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

[jkwilliams]

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

 

You're the one insisting she believed she was divorced. You have no evidence of that, just second-hand attempts by later authors to find a way to make this work. In fact, your evidence is no stronger than your own say-so.

 

One thing I've always wondered is why Sylvia waited until the end of her life to share that information with Josephine.

[BCSpace]

 

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

Y

You're the one insisting she believed she was divorced. You have no evidence of that,

 

 

Just gave it.  Why worry about second hand when that is what the critics rely on?  But if you were to have actually followed the references, you'd see that the Church at the time questioned the validity of civil ceremony as much as they did the validity of baptisms by other churches.  Hence the "second hand" evidence has very strong footing; very unlike the criticisms against the Church.  Personally, I'd go where the evidence leans, not the other way around.

[jkwilliams]

Just gave it.  Why worry about second hand when that is what the critics rely on?  But if you were to have actually followed the references, you'd see that the Church at the time questioned the validity of civil ceremony as much as they did the validity of baptisms by other churches.  Hence the "second hand" evidence has very strong footing; very unlike the criticisms against the Church.  Personally, I'd go where the evidence leans, not the other way around.

 

You claim that she believed that she was divorce. Whether or not the "church" believed that, it doesn't mean she did. Again, you have zero evidence for what you've claimed. And of course, you know that there's nothing contemporary from Joseph Smith saying that civil marriages had been invalidated by the restoration. You have nothing.

[Stargazer]

Revelatory monarchy.

OK, but that's the Millennium; what about now?

[halconero]

OK, but that's the Millennium; what about now?

 

The difficulty with finding THE suitable government with which Heavenly Father is pleased in the here and now is that He keeps adapting it to the circumstances in which we find ourselves. The Revelatory Monarchy (Triarchy if you want to get technical) really is the ideal government. 

 

In the past we have seen God give governments ensconced in economic systems including Patriarchal pastoralism (Adam-Jacob), Theocratic brigandage (Moses-Joshua), Aristocratic/Oligarchic barter/market systems, Monarchical command-economies (David and arguably Solomon), and Republican free-market (The United States).

 

I don't think anyone of these is more ideal, or the exemplar of the perfect system. Each is a telestial holdover until a terrestrial government is established during the Millenium. God adapts governments, and economies just as much as everything else, to the Children of Men, in my opinion.

 

As of right now, the most recent guidelines that we have from canon, on the Latter-day Saint belief on government are outlined in D&C 134. These are the main points:

 

- They should secure individual rights to free conscience, property, and protection of life

 

- It should be a just and legally equitable to all

 

- May be a republic or monarchy

 

- Should allow for and protect religious plurality

 

- Should receive due service and support of the people

 

- It should punish sedition

 

- The government should have the right to enact laws that are, in their

own judgements, best for the public

 

- It should be a secular government

 

- It should have the power to arbitrate the breach of civil and criminal law

 

This framework allows for many different types of government and economies. Some would argue that in a democracy the people have the right to ask the government to including medicine, social welfare and other items within the right to the protection of life. Others would say that government should be minimal, and that any intrusion or over-taxation is unjust. Others believe that a republic is better than a monarchy.

 

I don't see any of that here. I think Heavenly Father has foreordained and helped support a number of governments and heads of state that may not reflect our personal ideal. We must remember that the Kingdom of Heaven, in so far as its acting in the capacity of a government and religion, is not yet of this earth.

[Stargazer]

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.

The Parable of the Talents answers both of these.

In the first place, the one who buried his talent is castigated for not putting the money with the moneylenders, and thus the Lord was cheated of his interest. Nothing bad said about interest here, and it appears to be expected or required.

In the second, both the one receiving 5 and the one receiving 2 double what they were given. The one who did nothing with his is condemned. A talent of silver in those days is understood to mean as much money as a laborer might earn in his lifetime, at the rate of 1 denarius per day (the ammount which the laborers in the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard were paid). This is a large sum of money. And is not condemned, nor is doubling it condemned.

I'd be interested to hear which LDS scripture condemns accumulating wealth beyond one's needs.

I think I know what you are referring to about the temple presentation and money, but having a sum of money "sufficient for our needs" does not make any judgement about what amount is sufficient. Indeed, the three messengers didn't even need money at all, so "sufficient" in their cases was no money.

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

True, nothing we do merits salvation. It is the merit of Christ that gets us there. But without faith in Him and repentance of our sins we aren't going to receive of His grace.

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.

Yes, an extremely small number of Saints, for very short periods of time, had all things in common. So what?

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?

Socialism cannot exist without a corresponding political system. And even under socialism some will become rich and some will become poor. Or remain in that state. Individuals being what they are, there is almost no way to avoid this.

Who is saying that someone who lives under some degree of socialism is less a saint than someone else? You are a lone voice on this.

[Stargazer]

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

 

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

What do you think will happen during the Millenium? Think there will be none who chafe at the rules they have to obey then, and want out -- but there will be nowhere to go?

[Stargazer]

Just gave it.  Why worry about second hand when that is what the critics rely on?  But if you were to have actually followed the references, you'd see that the Church at the time questioned the validity of civil ceremony as much as they did the validity of baptisms by other churches.  Hence the "second hand" evidence has very strong footing; very unlike the criticisms against the Church.  Personally, I'd go where the evidence leans, not the other way around.

You claim that she believed that she was divorce. Whether or not the "church" believed that, it doesn't mean she did. Again, you have zero evidence for what you've claimed. And of course, you know that there's nothing contemporary from Joseph Smith saying that civil marriages had been invalidated by the restoration. You have nothing.

 

BCSpace and jkwilliams, I can't thread-ban you for going completely off-topic here, but will you please take your he-said-she-said argument about whatever it is your rambling on about SOMEWHERE ELSE? Please?

