The LDS Republican Church ?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
User avatar
Droopy
God
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 10:06 am

Re: The LDS Republican Church ?

Post by Droopy »

I'd be tired of trying to explain how a system where "all things are had in common" can also be capitalistic too.


Its actually quite easy to understand in a rational, logical conceptual sense, once one's mind and heart are free of class envy and psychological animus against "the rich".

One would also have to have at least a rudimentary understanding of the concept "capitalism" and economics, which, as pointed out before, I have little expectation will change in the near future among the anti-free agency crowd here.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell

User avatar
Droopy
God
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 10:06 am

Re: The LDS Republican Church ?

Post by Droopy »

Of course if you leave it, you are damned.


If one leaves, or refuses to accept, any gospel principle when it is offered, one is damned, to that degree.

and be damned.


See above. So what?

This is what I find funny. Yes, I covenant to give all my surplus but they might leave me with more then I started. It's profit-driven.... Please.....


Well please, without a profit driven economy the Bishop's storehouse cannot exist at all. One could've course build it, but it would be all but empty. Whence go the poor for their support then Nehor?

I suggest Enrichment Section L of the D&C Institute manual for a primer on the subject.


Read it, you have to be reading it with an incredibly biased eye to think that free-market capitalism will be the end result. Remember when Brigham Young tried to build the United Order in Utah? Price control existed. Brigham Young also established borderline communistic stores and discouraged free enterprise in several areas.


Much of the communal system as practiced in Utah has only partial relevance to that which will be practiced in the future, or as was practiced in Nauvoo. Much of that system was clearly not revealed but was experimental in nature (which accounts for at least much of its failure economically in that the Saints in Utah, unlike those in Nauvoo, were dirt poor and remained so until the 20th century).

The communistic experiments, such as those in St. George and other outlying areas, have no scriptural or inspired warrant, so far as the documented history of the Church goes.

This is no criticism of Young personally. I'm rather certain that the form the United Order took in the building of the Salt Lake valley and surrounding areas was a "schoolmaster" form of the United Order, calibrated for a naked survival environment, as well as being somewhat punitive in nature (as the Saints were, indeed, allowed to be driven from their homes in the east because of avarice and greed). One thing is for certain: Young's economic system, as practiced, institutionalized poverty among the Saints, and this would have remained the case so long as that system was in place.

The "communitarian" experiments of the era have no basis in the D&C, so they must have been human extrapolations (and, as always in such cases, characteristically extreme) of what some understood to be the principles involved.

The full United Order, as we see in the D&C, was never even attempted in Utah at the time.
Despite this, you think the reintroduction of the United Order will preserve your pet political views? I stand by my assessment of: Wow....just Wow.


Ignorance will remain bliss for you so long as you read and interpret the scriptures in light of your...pet political views.

Does the fact that your position here is out of harmony with literally every General Authority who has ever spoken authoritatively on the matter not give you pause Nehor?
Last edited by Droopy on Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:08 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell

Danna

Re: The LDS Republican Church ?

Post by Danna »

Droopy wrote:Now, what is the free market? What is the "market" and why is "it" in need of regulation and restriction?


Because some groups, specifically children, the elderly, handicapped people (you know, the ones you and your mates saved from being aborted), do not have any power in that market. Their needs and interests do not have any impact on the market or influence its course.

Free markets are great where all participants have equal opportunities. But in reality they never do. And if you think it is right to leave these powerless people solely at the mercy of their families, you've got your head up your trousers. Especially in regard to unwanted children, and dotty grandparents at risk of spending too much of their children's inheritance.

Quite a while back my mum made the faith-based choice to stop our family medical insurance and rely on Priesthood blessings and homeopathy. A valid personal choice, but totally irresponsible considering the ten children - who had no say in the matter.

Luckily we have a public health system which eventually paid for the three fake hips my parents have between them (private insurance is not a necessity, but speeds things up as there is no queue - each public-funded hip op took place 6-12 months later than if it had been covered by insurance). My brother however, developed rheumatic fever. Even though he got insurance when he started working, he doesn't get private coverage for heart disease. Without our public system, flawed though it is, at least one brother would be dead, and another would be stuck in a wheelchair.

