Sigh. You're welcome.

You are trapped justamere10. Never to know the nature of your own reality.

A guilded cage is just that... Canary in the Coal Mine.

PS. I'll sell you a set of golden-cuffs for the low, low price of 10% of your earnings for the duration of your being.

Perhaps "trapped" outside of the cage that you have placed yourself in, guilded as you may pretend it to be?

It is true that even eagles sometimes walk on the earth and in those moments see much less than is their potential and their usual reality. To know that the spirit that integrates and animates one's physical body is literally a son or daughter of the God who made this earth and the universe about it is to know one's potential and a hint of one's usual reality. To think that the hand and learning of man encompasses it all is folly; but the duration of such thinking is as short as a lifetime, or an awakening spiritual experience. I wish for you the latter...

Boogy Boogy!

Sorry, boogy man under the bed does not count as an awakening spiritual experience, though it's true it may be experienced when awakening from a nightmare. :-)

Enjoy the weekend Myoho.

Hugs and kisses....

I'm curious, justamere10. How do you know that myoho hasn't already had an "awakening spiritual experience?" Isn't that a bit presumptuous?

I think the answer to the first question is that because myoho's religious beliefs and experience apparently differ from those of jusamere10 -- who, as a fundamentalist, believes that his particular religious experience and beliefs are the only true and valid ones and that all others are fundamentally incorrect and unsound -- myoho must therefore be lacking a true religious experience, and is therefore in need of "awakening."

I in no way deny (rather, I cherish the fact) that I've had some powerful spiritual encounters as an LDS member, as I've had in connection with other religions. And as I've said before, I believe it is entirely possible that orthodox Mormonism, of all the thousands of fundamentalist religions that have existed on Earth throughout human history, ACTUALLY IS the one and only true way to know, relate to, and return to God our creator (I don't think it is ... but I could be wrong). Still, the probability of this is at most one in a thousand (if you assume only one thousand fundamentalist religious ideologies have ever existed). Personally, as a Mormon, I'd rate the probability at quite a bit higher than that, though substantially less than 100% (maybe 15%). With all due respect, justamere10, I highly doubt that you, as an ardent religious fundamentalist, would likewise be able to say that you "could be wrong" about your current assumptions and beliefs about God.

Which is fine, justamere10. I just find it a bit arrogant and off-putting, frankly, that you seem to think that anyone who fundamentally disagrees with you is, therefore, on a "false path" and in need of "an awakening spiritual experience."

(Now, having said that ... if I can somehow manage to protect myself and others from my own considerable tendencies toward arrogance and self-righteousness, I'll really be making progress! Beam out of eye ... OUCH!!)

I am curious about how the Mormon Church feels about supporting our Countrys' Military...I have yet to meet (personally) a Mormon young adult that has served our Country.

thank you for your honesty and for your willingness to open this discussion up.

Seems like the military would be fertile ground for proselytizing. They could do their mission and serve their country at the same time. Would probably also annoy the Fundies, who seem to see the military as their own army of God and wouldn't appreciate the competition.

As a "former" LDS member myself... I appreciate this thread.

i am so glad you're here too!

Folks, try not to worry.

I am not a believer in Theology.

Shoeshoe, either you're trying to nourish us with your interpretation of LDS doctrine, or you're trying to bring down the ENTIRE LDS NETWORK! You anarchist, you!

Please understand, Tyo, that there are plenty of Mormons, active and inactive, that don't experience Mormonism exactly the way justamere10 does, though I would say 80% or more probably do. Just like there are common threads of doctrine and belief within Catholicism and Judaism but also major differences of opinion on a great many things, so it is within the LDS church.

