RobertAC Posted November 21, 2012 Posted November 21, 2012 My dad tried to tell me that one of my libertarian positions was putting me in opposition to Heavenly Father. (It was something I felt should be a moral matter between an adult and his God, not his government, and one that he's only asked members of the Church to act in a certain way as a mark of the covenant, and not something he's commanded to non-members as well.)Egad. That is tough. Unfortunately, whereever one falls on the political spectrum there will be political issues that one will have to consider from a moral perspective as well.
Mark Beesley Posted November 21, 2012 Posted November 21, 2012 Yet we aren't supposed to be one at all costs. We're supposed to be one in the same doctrine and belief which happens to be dictated by the Lord.Incorrect. There is one person who we must all agree with and that is the Lord. He has authorized representatives on the earth who establish and publish his doctrine. Therefore, we must be one with the doctrine. If the Lord says no Socialism or no ssm (and he has said both via that operation), then if we are to be one, it is that belief which we must agree on.Where did the Lord say, No Socialism?United OrderLaw of ConsecrationTithingFast OfferingThese are all socialist in nature. There are many forms of socialism. Try not be exhibit a knee-jerk reaction when you see the term. 2
BCSpace Posted November 21, 2012 Posted November 21, 2012 My outsider-looking-in sense is that Mormons may tend to be conservative, but it seems that they are more libertarian.Could be. Agency for example. Let the people do what they want and suffer the consequences. But there are significant problems with that in each case you can think of:1) Same sex marriage. I believe any consenting adult should be able to legally enter into any kind of relationship they want. And by and large, they can in the USA in every state. The real question is should the state (the people who may believe differently) recognize and/or benefit such relationships? I say no, it shouldn't except in the case of heterosexual marriage.2) Abortion as a method of birth control. Common sense libertarianism is that when two people choose to have sex, they choose to accept the consequence of pregnancy and not execute the unborn because of their mistake.3) Legalization of any drug. Drug use negatively affects other people.
Mark Beesley Posted November 21, 2012 Posted November 21, 2012 3) Legalization of any drug. Drug use negatively affects other people.Religious extremism negatively affects other people. What's your point?
Nathair/|\ Posted November 21, 2012 Posted November 21, 2012 Where did the Lord say, No Socialism?United OrderLaw of ConsecrationTithingFast OfferingThese are all socialist in nature. There are many forms of socialism. Try not be exhibit a knee-jerk reaction when you see the term.Can you be put in jail if you don't contribute to any of these programs?
Mark Beesley Posted November 21, 2012 Posted November 21, 2012 Can you be put in jail if you don't contribute to any of these programs?You can be barred from the temple. Which is worse?
Nathair/|\ Posted November 21, 2012 Posted November 21, 2012 Could be. Agency for example. Let the people do what they want and suffer the consequences. But there are significant problems with that in each case you can think of:1) Same sex marriage. I believe any consenting adult should be able to legally enter into any kind of relationship they want. And by and large, they can in the USA in every state. The real question is should the state (the people who may believe differently) recognize and/or benefit such relationships? I say no, it shouldn't except in the case of heterosexual marriage.2) Abortion as a method of birth control. Common sense libertarianism is that when two people choose to have sex, they choose to accept the consequence of pregnancy and not execute the unborn because of their mistake.3) Legalization of any drug. Drug use negatively affects other people. The majority of Libertarians I know are pro-life on the grounds that abortion violates the rights of a human being who can't fight for their own rights.
