I remember many of the kids in my MIA group working on the campaign of Assemblyman Allister McAlister in California. A Democrat, Mr. McAlister was probably more like the modern day Social Conservative (minus the take on abortion as it was not an issue at the time). I worked on both of his campaigns, even though I was a “Young Republican”. He was popular in our Ward and we were more than happy to be his GOTV foot soldiers.

It seems to me the only point of departure between Evangelicals within the GOP coalition and LDS faithful is in the constructive view of the abortion issue most Evangelicals hold. As an Evangelical now, I don’t think it’s totally rooted in Calvanism — Evangelicals live somewhere within a spectrum between Calvanism and Armenianism (I’m in the middle of Grace :-> ). The constructive view of a fundamental right to life is rooted more in the secular concept of Natural Law as understood by our founders, and thus the question of when life begins is not as much about Calvanism as it is about the secular morality that eventually made Roe v. Wade possible.

I lean in the direction of life beginning at conception, but I do not believe someone who has a different view is automatically pro-choice. The question of whether the child shoud be killed because she was not the choice of her mother shouldn’t be so hard to work out. From the “outside” looking in (Roe hadn’t happened until after I became an Evangelical), I view the Church’s positon as fundamentally pro-choice, since a “woman’s health” can be described on too many levels. Within the boundaries of the church, however, I think it’s likely a faithful LDS woman would have enough spiritual guidance to make a sound choice — and that that choice would weigh in the favor of the unborn child more often than not.

It also helps clarify how Mitt Romney can be what most in his party would consider pro-Choice even as he campaigns as a pro-Life candidate. A broad view of the “health” of the mother is an open door to a broad interpretation of what that particular exception to the pro-life view might be.

I’m still curious about what drives Governor Romney’s pro-gay marriage position, as I can’t imagine any teaching of the church would endorse such a position. While the Church views our political life as an individual thing, it does seek — as any other group has a right to do — to influence members in Congress as the outreach this week to LDS congresspeople on the immigration issue shows.

But I would disagree Adam that the differences between us and our allies are unimportant. The best example is stem cell research. I think that here, you’ll find a bit of a rift between the LDS Church generally and the pro-life camp. And the theology does seem to matter here. Mormons really don’t seem as wedded to notions of “murder” in this area as they are to plain ole accountability and respect for the procreative process. In the area of abortion, this may not cause any real conflicts. But it probably will in areas of stem cell research and especially birth control (since the stem cell issue may well be rendered obsolete by scientific advance).

I appreciate your points, and agree. That’s why I responded the way I did. I was trying to make the point that very frequently we get caught up in using the scriptures to justify our beliefs and actions, by picking and choosing what we want to emphasize, because we want to justify our beliefs and actions. It’s one of my many frustrations, not just with the LDS church, but religion in general. In my opinion (maybe I’m trying to feel justified in my thoughts) I think that the scriptures are for “morals and general principles” and NOTHING more. They are not history. They are not maps. They are stories, some factual, some not, that help us learn to live moral lives and be better people.

David James Duncan refers to the christian scriptures, hindu teachings, Koran, et. al. as “wisdom literature” which I think is a fantastic way to think of these things. We can learn wisdom to guide (not dictate) our decisions from these writings. But only if we can get past that natural “unjustified fundamentalist assumption that the text is infallible.” And it is why many reasonable people can disagree on specific points, like the legality and morality of abortion or when life begins; they have applied those general principles differently in their lives.

On your other examples, I think readings that don’t rely on an assumption of infallibility still get us where you want to go. The texts that stress the equality of all before God are directly intended to teach a moral lesson of the evils of hierarchy. We seem justified in applying that moral lesson to any hierarchy, including but certainly not limited to the racial hierarchies you mention. Alma’s advice to Corianton was mostly about destroying people’s conversions — but, again, the intended moral lesson surely applies broadly. So also with the Anti-Nephi-Lehies, although the lesson there is muddled by the equal and opposite story of their children.

The point, I guess, is that we need to read the scriptures as texts, understanding that they may not be accurate or useful when we try to push them to speak on issues on which they are silent. Abortion law, it seems to me, is just such an issue.

We don’t read this to mean the biblical accounts of Christ being born in Bethlehem are untrue, and that’s because the context shows his purpose was not to correct a belief that he was born in Bethlehem. He wasn’t talking about Jerusalem vs Bethlehem at all.

It’s clear from the context that Alma’s intent was only to say that Christ would be born far awy, in the old world where Lehi had lived.

We shouldn’t force the scriptures into issues they didn’t intend.

JNS – The BOM narrative says repeatedly that it was written for our day, and with our times in mind. If we can’t use 3 Nephi 1:12-14 with the current bioethics debate in mind then what parts of the BOM should we use to settle things for our day? Clearly the part about all being equal before God didn’t apply to slavery in the 1800′s, or blacks and the priesthood in the 20th century. Maybe Alma’s advice to Corianton really was to him and him alone, and that taking up with a harlot is ok in our days? Certainly the anti-nephi-lehis’ decision to lay down their arms and fight no more doesn’t apply to us; I’m in the military and mormons, in general, are very hawkish politically.

And if we can’t discuss the scriptures without “going beyond the story’s express narrative purpose”, I’m afraid the bloggernacle will collapse under its own weight. :)

This question of when life begins from a Mormon perspective is interesting. As noted in the comments above, how does the LDS view of the pre-existence affect this question?

Also, it might be worth considering whether 3 Nephi 1:12-14 provides any guidance:

12 And it came to pass that [Samuel the Lamanite] cried mightily unto the Lord all that day; and behold, the voice of the Lord came unto him, saying:
13 Lift up your head and be of good cheer; for behold, the time is at hand, and on this night shall the sign be given, and on the morrow come I into the world, to show unto the world that I will fulfil all that which I have caused to be spoken by the mouth of my holy prophets.
14 Behold, I come unto my own, to fulfil all things which I have made known unto the children of men from the foundation of the world, and to do the will, both of the Father and of the Son—of the Father because of me, and of the Son because of my flesh. And behold, the time is at hand, and this night shall the sign be given.

Can it be inferred from the fact that Christ spoke to Samuel the Lamanite the night before he was born of Mary that a spirit does not enter a fetus until birth? I doubt it since presumably Jesus can do anything, including speak to Samuel the Lamanite even though his Spirit is already inhabiting the fetus in Mary’s womb, I suppose. But it is worth considering.