LDS Conservatives Are Idolatrous?

[_Kevin Graham]

Some LDS conservatives worship political dogma
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/51 ... s.html.csp

By STEVE OLSEN

First published May 14 2011 01:01AM
Updated May 14, 2011 01:13AM

I had an interesting discussion a few years ago at the Weber County Fair. This man said he’d been a strict conservative most of his life, arguing against the government helping the less fortunate as unconstitutional do-goodism, and that families and charity must be responsible for the poor.

Then his elderly mother became ill, eventually requiring nursing care. Before too long, the cost of this care had consumed her savings and all the equity in her home. Her children were not people of means. So, under the theory of government this man had espoused all his life, it was time for his aged mother to be tossed into the street.

But of course she wasn’t. In America, when the resources of the elderly are exhausted, Medicaid takes over. After the family had done all they could, We the People stepped in and took up the slack.

After telling his story, this good man said, “The limited government thing sounds good in theory. But in real life, there are just too many needs out there. It would be nice if charity could do everything, but it isn’t realistic. There are legitimate needs in our communities that require the collective effort of government. I was cured of my hard-core conservatism by my experience.”

With this story in mind, I have given a lot of thought recently to a strange quandary: How can a charitable person come to believe that allowing the disadvantaged to suffer is somehow less evil than government helping them? The epiphany came late last year: The answer is idolatry.

Our LDS culture has an expansive interpretation of idolatry. The prototypical example is the boat named “Sabbath Breaker” out on the lake on Sunday. In our culture, idolatry means caring more about the creations of men than God. Belonging in the “creations of men” category are political ideologies.

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.

I have an alternate view to the conservative religionists: Thirty years ago the United States enacted supply-side economics. Its purpose was an unjust transfer of all wealth in this nation to the wealthy, and it has been outrageously successful at this. We were told the benefits would “trickle down.”

However, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s economic guru, Marriner Eccles of Utah, could have told us this would create the same conditions that led to the Great Depression, making our modern Great Recession inevitable.

This, not the laziness of the unemployed, is responsible for the current economic hardship in our state.

Steve Olsen ran for Congress in 2006 and is currently chairman of the Weber County Democrats. He lives in Plain City.

[_EAllusion]

What do you want a CFR on Droopy? That the "left/liberals/Democrats" comprise more than 30% of the US or that self-reports of belief in God range from about 84% to 94% depending on how you ask the question? Surely your math skills can figure out what this implies.

Sources you like, newsmax, wnd, etc., love to laud data that indicates nontheists make up a small % of the population in order to paint them as fringe. It's ra ra reporting. But they also try to paint large groups like Democratic voters, pro-choice advocates, etc. as godless. But those numbers can't possibly add up.

For the latter this poll puts the number at 92%

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99945,00.html

For the former, you might want to trade on the ambiguity in what constitutes the "left." On the one hand, the positions you call leftist swallow a massive amount of the viable American political spectrum, including people who rightly should be called conservatives. You call me leftist and I'm a workaday libertarian. I'm working for a Republican candidate this election cycle, in fact. On the other, you doubtless will want to retreat into a narrow definition because it suits you here. So I'm not sure what you want quoted. "Liberal" self-identification has collapsed since the 80's and the sustained Republican vilification of the term and now sits at about 20%. But that isn't too helpful because a liberal person may call themselves moderate or conservative (or vica versa) and the self-indent numbers don't pick that up. Self-identified Democrats make up about 35% of the population and Democratic voters are, obviously, around 50% of the population at any given point. If you go issue by issue it varies. I guess the proper response is to throw the ball back in your court and define what a leftist is that matches with you calling nearly everything that isn't hard right "leftist."

_____________________

Your argument for the Republican party because it respects agency is a complete joke. You don't even care about that, as you favor all manner of laws that restrict people's choices. That's what laws do, in fact, and you aren't an anarchist, nor are Republicans. I'm sure you want it to be illegal to steal cars. But I figured I'd do you a favor and spot you anarcho-capitalism, even though that already fails by your own criteria. But you aren't that either, nor are Republicans. It's not just your social conservatism, even though that's an example where you couldn't care less about people's free choices, but also all the countless ways Republicans favor government involvement in economic decisions. Then, to top it all off, you come out in favor of severe restrictions on unionization, which is a specific restriction on the free association of people and their power to negotiate of their own free will. You can't even wait to be a hypocrite in a different thread.

[_bcspace]

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.

But you've not been able to point to any evidence of such and of course you are quite wrong. However, i am not a Republican, just an antiDemocrat.

The American two-party system favors this moderation.

This is somewhat true. Democrats tend to have to shift a lot more than Republicans have to. In fact, Democrats often try to mirror Republicans. But Republicans tend to do the best when they shift right or at least hold to their conservative principles.

