What is sad here is that if the LDS Church does have a dominating political philosophy other than one of resentment against the federal government, it does almost nothing to articulate it intelligently.
You might want to go back to the thirties and read the direct and strongly worded attacks on the concepts underlying much of the New Deal. The program was never mentioned directly, nor any politicians or parties, but the concepts were excoriated and contrasted to the then just forming Church welfare system, and its principles are of a distinctly different hue.
The most famous, of course, would be Heber J. Grant's statement in 1936 during the inception of the Church welfare system (italics mine):
Our primary purpose was to set up, in so far as it might be possible, a system under which the curse of idleness would be done away with, the evils of a dole abolished, and independence, industry, thrift and self respect be once more established amongst our people. The aim of the Church is to help the people to help themselves. Work is to be re-enthroned as the ruling principle of the lives of our Church membership.
This is settled, established Church doctrine.
I would love to see how many non-LDS Republicans would have been eager to live the United Order.
The vast majority of them, I would assume, don't understand the doctrine and would need to first join the Church, acquire a testimony of the it, and work toward understanding and making the covenants. In any case, as the UO is fundamentally a free-market and individual property based system, I would expect the reaction to be mixed (and, in any case, Squish, the UO is not an economic system, but a Celestial law encompassing the entirety of culture, society, psychology, and individual conduct. Its purpose, in LDS theology, is to prepare an entire people for the literal second coming of Jesus Christ. Its economics are an appendage to that overall purpose, not its foundation).
How many of them would line up to live the Law of Consecration? All of that love of private property and liberty makes me think that, uh, not many Republicans would be eager to jump on that bandwagon.
You don't even understand the core doctrine yourself, Squish. You don't even understand the basic doctrinal concepts involved, and hence, you have no credibility here. This is simple: no knowledge = no credibility.
The UO is entirely private property based. How many times need this be repeated? It is also free agency (liberty) based and grounded fundamentally in personal agency, initiative, and increase in one's talents (some five fold, some ten etc.).
You know as well as I do that Mormon love of Republicanism is mostly a weak protest against the intrusion of federal power until God brings forth his Kingdom.
There is no such thing as any Mormon "love of Republicanism." "Republicanism", whatever that is, has traditionally been fairly hostile to conservatism and it is conservatism that attracts the vast majority of Mormons, to the degree they are actually faithful, converted Latter-day Saints, and until the Lord "makes an end of all nations" and institutes higher and more refined principles of government, it will always be so.
The Kingdom of God has almost nothing in common with Republican conservatism.
1. You're actual understanding of LDS doctrine, as expressed here and in countless other threads, is so poor, distorted, and confused as to render any such claims such as this devoid of credibility.
2. Yet another leftist strawman to bait the hook for more polemics. No one has ever made any such claim. Modern conservatism, however, is the closest any political philosophy and broad-based view of the human condition comes to gospel principles (as it contains, in various forms and various degrees, much gospel truth). Hence, the leaning toward it among the Saints.
My guess is that, when push comes to shove, you will choose your crazy politics over your religion.
You already have, Squish. I have other plans...