Dear Mormon Friends, It’s Time to Go “All-In” for Mitt

Below is an open letter penned by two Evangelicals to the LDS Community: 

Nancy and I started Evangelicals for Mitt in 2006 with one simple idea: To enlist the mighty machinery of evangelical activism behind the single best candidate for President of the United States, Mitt Romney. Even then we could see the need for a man of Mitt’s unique talents and now – with labor participation the lowest in 30 years and with the most sluggish recovery since the Great Depression – the need is even greater.

We were more idealistic back in those days. Convinced of Mitt’s merits, we saw our task as relatively easy. Introduce Mitt to evangelicals, deal with the relatively easy questions about theology and politics, and then watch him win social conservatives on his way to the White House. Of course politics is never easy, and there are always competitors for the same set of voters. First Mike Huckabee won enough evangelicals to hand John McCain the nomination in 2008, then Rick Santorum swept southern conservatives and challenged Mitt for the evangelical vote in 2012.

But now, all that is past. Evangelicals are finally united behind Mitt (even 2008 Huckabee supporter – and coolest action star in the universe – Chuck Norris is pleading with evangelicals to vote Barack Obama out of office), and Mitt’s rivaling George Bush’s astounding share of the evangelical vote in 2008. Pro-Obama evangelicals are coming back home to the Republican Party after Obama’s almost four-year assault on religious liberty and his zealous support for abortion. In short, evangelicals – as theologically and culturally divided as we are – will be there for Mitt on election day.

Curiously, however, we’ve heard disturbing reports that LDS Mitt supporters are hanging back just a bit. Some are afraid of stereotyping (“just because I’m Mormon doesn’t mean I’m going to automatically support Mitt. After all, I can’t stand Harry Reid!”), but many more seem just a bit confused about the role of the church in politics. If the LDS church is politically neutral, how can you use your church relationships to mobilize voters and donors?

But let’s back up a moment. Is the LDS church really “neutral?” Is my Presbyterian Church really “neutral?” Yes, I’ve read the portions of the LDS Handbook that emphasize that the church is politically neutral and doesn’t endorse candidates. But the fact that the church is nonpartisan doesn’t mean that it’s neutral on the key moral issues of the day or that the church’s members must maintain their neutrality. In fact, the LDS Handbook specifically urges member involvement:

"Members are encouraged to support measures that strengthen the moral fabric of society, particularly those designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

Let’s be perfectly clear, after the God-booing abortion celebration masquerading as the Democratic National Convention, the moral choices in this election are beyond stark. Let’s just examine the issue of abortion. In Deuteronomy 30:19, God lays out His will for His people:

“I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live . . .”

And now here’s the Democratic party platform:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

By contrast, here’s the Republican party platform:

Faithful to the “self-evident” truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.

Is there anything that threatens the “moral fabric of society” or the “family as the fundamental unit of society” as much as granting mothers the “right” to order doctors to kill their innocent children in the womb?

In addition, the Obama administration’s assault on religious liberty through the HHS contraception and abortifacient mandates represents a clear and present danger to the autonomy of the church. The administration is telling Americans of every faith that if they leave the walls of their church and attempt to reach out to their communities – either as business owners or through ministries – that they can only do so on the state’s terms while advancing the state’s values. This is antithetical to the First Amendment and antithetical to fundamental American traditions.

In other words, while your church and my church will not endorse any candidate for president, that does not mean that individual congregants cannot or should not use our web of church friendships and relationships to invest fully in the outcome of this election.

In the six years that Nancy and I have run Evangelicals for Mitt, we’ve made a huge number of Mormon friends and learned a great deal from the LDS church. In fact, we’ve taken flack for urging evangelicals to emulate Mormons in your approach to missions, service, and church growth. We have long stood on the barricades against anti-Mormon bigots. But now we’re asking you to take a page from the evangelical book: Engage fully, proudly, and without hesitation.