Edited November 6, 2013 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

The difficulty with finding THE suitable government with which Heavenly Father is pleased in the here and now is that He keeps adapting it to the circumstances in which we find ourselves. The Revelatory Monarchy (Triarchy if you want to get technical) really is the ideal government. 

 

In the past we have seen God give governments ensconced in economic systems including Patriarchal pastoralism (Adam-Jacob), Theocratic brigandage (Moses-Joshua), Aristocratic/Oligarchic barter/market systems, Monarchical command-economies (David and arguably Solomon), and Republican free-market (The United States).

 

I don't think anyone of these is more ideal, or the exemplar of the perfect system. Each is a telestial holdover until a terrestrial government is established during the Millenium. God adapts governments, and economies just as much as everything else, to the Children of Men, in my opinion.

 

As of right now, the most recent guidelines that we have from canon, on the Latter-day Saint belief on government are outlined in D&C 134. These are the main points:

 

- They should secure individual rights to free conscience, property, and protection of life

 

- It should be a just and legally equitable to all

 

- May be a republic or monarchy

 

- Should allow for and protect religious plurality

 

- Should receive due service and support of the people

 

- It should punish sedition

 

- The government should have the right to enact laws that are, in their

own judgements, best for the public

 

- It should be a secular government

 

- It should have the power to arbitrate the breach of civil and criminal law

 

This framework allows for many different types of government and economies. Some would argue that in a democracy the people have the right to ask the government to including medicine, social welfare and other items within the right to the protection of life. Others would say that government should be minimal, and that any intrusion or over-taxation is unjust. Others believe that a republic is better than a monarchy.

 

I don't see any of that here. I think Heavenly Father has foreordained and helped support a number of governments and heads of state that may not reflect our personal ideal. We must remember that the Kingdom of Heaven, in so far as its acting in the capacity of a government and religion, is not yet of this earth.

Excellent!! I wondered how long it would take for someone to bring up DC 134!

And of course we are not going to see an ideal government, at least, not before the Millenium. And maybe not even then.

[Robert F. Smith]

......................................

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.

...............................................

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.'

The bucolic picture of early Israel, settled in unwalled villages (in the central hill country) associated by clan and tribe, without any indication of class divisions and without leaders (except for occasional charismatic war chiefs), may seem attractive to those who don't like big government, but it is indefensible in a real crisis.  Moreover, modern society is so complex that such levelling prevents the specializaton and high technology necessary in modern society.  Israel was easily beaten by the Philistines, who were well organized and had advanced weaponry.

 

 

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.

You didn't mention the Swiss mode of government, which seems quite stable and prosperous.  Nor did you observe that people here and in other democratic countries get largely the government they deserve.  They choose it and then abuse it by allowing special interests to call the shots through money, influence, and gerrymandering.  We talk bravely of "being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying and sustaining the law," but what do we do in a democracy where we actually choose the leaders and those who legislate?  Pointing fingers gets us nowhere.  We have only ourselves to blame when something seems amiss.

 

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.

What would God prefer that we adopt as our form of government?  Probably the United Order under the Law of Consecration & Stewardship.  Mormons haven't lived in that fashion for awhile, but what would it have been like?  Perhaps something like the communal farm life of the very successful Hutterite Brethren in the USA and Canada, or perhaps like the fully industrialized Mondragon in the Basque region of Spain.  Cf. Carol Lynn Pearson's "The Order is Love."

Edited November 6, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[BCSpace]

What do you think will happen during the Millenium? Think there will be none who chafe at the rules they have to obey then, and want out -- but there will be nowhere to go?

 

I think you're going to see people still doing their own thing with Christ stepping in from time to time if there is a problem.  One will certainly see people living the LoC but as we know, it is one's choice to enter into it.  Because people have misinterpreted the scriptures as christian communalism as LDS doctrine states, I think it likely the LoC under Christ will be one of the few places free market capitalism will be in operation.

[Robert F. Smith]

I think you're going to see people still doing their own thing with Christ stepping in from time to time if there is a problem.  One will certainly see people living the LoC but as we know, it is one's choice to enter into it.  Because people have misinterpreted the scriptures as christian communalism as LDS doctrine states, I think it likely the LoC under Christ will be one of the few places free market capitalism will be in operation.

That may seem true to those who know nothing of the history of Zion's Cooperative Mercantile Institution (ca. 1868-1869), and know only a modern capitalist ZCMI.  One of the reasons why several of the Brethren (including Oliver Cowdery) apostatized from the Church was that they thought that Joseph's economic ideas (Consecration & Stewardship) to be impractical.  According to non-Mormon scholar Kenneth Rexroth, the Mormons had made practical the communal movements of the 1840s, i.e., a low-pressure, small-scale utopian socialist movement which actually worked!!  -- Rexroth, Communalism: From Its Origins to the Twentieth Century (1974), in which he gauged the true nature of old-style Mormonism.  Moreover, similar conclusions were reached by Ephraim E. Ericksen, Psychological and Ethical Aspects of Mormon Group Life (1922/1975), and by Arthur Maass & Raymond L. Anderson in their 1978 MIT Press study . . . and the Desert Shall Rejoice: Conflict, Growth and Justice in Arid Environments; Leonard J. Arrington, Feramorz Y. Fox, and Dean L. May, Building the City of God: Community and Cooperation Among the Mormons (1976/1992).

 

As the late Eugene England pointed out long ago in a book review, “the divine economic order is not democratic capitalism, but theocratic socialism,” and he observed that today’s capitalistic Mormons were in the 19th century “dangerously anticapitalistic utopians.”  -- England in Sunstone Review, II/10 (Oct 1982), 1,25-27; quotes on 27 & 26, respectively; cf. R. L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (2005), 105, 154-155.