Why are so many members Liberals?

[TonyOlsen]

I love the treasure trove of information the Book of Mormon gives us on Liberty, Freedom, and Agency.

It is amazing how some members, while having this vast knowledge from the Book of Mormon (and modern revelation and other scriptures), could ever stand against Freedom/Liberty.

I just read a quote from Congressman Harry Reed where he said that he believed that no one could be a good member of the Church and not be a Democrat, claiming that Liberals seek everything that members of the Church believe in. I think he's missing the important point that marked the main difference between Christ's plan and Satan's plan: While they both sought for people to do good, Satan sought so through the use of force, while Christ offered agency (freedom). When you try to force someone to do something you believe is good, you're following Satan's plan. The new "Gospel Principles" book, the Church recently put out for its members, talks a great deal about this in Chapter 4.

The only real difference between Liberals and Conservatives that I've found is whether force is used to achieve the desired result. Even though physical force IS justified, good, and praiseworthy for certain select exceptions (such as defending Life, Liberty, and Property) it is, I believe, evil outside of those areas (with rare exceptions where God himself commanded his Servants to use Physical Force in an isolated situation)... and yet, from what I've seen and understood, Liberals seek to achieve their ends through taxes and the laws of the land... both of which are achieved through the use (or threat of) physical force.

I believe in what George Washington said:

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

I believe you cannot introduce the Government into anything without force being used, and therefor I don't believe the Government should do anything other than preserving our Liberty by defending those things Moroni listed in his Title of Liberty, which I summarize under "Defending Life, Liberty, and Property". Captain Moroni correctly used physical force to defend these things (even once putting Kingmen to death who wouldn't defend their Liberty from the invading forces).

The Book of Mormon teaches this principle pretty clearly... and yet so many members join the bands of Liberals and seek to achieve noble/good things through evil means: through the use of the Government which results in physical force which is contrary to Freedom/Liberty.

I know that much evil has also been done under the name of "Conservatism"... but I usually call these people "R.I.N.O."'s. They profess to be guardians of Freedom, but are willing to sell their soul for a measly pot of porridge. This is something akin to being a "Jack Mormon"... or, as Jesus said:

"27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness."
- Matthew 23:27

So I know that politicians on both sides of the aisle have done evil things, but Conservatives seek for politicians who defend/preserve Liberty/Freedom, while Liberals seek for Government-based solutions for the world's problems. I see this as Christ's plan versus Satan's plan.

It seems that most Mormons see this as well...

Then why is Harry Reid (one of the most Liberal congressman in Washington today), as a fellow Mormon, so blind to this understanding of Freedom? Why are so many members (although a minority) "flaming Liberals"? (As my Liberals Mormon friend calls himself)

President Benson and many other prophets have spoken out passionately against Socialism and other government-based Utopia-promising solutions, calling them Satan's counterfeit to Christ's Law of Consecration. The biggest difference between the two, of course, is whether principles are Forced or whether people have their Freedom/Liberty.

So what am I missing?

(Note: I hope I worded this respectfully)

[Original_Intent]

I agree with everything you said except for your belief that Republicans represent freedom, liberty, and God's plan as opposed to the evil Democrat's.

The Republicans have grown government and eroded freedoms terribly in recent years, the only "merit" that most of the Republicans can claim as opposed to the Democrat's is that they erode our freedoms at only half the speed of the liberal, socialistic Democrats.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

I think they erode them just as fast, albeit from the other side.

I can understand feeling both ways, (love them all vs. kill them all)(big brother vs. big brother)(make everyone equal in stolen wealth vs. make everyone equal in stolen wealth) etc...

Both parties are equally satanic and fallen from any redeeming virtue.

I have the same level of respect for a democrat or republican, conservative or liberal.

[MasterOfNone]

It's a question I have asked myself. And I would disagree - here at least in the UK - that liberals are a minority in the Church. Sure, most of the faithful leaders here are more conservative than the norm perhaps, but they still believe in state-controlled education, healthcare, transport, etc.

I find the more entrenched liberals tend to take up that position as some kind of a reaction to what they see as greed (or, rather, what they allow the world to manipulate them into seeing) and though greed is indeed a just lable sometimes, the conclusion they reach is still in error.

The sad reality is that most people will never think outside of what they are conditioned to believe and what they are conditioned to react to.

President Benson warned against putting the love of man before the love of God. Liberals believe they are serving their fellowman whilst all the time robbing them of that which God would have them keep...