Republicans have radicalized a little more just recently, but there still is only a small degree of difference on a wide array of subjects.

That's only from the perspective of a Democrat. Even the "Tea Party" is quite maninstream.

And both Droopy and BCSpace have attacked liberalism as being anti-gospel for advocating policy positions that don't sufficiently respect free will.

They don't respect free will at all which to them is just an opiate of the masses the new religions being homosexuality , feminism, and the like.

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.

I can;t speak for Droopy, but you are quite incorrect. For example, I have no problem with gays marrying. State recognition of such marriages is another matter entirely.

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.

I am generally opposed to such unless it improves business productivity etc.

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

Nope. The Republican party has no plank or modus operandi that's in violation of the Gospel. A Democratic cannot turn around an not be in opposition to the Gospel in almost every way.

[_moksha]

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.

Who wrote this, Kevin Graham?

This was from the link in the OP. Corollary evidence for this assertion could be found in such members, as described in this quotation, trying to make conservatism a litmus test for being a "good" Mormon. They also tend to make everything into a conservative political diatribe.

[_EAllusion]

I don't know why you reduced social liberalism into gay marriage BCSpace. Maybe because it is an issue you can feel confident in. In your case, I think we can point to the legalization of drug use and distribution since you are a staunch proponent of the drug war. What happened to people's free choices there? Along the same lines, we could point to other vices like prostitution and the like. But even that is an oddly reductionist take on social liberalism. You tend to be conservative, and anti "agency", on a variety of topics ranging from abortion to assisted suicide to civil liberties. And even if you have had a change of heart, the Republican party as a whole hasn't.

The point, though, is supporting Republicans on the basis of them respecting agency while the Democrats do not is a canard. Not only can you point to the Republicans wanting to restrict choice via government coercion in countless ways (some good and some not), we can point to you wanting the same. Your own arguments are a condemnation not just your case against Democrats but not Repubs, but yourself.

[_Droopy]

That's not very free market. Like at all. In a free market, a person should be able to say to his employer, "I'll work for you, but as a term of my employment, I will only do so if you hire people from this organization I belong to. In fact, I will only do so if you collect dues to this organization for me." It's up to the employer and other prospective employees to decided whether that is an acceptable arrangement. They can always say no, after all.

That's fine with me. And in a rule of law grounded, economically and politically free society, the employer is free to say "Thank you for applying, and have a nice day."

And a group of people are free to demand whatever wages and benefits they want as a term of employment regardless of whether that'll bring down the company just as a company is free to negotiate whatever terms of employment it wants, even if those will ultimately bring down the company.

Historically, it is not a company or corporation that negotiates terms of employment that destroy their own economic viability, but rapacious unions and many union members, who's considerations are one's purely of self interest. Some corporations have, however, over time negotiated such terms (GM being a primary example) because they both fear the political power unions wield and, in some cases, enjoy the destructive influence of exclusive, above market union wages and benefits upon smaller competitors.

You of course want both labor and employers to find an arrangement that is mutually beneficial, but sometimes both fail in managing that.

In which case, both sides are free to go elsewhere and finds terms more agreeable.

The arguments against closed shop, or its close cousin in the modern form, are anti-trust in nature.

No, they are moral, ethical, and political in nature.

So, in summary, you're not very free market at all. You're whatever the current incarnation of Republicans say you should be.

An entire post of strained sophistry and not the slightest indication of a substantive grasp of the conservative/libertarian principles involved.

I also note, again, that your knowledge of free market economic concepts is next to nothing, if not beyond that boundary.

E:

Oh Noes! Like James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and all those other wackaloon anti-Americans? Scary stuff.

Save for Paine, all of the above men were religious, and seriously so. Jefferson, the man modern leftists like to deploy as a mascot of secularist humanism, was, in point of fact, a Christian Deist, and convinced of verities modern secularism despises (and fears). Madison was apparently Deistic in belief as well, but attended the. Episcopal Church while President

Franklin was also leaned toward Deism and favored the Episcopal church when associated with organized religion.

[Guest]

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.

Thank you, yet again Nehor, for a well thought out, concise and logically coherent series of non-answers, evasions, and what you apparently believe are clever, cutting witticisms.

While I want to be a serious interlocutor and have a stimulating, intellectually serious discussion, you, as always, want to be an amateur stand up comic.

I think you've been around here for far too long Nehor, and its beginning to show.

[_Droopy]

...

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?

Yes. However, these are matters of principle, fact, and critical reflection, and transcend such experiences (as the fact that both conservatism and libertarianism are alive and well on the Continent, Britain, and in other places as well).

[_Droopy]

What do you want a CFR on Droopy? That the "left/liberals/Democrats" comprise more than 30% of the US or that self-reports of belief in God range from about 84% to 94% depending on how you ask the question? Surely your math skills can figure out what this implies.

