I Killed The "right-Wing Mormon Becomes Evangelical" Thread

[Stargazer]

This is my confession. Blame me.

That being said, I spent over an hour crafting a response in that thread in "In the News" only to have it closed out from under me. So, I will put a cap on it by posting what I was writing. Why will I do this? Because I am an insufferable pedant, and cannot bear that my deathless prose goes without being seen by my adoring Mormon Dialogue fans. Assuming I have any.

This is not a political thread -- in the sense of politics. This is a political thread in the sense of discussing which political/economic systems best expresses divine principles. If you want to bring up partisan politics, do it somewhere else. The fact is, there is NO political system on the earth today that God founded. At best, there is perhaps one political system founded under divine inspiration, but it would be fallacy to claim that God founded it.

I begin with a comment uttered by thesometimesaint.

Neither man imposed one is really voluntary.

To which Vance responded:

????

That doesn't make sense.

And I explain:

thesometimesaint is saying that no man-imposed political system is really voluntary. And he is absolutely correct. For that matter, no God-imposed system is really voluntary. The society in which a person finds themselves is generally one not of that person's choosing, because for virtually everyone they were born to it and had no voice in its founding, and have only a limited voice in its administration or continuance. The only choice offered in any system is "Will you go along with it, or not?" If you choose not to, you have only two alternatives -- remain within the system and suffer the consequences violating its rules, or leave it entirely. And when you leave it entirely, at least in modern times, the best you can do is to find another such system to live under -- assuming that the rules of your current system will allow you to leave, and that the system you choose to move to will allow you to do so. Of course, there is one large area of land remaining on earth which has not been occupied or claimed by any nation-state, but if you move there you better be prepared for some very harsh conditions: Marie Byrd Land in Antarctica. It happens that the USA may have a legitimate claim on this part of Antarctica, but the US has to this point not pressed the claim. But I digress.

All that being said, the politcal/economic systems which seem to permit the greatest range of expression and the greatest degree of personal freedom, while still remaining under the protection of an adequate rule of law, are the systems in place in the capitalist democratic republics. Which one does the best at this is arguable. I have my opinion, yours may differ.

But if one is to trust that God has tried to establish His preferred system on the earth from time to time, possibly the closest to what God wants us to live under is described in the Book of Judges in the Bible, and possibly the Nephite period of the judges as well. This was a system of almost nonexistent central government wrapped around a loose confederacy of polities all administered by judges -- and I am not talking Judge Dredd here, but what Joseph Smith described as "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves." Iceland had a similar system for about three hundred years from 960 AD until 1262. It has been referred to as the Icelandic Commonwealth.

This kind of system does not appear to fare very well over a long time. Because much depends upon the will of the people to maintain the status quo (by resisting efforts by either the wealthy or the crafty to introduce power politics), there seems to be a limited shelf-life. The polity established by the US Constitution appears to be a compromise between the Israelite/Nephite judge system and a limited monarchy. It has lasted for 224 years so far with rather remarkable stability, but given that the Israelite, and Icelandic systems all lasted in excess of 300 years before being changed to a more centralized authoritarian system, it hasn't yet proven to be more durable. Time will tell.

So, what kind of Government do you think would please God most? One that intrudes into people's everyday lives, or one that is realtively hands-off? And stay away from party politics. There is no party. There is only prinicple.

[BCSpace]

So, what kind of Government do you think would please God most?

 

The principles of salvation are mirrored by Free Market Capitalism.

 

One earns interest (parable of the talents).

One accumulates wealth (lays up treasure in store).

Degree of Salvation is merit based.

Private property is the fundamental principle of the Law Of Consecration (see below) which is the true charity.

Like Free Market Capitalism, the Plan of Salvation is neutral.  It allows enticement from any direction and any good or evil therein comes from the individual. (2 Nephi 2).

 

What kind of government would allow these things?  According to the doctrine, certainly not one based on Socialist or other tyrannical principles:

 

“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.

 

...........

 

“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.)

 

http://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/enrichments/enrichment-l-the-law-of-consecration-and-stewardship?lang=eng

Edited November 5, 2013 by BCSpace

[jkwilliams]

Wow. Carl Wimmer was a rock star among a certain type of right-wing Mormons in Utah. I'm stunned.

[BCSpace]

Wow. Carl Wimmer was a rock star among a certain type of right-wing Mormons in Utah. I'm stunned.

 

Yeah. I would have expected someone like him to become an atheist instead of going back to an incomplete form of christianity.

Edited November 5, 2013 by BCSpace

[jkwilliams]

Yeah. I would have expected someone like him to become an atheist instead of going back to an incomplete form of christianity.

Why would you think that? If he thinks Mormonism isn't true Christianity (he implies that), it doesn't follow that he'd find Evangelical Christianity to be incomplete.

