Pope Francis Takes On Capitalism And Inequality

[Ahab]

It seems like the big beef some Latter-day Saints have with the distribution of wealth or social welfare programs is the notion that our agency is being violated by the collection and distribution of personal wealth by government.

What happens when such collection, and distribution is supported by the public, even those with substantial wealth? Is it a loss of agency when the populace chooses government as the means whereby the welfare (well being) of all is accomplished?

Such is largely the case in Canada with it's healthcare system. By and by most Canadians support it's role and power in society. Cries that our agency has been violated would fall on death ears. We chose this democratically, we support the idea, and while we recognize the problems we would not solve them by doing away with public healthcare.

Once the question of agency is answered then the real issue is the means or organization such distribution is accomplished, or the question of whether or not government should be responsible.

Let's bear in mind that we also have people in government within the Church, too.  Church government, general authorities and local authorities, all acting as other government bodies do to govern their kingdom or country or whatever it is they are governing.

 

Do some also think that giving funds to others through the Church is a violation of their agency?  Some do, but not the majority of members.  And as you say let's not think that our charitable service is done when we have given some of our MONEY to help the poor and needy, whether we give our money to others through the Church or a secular government.  People with money still need to have some way to get food, clothing and shelter from people who have them or can make them, and we all need other charitable services too.

 

At best money provides only a means to an end and it wouldn't work at all if people couldn't get what they need and want by trading something of real value for money.  And all of us can still do many good things for other people without needing to use any money.

[Tacenda]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865591437/Mormon-bishop-disguises-himself-as-homeless-man-to-teach-congregation-about-compassion.html?pg=1

 

Love the guy that did this.  But recently, in my local news, a reporter went out to see where the panhandlers really live and if they were really homeless or if the money was being used for drugs etc. I guess to protect the Utahans.  I guess panhandling is a huge problem here in Utah, probably because of their generosity.  Makes it a little difficult though, whether to give or not.  Sorry if this is off topic, cannot post topics.     

[Stone holm]

It seems like the big beef some Latter-day Saints have with the distribution of wealth or social welfare programs is the notion that our agency is being violated by the collection and distribution of personal wealth by government.

What happens when such collection, and distribution is supported by the public, even those with substantial wealth? Is it a loss of agency when the populace chooses government as the means whereby the welfare (well being) of all is accomplished?

Such is largely the case in Canada with it's healthcare system. By and by most Canadians support it's role and power in society. Cries that our agency has been violated would fall on death ears. We chose this democratically, we support the idea, and while we recognize the problems we would not solve them by doing away with public healthcare.

Once the question of agency is answered then the real issue is the means or organization such distribution is accomplished, or the question of whether or not government should be responsible.

 

I tend to get a little edgy with things that look too closely like the "dole", on the other hand -- I am all for redistribution in the form of job creation that is aimed at education, healthcare, infrastructure creation, parks and recreation, environmental clean up, and defense spending that is aimed at the salaries and benefits for soldiers rather than defense contractors.  That in my mind is not welfare and it keeps wealth from being accumulated in offshore accounts.  I am also all for tax deductions for high income donees to charitable causes.  There is this idea that private industry always does things better than the government -- that has led to some truly tragic blunders such as the proliferation of health insurance companies whose administration costs are frequently much higher than governmental run plans or medicare, private prison corporations that lobby for longer sentences and unconstitutional detainee policies.  The government does not run industry well, and private businesses do not run government functions well.  Am also opposed to the privatization of the military by the hiring of security firms (modern name for mercenaries).  The Church has an excellent welfare system, but it does not have the resources to solve serious economic dislocations, and the wealthy have shown that as a class they are not willing to take up the slack.  To condemn such governmental job creation as Satanic, is just not appropriate and substitutes name calling for actual reasoning and historical analysis.  We are not talking about Marxist Communism here with its strong atheistic tendencies and also its tendency to create a police state -- to compare that type of thing to the various democratic based economic systems in Europe is to engage in rank hyperbolism.  

[thesometimesaint]

There is a real disconnect. We all want the benefits of the Boom Age, but the costs of the Guided Age.

[Ahab]

There is a real disconnect. We all want the benefits of the Boom Age, but the costs of the Guided Age.

Solution for all:  Stop using money and do things for others just because you want to help them in the true spirit of charity.

 

We might want to wait until we can no longer die though because it may take a while to do what we can to help others.