Call your friends from your ward. Make sure they’re registered to vote. Ask them if they’ve given to Mitt’s campaign. If they need more education on the issues, equip them with materials. Don’t use church resources; use your own. Between worship and Sunday School, I can’t tell you how many conversations Nancy and I have had about Mitt, about abortion, about religious liberty, and – yes – about the economy. Politics isn’t a “dirty business;” it’s part of our life and obligations as citizens of a nation and government “of the people, by the people, for the people.”

Now is not the time for concerns about stereotyping, for false worries about “neutrality.” The church will remain nonpartisan, but you don’t have to. There are more than six million Mormons in America, and the causes of life and religious liberty need every one.

It’s time to go “all-in” for Mitt.

By David and Nancy French (EVANGELICALS for MITT)

Were Mormons...Socialists!?

One of the more interesting articles to come out about Mitt Romney's faith comes from online magazine Salon in which the author of the article, Troy Williams, claims that the Book of Mormon and Mormon history embraced and supports Socialism.

That claim is flat out not true.

Progressives are intentionally using cherry picked historical facts and scriptures to score political points against Mitt Romney as Lane Williams points out in his op-ed for the Deseret News: 

The first was in the online magazine Salon from Salt Lake blogger Troy Williams about how the Book of Mormon and Mormon history teaches Socialism. The article’s subheadline: “Joseph Smith would be horrified by the religion's present-day materialism — and uber-capitalist candidate.”

In fairness, some of Williams' article was thoughtful and thought-provoking, but exactly why is it Salon’s role to glibly say what would horrify Joseph Smith?

It’s off-putting, to say the least, when someone with an ax to grind cherry-picks elements of the Book of Mormon to bludgeon a political opponent or to score points in a public debate or to even try to further, as it seemed to me, the old trope that Latter-day Saints are hypocrites.

Progressives are attempting to use false and distorted facts to promote socialism getting the uninformed and the far left to believe this lie about the doctrines and history of the LDS Church. They are also attempting to scare voters away from voting for Mitt Romney either because of his faith or because of the strong opposition to socialism by conservatives and Republicans. 

What Is The Law Of Consecration? 

Wikipedia has a nice and simple explanation for those who are not familiar with this religious doctrine:

The Law of Consecration, as practiced by the Latter Day Saints, was for the support of the poor (Doctrine and Covenants 42:30). Latter Day Saints were asked to voluntarily deed (consecrate) their property to the Church of Christ, and the church then would assign to each member a "stewardship" of property "as much as is sufficient for himself and family" for his "needs, wants, family, and circumstances." If consecrated property became more than was sufficient for the assigned steward, the "residue" was "to be consecrated unto the bishop" kept for the benefit of "those who have not, from time to time, that every man who has need may be amply supplied and receive according to his wants."

A more detailed explanation of what the Law of Consecration can be found here.

Is The Law Of Consecration And Socialism The Same?

A simplistic description of the differences between the Law of Consecration and socialism reveals that they are philosophically not the same. In 1942 the First Presidency of the Church issued this strongly worded opposition to socialism and communism and explained why its different from the Law of Consecration:

Communism and all other similar isms bear no relationship whatever to the united order. They are merely the clumsy counterfeits which Satan always devises of the gospel plan. Communism debases the individual and makes him the enslaved tool of the state to whom he must look for sustenance and religion; the united order exalts the individual, leaves him his property, "according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and his needs," (D&C 51:3) and provides a system by which he helps care for his less fortunate brethren; the united order leaves every man free to choose his own religion as his conscience directs. Communism destroys man's God-given free agency; the united order glorifies it. Latter-day Saints cannot be true to heir faith and lend aid, encouragement, or sympathy to any of these false philosophies. They will prove snares to their feet. [Conference Report, April 1942, p. 90]

Not only is the Law of Consecration not the same as Socialism in theory, but the are radically different in practice. An in depth look of the history and application of the Law of Consecration demonstrates how unlike these two systems are. Here's Joseph Smith, the founder of the LDS Church explains how the Law of Consecration works: 

“Concerning the consecration of property:—First, it is not right to condescend to very great particulars in taking inventories. The fact is this, a man is bound by the law of the Church, to consecrate to the Bishop, before he can be considered a legal heir to the kingdom of Zion; and this, too, without constraint; and unless he does this, he cannot be acknowledged before the Lord on the Church Book therefore, to condescend to particulars, I will tell you that every man must be his own judge how much he should receive and how much he should suffer to remain in the hands of the Bishop. I speak of those who consecrate more than they need for the support of themselves and their families.

