JarMan

Killing people is a time honored way of creating wealth as it frees up resources to be used by others.

And this is a "competitive based economic system" how? Nevermind I can see you're just joshing.

Successful genocide?

Do you not realize that the context here is economics or are you just being silly?

Can anyone define "success" in a manner which is consistent both with Mormon standards and a competitive based economic system?

The real question is whether there is any type of success that is inconsistent with Mormon standards. Why don't you give that a shot?

Rather than having to feed cheerios to runny-nosed little kids in the Church nursery room, why not spend that time feeding the ducks at the local duck pond? and rather than having all those endless, silly meetings to attend, wouldn't it be more meaningful to be able to just stay at home and watch your favorite TV show? and rather than doing all that annoying home and visiting teaching, wouldn't it be much better to spend that time shopping or doing chores? rather than wasting time at all those meaningless, unnecessary church activities, why not spend that time reading your favorite book or magazine? rather than the boy scouts spending so much of their valuable time working hard to finish their eagle badge service projects, wouldn't these young men be far better off if the could just go to their friend's house and play video games? instead of the Relief Society sisters spending valuable time making center pieces for the next ward dinner social, why not spend that time knitting an elegant doily for their own home's dining room table.

Life as a Latter-day Saint would be so much more meaningful if we could do what we want to do, rather than feeling obligated to spend so much time doing busywork.

Finally. Somebody who understands me.

Brother, you need a breather. A nice long vacation without a cellphone. You need to decompress, and only you know how that can be done in your case.

Go on a service mission, if you are retired or can take time off without suffering financially.

Pick up and move. Get a new job in another part of the country, then sell the house.

This IS me decompressing.

Do something. A beau geste. Anything.

No, thanks. I'm happily married. No beaus for me, bro.

Good point.

And an interesting question: Is the Book of Mormon "a bridge too far"? Sounds like a good title for a major article or book in which the author comes to grips with the hard issues. And it wouldn't really matter what his conclusion might be, only that he tackle the issues with respect and scholarship.

However, what are those hard issues, and what makes the whole "bridge" theory seem so "tenuous" to you?

I don't have a problem with the Book of Mormon. In fact, I love the Book of Mormon. But then I compare the Book of Mormon to the Mormon Church and I feel like there's been a bait and switch. There's all this baggage with the church. And I don't mean the troubling aspects of church history. I mean all of these doctrines that aren't in the Book of Mormon that show up elsewhere: the nature of the priesthood, the saving ordinances, temple work for the dead, polygamy, the law of consecration, eternal families, the word of wisdom, home teaching.

If I was a new member who'd been converted by reading the Book of Mormon, I'd feel like I entered a wormhole and ended up feeding cheerios to runny-nosed kids in the nursery. As it is, I'm a life-long member but I feel like the world of meetings, meetings, home teaching, activities and meetings exists in a different universe than the simple doctrines of the Book of Mormon. Meanwhile, the scouts are trying to finish their eagle projects, the relief society sisters are happily making center pieces, and the priesthood leaders are absolutely convinced that if we can boost home teaching numbers, that not only will their souls as quorum leaders be saved, but the souls of both the home teachers and the home teachees will have a decent chance, as well.

I haven't noticed a "sea change" regarding polygamy among LDS (especially not amongst the rank and file, non-internet Mormons). I have seen a lot more discussion regarding Joseph Smith's polygamy. And discussion about some of the more troubling aspects of it. But as far as attitudes towards the general practice of polygamy in Utah in the 19th Century, I'm not seeing anything different than what I've always seen.

The Book of Mormon teaches the Doctrine of Christ more clearly than any other volume of scripture. The Doctrine of Christ is essential for the Church to exist.

I disagree that it teaches the Doctrine of Christ more clearly than the New Testament. The two are approximately equal in my estimation. And there are many things regarding Christ that are taught in the D&C and Pearl of Great Price that are absent from the Book of Mormon.

It also teaches that Revelation continues.

Hmmm. . . I'm trying to think of what you're referring to, here. I'm kinda slow, so help me out here.