[lundbaek]

I believe most Republicans just think they represent freedom, liberty, and God's plan as opposed to the evil Democrat's. I suspect most LDS voters thought Mitt Romney represented freedom, liberty, and God's plan.

LDSs certainly have available to them a vast knowledge from the Book of Mormon and modern revelation and other scriptures about freedom and the US Constitution. I think the reason so many stand against freedom/liberty is that they have not read carefully and pondered those statements. I cannot understand how a LDS could read D&C 134:1; D&C 101:77 & 80; D&C 98:4-7 (and I'll throw in D&C 88:79-80 since President Uchtdorf called attention to it last Conference) and not have a desire to study the Constitution as intended by the Founders and support its principles in government. Over a year ago I wrote those references dowm and gave them to a member of our stake presidency, one of the most prominent "pillars in the church" in our stake, and he's done nothing about it to date.

But how much good was accomplished by the preachings on freedom and the Constitution by President David O. McKay, President J. Reuben Clark, President Marion G. Romney, President Ezra taft Benson, and others before and since? Some for sure, but not nearly enough to turn things around.

We had ward conference today, and there were talks to increasing our levels of righteousness: temple worthiness, temple attendance, home/visiting teaching, and getting closer to Christ. After the lasts meeting my wife cornered the stake president and asked why nothing was said about "rolling up their sleeves and doing family history work". Tempted as I was to ask why nothing was said about preserving freedom an our Constitution, (which I had done over a year ago), I kept my mouth shut.

[shadow]

After the lasts meeting my wife cornered the stake president and asked why nothing was said about "rolling up their sleeves and doing family history work". Tempted as I was to ask why nothing was said about preserving freedom an our Constitution, (which I had done over a year ago), I kept my mouth shut.

The topics discussed at Stake conferences are usually assigned after much prayer and revelation, not pet projects to appease a few members. It sounds like your conference was similar to general conference in substance . Keeping your mouth shut was a good idea IMO. I believe your wife cornered the wrong guy. I'd advise her to take it to the Lord.

[TonyOlsen]

I agree with everything you said except for your belief that Republicans represent freedom, liberty, and God's plan as opposed to the evil Democrat's.

The Republicans have grown government and eroded freedoms terribly in recent years, the only "merit" that most of the Republicans can claim as opposed to the Democrat's is that they erode our freedoms at only half the speed of the liberal, socialistic Democrats.

That's why I separated R.I.N.O.s from Conservative Republicans. Yes, many/most Republican politicians don't act like Conservatives (even though they may talk like Conservatives). There are a few true Conservative Republican Politicians... I would classify Ron Paul under that category (even though I don't agree with everything Ron Paul does).

I classify myself as a Libertarian, Core Conservative, Classical Liberal, and Patriot. If a 3rd party system would actually work, I'd push for 3rd party... but I don't think a 3rd party system will work (without splitting the Core Conservative vote and giving Core Conservatives less voting power when voting for Freedom/Liberty over Tyranny). I believe what Ronald Reagan said, when he said that we don't need a 3rd party, but instead a revitalized 2nd party.

I believe that most Core Conservatives are striving for this under the party (in the 2-party system) that has come the closest to preserving freedom/liberty. We seek to have the Republican party not only "sound" like Core Conservatism but to actually "act" like Core Conservatives (preserving Liberty/Property and standing against all forms of Tyranny/Socialism, etc).

Even though the Republican Politicians have oft times been an embarrassment to Core Conservatives, I believe in "change" and I have "hope"... although not in the direction of Socialism (like Obama did) but instead in the direction of Liberty/Freedom.

[lundbaek]

Our stake president was very receptive to my wife's comments and expressed concern about the lack of interest in family history activity, and asked her for suggestions, which she gave him. My wife and I both have a calling as conslutants in the stake family history center. Our stake president seemed glad to be maade aware that we have wasted many evenings there alone with no one using the facility.

As a branch president several years ago, I appreciated unsolicited input from members for the valuable insights it gave me. An acquaintance in another stake recently expressed concern to his bishop about the lack of member awareness of LDS responsibilities to freedom and the Constitution, and the bishop responded by asking him to put together a series of lesson plans to present to the ward on 5th Sundays. So I'm convinced there are times when it pays to open one's mouth.

[TonyOlsen]

I think they erode them just as fast, albeit from the other side.