[BCSpace]

Yeah. I would have expected someone like him to become an atheist instead of going back to an incomplete form of christianity.

 

Why would you think that? If he thinks Mormonism isn't true Christianity (he implies that), it doesn't follow that he'd find Evangelical Christianity to be incomplete.

 

 

Experience.  The LDS Church has all the available answers and people who leave tend not to go backwards into ignorance.  Rather, after experiencing the ultimate in Christianity, they tend to conclude that religion isn't for them.  Can't speak for everyone of course.  It's just my experience in dealing with people.

Edited November 5, 2013 by BCSpace

[jkwilliams]

Experience.  The LDS Church has all the available answers and people who leave tend not to go backwards into ignorance.  Rather, after experiencing the ultimate in Christianity, they tend to conclude that religion isn't for them.  Can't speak for everyone of course.  It's just my experience in dealing with people.

Maybe he doesn't think Mormonism has all the answers or is the ultimate in Christianity. Just a thought.

I've known a number of ex-Mormons who gravitated towards fundamentalist Christianity, as he has. It's generally the kind of person who sees everything in stark terms, Mormon or not. So, although I'm shocked that Wimmer has left the LDS church, I'm not at all surprised where he landed. It's where I would have expected him to go.

[BCSpace]

I've known a number of ex-Mormons who gravitated towards fundamentalist Christianity, as he has.

 

 

I hear of them, but never knew one personally and I;ve been in positions to know all the stated reason reasons for ones who leave in a Stake or Area.

 

It's generally the kind of person who sees everything in stark terms, Mormon or not. So, although I'm shocked that Wimmer has left the LDS church, I'm not at all surprised where he landed. It's where I would have expected him to go.

 

I would have to say he didn't really know or understand the doctrine in the first place if he went that direction.  Again, my experience.

[jbarm]

Carl Wimmer is an interesting case.  He presents himself as having a typical LDS background (Aaronic priesthood, EQ president, temple marriage), but then casually mentions in the SL Trib article that he didn't go on a mission because he wanted to become a police officer instead.

 

I was never aware that the two things were mutually exclusive.

[jkwilliams]

I hear of them, but never knew one personally and I;ve been in positions to know all the stated reason reasons for ones who leave in a Stake or Area. 

 

I would have to say he didn't really know or understand the doctrine in the first place if he went that direction.  Again, my experience.

That's exactly what I would expect you to say. Like I said, from my perspective, it's a certain personality type that gravitates toward fundamentalism, both in politics and religion, so Wimmer's final destination, as it were, isn't surprising at all to me.

[BCSpace]

I was never aware that the two things were mutually exclusive.

 

It's possible to do all those things and not have served a mission.  I do think not serving can be a handicap in some cases in terms of knowing the doctrine.  A mission experience is a huge opportunity to study really deep and imho, is less somewhat likely to occur in the lifetime of an adult who never served unless they are exposed to opposition (and survive it testimony-wise).

[halconero]

Revelatory monarchy.

[thesometimesaint]

The principles of salvation are mirrored by Free Market Capitalism.

 

One earns interest (parable of the talents).

One accumulates wealth (lays up treasure in store).

Degree of Salvation is merit based.

Private property is the fundamental principle of the Law Of Consecration (see below) which is the true charity.

Like Free Market Capitalism, the Plan of Salvation is neutral.  It allows enticement from any direction and any good or evil therein comes from the individual. (2 Nephi 2).

 

What kind of government would allow these things?  According to the doctrine, certainly not one based on Socialist or other tyrannical principles:

 

Earning interest on money is roundly condemned in the Bible.

 

Accumulating wealth beyond what is necessary for ones needs is condemned in LDS Scripture and Temple presentation.

 

Nothing we do merits salvation. You can't earn your way into Heaven.

 

That is debatable as both the early Christians, the Nephites of the BoM, and the early Saints in the US held all things in common. Resulting in no poor(or rich) among them.

 

Socialism is an economic system. As such isn't a governmental system. The Saints in most of the industrialized world live under some type of Socialism, and are happy to do so.  Are they less of a Saint than the rabid Capitalists here in the US?

[BCSpace]

I would have to say he didn't really know or understand the doctrine in the first place if he went that direction.  Again, my experience.

That's exactly what I would expect you to say. Like I said, from my perspective, it's a certain personality type that gravitates toward fundamentalism, both in politics and religion, so Wimmer's final destination, as it were, isn't surprising at all to me.

 

Yeah, I've noticed that many who leave the Church for "doctrinal reasons" got caught up in the baseless anti Mormon narrative and didn't have a solid doctrinal foundation to understand that the narrative was baseless.  For example, they believed erroneously that JS actually practiced polyandry or some such thing.