If the founder of the Catholic church (Constantine?) would have claimed the New Testament was delivered to him by an angel, then the truthfullness of the bible would indeed be the test for accepting that religion. But no such claim exists. I suppose the Koran is a better parallel, and if I judged the Koran to be scripture, then I should be a Muslim. But I don't so I'm not.

Catholics claim a direct line from Christ through their first pope, Peter. How is that claim any less than the LDS claims of angelic visitations?

But if the BOM is scripture, I guess the only choice to make is between the LDS church and...the Temple Lot folks? The CofC has given up all claims of divine authority and Warren Jeffs is a nut case.

Is that all the choices you can think of? There are dozens of organized churches that claim the Book of Mormon as divine scripture. I imagine there are also many individuals who accept the Book of Mormon who don't identify officially with any organized church.

What I think I am understanding from this discussion is that, doctrinally, the D&C is really the keystone of Mormonism. (After all, that's where we find out about temple ordinances, the organization of the leadership of the church, details on the priesthood, and the nature of the godhead, just to name a few.) The Book of Mormon is essentially a "bridge" that gets us to Joseph Smith and, therefore, to the D&C.

But what if the Book of Mormon as a "bridge" to the rest of the church is a "bridge too far"? I accept the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, having received a spiritual witness of it. But I don't see how this requires me to accept Mormonism as a whole any more than accepting the truthfulness of the Bible requires me to accept Catholicism as a whole. (I'm not saying I reject Mormonism, either. Only that the "bridge" theory seems tenuous to me.)

The Book of Mormon is the keystone in our witness of Jesus Christ, who is Himself the cornerstone of everything we do. It bears witness of His reality with power and clarity. Unlike the Bible, which passed through generations of copyists, translators, and corrupt religionists who tampered with the text, the Book of Mormon came from writer to reader in just one inspired step of translation. Therefore, its testimony of the Master is clear, undiluted, and full of power. But it does even more. Much of the Christian world today rejects the divinity of the Savior. They question His miraculous birth, His perfect life, and the reality of His glorious resurrection. The Book of Mormon teaches in plain and unmistakable terms about the truth of all of those. It also provides the most complete explanation of the doctrine of the Atonement. Truly, this divinely inspired book is a keystone in bearing witness to the world that Jesus is the Christ (see title page of the Book of Mormon).

The Book of Mormon is also the keystone of the doctrine of the Resurrection. As mentioned before, the Lord Himself has stated that the Book of Mormon contains the “fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ” (D&C 20:9). That does not mean it contains every teaching, every doctrine ever revealed. Rather, it means that in the Book of Mormon we will find the fulness of those doctrines required for our salvation. And they are taught plainly and simply so that even children can learn the ways of salvation and exaltation. The Book of Mormon offers so much that broadens our understandings of the doctrines of salvation. Without it, much of what is taught in other scriptures would not be nearly so plain and precious.

The Bible already has the fulness of the gospel. This description is essentially saying that the Book of Mormon is window-dressing for the Bible.

Finally, the Book of Mormon is the keystone of testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon, for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church. But in like manner, if the Book of Mormon be true—and millions have now testified that they have the witness of the Spirit that it is indeed true—then one must accept the claims of the Restoration and all that accompanies it."

Does the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon really prove the truthfulness of the church? Does the truthfulness of the Bible prove the truthfulness of Catholicism?

A good indication of what the LDS Church would be like without the Book of Mormon can be gained by examining what has happened to the RLDS Church as it made the transition to the Community of Christ. You are seeing a veritable collapse.

Have they abandoned the Book of Mormon? i thought they just don't accept it literally.

An arch will collapse without a keystone. But what would the church be without the Book of Mormon? Specifically, I'm interested in identifying doctrines that occur in the Book of Mormon but not in any of the other standard works. I can't think of any off hand, but then again, I'm not much of a scriptural scholar. So help me out, here. What doctrines are found exclusively in the Book of Mormon?

None of the above were/are socialistic.

