Send us a text

There have been a string of gun incidents lately. A Florida woman shot her neighbor through her closed exterior door, an 84 year old man in Kansas killed a black teenager who mistakenly went to the wrong house, and there were at least 20 mass shootings that occurred over Memorial Day weekend. There are many different causes, but one cause is the ubiquity of guns in the US. California Governor Gavin Newsom is proposing an amendment to the constitution that would mandate universal background checks and ban civilian purchases of assault weapons. These kinds of proposals are pretty popular with the US public. Do we have a moral obligation to support something like this, because it will ultimately save lives?

A couple of weeks ago we talked about prisoner exchanges. It seemed like the. Consensus was that prisoner exchanges are a good idea because they help keep Americans safe when they travel abroad. Back in March the International Criminal Court indicted Putin on some war crimes. One of the crimes he has been charged with is the deportation of 16,000 Ukrainian children into Russia. Some of the children have been recovered, but most of the children have not been recovered and are still being held against their will in camps in Russia. Do we have a moral obligation as a country to do our part to free these 11,000 Ukrainian children and get them home to their parents? If the United States should try to rescue its own citizens who've been wrongfully detained in Russia. Do we have a moral obligation to free children who have been wrongfully detained when their parents do not have the means to save them on their own?

The First Presidency released a statement that is supposed to be read in congregations throughout the United States this Sunday. Among some of the interesting and perhaps new things that are stated in the letter is that merely voting a straight ticket, or voting based on tradition, without careful study of candidates and their positions on important issues, is a threat to democracy and inconsistent with revealed standards. The church specifically points people to Doctrine and Covenants, section 98, verse 10. A couple more interesting points. They say that political choices and affiliations should not be the subject of any teaching or advocating in church settings, and that principles compatible with the gospel can be found in various political parties and platforms. Is this something new or is this something that is a continuation of the church has been saying for a long time? Are members of the Church going to need to adjust their behavior in order to comply with this message from the First Presidency?

 Big Question:

For listeners who haven't been paying close attention, Shawn has been advocating for His position about doctrine versus policy. For some time on this podcast. We've never really got into this question in a deep way because it hasn't ever really fit with the flow. Given that we are discussing a First Presidency letter th