Liberals in the Church

[Guest]

So are you telling me you are a Malcolm X fan?

You seem to think that solves the question but you missed the point. You think Sharpton and people like him are artificially stirring up racial tension (which I believe is a theory commonly held by Conservatives) and I believe the racial problems in this country are real not created (which appears to me to be a Liberal POV).

AND here's the point-either belief does not make us less of a Latter-Day Saint. JojoBag doesn't think Liberal ideas and adherence to the gospel are not compatible. I say it depends on the ideas.

 

You completely missed the message that Alfonzo was giving.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

So are you saying that if I agreed with Alonzo that would make me a better Latter-Day Saint?

[Guest]

So are you saying that if I agreed with Alonzo that would make me a better Latter-Day Saint?

 

We were talking about Black Lives Matter.  I have not touched on anything outside of that specific post you mentioned.

 

I was commenting on your reference to Malcolm X.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

We were talking about Black Lives Matter. I have not touched on anything outside of that specific post you mentioned.

I was commenting on your reference to Malcolm X.

Thanks that helps clarify things a bit better. The only reason I brought up BLM in this thread was to make my point that one can have Liberal ideas without being less righteous. That's the reason I keep coming back to that.

Edited to add: about the video...I'm not willing to take his word for it, I have some questions and reservations. But I am willing to look into it it a bit more when I have some time.

Edited November 16, 2015 by LiterateParakeet

[Guest]

Thanks that helps clarify things a bit better. The only reason I brought up BLM in this thread was to make my point that one can have Liberal ideas without being less righteous. That's the reason I keep coming back to that.

 

Right.  I understand the comment.  If you would have used Pro-Choice as an example I would agree completely with it including the example.  But BLM is not a good case in point of that sentiment, that's why I replied to it.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Right. I understand the comment. If you would have used Pro-Choice as an example I would agree completely with it including the example. But BLM is not a good case in point of that sentiment, that's why I replied to it.

But I'm not prochoice so that doesn't apply to me. I do seem to annoy all my conservative friends though when I talk about black lives matter. My friends who are Democrats not only like those views but share them. So it's a great example.

[The Folk Prophet]

So are you saying that if I agreed with Alonzo that would make me a better Latter-Day Saint?

 

 

YES!!

 

[Guest]

But I'm not prochoice so that doesn't apply to me. I do seem to annoy all my conservative friends though when I talk about black lives matter. My friends who are Democrats not only like those views but share them. So it's a great example.

 

It's not a good example if you're trying to show a righteous Democrat/Liberal stance on the issues.  The video shows how the Conservative stance on the issue on Ferguson is more in line with the American value of Freedom while the Liberal/Democrat stance with Black Lives Matter is not.  You can research the facts presented about the history of the Democrat party's race relations or the positions of Malcolm X, but as far as a BLM rebuttal it's not necessary (although it's a really good thing to study to understand how the plight of the Black people seem to still not have improved as an "issue" even after 8 years of Clinton and 8 years of Obama).  The application of Conservatism to this position is more relevant juxtaposed with the application of Liberalism on the issue.

Edited November 16, 2015 by anatess

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

YES!!

LOL, and don't delay the day of my repentance, right?

[Traveler]

I didn't say that health care was free, I said I didn't see a problem with it being 'free'. Of course public health care is being paid for through taxes - in my case it's around 2% of my gross income each year, paid during the tax season. My husband used far more than that contribution during several hospitalizations and surgeries just in the past two years. The system isn't perfect, but it works quite well considering the demand placed on it.

 

What do you think the word "right" means in the sense of access to vital services? For me it means having an inalienable right to the basic necessities of life. Health care to me is as basic a right as food and shelter - quality of life depends on having access to it.

 

There exists no such right, either in the US or anyplace else in the world.

 

While countries such as the US are not legally bound by the UN Declaration of Human Rights, doesn't the fact that the US is a signatory to various international agreements imply a right to healthcare, especially for vulnerable members of society such as the disabled, expectant mothers and children?  (Convention of the Child, Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, etc).

I think there is a problem and disconnect when some individual think they can go through a significant study program and work long hard hours learning a profession of high expertise thinking they can make an affluent or at least above average living and support their family doing stuff that others think they ought to be getting for free or for hardly any personal effort, or sacrifice at all. In short that some think they must make great behavior changes and sacrifices to obtain a skill and others think they should not do anything or change any behavior or sacrifice anything to have complete access to specialized expertise.