Look, I know you want to try and differentiate between communism and socialism. But the truth is that both have the same end game in mind. They just have a different means for achieving it. Communism is affected by revolution, and socialism by evolution. Revolution can be achieved in a country that already has a centralized government because you "simply" have to overthrow the government and replace it with a communist one. In western democracies the power is not centralized like it was in, for instance, czarist Russia. So there's really no way to effect a coup d'etat. Instead, socialism is implemented gradually through the democratic process. . . "evolution." But when it comes down to it, the philosophies are the same. Compare the Communist Manifesto or the writings of Lenin or Mao to modern day Socialist platforms and you'll see just how similar the philosophies underlying both systems are.

Whoa! My neighbors in NH would take umbrage to considering radical libertarian an insult, and we have a fair number of anarchists out here as well. The arguments you have been making are normally made by either libertarians of the more radical strain or anarchists. Except I am not sure of your stance on social moral issues as to whether you feel that the government should stay out of those as well, or just the money making or job creating areas. Is social engineering in the form of determining whether women should bear a fetus through until birth something that the government should stay out of? How about whether government should require disclosure of the content of food products? Should the government step in to prevent a corporation from setting up a monopoly? Should the government regulate work place safety, childhood labor? Should the military intervene to protect American business assets overseas? or to make sure that American have access? Do we educate everyone, or just those children whose parents can afford to pay for it? When a private investor builds a building which is a magnet for terrorist attacks and will cause massive consumption of government resources if it burns, gets attacked, etc. should they charge a special user fee to cover the anticipated governmental costs involved when the almost inevitable happens? Should the government refrain from being involved if private industry is allowing the air to become unbreathable, the water undrinkable, etc.

I don't think you meant "radical libertarian" or "anarchist" as a compliment. Besides, it's just not accurate. The ideas I have been espousing are pretty mainstream conservative with a libertarian bent. But enough about that. Your post is another example of spouting off an endless stream of ideas without focusing on a single one. When someone challenges you on an issue you simply bring up a new one. This is hardly a productive way to have a discussion.

So let's start over and see if we can focus on a single issue at a time. What drew me to this thread was your first sentence in your OP where you compare taxation to tithing. This goes hand-in-hand with something else you have stated several times which is your disagreement with the argument that socialism is immoral because of coercion. What I haven't heard from you yet is a reasoned refutation of this argument. Where does this argument fail? You've expressed disagreement, now the burden is on you to show how it is wrong.

Yep, unless you are a radical libertarian or an anarchist -- which seems to be the trend on this thread.

If you want to have a real debate on the issues you should refrain from name calling. Nobody's calling you a filthy socialist or anything equivalent.

You like to take all kinds of shots at an ideal that you don't like. When I try to discuss the actual issues you simply move on to your next line of attack without addressing what was brought up that refutes what you've said. Or your use ad hominems that do not advance your argument or the discussion. You apparently have a passion for this subject since you've brought it up many times in many different threads. I think if you will engage the issues you will find people willing to debate them with you. But if you continue your current tactics you'll probably find that people will give up on having a productive discussion.

Back to the OP topic. My speculation is that to extent there is an "economy" in heaven, it is a barter economy. Heh, I need some special microbes to kickstart this ocean project I am working on, I've got a bunch of extra fungi X can you help me out -- sort of thing.

Rather than try to debate essentially the same issue on two different threads (and to try not to derail this thread any further) I will respond only in your other thread.

I agree that Soviet Russia, China, and Cuba were dictatorships. Cuba and China still are dictatorships. Venezuela is not a dictatorship -- but is a radically socialist country. I have, however, been referring to the Western European socialist countries in this thread, they respect civil liberties and have freedom of religion. America's foreign policy has not been especially favorable to democratic countries, this is primarily because it is driven by business needs of American corporations, as a result we tend to favor capitalist dictatorships, or governments run by the economic elite, because it is much easier to do business with them. Democracies tend to be unpredictable, and socialist democracies tend to protect their workers so it is difficult for us to mine their labor. The most disturbing development has been the recent movement towards utilizing the labor of communist dictatorships as a source of cheap labor, it is enticing to American industrialists because they do not have to worry about working conditions, labors, or employee complaints -- as a result China has become a mecca for industries mining for labor. Communist dictatorships like China is do in fact hoard capital rather than spend it for the common good. However, that is not true of the Western democracies. The hoarding of wealth is an attribute of dictatorships, not necessarily the economic distribution system. Soviet and Maoist Communism did concentrate wealth in the party elites.

