LDS Conservatives Are Idolatrous?

[_Droopy]

I can see how a faithful LDS member can be a Republican. I cannot see how those holding ultra-conservative views can argue that they are supported by scripture and God himself.

Although I think this is perhaps the 987th time I've asked you this in as many years without a response, I can't help but ask again if you could define the terms in the bolded portion of your post above.

What does the term "ultra" add to "conservative" that gives it the characteristics you claim for it (which you also have not defined) and what is the fundamental difference between a conservative and an ultraconservative?

Who would you point to as an example of a conservative and an ultraconservative?

Why?

[_Runtu]

So then, ideas really don't have consequences?

Obviously not. I'm not sure where you got that from what I said. My point was pretty simple: people of all kinds of political stripes become fanatical and, when pushed, choose their politics over their religion. Saying that has nothing to do with the fact that ideas have consequences.

[_Droopy]

Be prepared for a lot of prolix, poorly written posts

We're well prepared to ignore virtually 100% of that which you write here, Kish. And at the 7th to 8th grade reading comprehension level that has been made clear to me many times is the mean level of intellectual digestive capacity around here, most prolix posts will simply be waved off as unimportant anyway (that's an awfully big word to be using around here Kish. Good to see your training wheels off).

Thanks for the head's up.

[_Runtu]

Be prepared for a lot of prolix, poorly written posts

We're well prepared to ignore virtually 100% of that which you write here, Kish. And at the 7th to 8th grade reading comprehension level that has been made clear to me many times is the mean level of intellectual digestive capacity around here, most prolix posts will simply be waved off as unimportant anyway (that's an awfully big word to be using around here Kish. Good to see your training wheels off).

Thanks for the head's up.

Nah, Kish is an excellent writer. I think most people here recognize that, including you.

[_Droopy]

So then, ideas really don't have consequences?

Obviously not. I'm not sure where you got that from what I said.

Because what you said was that ideologies are not a problem unless one allows them to come between themselves and the gospel.

I would say that various ideologies, and especially the 20th century kind, are a problem, to various degrees, in and of themselves, especially in their more transformative, messianic, or social reformational form, because they, by definition, require either a modification or abandonment of gospel principles in order to maintain fealty to them.

These need not be strictly political doctrines, but may be social or philosophical systems for which politics are secondary.

[_Droopy]

Nah, Kish is an excellent writer. I think most people here recognize that, including you.

Unfortunately, his vulgar, adolescent, and frequently profane personal attack style overshadow much of that ability.

I find him to be primarily a provocateur, not a serious interlocutor.

[_Droopy]

It’s become clear that there is a small minority in Utah that has set up a political dogma that carries all the trappings of religion. Their patron saint is an icon named Ronald Reagan (which bears scant resemblance to the actual man). Their scripture is a narrow interpretation of the Constitution that has more in common with the Articles of Confederation than the Constitution itself. Their founding prophet was Cleon Skousen, and their modern prophets are folks like Glenn Beck, who like other false prophets have become fabulously wealthy from their preaching.

The disciples of this political religion have lost all ability to self-doubt. They aren’t interested in evidence, logic or discussion; they already have all the answers. They quote the personal political views of hyper-conservative Ezra Taft Benson to prove their political faith is a branch of Mormonism, while ignoring the opposing views of the liberal Hugh B. Brown.

I fear some have unwittingly reached the point where their political religion has eclipsed their religion. That fits our definition of idolatry. I know that sounds harsh, but many people I know are puzzled by how some LDS politicians can read King Benjamin’s sermon in the Book of Mormon and say the things they say.

Time for some denials.

Who wrote this, Kevin Graham?

[_Runtu]

Because what you said was that ideologies are not a problem unless one allows them to come between themselves and the gospel.

No, I did not. I said, "It's not the ideology that is the problem" The is a definite article meaning "in this case." A, on the other hand, is an indefinite article, meaning "in general." My meaning is clear: in the case I am discussing, it's not the ideology that is problematic. I can see where you mistook the meaning by not reading closely.

I would say that various ideologies, and especially the 20th century kind, are a problem, to various degrees, in and of themselves, especially in their more transformative, messianic, or social reformational form, because they, by definition, require either a modification or abandonment of gospel principles in order to maintain fealty to them.

Again, "a problem" is not synonymous with "the problem."

These need not be strictly political doctrines, but may be social or philosophical systems for which politics are secondary.

I think that is true for conservative free-marketers as well, hence my conservative commenter who all but accused the GAs of apostasy because they took a stand contrary to his on immigration.

[_Runtu]

Unfortunately, his vulgar, adolescent, and frequently profane personal attack style overshadow much of that ability.

I find him to be primarily a provocateur, not a serious interlocutor.

Well, I guess we'll just disagree, then.

[_bcspace]

I still have no idea how a Mormon can be a republican, if anything a socialist would be the closest political form to mirror Mormonism.

LDS doctrine rejects socialism in every way and the doctrine indicates that the Law of Consecration can't operate in anything other than a free market and capitalistic economy which according to the scriptures is also God's economy of salvation. In addition, it is not possible for a Democrat to pass the TR questions without lying and they also fit some of the definitions of apostasy given in the CHI.