First Presidency Statement on Healthcare for Utahns

Should we be careful – that sounds mighty liberal to me?

I think they made it specifically because so many members in Utah are or appear to be either callous toward or unaware of the plight of the uninsured. It think they made it specifically to support the idea that health care is necessary, in many cases, for self-reliance – and, implicitly, to say that complete and absolute self-reliance isn’t the ideal.

I think they were trying to send a message without having to come out and take an explicitly political stance – that they were trying to teach a principle and allow the people, including the legislators, to govern themselves with the principle in mind.

It’s a difficult line to walk, and I really like the way this statement walks this particular line.

The church is weighing in on more of these issues, illegal immigration and now healthcare. It can be argued that any political/social issue is also a moral issue. It is interesting that many ultra-conservatives find themselves at odds with the church on these issues, yet they would never admit it.

What perplexes me is their timing and their limitation of the statement to Utah. At the very least this issue is relevant for everyone in the US, if not the world. I think this is evidence of the Utah-centric nature of the church and I’d like to see it go away.

Steve-o, I don’t mind Utah-focused statements (especially since I think these statements address the ultra-conservative tendencies of Utah politics), since the Church also issues nation- and world-focused statements – including about healthcare, immigration and other similar issues.

I don’t live in Utah so it would be nice to have them take the same interest in my area as they do in Utah. By focusing as much as they do on Utah it makes it appear like Utah is more important than the rest of the country and world. Again, health care has been a big issue in the US so why only address it to Utah? Is Utah the only place with Ultra conservative politics among members? No. It’s often as if they don’t notice these issues until it’s on their front doorstep.

I agree with that, Steve-o. As another non-Utahn, I have often thought over the years that the leadership really doesn’t say anything until whatever the issue is makes it to Utah. In reality, the same issue probably cropped up in the much more liberal Northeast years before.

I think this is huge problem for the church, and in my mind it has almost gotten worse or at least appears worse, with all the world wide connections we have now.

It looks a bit like navel gazing. If it ain’t happening in Utah, it ain’t happening anywhere.

Would a statement on healthcare make a difference if it were in a state other than Utah?

The Church’s influence is greatest in Utah, so it makes sense, to me, that they speak out on issues in Utah. Also, although the statement is made in reference to Utah, their proposition is something to consider no matter where you live.

Had they made a general statement about healthcare, without referencing Utah, wouldn’t we just be saying that they were just reacting to the political climate of Utah?

No, not specifically a state other than Utah, that’s my point. Healthcare is a national issue, people in NY are just as affected (or maybe more so since there are 6 or 7 times as many of them) by the issue than those in Utah. The same could be said for any other state – we’re all just as affected by it. So why now, and why focused on Utah? I feel the same were the focus on California or Texas. It’s not a one state issue, even if that state just happens to have more members than another – all members and non-members are affected by it. I have no problem with the statement itself – but make it to and for everybody (in the US anyway), not just Utah.