You've recited a bunch of socialist dogma but you haven't addressed the issues I brought up. Let's see if we can discuss the actual issues. First, you claim that socialist governments - particularly democratic socialist governments - don't accumulate wealth. Let's look at the U.S. government which is a socialist democracry (whether it's commonly identified as that, or not). This year they are planning on spending 3.7 trillion dollars. They also hold millions of square miles of land, countless federal buildings and other properties, loans, and thousands of other assets. I don't know the total worth of all of this but it must be in the magnitude of hundreds of trillions of dollars. This has got to be the largest concentration of wealth in the history of the world and totally dwarfs what even the largest corporations own. The Chinese government cannot be far behind on the amount of wealth they own and control. Western democracies in Europe and elsewhere also have vast accumulations of money and resources. If you truly believe that the accumulation of wealth is evil then you need to look at socialist governments (including the US) first and foremost.

Secondly, you have not addressed the crucial issue of who holds police powers. It's easy to point to corporations as evil, but in reality they do not have coercive power. If you want nothing to do with a particular corporation, don't buy their service or product. It's your choice. Government, however, functions much differently. You cannot avoid its influence. Government, by it's very nature, is power and coercion. The question is what you want governments to use this coercive power for. I think this power should be used sparingly in ways that protect life liberty and property.

First, the National Socialists, aka Nazis, were "Socialists" in roughly the same way that the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" was run by Republicans. It was a marketing term that reflected more the fascists' real roots in the radical ferment around socialism, but there is little question (beyond Goldberg's fanboy cult) that fascism generically and Nazism specifically were right-wing phenomena.

The citations available on this subject are numerous, but probably the clearest explanation comes from Robert O. Paxton in The Anatomy of Fascism, who explains that fascism for all its rhetoric was in practice closely aligned with and allied with capitalists and conservatives -- some of whom, years down the road, came to regret the association, but the vast majority of whom approved enthusiastically up through the war years. (Think Krupp.) They were also decidedly -- violently, murderously -- anti-socialist.

I said most were communist or socialist. I am specifically excluding the Nazi government. But I am not excluding the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Camodia, Cuba, and a host of other communist/socialist dictatorships.

Really. To what extent do large corporations already control countries? We think in modern terms that the government has a monoply on coercion, but the question really becomes who really controls the government?

If I don't want to buy a certain product, a company can't force me to buy it. Corporations don't have corporate police officers that can put me in corporate jail. If I don't want to pay taxes, the government does have police officers that will put me in jail. It's true that corporations pressure the government to take my money to give to them. Just like farmers, old people, sick people, poor people, and many others pressure the government to take my money away for their use. But it is the government, and the government only, that possesses the power of coercion. This power of coercion ought to be limited to the powers of coercion that we, as individual, possess: meaning the power to defend our life, liberty, and property.

Better put IMO as "only save those who desired to be saved".

In the context of this discussion I think it is important to point out that not all would be saved even under Jehovah's plan. The reason I bring this up is that socialists often use the argument that voluntary charity cannot possibly provide for all of the poor. The point is that with agency also comes suffering. The answer to suffering is not to compel others in order to alleviate it. That was Lucifer's plan and is also the theory of socialism. Neither work. The correct answer to suffering is Christ's atonement. He not only payed for our sins, but through the atonement he also payed for all of the suffering the ever would exist in the world. Neither Lucifer nor earthly governments can accomplish what Christ's atonement accomplishes.

Almost every evil government on the earth in the last 100 years including Hitler and Stalin were dictatorship governments

And most were also communist or socialist.

