The cone was never mighty. They used to crumble every time I tried to eat my ice cream. The line – now that’s a different matter. Even the police use it to make sure you’re on the up and up.

Guess we can ban all subjects that aren’t anything other than singing “kum by ya” …. but ….

Behold, the mighty cone. The inverted cone. Top-to-bottom,size/invasiveness/institutionalization of government: Communism-Socialism-Social Democracy-Libertarian Democracy-Anarchy; Similarly traditional Left to Right across the near side, with Fascists and Pol Pot meeting up on the far side.

Even that’s not adequate, but it’s an easy model for simple discussion. Beyond that you can color code for infusion of values/theology, etc. (i.e. light-to-dark for Netherlands-Germany-Italy-Turkey-Israel-Iran… hmmm funny how that moves south and east)

You need the biography of B.H. Roberts. You will love him. He was on the opposite side of the League of Nations debate from J. Reuben Clark; a Democrat versus a Republican; and though there was serious debate among the brethern about his political positions, the Lord left him in place.
As a conservative I would be horrified if liberal Democrats were excluded from all the blessings afforded members. If you want a dysfunctional society, just take away those who can act as another conscience or provide another way of looking at things. How boring life would be w/o vigorous debate on issues.
There must be opposition in all things – otherwise there is no existence. Even in Zion where we will be of one mind and one heart, we will still be individuals capable of thought and discussion. To be otherwise, to me, would be “H”.

David, a very good point. Works for me.

Did he say “liberal democrat” or “liberal Mormon”? Harold B. Lee said that a liberal Mormon was one who didn’t have a testimony (or words to similar effect). But remember that in the Mormon past, “liberal” had its own peculiar meaning. It was the Liberal Party that opposed polygamy & the Mormon “priesthood” & its alleged interference in business & politics. It was the Liberals who spearheaded much of the anti-polygamy legislation that carried the church to the brink of disaster. So in Utah & Latter-day Saint history “liberal” is freighted with unfavorable meanings & associations. Leaders like Presidents Lee & Benson grew up when that period of conflict was still a recent memory.

Did I miss something? The only empirical evidence I saw were the experiences and acquaintances of two individuals (one at Harvard Law School), and citations to the statistical correlation in the Iast few years between patterns of church attendance and voting.

“But clearly there is a potential (note the word “potential”) association between left-wing politics and inactivity or leaving the church, and such politics have the potential of being a stumbling block.” (Post 1)

When I was in college, Elder Ezra Taft Benson told a reporter that he did not think a faithful Latter-day Saint who understood the gospel could be a liberal democrat.

While I did not then, and do not now, consider myself a liberal democrat, his statement, and some of the posts on this “delicate subject”, have caused me considerable reflection.

Let me put the issue more directly on the table.

Suppose, as I think most of my co-religionists believe, that God is (or would be, if He were permitted to register) a conservative republican, would He wish all His children to be conservative (or at least right leaning) republicans? Or, because He is a merciful and forgiving God, would He tolerate (and provide gospel blessings) to those of His children (including Church leaders) who were moderate, left leaning, or even registered democrats? (Thus, a liberal democrat could be a good member of the Church–but just not as good (or as valiant) as he or she would be as a conservative republican.) Would God be so concerned that leaning left endangers His children’s long-term association with the Church and eternal salvation, that if any liberal democrat inquired of God “with real intent”, God would direct him or her to be a conservative republican (or at least to lean right as a democrat)? Does the fact that a person does not lean right implicitly indicate–or statistically predict–lack of faith, lack of understanding of the gospel, or lack of sufficient prayer about political positions?

It may be heresy to some, but is it possible the opposite is true–that God is or would be a liberal democrat (perhaps a pro-life liberal democrat)? Or, could it be possible that God may lean right on some issues, lean left on others, and be in the middle of the political spectrum on some? Is it possible He is really neutral on most issues we become so exercised about–for example, perhaps He has no position whether, in the eternal scheme, the mostly socialized health systems of other industrialized nations are preferable, or not to be preferred, over the largely private health system of the U.S.?

I believe that God inspired the Constitution by inspiring individual Framers firmly to hold conflicting views on vital issues and principles that when melded, through discussion, debate, negotiation and compromise, became the generally sound principles of our governmental system. Is it possible that, in the same way today, God may provide a measure of inspiration to both the left and the right, the republican and the democrat (inside and outside of our religion), with the hope and faith that through continued similar debate, discussion, negotiation and compromise, sound and healthy government will result? And, if that is the case, that we should nurture all, regardless of political affiliation, and not feel constrained to “warn” (or wonder if we should warn) those who “lean left” (or “right”) that their salvation or exaltation may be in peril?