It is official...Mormons are politically diverse

[_Racer]

Enjoy hell, unrighteous dominion [personal attack deleted].

Just applying 1 Corinthians 6:2. I have merely compared the Socialist policies of the Democrats with doctrine. Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin.

Where does the Socialist policies of the Law of Consecration fit in with all of this? If you were to compare the LoC with Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations and Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, you would find more similarities with Marx.

LoC is hardly conservative and yet this is the proposed form of Mormon economics for the millennium even though it failed miserably.

[_ldsfaqs]

More "story's".....

1. I was only banned from ZLMB "once" if I remember right, because if I'm remembering right "Calmoriah" didn't like my using CAPS and quotes as much as I did. When ZLMB died, I was not "banned". I can still post there, last I checked anyway.

2. I was banned from MADB because of the current "fascism" that is occurring there.
I did not write and post there, like I do here. Here I'm free to directly condemn, there I simply provided argument. Anyway, I explained how I last got banned in a couple of threads, and it clearly wasn't due to me breaking a rule or doing something wrong. At MADB I was actually well behaved because the rules required it.

Lee,

Of course they didn't tell you they banned you because you are an embarrassment to your side. Sadly, it's just a logical conclusion. LDS moderators on Z were fairly tolerant of LDS posters, and LDS moderators on MDD are flagrantly biased for LDS posters. The LDS mods on Z wouldn't ban LDS posters for something as inconsequential as using too many caps, and the fascism on MDD is directed solely towards critics and LDS posters who embarrass them for some reason.

I don't really expect you to understand this. I'm not even sure why I bother explaining it to you. It's painfully clear to others.

Beastie.... The ONLY people I'm an embarrassment to is YOU people.
There might be a "couple" of TRUE faithful LDS that might have a pet peeve with me, but ALL OTHERS liked me just fine. I know because I was thanked many times over for my comments at MADB.... In thread, PM, or email.

I even converted someone to the Church before my first ban at MADB when I was leeuniverse.
Of course, he did HIS OWN work, I only helped him with a couple of key issues that he had.

As far as I'm aware, only Cal and Julianne had any problems with me. I've noticed that Cal has really changed also, becoming somewhat like Julianne. Oh, and YES, I WAS banned briefly from ZLMB because of using too many Caps & Quotes. They told me so, and they would often complain to me before the banning. So, stop LYING.....!!!! I know my faults, I know my mistakes..... You're just MAKING UP CRAP about me based on YOUR OWN bigoted fantasy's of me and Mormons in general.

Anyway.....

[_Cinnamon Bear Head]

For the Love of Christ, learn some English.

[_beastie]

Beastie.... The ONLY people I'm an embarrassment to is YOU people.

It is true that sometimes I'm embarrassed for you.

Oh, well, you're the one who chooses to expose yourself this way.

[_moksha]

Conservative = Freedom / Church = Freedom
Liberalism = Statism & Compelled Righteousness/Charity etc. / Church = Anti-Statism & Compelled Righteousness/Charity etc.

To break it down, the Church and Conservatism is against Satan's plan of salvation, while Liberalism is greatly for it.

And much much more....

Hey Lee, let me try to do an improved version:

Conservative = We've got ours Jack, the rest fend for yourselves.
Liberalism = Goverment compelled righteousness/charity/justice etc.
Church = A religious institution

[_Droopy]

Got it BC and Droopy if you are lurking. You are in opposition to LDS official doctrine by taking the position LDS democrats should not hold temple recommmends. Repent. Now.

Yes, I'm lurking, off and on, but have no intention of coming back into the fold in any significant way. I do want to say, however, that I have never, in any forum or venue, claimed that Democrats per se should not hold temple recommends. My problems are with the Left, not Democrats per se, who may hold such a party affiliation for any number of reasons, including psychological, emotional, and as a matter of family or community tradition and loyalty. That is to say, one may be a Democrat and not be at all fully aware of the nature or ramifications of that party's ideological core, its policy prescriptions, or its modern social, cultural, and political genealogy.

