DiscussMormonism.com

No reason to apologize, Rockslider. My opening post was total crap anyway. I am ashamed of myself for writing it, because it was written so poorly. I think self-reliance is an important personal virtue. I believe in working for my daily bread. There was a time when I was fascinated with Ayn Rand, and I don't think that her voice has no place. But much caution is required. She ought not to be romanticized and made out to be something she was not. We may admire industrial heroes, but her heroes are closer to Greek myth than reality. No one should base a real economic philosophy on her viewpoint.

:-P

Hi, Daniel. Am I to assume that you have decided I am your enemy, and that you must now give me a dose of your special treatment? I am touched that you decided to go after me even before you went after Doctor Scratch. Well, I don't consider you *my* enemy, so why don't you just leave me alone, and I will leave you alone, OK? You can start by removing that nice little entry from your blog. If you had read to the end of this thread, you would have seen the above final comments, in which I significantly softened my tone and became rather reasonable. We all have our moments. You have yours, right?

1. The LDS Church on immigration in Utah.

How has the LDS Church diverged from conservative values on illegal immigration? For example, the Utah Compact says nothing that would preclude a conservative solution to the problem.

2. The Catholic Church on income inequality.

I've never seen the modern Catholic Church as generally conservative. Perhaps on a few issues, but don't their voters trend "moderate"?

Apostate fascists (rightwing conservatives) who muck up the chapels and cathedrals of these institutions with their defiance of Christ's most basic teachings and drool after the gospel of that sociopathic cult leader Ayn Rand hate it when these organizations actually serve the common good instead of merely providing the fascist minority a place to salve what little they have of a conscience with the unction of self-righteous disdain for others.

Considering LDS doctrine, it is not possible for a political liberal to be a Christian in the sense of one actually following the teachings of Christ's Church.

With jagoff fascist bungholios littering the board with obvious deception

Indeed. They're called atheist/humanist/agnostics.

it can be difficult to imagine how conservative religious groups do on occasion veer from the conservative playbook to stand for things they actually believe in.

I'm sure you have a difficult time imagining anything good about anyone who does not believe what you believe. You mentioned something about fascists?

Yes, sometimes these groups disagree with the vociferous fascist minority that clamors to drag these churches, and the nation, back to the Medieval world.

Yes, that's exactly what they want. What a brilliant and nuanced political analysis.

Cases in point:

1. The LDS Church on immigration in Utah.

I couldn't care less what they think about imigration.

2. The Catholic Church on income inequality.

What about it?

Apostate fascists (rightwing conservatives) who muck up the chapels and cathedrals of these institutions with their defiance of Christ's most basic teachings

I wonder if you can even articulate what Christ's teaching is.

and drool after the gospel of that sociopathic cult leader Ayn Rand hate it when these organizations actually serve the common good

Yes, indeed. They are just dripping with hate.

instead of merely providing the fascist minority a place to salve what little they have of a conscience with the unction

They certainly void of conscious. At least one that is expressed that meets your approval.

of self-righteous disdain for others.

That is a rather unappealing quality isn't it?

Kishkumen wrote:With jagoff fascist bungholios littering the board with obvious deception it can be difficult to imagine how conservative religious groups do on occasion veer from the conservative playbook to stand for things they actually believe in. Yes, sometimes these groups disagree with the vociferous fascist minority that clamors to drag these churches, and the nation, back to the Medieval world.

Cases in point:

1. The LDS Church on immigration in Utah.

2. The Catholic Church on income inequality.

Apostate fascists (rightwing conservatives) who muck up the chapels and cathedrals of these institutions with their defiance of Christ's most basic teachings and drool after the gospel of that sociopathic cult leader Ayn Rand hate it when these organizations actually serve the common good instead of merely providing the fascist minority a place to salve what little they have of a conscience with the unction of self-righteous disdain for others.

Has Kishkumen been injected with some kind of Droopy serum?

The point of view expressed is quite different, of course, but the mode of expression and high rage content is eerily similar. At least he has not caught the ldsfaqs strain ... yet?

bcspace wrote:

1. The LDS Church on immigration in Utah.

How has the LDS Church diverged from conservative values on illegal immigration? For example, the Utah Compact says nothing that would preclude a conservative solution to the problem.

Bc, it is true that the Utah Compact does not say anything that would preclude Swift's very conservative modest proposal, the Utah Compact's inclusion of the line, "humane approach to this reality, reflecting our unique culture, history and spirit of inclusion" would suggest that the Church is seeking to extend both the Christian goal of caring for others, as well as the mission to bring all to the Gospel.

With jagoff fascist bungholios ...

Kishkumen has met with some success in channeling the spirit of Schryver.

How has the LDS Church diverged from conservative values on illegal immigration? For example, the Utah Compact says nothing that would preclude a conservative solution to the problem.

Bc, it is true that the Utah Compact does not say anything that would preclude Swift's very conservative modest proposal, the Utah Compact's inclusion of the line, "humane approach to this reality, reflecting our unique culture, history and spirit of inclusion" would suggest that the Church is seeking to extend both the Christian goal of caring for others, as well as the mission to bring all to the Gospel.

The Free Society section does not refer to illegals though I'm sure some would read it that way. I have no problem with integrating immigrants and it certainly is not inhumane to deny rights and benefits to illegals otherwise accorded to citizens and legals. If you want to fix illegals up a bit before you show them to the border, that's fine.

Years ago while living in the burbs of Sacramento, our family was asked to stop attending our normal ward and starting attending a spanish branch the stake was starting. I guess we were candidates because both my wife and I served missions in Spain. I was not happy about this at all, since we had a lot of good friends in our regular ward and it felt like home. The spanish services left a lot to be desired - very small classes, almost no children (we had two small ones that obviously didn't speak spanish), very few activities etc. Basically, it was a bunch of white people speaking spanish half-assishly and running everything, just so a few immigrants in the area could feel at home.

Anyway, several times I went on splits with the spanish speaking elders to teach invesigator and new member discussions to illegals. When I questioned how we could be baptizing and teaching people who were knowingly breaking federal and state laws, the response was that it wasn't our business and that the church didn't have a position on it.

I was very conflicted about this, because from my point of view, illegals were criminals. How could the church knowingly baptize someone who is willfully ignoring the laws in the country where they reside? The church's position made no sense to me, if we really believed all the requirements for baptism.

Funny enough, this whole spanish branch episode was the beginning of the end for me. Well, not really the end since I'm still in it, but started me down the path of where I am today (agnostic towards the idea that big corporate relgions actually know what the afterlife is like and what this life really means.)

Nothing I said is really the least bit exceptionable. Many rightwing Republicans are essentially fascists, whether they like the word or not. I didn't call them Nazis! They support the infernal wedding of the US federal government with giant corporations at the expense of the nation's human citizens. Sorry that this is true, but it just is. Those are the facts.

And frankly, I have no love or patience for fascists. If you are too tender for that, well, deal with it. If that word doesn't apply to you (i.e., you don't believe Citizens United was a good ruling and you don't think that little or no corporate tax is the answer to our problems, etc.), then you really ought not to be upset, right?

I just love it when people take things personally unnecessarily. It is very revealing.

Oh, and Ayn Rand was a deeply disturbed person. Again, fact.

Kishkumen wrote:Oh, and Ayn Rand was a deeply disturbed person. Again, fact.

Never heard of Ayn so I looked and found this quote:

"Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."