LDS Conservatives Are Idolatrous?

[_EAllusion]

Themis -

I've pointed this out before, but the Democrats and Republicans aren't that far apart when you take into account the entire political spectrum. The American two-party system favors this moderation. Republicans have radicalized a little more just recently, but there still is only a small degree of difference on a wide array of subjects.

And both Droopy and BCSpace have attacked liberalism as being anti-gospel for advocating policy positions that don't sufficiently respect free will. But neither of them are anarcho-capitalists. For one, they can't abide the social liberalism. Free will there doesn't matter, it would seem. But more that than, Republicans certainly aren't doing well by that measure either. The Republican party platform also supports massive government intervention into the market that violates people's economic freedom. It's not like the Republican party wants to end entitlements, a vast web of corporate subsidies including farm subsidies, the Fed, the SEC, the post office, etc. That's the very thing that is supposed to make Democrats of the Devil.

So what gives? Shouldn't supporting Republicans also then be a sign of apostasy? Shouldn't they be supporting some obscure third party candidates?

[_moksha]

Right-wing American politics is out of step with the Mormons living in other countries. On LDSnet, the members from Canada and England were constantly reminding the ruling sub-Birchers of that forum that they disagreed with their ideas on health care, education, etc....

[_The Nehor]

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.

The rabid factions that make up much of the Tea Party, those that rewrite Reagan's story to make him a posterchild, those who see all government programs as waste, and those who think taxes are wrong and that lowering them will always increase tax revenues.

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?

The key difference: Sanity.

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

Reagan was a Conservative.
You are ultraconservative.

[_Droopy]

The vast majority of the left are religious and believe in God. You can't on the one hand try to portray liberals as godless in order, in your eyes anyway, to defame them while on the other try to leverage the fact that ~85% of the country believes in God. The numbers don't add up.

The question then, of course, becomes, "What god?"

In any case, I'd like to CFR the empirical claim you've made here.

[_schreech]

...

Just so I know what I am dealing with, have you ever been outside the US and, if so, why? Additionally, have you traveled much inside the US?

[_DarkHelmet]

Funny thing is, my wife's ward had this discussion in Sunday School this week. The discussion was mixing politics with religion, and when do you follow the laws of the land when they conflict with the gospel. The teacher brought up the church's position on immigration being contrary to his, and how he needs to bring his thoughts in line with the GAs. That led to a lively discussion with a lot of members voicing the same opinion as BC space here. I don't remember a time in my life when so many TBMs questioned their GAs, even going so far as to speculate on the "Extent of their apostacy." Wow. Has Glenn Beck orchestrated a coup on church leadership?

[_Kevin Graham]

Yeah, everything EAllusion said, x 3.

Speaking of the conservative Icon, Ronald Reagan, he claimed it was a "right" to form or join a union.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orwN4WKhriw


REAGAN: Ever since martial law was brutally imposed last December, Polish authorities have been assuring the world that they’re interested in a genuine reconciliation with the Polish people. But the Polish regime’s action yesterday reveals the hollowness of its promises. By outlawing Solidarity, a free trade organization to which an overwhelming majority of Polish workers and farmers belong, they have made it clear that they never had any intention of restoring one of the most elemental human rights—the right to belong to a free trade union.

According to droopy, Reagan was a socialist. It just doesn't get any more embarrassing for the self "educated" pundit from Boondock #7 South Carolina.

Reagan argued in favor of unions on multiple occasions. This was no fluke: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsHXJr8tqP0

[_DarkHelmet]

Yeah, everything EAllusion said, x 3.

Speaking of the conservative Icon, Ronald Reagan, he claimed it was a "right" to form or join a union.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orwN4WKhriw


REAGAN: Ever since martial law was brutally imposed last December, Polish authorities have been assuring the world that they’re interested in a genuine reconciliation with the Polish people. But the Polish regime’s action yesterday reveals the hollowness of its promises. By outlawing Solidarity, a free trade organization to which an overwhelming majority of Polish workers and farmers belong, they have made it clear that they never had any intention of restoring one of the most elemental human rights—the right to belong to a free trade union.

According to droopy, Reagan was a socialist. It just doesn't get any more embarrassing for the self "educated" pundit from Boondock #7 South Carolina.

Reagan argued in favor of unions on multiple occasions. This was no fluke: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsHXJr8tqP0

As the article says, the Reagan that conservatives worship today is not the same Reagan who presided from 1981-1989. They have recreated him in their own image.

[_Themis]

Themis -

I've pointed this out before, but the Democrats and Republicans aren't that far apart when you take into account the entire political spectrum. The American two-party system favors this moderation. Republicans have radicalized a little more just recently, but there still is only a small degree of difference on a wide array of subjects.

And both Droopy and BCSpace have attacked liberalism as being anti-gospel for advocating policy positions that don't sufficiently respect free will. But neither of them are anarcho-capitalists. For one, they can't abide the social liberalism. Free will there doesn't matter, it would seem. But more that than, Republicans certainly aren't doing well by that measure either. The Republican party platform also supports massive government intervention into the market that violates people's economic freedom. It's not like the Republican party wants to end entitlements, a vast web of corporate subsidies including farm subsidies, the Fed, the SEC, the post office, etc. That's the very thing that is supposed to make Democrats of the Devil.

So what gives? Shouldn't supporting Republicans also then be a sign of apostasy? Shouldn't they be supporting some obscure third party candidates?

I agree that Republicans and democrats are not that different in most respects, but I doubt these two would see that, and if they do they would call it leftist which it really is when you are that far to the right. The problem I see someone like Bcspace getting into here is not his extreme and illogical ideas, but him saying he would enforce them on members if he was Bishop. This would get him into a world of hurt with the church. Again I suspect he is more talk then action. People can have some wired ideas and be considered good members of the church. An example would be someone in your ward who thinks abortion is wrong and a sin, but believes women should have the right to make that decision(Pro-choice) just as someone should have the choice to fornicate.

[_Themis]

Funny thing is, my wife's ward had this discussion in Sunday School this week. The discussion was mixing politics with religion, and when do you follow the laws of the land when they conflict with the gospel. The teacher brought up the church's position on immigration being contrary to his, and how he needs to bring his thoughts in line with the GAs. That led to a lively discussion with a lot of members voicing the same opinion as BC space here. I don't remember a time in my life when so many TBMs questioned their GAs, even going so far as to speculate on the "Extent of their apostacy." Wow. Has Glenn Beck orchestrated a coup on church leadership?

As a believing member I never felt I had to agree with the church on every issue. Only the ones that were related to the doctrines and practices of the church. Immigration is not one of those, and as such I would feel comfortable disagreeing with the church on that issue. I also realize that their stand is not about what they think is right, but what benefits them the most.