Politics and the Mormon Church

[_Coggins7]

The Jesus of the gospels comes across, to me, as both conservative and liberal. Definitely morally conservative, but in some of the parables he comes across almost as a communist. Although it's only a parable with a religious message, the idea of one who works 12 hours getting the same "pay" as one who works one hour can seem socially unjust.


Huh?

[_Coggins7]

For those who are “right wing,” there is no such thing as “too Right-wing.”

Based upon what evidence?

Mitt Romney has made his personal doctrinal shift on a woman’s right to control her productive rights. He has moved from pro-choice to opposing choice for women.

As there is no such thing as "a woman’s right to control her productive rights" within the text of the supreme law of the land, the point is moot.

[_Coggins7]

It would probably be arguable to say that while some conservative and libertarian ideas are incompatible with the Gospel, its is also the case that virtually all leftist ideas are. This is the case in virtually all areas, including economic, political, and social.

Leftism's fundamental error is concerning the central aspects of human nature. The Left has always postulated the human being as coming into the world a tabula rasa which is almost infinitely plastic and which can be molded by enlightened social architects or engineers in any direction desired. This is necessary as an integrated part of the Left's central underlying theme of collectivism and its hostility to the individual and his identity as separate from the collective. Leftism in all its forms except the antinomian social atomism-a radical form of separatist individualism-that arose in the late Sixties around primarily the issues of sexuality and drug usage, has always been viscerally hostile to individualism and its celebration of merit, uniqueness, and the tendency of the individualist to swim upstream outside the acceptable herd parameters.

The state and its various hangers on have a difficult time corralling and controlling an individual who thrives on his or her own ideas and ideals for happiness and meaning and who does not feel like waiting for the dimmest bulb in the room to catch up before she continues on her own path of growth and progression. This, however, is the very essence of a socialistic society (and hence, the famed "outcome based education").

[_JAK]

For those who are “right wing,” there is no such thing as “too Right-wing.”

Based upon what evidence?

Mitt Romney has made his personal doctrinal shift on a woman’s right to control her productive rights. He has moved from pro-choice to opposing choice for women.

As there is no such thing as "a woman’s right to control her productive rights" within the text of the supreme law of the land, the point is moot.

Row vs. Wade has not yet been overturned contrary to your statement:

Coggins7 stated:
As there is no such thing as "a woman’s right to control her productive rights" within the text of the supreme law of the land, the point is moot.


That is, a woman still has a choice regarding the continuation of a pregnancy. However, if the neocons have their way, the choice will soon be terminated.

No refutation to:

“Mitt Romney has made his personal doctrinal shift on a woman’s right to control her productive rights. He has moved from pro-choice to opposing choice for women.”

As late as 2005, Romney was pro choice. Only recently has he shifted to the right of that position -- now declaring that he is “pro life.” Translation: he is opposed to a woman’s right to choose.

When ask how many of his five sons were serving in the military, he answered, “none.” He stated that his sons were serving their country by campaigning for him.

Comedian Jay Leno observed: that must have been a tough choice -- Iraq or Iowa.

There is ample evidence that a significant number of American voters oppose a woman’s right to choose, favor prayer in school (their prayer), favor collapse of infra-structure over paying for bridge/road repair, oppose science in public schools while favoring creationism. Such people, while now in the minority, still support George W. Bush and prefer to ignore the facts of a $10 billion a month war on Iraq which was started on the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

For those there is no such thing as too far right. They oppose virtually all government-provided benefits to the American people. Those individuals are sufficiently right-wing to be hard-pressed to find a political candidate as far right as they are. Hence, no such thing as too far right for them.

JAK

[_Coggins7]

Nehor, You stated you thougt it is clear that needy people should be helped by individuals instead of organizations.

Why would that be better? Why not churches, charity organizations or government. They have broader means to help and reach those in need.

I don't think Nehor would have any problems with Churches or private charity organizations helping the needy, as this is both local and involves, at the end of the day, individuals helping other individuals. Government is where the rub comes in, for two primary reasons, those being that government is distant, and has no real understanding of the needs required, and secondly, the incentives are completely wrong. The incentives for government to do "good works" are, in the end, always political in nature, not charitable.