[Bob Crockett]

Communism of the sort described in 4 Nephi is the ultimate form of perfect government. Until then, capitalism is freedom. I recommend this Nobel Prize Winner, Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom.

[Rob Osborn]

There is a problem of entitlement in the very rich. We see this big time in the payroll of professional athletes. The average salary for an NBA player is 5.5 million per year. divided up by the 82 game schedule, means about 67000 dollars a game. I make roughly a little less than half of that amount in a year and I dont get per diem (meal money for away games) in the amount of 106.00 bucks a day! So how long would it take me to earn the average NBA salary fo a single year making what I make? About 172 years!!!

Also concerning minimum wage, I read an article to if we were to compare our current minimum wage with 1968 our current minimum wage should be over 10.00 an hour. For some reason (greed greed greed) the rich feel entitled to what they earn and for the most part do not part with it to charities either. Studies have shown that poor people give more money to charity than rich people do. Its time that capitalism was reigned in a whole lot, How to do that??? Who knows.

[Ahab]

There is a problem of entitlement in the very rich. We see this big time in the payroll of professional athletes. The average salary for an NBA player is 5.5 million per year. divided up by the 82 game schedule, means about 67000 dollars a game. I make roughly a little less than half of that amount in a year and I dont get per diem (meal money for away games) in the amount of 106.00 bucks a day! So how long would it take me to earn the average NBA salary fo a single year making what I make? About 172 years!!!

Also concerning minimum wage, I read an article to if we were to compare our current minimum wage with 1968 our current minimum wage should be over 10.00 an hour. For some reason (greed greed greed) the rich feel entitled to what they earn and for the most part do not part with it to charities either. Studies have shown that poor people give more money to charity than rich people do. Its time that capitalism was reigned in a whole lot, How to do that??? Who knows.

Good hard working poor people have the right idea.  Just get rid of money whenever you get it to buy something of some real value.  Circulate it, and give it to others so they can also circulate it by buying whatever they want to buy with it.

 

The problems come into play when people let their money just sit around and do nothing.  Money isn't good for anything unless it is spent or traded for something else of real value, so the quicker we can get the money into the hands of more people the better our economy will be.

 

Imagine someone with a million dollars, for example, in whatever form that amount of money may be in.  Will he go out and spend a large portion of his money anytime soon for the work output of others?  Some, but probably not much, because he probably already has everything he wants with no need to buy it again.  But suppose he gave a large portion of his money to people who didn't have very much of this world's goods or good services.  They'd be out there spending and buying for sure, because they wouldn't already have a lot of the things that money can buy and they would be willing to trade their money for a lot f those things.  And then those people who they bought from would have more money, too, so they could also go out and spend their money on those things.

 

Most people with a lot of money would rather just hold onto it instead of spreading it around so others can spend it.  Otheriwse they wouldn't have a lot of money anymore.

[pmccombs1]

... Until then, capitalism is freedom.  ...

 

I spent about a year studying Georg Simmel. He wrote a book called The Philosophy of Money. There is more of what I would call sociology in his writings, and some of it has to do with the type of freedom we achieve as we develop advanced money economies--of which Capitalism is a fine example. Money, as abstract means, frees us in unprecedented ways. It represents a way of freeing ("divorcing") a value from a thing and abstracting it into a representation. These values can be moved around in novel ways, and suddenly we find that things we had to perform by virtue of our roles within families, communities, churches, enterprises, and so forth, could be transferred to others. Human roles became abstracted, and people could start to be thought of in terms of interchangeable resources. Human resources. Money had a depersonalizing effect on society, and with this new freedom also came a drastic change in how people could relate to each other. Family trades, apprenticeships, and the like all but disappeared. Fathers, children, and finally mothers were removed from the home and sent off to labor for wages and for the schooling needed in order to get the wages. This was the result of the boundless liberty that money economies brought to us.

 

Have you ever heard the the phrase, "family ties?"  How about, "the bonds of matrimony?" Ties and bonds are not about "freedom" in the way we like to use the word. But money finally freed us from those things. You are right, Capitalism is freedom, and along with the other "isms" of money economy, it has destroyed families, communities, businesses, churches, and all other institutions that once bonded people together and made them dependent upon each other. Money has made us free. 

 

I am sorry to say it, but this type of freedom does not ring true to me. It does not witness to the peaceable kingdom. And the more I think about it, the more I find that this type of freedom has little to do with "agency" at all.

