghanistan. But, I don't believe God's plan would allow for us to do that, either. Again the action to take that would better fit His plan would be sanctions and pressure from other countries and to bolster the security of the people where we can. There is a great example of this in the Book of Mormon. A large group of Lamanites who had at one time attacked and killed Nephites on a regular basis, were converted to the gospel by some of those Nephites and vowed never to take up arms again. They buried all of their weapons of war as a sign of their covenant and called themselves Anti-Nephi-Lehis. When the other Lamanites came to attack them, instead of digging up their weapons, they "prostrated themselves before them to the earth", meaning they literally laid down at the mercy of their attackers' feet. The Nephites never attacked the Lamanites in return, even though this group of people who had just converted, were being slaughtered. When the Lamanites saw that the Anti-Nephi-Lehis were not going to fight or run away, many of them threw down their weapons of war and repented of all the murders they had done before and joined them. The rest of them eventually slinked away after having killed about a thousand people. But, more than twice that joined them. Even though the Nephites did not attack the Lamanites, they did move the Anti-Nephi-Lehis to new land within their borders so that they could protect them. And this they did through several attacks by the Lamanites. This is an amazing testament to the power of righteousness and a perfect example of how to perpetuate God's plan, even in times of war.

Remember that war means loss of life, which is precious and should be preserved as much as possible. Lives are already being lost in some countries because of internal strife, a cruel dictator or other oppression, but those lives that are lost because of the free choice of other human beings stand as witness to the evil that is being perpetrated and God will punish those that commit those crimes. Another story in the BofM is of Alma and Amulek who are imprisoned for preaching and all those who believe are burned. Amulek knows he and Alma could stop them by the power of God and asks Alma to do something to save the people. Alma replies:

"The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord... doth suffer that they may do this thing,... that the judgements which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day." (Alma 14: 11)

So, if you think that drunk driver or that rapist/murderer is getting away with something - he isn't. And neither are the despots that are making their own people suffer.

Also, those that lose their lives will find peace and their eternal reward waiting for them, as illustrated by the Anti-Nephi-Lehis who died. It says in the Book of Mormon "and we know that they are blessed for they have gone to dwell with their God" (Alma 24: 22).

Finally, those who survive will have endured trials that will raise them up in the eyes of God and increase their reward because of those trials. Remember Job and that he was blessed "twice as much as he had before" all of his trials (Job: 42.10). Another scripture that comes to mind here is Doctrine and Covenants 122:7 which says:

"And if thou shouldst be cast into the pit, or into the hands of murderers, and the sentence of death passed upon thee;...and above all, if the very jaws of hell shall gape open the mouth wide after thee, know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good."

I think when considering God's plan for us and the rest of humanity, it is best to take a prime directive approach to war - allow other countries to run themselves, progress or digress, and make their own mistakes on their own. Their people have their own lessons to learn in this life and so unless those people or governments are actively trying to get us, we should allow God's plan to move forward for them without our interference.

When I asked Andy about this, I asked him if he knew for a certainty that his neighbor was right this minute beating his wife, would he go into their home to stop him or would he call the police? He said he'd go into their house to stop him. I think that is a good point, but I think that God's plan would call for us to find a peaceful way to stop that man once we got into the house, and to stop the dictator's evil.

When it comes to non-military intervention, we should take a similar stance, with some differences. A good analogy is that of a community of families or households. We would not intervene in someone else's affairs unless there was a dire need or, if they asked for help in some way. But, otherwise, their lives, decisions, and trials are their own and we would not barge in with our own ideas trying to change things. The same would be true in our community of countries. Live and let live but if there is a humanitarian need, let's get in there and help, where we can. This goes along with several of the principals we've discussed, free agency, self-reliance, the value of service and the idea that each person's/country's lives and paths are their own and their struggles are what God has given them to work through. The bottom line is unless it's a humanitarian need, we shouldn't be interfering to change regimes, drive a country in another direction or even to force Democracy on them. If they want Democracy, they'll get it for themselves.