I can understand feeling both ways, (love them all vs. kill them all)(big brother vs. big brother)(make everyone equal in stolen wealth vs. make everyone equal in stolen wealth) etc...

Both parties are equally satanic and fallen from any redeeming virtue.

I have the same level of respect for a democrat or republican, conservative or liberal.

I believe in loving all people but only trusting certain people. And since we're not supposed to put our trust in the arm of flesh, really on God has my complete trust.

Core Conservatives don't believe in "kill them all" any more than you could claim that Captain Moroni believed in "Kill them all". Just because Core Conservatives and Captain Moroni may be very effective in their defense of Life, Liberty, and Property, doesn't mean they seek to kill everyone.

I believe the following quote from Captain Moroni summarizes this will... and I believe this also summarizes most Core Conservatives views on the subject:

" 1 And it came to pass that they did stop and withdrew a pace from them. And Moroni said unto Zerahemnah: Behold, Zerahemnah, that we do not desire to be men of blood. Ye know that ye are in our hands, yet we do not desire to slay you.
2 Behold, we have not come out to battle against you that we might shed your blood for power; neither do we desire to bring any one to the yoke of bondage. But this is the very cause for which ye have come against us; yea, and ye are angry with us because of our religion.
3 But now, ye behold that the Lord is with us; and ye behold that he has delivered you into our hands. And now I would that ye should understand that this is done unto us because of our religion and our faith in Christ. And now ye see that ye cannot destroy this our faith."

Alma 44:1-3

The desired end result is peace. Sometimes that means picking up your arms (weapons) and defending "our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children" (Alma 46:12)

[TonyOlsen]

It's a question I have asked myself. And I would disagree - here at least in the UK - that liberals are a minority in the Church. Sure, most of the faithful leaders here are more conservative than the norm perhaps, but they still believe in state-controlled education, healthcare, transport, etc.

I find the more entrenched liberals tend to take up that position as some kind of a reaction to what they see as greed (or, rather, what they allow the world to manipulate them into seeing) and though greed is indeed a just lable sometimes, the conclusion they reach is still in error.

The sad reality is that most people will never think outside of what they are conditioned to believe and what they are conditioned to react to.

President Benson warned against putting the love of man before the love of God. Liberals believe they are serving their fellowman whilst all the time robbing them of that which God would have them keep...

Wow!

Thanks.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

We've discussed this ad nauseum here, but the fact is that most people that consider themselves conservatives and most conservative pundits are bloodthirsty and warlike, supporting non-defensive wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc...
supporting things like the patriot act, and "if you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to hide" shoes off,...etc...

One side erodes with tyranny (wars for corporations, surveillance society, stifles dissent, seeks to limit liability with tort reform etc... but seeks to maximize the powers of the corporate world by supporting usury and disapproving of "soft" bankruptcy laws etc...)

The other side with socialistic anarchy (a society ruled by arbitrary non-morality based laws that follow the whims of the drugged intelligentsia, thus socialistic and anarchical). We don't need to articulate their faults as they get full 24/7 coverage.

[TonyOlsen]

Our stake president was very receptive to my wife's comments and expressed concern about the lack of interest in family history activity, and asked her for suggestions, which she gave him. My wife and I both have a calling as conslutants in the stake family history center. Our stake president seemed glad to be maade aware that we have wasted many evenings there alone with no one using the facility.

As a branch president several years ago, I appreciated unsolicited input from members for the valuable insights it gave me. An acquaintance in another stake recently expressed concern to his bishop about the lack of member awareness of LDS responsibilities to freedom and the Constitution, and the bishop responded by asking him to put together a series of lesson plans to present to the ward on 5th Sundays. So I'm convinced there are times when it pays to open one's mouth.

I agree with what you are trying to achieve, but I feel there is possible danger in your approach. I have known many members that have fallen away from the church after having headed down that road (my mother is one of these).

It starts with sincere suggestions, but when the members don't like the results, they sometimes reach out to try "to steady the Arc". The story of Thomas B. Marsh and the Cream come to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_B._Marsh

My mother took a similar path all the way up to the first presidency.

Even though I myself wish the Church talked more on Politics and Freedom/Liberty, I have faith in Jesus Christ and I know that He leads this church. I have to assume one of two things with Priesthood leaders who don't emphasize certain things as much as I would:

1) God may have a plan that I'm not aware of, or my thoughts on the matter are incorrect

or

2) The priesthood leader is in error... but I will still receive blessings for supporting and obeying him.