 

From the literature on classical Republicanism, I learned about civic virtue. Then from Fromm and Berlin came the distinctions between positive and negative liberty. Finally, from Oliver and Milbank, a religious context was presented in the form of Radical Orthodoxy. Here at last is a type of liberty that witnesses to the kingdom of God: It honors the natural relationships between people, even sealing them to each other beyond the mere symbolic. At the same time, it offers agency for individuals to express themselves within the context of the bonds that have been formed. It is the freedom to be and to become, not the freedom from bonds that money offers.

 

"Capitalism is freedom." Such a true and terrible indictment! It is the second tempting and the second Fall of man.

[cinepro]

There is a problem of entitlement in the very rich. We see this big time in the payroll of professional athletes. The average salary for an NBA player is 5.5 million per year. divided up by the 82 game schedule, means about 67000 dollars a game. I make roughly a little less than half of that amount in a year and I dont get per diem (meal money for away games) in the amount of 106.00 bucks a day! So how long would it take me to earn the average NBA salary fo a single year making what I make? About 172 years!!!

Also concerning minimum wage, I read an article to if we were to compare our current minimum wage with 1968 our current minimum wage should be over 10.00 an hour. For some reason (greed greed greed) the rich feel entitled to what they earn and for the most part do not part with it to charities either. Studies have shown that poor people give more money to charity than rich people do. Its time that capitalism was reigned in a whole lot, How to do that??? Who knows.

 

 

Athletes (and actors, and musicians etc.) that make a ton of money do so because other people are willing to spend money on tickets to see them (or their "art").  And people are willing to buy t-shirts, posters, and other products produced by them or about them.

 

This money is freely given.  There is no compulsion.  I've lived in Los Angeles for over a decade, and I've never been to a Lakers game, so why would I care how much Kobe Bryant makes?  What difference does it make to me?

 

Suppose a law were passed that limits how much these people can make?  It wouldn't reduce the amount of money going into the system, so the owners and other stakeholders would get richer.  I don't see this as being more fair (just look at the NCAA, where the athletes earn $0).

 

The only "solution", if one is to be offered, is for the government to confiscate the excess money and redistribute it.  But that only works until the athletes or artists figure out what's going on and leave.  The Beatles might have sung "All You Need Is Love", but they also sang "The Taxman" ("Nineteen for you, one for me").

Edited November 27, 2013 by cinepro

[mtomm]

It would be awesome if the redistribution of wealth came from those making the money, trickle down economics if you will, but maybe someone could turn up the faucet.  As we can see from the wealth distribution video that capitalism isn't doing such a great job of that currently.  But according to my brothers and sisters in the gospel capitalism is next to godliness and socialism is devilish.  And then I read the BOM and wonder if we are all reading the same book.  

Edited November 27, 2013 by mtomm

[mtomm]

I spent about a year studying Georg Simmel. He wrote a book called The Philosophy of Money. There is more of what I would call sociology in his writings, and some of it has to do with the type of freedom we achieve as we develop advanced money economies--of which Capitalism is a fine example. Money, as abstract means, frees us in unprecedented ways. It represents a way of freeing ("divorcing") a value from a thing and abstracting it into a representation. These values can be moved around in novel ways, and suddenly we find that things we had to perform by virtue of our roles within families, communities, churches, enterprises, and so forth, could be transferred to others. Human roles became abstracted, and people could start to be thought of in terms of interchangeable resources. Human resources. Money had a depersonalizing effect on society, and with this new freedom also came a drastic change in how people could relate to each other. Family trades, apprenticeships, and the like all but disappeared. Fathers, children, and finally mothers were removed from the home and sent off to labor for wages and for the schooling needed in order to get the wages. This was the result of the boundless liberty that money economies brought to us.

 

Have you ever heard the the phrase, "family ties?"  How about, "the bonds of matrimony?" Ties and bonds are not about "freedom" in the way we like to use the word. But money finally freed us from those things. You are right, Capitalism is freedom, and along with the other "isms" of money economy, it has destroyed families, communities, businesses, churches, and all other institutions that once bonded people together and made them dependent upon each other. Money has made us free. 

 

I am sorry to say it, but this type of freedom does not ring true to me. It does not witness to the peaceable kingdom. And the more I think about it, the more I find that this type of freedom has little to do with "agency" at all.