I am always amazed to see the mass blind acceptance of 'truth' as delivered by the PR/marketing/lobby arm of self-interested business corporations. Such information is not necessarily false, of course, but who knows? Most consumers just buy the party line uncritically.

User avatar
Droopy
God
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 10:06 am

Re: The LDS Republican Church ?

Post by Droopy »

beastie wrote:Droopy:

Moreover, the Church itself is not aligned with any particular political ideology or movement. It defies category. Its moral values may be expressed in a number of parties and ideologies.



This is, of course, sheer nonsense (as political ideologies, and the morality and philosophical assumptions that underlie them, very widely), but exactly what I would expect from leftist apostates seeking to create the impression of the Church as a "big tent".

It is, of course, still a "straight and narrow way", that the scriptures say relatively few are desirous to find.

The "big tent" is, of course, code for "wide and broad", where many find their comfort zone (the "great and spacious" building).
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell

Danna

Re: The LDS Republican Church ?

Post by Danna »

Droopy wrote:
beastie wrote:by the way, one example of why this thread is destined to fail is that bcspace has himself convinced that Obama is an "undocumented worker." Someone who believes that sort of nonsense is literally beyond reason, and is living in his/her private little universe with an alternate reality.


I'm not quite sure what bc's meaning here is intended to be, but whatever it is, its nothing at all compared to the claims made routinely about George Bush during his presidency.

Bush is a Nazi, running a fascist-like government and attempting to install an authoritarian dictatorship in America who manufactured the global Islamist threat out of thin air to create a crisis atmosphere in which he could take unto himself dictatorial powers while engineering the Twin Towers attack to give himself cover and make Islamic radicals and Islam itself, the fall guy.

And this, Beastie, has been mainstream thinking among Democrat party pundits, theorists, academics, and media talking heads for much of the last decade.

I do hope your parents are not a part of this Democratic party base.


Can you provide support that this was mainstream thinking ......seriously.

User avatar
beastie
God
Posts: 14216
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm

Re: The LDS Republican Church ?

Post by beastie »

The need for civility is perhaps most relevant in the realm of partisan politics. As the Church operates in countries around the world, it embraces the richness of pluralism. Thus, the political diversity of Latter-day Saints spans the ideological spectrum. Individual members are free to choose their own political philosophy and affiliation. Moreover, the Church itself is not aligned with any particular political ideology or movement. It defies category. Its moral values may be expressed in a number of parties and ideologies.

Furthermore, the Church views with concern the politics of fear and rhetorical extremism that render civil discussion impossible. As the Church begins to rise in prominence and its members achieve a higher public profile, a diversity of voices and opinions naturally follows. Some may even mistake these voices as being authoritative or representative of the Church. However, individual members think and speak for themselves. Only the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles speak for the whole Church.


From The Mormon Ethic of Civility, October 16, 2009

http://www.LDS.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/comm ... f-civility

It is not for droopy or bcspace or any other Mormon to declare what ideology is or is not compatible with the LDS church. Each individual member must determine that for him or herself.

A poster once commented that droopy appeared to be able to admit error. I don’t interact with him enough to really know, but I consider this a test of that. I think this official quote from the LDS church, which bcspace would be constrained to accept as doctrine, clearly shows he is wrong. His continued attempts to debate specific points are merely a diversion from that fact. He and bcspace are wrong to assert that one cannot be a democrat (or liberal) and a good Mormon.

The only remaining question in this thread is: can they admit it?

I’ll repeat this post as many times as necessary as long as I’m around the computer to do so.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com

User avatar
beastie
God
Posts: 14216
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm

Re: The LDS Republican Church ?

Post by beastie »

Droopy wrote:
This is, of course, sheer nonsense (as political ideologies, and the morality and philosophical assumptions that underlie them, very widely), but exactly what I would expect from leftist apostates seeking to create the impression of the Church as a "big tent".

It is, of course, still a "straight and narrow way", that the scriptures say relatively few are desirous to find.

The "big tent" is, of course, code for "wide and broad", where many find their comfort zone (the "great and spacious" building).