BCSpace Posted November 21, 2012 Posted November 21, 2012 (edited) Where did the Lord say, No Socialism?United OrderLaw of ConsecrationTithingFast OfferingSee my siggy on the Law of Consecration from the official doctrine of the Church. For example:Some have suggested that the practice of the law of consecration and the system of the united order are only a religious kind of socialism or communism. Others assert that it was a development either from the economic philosophies of Joseph Smith’s day or from communal experiments within the new religion. Such assumptions are false. The Prophet Joseph Smith attended a presentation on socialism in September 1843 at Nauvoo. His response was to declare that he “did not believe the doctrine” (History of the Church, 6:33). In more recent times Elder Marion G. Romney outlined the differences between the revealed system of the united order and the socialistic programs:“(1) The cornerstone of the United Order is belief in God and acceptance of him as Lord of the earth and the author of the United Order.“Socialism, wholly materialistic, is founded in the wisdom of men and not of God. Although all socialists may not be atheists, none of them in theory or practice seek the Lord to establish his righteousness.“(2) The United Order is implemented by the voluntary free-will actions of men, evidenced by a consecration of all their property to the Church of God.“… Socialism is implemented by external force, the power of the state.“(3) … The United Order is operated upon the principle of private ownership and individual management.“Thus in both implementation and ownership and management of property, the United Order preserves to men their God-given agency, while socialism deprives them of it.“(4) The United Order is non-political.“Socialism is political, both in theory and practice. It is thus exposed to, and riddled by, the corruption that plagues and finally destroys all political governments that undertake to abridge man’s agency.“(5) A righteous people is a prerequisite to the United Order.“Socialism argues that it as a system will eliminate the evils of the profit motive.“They had all things common.” The phrase “they had all things common” ( Acts 4:32 ; see also Acts 2:44 ; 3 Nephi 26:19 ; 4 Nephi 1:3 ) is used to characterize those who lived the law of consecration in ancient times. Some have speculated that the term common suggests a type of communalism or “Christian Communism.” This interpretation is in error. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught the true nature of having all things common: “I preached on the stand about one hour on the 2nd chapter of Acts , designing to show the folly of common stock [holding property in common]. In Nauvoo every one is steward over his own [property].” ( History of the Church, 6:37–38.)Each stewardship is considered private property (see Reading L-4 ), and the residues and surpluses consecrated for the storehouse became the “common property of the whole church” ( D&C 82:18 ). It is referred to as the “common property” because the covenant members of the order had access to it, according to their just “wants” and “needs,” including the need to improve their stewardship (see D&C 82:17–18 ).The word equal is frequently used in the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants: “In . . . temporal things you shall be equal” ( D&C 70:14 ); “for if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things” ( D&C 78:6 ); “appoint unto this people their portions, every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs” ( D&C 51:3 ). The Lord gave His definition of the term equal: “And you are to be equal, or in other words, you are to have equal claims on the properties, for the benefit of managing the concerns of your stewardships, every man according to his wants and his needs, inasmuch as his wants are just” ( D&C 82:17 )......................“This procedure [of providing deeds] preserved in every man the right of private ownership and management of his property. Indeed, the fundamental principle of the system was the private ownership of property. Each man owned his portion, or inheritance, or stewardship, with an absolute title, which, at his option, he could alienate [transfer], keep and operate, or otherwise treat as his own. The Church did not own all of the property, and life under the united order was not, and never will be, a communal life, as the Prophet Joseph himself said......................President Lorenzo Snow emphasized the importance of individual agency in moving forward the work of consecration: “In things that pertain to celestial glory there can be no forced operations. We must do according as the Spirit of the Lord operates upon our understandings and feelings. We cannot be crowded into matters, however great might be the blessing attending such procedure. We cannot be forced into living a celestial law; we must do this ourselves, of our own free will. And whatever we do in regard to the principles of the United Order, we must do it because we desire to do it. Some of us are practising in the spirit of the United Order, doing more than the law of tithing requires.” (In Journal of Discourses, 19:346.)Can you be put in jail if you don't contribute to any of these programs?You can be barred from the temple. Which is worse?Fortunately, none of the things you mentioned falls under the socialist category. Edited November 21, 2012 by BCSpace
canard78 Posted November 21, 2012 Posted November 21, 2012 Some of the drivvle on this thread about 'cognitive dissonance' and 'liberalism against the gospel' is an embarrassment to this global church. You Republican Mormons who somehow think you on a religious moral high-ground are just wrong and ignorant. Did the man you vote for promise to make alcohol illegal? No? My word, how did you possibly rationalise the ability to give your support? What was it the prophet of the restoration said... "we teach correct principles and let them govern themselves."The idea that your vote is motivated by how the government legislates on what happens in someone's bedroom is crazy.Why is your religious view more important than another person's religious view? Romney lost. Nearly 1 in 4 US Mormons helped that happen and are celebrating. In 4 years time the next GOP candidate will probably more moderate than before. Then who will you vote for? 1
Mark Beesley Posted November 21, 2012 Posted November 21, 2012 See my siggy on the Law of Consecration from the official doctrine of the Church. For example:You crack me up.Have a nice life BC.
