Open Minded Mormon,Again... I didn't disagree with you that our
heavenly father is liberal. But I don't think Joseph Smith said he is
"A liberal" (which is what you said). That makes it sound like you are
drifting into the concept of "liberalism" instead of the concept of
being liberal (which are two very different things).If someone is
generous and liberal in their personal lifestyle... you don't say "they
are a Liberal" (which is what you said), you say they are liberal (not A
Liberal). Those 2 things don't equate. Saying "Jesus is a
Liberal", makes it sound like you are drifting into the political definition
(not the behavioral definition) which are two different things.All
"Liberals" are not "liberal" in their behavior. In fact... they
can be very stingy. They just aren't the same thing.But I
agreed with you if you were trying to say he was liberal (in that he gave his
all to everyone). But if you're trying to say he was a modern
Progressive/Liberal (meaning the political context)... then no.. he wasn't.
"Our Heavenly Father is more liberal in His views, and boundless in His
mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive..." ~ Joseph
Re: "Only partisan hacks and college drop-outs on the radio use your
definitions."That's liberal for -- "I don't have
an argument to counter yours, so I'll engage in disingenuous ad
hominem."It's a common liberal theme.
Open Minded Mormon,IF you really use the dictionary definition of
"liberal" and not "liberalism"... then you are right. Mormons
(old and new) are liberal, Founding Fathers were "liberal", and Jesus
was liberal. But they were conservative as well (they aren't mutually
exclusive). I can give you examples of conservative things they did if you
need them.But if you drift into the political definitions of
Liberalism and cap-C Conservative... that all changes.---Many people use the partisan definitions. I think all of us have used them
from time-to-time. You can attack the college drop-outs on the radio, but if
you are honest with yourself... we have all used them here at times.---You said, "Jesus was a Liberal". I say "Jesus was
liberal".Jesus was liberal (lower-case l)... but I don't
think you can assume that he would have voted for Democrats and all that. Two
totally different things. For one... I don't think he would have approved
of their position on Abortion.
Jesus was a "Liberal", America's Founding Fathers were
"Liberals", The early Mormons were "Liberals".I use an English language Dictionary for my definitions, look it up for
yourselves.Only partisan hacks and college drop-outs on the radio
use your definitions.
Open Minded Mormon,Jesus was a "Liberal" in many ways (the
OLD/Traditional definition of "Liberal", not the political definition
most people think of today). But he was also "Conservative" in many
ways (the Traditional definition of what "Conservative" means, not the
political definition many think of today).IF we got back to the REAL
meaning of both "Liberal" and "Conservative"... they are BOTH
good things. It's just the political connotation and the partisan
viewpoint that many have adopted today that makes them BOTH something Jesus was
NOT. Today's definition of both makes them petty political positions the
fit nicely into our partisan stereotypes for each other.But Jesus
absolutely was "Liberal" in his interactions with people (but not
necessarily a political "Liberal"). And he was also
"Conservative" in his life philosophy (by the REAL definition of the
word, not the political version).We can bicker over who owns Jesus,
or which stereotype fits him best... but that gets us nowhere. He was who he
was (regardless of the political stereotypes we try to attach to him). What is
important is what he taught us... not which political moniker fits best.
Re: "Jesus was the Liberal, [t]he Pharisees were the Conservatives."Au contraire mon frere.Jesus spent His mortal life
encouraging people to return to the "old time religion," to abandon that
whited sepulchre created by humanist radicals who thought they knew more than
God, and who created a religion that had only an outward, passing resemblance to
God's revealed will.Though His gospel is genuinely liberal, in
every respect, modern American liberalism is not. "Liberal" is simply a
term they appropriated in a vain attempt to cover up and gloss over who and what
they really are.Suggesting Jesus would adopt any of the doctrines or
sacraments of that false religion -- abortion, indecency, drugs, lawlessness,
rigid thought control, enforced dependency, brutally enforced charity -- is
actually nothing short of sacrilege.