OMG!!! ROFL!!!! Peeing in my PANTS laughing.

Droopy, do you realize that you just called an official statement of the LDS church "sheer nonsense???"


OMG. Seriously. OMG.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com

User avatar
beastie
God
Posts: 14216
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm

Re: The LDS Republican Church ?

Post by beastie »

Droopy wrote:
I'm not quite sure what bc's meaning here is intended to be, but whatever it is, its nothing at all compared to the claims made routinely about George Bush during his presidency.

Bush is a Nazi, running a fascist-like government and attempting to install an authoritarian dictatorship in America who manufactured the global Islamist threat out of thin air to create a crisis atmosphere in which he could take unto himself dictatorial powers while engineering the Twin Towers attack to give himself cover and make Islamic radicals and Islam itself, the fall guy.

And this, Beastie, has been mainstream thinking among Democrat party pundits, theorists, academics, and media talking heads for much of the last decade.

I do hope your parents are not a part of this Democratic party base.



Oh, baloney. Calling Bush a Nazi was angry hyperbole among a small group. It was never mainstream, and it was never meant to be an assertion of a fact.

BCspace, and teabagger nutters, actually believe they’re making a statement of fact. They do not believe Obama is a US citizen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Oba ... y_theories
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com

Eric

Re: The LDS Republican Church ?

Post by Eric »

Droopy wrote:This is, of course, sheer nonsense (as political ideologies, and the morality and philosophical assumptions that underlie them, very[sic] widely), but exactly what I would expect from leftist apostates seeking to create the impression of the Church as a "big tent".


I couldn't pass up an opportunity to use a [sic]. That's all.

Themis
God
Posts: 13248
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: The LDS Republican Church ?

Post by Themis »

Droopy wrote:Those in the political class who support nationalized health care do not want to "help others who can't afford" it (and even if this was their primary motivation, this is neither constitutionally legitimate nor the business of the state (at least, a legitimate state in a free, self governing republic)).

The purpose of national health care, as it was for Bismark and later, Adolf Hitler, is to create utter dependence of the citizenry upon the state for critical services. The purpose is to take control of healtcare decisions out of the hands of the individual and the private sector and concentrate it in the hands of government.

Universal healthcare is a major tool of authoritarian/totalitarian statism, and its purpose is not to help anybody, but to control them and hold critical powers effecting the quality of life, and issues of life and death, over them.


Your at least entertaining for the crap you keep spewing as though you actually think you know something about it.
42

John D the First
Sunbeam
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:13 am

Re: The LDS Republican Church ?

Post by John D the First »

beastie wrote:
Droopy wrote:
This is, of course, sheer nonsense (as political ideologies, and the morality and philosophical assumptions that underlie them, very widely), but exactly what I would expect from leftist apostates seeking to create the impression of the Church as a "big tent".

It is, of course, still a "straight and narrow way", that the scriptures say relatively few are desirous to find.

The "big tent" is, of course, code for "wide and broad", where many find their comfort zone (the "great and spacious" building).


OMG!!! ROFL!!!! Peeing in my PANTS laughing.

Droopy, do you realize that you just called an official statement of the LDS church "sheer nonsense???"


OMG. Seriously. OMG.


It sure appears as though that's what he did. I was a little confused there for a second. That ought to at least give him pause. It's okay Droopy, when it is obvious that one is wrong, the respectable thing to do is to admit it. Nobody will hold against you, but will see it as a sign of intellectual honesty.

User avatar
The Nehor
God
Posts: 11832
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 8:05 pm

Re: The LDS Republican Church ?

Post by The Nehor »

Droopy wrote:Its actually quite easy to understand in a rational, logical conceptual sense, once one's mind and heart are free of class envy and psychological animus against "the rich".

One would also have to have at least a rudimentary understanding of the concept "capitalism" and economics, which, as pointed out before, I have little expectation will change in the near future among the anti-free agency crowd here.


You keep forgetting Droopy that I don't have class envy for the rich. By most standards, I AM RICH. I don't despise 'the man'.

Again, you argue that there can be real opposition to agency. I advise you read this talk by Elder Oaks explaining how insane that kind of thinking is: http://speeches.BYU.edu/reader/reader.php?id=7014
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Re: The LDS Republican Church ?