Bikeemikey Posted November 21, 2012 Posted November 21, 2012 (edited) When you vote you are supposedly telling us whether or not you personally agree with something. If you didn't personally agree with something why would you vote for it as if you agreed?You get a question on an issue and you then say Yes or No. You're not supposed to say both Yes and No.This is the great flaw in your perspective of freedom liberty and the role of govt.It is essential that we support that which we don't agree with. With out that tolerance and mutually ensured freedom democracy fails. Edited November 21, 2012 by Bikeemikey
Sky Posted November 21, 2012 Author Posted November 21, 2012 Can you be put in jail if you don't contribute to any of these programs?No, but in the case of tithing, you can't enjoy the full benefits of Church membership if you don't pay, such as a temple recommend and certain church callings. And some day, last I heard, the anticipation is that we will be required to live the full Law of Consecration. Maybe that will happen when we relocate back to Missouri.
Bikeemikey Posted November 21, 2012 Posted November 21, 2012 The majority of Libertarians I know are pro-life on the grounds that abortion violates the rights of a human being who can't fight for their own rights.They are also pro drug law liberalization and against the current SSM position as proposed by the republicans.One out of three is generally a failing grade.
Nathair/|\ Posted November 21, 2012 Posted November 21, 2012 They are also pro drug law liberalization and against the current SSM position as proposed by the republicans.One out of three is generally a failing grade.Most believe that recreational drug use is moronic, but it should be a private choice. I can't speak for all Libertarians, just the ones I speak to, but most of those would prefer to see the state entirely out of the marriage game.
Sky Posted November 21, 2012 Author Posted November 21, 2012 I agree with you because I'm a dissenter. But what do you make of this charge found in D&C 38? "I say unto you be one; and if you are not one, you are not mine."Anyway, there was a time when it was easy to tell when the prophet was speaking for God and not simply for himself, because he would actually speak in the capacity of a mouthpiece. He would speak as if he were the Lord Himself... I say unto you. "Prophet, seer, and revelator" was more than a mere title of authority in those days.We have a lot of preaching from the early days recorded in the Journal of Discourses. It contains records of Church officials speaking in their capacities as Church leaders. Some of their teachings are rather surprising and wouldn't pass for "official" doctrines today; not that they were true then and false now, but that we feel they just aren't reliable. We sometimes say that those men were speaking speculatively and not officially, yet they spoke often in conferences of the Church and the people then believed them.As far as I can tell, the Brethren never speak for the Lord these days, either. We never have anybody acting as Voice for God; there is nothing worthy of the D&C. It's mostly repetition of past ideas (which we haven't perfected in practice--or ever will--and are therefore doomed to hear repeated ad nauseum), or policy that may or may not be in effect next year. Notice how, when some new policy is announced, the brethren always use the language of "we." We feel, we think, we are inspired, we, we, we. The announcement is made on behalf of the leadership, not of God. It must be inspired, though, right? Someone felt inspired, unlike all those former leaders who made claims, never canonized, that are recorded in some tome now considered unreliable and subsequently dismissed? I can picture all of the recent pronouncements of the brethren as falling under these same suspicions, just like the things in the Journal of Discourses. Forget what the brethren said then; they spoke no universal truths that we haven't already heard (A Bible! We have got a bible and we need no more bible). We can't augment our canon any longer, because, wouldn't you know it, we have a living prophet who preempts whatever the