It was difficult to find scriptures on these specific topics but using what I know and the scriptures we've used before, I think these ideas would be compatible with God's plan. But, I would love to hear your input - less on what you or your political party believes, though - and more on how you think God would expect us to handle these situations.

Thank you for indulging me in my exploration of ideas. I hope it was some sort of help to you or at least entertaining. I was right, though that it didn't help me much to decide on a party or candidate to vote for in this election. I think both parties have some ideas that go along with God's plan for us and each has ideas that are decidedly not along God's path. I am getting closer, though.

God's Plan in Politics - Part 2 - Social issues, section 1

Ok everyone, strap in because we're talking about social issues, this time. We think the economy is controversial but it doesn't hold a candle to these doozies. If you didn't get to read my first blog in this series, check it out. It's about economics and how God's plan would define the perfect economic system. Today I'm going to explore how God's plan relates to social issues in politics to see if I can determine where the true answers lie on the conservative-liberal spectrum. My hope is that this can help me decide which party to support in the coming election. We'll see if this works. I will be splitting this one into two sections. As I wrote it, it got pretty long.

Abortion: Let's start with my favorite topic, abortion. It's probably the most controversial of these, except maybe gay marriage but abortion is the one I'm most passionate about and this is my blog so I'm making it first. Being a strict pro-lifer, I've never given the choice issue the weight that maybe it deserves in the debate. Life and choice seem completely contradictory. But, recently I have been considering one of the most important principles of the gospel, at least from a Mormon perspective and that is free agency. We, Mormons, believe that is one of the great laws that even God will not bend. He will not disturb someone's free agency, even if someone is going to die because of someone else's choices. So, how does this play into the abortion issue? That's a tough one.

Of course we have to start with life and the great value of it in God's plan. Taking someone's life is not only breaking God's law, we consider it the most egregious sin, except for denying the Holy Ghost outright. So, if you believe that life begins somewhere in the womb, and not once the fetus emerges, and you define yourself as a Christian, I don't see how you could not believe that taking that life is a great sin, especially considering the innocence of the child. There is nowhere in the time of the pregnancy which it would be considered safe to have an abortion and still be within God's law because we have no idea at what point God sends His child's spirit into the growing body. On top of that, if you believe as we do that we come to this Earth to learn, be tested and gain experience in this life, abortion takes all those opportunities away from a brother or sister spirit. There are several scriptures against killing - I'm sure we know them well:

"Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13, and repeated in 9 different places within the Bible, Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants)

"Wo unto the murderer who deliberately killeth" (2Nephi 9:35)

"He that kills shall not have forgiveness" (D&C 42:18)

But what of choice? From the very beginning, Adam and Eve, God has emphasized choice - "Of every tree...thou mayest freely eat" (Genesis 2:16). Does this mean that we should have the freedom to choose abortion? That the law should not hinder that choice? Let's read further in that same chapter in Genesis: "But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." (Genesis 2:17) God is clearly giving the law and the consequence of breaking that law. So, we see that clearly God believes in laws and their consequences. But, that doesn't answer the deeper question- whether a man-made government has the right to make such a law. There are actually some scriptures that address this, or at least our responsibility to keep those laws:

"Be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates" (Titus 3:1)

"And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me." (D&C 98:5)

So, it would seem that God accepts governments, and their making of laws - as long as they are constitutional and supporting freedom and rights. The question of whether a law against abortion is unconstitutional is basically one of opinion and depending on the members of the court who hear it, could be different. But, that matters less than the right that a government has to ban abortion.

So, it comes down to this, in my view: abortion is against God's law and thus, should be against human law, as well. Women have a choice, a God-given freedom of agency to break God's law, whether there is a man-made law in place or not. It does not take away a woman's choice any more than the law against murder keeps a killer from making that choice. The only difference is that there are earthly consequences as well as heavenly ones to making that choice.