@procuradorfiscalTooele, UTFYI -- Jesus was the Liberal,
The Pharisees were the Conservatives.
Re: "If Jesus were to come Salt Lake City today, He'd be with the
derelicts in Pioneer Park . . . ."He might well be, but He
wouldn't be suggesting to them that their addictions are His fault, that
that their highest and best aspirations should center about free drugs and booze
and softer park benches, or that their only hope of salvation lies in a paid
vote for Democrats -- as liberals do.It's the height of the
hypocrisy He roundly condemned for liberals, who BTW control Salt Lake and bear
the primary responsibility for creating the problem and, whose only real concern
for the homeless is to use them as political props -- to disingenuously
demagogue the issue, and blame it on conservatives, whose real compassion track
record is FAR superior to that of liberals.
If Jesus were to come Salt Lake City today, He'd be with the
derelicts in Pioneer Park - not walking around Temple Square.Do you want proof?:The Temple was in Jerusalem, yet he spent his
time with the outcasts.So much for us "Mindless soft-headed
Liberals", eh procuradorfiscal?
Re: ". . . widespread poverty is far away and easily blamed on someone
else."Widespread poverty? That's what causes drug dealers
and druggies to hang out in Pioneer Park?Well, there you have it.
Mindless liberals have solved the problem for us. All we have to do is heave
baskets of cash into the park, and -- problem solved -- they'll leave!Truth is, every denizen of Pioneer Park is there by choice. If they want
to live, eat, and defecate elsewhere, they know where to go. But those places
are far from their source of drugs, and UTA isn't convenient enough to get
them back and forth. It's convenient for sellers, as well. Why go
door-to-door when your customers will come to you?The only real,
long-term solution to the problem is enforcement of the laws already in place.
Homeless people may be ragged, but they're not stupid. If it's easier
and more efficient to house the Salt Lake drug market in Pioneer Park,
that's where it'll be housed.Liberal soft-headedness will
have, not the slightest effect.
In 1980, the Dem controlled Congress began the process of dismantling the
institutionalization of the mentally ill. The mentally ill, drug addicted or
shiftless now wander, loiter and live in the city parks. This pattern is
repeated in large cities throughout the U.S. Ronald Reagan's policies had
nothing to do with it. How about bringing back some personal responsibility;
everyone deserves a helping hand but after years and months on public assistance
while loitering on public parks, enough is enough. Just a thought.
props to SLC for finally trying to clean it up. The problem would not have been
so bad had not former mayor andersen made pioneer and liberty parks havens for
dope dealers, addicts, and other criminals.Bob,that is the
role of local governments, to clean up and prevent messes like this.
Better slow and steady... than non-existent or fluctuating (which is what
we've had for many decades in that area).The solution is not to
do nothing. The solution is to do EVERYTHING (including government and
individual and local assistance).We need MORE government assistance,
and more local assistance, and more individuals to get involved (and less people
trying to blame it on somebody else or pretend it's somebody elses
responsibility).Government can't fix it all... and the local
residents can't fix it all.
Reagan dropped all the mental patients and addicts on the streets, and
they've been in the gutter ever since. It is true they continue to drive
business away from the Park area. This is a rotten situation for everyone. Where
is the reformer who will diagnose, treat, and help these people to a better
future than the bleak streets?
Interesting to some, that the people who control the local government seem to
believe that throwing more government at the problem is the proper action. And
that the same people are livid about having more government to solve their
problems for the nation. Obviously the difference in philosophy
comes from a perceived difference in the type of crime and who it bothers rather
than the comparison of the effect of the crimes. Poverty at the
local level is an embarrassment and thorn in the side of good people because it
is close at hand and tied directly to the actions of those good people. The
widespread poverty is far away and easily blamed on someone else. Where are those champions of a free market without government interference?
Could it be that they don’t really believe those words that they say?