 

From the literature on classical Republicanism, I learned about civic virtue. Then from Fromm and Berlin came the distinctions between positive and negative liberty. Finally, from Oliver and Milbank, a religious context was presented in the form of Radical Orthodoxy. Here at last is a type of liberty that witnesses to the kingdom of God: It honors the natural relationships between people, even sealing them to each other beyond the mere symbolic. At the same time, it offers agency for individuals to express themselves within the context of the bonds that have been formed. It is the freedom to be and to become, not the freedom from bonds that money offers.

 

"Capitalism is freedom." Such a true and terrible indictment! It is the second tempting and the second Fall of man.

 

Cool stuff.  Thanks for sharing it.

[Ahab]

It would be awesome if the redistribution of the wealth came from those making the money, trickle down economics if you will, but maybe someone could turn up the faucet.  As we can see from the wealth distribution video that capitalism isn't doing such a great job of that currently.  But according to my brothers and sisters in the gospel capitalism is next to godliness and socialism is devilish.  And then I read the BOM and wonder if we are all reading the same book.  

It's just that those that love money have a hard time of parting with it even if to share it with other people.   With charity in our hearts we should want to do what we can to help others, rather than mainly being concerned only with helping ourselves.

[bdouglas]

I spent about a year studying Georg Simmel. He wrote a book called The Philosophy of Money. There is more of what I would call sociology in his writings, and some of it has to do with the type of freedom we achieve as we develop advanced money economies--of which Capitalism is a fine example. Money, as abstract means, frees us in unprecedented ways. It represents a way of freeing ("divorcing") a value from a thing and abstracting it into a representation. These values can be moved around in novel ways, and suddenly we find that things we had to perform by virtue of our roles within families, communities, churches, enterprises, and so forth, could be transferred to others. Human roles became abstracted, and people could start to be thought of in terms of interchangeable resources. Human resources. Money had a depersonalizing effect on society, and with this new freedom also came a drastic change in how people could relate to each other. Family trades, apprenticeships, and the like all but disappeared. Fathers, children, and finally mothers were removed from the home and sent off to labor for wages and for the schooling needed in order to get the wages. This was the result of the boundless liberty that money economies brought to us.

 

Have you ever heard the the phrase, "family ties?"  How about, "the bonds of matrimony?" Ties and bonds are not about "freedom" in the way we like to use the word. But money finally freed us from those things. You are right, Capitalism is freedom, and along with the other "isms" of money economy, it has destroyed families, communities, businesses, churches, and all other institutions that once bonded people together and made them dependent upon each other. Money has made us free. 

 

I am sorry to say it, but this type of freedom does not ring true to me. It does not witness to the peaceable kingdom. And the more I think about it, the more I find that this type of freedom has little to do with "agency" at all.

 

From the literature on classical Republicanism, I learned about civic virtue. Then from Fromm and Berlin came the distinctions between positive and negative liberty. Finally, from Oliver and Milbank, a religious context was presented in the form of Radical Orthodoxy. Here at last is a type of liberty that witnesses to the kingdom of God: It honors the natural relationships between people, even sealing them to each other beyond the mere symbolic. At the same time, it offers agency for individuals to express themselves within the context of the bonds that have been formed. It is the freedom to be and to become, not the freedom from bonds that money offers.

 

"Capitalism is freedom." Such a true and terrible indictment! It is the second tempting and the second Fall of man.

 

Interesting stuff. I agree.

[teddyaware]

It would be awesome if the redistribution of wealth came from those making the money, trickle down economics if you will, but maybe someone could turn up the faucet.  As we can see from the wealth distribution video that capitalism isn't doing such a great job of that currently.  But according to my brothers and sisters in the gospel capitalism is next to godliness and socialism is devilish. And then I read the BOM and wonder if we are all reading the same book.

This is akin to saying God was in moral error when He allowed Adam and Eve to have a free access to the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Just think ofall the horrors and terrible injustices that could have been avoided if only Adam and Eve were not given the option to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge? I

suppose lines of argument like this one were very persuasive in the war in heaven; persuasive enough to lure away 1/3 of the Father's children into perdition. Like it or not,

systems of law that attempt to prevent injustices by limiting free agency are more or less in league with the adversary's philosophy.

The free enterprise system, under the protection of the Constitution, is not deficient. The

deficiencies are found in the people who abuse and misuse their God-given freedom and they will be

judged.

Under the Constitution, their is absolutely nothing preventing like-minded people from getting together

to pool their talents, money and resources to work together to make a better world. Why in the world so

many people -- especially Latter-day Saints -- have been persuaded to believe the "government" is

the primary means to effect positive societal change is beyond me. Instead of lamenting all the world's

woes, as if secular government is the only answer, get together with others and begin erecting your

just and compassionate world -- there's nothing stopping you except your own inaction. The government

is bankrupt; it's time to think out of the box.