There is a group that I subscribe to called Feminists for Life that advocates greater support for women who find themselves pregnant unexpectedly. They, as I, believe that if these women had greater financial, emotional and moral support, there would be no more need for abortion. These women would have a better choice to either keep the baby or put him/her up for adoption. They recognize that abortion does neither the baby or the woman any good and most of the time women greatly regret the decision. I believe this is the answer that fits in God's plan. There should be a man-made law that matches God's law to give every child a chance to live - no exceptions as in God's plan there would not be any. Along with this law, there should be immense, government supported help for any woman who is surprised by a pregnancy. Our culture and society should open their hearts and arms to these ladies to help them make the right choice and to support that choice through encouraging the father's support, encouraging colleges to provide services so women can complete their education, workplaces to provide child care and other needed services so women can keep working if they want and need to. Most of all, society needs to reject any stigma against an unwed mother that may still be lingering and especially any stigma against putting a child up for adoption so that this choice is viable and preferable.

On the spectrum of right/left, I think this answer falls to the right because of their support for a law. I have yet to see either side take up a policy for greater support for unwed mothers to prevent abortion. Tell your party to be the first!!

Gay Marriage: Maybe even more explosive than abortion, gay marriage has proven to gain support more and more every year. It is likely to be legalized everywhere one day. But, should it? As Christians, should we be considering God's plan when voting on this divisive issue? It is one that feels good to support. Everyone deserves love and to spend their lives with the one they love without fear of losing valuable privileges that are given to other couples. We are told to love one another so does opposing gay marriage mean you are a bigot? These are all questions that I think can be answered by the gospel and God's plan for us as we live on this earth.

We all know that the scriptures denounce the practice of homosexuality (Lev. 18:22, 1 Tim 1:10, 2 Ne. 13:9) But, we must balance that with the second greatest commandment "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Matt 5:43 and in ten other scriptures) and what Christ taught "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another" (John 13:34 and in at least 4 other scriptures). So, how do we love our brothers and sisters who are homosexual without condoning their actions? And, is the issue of gays having the opportunity to marry even our business?

God's plan is clear that the nuclear man/woman based family is how it should be, based on his commandments, for multiplying and replenishing the earth (Gen. 1:28 a commandment we still believe to be in force, as stated in the Mormon document "The Family A Proclamation to the World") and for the ideal balance of gender qualities it brings to a family. This is the ideal that is expressed in the proclamation: "Marriage between a man and woman is essential to His eternal plan." Further, the Proclamation describes the sacred gender roles that a father and mother have in the family and how those are critical to the best way to rear children:

"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."

"Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation", it says. But, the ideal is clear and we should consistently support the ideal, even if it doesn't always happen.

Further, Mormons and Christians believe in the sacred nature of procreation. We literally work with God to create bodies for his child spirits to inhabit. Misusing that sacred power is troubling to Him, to say the least. As Christians, we must support God's plan in every way, including in the voting booth. If we don't, we will have to face Him one day and account for our own actions.

However, His law is also very clear that we should love everyone, including those with whose lifestyle we don't agree. We must also allow them the same free agency that I spoke of above. Everyone is on this Earth to deal with the physical, emotional, mental and sexual qualities that God gave them and not only are we not to judge others and their actions, we are to love and support them where we can - where we are not violating our own values. This means we should not be hindering their legal rights as a couple, in fact, compassion dictates that they should be allowed to visit one another in hospitals, should be allowed to be each other's beneficiaries in whatever benefits or legal processes they're involved in. If they want tax breaks as married couples have, fine - allow that. It doesn't hurt anyone and shows the love and compassion the Savior would have for them. Those are things of Caesar and of governments and if government makes these things legal, then I would happily support them.

I think God's plan is very clear on how we are to get along in this world with one another. Live and let live where we can but we should not promote an institutionalized practice that is counter to His plan and His will for us on this Earth. Again, my belief is His plan is for us to vote against gay marriage but accept and love all people as our brothers and sisters - as they truly are.