The bolded portion above, including the various questions asked and how they skew the percentages.

Sources you like, newsmax, wnd, etc.,

I don't recall using either source in recent memory, and a number of years ago, when I did, it was strictly on issues of mainstream provenance that was being reported in similar fashion by other sources, including "highbrow" intellectual reviews.

love to laud data that indicates nontheists make up a small % of the population in order to paint them as fringe. It's ra ra reporting. But they also try to paint large groups like Democratic voters, pro-choice advocates, etc. as godless. But those numbers can't possibly add up.

If one is pro convenience abortion on demand (abortion as birth control), then, within the context of LDS doctrine, that would, I would wager, place one among "the wicked."

"Godless" need not mean "atheist." It may simply mean what it says; "without God" and without the moral and ethical bearings that are central to one who, not just believes in God (however this term is defined), but who lives a life of discipleship - discipline - related to that belief.

For the latter this poll puts the number at 92%

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99945,00.html

For the former, you might want to trade on the ambiguity in what constitutes the "left." On the one hand, the positions you call leftist swallow a massive amount of the viable American political spectrum,

No they don't. All postions I identiy as "leftism" are long, traditionally held views, core concepts, and attitudes having a long, well known history. There is no doubt, on the other hand, that many of these positions, in watered down or domesticated form, have become deeply intertwined with American society as "received wisdom." Leftism is, as Mark Steyne has observed, "the default position of the culture."

You call me leftist and I'm a workaday libertarian. I'm working for a Republican candidate this election cycle, in fact.

Yet you support no clearly libertarian positions save for the social issues positions taken by what I term "strong" libertarianism that is almost indistinguishable from the social views of the Left.

On the other, you doubtless will want to retreat into a narrow definition because it suits you here. So I'm not sure what you want quoted. "Liberal" self-identification has collapsed since the 80's and the sustained Republican vilification of the term and now sits at about 20%.

Indeed. They've all become "moderates," "independents," and "centrists" now. But this is, after all, only the long, historical tactic of the Left when dealing with the world of practical politics.

Your argument for the Republican party because it respects agency is a complete joke.

CFR on where, in as many years, I've ever argued for the Republican party in this forum.

You don't even care about that, as you favor all manner of laws that restrict people's choices.

This is, as I pointed out above, the "strong," moral relativistic, radical atomistic individualism of the more extreme wing of the libertarian movement, and one of the reasons libertarianism is a dead issue within national politics.

It's not just your social conservatism, even though that's an example where you couldn't care less about people's free choices,

Oh, on the contrary. They are at the very root of it.

but also all the countless ways Republicans favor government involvement in economic decisions.

Statists favor such government intervention. Philosophical conservatives do not. But conservatism does not oppose all forms of government intervention (otherwise, we would be right wing anarchists, no?). What it opposes is interventions that are outside the proper scope, responsibilities, and competence of government.

Then, to top it all off, you come out in favor of severe restrictions on unionization,

Where did I do this please?

which is a specific restriction on the free association of people and their power to negotiate of their own free will. You can't even wait to be a hypocrite in a different thread.

You might try actually reading my posts, once in a while. That would add a great deal of coherence and continuity to your criticisms.

[_EAllusion]

That's fine with me.

So you are Ok with closed shop unionization. Great.

To recap suppose we have a union of two people: Bill and John. Their employer plans on hiring a third person. Bill and John tell their employer that they'll only work for him unless that extra person belongs to their union. Otherwise they walk.

That's all a closed shop is. But you support this, so score one for the free market.

No, they are moral, ethical, and political in nature.

Oh wait. I guess not. You don't know what you are for. I wont pretend to figure out what you think the difference between "moral" and "ethical" is, but the political and ethical argument traditionally employed against our friends Bill and John doing what I described above is a fear of a labor monopoly developing as unions consolidate. General strikes are illegal because of this. Illegal. And by "traditionally" I don't mean this is what oligarchs were thinking when they hired union-busters to shoot them in the face; I mean that's the argument used against this form of unionization in law. The first anti-trust acts were employed much more against unions than businesses by the gilded age courts, for instance.

Save for Paine, all of the above men were religious, and seriously so. Jefferson, the man modern leftists like to deploy as a mascot of secularist humanism, was, in point of fact, a Christian Deist, and convinced of verities modern secularism despises (and fears). Madison was apparently Deistic in belief as well, but attended the. Episcopal Church while President

Franklin was also leaned toward Deism and favored the Episcopal church when associated with organized religion.

And they were all secularists in the sense of favoring a secular political sphere. Franklin was given to ceremonialism, but that's stretching it given what was being talked about. If by "secularist" you mean "atheist" then that's not how the term is understood in this context. There are privately religious secularists. Paine was a deist too, by the way.