Edited November 28, 2013 by teddyaware

[Stone holm]

This is akin to saying God was in moral error when He allowed Adam and Eve to have a free access to the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Just think ofall the horrors and terrible injustices that could have been avoided if only Adam and Eve were not given the option to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge? Isuppose lines of argument like this one were very persuasive in the war in heaven; persuasive enough to lure away 1/3 of the Father's children into perdition. Like it or not,systems of law that attempt to prevent injustices by limiting free agency are more or less in league with the adversary's philosophy.The free enterprise system, under the protection of the Constitution, is not deficient. Thedeficiencies are found in the people who abuse and misuse their God-given freedom and they will bejudged.Under the Constitution, their is absolutely nothing preventing like-minded people from getting togetherto pool their talents, money and resources to work together to make a better world. Why in the world somany people -- especially Latter-day Saints -- have been persuaded to believe the "government" isthe primary means to effect positive societal change is beyond me. Instead of lamenting all the world'swoes, as if secular government is the only answer, get together with others and begin erecting yourjust and compassionate world -- there's nothing stopping you except your own inaction. The governmentis bankrupt; it's time to think out of the box.

Exactly where in the Constitution do you see the system you suggest enshrined? Is it in the provisions allowing the continuation of slavery? Or perhaps the authority to regulate interstate commerce?

[Rob Osborn]

This is akin to saying God was in moral error when He allowed Adam and Eve to have a free access to the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Just think ofall the horrors and terrible injustices that could have been avoided if only Adam and Eve were not given the option to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge? I

suppose lines of argument like this one were very persuasive in the war in heaven; persuasive enough to lure away 1/3 of the Father's children into perdition. Like it or not,

systems of law that attempt to prevent injustices by limiting free agency are more or less in league with the adversary's philosophy.

The free enterprise system, under the protection of the Constitution, is not deficient. The

deficiencies are found in the people who abuse and misuse their God-given freedom and they will be

judged.

Under the Constitution, their is absolutely nothing preventing like-minded people from getting together

to pool their talents, money and resources to work together to make a better world. Why in the world so

many people -- especially Latter-day Saints -- have been persuaded to believe the "government" is

the primary means to effect positive societal change is beyond me. Instead of lamenting all the world's

woes, as if secular government is the only answer, get together with others and begin erecting your

just and compassionate world -- there's nothing stopping you except your own inaction. The government

is bankrupt; it's time to think out of the box.

Not sure I follow you. You said- " Like it or not,

systems of law that attempt to prevent injustices by limiting free agency are more or less in league with the adversary's philosophy"

not sure I buy into this. Could you explain it a little more?

[bdouglas]

It must be true, because why would the richest man in the territory lie about something like that?

 

That's one of the interesting things about BY, i.e., the biggest proponent of the United Order and also the richest man in the territory. Not sure how to explain that. We all embody contradictions and maybe this was one of BY's.

[Stone holm]

That's one of the interesting things about BY, i.e., the biggest proponent of the United Order and also the richest man in the territory. Not sure how to explain that. We all embody contradictions and maybe this was one of BY's.

Yeah and I suspect that a good deal of that was earned under the government subsidized cross continental railroad project contracts.

[bdouglas]

It is interesting. Brigham Young was a very adept and astute capitalist, yet he said some pretty nasty things about capitalism. Here is one example:

 

"[Capitalists] put me in mind of some men I have seen who, when they had the chance to buy a widow's cow for ten cents on the dollar of her real value in cash, would then make the purchase, and then thank the Lord that he had so blessed them. Such men belong to the class of Christians referred to on one occasion by Charles Gunn; and, if you will excuse me, I will tell you what he said about them. He said that 'hell is full of such Christians' (Working Toward Zion, pg. 133)."

Edited November 28, 2013 by bdouglas

[bdouglas]

Hugh Nibley has famously and extensively argued that capitalism is incompatible with, or perhaps even antithetical to, the gospel of Jesus Christ; several of Nibley’s classic essays in this vein can be found in the volume, Approaching Zion. In the opposite corner, and writing in explicit rebuttal to Nibley, BYU professor Phillip J. Bryson has a BYU Studies article from 1999 which argues that LDS church leaders have regularly and uniformly spoken in favor of capitalism as a system. How are we to approach this debate?

