Pioneer Park progress is slow and steady

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • 2 bit Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 5, 2013 10:35 a.m.

    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.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Dec. 4, 2013 3:03 p.m.

    "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 Smith Jr.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 11:06 a.m.

    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.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 11:02 a.m.

    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.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Dec. 4, 2013 10:08 a.m.

    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.

  • 2 bit Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 8:26 a.m.

    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.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 4, 2013 8:19 a.m.

    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.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Dec. 4, 2013 6:39 a.m.

    Tooele, UT

    FYI --
    Jesus was the Liberal,
    The Pharisees were the Conservatives.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 3, 2013 6:19 p.m.

    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.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 3, 2013 5:33 p.m.

    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?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 3, 2013 10:38 a.m.

    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.

  • eddantes ALTONAH, UT
    Dec. 2, 2013 8:35 p.m.

    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.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 2, 2013 3:30 p.m.

    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.

    that is the role of local governments, to clean up and prevent messes like this.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 2, 2013 1:21 p.m.

    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.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Dec. 2, 2013 10:56 a.m.

    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?

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 2, 2013 10:02 a.m.

    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?