Unfortunately, real criticism and open questioning of the orthodoxy is so frowned upon in Mormon culture that these differences are rarely discussed, almost never publicly, since excommunication is a very real possible outcome of such honest inquiry and debate. Though almost certainly not as much as was the case in the past, in my experience there is still tremendous pressure within the LDS church to "conform to the norm" (even to the extent of deciding which political party and philosophy Mormons "should" choose to support). Being given the "choice" to select pre-drawn theological conclusions or else face repression of (even expulsion for) your sincere beliefs tends to put a real damper on an honest search for truth. If the options are lie (acting as if one is not in disagreement with the orthodoxy) or leave, many members (like myself) choose instead to become inactive.

Justamere10 does an excellent job, in my opinion, of presenting a true-to-life example of your average orthodox Mormon.

I hope readers realize, however, that there are Mormons (like myself) who would say that there exist other flavors of LDS Mormonism, and that these are no less valid than the one espoused by justamere10 and those in the mainstream LDS orthodoxy.

The difference in tone between you, shoeshoe, and Justamere is, ahh... striking.

With Justamere I feel the dead hand of "divine" revelation coming from the divinely ordained prophets who have unquestionable authority and demand unquestioning obedience. "Of course, my child, you are free to question or disobey. We are all about free will, after all. But you will pay the price, both on this earth an in the hereafter for your arrogance."

You, I don't quite understand. But I wouldn't be surprised if your relationship with your God and creator is more personal and your relationship with the Church that imo stands between you and Him probably more difficult than is the case with your more orthodox friend.

I do not consideder myself as LDS. I am a follower of the Lord Buddha of Compassion (Avalokiteshvara).

... even though Mormons are wonderful Masons, The followers of Lord Buddha are equally prolific."

and there is a HUGE difference.

Yes... there is.

All 350 Million of us.

Don't get carried away now, maybe just a friendly handshake. :-)

One of our Articles of Faith reads:

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1

There are 13,000,000 Latter-day Saints all over the world. My guess is that tens of thousands of them wear their country's military uniform, especially the USA forces. There are hundreds of LDS military chaplains, I'm sure if you looked around you'd find many Saints in uniform all over the world. I have served in the military myself.

Thank-you for that interesting question, the Saints are often misunderstood because there is so much opposition and criticism. The best place to learn the truth about our beliefs is the link in my signature line and at http://www.lds.org.

Enjoy the weekend.

Those "80%" of the LDS populace are almost invariably in agreement with the Lord's living Prophet and Apostles when they speak with an official voice in official settings because they speak the same truths faithful Saints have confirmed by personal revelation from God. There is no desire or need to discuss or question something that you already KNOW to be true because you are living worthy to have the Holy Ghost as your constant companion and guide. The LDS faith is alive for those who are obedient to the counsels of the Lord, though that does not exclude us from the rigors and temptations of mortal life, we're as human as anyone else.

LDS leaders are always very careful to never interfere with any member's absolute freedom to vote for politicians of any party. Their counsel is invariably to VOTE and to vote for politicians one judges to be honest and capable of representing the best interests of their constituents and the nation as a whole. There are dozens of politicians of both major USA parties currently serving or who have served who happen to be active Latter-day Saints. As I mentioned earlier, two of the most recognizable contrasts are Mitt Romney (Republican) and Harry Reid (Democrat.)

There is no pressure whatsoever from LDS leaders for any Latter-day Saint to vote for a certain political party.

I wanted to edit that phrase in bold but was unable to. I do not know how many LDS military chaplains there are currently serving in armed forces, I do know there are some serving in the USA military.

I don't wear religious underwear. Not unless the Pope or a rabbi or who ever has sanctified my Fruit of the Loom briefs.

I assume it would be a mark of reproach to be found with brown skid marks on your sacred garb?

Adult Latter-day Saints who have been endowed in a temple commonly wear under their street clothing garments that have symbols on them to remind them daily of sacred covenants they made with God inside the temple. Some other religions, including orthodox Jews, wear articles of clothing for similar purposes. In a similar fashion most Christian religions celebrate a sacrament perhaps called "communion" to remind them (usually weekly) of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ made on behalf of all mankind, and the meaning and fleetingness of mortal life on earth.