My second question reflects a bit of puzzle I still have about politics and the Mormon church. I realize the church is flexible enough that people of a variety of political views may be found in the church. Even so the balance has been and apparently still is such that quite conservative view can speak openly as if assuming they are close to being church doctrine. Other political views keep a guard on their mouth. Why?

I can't answer for Nehor, but my own view is that this is because most liberal or leftist views are, because of their very nature and origin, incompatible with Church teaching. I have to ask, why would we think that a plethora of political views could be compatible with Gospel teaching? A great many philosophies or various kinds are inharmonious with the Church. This is as it is. All political theories and ideas are, for the most part,of human, secular origin and hence, will have to be sifted for the ideas they contain that are useful or true and the remainder thrown back.

Modern leftism (liberalism),for example, is founded in a aggressive secular humanist vision of the human being and society and is, for the most part, profoundly hostile to traditional religion. It is collectivist in nature, and hence hostile to the doctrine of free agency (accept when it is radically individualist-primarily in sexual matters, in which case it is hostile to community and the effects of personal behavior upon that community).

Leftism has been a philosophical and moral mess ever since the French Revolution. How could any of this be brought into the Church without dire consequences if it became common?

For the record, all conservative or libertarian ideas are not compatible with the Church. For example, some substantial aspects of Ayn Rand's philosophy are not harmonious with the Gospel's concepts of being our brother's keeper. Her critique of Socialism, however, is spot on.

[_barrelomonkeys]

For example, some substantial aspects of Ayn Rand's philosophy are not harmonious with the Gospel's concepts of being our brother's keeper. Her critique of Socialism, however, is spot on.

And this is where the philosophy broke down for me, even though I'm not a religious person.

Hey Coggins, you read Ayn Rand?


I was apparently in the Randian cult because I've read her! :D

[_KimberlyAnn]

For example, some substantial aspects of Ayn Rand's philosophy are not harmonious with the Gospel's concepts of being our brother's keeper. Her critique of Socialism, however, is spot on.

And this is where the philosophy broke down for me, even though I'm not a religious person.

Hey Coggins, you read Ayn Rand?


I was apparently in the Randian cult because I've read her! :D

Hey! Not if you've just read her, lol! I've read Atlas Shrugged. ;)

KA

[Dr. Sunstoned]

[

url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade]Row vs. Wade[/url] has not yet been overturned contrary to your statement:

This is irrelevant to the statement I made. There is no such "right" in the text of the Constitution, nor does the Constitution grant federal judges any authority to create and extend them to the body politic.

That is, a woman still has a choice regarding the continuation of a pregnancy. However, if the neocons have their way, the choice will soon be terminated.

Uh huh. I see. So, its the conservative Jews have there way, this fictional "right" will soon end?

I'm aware of Romney's flip flops. What is your point?

How many of his son's are serving in the military is equally irrelevant to his fitness for the Presidency.

There is ample evidence that a significant number of American voters oppose a woman’s right to choose, favor prayer in school (their prayer), favor collapse of infra-structure over paying for bridge/road repair, oppose science in public schools while favoring creationism. Such people, while now in the minority, still support George W. Bush and prefer to ignore the facts of a $10 billion a month war on Iraq which was started on the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

For those there is no such thing as too far right. They oppose virtually all government-provided benefits to the American people. Those individuals are sufficiently right-wing to be hard-pressed to find a political candidate as far right as they are. Hence, no such thing as too far right for them.

1. You're claim about the rationale for the war in Iraq has been dead and buried for years. It is a flat footed falsehood, and you are spreading it again (there is also substantial evidence that there was, indeed, WMD in Iraq before the invasion, and plenty of it, abeit dismantled and scattered).

2. Few, except Libertarian Anarchists, would oppose all government provided benefits. Conservatives and Libertarians oppose most of them for the very good reason that most of them have proven to be ineffectual when not disastrous.