“The matter of consecration must be done by the mutual consent of both parties; for to give the Bishop power to say how much every man shall have, and he be obliged to comply with the Bishop’s judgment, is giving to the Bishop more power than a king has; and upon the other hand, to let every man say how much he needs, and the Bishop be obliged to comply with his judgment, is to throw Zion into confusion, and make a slave of the Bishop. The fact is, there must be a balance or equilibrium of power, between the Bishop and the people, and thus harmony and good will may be preserved among you.

“Therefore, those persons consecrating property to the Bishop in Zion, and then receiving an inheritance back, must reasonably show to the Bishop that they need as much as they claim. But in case the two parties cannot come to a mutual agreement, the Bishop is to have nothing to do about receiving such consecrations; and the case must be laid before a council of twelve High Priests, the Bishop not being one of the council, but he is to lay the case before them.” ( History of the Church, 1:364–65.)

One of the key differences both in theory and practice is in the distribution and ownership of private property:

The stewardship is private, not communal, property . The consecrator, or steward, was to be given a “writing,” or deed, that would “secure unto him his portion [stewardship]” ( D&C 51:4 ). Although it has been acknowledged that all things belong to the Lord, a stewardship represents a sacred entrustment of a portion from God to the individual. The stewardship is given with a deed of ownership so that individuals, through their agency, are fully responsible and accountable for that which is entrusted to them. The deed protects individuals if they are disqualified from participation as stewards (see D&C 51:4 ). For legal purposes, the stewardship was private property, even though the stewards themselves understood that it ultimately belonged to God. President Marion G. Romney explained:

“This procedure [of providing deeds] preserved in every man the right of private ownership and management of his property. Indeed, the fundamental principle of the system was the private ownership of property. Each man owned his portion, or inheritance, or stewardship, with an absolute title, which, at his option, he could alienate [transfer], keep and operate, or otherwise treat as his own. The Church did not own all of the property, and life under the united order was not, and never will be, a communal life, as the Prophet Joseph himself said.

“The intent was, however, for him to so operate his property as to produce a living for himself and his dependents.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1977, p. 119; or Ensign, May 1977, p. 93 .)

By now, the distinction should be clear: Law of Consecration involves giving whereas socialism involves taking.

The taking is mandatory and is forcefully ripped out of your hands either by taxation, government confiscation or outright theft. If you don't "contribute" to the socialist community, harsh punishment follows which can range from imprisonment to death. The giving is also mandatory. You must rely on the state and no one else for support. Your moral and individual will eventually becomes lethargic, weak, and atrophied in which you no longer can work to support yourself and obtain what you need because everything is provided for you. Once you are completely dependent on the state, you become a slave of the state.

Ironically, the promised equal redistribution of wealth never happens since the takes all the property, gives back a very tiny portion of the redistributed property according to what they think you need in order to take the minimal effort it takes to keep the social order while the leaders keep everything to themselves. That is why you'll see leaders under Communist Russia, China, Cuba,  North Korea and socialist Venezuela living in wealth while the rest of the population lives in poverty.  

Another irony is that the socialism promises a better community in which people are brought together closer by sharing equally what they have with the less fortunate. However, the government actually robs people of the responsibility and need to give charitably since people feel that someone else, typically the state, is responsible for the poor and downtrodden and that individuals will only donate what the government requires them to give. As a result, the community is destroyed

In contrast, the Law of Consecration is a voluntary system in which you give to the Church everything you have, what you think you need is given back to you and you give away the rest of what you don't need so that others can have what they do need. Under this system, the community actually grows stronger, closer and united.