As a consulting engineer often I get in discussions where a customer that wants me to offer additional services without them providing any additional compensation. My first question is – how important is this additional service to you? If they indicate that it is not worth it to them if they must pay extra for it. Then I ask – If this service is not important enough to you to prompt any additional payment to get – why should I be willing to work any extra to provide for you a service that you really do not want all that much? Recently a CEO responded that he would pay me an additional $100,000 for the service. I thanked him and said – as long as you really want this done – I am willing to do it at no extra cost but I just did not want to do anything that really was not that important to them.

[Traveler]

As a general comment for this thread – It appears to me that most people have life and good sense backwards. That is that in general people seem to do and think conservative in their efforts to do and provide for others – and very liberal what they want from other and what they expect others to provide. The point of life is realizing that you have to be conservative in what to expect from others and very liberal what you are willing to do and provide, first for yourself and then even more for others.

[The Folk Prophet]

LOL, and don't delay the day of my repentance, right?

 

Okay...seriously though, I do not believe, nor do I think any right thinking person could possibly believe, that every righteous Latter-day Saint will have the exact same political views. However, that literal fact often comes down to the reality that we're mortal and imperfect, and therefore, even in righteousness, we have imperfect views.

 

I do not believe that every political "liberal" view is evil. As a camp, I tend to feel the "liberals" have more evil.

 

But the only reason I injected my opinion as to "how matters" is by way principle for consideration. The problem is that there is a great deal of disregard for this in many approaches. Where one might not go so far as to blatantly say, "The ends justify the means!" it may as well amount to the same in many cases.

 

Knowing that how matters is not the same as saying that every time there are two options that one is going to be better than the other though. Sometimes there will be two means that are, righteously speaking, equivalent, though perhaps drastically different in their approach.

 

But that understanding is also, decidedly, different than proclaiming that because two individuals have the same goal in mind, that the how then becomes irrelevant and they both must be pursuing it righteously because the end goal is good.

Edited November 16, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[NightSG]

For instance, I'm okay that government makes the consumption of alcohol legal, but that doesn't mean I embrace drinking or think being an alcoholic is okay.

 

I would have to disagree; a government should never have the power to make anything legal, and should be extremely judicious with its power to make anything illegal.

[Traveler]

I would have to disagree; a government should never have the power to make anything legal, and should be extremely judicious with its power to make anything illegal.

 

I kind of disagree - other than determining what is legal and protecting that which is legal with the power of law and determining what is illegal and prosecuting with the power of law that which is illegal - I do not see any reason or purpose for government.  My concern is not with governments and the laws they enforce - my problem with government is how a government goes about determining in the law what is legal and what is illegal.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Traveler

[jerome1232]

I would have to disagree; a government should never have the power to make anything legal, and should be extremely judicious with its power to make anything illegal.

I get what your saying, but you are over analyzing my choice of words. I was trying to convey that just because I don't want to outlaw something doesn't necessarily mean I embrace, support, or condone whatever *it* is. I didn't mean to imply that the government *allows* us to do things, I just poorly worded that.

[carlimac]

What is your niece losing her testimony of? I can't think of any part of the Gospel that hinges on whether or not the Church recognizes gay marriage. 

 

She's struggling with the part where our leaders are inspired and actually speak with God. She thinks Joseph Smith was a fraud to some extent and that the leaders are just shooting from the hip ( especially some of the historical ones like Brigham Young), and  trying desperately to cover their fannies. But that they aren't inspired. She also struggles with a good portion of the temple ceremony- especially the part about celestial marriage.

 

I would say that our claim to have modern day prophets who are indeed inspired and directed by God is a big part of the Gospel..   

Edited November 16, 2015 by carlimac

[carlimac]

I'm very sorry about your niece.  

 

But with all due respect, you missed my point which was that not ALL "Liberal" views are incompatible with the Gospel.  I support compassion in illegal immigration (as do The Brethren), and I believe Black Lives Matter,  I also support everyone having access to medical care....these are all considered Liberal views and yet they do not effect my status as a "good Latter-Day Saint".

 

OK I'll have to go read your post again to see where I misunderstood.

