As far as comment #119 ” I think turning Jesus into a libertarian is a difficult proposition.” the author has either does not know what a libertarian is or has not read the doctrine cited above or is in open rebellion against it.

As Pres. Benson states, “The central issue in the premortal council was: Shall the children of God have untrammeled agency to choose the course they should follow, whether good or evil, or shall they be coerced and forced to be obedient? Christ and all who followed him stood for the former proposition–freedom of choice; Satan stood for the latter–coercion and force.” and “The fourth basic principle we must understand is that people are superior to the governments they form. Since God created people with certain inalienable rights, and they, in turn, created government to help secure and safeguard those rights, it follows that the people are superior to the creature they created.”

Thus, we can reason that our political desires are an extremely accurate index of what we would do with the Lord’s power. If we would exercise ‘control or dominion or compulsion’ unrighteously then our support of laws which regiment and control the business and private affairs of our neighbors and deprive them of their stewardships would clearly indicate this. We must expect the Lord to use our political beliefs as a measure of our character being either moral (like Christ advocating freedom of choice) or immoral (like Satan advocating coercion and force).

Both Pres. Hinckley and Monson have reaffirmed many times the doctrine as taught by Pres. Benson and found in D&C 134. The Brethren have not explicitly used their mantle as Prophets, Seers and Revelators to repudiate the forgoing principles and doctrines or to provide immunity (D&C 132:46) at the judgment bar of God for a potential claim of unrighteous dominion (as government is the hired agent of individuals it follows that one is vicariously liable for acts committed by governments on their behalf and with their consent; D&C 134:1) against anyone who carries out the directive in the letter (assuming there is liability for Property or Liberty interest infringements which must always be considered when contemplating governmental action of any kind). For example, the June letter states ‘We ask you’ where it could easily have read ‘The Lord commands you through His authorized servants’. There is a big difference between the two. Thus the issue is unresolved as to whether the First Presidency is asking for this cooperation as Prophets, Seers and Revelators OR as mere men and concerned fellow citizens.

Thus, each person should study the doctrine and apply the principle of personal revelation so they can stand blameless before the Lord.

It’s not just the SSM issue: I have seen something of a bias towards those who are in some way critical of the Church, its leadership, its doctrines, its programs, or its members leanings.

“Murmurnacle”, as JMW called it, is an apt description of some of the prominently featured, highly placed, or frequently appearing blogs on Mormon Archipelago. LDSblogs.org may be the largest aggregator of LDS related blogs, but I trust and sincerely hope that it’s not a representative sample.

Come now. Libertarians think these things can be done better and more cost-effectively by the private sector — and without committing the atrocity of
coercion. It wasn’t all that long ago that your average Republican thought so too. People can and do congregate and cooperate on a voluntary basis.

You seriously misunderstand libertarian thought if you think libertarians “want” illiteracy and that they “want” poverty and that they “want” rampant
sickness and death. Actually, they “want” all these things to dwindle and go away, and believe liberty is the best way to achieve that.

But, just like the 1/3 of the hosts of heaven who
chose Satan’s plan — many people out there do
indeed fear liberty. The more they have allowed the government to take over their lives, the more
they fear it.

It’s not a misunderstanding. Getting rid of socialized government services like schools, roads, libraries and welfare would in fact do a great deal of harm to others.

Umm, agency IS the prime directive, is it not…? It is pretty hard to get to arrive at correct conclusions when your premise is faulty. And the Libertarians have the correct starting point.

The idea that righteousness cannot be achieved at the point of a gun is central to the Plan of Salvation. Perhaps we ought not to forget that when we hear about political platforms that promote forcefully confiscating the property of others for the purpose of redistributing it to the satisfaction of some entity in an office somewhere. Or when we hear about parties that would deprive of us every civil liberty to assure our security…..

Libertarians are the people who point out how wildly aggressive our government and our society as a whole have become. If you think about it, their assertion is actually correct: Every law and regulation does have a gun at the end of it. When there is a gun pointed at you, you are no longer operating within the realm of reason and persuasion – and reason is the realm that the Lord operates within.

The suggestion that Libertarians are “all about me” is based upon misunderstanding. Libertarians value personal liberty to the extent that they do no harm to others. There is nothing in that statement to suggest they oppose voluntary charity or belonging to organizations devoted to good works. Conversely, they believe that private individuals and private organizations are much more effective at accomplishing good works for mankind than the government. Our own experiences in doing service in the Church lets us know how true this is.

Even though I disagree with them those who argue that state intervention in marriage is good because of issues such as say stopping promiscuity can point to stable relationships without necessarily pointing to marriage. So I just don’t see the necessary state intervention on human relationships as marriage

You say you’re glad your parents marriage started with a trip to the courthouse. Could you explain why? To me my trip to the courthouse was an annoyance and pointless.

That doesn’t mean I’m not still a political junkie, and love to watch the upcoming race. I just find that on a purely religious footing, both major parties are telestial material. Libertarians only have the concept of agency going for them, and it doesn’t go very far.

Mark’s Biblically Balanced Agenda idea is interesting, but ultimately, I’m growing more wary of trying to equate political philosophies with the timeless gospel.