Mocking such ceremonials does not diminish from the sacredness and importance of such to those who believe in Jesus Christ and understand the meaning of the words "Savior" and "Redeemer" of mankind.

We are here on earth to make choices, choices with eternal consequences. It's easy to get caught up in crowd attitudes. And also easy to be swept over a cliff if that's where those in front of the crowd happen to be headed, or pushed by those behind. The direction the crowd's headed doesn't seem to matter when all that's important to feel united and bigger than others is a common attitude.

We are here on earth to prepare to meet our God.

Enjoy the day Balor, thanks for expressing your opinions in this thread.

No, of course not.

That's why more than 85+% of all voters Utah County (the beating heart of orthodox Mormon thought) voted for the exact same political party in the last two presidential elections ... as is almost certainly the case for 90-95% for active LDS members and an even higher percentage for LDS leaders there in the "reddest county in the reddest state in the nation," Utah County, Utah, the seat of orthodox Mormonism.

It would be just as bad if this off-the-charts, over-the-top, unbelievably strong preference for one political philosophy (in this case, far-right conservatism, specifically neoconservatism, in the main) were on the other side, that is, toward liberalism. It's the super-severely "off balancedness" that's such a red flag, here.

How could this possibly happen, if there weren't within the hearts and minds of the leadership of the church the belief that the current totally lopsided political leaning of the church membership as a whole were not bent in the correct, proper, and right (pardon the pun) direction? Certainly, if this huge majority of active members were perceived by the leadership to be going in a political direction that was judged by church leadership to be morally or ethically wrong, they (the church leadership) would speak out forcefully about this error, and directly or indirectly put a stop to it. It seems obvious that church leaders would indeed be obligated to do so in such a case, as stewards of the moral direction of the church as a whole. But that's NOT happening, currently. Therefore, we can infer the approval of the church leadership of the grossly one-sided political curvature of the active Mormon membership in the U.S.

But what's most disturbing to me and many others both inside and outside the church, even more so than the, humongous, mind-blowing, truly incredible political imbalance that certainly does within the LDS church and especially its orthodox leadership (would you deny that, justamere10?) is the fact that this hugely overwhelming majority of Mormons leaders and members have such broken moral compasses as to so very enthusiastically support men for the very highest offices in our land who are war criminals, torturers, foul-mouthed liars, law breakers, destroyers of our rights as Americans and enemies to the same U.S. Constitution they've sworn to "protect and defend" (a document no less than sacred and holy, according to the religious doctrine proclaimed by these same member and leaders) -- namely, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

No less than Dick Cheney himself received a personal invitation from the first presidency of the LDS church to have the honor of standing before the world on the BYU/LDS stage as example of strong moral fiber, ethical behavior, and upstanding character before BYU's 2007 graduating class as the commencement speaker that year (then, adding insult to injury, this terribly dishonorable and controversial individual was given an honorary degree from BYU, in, of all things ... "Public Service!").

No, of course not. There's no political bias or pressure within the LDS church.

If you believe that, however, my suggestion is to stay well clear of opportunities to buy ocean front property in Oklahoma.

... unless, of course, you happen to be George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales, Michael Mukasey, et al (i.e. the political darlings of the LDS church orthodoxy).

My relationship with God, to be VERY sure, is a LOT more important to me than my relationship with my church, or any church, or, really, anything.

Having said that, I am a Mormon, and see no reason why I shouldn't be able to both follow my conscience and remain a member of the church, which teaches that men are responsible to God for their choices on Earth, which implies that an individual's loyalty to his own conscience is, and must always remain, his primary motive as a human being.

As if appears you've figured out, it's difficult for me to deal with what I perceive as the conflict between the roughly equal measures of "good and bad" fruit that I see coming from this tree, my church. It seems to me that, for the "one and only true church of God on Earth," this isn't at all good enough. I think it's reasonable to expect a significantly higher ratio. "By their fruit, ye shall know them."