The Law of Consecration is a unique doctrine proposed by the LDS Church. However, even the simple practice of voluntary charity as practiced by various social and religious organizations produces better results for the poor and the community. I highly recommend two books that deal with the American history of charity prior to the New Deal programs of the 1930s and its decline afterwards. The first book is The Charity Organization Movement in the United States; A Study in America Philanthropy by Frank Dekker Watson. The second book is The Tragedy of American Compassion by Marvin Olasky. 

Did The LDS Church Ever Embrace Socialism?

The simple answer: no.

In fact, it was immediately rejected by the Prophet Joseph Smith when the political theory was being spread to people in the United States.. The Prophet Joseph Smith attended a presentation on socialism in September 1843 at Nauvoo. His response was to declare that he “did not believe the doctrine.” ( History of the Church, 6:33). Since Joseph Smith's initial rejection of Socialism, prominent church leaders throughout LDS History have spoken out against socialism. The most well known and fierce rejection of socialism comes from the Prophet Ezra Taft Benson who gave a landmark speech on the LDS Church's rejection of socialism. Another vocal opponent of socialism was Elder Marion G. Romney (no relation to Mitt Romney) who spoke out strongly against it.

Conclusion

The fact is that the LDS Church has never supported socialism in its doctrines, in its practices or from its leadership starting with its founder to is present and current leader. Moreover, the LDS Church has always remained strongly opposed to socialism. 

Troy Williams wants you to believe that Joseph Smith would be disturbed by "the religion's present-day materialism -- and uber-capitalist candidate" Mitt Romney. But Joseph Smith would be more disturbed that Mr. Williams would claim that he and the Book of Mormon supports socialism.

Lawsuit Seeks To Ban LDS Church From Giving Its Input On Utah Alcohol Laws

A lawsuit has been filed in Utah to prevent The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints from giving its input on new or proposed alchol laws:

A trade group for bars and restaurants is asking a federal judge to block Utah legislators from considering input from the Mormon church when drafting future liquor laws.

The Utah Hospitality Association contends that considering the views of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is unconstitutional under federal laws separating church and state.

The claim is part of an amended lawsuit filed last week in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City.

"We know the LDS church wields a lot of influence with the Legislature, especially as to liquor policies in this state," association board spokesman Kenneth Wynn said on Tuesday. "I think we've felt this for a long time. The church ought to butt out of state business ... we're just bringing it to the forefront."

Hospitality association attorneys originally filed the lawsuit in June. It targets Senate Bill 314, which bans daily drink specials and ties the number of liquor licenses to population totals and the number of state-employed police officers.

Association attorneys say eliminating discount pricing for alcohol amounts to price-fixing that harms both consumers and businesses. They contend such limits on competition in liquor sales and distribution places an unfair restraint on trade that violates federal antitrust laws.

Passed by lawmakers earlier this year, most of the new laws became effective in July. The portion of the so-called "quota system" tied to the number of law enforcement officers takes effect July 1, 2012.

Named as defendants in the lawsuit are the state of Utah, the governor and the Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control Commission.

The Mormon church is not a defendant, but the lawsuit cites examples of the Utah-based church's influence with lawmakers, including remarks from Sen. John Valentine, R-Orem, who sponsored SB314, about the church's support for the bill.

The lawsuit also contends that a pair of church lobbyists had "warned" lawmakers that "there would be repercussions" if they disagreed with the church's position on the legislation. Court papers don't specify what those repercussions would be.

This is an interesting lawsuit and I'm interested in the outcome of this case. The LDS Church is free to give its opinion on laws and to lobby in support or opposition of a law just as much as any other organization is free to do. However, they are alleging that the LDS Church has a greater influence on laws crafted in Utah than most regular lobbying groups do. It will be interesting to see how the Plaintiffs prove that given that most of the members of Utah Legislature is LDS.