[shadow]

Our stake president was very receptive to my wife's comments and expressed concern about the lack of interest in family history activity, and asked her for suggestions, which she gave him. My wife and I both have a calling as conslutants in the stake family history center. Our stake president seemed glad to be maade aware that we have wasted many evenings there alone with no one using the facility.

As a branch president several years ago, I appreciated unsolicited input from members for the valuable insights it gave me. An acquaintance in another stake recently expressed concern to his bishop about the lack of member awareness of LDS responsibilities to freedom and the Constitution, and the bishop responded by asking him to put together a series of lesson plans to present to the ward on 5th Sundays. So I'm convinced there are times when it pays to open one's mouth.

Feedback, both in suggestions and compliments is probably a good thing. Your wording describing your wife "cornering" your stake president followed by you "keeping your mouth shut" conjured up a more intense scene in my mind

[TonyOlsen]

We've discussed this ad nauseum here, but the fact is that most people that consider themselves conservatives and most conservative pundits are bloodthirsty and warlike, supporting non-defensive wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc...
supporting things like the patriot act, and "if you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to hide" shoes off,...etc...

One side erodes with tyranny (wars for corporations, surveillance society, stifles dissent, seeks to limit liability with tort reform etc... but seeks to maximize the powers of the corporate world by supporting usury and disapproving of "soft" bankruptcy laws etc...)

The other side with socialistic anarchy (a society ruled by arbitrary non-morality based laws that follow the whims of the drugged intelligentsia, thus socialistic and anarchical). We don't need to articulate their faults as they get full 24/7 coverage.

So, I'd be curious where you think those people who believe in Christ-like love, peace, but sometimes military defense of Life, Liberty, and Property, no Government control, laws, taxes, etc, except for those few things that involve defending Life, Liberty, and/or Property... under what political Party do you feel these people should unite themselves under? Do you:

a) Advocate a 3rd party (like Libertarians or Constitutionalists?)
b) Advocate fixing the Democrat party?
c) Advocate fixing the Republican party?
d) Prefer that people give up and no longer participating in politics?
e) Prefer to pollute the waters of the pursuit of truth so that no action plan can be coherently formed?
or
f) Something else?

Please let me know.

What is you goal?

[TonyOlsen]

By the way... I'm loving this new forum!

Politics is so much more clear when you have the scriptures and modern-day Prophets to provide clarity against the chaos that Satan stirs up. In non-LDS forums, without that additional insight, it's harder for others to see certain truths.

I enjoy being in a forum where scripture references and the prophet's words mean something and are useful in the political discussions.

Thanks everyone for participating.

[Original_Intent]

I honestly believe that liberty, freedom and the Constitution are not talked about more to save us (in general) from further condemnation.

The vase majority of the members have not followed the counsel on food storage, something that directly pertains to their temporal salvation, if they won't do that, why would they listen to counsel that we study and preserve the Constitution.

Also, that counsel has already been given numerous times and the leaders that have given it have been accused of "stepping outside of their authority", "fallen prophet", etc. etc.

I believe the counsel we are being given now is to best prepare us for the bad times that we have called down upon ourselves for disregarding the Lord's warnings (as a whole, not individuals). I have had many discussions with my bishop, I think there is an acute awareness of the prblem but they are forbidden to speak (by the Spirit). I know there have been several testimony meetings where I have very much wanted to get up and bear testimony against the LDG's and warn everyone to get their food storage like there is no tomorrow, to be concerned about what is going on in our government, etc, but I am constrained from doing so. The Lord will be preaching His own sermons and bearing testimony soon enough. The sifting of the wheat and the tares is rapidly approaching. And I am still unprepared enough that I am gravely concerned about which side of that sifting I will land on. I feel that if 10% of the church is saved we will be lucky, since we are told that roughly 50% are going to come out of the sifting as wheat jsut testifies to the patience and love of our Heavenly Father.

[MasterOfNone]

My feeling is that we should vote for the person who best represents our own views. Come the final day we will be held accountable for the type of person we supported, not whether or not he had a good chance of getting in because of any particular party system. Voting for good people, with a sound understanding of liberty and a love thereof, shows confidence in what is right and edifies both the supporter and the one voted for.

Do what is right, let the consequence follow.

In situations where we have only a choice between candidates who do not represent our views, then I guess we must vote for the one who is "least worst" - as it is my understanding we should not abstain.

