LDS & ex-LDS Political Ideologies

[_bcspace]

Leftwingers face a difficult obstacle (Ether 12:27). In order to be LDS or even Christian, they must give up much that is immoral and ingrained in their lifestyles. They essential have symapthy to Satan's original plan. These types rarely remain in the Church and the few who do are constantly trying to change it to no avail.

[_Sethbag]

I used to be way more right-wing than I am now. I've had other times where I dallied somewhat, to some small degree, with liberal ideas, but I was always mainly conservative, both fiscally and socially. For example, there was a time maybe 15 years ago when I was pretty strongly anti-gay, and now I'm not anti-gay at all.

I would say I'm now more of what you might call a political moderate. I've definitely shifted the left from where I have been in the past, but I still can't stand Nancy Pelosi and some others on the left. I'm certainly not a MoveOn type of liberal at all.

I guess you could say that now that my religious views have changed, I've taken to being more empathetic with people, because at the end of the day, people are real, and we're all in this together. So my political views have moderated in that direction. Also, I'm not anti-gay anymore, and I'm also very much against the political goals of the religious right, ie: turning America into a fundementalist Christian theocracy. I'm very much against the government involving itself in the "moral" questions, where moral=sex as has been pointed out by some about the religious right. I think peoples' sexual practices, so long as they don't involve children or non-consenting adults, are their own business, and that includes heteros and gays.

[_asbestosman]

Leftwingers face a difficult obstacle (Ether 12:27). In order to be LDS or even Christian, they must give up much that is immoral and ingrained in their lifestyles. They essential have symapthy to Satan's original plan.

How do leftwingers have sympathy to Satan's original plan? Aren't right-wingers the ones who try to make everything they don't like illegal (marijuana, homosexual relationships, alcohol in the temperance movement, etc.)? That sounds more like Satan's original plan to me.

[_asbestosman]

I think peoples' sexual practices, so long as they don't involve children or non-consenting adults, are their own business, and that includes heteros and gays.

What if it includes other animals?
or maybe plants?

[_Sethbag]

I think peoples' sexual practices, so long as they don't involve children or non-consenting adults, are their own business, and that includes heteros and gays.

What if it includes other animals?
or maybe plants?

If it includes living (or, I suppose, formerly-living) animals other than consenting, competent (in the legal sense) adults, I'd be opposed. If a dog or cat, or cow, sheep, or rooster, cannot be considered legallly competent to consent to a sexual relationship with a person, then it's not right to subject them to one.

If you wanna f*ck a bale of hay, well, more power to you.

[_bcspace]

I guess you could say that now that my religious views have changed, I've taken to being more empathetic with people, because at the end of the day, people are real, and we're all in this together. So my political views have moderated in that direction. Also, I'm not anti-gay anymore, and I'm also very much against the political goals of the religious right, ie: turning America into a fundementalist Christian theocracy. I'm very much against the government involving itself in the "moral" questions, where moral=sex as has been pointed out by some about the religious right. I think peoples' sexual practices, so long as they don't involve children or non-consenting adults, are their own business, and that includes heteros and gays.

Empathy and sympathy is the unique domain of conservatism. The reason why is because we also know the true place of responsibilty for ones actions. In other words, conservatives know and apply justice and mercy whereas liberals apply mercy only. Mercy only has always been contrary to the gospel and is also why liberalism is a false compassion.

How do leftwingers have sympathy to Satan's original plan?

By removing agency through socialism etc.

Aren't right-wingers the ones who try to make everything they don't like illegal (marijuana, homosexual relationships, alcohol in the temperance movement, etc.)? That sounds more like Satan's original plan to me.

The United Order also sounds like Satan's plan too until you realize that one joins voluntarily and leaves voluntarily etc. For the same reason, the items you mentioned are not part of Satan's plan.

The difference is that in Socialism, one cannot leave and one has no choice in joining. It takes a dictatorship to keep Scoialsm going (until it's run into the dirt). With these other items, one can vote for or against (do not make the mistake of confusing social democracy with actual democracy) and one can still choose to whether or not pay the penalty through disobedience.

Another principle violated by liberals along these lines is the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If one could practice these things without negatively affecting the rights of others fine. But the reality is that one cannot.

[_moksha]

The only way I could see myself turning Republican, is if I suddenly became a billionaire and balked at paying taxes. Oh, and perhaps developed a rhythmic toe-tapping-under-the-stall-urge to wave as well.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Empathy and sympathy is the unique domain of conservatism. The reason why is because we also know the true place of responsibilty for ones actions. In other words, conservatives know and apply justice and mercy whereas liberals apply mercy only. Mercy only has always been contrary to the gospel and is also why liberalism is a false compassion.

So why is so much of the conservative mandate to remove actions from the individual and move it into a domain governed by society?

Can you please expand on your above statements. In precisely what way do liberals only apply mercy and conservatives apply both justice and mercy? Can you cite specific legislation or political debate that deals with this currently?

[_asbestosman]

If it includes living (or, I suppose, formerly-living) animals other than consenting, competent (in the legal sense) adults, I'd be opposed.

I take it then that you are against the use of leather in one's intimate affairs? Fur too?

If you wanna f*ck a bale of hay, well, more power to you.

Nah, but sometimes I do like to screw light-bulbs in.

[_asbestosman]

By removing agency through socialism etc.

I'm not a fan of socialistic taxes. That said, I am a fan of letting people do what they want (smoke pot, etc.) so long as it doesn't significantly harm me or innocent children. That is, of course, a tough question. In some respects, my spending time on the internet could be seen as negatively affecting society since I'm not out doing community service or working harder to earn more money, or spending more time with my family or neighbors.