Mormons Don't Think Too Highly Of Obama

The Salt Lake Tribune is reporting on a recent poll conducted by the Gallup group concerning Barak Obama's approval ratings among religious groups shows that Mormons are not too thrilled with the current president:

A Gallup survey released Friday shows only 24 percent of LDS faithful approve of the president’s job performance, down from 43 percent a year ago. Mormons have consistently given Obama his lowest ratings among religious groups, according to Gallup polls dating to the beginning of his presidency.

The slide of support among members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is more pronounced than with Catholics, Protestants, Jews and other religious believers in America, the poll shows.

Muslims have consistently offered the president the highest approval rating of any religious group, now at 78 percent, down from 83 percent a year ago, while half of Catholics polled backed the president.

About 43 percent of Protestants and other Christian faithful gave Obama a positive approval rating.

The reason for why members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints give Obama the lowest approval rating among is due to the fact that they are the most conservative religious group in America. Another reason is that much of Obama's policies run counter to the LDS beliefs of personal accountability,  independence and self reliance. This may account for why Mormons such as Glenn Beck and Mitt Romney are some of the most vocal critics of the Obama Administration. 

A Voice From The Dust: Don't Vote For Harry Reid

Harry Reid is in the reelection fight of his life. A recently deceased LDS woman, speaking from the dust, has encouraged Nevadans not to vote for Senator Reid. The Las Vegas Review Journal tells the story: 

"Election 2010 has just heard from a member of the Silent Majority.

You know, from a deceased person.

Chances are good you never met Charlotte McCourt during her 84 years, but I’m willing to bet you’ll be hearing about her in the coming days now that her obituary has taken Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to task. It’s the kind of small story that has the potential to ricochet like a bullet through the campaign showdown between incumbent Reid and Republican challenger Sharron Angle.

Not because McCourt, who died July 8 after a long illness, was a political player or business powerbroker, but precisely because she was neither of those things. She was a homemaker, proud mother and grand mother and wife of 67 years to Patrick McCourt.

And she was at one time a loyal supporter of Harry Reid.

Her obituary, printed in Tuesday’s Review-Journal, reads in part, “We believe that Mom would say she was mortified to have taken a large role in the election of Harry Reid to U.S. Congress. Let the record show Charlotte was displeased with his work. Please, in lieu of flowers, vote for another more worthy candidate.”

Ouch.

McCourt was born Dec. 25 in Wellington, Utah and was a 40-year Nevada resident. She was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Perhaps by coincidence, Reid’s re-election hangs in no small part on his ability to encourage conservative and religious Democrats to support him. He is also a member of the LDS faith."

Why Mormons Are The Most Conservative Religious Group in America

Gallup has released a poll reporting that:

"Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormons, are the most conservative major religious group in the country, with 59% identifying as conservative, 31% as moderate, and 8% as liberal.

The 59% of Mormons who identify as conservative is the largest such percentage of any major religious group included in this analysis. The next-most-conservative group are Protestants (including non-Catholic Christians), with 46% identifying as conservative. (This review does not include analysis of specific denominations into which Protestants can be subdivided, of which there are hundreds.) Thirty-nine percent of Catholics are conservative. Less than a quarter of Jews, Muslims, those who identify with other religions, and those with no religious identity identify as conservatives."

Additionally, Mormons are also most likely to identify themselves with the Republican party than any other major religious group in America.

However, the most interesting part of the poll is the ideological difference between "active" and "less active" or "inactive" Latter Day Saints. The ideological divide between active and non-active LDS isn't small either. Gallop found that "lapsed Mormons" (or inactive members in LDS terminology)

"are substantially different in ideology from their fellow Mormons who remain active in the church (as defined by attendance at church services). In fact, lapsed Mormons are essentially no different from all other non-Mormons in terms of their basic ideology."

This is quite apparent as seen in the graph below:


Lapsed Mormons are also more similar to all other non-Mormon Americans than to active Mormons in terms of the party/ideology categorization as seen in the chart below:



The basic conclusion is that the more active the LDS member is, the more likely they are to be conservative and Republican.

