Jump to content
Scott Lloyd

Published response to "reconfiguration of LDS politics"

Recommended Posts

We an American Area Seventy come to stake conference earlier today and from what I could make out from his Colorado accent, " youse guys are the rill dill" ????? he called our Stake the United Nations, in terms of how many different nationalities were represented and that he wishes other stakes were so welcoming of outsiders. I get the impression he isn't a fan of Pres. Trump. Just that comment and one other one I couldn't make out

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I guess that doesn't put liberal Democrats in too good a position, then, after they repeatedly lied to the American people, telling them that under Obamacare, "you can keep your doctor and you can keep your plan if you like them."

That was a lie and a promise impossible to keep even without the ACA. Obama said that. Obama did not tweet out lies on a daily basis so Obama lied. Trump is a liar as he cannot seem to stop.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

You need to be on limited. The thread needs to close immediately. You know the  rules. 

CFR  or define LDS  

According to Pew 61% of self-described LDS voters voted for Trump  

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/how-the-faithful-voted-a-preliminary-2016-analysis/

The problem is that we don't know how many LDS voted for Trump in AZ and Michigan. 

Cowardly. Despicable.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Since there was a thread on Spencer Fluhman's Deseret News op-ed on a supposed coming reconfiguraiton of LDS politics, perhaps it is appropriate to give attention to this response op-ed in the same newspaper.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865679304/Ralph-Hancock-LDS-progressivism-is-not-grounded-in-LDS-belief.html

Hancock, a political scientist who is Mormon, essentially identifies Fluhman's premise as wishful thinking. I tend to agree 

Prof. Hancock's piece was less a reply to Dr. Fluhman, than a vain attempt to justify LDS voting patterns by spuriously connecting them with LDS doctrine.  That is the true face of "wishful thinking."  The notion that we only have two choices, Anarchy or adherence to the Gospel, is just silly and irresponsible.  That is like saying that the diametrically opposed views of Hugh Nibley and Cleon Skousen were really between those of an apostate and of a faithful member of the LDS faith.  How absurd.

Fluhman is wrong most likely because sociopolitical self-identification is so strong among Mormons (and of other Americans) that even the coming disastrous wreckage of a Trump administration is not going to bring change in Mormon voting habits.  That would take a generation or more in any case, and would certainly not entail adoption of anarchism.

I hope that we get to read something more than the opinions of BYU professors in this series of op-eds.  I'd like to see what Republicans Evan McMullin and Mitt Romney have to say. And perhaps the DN could include some non-Mormon political scientists and historians in that series.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That was a lie and a promise impossible to keep even without the ACA. Obama said that.

Then why did Obama himself promise repeatedly that "you can keep your doctor; you can keep your plan"? No less than 36 times, according to clips on the following YouTube video! Where's your long-nose Photoshop image with Obama as the subject?

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post

When the Brethren send around their messages encouraging participation in the political process, they ordinarily say that values consistent with gospel principles may be found in both major political parties. This is true.

However, the inescapable fact is that partisan, progressive Democrats seem to have tied themselves to policies and ideologies inimical to the institution of the traditional family, a value that is in the very fabric of Latter-day Saint belief and practice.

As Professor Hancock expresses it:
 

Quote

 

The second element where this kind of religious progressivism fails to be grounded in an LDS worldview is that it elides the very important “moral” questions that Fluhman’s essay characterizes as merely “the priorities of the ‘religious right’” that have caused Latter-day Saints to be “mired” in “culture wars.”

No matter how unpopular such “wars” may be in certain circles, Latter-day Saints could never abandon the Christian responsibility to resist the emerging ethic of sexual expression and gender-identity entitlement that often threatens to prevail at the expense of society’s immense interest in fostering stable families. And it’s also worth noting that there would never be so-called “culture wars” if progressives had not assiduously pursued a half-century-long goal of overturning the traditional consensus on biologically intact families.

 

(Emphasis mine)

So while I will continue to tolerate the disposition among some of my brothers and sisters within the gospel tent to align themselves with the Democratic Party, I cannot accept Professor Fluhman's suggestion that there is a change coming in how Latter-day Saints by and large characterize themselves politically.

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Duncan said:

We an American Area Seventy come to stake conference earlier today and from what I could make out from his Colorado accent, " youse guys are the rill dill" ????? he called our Stake the United Nations, in terms of how many different nationalities were represented and that he wishes other stakes were so welcoming of outsiders. I get the impression he isn't a fan of Pres. Trump. Just that comment and one other one I couldn't make out

That's the reaction of a lot of Mormon Corridor people who come North of the border I find. Even if white bread Calgary you have the mission president (who is actually the dad of one of my companions) telling me how diverse he found it compared to the States.