[The Folk Prophet]

I would say that our claim to have modern day prophets who are indeed inspired and directed by God is a big part of the Gospel..   

 

I would say that that is understated.

[Traveler]

Okay...seriously though, I do not believe, nor do I think any right thinking person could possibly believe, that every righteous Latter-day Saint will have the exact same political views. However, that literal fact often comes down to the reality that we're mortal and imperfect, and therefore, even in righteousness, we have imperfect views.

 

I do not believe that every political "liberal" view is evil. As a camp, I tend to feel the "liberals" have more evil.

 

But the only reason I injected my opinion as to "how matters" is by way principle for consideration. The problem is that there is a great deal of disregard for this in many approaches. Where one might not go so far as to blatantly say, "The ends justify the means!" it may as well amount to the same in many cases.

 

Knowing that how matters is not the same as saying that every time there are two options that one is going to be better than the other though. Sometimes there will be two means that are, righteously speaking, equivalent, though perhaps drastically different in their approach.

 

But that understanding is also, decidedly, different than proclaiming that because two individuals have the same goal in mind, that the how then becomes irrelevant and they both must be pursuing it righteously because the end goal is good.

 

I believe it to be LDS doctrine as spelled out in Abraham Chapter 3 that anytime two things exist (including opinions) that one will be greater (better) than the other. 

[The Folk Prophet]

I believe it to be LDS doctrine as spelled out in Abraham Chapter 3 that anytime two things exist (including opinions) that one will be greater (better) than the other. 

 

Really? So my choice of tie this last Sunday could have been greater then? The yellow was inferior to the blue?

[Traveler]

If we are to judge those in politics by their fruits - we must conclude that both Democrats and Republicans are evil. 

 

Here is a thought about what is evil in politics - From the evil Nehor - the universe and natural laws are just - the poor are poor because they are lazy and get what they deserve. 

 

From the teaching of Satan (pre-existence) - We need to take care of everyone and make sure no one is lost through the cracks of the law.  No one should be left to deal with any challenge or crisis on their own - rather it is the purpose of law to insure that those with power and resources are forced to sacrifice to make sure everyone's needs are taken care of.

[Traveler]

Really? So my choice of tie this last Sunday could have been greater then? The yellow was inferior to the blue?

 

Obviously your opinions are lacking which proves the point - it was the yellow that was superior. 

 

Sorry for the sarcasm and poor humor.  A principle of Abraham chapter 3 is that when two things exist one will be greater.  Think about it - if this were not so then choice would not matter and there would be no actual agency or reason to make a choice.  The ability to choose in the scientific world is the evidence of intelligence.  Just for fun you may want to google "intelligent slime mold" for the discovery of how lower life forms (without a brain) may show superior intelligence to much higher life forms (with highly developed nervous systems -- ie brains) - causing many of my fellow scientist to redefine intelligence and more impotently - artificial intelligence.

[cdowis]

Are you saying that the BOA used the concept of "good, better and best"?

[JojoBag]

Okay...seriously though, I do not believe, nor do I think any right thinking person could possibly believe, that every righteous Latter-day Saint will have the exact same political views. However, that literal fact often comes down to the reality that we're mortal and imperfect, and therefore, even in righteousness, we have imperfect views.

 

I do not believe that every political "liberal" view is evil. As a camp, I tend to feel the "liberals" have more evil.

 

 

 

Anymore, I don't think there's much difference between the evil in liberal thinking and conservative thinking.  Cleon Skousen wrote the book, "The Naked Communist," in 1957.  He investigated the Communist Party, USA, as an FBI agent and wrote the book as a result of what he discovered.  He listed 45 Communist Goals and one of them is of particular interest.

 

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

 

If you look at the Democrat platform, you will see that it dovetails completely with the platform of the communist party.  At the same time, you will find a fair bit of the communist platform in the Republican party.  Liberals want to restrict our freedoms through socialism, by executive order, and by simply ignoring the Constitution, while the Republicans have passed the Patriot Act and the NDAA, among other horror story laws.  Both of these laws are abominable and are rapidly eroding our freedoms.

[Jedi_Nephite]

Anymore, I don't think there's much difference between the evil in liberal thinking and conservative thinking. 

 

I would say there is a huge difference between liberal thinking and conservative thinking.  However, the difference between Democrats and Republicans is something that seems to becoming less and less clear.