Rather than constantly make an annoyance of myself by continually speaking objections in Sunday school, and tiring myself out by swimming against the dishonest and unethical (bordering on dishonorable) sub-current that I fell is so thick in the culture of my church, and for other reasons, I've chosen simply to become inactive and no longer attend services (though I've just been asked to speak along with my wife at a church "Fireside" meeting next month , and plan to do so).

I find it's quite hard enough for me as it is to practice what I preach and do what I believe to be the right thing, day by day. Unfortunately, notwithstanding some laudable traits, I'm afraid I'm already rather adept at hypocrisy, arrogance, and other weaknesses of character; I certainly don't need my own church providing me with further examples.

I think I recall shoeshoe describing himself as a "flamming" (sic) liberal somewhere. He has certainly proven it in the last couple of messages in particular. My guess is that his political views resonate on this board far more than do my "orthodox" points of view. :-)

Democrat politicians get elected in Utah too. But I think what most Latter-day Saints are looking for instead of a specific party are politicians who are not aggressively trying to secularize society and get rid of Christian values. Personally I am not a Republican nor a Democrat, but I am conservative minded.

The term is "DemocratIC politicians." It's extremely annoying and rude to use that neocon term, "democrat politician."

thank you for pointing this out



i am always amazed to see people who claim to follow jesus life be part of a church or politicial platofrom that is based in hate

I C. I'll try to be less annoying and rude. I guess the label "neocon" is now politically correct though, it's hard to keep up with political jargon. It's unfortunate in my opinion that so many Americans are so divided internally when we face such grave dangers in and from the world beyond our national borders. Usually a common enemy unites people, but when the enemy is within that may not apply so readily.

The solution is for everyone to love their neighbor. But that's just a Christian concept, not likely doable in a secular society where party lines and labels are so tightly attached to emotional triggers...

Exactly.

But this is where you show your hypocrisy, justamere10. Referring to someone by deliberately using an incorrect and intentionally derisive and disrespectful term is abusive. It is simple schoolyard bullying, and it's very childish. "Democrat" when used as an adjective (ending in "rat") to describe members of the Democratic Party is an example of this.

How would you like it if Democrats routinely used the word "Publican" (a deliberately incorrect and derisive form "Republican") to similarly ridicule and demean members of the Republican Party? From your writing, it's clear that you are very well educated and know quite well the corrected adjectival form to use in this case. Yet you've deliberately chosen to go out of your way to be deliberately disrespectful toward the largest political party in America.

Is acting consciously and deliberately to demean, ridicule, and disrespect people "Christian," justamere10? Is this "loving your neighbor," as you put it? You're apparently quite willing to use and manipulate the very same "emotional triggers" whose use and manipulation you feign disapproval of.

It is EXACTLY this kind of hypocrisy (advocating "Christian" concepts like "loving your neighbor" but then behaving in direct contradiction to these pretended commitments) that so rubs me the wrong way about the Mormon orthodoxy, of which I regard you (judging by your statements on this board) as a REALLY good example.

You've shown us your true colors, justamere10 ... much, much better than I could ever do.

Will you cop to your hypocrisy, justamere10 ... in this particular case, the use of the abusive term "Democrat" as an adjective? If you're like my experience of most of the rest of the Mormon orthodoxy, you will not, but will instead try to obfuscate, hide, or find some kind of slippery way to avoid taking responsibility for your wrongdoing, without simply practicing what you preach, i.e. the "Christian" concept of repentance.

outstanding post...truth is just and lose think him cant admit being wrong , to do so wuold devastatete their existence thatthey thrive, i was once in closenight christain circle and it provdies a pscychologic home for weakmided folks

sad to say they vote, wereitnot for that the would not b much of a prolem

The founding fathers of our country were flamming liberals ... radical, revolutionary, "power to the people" liberals. The tyrannical oppression against which they fought, and for which they risked everything to form our (small "d") liberal democratic nation, was committed and defended by hardcore, aristocratic, monarchistic conservatives lead by a King George, much like the King George of today and his followers (remember, historically, conservatism as a political movements was born as a reaction of the wealthy aristocracy AGAINST the growth of democracy of Europe ... they wanted to "conserve" the ubiquitous power and control they had formerly enjoyed over society, hence the name "conservatives" ... and so it is still, today. It is important to remember that conservatism is essentially anti-democratic in nature, a fact of which we've been so clearly reminded these past eight years.