scriptures say, and his words now have expiration dates on them. So the canon has been closed for quite a while now, if you haven't noticed. In other words, it's so "open" that it's irrelevant.How do we know the Brethren are speaking for God when they are de-facto speaking for the Church via the language of "we" and leaving the implicit understanding that because they are in authority, they are also representing the Lord's mind? If there has been a consensus among the brethren that is understood to be the will of God, why not put it in those terms? Why risk the same marginalization that has come to plague other speech once uttered by Church authorities that is now considered speculative in nature? Could we not consider all that is said under these conditions as speculative?Joseph Smith knew the voice of God and wasn't afraid to use it. And when God spoke, we wrote it down, as it were, in stone tablets. You either believed it, or you were out. Joseph Smith didn't leave much room for dissenters like me. He was aiming for a people who needed no king because they were of one mind. We aren't those people, so we have a shadow of what we once had--endless echoes of the Voice of God and a Church that is merely the symbol of another Church that can't seem to last for long in this crazy world.I personally think it's a good thing that we hear a lot less, shall we say, "colorful statements" made by contemporary Church leaders, as opposed to the early days of the Restoration, or for that matter, even several decades ago. They have seemed to cause the Church a lot of problems, at least in the eyes of our critics. On the other hand, I would hate it if our leaders ever became afraid to say anything that might offend some people. And it's where we as Church members tend to get hung up on things like politics and become less "one" like the scriptures command. When we become more "one" and we more fully live the revelations that have been given to us, then maybe someday the Lord will see fit to give us more. But we already have the fullness of the Gospel, which wasn't intended to be complicated or change much. I really don't believe there is a lack of revelation in this Church; if anything, we have too much and are unable to live it well. But we need both the authorized living oracles (i.e. prophets) and the scriptures in order for the Church to function properly. Otherwise, we would have all these little factions going off with their own interpretation of what the Gospel should be. At least this is how I see it.
Bikeemikey Posted November 21, 2012 Posted November 21, 2012 Look at the platform of the First mormon to run for president... old Joseph Smith... Liberal anyone?
Bikeemikey Posted November 21, 2012 Posted November 21, 2012 Most believe that recreational drug use is moronic, but it should be a private choice. I can't speak for all Libertarians, just the ones I speak to, but most of those would prefer to see the state entirely out of the marriage game.Join in the the "Government Involvement in Marriage" thread. There will be a limited window for reasonable though before it gets all messed up.
Bikeemikey Posted November 21, 2012 Posted November 21, 2012 I believe Joseph Smith sold alcohol out of his hotel in Nauvoo. He had the choice to make Nauvoo where alcohol was not permitted. He was in charge of the place. Yet, even after the Word of Wisdom he didn't do this.http://en.fairmormon.org/Word_of_Wisdom/Joseph_Smith_sold_liquor_in_NauvooPlease correct with it was a dry city.It seems that we mormons are much more militant about ensuring our private religious beliefs are forced upon the broader community, or is that just republicans.What would the LDS response be today if our prophet opened a hotel and sold alcohol, even pouring the drinks himself? What would the response be today if the prophet paid for a group meal on the Churches dime and paid for a nonmembers alcoholic beverage? Are we just a little to worried about stuff that just doesnt matter?
The Nehor Posted November 21, 2012 Posted November 21, 2012 You can be barred from the temple. Which is worse?Jail because you cannot go to the temple while incarcerated anyways.