However, the correlation between activity in the Church and political ideology isn't new. The general observation that the more active a person was in their faith, the more likely they were to identify with the Republican Party is confirmed in a December 2009 Gallup poll which found that

"the basic relationship between religiosity and party identification is quite strong and quite straightforward. The percentage of Americans who identify with or lean toward the Republican Party drops from 49% among the highly religious to 26% among those who are not religious. The percentage who identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party rises from 37% among the highly religious to 56% among those who are not religious."

If the the basic relationship between religiosity and party identification is based on how religious a person is, then why are Mormons the most Republican and ideologically religious group in America?

The answer is found in that Mormons go to Church a lot more often than han the general population:

Seventy-nine percent of Mormons attend religious services weekly, almost every week, or monthly. That compares to 53% of the overall American adult population who attend this frequently.

Thus, its the frequency church attendance that separate Mormons from other conservative groups. I would argue that its not just Church attendance but other activities such as temple attendance, listening/attending General Conference and going to institute that makes Mormons so more likely to lean to the right politically and ideologically.

More specifically, given that the teachings of the LDS Church are religiously conservative in doctrine (Agency, Accountability, etc) and life style (Word of Wisdom, modesty, Chastity, etc), it is the frequency of these doctrines that are taught each Sunday or in each temple visit that makes Mormons such a conservative group of people.

I'm interested in hearing why YOU think Mormons are the most politically and ideologically the most conservative religious group in America.

Harry Reid In Trouble For Racist Remarks About Obama

Harry Reid must be having a very difficult week. He has learned from a recently released poll that his chances of being reelected is growing very slim.

Now he faces criticism for a statement he made abou then-presidential candidate Barack Obama during the 2008 elections.

The comments are being reported in a book that will be hitting the bookshelves soon titled "Game Change," written by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin. The authors report that Senator Reid made a private comment during the 2008 campaign that

"the country was ready for a light-skinned African-American president with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." (Source.)

Responding quickly to this bombshell revelation, Harry Reid quickly apologized:

"I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words. I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African-Americans, for my improper comments."

Obama has accepted Harry Reid's apology but that isn't enough for some Republicans who are calling for the Senate Majority Leader to step down from his position just as Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott did in 2002 for making a statement about a statement about racial segregation at a 100th birthday party for then-Sen. Strom Thurmond.

Despite his racist remarks, Harry Reid doesn't plan to step down at all or withdraw from running for reelection:

A spokesman for Mr. Reid said the senator wouldn't resign his leadership post. "He has no intention of stepping down," Jim Manley said. "Unlike others who advocate moving our nation backwards and viewing this moment for political gain, he's working...to move our country forward."

Harry Reid may survive this political firestorm, but it remains to be seen whether or not he will survive the 2010 election.

UPDATE (1/13/10): Harry Reid's poll numbers have dropped 7 percentage points since he made his comments about Obama went public.

UPDATE #2 (1/13/10): Harry Reid's son, Rory Reid, is attempting to become governor of Nevada but his father may be dragging him down in the polls too.

Harry Reid Not Likely To Survive 2010 Election

The Las Vegas Review Journal is reporting that Harry Reid's chances of being reelected in 2010 is very low.

Reid's numbers are pretty ugly, according to the latest survey by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, which interviewed 625 registered Nevada voters by telephone Jan. 5-7. The margin of error on the poll is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

According to the survey:

• 52 percent had an unfavorable opinion of Reid, 33 percent had a favorable view and another 15 percent said they're neutral. In early December, a Mason-Dixon poll put his unfavorable-favorable rating at 49-38. The lowest Reid's popularity had slipped before in the surveys was 50 percent -- in October, August and May of 2009, when Mason-Dixon started tracking the senate race for the Review-Journal.
The poll also took a snapshot of how Reid would do against three potential GOP opponents. In each case -- as in past Review-Journal surveys -- it showed the senator would lose with only four in 10 voters supporting him. The potential match-ups would look like this:
• Sue Lowden, former Nevada Republican Party chairwoman, would get 50 percent of the vote to Reid's 40 percent with 10 percent undecided.
• Danny Tarkanian, a businessman and former UNLV basketball star, would gain 49 percent of the vote to Reid's 41 percent.
• And Sharron Angle, a former Reno assemblywoman, would get 45 percent of the vote to Reid's 40 percent, a strong showing given her low name recognition statewide -- 42 percent don't know her.