Post by harmony »

John D the First wrote:
It sure appears as though that's what he did. I was a little confused there for a second. That ought to at least give him pause. It's okay Droopy, when it is obvious that one is wrong, the respectable thing to do is to admit it. Nobody will hold against you, but will see it as a sign of intellectual honesty.


Surely you jest.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.

User avatar
The Nehor
God
Posts: 11832
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 8:05 pm

Re: The LDS Republican Church ?

Post by The Nehor »

Droopy wrote:
This is what I find funny. Yes, I covenant to give all my surplus but they might leave me with more then I started. It's profit-driven.... Please.....


Well please, without a profit driven economy the Bishop's storehouse cannot exist at all. One could've course build it, but it would be all but empty. Whence go the poor for their support then Nehor?


Wait, without a profit motive nothing would get done? Is that your reasoning here? Ever been to a Temple? A service project? Seen charity work in action?

Read it, you have to be reading it with an incredibly biased eye to think that free-market capitalism will be the end result. Remember when Brigham Young tried to build the United Order in Utah? Price control existed. Brigham Young also established borderline communistic stores and discouraged free enterprise in several areas.


Much of the communal system as practiced in Utah has only partial relevance to that which will be practiced in the future, of as was practiced in Nauvoo. Much of that system was clearly not revealed but was experimental in nature (which accounts for at least much of its failure economically in that the Saints in Utah, unlike those in Nauvoo, were dirt poor and remained so until the 20th century).

The communistic experiments, such as those in St. George and other outlying areas, have no scriptural or inspired warrant, so far as the documented history of the Church goes.


LOL. So the Prophet of God's attempts to live the United Order were a big mistake and wrongheaded? The mental gymnastics you do......

This is no criticism of Young personally. I'm rather certain that the form the United Order took in the building of the Salt Lake valley and surrounding areas was a "schoolmaster" form of the United Order, calibrated for a naked survival environment, as well as being somewhat punitive in nature (as the Saints were, indeed, allowed to be driven from their homes in the east because of avarice and greed). One thing is for certain: Young's economic system, as practiced, institutionalized poverty among the Saints, and this would have remained the case so long as that system was in place.


So God gave them a flawed version of Consecration to punish them? What? This in essence means that Brigham Young's fight against capitalism was an attempt to keep the saints poor and the 'brave' souls who disobeyed him were actually heroes?

The "communitarian" experiments of the ear have no basis in the D&C, so they must have been human extrapolations (and, as always in such cases, characteristically extreme) of what some understood to be the principles involved.

The full United Order, as we see in the D&C, was never even attempted in Utah at the time.


I'm beginning to suspect you don't know what the Law of Consecration is.

Does the fact that your position here is out of harmony with literally every General Authority who has ever spoken authoritatively on the matter not give you pause Nehor?


Unless you count Brigham Young and Joseph Smith and their apostles and the scriptures.

4 Nephi 1:3 - And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift.
Acts 2:44 - And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
Acts 4:32 - And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
Acts 4:32, Amplified Bible - Now the company of believers was of one heart and soul, and not one of them claimed that anything which he possessed was (exclusively) his own, but everything they had was in common and for the use of all.
Acts 4:34-35 - Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

Nope, not seeing any capitalism here either.

Enoch's city.....nope.

Can you give me scriptural support for your idea somewhere? Anywhere.

Please do not harp on about agency again. It has NOTHING to do with this. The war for agency was fought and won a long time ago.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo

User avatar
Droopy
God
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 10:06 am

Re: The LDS Republican Church ?

Post by Droopy »

Again, you argue that there can be real opposition to agency. I advise you read this talk by Elder Oaks explaining how insane that kind of thinking is


You want to run away and hide under a split hair Nehor?

OK.

The nuanced conceptual difference between "freedom" and "agency" is interesting and Oaks subtle distinction is apropos, but you know very well what I and most LDS mean when they use the term "free agency" in normal discourse; they mean the ability - the freedom - to actualize or apply our agency.