[lundbaek]

Looking at it now, I agree my wording describing my wife's "cornering" our stake president and my keeping my mouth shut could easily have portrayed a more intense scene. Our stake president was standing alone in a corner in a hallway, probably waiting for his wife, as my wife and I were passing by. I'm not bothered, but it annoys my wife that for about a year now, more than 1/2 the evenings we are on duty at the stake family history nobody shows up. Several reminders of this to the responsible counselor in the past year have brought about no change.

But Shadow and TonyOlsen are right about the dangers of trying to tell others how to do their callings. I just remember how when I was a branch president and began to rrealize I had some serious member personality and psychological problems to deal with, and I sure came to appreciate input from all sides. One sister I guess you could say went over my head and wrote a letter to the stake president about one conflict I had not yet become aware of, and was I ever glad she did.

[Original_Intent]

In situations where we have only a choice between candidates who do not represent our views, then I guess we must vote for the one who is "least worst" - as it is my understanding we should not abstain.

In this situation we are obliged to recruit someone to run who does represent our principles, or failing that, to run for office ourselves.

[lundbaek]

It is sad, but I am now more inclined to believe that liberty, freedom and the Constitution are not talked about more to save us (in general) from further condemnation.

Looking back over my 50 years (age 21 to 71) in the Church I can see that the vase majority of the members have not followed the counsel that we study and preserve the Constitution.

And I’ve heard many times, even recently, statements to the effect that the leaders that have given those admonitions have been accused of "stepping outside of their authority", "fallen prophet", “an old man”, “losing his senses” etc.

I am encountering more and various situations now in which I feel restrained from initiating conversation or discussion about, or simply stating my thoughts about our responsibility to preserve freedom and the Constitution, and related issues. At the same time, I like to try to bring more people to an awareness of these things and the “awful situation” we are in for having ignored them. And people are getting thru to each other, so it’s not over yet.

[lundbaek]

To Original_Intent’s suggestion that “ In this situation we are obliged to recruit someone to run who does represent our principles, or failing that, to run for office ourselves.”, I did just that in 2008. Now, when asked if I’ll run again (for US Congress) this year, my reply has been that the resources I would put into another campaign I plan to spend on preparedness because it is too late to turn our nation back into the constitutional republic it was intended by the Lord to be. In a couple of situations I added that IMO only after a major cleansing can constitutional principles be reinstated in American government. That last bit has never been well received.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

I think your approach is right Lundbaek!

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

So, I'd be curious where you think those people who believe in Christ-like love, peace, but sometimes military defense of Life, Liberty, and Property, no Government control, laws, taxes, etc, except for those few things that involve defending Life, Liberty, and/or Property... under what political Party do you feel these people should unite themselves under?

I'm not content to assume the above without knowing what that entails. Every conservative thinks himself exactly your description. And yet our wars (instigated by those same conservatives) are not even pre-emptive, they're against supposed enemies that lack the capacity or resolve to engage us in the foreseeable future. I first want to know what those empty words are filled with.

Do you:

a) Advocate a 3rd party (like Libertarians or Constitutionalists?)

Yes, but I do not expect any level of success nor understanding of true principle, nor hope of any good, wise, honest (the Lord's 3 criteria for us) leaders emerging from such. I think all hope is lost for this nation, and prophecy tells me that is so.

b) Advocate fixing the Democrat party?

I advocate destroying the corrupt vessel.

c) Advocate fixing the Republican party?

I advocate destroying the corrupt vessel.

d) Prefer that people give up and no longer participating in politics?

Not in the least, quite the contrary.

e) Prefer to pollute the waters of the pursuit of truth so that no action plan can be coherently formed?

That's ridiculous. Of course not.

or
f) Something else?

Well let me respond by asking if you believe that men's agency and votes matter? Do they count? Should they be allowed to vote in error?

Of course, that's how you answer, and rightfully so.

Do you believe that we elect dishonest corrupt leaders who sell us out because we just don't understand? Or is it because the majority share their corrupt globalist vision?

I'll let you answer that for yourself, but I see my answer in the statistics. Abortion, rape, substance abuse, pornography, gambling, entertainment, war, class separation, hyper-wealth,... I think we are consciously making this world what it is. I think that we are buying the lies satan is selling deliberately.