I don't think either party has addressed this issue appropriately. Though the right tends to believe in marriage only between a man and woman, they also tend to lack the compassion and support they should be giving to those who have same-sex relationships or the ability to compromise so they can have legal rights that married couples have. The left seems to ignore the ideal of the nuclear family in favor of allowing gay marriage. On this issue, I declare a draw. We need to go back to the drawing table and come up with a system that shows the love and compassion that gay couples need and deserve while still setting apart marriage for heterosexual couples.

Next time, I'll try to tackle the death penalty, stem cell use and euthanasia - what fun topics, huh? :\ Well, hopefully we're all getting something out of this. Feel free to argue with me and express your opinion. Who knows you might change my mind! ;-)

And, in case you missed it, here's a link to part one of my series of God's Plan in Politics - the Economy.

Applying God's Plan to Politics - Part 1

I have been thinking lately about politics, as many of us have. Choosing a Presidential candidate has been difficult for me since I see value in both parties as well as severe problems. I decided to see if I could apply what I KNOW I believe to be true to this dilemma; my Mormon/Christian beliefs. I think that I have discovered that with the correct understanding of God's plan, Christ's atonement and the principles embedded in those, I can answer most any political question. Of course this is using my interpretation of God's plan but I think I can back it up with scriptures and history. So, if you're interested, come along on this journey with me through the next few posts and let's see if I'm right. And, please comment, ask questions, and help me tweak these ideas or tell me where you think I'm flat out wrong. But, to do that, I need you to put aside your already political thinking and try to tap into your Christian understandings, if those are what you subscribe to. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how these might work with other belief systems but I'd love to hear your thoughts on those, too.


In going through this exercise, I hope to figure out which party and candidate to support in the upcoming election. My hypothesis, however is that I won't be able to do that because both parties have some of the ideals that I'll be talking about. I'm not sure yet if one of them will stand out as enshrining a majority of the principles in God's plan. So this exercise may be for naught. But it should be fun, anyway.

Let's start with economics since that seems to be of highest priority in this election. Republicans and those on the right seem subscribe to capitalism with as little government involvement as possible - let the market work things out. Whereas the Democrats and those on the left seem to be a bit more flexible on this. They too believe in capitalism but seem to think it's ok for the federal government to get involved when things seem to go against some people. So, what might God prescribe as the optimal way to manage an economy?

As I see it, there are several instances in scripture and history where God's people have used one particular economic system. In the early days of the Mormon church, this system was called the United Order, but we find it also described as "having all things in common". We, in the Mormon faith say that it is a "divine principle whereby men and women voluntarily dedicate their time, talents, and material wealth to the establishment and building up of God’s kingdom." (LDS.org, Guide to the Scriptures). These days, it's practiced in a much milder form, devoting volunteer time and tithing and fast offerings to the church, but back in the day, The United Order was all-encompassing, sharing all wealth, property and time to the community that was the church at the time.

This system is also found in the Book of Mormon, historically around 35-341 AD, after Christ's visit to the people in the Americas. In 4 Nephi 1:3, it says,

"And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift."

But, it is not unique to Mormons. It is also found in the New Testament. Members of the church, converted by the apostles and led by Peter lived the law of consecration. In Acts 2:44,45 it is described like this,

"And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need."

In Acts 4:33,34 it further talks about this system,

"neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."

In the early history of the church, the United Order did not survive because of the weaknesses of human beings. Greed and jealousy made it impossible. In the New Testament times, Ananias and Sapphira were caught disobeying this law and, combined with lying to the Lord, it got them killed. I think the same greed kept this system from surviving then, as well.

This sounds a lot like Socialism or even Communism, to me. I know that is political blasphemy but it's hard to argue that God has not supported such economic systems in the past. My personal belief is that the Law of Consecration/United Order in its purist form is the ideal economic system that God wants for his people. We, as Mormons, believe it will be reinstituted at the Second Coming, this time permanently with Christ as its head. It is part of His plan for us.