I wanted to tell him to go visit Toronto and tell me how diverse Calgary was. :P

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder what Prof. Hancock means by "biologically intact families"? I know in Canada in or around the late 1960's the divorce laws were changed and my LDS folks welcomed it, it meant that women could get out of abusive marriages or adulterous situations etc., i'd say progressives in regards to divorce were waking up to the reality of marriages that weren't working out.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, halconero said:

That's the reaction of a lot of Mormon Corridor people who come North of the border I find. Even if white bread Calgary you have the mission president (who is actually the dad of one of my companions) telling me how diverse he found it compared to the States.

I wanted to tell him to go visit Toronto and tell me how diverse Calgary was. :P

If here is the UN then Toronto would be even more so! yeah Calgary! ah, it means well! Our Mission President is from Calgary and they love it here, 

Edited by Duncan

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

When the Brethren send around their messages encouraging participation in the political process, they ordinarily say that values consistent with gospel principles may be found in both major political parties. This is true.

However, the inescapable fact is that partisan, progressive Democrats seem to have tied themselves to policies and ideologies inimical to the institution of the traditional family, a value that is in the very fabric of Latter-day Saint belief.As Professor Hancock expresses it:

Quote

 ............................it’s also worth noting that there would never be so-called “culture wars” if progressives had not assiduously pursued a half-century-long goal of overturning the traditional consensus on biologically intact families.

(Emphasis mine)

So while I will continue to tolerate the disposition among some of my brothers and sisters within the gospel tent aligning themselves with the Democratic Party, I cannot accept Professor Fluhman's suggestion that there is a change coming in how Latter-day Saints by and large characterize themselves politically.

I am very disappointed in Prof Hancock's partisan, unprofessional, and irresponsible suggestion that Democrats are "progressives" (whatever that means) and that they oppose family values.  In most cases, it has been the totalitarian right which has done by far and away the most damage to families, by directly destroying intact black families, and by actively destroying the middle class in America.  The racism, intolerance, and greed of the right is not only unethical, but it is also unamerican and unchristian.  That they have blinders on and cannot see their own guilt is obvious.

If Republican Party members actually understood how important and ethical it is to follow someone like Gov John Kasich, we would not currently be in disaster mode.  The hypocrisy is self-evident, just as it was in 1776 -- when we had to separate ourselves from the right-wing Tory nonsense of Lord North and King George III.

Edited by Robert F. Smith

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

When the Brethren send around their messages encouraging participation in the political process, they ordinarily say that values consistent with gospel principles may be found in both major political parties. This is true.

However, the inescapable fact is that partisan, progressive Democrats seem to have tied themselves to policies and ideologies inimical to the institution of the traditional family, a value that is in the very fabric of Latter-day Saint belief and practice.

As Professor Hancock expresses it:
 

(Emphasis mine)

So while I will continue to tolerate the disposition among some of my brothers and sisters within the gospel tent to align themselves with the Democratic Party, I cannot accept Professor Fluhman's suggestion that there is a change coming in how Latter-day Saints by and large characterize themselves politically.

To be frank, I don't see how the values on either said line up with the Gospel ideal to the point where I can't point to either party as being representative or even aspiring to Celestial principles.

You have a man who would have been excommunicated running the executive whose bragged about sexually assaulting women, whose stewardship of funds is poor as far as his frequent golfing trips go, and who is participating in nepotinistic staffing practices. There is a problem of honesty and accountability both in the administration and many of the congressmen to their constituents. Foreign adventurism, decried in the Book of Mormon, continues under both administrations.

I could do on about the other party.

The point is that I think both articles are falling into the trap of trying to shoehorn Church policy and doctrine into your (collective "your") stupid two party thing progressive-conservative dichotomy you got going on down there. Both articles are silly, but both make good points. Overall I give them both a B-. Interesting issues, still falls into the same trap of Americanizing the Gospel.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Duncan said:

We an American Area Seventy come to stake conference earlier today and from what I could make out from his Colorado accent, " youse guys are the rill dill" ????? he called our Stake the United Nations, in terms of how many different nationalities were represented and that he wishes other stakes were so welcoming of outsiders. I get the impression he isn't a fan of Pres. Trump. Just that comment and one other one I couldn't make out

Seriously, he said "youse guys"? Doesn't sound like anybody from Colorado I ever knew.

Was he, perhaps, from the Bronx in New York City?

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am very disappointed in Prof Hancock's partisan, unprofessional, and irresponsible suggestion that Democrats are "progressives" (whatever that means) and that they oppose family values.  In most cases, it has been the totalitarian right which has done by far and away the most damage to families, by directly destroying intact black families, and by actively destroying the middle class in America.  The racism, intolerance, and greed of the right is not only unethical, but it is also unamerican and unchristian.  That they have blinders on and cannot see their own guilt is obvious.