Of course, with numbers like these, most politicians would bow out rather than go ahead with an election. But not Harry Reid:

"I am absolutely running for re-election," said Reid, 70, in a statement. "These are difficult times for Nevada and as the majority leader of the Senate I have been able to take action to address those challenges. But I know there is more work to do to turn our state's economy around and create jobs and I am committed to seeing it through."

Even Reid's campaign manager Brandon Hall is optimistic about the 2010 election:

''He's never backed down from a fight,'' said in an interview when asked whether Reid would retire instead of seeking a fifth Senate term. He added, ''We're not trying to win a beauty contest here.''

Reid's campaign manager Hall said internal polls show the senator winning the general election against any potential opponent, but he refused to share any details.

Despite the optimism of Harry Reid and his campaign staff, Brad Coker, the managing partner of Mason-Dixon, said this about his chances of winning in 2010:

The senator's negatives are so bad that he will have a tough time making a comeback and earning more than 40 percent of the vote come November.

The 2010 election is only ten months away. Harry Reid could make a last minute comeback but the poll numbers for Harry Reid is pretty grim.

Ambassador Jon Huntsman Jr Representing America and The Church

Newsweek International has a excellent article about John Hunstman Jr., the U.S. Ambassador to China, that is worth reading. The former Republican Governor of Utah has had a long experience of building good will between China and America but also in building a relationship between China and the LDS Church.

Here's an interesting paragraph from the Newsweek article:

He publicly declared Mandarin Chinese a "strategic" language, vital to America's future, and Utah became the first state to pass legislation to include it in public-school curricula. Surprisingly many Chinese officials return from visits to America saying their fondest memories are of Utah. Sharing meals with Mormon families and being serenaded by American schoolchildren in Chinese seems to make a big impression on travelers from the People's Republic. "They said, 'If a state governor can have kids singing in our own language, it's even better than traditional diplomacy,' " says Shawn Hu, a former Utah state trade representative who helped arrange numerous Utah trips for Chinese delegations.

Some people are speculating that John Huntsman will run in 2016. If he runs, that will be an election China will watch closely.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks v. Senator Harry Reid

On October 13, there were two interesting articles that came out at the same time. The Salt Lake Tribune published an article of Senator Harry Reid criticizing the LDS Church for its involvement of Prop 8 while the LDS Newsroom published an article about Dallin H. Oaks giving a speech at BYU-Idaho where he outlines his belief that religious liberty is being threatened in America.

I find it amusing that two distinct and separate articles come out at the same time that presents a brewing debate among prominent religious and political LDS leaders despite the fact that they work together often. I wonder how the discussion goes when Harry Reid and Dallin H. Oaks actually discuss the issue of religious liberty and gay marriage face to face. Harry Reid believes that religion, specifically, his religion ought to stay clear of being involved in the public debate over gay marriage whereas Dallin H. Oaks believes that any faith, including the LDS Church, have a right to promote and preserve religious liberty in the public square.

Clearly, there is a disagreement about which right deserves federal protection: religious liberty or same sex marriage. This is a legal debate between a LDS Senator and an Apostle who has had a successful career as an attorney. If you want to read a good legal treatise that reflects Elder Oak's position on this issue, I highly recommend the Harvard Law review article titled, "Or For Poorer: How Same Sex Marriage Threatens Religious Liberty" By Roger Serverino. For a good legal treatise that reflects Harry Reid's position, I recommend, "Same Sex Marriage And Slippery Slopes" by Eugene Volokh.

Who is correct here? Elder Dallin H. Oaks or Senator Harry Reid? Whose voice do we listen to? A politician or an Apostle?

UPDATE: Here's the transcript of Elder Oak's talk.