3. As yet, you have provided no logical argument or evidence that there is no candidate too far right for the right. All you've done above is show that most of the candidates of recent date are only marginally conservative, which is correct. There's a much wider field, however, if the RNC would only let those voices have some say in the national party. The RNC, however, is essentially about power politics, and not political philosophy, and hence, candidates like Alan Keys or Steve Forbes have little chance of a place at the table within the national party power structure.

For the overwhelming majority of modern conservatives, Pat Buchannon is way out of the ballpark.

[_The Nehor]

Nehor, You stated you thougt it is clear that needy people should be helped by individuals instead of organizations.

Why would that be better? Why not churches, charity organizations or government. They have broader means to help and reach those in need.

Your statement was not clear whether you meant the observation as something clear in general such as to yourself now, or whether you meant that it is clear the Book of Mormon teaches that.

My second question reflects a bit of puzzle I still have about polotics and the Mormon church. I realize the church is flexible enough that people of a variety of political views may be found in the church. Even so the balance has been and apparently still is such that quite conservative view can speak openly as if assuming they are close to being church doctrine. Other political views keep a guard on their mouth. Why?

Is there something about the Book of Mormon that encourages this. Nehor, your general comments about the Book of Mormon indicated you didn't think such a basis exists.

General mistrust of government? Coupled with Mormon historic friction with government?
Teachings that priveledge is based upon both individual effort and reward for fidelity in the preexistece?
Government involves mixing members and nonmembers?
A desire to keep seperate from the rest of society?
Does seperateness increase individual responsibilty?

I apologize, I was unclear. I don't begrudge charitiable organizations helping people, I was referring only to gov't programs and institutions. Churches and independent organizations play a vital role and I've contributed to and worked with many of them.

I think the general trend in the Church towards the Republican Party is an alliance of social issues. The LDS Church finds more common ground on the sanctity of marriage and the preservation of social mores with the Republican Party than the Democrats.

Flipping through a Conference Ensign you'll see a talk on self-reliance, one on thrift, a few on Marriage, and a couple on the preservation of the family structure. Seems like good common ground. You'll find a few talks on charity and helping others and the LDS do a pretty good job on that end.

I've read one (count it, one) talk talking about Consecration in the last few decades (I may have missed some though). There have been fewer talks about establishing Zion and those talks tend to be on a 'spiritual' Zion which so often is taken as code-talk to mean you don't have to change what you do, just how you think about it. Hugh Nibley's "Approaching Zion" collection is a cry in the wilderness mostly from the 70's on what Zion really is (Hint: it's not just Church people being nice to each other).

So many LDS fail to realize we're living a lesser law....perhaps not as lesser as the Law of Moses but our true goal collectively should be to establish a society that emulates heaven insofar as that is possible on the Earth. I have my thoughts on what such a society would be like but I'll save that for some time when I have a lot of time on my hands.

Suffice it to say I do not think the Book of Mormon and the D&C provide any real support for either political party.

I think debates within the Church over it is purely a help to the Devil. The Book of Mormon does have one parallel. It's like deciding whether to ally with and destroy others on behalf of Shiz or Coriantumr.

[_Coggins7]

For example, some substantial aspects of Ayn Rand's philosophy are not harmonious with the Gospel's concepts of being our brother's keeper. Her critique of Socialism, however, is spot on.

And this is where the philosophy broke down for me, even though I'm not a religious person.

Hey Coggins, you read Ayn Rand?


I was apparently in the Randian cult because I've read her! :D

Yes, a number of her books. Her criticism of the leftist mindset; its romanticization of egalitarian sameness, its hatred of individual uniqueness, its despotic desire to meddle in even the smallest affairs of personal life, its visceral envy of achievement and especially of brilliance, is among the most intellectually blistering in western political philosophy. Her rather unreasoning animus against religion and her immoderate sense of individualist autonomy I've always found to be a little overwrought. At the very least, were not nearly as on our own as John Galt would have it. But that doesn't mean government, and especially the central government, has, because of this, any fundamental role to play in human welfare. Its primary role is the protection and guarantee of our unalienable rights. Providing for human happiness and welfare is quite another matter entirely.