In 1936 Mormon Apostles Could Speak Out Against The FDR Threat of Socialism

embed this tweet
Much of the following comes from http://www.i4m.com/think/history/mormon_history.htm Mormon Hierarchy--Extensions of Power.

Oct 31,1936 - First Presidency (of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) publishes unsigned editorial in Deseret News, which argues against re-election of Democratic president Franklin D. Roosevelt. That would never happen today regardless of how Marxist, socialistic and unlawful the Barak Obama administration has been. Obama is ten times more socialistic and dictatorial than FDR.


Editorial, written by J. Reuben Clark, accuses F.D.R. of unconstitutional and Communist activities. In response one thousand Mormons angrily cancel their subscriptions to the News. Three days later, 69.3 percent of Utah's voters help re-elect Roosevelt. Utah's electorate re-elects F.D.R. again (1940,1944), despite First Presidency's opposition.


Despite Clark's sermons and protestations against FDR, more than two-thirds of Utah's voters voted for FDR. My, how we have come a long way since then.


Since that time, LDS leaders have strictly refrained from political speeches and other activity--even from officially advising members of the Church which way to vote. Obviously, from the above sad experience, they found that they have little or no influence over how the "Saints" vote in national elections. 


One must remember that in those days, 1936, very few wards and stakes had anything like the percentage attendance at Sacrament Meetings that is prevalent today. Tithing payment was not near as good. The degree of sacrifice and testimony today by the Mormons--during the Twenty-first century and late Twentieth Century, exceeds anything heretofore. Otherwise, President Thomas S. Monson wouldn't be announcing several new temples being planned, built, or dedicated at each April and October conference. 


The spirit of the "gathering" has never been stronger, as more than fifty-thousand missionaries--all screened better than in the past and prepared to serve better than ever--currently serve throughout the world at their own expense.


My observation is that while the Church, when only a Utah-Idaho-Arizona-California church, voted conservative republican (or conservative Democratic), today because of the many new general authorities coming from Latin American countries where they have been used to socialistic ideals, we can see that church policies are far more liberal than before. 


One indication is how the Utah Legislature voted in 2010 to pass a liberal immigration law. It is ultra-positive toward Latin-Americans freely being allowed to stay and work in Utah almost in perpetuity, often as non-citizens, notwithstanding the fact they are non-taxpayers and send all or most of their earnings home to their families which may still be living south of the border. 


Is this good or bad? Time will tell. This broadly liberal law could backfire upon the taxpaying Utahns when they wake up some morning acknowledging that revenues are not great enough to carry the added burden that Latinos place because of free educations, infra-structure (public institutions and costs like prisons and roadways), and hospital care. Time will only tell.