The Economy Of Heaven

[Rob Osborn]

He indeed did want to save us. Not because of concern for us, but because he wanted glory for doing it.

No, Satan did not get what he always wanted. He (and we) got Jehovah's plan instead, which is agency. Satan is now required to play by those rules. You can't pretend that we got Satan's plan when we know that we got Jehovah's plan.

The government is indeed forcing us to give to charity. Money is forcibly taken from my paycheck and everybody else's to give to "the poor." I do not pay this money voluntarily. The fact that our government is elected does not change that.

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.

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.

[Stone holm]

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.

[Sleeper Cell]

And Solzhenitsyn also condemned the capitalistic West as materialistic and spiritually bankrupt. See link:

http://blogs.telegra...t_want_to_know/

(Quote from link: "Obituary comments on Alexander Solzhenitsyn have understandably concentrated on his courageous rejection and defiance of Communism and the sufferings he incurred as a consequence. Yet his relevance today derives more from his equally emphatic denunciation of Western liberal materialism.")

Actually, according to your own link, he was condemning “the politically correct liberal consensus,” (whose adherents tend to be much closer to democratic socialism than right wing, free enterprise capitalism).

Solzhenitsyn offended unforgivably against the politically correct liberal consensus, especially in deploring Western man's loss of awareness of the divine and cultivation of an "anthropocentricity" dating from the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.

and:

he denounced materialism and the welfare state, while pointing out the biological analogy whereby "extreme safety and well-"being, such as had come to be regarded as a birthright in the West, led to extinction.

and:

His attack on the confusion of legality with morality – previously a phenomenon of totalitarian regimes such as the Soviet Union and the Third Reich – subverted the legitimacy of those who sought to make abortion and eventually human/animal embryology respectable through legality.

and:

.His antennae, made more sensitive by decades of exposure to totalitarian double-speak, had detected the malaise of Frankfurt School Marxism rotting the West: the hypocrisy of the United Nations, promoting contraception in Third World populations to protect Western living standards; the de-Christianisation of Europe; the totalitarian ambitions of the European Union; and what would soon become the tsunami of materialist amorality, rebarbative science, the deadening of conscience by Dawkinsguff – every nightmare that is now dissolving civilisation and humanity. We should have listened.

[JarMan]

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.

[Stone holm]

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.

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?

[JarMan]

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.

[Calm]

Jehovah's competing plan would 1) only save some

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

[JarMan]

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.

[JarMan]

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.

[thesometimesaint]

You are misunderstanding the justification for use of force by the government. Since everybody personally has a right to defend themselves and their property, they can essentially delegate that power to the government. However, we do not have a right to take what belongs to somebody else. Therefore it is not a power that we can delegate to the government.

Incorrect. We gave our government the power to tax in the US Constitution. We gave the power of taking of private property for public use in the US Constitution. We even gave the government to power of life and death in the US Constitution.

[thesometimesaint]

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.

Actually they do have the police powers when granted by the government. The close association of money and power has been long recognized in the Golden Rule."Those that have the gold rule". The combining of government and corporations is called fascism, or as Mussolini said: "Corporatism".

[thesometimesaint]

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.

See Debtors Prisons: http://www.alternet.org/economy/cruel-country-debtors-prisons-are-punishing-poor-across-america

SEE Corporate Jails http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prison

The US Constitution gives the government the power of coercion to take life, liberty and property.

Edited July 8, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Stone holm]

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.

Really. If you live in the United States try to buy non-GMO corn for your chickens and see just how much influence one corporation can have.

[Sleeper Cell]

We are starting to see a disturbing trend in America with the certain prison reforms where prisoners are released during the daytime to work for minimum wage and then returned to the prison at night. Given our broken drug enforcement system we have a huge and growing segment of the population incarcerated in either private or public owned prisons, as a result we may find ourselves with a fairly large semi slave population on our hands relatively soon.

Come on. Work release labor has been around for many decades. One summer, I worked as a member of a labor crew made up almost entirely of convicted felons on work release. None were exactly white collar criminals (murder, attempted murder of a cop, rape, selling drugs, etc.) I was not their “guard,” nor did I have any supervisory duties. I did the same work they did under the same working conditions, ate the same food, and received the same pay. Of course, unlike them, I could go home at night.