Jesus Christ was Himself, without a doubt, the best example of liberal advocacy the world has ever known ... a consummate example of radical, revolutionary, anti-establishment, speak truth to power, men have "inalienable," irreducible, inviolable rights given by God and not by rulers, do or die, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, help the helpless, humble the strong, raise up the meek, "we are all of inherently equal worth" LIBERALISM.

The early Mormon Church was nothing if not radically liberal, rejecting the establishment of religion as it currently existed and branching off in a COMPLETELY new and different direction within Christianity, with regard to things as basic as the organization of the family (polygamy), even (originally) full inclusion of blacks in church life and practice (early Mormons were abolitionists, a decidedly radical, liberal posture to take in early 19th century America). Mormons practiced a form of communism, called the United Order, in which all property of members was held by the church, and redistributed -- on the basis of need -- to the membership (talk about socialism ... early Mormons thought it was a very, very good idea, and held the idea of "Zion" as a place where there were "no poor among us" as the ideal).

Early LDS leaders were radical economic liberals, vociferously anti-corporate, and very highly suspicious of the accumulation of great personal wealth, warning the saints in no uncertain terms to avoid the "love of money" like the plague. Modern orthodox Mormon conservatives ignore these emphatic teachings of the early modern prophets, for some reason.

I do consider myself a flaming liberal, and that I'm in very good company when I do so.

However, I think it's important to remain as rational as humanly possible, even in attempting to do what one sees as good and just, and a penchant for being a "flaming" anything is probably not entirely a good thing. I've got to watch that.

---

"Nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit, which has, at all times, characterized political parties. For, in politics as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution."

- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist, No. 1

---

I believe only Love to be superior to truth, though exactly how one prioritizes them is unclear to me, both being so necessary, in my view.

I agree with justamere10, here. This objection to what is seen as the over-secularization of society is precisely what I think explains the almost vertical tilt of Mormons as a group (currently, in the U.S.) toward ultra-conservatism ... a trend which began in earnest, as I understand it, in the last 1940's with the rise of "godless communism" in the Soviet Union and elsewhere.

I apologize, justamere10, for presuming that you were a Republican in an earlier post this morning. I'm afraid that was my own judgmental arrogance showing ...

Personally I do not find it sad that people with opinions other than my own are allowed to vote. Preventing people from voting is not exactly a novel way of solving the world's problems, it never leads to freedom for the majority.

As is evident, there is wide range of political opinion among the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as there is among the membership of other Christian churches. I consider that vital to the maintenance of a republic such as the one that today in the USA guarantees our freedom to speak what's on our mind.

But to get back on topic if we can, does anyone have a sincere question they'd like to ask a Mormon about the mainstream religious beliefs of active members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

The dangers we face now as a nation, though not insignificant, are practically nill compared to those we faced when staring down rampant, rising European fascism in the 1930's-1940's (the very real possibility that Hitler could and would literally take over the world), and the Soviet Threat during the cold war (tens of thousands of hydrogen bombs pointing right into our backyards, on hair trigger alert, 24/7). Yet, American civilian and military leaders, even under those terribly dangerous circumstances, never found it necessary to make it legal and standard operating procedure to brutally and cruelly torture prisoners in our custody, destroy bedrock democratic freedoms like habeas corpus, eviscerate the Constitution by conducting mass, unwarranted, illegal searches of millions of Americans, etc., etc., etc.