[Vance]

For that matter, no God-imposed system is really voluntary.

Unlike communism, God doesn't impose his will upon anyone at anytime. 

 

Unlike communism, people could leave the United Order any time.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Vance

[jkwilliams]

Yeah, I've noticed that many who leave the Church for "doctrinal reasons" got caught up in the baseless anti Mormon narrative and didn't have a solid doctrinal foundation to understand that the narrative was baseless.  For example, they believed erroneously that JS actually practiced polyandry or some such thing.

I dunno. It could be worse: they could believe that, unless two people are "cohabitating," they aren't actually having sex.

Edited November 5, 2013 by jkwilliams

[BCSpace]

Earning interest on money is roundly condemned in the Bible.

 

 

God demands interest on his investment:

 

24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:

25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.

26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:

27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.

 

Matthew 25

 

Accumulating wealth beyond what is necessary for ones needs is condemned in LDS Scripture and Temple presentation.

 

I never said or implied that one should.  However look more closely to the doctrine I quoted above:

 

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 ).

 

It's not likely to up to you to judge whether or not another's needs or wants are just.  Does this preclude saving for retirement?  A nice retirement?  A rainy day?  More capital to improve one's stewardship to help others?  Notice that all the principles involved here absolutely require an FMC to work as the LoC itself is not an economic system.  In order for the poor to be helped, wealth must be accumulated and that can't be done under any other system.

 

Nothing we do merits salvation. You can't earn your way into Heaven.

 

 

Notice I said degree of salvation, not salvation.

 

That is debatable as both the early Christians, the Nephites of the BoM, and the early Saints in the US held all things in common. Resulting in no poor(or rich) among them.

 

What's not debatable is what the doctrine is and that happens to be, as quoted and referenced above, that the LoC is not some form of communalism and the doctrine is that it's an error to say to say communalism is the proper interpretation of those verses.

 

We can of course choose to accept or reject the doctrine.  I accept it and I teach it in Church in lessons and talks as well.

 

Socialism is an economic system. As such isn't a governmental system.

 

 

Socialism requires a tyranny in order to function.

 

The Saints in most of the industrialized world live under some type of Socialism, and are happy to do so.  Are they less of a Saint than the rabid Capitalists here in the US?

 

Who said capitalists are rabid?  They function under the same conditions required by the plan of salvation; opposition and enticements from every direction (2 Nephi 2)  There are certainly brothers and sisters laboring under the weight of Socialism and maybe one day they will be free of it, but does that change the doctrine?  Of course not!

Edited November 5, 2013 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

Yeah, I've noticed that many who leave the Church for "doctrinal reasons" got caught up in the baseless anti Mormon narrative and didn't have a solid doctrinal foundation to understand that the narrative was baseless.  For example, they believed erroneously that JS actually practiced polyandry or some such thing.

I dunno. It could be worse: they could believe that, unless two people are "cohabitating," they aren't actually having sex.

 

Indeed it could be worse.  They could speculate two people are having sex merely because they are sealed yet not cohabiting and also having good relations with their husbands.

Edited November 5, 2013 by BCSpace

[jkwilliams]

Indeed it could be worse.  They could speculate two people are having sex merely because they are sealed and but yet not cohabiting and having good relations with their husbands.

If one of the participants says they had a child by the other, that takes it out of the realm of speculation. But then they never cohabitated, right? Silly man.

[BCSpace]

If one of the participants says they had a child by the other, that takes it out of the realm of speculation.

 

Assuming that's precisely what one meant AND assuming she didn't already consider herself divorced from her original husband.

[jkwilliams]

Assuming that's precisely what one meant AND assuming she didn't already consider herself divorced from her original husband.

Of course, given that she said only one of her children was his and that there is absolutely zero evidence she "considered herself divorced," I'd say I'm not the one speculating.

[BCSpace]

 there is absolutely zero evidence she "considered herself divorced," I'd say I'm not the one speculating.

 

Zero evidence? Apparently it's not me who's speculating:

 

Several evidences indicate that some sort of divorce or termination was inherent in *** excommunication or at least accompanied it chronologically.  Andrew Jenson’s notes reflect this perspective as he referred to *** a “formerly the wife of ***,”[41] also writing that *** “was married to Mr. ***.  When he left the Church she was sealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith.”[42]

 

 

 

Proof left to the student.

Edited November 5, 2013 by BCSpace

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

My vote is for the communist state of Lenin/Stalin. That truely is what God had in mind. I mean the BoM teaches it and stuff.

[jkwilliams]

Zero evidence? Apparently it's not me who's speculating:

 

 

 

Proof left to the student.

You got anything from her indicating a divorce?

[BCSpace]

You got anything from her indicating a divorce?

 

You got anything related specifically to what I said and your actual claim?