Semi-slave population? Why not call them “semi-kidnap victims?” The 13^th amendment makes a clear distinction between slavery and involuntary servitude imposed as “punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.” Besides, slaves usually don’t get paychecks.

[Stone holm]

Come on. Work release labor has been around for many decades. One summer, I worked as a member of a labor crew made up almost entirely of convicted felons on work release. None were exactly white collar criminals (murder, attempted murder of a cop, rape, selling drugs, etc.) I was not their “guard,” nor did I have any supervisory duties. I did the same work they did under the same working conditions, ate the same food, and received the same pay. Of course, unlike them, I could go home at night.

Semi-slave population? Why not call them “semi-kidnap victims?” The 13^th amendment makes a clear distinction between slavery and involuntary servitude imposed as “punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.” Besides, slaves usually don’t get paychecks.

Yes, but because of the huge increase in prisons,it is becoming more of an issue.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Really. If you live in the United States try to buy non-GMO corn for your chickens and see just how much influence one corporation can have.

One of these things is not like the other.

Noonynoonynoonynoo.

[thesometimesaint]

Come on. Work release labor has been around for many decades. One summer, I worked as a member of a labor crew made up almost entirely of convicted felons on work release. None were exactly white collar criminals (murder, attempted murder of a cop, rape, selling drugs, etc.) I was not their “guard,” nor did I have any supervisory duties. I did the same work they did under the same working conditions, ate the same food, and received the same pay. Of course, unlike them, I could go home at night.

Semi-slave population? Why not call them “semi-kidnap victims?” The 13^th amendment makes a clear distinction between slavery and involuntary servitude imposed as “punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.” Besides, slaves usually don’t get paychecks.

Yes you could go home at tonight, and vote. In many states conviction on a felony count permanently removes the right to vote.

Any paycheck that doesn't support an above poverty lifestyle is effectively involuntary servitude.

Ps; http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/07/the-fall-of-the-american-worker.html?mbid=gnep&google_editors_picks=true

Edited July 8, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Stone holm]

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.

[JarMan]

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.

[ksfisher]

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.

From D&C 76

55 They are they into whose hands the Father has given ^aallthings—

56 priests and ^bkings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory;

If we inherit all that the Father has what would we need? What would we have to barter that an exalted being who has everything would be lacking? And if we truly love all as the Father does why would we need some sort of payment for something that another needs?

Edited July 8, 2013 by ksfisher

[Stone holm]

From D&C 76

55 They are they into whose hands the Father has given ^aallthings—

56 priests and ^bkings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory;

If we inherit all that the Father has what would we need? What would we have to barter that an exalted being who has everything would be lacking? And if we truly love all as the Father does why would we need some sort of payment for something that another needs?

Important point. So you think there would be no economy in Heaven?

[ksfisher]

Important point. So you think there would be no economy in Heaven?

I would say that the "economy of Heaven" is based on love and the grace of God. We will be one with the Father just as the Son is. Your needs are my needs. The celestial kingdom, as I understand it, is a community of exalted beings (gods) who have pledged to love and care for one another. It would seem then that if one being was lacking in anything that it would be the desire of the other beings to provide that need.

[Stone holm]

I would say that the "economy of Heaven" is based on love and the grace of God. We will be one with the Father just as the Son is. Your needs are my needs. The celestial kingdom, as I understand it, is a community of exalted beings (gods) who have pledged to love and care for one another. It would seem then that if one being was lacking in anything that it would be the desire of the other beings to provide that need.

I suspect that you might be right. Given that probability, then why would we oppose economic systems that might train us in that direction?

[pmccombs1]

From D&C 76

55 They are they into whose hands the Father has given ^aallthings—

56 priests and ^bkings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory;

If we inherit all that the Father has what would we need? What would we have to barter that an exalted being who has everything would be lacking? And if we truly love all as the Father does why would we need some sort of payment for something that another needs?

Economy is much more than merely a way to distribute property in order to fulfill needs. Economy has to do with the management of the household of God. The economy of heaven is just this: that all things are done in wisdom and order.

[Stone holm]

Economy is much more than merely a way to distribute property in order to fulfill needs. Economy has to do with the management of the household of God. The economy of heaven is just this: that all things are done in wisdom and order.

So translate please.