So, in my humble opinion, this preoccupation with such strict capitalism is not God's ideal for us. Failing the actual ideal, we should be institutionally supporting the poor and making the playing field more level for everyone.

However, this system must be combined with the most important value of work. This is also an ideal that God expects of all of his people. How can we help the poor if we, ourselves, are not willing to work? How can we contribute to society or be a good citizen? Helping the poor, in this instance, is not a permanent welfare state. It is a temporary lift up to a point where someone can again work and support the community, in some way.

This idea goes all the way back to Genesis 3:19 which says: "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread". The scriptures are replete with verses extolling the value of work and its importance to us and our growth. Here are a few more:

Proverbs 10:16 - "Labour of the righteous tendeth to life"

Proverbs 14:23 - "In all labour there is profit"

Romans 2:10 - "But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good"

Matthew 25:21 - "Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou has been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things"

Mosiah 13:14 - "And even I, myself, have labored with mine own hands that I might serve you, and that ye should not be laden with taxes" (King Mosiah as a great example of this principle)

Alma 36:25 - "The Lord doth give me exceedingly great joy in the fruit of my labors"

D&C 42:42 - "Thou shalt not be idle; for he that is idle shall not eat the bread nor wear the garments of the laborer"

D&C 58:27 - "Men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause"

So, when you think about a United Order system- similar to Communism, minus the corruption and dictator, and combine that with work of our own free will to sustain the community and help those who are less fortunate, you get pretty much what God wants us to aspire to.

My lovely daughter Vienna brought up the question - what is the incentive? Great question. I heard recently that people need some sort of incentive or motivation for anything they do. So, what is the motivation to work if you are assured to be cared for by the economic system. Well, in God's system, there are many, including striving toward righteousness, belonging to a larger community, and the pride of working for you and your family. Notice none of these are monetary or material in nature. Humans must grow past their need for such things before this system can work.

My uber-smart husband asked "What about render unto Caesar what is Caesar's?", meaning shouldn't this question be put in the realm of government, and isn't really a religious question at all? That's a fair question. Was Christ really separating the spiritual from the temporal? The quote is found in Matthew 22. The Pharisees were trying to trick him into saying that paying taxes was illegal - wouldn't that be cool? But, Christ knows what they're thinking and quotes this famous phrase, followed by "and unto God the things that are God's". Not only is he fabulously ensnaring the Pharisees in their own trap but also teaching a valuable lesson about the goodness of both paying taxes and, in my opinion, paying tithes. He's basically equating them. Further, we Mormons believe that all things are spiritual. God's plan for us is not a temporal/material one. He wants us to return to Him where material things don't matter. Everything we do here is toward that end. D&C 29:34 says "all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal". Also, one of our main tenants, an Article of Faith, number 12 to be exact, says: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying honoring and sustaining the law". So, as an Article of Faith, government is clearly a spiritual matter to us.

But, to my point, if I am going to use this exercise to help me decide who to vote for in the election and which political party I more align with, that is a trickier question. It would be easy for me to say this leans towards the Democrats because they more strongly believe in a state organized system to help the poor, whereas Republicans are more market-based, believing that smaller charitable organizations are the best way to care for the poor. Plus, I believe the Democrats do have a strong work-ethic, unlike the caricature painted by the right. It was under Clinton that the Welfare-to Work act passed, for example.

But, I am sure that some of my more right-leaning friends might disagree with that, stating that work and self-reliance is center to this system and their economic platform. Their market-driven system requires one to work for his/her own living. But, I think that I would have to counter with their extreme aversion to anything coming even close to Socialism or Communism. Of course, I hope you all fact-check me, correct me and call me on my fallacies.

At this point, though - I think I'm going to have to give this one to the Dems. But, fear not my Republican and far-right friends. Next time, I plan to tackle social issues - abortion, gay marriage, etc. You are sure to prevail as the moral superiors in that arena! Or will you? ;-)