LDS Conservatives Are Idolatrous?

[_bcspace]

Since when was it a plank of the Democratic Party to oppose the LDS church?

Such a plank does not have to exist to be in opposition to the Church

7 Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

[_Runtu]

Such a plank does not have to exist to be in opposition to the Church

7 Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

You do realize that

A. That question relates to apostate and fundamentalist groups

and

B. Just about every organization and group in the United States teaches or practices at least one or two things that are not accepted by the LDS church.

Seriously, you just make yourself look ridiculous with this kind of stuff.

[_bcspace]

So, their interest in Democratic elections in the 1980s means they were nevertheless stuck in a 1950s postwar kind of Democratic Party? That makes no sense.

The extent of their apostasy is largely unknown as well as the extent of their current support. When and if it comes my way, I will speak up against it.

[_Runtu]

The extent of their apostasy is largely unknown as well as the extent of their current support. When and if it comes my way, I will speak up against it.

You would actually speculate about the "extent" of a General Authority's "apostasy"? You sound like that guy who commented on my blog.

[_bcspace]

You do realize that

A. That question relates to apostate and fundamentalist groups

That was the original premise of the question. However, no such counsel is given for adjudicating it and few if any bishops and stake presidents are aware of that. In other words, they are judging without such counsel.

B. Just about every organization and group in the United States teaches or practices at least one or two things that are not accepted by the LDS church.

But not many are so completely opposed as the Democrartic party and other left wing groups

Seriously, you just make yourself look ridiculous with this kind of stuff.

I truly don't care what others might think about it, especially since most of them don't know what they are talking about. I've expressed such sentiments before in Church settings and still I am not released or countermanded etc.

[_Runtu]

But not many are so completely opposed as the Democrartic party and other left wing groups

It's funny that I never hear church leaders saying this (well, except Benson, and it got him banished to Europe). Nope, it's just everyday members who presume to speak for the church's political position. Maybe I'm still a traditionalist, but I prefer to let the prophets speak on these matters. Given that some of them are Democrats, I'd say you're off base.

I truly don't care what others might think about it, especially since most of them don't know what they are talking about. I've expressed such sentiments before in Church settings and still I am not released or countermanded etc.

I know a lot of everyday members who have said much the same thing in various church settings. No, you wouldn't get into trouble, usually, but most of the ward probably thinks you're a crackpot. At least the people in my wards who have said such things have been generally considered to be crackpots.

[_Droopy]

Since when was it a plank of the Democratic Party to oppose the LDS church?

Its not at all silly if you take a thorough, serious historical look at what the Democratic party has supported, championed, and, perhaps even more importantly, consistently opposed since the end of the Vietnam era to the present time.

I mean, come on Runtu, the contemporary Democratic party has distinguished itself for a very long time as, for all intents and purposes, the party against God and religion (in any but New Age/neo-Pagan or certain traditional forms attached to some of the Left's mascots (American Indians, for example). Mainstream environmentalism is perhaps the central primary manifestation of the religious sense within its ranks (which is, in fundamental form, a kind of militant, secular pantheism).

It is the major American party representing an eclectic blend of secular humanism, moral relativism, scientism, scientistic social control through "social science," egalitarian collectivism, neo National Socialism ("multiculturalism"), democratic populism, and value neutral pansexual hedonism (or, in other words, progressivism).

[Guest]

So, their interest in Democratic elections in the 1980s means they were nevertheless stuck in a 1950s postwar kind of Democratic Party? That makes no sense.

Zell Miller wrote a book in 2003 titled A National Party no Longer, in which he pleads for the party to come back to its senses and become a party of American values again.

He remains a Democrat, as far as I know, to this day.

[_Runtu]

Its not at all silly if you take a thorough, serious historical look at what the Democratic party has supported, championed, and, perhaps even more importantly, consistently opposed since the end of the Vietnam era to the present time.

I mean, come on Runtu, the contemporary Democratic party has distinguished itself for a very long time as, for all intents and purposes, the party against God and religion (in any but New Age/neo-Pagan or certain traditional forms attached to some of the Left's mascots (American Indians, for example). Mainstream environmentalism is perhaps the central primary manifestation of the religious sense within its ranks (which is, in fundamental form, a kind of militant, secular pantheism).

It is the major American party representing an eclectic blend of secular humanism, moral relativism, scientism, scientistic social control through "social science," egalitarian collectivism, neo National Socialism ("multiculturalism"), democratic populism, and value neutral pansexual hedonism (or, in other words, progressivism).

First of all, I'm not a Democrat, and I've voted for a Democrat only once, when Bill Orton was running for Congress. His opponent was clearly corrupt, so I voted against my party and for a moderate Democrat. He was a good man and a faithful Latter-day Saint.

That said, your summary of the Democratic Party sounds like the mirror image of what I hear the most partisan Democrats say about my party (you know, the folks who say we're between reptile and repugnant in the dictionary).

[_bcspace]

It's funny that I never hear church leaders saying this (well, except Benson, and it got him banished to Europe). Nope, it's just everyday members who presume to speak for the church's political position. Maybe I'm still a traditionalist, but I prefer to let the prophets speak on these matters. Given that some of them are Democrats, I'd say you're off base.

I agree completely. It's by letting them speak that one knows what I have said is completely in keeping with LDS doctrine.

I know a lot of everyday members who have said much the same thing in various church settings. No, you wouldn't get into trouble, usually, but most of the ward probably thinks you're a crackpot. At least the people in my wards who have said such things have been generally considered to be crackpots.

Doesn't seem to be the case in reality. You might be considered a borderline crackpot but the conversation really goes silent and you can hear a pin drop when a lefty speaks up in support of leftist ideals.