No. The only types of government which accumulate wealth are monarchies and dictatorships. I believe most economists would agree that capitalism tends to concentrate wealth and large corporations tend to concentrate power. As to the myth of the American system spreading wealth far and wide you just have to look at our ranking as to the polarity and concentration of wealth as compared to the western democracies to refute that claim.

You are simply in denial if you don't think that socialist governments accumulate wealth. The US government (which has many socialistic aspects) is the wealthiest entity on earth. Furthermore, you have set up a false dichotomy because many socialistic or communistic governments are also dictatorships. Examples: Soviet Russia, cold war China, Cuba, Venezuela. There are many others.

And you keep saying that large corporations have all of this power. But they do not possess any police power. It is police powers which can be used to restrict our freedoms. And they are possessed solely by government. The powers that are possessed by the wealthy do not compel us in any way.

Theres more to it than meets the eye. Put all the pieces together- Satan was a liar we are told at that grand counsel. So, we cannot nor should not believe it ever was his intent to save us from the fall that inevitably would happen. Piece number 2- Satan wanted to be the only begotten son- the gift of immortality which is Gods glory. Who doesnt want immortality? Piece #3- We are told Satan sought to destroy our agency. We are then told immediately that those who follow Satans plan get just that-the destruction of their ageny being "led captive" to his will. The puzzle thus becomes complete- Satan is a liar and lied about wanting to save anyone. What he really wanted and still wants to this day is to see the gift of agency taken from us as we choose to follow his pkan of sin and the obvious captivity of that sin in all its agony.

This is a quite incomprehensible description of this very important doctrine. Let me help you put the pieces together. Lucifer proposed a plan which would 1) save all of us, 2) take away our free agency, 3) give him all power, and 4) give Elohim's glory to himself.

Jehovah's competing plan would 1) only save some, 2) give us our agency, 3) allow for an atonement by a sinless being, and 4) would glorify Elohim instead of Jehovah, even though Jehovah volunteered to be the sacrifice.

We rejected Lucifer's plan because, for one thing, it wouldn't work. He didn't have the power to save all of us. That part of his plan was a lie. Also, we realized that agency is necessary in order for eternal progression. Without the ability to choose we do not have the ability to learn and progress. Furthermore, we realized that our Father had created us and wanted what was best for us and that we should glorify Him.

I don't know how there is any way to interpret this doctrine to mean that morality forced upon us by a government is a good thing. In fact, many of the brethren over the years have clearly said that this war in heaven against our agency continues today by those such as governments who masquerade as doers of good, but who instead, are trying to do the exact thing that Lucifer said he would do under his plan.

As for taxes, why do you complain so much about things? Under your own view the government makes you pay to pave the roads you drive on. Dont agree with that? Well then, pave your own roads. Nd what about security of your property? Should we fire all the cops and just guard society on our own. Your views contradict your own basis of freedom.

Accusing me of complaining is really just a veiled ad hominem that does nothing to advance your argument. And you've totally misunderstood the significance of the government paving roads. Government does this with a user fee in the form of a gas tax. If you don't want to pay the gas tax simply don't drive on the roads. It's a non-compulsory tax unlike the compulsory taxes that pay for social welfare.

As for security of property, I specifically said that government does have the moral right to have police. They have that moral right because we ourselves have the moral right to defend ourselves and our property. We can morally use compulsion to defend ourselves, therefore we can delegate that right to a government to do it more efficiently.

From reading these comments it becomes obvious that at the crux of the disagreements are differing views as to the significance of the word own and distrust of government. As I see it we either move towards a socialistic democracy or a corporate oligarchy. Personally I would rather have the right to vote along with my neighbours than to be governed by several corporate boards controlled by a limited number of majority shareholders.

I don't think you've understood the crux of the disagreement at all. It is disingenuous to talk about being governed by corporations. They do not and cannot govern since they do not possess police powers. Only government holds police powers. The crux of the disagreement concerns what limits should be placed on the police powers of governments since police power is the power to coerce.