So what? So when the majority are wicked, and turn to wickedness, there is no hope outside:
A) Severe Chastening/Humbling (wars, plagues, natural disasters, bulging prisons, in short reaping what we sow. We've been getting it since Wilford Woodruff told us the 4 angels were loosed as Joseph Smith said they would be in consequence of the "whole government" being "gone, weak as water" etc... obviously we have been getting it and obviously it hasn't worked and we know by prophecy that it will not work)
B) Elimination (prophecy says this will occur and it's not hard to see why)

Please let me know.

What is you goal?

Of course you will likely read this and say I have given up. A ha! Not so. And neither has Lundbaek. That's why we're still here, still trying to build the second track. It is on the second track that we are delivered and found "holding it up."

I advocate education to build righteous consensus so that we can have a unified group that agrees not only on a viable solution, but on the Lord's viable solution. In other words "speak not of judgments" "let the army become very great" "keep these sayings from going abroad." And then we can take up the reigns as they are dropped.

Why spend our strength in a used wine cask? We know it will break and fly to pieces like the potters vessel, like glass. Why not spend our strength where it will work and count for something and not be wasted? The Lord decries waste. Wasted efforts I think certainly qualify as waste.

Take a look at your fellow party members and see if they would not turn out to be your biggest enemy in the very next fight? (drug legalisation or pornography etc...)

Specifically let's become educated ourselves about exactly what is expected/required of us and let's educate others about it. Let's support good, wise, and honest men and only them. Let us not compromise on that as the Lord hasn't. If none exist in the race then don't vote on that portion of the ballot or write in somebody that does even if that vote would automatically be tossed out. The Lord did not give us the option of "or the lesser of two evils" I advocate Joel Skousen's effort to prepare a embryonic govt. seed in laying the second track.

But I make no mistake that evil will choose evil notwithstanding our brilliant teaching of the principles of truth to them now (although they will, after they are chastened and come crawling to Zion for deliverance from their own choices).

I do not have faith in the unabridged use of agency delivering all, absent a straight and narrow path. I therefore advocate the straight and narrow spiritual and temporal path as revealed to us from God.

[TonyOlsen]

I honestly believe that liberty, freedom and the Constitution are not talked about more to save us (in general) from further condemnation.

The vase majority of the members have not followed the counsel on food storage, something that directly pertains to their temporal salvation, if they won't do that, why would they listen to counsel that we study and preserve the Constitution.

Also, that counsel has already been given numerous times and the leaders that have given it have been accused of "stepping outside of their authority", "fallen prophet", etc. etc.

I believe the counsel we are being given now is to best prepare us for the bad times that we have called down upon ourselves for disregarding the Lord's warnings (as a whole, not individuals). I have had many discussions with my bishop, I think there is an acute awareness of the prblem but they are forbidden to speak (by the Spirit). I know there have been several testimony meetings where I have very much wanted to get up and bear testimony against the LDG's and warn everyone to get their food storage like there is no tomorrow, to be concerned about what is going on in our government, etc, but I am constrained from doing so. The Lord will be preaching His own sermons and bearing testimony soon enough. The sifting of the wheat and the tares is rapidly approaching. And I am still unprepared enough that I am gravely concerned about which side of that sifting I will land on. I feel that if 10% of the church is saved we will be lucky, since we are told that roughly 50% are going to come out of the sifting as wheat jsut testifies to the patience and love of our Heavenly Father.

I have my year's supply for my family of 6, and I'm working on the other stuff.

But I wasn't really asking about people who don't know, or who ignore the prophet's and scripture's counsels, but instead those Liberal members who dive deep into the Scriptures, Constitution, and General Conference, and still come away thinking they are doing the right thing by pushing for Liberalism and Government-control.

I've met 2 of these types of people in the Church and it baffles me. Now, granted, these two people had so much Pride that they might not know the Holy Ghost if it beat them over the head, but is that also the case for Harry Reid?

Being a Mormon Liberal Congressman, I'm sure he has been presented with all of the Prophetic and Scriptural evidence that he is taking this country down an evil path... and I have to assume he has actually read the Constitution a few times... so how can he claim that Liberalism is everything that the Church teaches?

Is he:
a) lying
b) ignorant
c) prideful
d) something else?

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

But I wasn't really asking about people who don't know, or who ignore the prophet's and scripture's counsels, but instead those Liberal members who dive deep into the Scriptures, Constitution, and General Conference, and still come away thinking they are doing the right thing by pushing for Liberalism and Government-control.

I would assert the exact same way as those who support/ed Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and co.