Nathair/|\ Posted November 21, 2012 Posted November 21, 2012 Look at the platform of the First mormon to run for president... old Joseph Smith... Liberal anyone?Classically Liberal, yes. Modern Liberal? Not so much. 1
TAO Posted November 21, 2012 Posted November 21, 2012 Classically Liberal, yes. Modern Liberal? Not so much.This is it, pretty much, yeah.
thesometimesaint Posted November 21, 2012 Posted November 21, 2012 The reason is that LDS doctrine matches Conservatism quite closely. There is no place for modern Liberalism in any doctrine of the Church. For example, besides multiple moral issues, one can't use kings Benjamin or Mosiah to justify a large welfare state (a common left wing argument), because neither set up such a state but rather taught individual charity. Also the fundamental principle of the Law of Consecration is private property (see my siggy for the official source). And the list goes on and on. I can certainly imagine they feel like outsiders because to speak up often means to conflict with doctrine.When the Church says there are "good principles" in both parties, I note 1) It doesn't mention what these are and 2) I also note that both Conservatives and Liberals want to help the poor (we had a thread not long ago on how more religious and conservative states win in the charitable contribution category in case you don't believe me). So, especially given the doctrine above, that membership in the Church does not justify support for Socialism and the Welfare state as these issues bear directly on the fundamental doctrines of agency and personal responsibility.With the political neutrality thing, it has to be maintained else we cut we eliminate potential converts from the mix. If we believe the doctrine, then we believe in it's power to change hearts. There is a problem in the Church with people teaching watered down or incorrect doctrine or saying such a doctrine doesn't matter very much and anecdotally I'd say a majority of these are people of liberal bent.I have counseled with concerned/worried and publicly outspoken conservatives from time to time not to worry about Liberals speaking Liberalism in Church; that to teach the doctrine is the same as teaching conservatism so the proper response is simply to continue teaching from the scriptures, and the words of the prophets in the authorized publications. Similarly I have counseled upset liberals (usually both together because there was an argument) saying what's the problem if you believe the doctrine and the Church is true? Of course there is a problem if one doesn't believe the doctrine, but am I going to to counsel one doesn't have to believe the doctrine? Of course not.Perhaps. But the doctrine is the same on the Wasatch Front as it is in Boulder. For example, the Church still considers homosexual behavior an "abominable sin" and that the doctrine on it has not and will not change.http://www.mormonnew...nder-attractionBenton Harbor; Michigan
Senator Posted November 21, 2012 Posted November 21, 2012 Maybe that will happen when we relocate back to Missouri.Do you think there will be an actual relocation to Missouri?
thesometimesaint Posted November 21, 2012 Posted November 21, 2012 Look at the platform of the First mormon to run for president... old Joseph Smith... Liberal anyone?It's a mixed bag.http://www.lds.org/ensign/2009/02/joseph-smith-campaign-for-president-of-the-united-states?lang=eng
Ahab Posted November 21, 2012 Posted November 21, 2012 This is the great flaw in your perspective of freedom liberty and the role of govt.It is essential that we support that which we don't agree with. With out that tolerance and mutually ensured freedom democracy fails.We the people decide what we agree on and what we do not agree on.Why would we as a people ever want to support something we as a people do not agree with?I know we should tolerate other's weaknesses and shortcomings while realizing that none of us are perfect, yet, but at the same time we shouldn't approve of someone intentionally doing something we know is wrong. We should try to help people learn not to do what is wrong, which is why we sometimes need to make laws for people to follow. Those who then break those laws must pay the penalty for breaking those laws. We don't just toss the laws out the window because we realize people aren't perfect, yet, and one of the ways people learn not to do what is wrong is by having them pay the penalty for breaking a law.We're now at the point where some people don't seem to realize that ssm is wrong, because it just isn't good. You're suggesting that I approve of ssm, if you're saying that I should vote for it. I won't vote for it, though, because I know it is wrong, and I am in favor of making and upholding a law to let others know that it is wrong. That's what I'm saying by voting against it, and if others don't agree with my position they can vote to approve it. That is the way democracy works. And I can continue to not agree with it even if the majority votes to approve of it. There will never be a point when I have to approve of it in our socieity.
Recommended Posts