My concern, regarding any Church member, would be with someone who was a Democrat and also had a clear, well conceptualized understanding of the primary ideological forces and ideas driving that party's consistent, traditional policy choices, the assumptions and philosophy underlying its core ideology and policy preferences across a number of issue areas, and who was willing to hold to and argue for that ideology and those policies in defiance of Church doctrine, philosophy, and counsel, up to and including a willingness to engage in urbane, labyrinthine sophistries (i.e., Joanna Brooks) who's purpose is to domesticate secular liberal/leftist ideas within a Church context and philosophically neutralize LDS teachings to the degree that leftist ideas appear compatible with or at least conceptually irrelevant with regard to Church doctrine.

That is what presents problems (and similar problems would appear as well with certain "strong" or purist libertarian concepts and attitudes, as would also be the case for aspects of Randian Objectivism) for the Latter day Saint who wishes to be both a Saint and one of the Anointed.

There are any number of beliefs, philosophies, practices, attitudes, and traditions incompatible and inconsistent with the restored gospel, Leftist ideological and philosophical systems and precepts being only one among others, some of which are much more psychological or purely attitudinal in nature, and have no organized or systematic ideological foundation.

Strait is the gate...

[Guest]

The statement states that it doesn't support or oppose "political party's".
It doesn't say anything about not being against certain ideology's and for others.

Precisely. Otherwise, the Church itself would be nothing more than a tabula rasa upon which members could inscribe their own interpretations and nostrums, much like Unitarianism or the liberal mainline Protestant churches.

To break it down, the Church and Conservatism is against Satan's plan of salvation, while Liberalism is greatly for it.

"Liberalism" is, indeed, about collective or communal salvation (in the way "salvation" can be understood within a messianic political ideology, or body of related ideologies), a contradiction in terms in a gospel sense.

[_Jason Bourne]

Yes, I'm lurking, off and on, but have no intention of coming back into the fold in any significant way. I do want to say, however, that I have never, in any forum or venue, claimed that Democrats per se should not hold temple recommends. My problems are with the Left, not Democrats per se, who may hold such a party affiliation for any number of reasons, including psychological, emotional, and as a matter of family or community tradition and loyalty. That is to say, one may be a Democrat and not be at all fully aware of the nature or ramifications of that party's ideological core, its policy prescriptions, or its modern social, cultural, and political genealogy.

My concern, regarding any Church member, would be with someone who was a Democrat and also had a clear, well conceptualized understanding of the primary ideological forces and ideas driving that party's consistent, traditional policy choices, the assumptions and philosophy underlying its core ideology and policy preferences across a number of issue areas, and who was willing to hold to and argue for that ideology and those policies in defiance of Church doctrine, philosophy, and counsel, up to and including a willingness to engage in urbane, labyrinthine sophistries (i.e., Joanna Brooks) who's purpose is to domesticate secular liberal/leftist ideas within a Church context and philosophically neutralize LDS teachings to the degree that leftist ideas appear compatible with or at least conceptually irrelevant with regard to Church doctrine.

That is what presents problems (and similar problems would appear as well with certain "strong" or purist libertarian concepts and attitudes, as would also be the case for aspects of Randian Objectivism) for the Latter day Saint who wishes to be both a Saint and one of the Anointed.

There are any number of beliefs, philosophies, practices, attitudes, and traditions incompatible and inconsistent with the restored gospel, Leftist ideological and philosophical systems and precepts being only one among others, some of which are much more psychological or purely attitudinal in nature, and have no organized or systematic ideological foundation.

Strait is the gate...

I mostly have no problem with this.

[_Jason Bourne]

That is not, however, Jason's agenda.

And what is my agenda? Let me tell you. My agenda on this thread it to demonstrate that those who say the church has a political litmus test for worthiness are in direct opposition to the Church's policy. Plain and simple and the link I provided demonsrates this quite well.

You will also note that I also told Mr. FAQs that I would agree that there are parts of the Democratic platform that it is clear the Church opposes. I also noted there could be elements of other politicl parties positions the Church would oppose.

That is it. That is my agenda on this thread.

[_Droopy]

That is not, however, Jason's agenda.

You will note that I deleted the portion of the above post to which this is a response. I have no intention of engaging anyone here at any length for any reason other than a periodic statement on certain subjects if I think something is really worth clarifying. I have no intentions of getting into any more knock down, drag outs with anyone.

On second thought, I found that particular comment to be unnecessarily provocative and personal, so I eliminated it.

This place brings that kind of thing out in me (and many others), which is why I left it and am staying out of it, save for a few stray comments I may post now and then, when the need arises.

The long, extended arguments and tit-for-tat stemwinding debates are over.