Not really. In my case, I typically wait to chime in against a left wing agenda which is anti Gospel by definition. But as we know, and Droopy has pointed out, the left wing agenda is a protected class on the MDD.
We have Julianne, who thinks postmodernism has something positive to contribute to the Church and to a renewed legitimation of religion as such, that has never been made clear to me but which I suspect has something to do with a very narrow reading of its general views upon the concept of the social construction of "truth."
We have David Bokovoy and a host of like minded intellectuals who have, following a long tradition of people like Paul Tillich and others (such as the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Maryknolls, the National Council of Churches etc.) come to see Christianity (in this case, the restored gospel) as a vindication and fulfillment of a romantic vision of a collectivist, egalitarian utopia which can now be given the imprimatur of divine sanction.
This is by far the most destructive (and apparently popular) of the various attempts to bring cherished notions and beliefs from the world into the Church and domesticate them, and its the place where the most rancorous debate takes place. The reason for the heat and sparks generated by such discussions, is not, in my experience, the degree of disagreement on basic principles themselves, as large as they may be, but the insinuation or implication in much of it that anyone (and by definition, numerous General Authorities) who does not subscribe to a broadly socialistic, collectivist, "communitarian" view of the United Order and what an optimum society (a Zion society) would look like, is, in some sense, spiritually weaker, less morally serious, and less committed to the gospel and its "true" ideals then one who has appended the "correct" political and economic doctrines to that very gospel.
Open, competitive, free market economic relations, property rights, and the overarching importance of the individual and his integrity as such are seen and denounced as outside the gospel and a sign of spiritual weakness, if not outright venality (the emotionally charged specter of "greed," sweeping denunciations of the "rich" and of affluent people as a class, and the romanticization and valorization of the poor (again, as a class. Individual distinctions disappear on the Left to be replaced by broad theoretical/ideological categories) are in abundant display during such discussions).
I have been morally denounced in severe terms on many occasions for defending free markets, private property rights, the rule of law, opposition to protectionism and coerced unionism, and for saying that
I want as many of the poor as possible to be affluent and prosperous. Yes, you heard this correctly.
My entire argument there (MAD) has always been that Zion would be a vigorous, free, dynamic economy in which, while the poor would be taken care of effectively and substantially, and while the vast poles of wealth would be substantially decreased at the margins, the fundamental basis of that system would be an expansion of present welfare principles, which, at their core, are centered in the creation of self sufficiency and economic independence.
The focus in Zion, then, will not be
raising the poor at the expense of others, but of
raising as many as possible to the point of economic independence. For this, I have been called, perhaps, not every name in the book, but enough such that its clear that supporting what the Prophets and Apostles of the Lord have themselves taught consistently as a consensus view in this area makes me, in the eyes of what we might call a "neo-orthodox" LDS left, a bit of a heretic, if not apostate (and, of course, "oppressor."), at least in the sense of being morally callous to those in need (not because I don't actually feel deep sympathy for those in economic need and help them when I can - I do - but because of my holding of an incorrect ideology respecting the nature of poverty, its place in the larger scheme of things, and the best way to approach its alliviation).
When the claims of heretic and apostate are thrown back in the other direction, and made explicit, great cries of moral outrage are heard and the banning begins.
It goes without saying that Bokovoy has already shown he is against the principles of the UO so who is he really a scout for may I ask?
David was told (not by me, in the first instance) that he was, in essence, teaching "another gospel" to the and was asked for his authority to do so, as well as to imply that those who disagree with him were ignorant of the scriptures and were less than faithful Saints (if not moral pariahs "grinding upon the faces" of the poor by the simple fact of their being middle class or above).
The bannings that took place on that thread (the "United Firm") were almost, if not 100%, among his detractors. David and his supporters there were allowed to go on and on and on unmolested by the mods, and that thread produced spin-off threads concentrating on variations of the same theme, in which, inevitably, conservative/libertarian critics got the ax, and David et al were allowed to go on promoting personal philosophical views under the guise of discussing biblical scholarship and textual criticism.
Its an interesting thing, given the overwhelming bias of the vast majority of LDS ("Chapel" Mormons, I suppose) as I've encountered them in my life in the Church, toward the "Right," to have encountered this a significant leftist trend among some of its elite intellectuals. I had no idea this even existed (except for Nibley) until I began computing nearly 15 years ago.