If Republican Party members actually understood how important and ethical it is to follow someone like Gov John Kasich, we would not currently be in disaster mode.  The hypocrisy is self-evident, just as it was in 1776 -- when we had to separate ourselves from the right-wing Tory nonsense of Lord North and King George III.

You're drifting into hysterics again, Bob. You need to calm down.

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The hypocrisy is self-evident, just as it was in 1776 -- when we had to separate ourselves from the right-wing Tory nonsense of Lord North and King George III.

And look where that 250 year experiment got you! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Seriously, he said "youse guys"? Doesn't sound like anybody from Colorado I ever knew.

Was he, perhaps, from the Bronx in New York City?

 

who knows!!!!!!!!!! he seemed like a decent guy otherwise! Maybe he moved to Colorado from elsewhere

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Seriously, he said "youse guys"? Doesn't sound like anybody from Colorado I ever knew.

Was he, perhaps, from the Bronx in New York City?

 

Eh, the sentiment isn't one that I haven't heard before in Toronto, Calgary or Vancouver. I believe him.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, halconero said:

To be frank, I don't see how the values on either said line up with the Gospel ideal to the point where I can't point to either party as being representative or even aspiring to Celestial principles.

You have a man who would have been excommunicated running the executive whose bragged about sexually assaulting women, whose stewardship of funds is poor as far as his frequent golfing trips go, and who is participating in nepotinistic staffing practices. There is a problem of honesty and accountability both in the administration and many of the congressmen to their constituents. Foreign adventurism, decried in the Book of Mormon, continues under both administrations.

I could do on about the other party.

The point is that I think both articles are falling into the trap of trying to shoehorn Church policy and doctrine into your (collective "your") stupid two party thing progressive-conservative dichotomy you got going on down there. Both articles are silly, but both make good points. Overall I give them both a B-. Interesting issues, still falls into the same trap of Americanizing the Gospel.

Well, it wasn't Hancock who suggested there is a coming "reconfiguration of LDS politics." That was Fluhman. What Hancock is doing, from what I can tell, is pointing why that is a fanciful, if not an absurd, notion.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, halconero said:

Eh, the sentiment isn't one that I haven't heard before in Toronto, Calgary or Vancouver. I believe him.

I'm not talking about the sentiment. I'm talking about Duncan's attempt to write in dialect.

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

who knows!!!!!!!!!! he seemed like a decent guy otherwise! Maybe he moved to Colorado from elsewhere

But he really said "youse guys"? And from that, you pegged him as being from Colorado? Seriously? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, it wasn't Hancock who suggested there is a coming "reconfiguration of LDS politics." That was Fluhman. What Hancock is doing, from what I can tell, is pointing why that is a fanciful, if not an absurd, notion.

He does it poorly. He does so by going shoehorning the doctrine into his own asbsurd, fanciful view of pundintry.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not talking about the sentiment. I'm talking about Duncan's attempt to write in dialect.

 

Don't blame, Duncan. He can't help it being from Manitoba. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, halconero said:

He does it poorly. He does so by going shoehorning the doctrine into his own asbsurd, fanciful view of pundintry.

It doesn't take a pundit to recognize that Mormons in America, by and large, lean to the right when it comes to partisan politics, if they engage in politics at all. And it doesn't take a pundit to recognize some obvious reasons why this is the case when one examines the ideologies that have driven "progressive" or "liberal" Democrats for the last 50 years.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

But he really said "youse guys"? And from that, you pegged him as being from Colorado? Seriously? :lol:

he said he's from there! he helped with the open house of the Temple in Fort Collins, CO and I think he said he lives in Denver, but he may not be from there originally, he could have been like a Rhoda, the TV show,  situation in the 1970's:wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

he said he's from there! he helped with the open house of the Temple in Fort Collins, CO and I think he said he lives in Denver, but he may not be from there originally, he could have been like a Rhoda, the TV show,  situation in the 1970's:wacko:

Just yankin' your chain, Duncan.

Are we still on for lunch if I get sent to cover the temple dedication?

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Just yankin' your chain, Duncan.

Are we still on for lunch if I get sent to cover the temple dedication?

of course!!!!!! They haven't started construction yet, even though we have nice weather for it to start, not sure what the hold up is. I always felt bad for the Stake President, he got put in in Oct. 2014 and so every Stake Conference until last Aug. when it was officially announced he had to tell us that he doesn't know when the Temple will be approved and "please don't walk out or shame me on facebook or anything". Then it was approved and now he doesn't know when construction will begin, he called the Temple Dept. and nothing yet so who knows what the hitch is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...