Exactly what all forms of socialism set out to destroy both by design and because of the inevitable an necessary measures any such system must take to ensure conformity.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell

User avatar
The Nehor
God
Posts: 11832
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 8:05 pm

Re: The LDS Republican Church ?

Post by The Nehor »

Droopy wrote:
Again, you argue that there can be real opposition to agency. I advise you read this talk by Elder Oaks explaining how insane that kind of thinking is


You want to run away and hide under a split hair Nehor?

OK.

The nuanced conceptual difference between "freedom" and "agency" is interesting and Oaks subtle distinction is apropos, but you know very well what I and most LDS mean when they use the term "free agency" in normal discourse; they mean the ability - the freedom - to actualize or apply our agency.

Exactly what all forms of socialism set out to destroy both by design and the internal necessity of such a system.


It's not splitting hairs. Agency is vital to the gospel and is a gospel concept we support unconditionally. Freedom is something we enjoy to limited degrees based on our circumstances, abilities, etc.

The science of government is devoted to deciding which freedoms are worth giving up for other freedoms. This kind of choice isn't limited to government. We gain and lose freedoms of our own accord. Freedoms are given up in marriage to gain other freedoms. Same with childbirth, LDS missions, volunteering, selecting a job, and most situations in life.

Choosing socialized medicine is agreeing to give up some freedoms in being in control of a small amount of the money I earn to guarantee me safety from bankruptcy if something terrible was to happen. Money is not sacred to God or me. Nor is capitalism. There will be no capitalism in heaven. It's a transitory thing and your position on it will likely have NO effect on the eternities.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo

User avatar
Droopy
God
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 10:06 am

Re: The LDS Republican Church ?

Post by Droopy »

Because some groups, specifically children, the elderly, handicapped people (you know, the ones you and your mates saved from being aborted), do not have any power in that market.


1. What do you mean by "power in the market"?

2. Why should I believe that the above classes you mention have no "power" (most elderly in the United States are affluent, and lie somewhere in the middle class. Children are not a part of the market except through the buying decisions of their parents, who hold total power in the market in the sense that it is they (all members of the market) who decide how what is to be produced and in what quantity, how resources are to be allocated, and what businesses/industries will survive and which will not.

Their needs and interests do not have any impact on the market or influence its course.


The needs of the elderly and handicapped, and the desires of children have no influence on the market? Upon what basis do you make this claim?

Free markets are great where all participants have equal opportunities. But in reality they never do.


Of course not, and no one has ever claimed that they do. Equality of opportunity is a feature of an economically and socially free society with a dynamic, growth oriented unhampered market in which the state does not pick winners and losers, or restrict economic activity in various ways, creating artificial barriers to economic self sufficiency, not of the human condition itself as expressed among any particular human being within that society.

And if you think it is right to leave these powerless people solely at the mercy of their families, you've got your head up your trousers.


This utterly fantastic statement would gladden the heart of every leftist tyrant and philosopher king the 20th century has ever seen. I've seen many, many statements of abject moral and intellectual knavery in my time, but few make that which really lies at the bottom of the dark heart of leftism clearer than the above.

Thank you for such a lucid clarification of the real reason leftists and Democratic politicians have, under most circumstances, no other choice than to lie through their teeth regarding their real beliefs and the policies they really desire to impose on a citizenry. Assertions such as you have made above, that would be normative in, say, the cultural anthropology department at Harvard, or deep within the bowls of the U.N., would so marginalize the Democratic party that it would become irrelevant for generations.

The idea (and I really should call for a CFR on this) that the elderly or handicapped in America are "powerless" (again, whatever this means) is wonderful neo-Marxist tripe that requires both a fantastic dearth of education and historical knowledge as well as a megalithic gullibility to accept at face value.

Especially in regard to unwanted children, and dotty grandparents at risk of spending too much of their children's inheritance.


Whatever.

Quite a while back my mum made the faith-based choice to stop our family medical insurance and rely on Priesthood blessings and homeopathy. A valid personal choice, but totally irresponsible considering the ten children - who had no say in the matter.