 

See article treating this question at:

 

http://bycommonconsent.com/2008/03/25/capitalism-and-mormonism/

Edited November 28, 2013 by bdouglas

[Ahab]

Like it or not, systems of law that attempt to prevent injustices by limiting free agency are more or less in league with the adversary's philosophy.

Do you realize there is nothing in American law that limits free agency?  The laws just lay out the consequences for certain actions, but they do not limit anyone's free agency.  If you don't pay your taxes you could end up in jail, or you just may get away with it by paying a fine, but still you can choose whether or not to pay taxes.   Similar to how if you don't pay your tithes you could end up being sent to hell, or you may get away with it if you will repent.

 

Are you saying everything is okay as long as it doesn't limit your free agency?  There are still certain things we should not be doing, and certain things we should do, and systems of law (aka governments) are in the business of imposing penalties for not obeying their laws.  Some of America's laws just aren't stringent enough to assuage greed and uncharitable behavior, but God's laws will take care of that, won't they.

[Stone holm]

PMMcCombs brought up a concept that was new to me in this thread and has kept bouncing around in my head, and it think it may be the key to what otherwise seems inconsistent in Mormon economics over the years, and that is the idea of subsidiarity. The idea that the economic distance between production and consumption should be kept short. I believe that is key to understanding why capitalism turns ugly. It remains very wholesome so long as this distance remains short. It was still relatively short in the 1950's which were the middle class golden years, however the distance has exploded since then and with that problems not only of a temporal , but of a spiritual nature arise.

[teddyaware]

Do you realize there is nothing in American law that limits free agency?  The laws just lay out the consequences for certain actions, but they do not limit anyone's free agency.  If you don't pay your taxes you could end up in jail, or you just may get away with it by paying a fine, but still you can choose whether or not to pay taxes.   Similar to how if you don't pay your tithes you could end up being sent to hell, or you may get away with it if you will repent.

 

Are you saying everything is okay as long as it doesn't limit your free agency?  There are still certain things we should not be doing, and certain things we should do, and systems of law (aka governments) are in the business of imposing penalties for not obeying their laws.  Some of America's laws just aren't stringent enough to assuage greed and uncharitable behavior, but God's laws will take care of that, won't they.

I hope you're not entertaining the notion that living under a totalitarian system of government doesn't

abridge one's freedom (i.e. free agency)? Just how far down the road of totalitarianism can a

government go before many important choices can no longer be made?

In officially atheistic Stalinist Russia, folks couldn't even go to church without the threat of being shipped off to the gulag. To your thinking, did the unfortunate souls who lived under that tyranny have

full opportunity to exercise their free agency? If to your mind these Russian citizens still did have a

full expression of free agency, even under the well-documented extremely oppressive

conditions, then, for the sake of this discussion, there should be a conscious effort

made to not conflate the words freedom and liberty with free agency, because they

actually mean different things.

In any event, my statements are to be understood in light of government under the aegis of the

Constitution of the United States -- I am not an anarchist. Rather, I'm a proponent of the dictum of

the Prophet Joseph Smith who said, "I teach the people correct principles, and they govern themselves."

But I am realistic enough to know the realization of the prophet's religious and civic philosophy will not be realized until the establishment of Zion and the coming of the millennium. Until that day, I

expect things to become more and more of a mess. Finally, Babylon the Great will fall. And when that

day comes, they must of necessity flee unto Zion or perish in a world crumbled to dust that has left

men without hope.

Here's the essence of our problem in America today: Uninspired men are trying to contrive some way

to cause the country to prosper in peace, even while the people are ripening in iniquity. It's not

going to work. There's no way to bypass the edicts and judgments God has pronounced upon this land of

promise. At best, the solutions of men will be only palliative and temporary.

Edited November 28, 2013 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

Not sure I follow you. You said- " Like it or not,

systems of law that attempt to prevent injustices by limiting free agency are more or less in league with the adversary's philosophy"

not sure I buy into this. Could you explain it a little more?

In council in heaven, the devil set forth a plan that would prevent the destructive effects of sin by

limiting a man's agency to commit sin, even if that man had an inclination to chose to do so. So it is today: Under Marxist doctrine, for instance, it is considered and evil for one man to possess more

material possessions than another. So, this "evil" is prevented by the agents of the so called

dictatorship of the proletariat confiscating all money or capital beyond what's needed for the basic

necessities of a simple life.

Edited November 28, 2013 by teddyaware