3000 Americans died in the 9/11 attacks. But fully 100,000 Americans die each year from medical errors! That's more than 30 9/11 tragedies ... EVERY SINGLE YEAR!!

Where's the hue and cry? Where's the mass media outrage over that? Why for goodness sake isn't there a huge "war on medical errors" constantly being trumpeted on FOX and by the Bush Crime Family? You certainly don't see anyone one calling for the need to disregard traditional American moral standards and constitutional rights in order to stamp out the terrible scourge of medical errors in the U.S. Yet, death by medical error is a MUCH, MUCH greater actual threat to us than "islamo-fascism."

Obviously, the answers are the same: fear is the number one tool of tyrants, Satan is the "father of lies" (Mormon doctrine), and reality is anathema to both.

---

I do, however, think justamere10 makes a good point.

If "Democrat" as an adjective is deliberately and intentionally derisive and insulting, can't the same thing be said for the term "neocon," a phrase I admit I'm in the regular habit of using?

True, using "Democrat" as an adjective is a typical Rovian subliminal manipulation, picking a contraction that happens to end in "rat," a very negative and entirely misleading unconscious association. But, by the same token, "neocon" ends in "con" as in "con-man," also carries with it a strongly emotional negative association. Although I believe it to be commonly the case, certainly not all "neoconservatives" are "cons." Some, no doubt, truly and honestly believe that neoconservative policies are the best ones for us as a nation to adopt and practice, and are not (unlike the Karl Roves of the movement) almost reflexively trying with great devotion and relish to intentionally deceive, trick, mislead, and manipulate people.

Hmm. I think I'm going to have to take the time to actually pronounce all the syllables (and write all the characters) in the word "neoconservative" from now on.

That is a COMPLETE misrepresentation of the truth.

Within the Mormon church in the U.S. (and particularly in Utah, the heart of Mormonism), there is a HUGE and OVERWHELMING tilt in one political direction (i.e. conservatism and ultra-conservatism). Any contrary implication is just absolutely false. justamere10 knows that.

Of course there are individuals with differing opinions in any group the size of the Mormon church in the U.S. (about 6 million). But to say a fabric isn't red because there is one thread of blue for each 19 threads of red is just ridiculous. Citing a "wide range of political opinion" in the Mormon church "as there is among the membership of other churches," as if there's some sort of more or less equal distribution of political thought with Mormonism, is plainly disingenuous ... and, I think, deliberately misleading. justamere10 knows such an implication is absurd on the face of it, and he should know better than to attempt to intentionally mislead people and hide the actual truth about the LDS church (if he is to follow Mormon teachings about honesty). But again, in my experience, that type of deliberately misleading behavior, unfortunately, is rather typical of orthodox Mormons, which to me is painfully disappointing.

As far as "sincere questions ... about the mainstream religious beliefs of active members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:"

I think most people realize that actions speak a lot louder than words, and that behavior belies the true beliefs of a people, not the sanitized, official "party line" or "party platform."

Where's the beef (I'm dating myself, here)? That is, what's the actual reality behind the public pronouncements? I think that's what most people care about, so the various comments in this thread about the political leanings of LDS chruch membership, etc., etc. ARE in fact "questions about the (true and actual) beliefs of mainstream Mormons."

Personally, I think justamere10 is simply much more comfortable with fielding academic queries about the stuff of Mormon doctrine, not the reality of how that doctrine is carried out in the real world (and perhaps a bit dismayed to find that questions about reality is what's getting the attention here, instead of more superficial questions about the orthodox Mormon religious belief system).

Which matters more? I say the latter. I'm not sure what justamere10 would say.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is focussed on Jesus Christ and His teachings, and the blessings available to God's children in our time, including eternal families. Some members are politically active and have strong views one way or another. But when we get together on Sundays, it's to worship and learn more about the Savior and Redeemer of all mankind.

http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/

Again, the implication here, in my opinion, is very, very misleading.