Luckily we have a public health system which eventually paid for the three fake hips my parents have between them (private insurance is not a necessity, but speeds things up as there is no queue - each public-funded hip op took place 6-12 months later than if it had been covered by insurance). My brother however, developed rheumatic fever. Even though he got insurance when he started working, he doesn't get private coverage for heart disease. Without our public system, flawed though it is, at least one brother would be dead, and another would be stuck in a wheelchair.


Don't even bother going there. Anyone who has seriously studied either the U.K. or Canadian (or other) socialized medical systems knows perfectly well that these are more death care systems than health care systems, featuring chronic and permanent scarcity of resources and medical personnel, declining quality of care, rationing of care, and life endangering waiting periods. They have been unambiguous failures both economically and morally wherever they have been tried (as are all things socialist generally). I could go on and on and on and on looking at the empirical, economic and social realities of socialized medicine. It makes Lovecraft appear tame by comparison.

I am always amazed to see the mass blind acceptance of 'truth' as delivered by the PR/marketing/lobby arm of self-interested business corporations. Such information is not necessarily false, of course, but who knows? Most consumers just buy the party line uncritically.


1. What do you mean that corporations are "self interested"? How do corporations stay in business and grow?

2. What self interests do the state have? Politicians?

3. What about mass blind acceptance of government propaganda? Which is more dangerous and ultimately subversive of a free society, (and easier to counter when discovered): the false advertising of a corporation regarding its products, or state propaganda regarding, say, how a market economy works (or how Jews or "wreckers", "saboteurs", "deviationists", "counterrevolutionaries", "deniers" or "teabaggers" or other "enemies of the people" are messing everything up?)?
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell

User avatar
Droopy
God
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 10:06 am

Re: The LDS Republican Church ?

Post by Droopy »

John D the First wrote:
This is, of course, sheer nonsense (as political ideologies, and the morality and philosophical assumptions that underlie them, very widely), but exactly what I would expect from leftist apostates seeking to create the impression of the Church as a "big tent".

It is, of course, still a "straight and narrow way", that the scriptures say relatively few are desirous to find.

The "big tent" is, of course, code for "wide and broad", where many find their comfort zone (the "great and spacious" building).

OMG!!! ROFL!!!! Peeing in my PANTS laughing.

Droopy, do you realize that you just called an official statement of the LDS church "sheer nonsense???"OMG.

Seriously. OMG.





It sure appears as though that's what he did. I was a little confused there for a second. That ought to at least give him pause. It's okay Droopy, when it is obvious that one is wrong, the respectable thing to do is to admit it. Nobody will hold against you, but will see it as a sign of intellectual honesty.[


For those here with an intellectual capacity above that of a vacuum cleaner bag, I'll say this just one more time (and maybe bc can clarify for you yet again): the Church stays out of partisan political campaigns, electoral politics, and does not support political parties or candidates.

The questions of ideologies and political philosophy, which involve questions of core worldview and which have serious moral and social import with gospel implications, is another thing entirely.

Try as you may, try as you might, you simply cannot widen the straight and narrow way to an 8 lane interstate.

Your big tent (great and spacious, as well as having three rings and many brightly colored cavorting clowns), itself has no room within for the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell

User avatar
Droopy
God
Posts: 9826
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 10:06 am

Re: The LDS Republican Church ?

Post by Droopy »

Your at least entertaining for the crap you keep spewing as though you actually think you know something about it.



Its always fun to watch a leftist project in this manner.

Freud would split himself with envy.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22219
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: The LDS Republican Church ?

Post by moksha »

Droopy wrote:Even at 52, and with a bad back and pinched nerve in my leg, I'll match my Chang Ch'uan and My Jong Law Horn against your puny pusillanimous pugilism any day.



Oh yeah? I will match the Mandarin of Bountiful against your Chang Ch'uan anyday.

by the way, My Jong Law Horn sounds rather like some Texas slang expression for a penis, as heard or said after a night of partying. What you and Jason do or do not do in privacy is your own business and not that of this forum.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22219
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: The LDS Republican Church ?

Post by moksha »

Droopy, here is a question: Wouldn't the Church ultimately shoot itself in the foot through any type of political litmus test that you, Bcspace and Brackite are advocating?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], moksha and 25 guests