Regarding the Feb. 24 news article, "Mormon stake president accused of crossing line from pulpit," is initiated by irrational thinking. Though speaking on political matters, he took no sides, named no names, but only defended principles.
Church leaders are expected to look after the welfare of their members, and are delinquent if they do not. Churches exist in a world of politics. If politics affect the lives of the parishioners, there is nothing in the Constitution forbidding church leaders from addressing and promoting correct principles.
The response of the Democratic Caucus illustrates their feelings of guilt as the majority perpetrators of bad politics, because the stake president did not mention the name of political parties. Sadly, there was support from both parties for the enactment of poor legislation. The neutrality of the LDS Church was not breached.
Would the objectors stoop to ban the dissenting views of righteous leaders to faulty politics, just because they were spoken in a church? Would not such action evidence opposition to the "freedom of speech" we constitutionally hold so dear? Also, is not the "White house" accountable for its actions? Has the occupant thereof usurped the claim of infallibility?
Let us be reasonable and allow free speech. Permit us to openly discuss the merits of the actions of Congress, so that we can cast our votes more intelligently. Let us not be swayed by this "politically correct" nonsense. We must seek truth.
Norman R. Farr