When the far-and-away, overwhelming, 95% majority of devout members of any religion (especially one in which power is organized in such a top-down fashion as is the case in the Mormon church) so strongly favors one side of the political spectrum, I think common sense dictates it can only be so because the leadership of that group adheres to and favors that side of the spectrum.

This becomes a very important question, in my mind, when the national leaders of that particular side of the political spectrum go so willingly and so far into "the dark side," as Cheney put it, approving all manner of horrible sins and crimes against humanity and against our own country that fly directly in the face of said religion's explicit teachings.

How can religious leaders stand by while the people that 95% of their active membership supports are single-handedly turning America, of all countries, into a nation whose military and civilian leadership tortures, kidnaps, robs, rapes, murders, steals, lies, and bullies with impunity? Not just stand by, but then go out of their way to invite and honor the Machiavellian architect of this villainy (Dick Cheney) with a BYU commencement speakership and honorary "Public Service" degree? Where's the moral compass these leaders are said to possess? Why isn't it functioning, or why aren't they using it?

The LDS church is a church that is ULTRA-HOMOGENEOUS politically and socially, and I think when assessing the validity and worth of a religious institution (or any institution) it is important to examine the political and social effects of the choices of the membership and leadership of that institution. This is especially the case when religious leaders go so far as to claim to represent "the one and only true church of God on Earth" ("By their fruit ...").

The "one and only true church of God on Earth ..." Shouldn't more than 5% of the active members of such a church be able to recognize that torture, kidnapping, theft, rape, murder, lying, and bullying are immoral in the extreme?

I think so.

That may be, for the most part, true ... but the more important question is, what about the other six days of the week?

What are we, as a group, up to then?

What are the effects upon the world and our nation of the choices of our members and leaders during those other six out seven days each week?

What does that say about us and about our religion?

Again, to me, when it comes to something as important as one's relationship to God, these are very important questions to ask and to seek and find unbiased, truthful, complete answers to.

then you must spend the vast majority of your time and money feeding, clothing and medically treating those less fortunate than you while never once opening your mouth to them about why they are sinners etc ?

you see, I think Jesus would find your organization to be despicable and a disgace, so why take any chances that your version of his teachings, your version that places value on some people and not on others...? when you could just be taking care of his children and not judging them at the same time

I think that every faithful Latter-day Saint and every faithful Christian regardless of denomination recognizes that your list of evils are indeed evil if actually carried out by anyone.

But I think that most Americans have a much better understanding of our nation, your accusations are extreme. To me you are describing a country other than America, though with today's intense pressure to ignore the majority and secularize our nation we may be headed in that direction.

I love my country and the freedoms our inspired constitution provide to those who value and respect them.

Generally I think that most Latter-day Saints in America are busy, productive, happy, family oriented people pretty much all of the time. I am certain that there are no political conspiracies such as those you seem to imagine the rest of the Church is involved in when you aren't rubbing shoulders with them.

I think you would be surprised at how much the LDS Church is involved in humanitarian work all over the world. Our people and supplies are often among the very first on the scene of any tragedy. We can do that because millions of Saints of all ages frequently volunteer for hard work producing emergency supplies and food to give to others in need. When was the last time you voluntarily helped care for an orchard or can fruit to give away to others less fortunate than yourself?

Self-reliance and welfare resources: http://www.providentliving.org Church website for persons with disabilities and their families: http://www.disabilities.lds.org

a you dont wanna compare my cash gifts to real and valued organizations to yours, i am guessing

b most of what any church does with their money includes prostelyzation that in the end causing as much harm as good

also, are you aware of the profits of your church

are you aware of the life style of its leaders

I wasn't aware that "neocon" was a slur. Some of us might think of it that way, but conservatives refer to themselves that way if they belong to that branch. Also, there is no "Neoconservative Party." The way you used "democrat politician" was matter of fact, you just kind of slipped it in there as like you didn't know how to spell it...which you know and I know is false.