Stargazer Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 The best system is the United Order.And, according to Carol Lynn Pearson, the Order is love.Where does that leave the Machiavellian free market? It might be the best system, but presently we cannot seem to make it work. The perfect is the enemy of the good. It leaves it in the space reserved for the workable.
longview Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) The best system is the United Order.And, according to Carol Lynn Pearson, the Order is love.That system would STILL need free market principles to enable people to express their preference for the kind of work and various pastimes/hobbies. They can change and grow at their pace and their own FREE choice. Where does that leave the Machiavellian free market?There is NOTHING Machiavellian about the free market. You have been poisoned by too much socialist propaganda. Edited July 8, 2015 by longview 2
longview Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 Agency is the right to choose and no force on earth can limit it. That battle is already won. Freedoms are what we discuss and what freedoms we limit to get greater freedoms is part of the science of good government. I am willing to give up my freedom to discriminate to have the greater freedom of not having permanent underclasses denied access to basic services in our society and being one social shift away from being such an underclass.No. The battle is STILL ongoing. Lucifer is using the same strategy of stealing away our agency. A little at a time until he has complete control. Depending on whether we yield to Satan.
Calm Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 Then there is a great business opportunity to create a market there that doesn't discriminateUnless of course that market had no customers because they moved out of the area...or suppliers refused to sell to you because of deals with others stipulating that they wouldn't supply anyone selling outside the acceptable 'standard'.
Calm Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) The free market in the end will supply everyone with what they want and the people will have more liberty in the process.How many generations was the free market more or less given a chance in the South before the law stepped in?And if that doesn't work as an example because of laws forcing discrimination, then please show me an example where free market effects without other help changed a highly racist area into a more or less accepting one to see how long it took. Edited July 8, 2015 by calmoriah
The Nehor Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 Your arguments are disjointed. Jim Crow laws were institutionalized through force of government (state and local). It only took a vocal minority to bring it about. I am guessing a third of the population had positive feelings for the blacks but were cowed by the noisy and belligerent one fourth. The remainder were uncaring or too complacent.And two thirds of them were in the KKK. It is fun making up random statistics. Your numbers are way off. The racial inferiority of blacks was entrenched in the South. The idea that a third were in favor of loosening restrictions and most were uncaring is hopelessly naive. 1
Mystery Meat Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 The United Order is Socialism. HELL no it isn't. That is what Satan wants you to believe. Anyone who has spent time in a socialist country is adequately equipped to rebut that absolute and terrible lie. This is from the D&C Student Manual. I exhort you to read it so you are no longer blinded by the lie that satan has convinced you is true: Some have suggested that the practice of the law of consecration and the system of the united order are only a religious kind of socialism or communism. Others assert that it was a development either from the economic philosophies of Joseph Smith’s day or from communal experiments within the new religion. Such assumptions are false. The Prophet Joseph Smith attended a presentation on socialism in September 1843 at Nauvoo. His response was to declare that he“did not believe the doctrine” (History of the Church, 6:33). In more recent times Elder Marion G. Romney outlined the differences between the revealed system of the united order and the socialistic programs:“(1) The cornerstone of the United Order is belief in God and acceptance of him as Lord of the earth and the author of the United Order.“Socialism, wholly materialistic, is founded in the wisdom of men and not of God. Although all socialists may not be atheists, none of them in theory or practice seek the Lord to establish his righteousness.“(2) The United Order is implemented by the voluntary free-will actions of men, evidenced by a consecration of all their property to the Church of God.“… Socialism is implemented by external force, the power of the state.“(3) … The United Order is operated upon the principle of private ownership and individual management.“Thus in both implementation and ownership and management of property, the United Order preserves to men their God-given agency, while socialism deprives them of it.“(4) The United Order is non-political.“Socialism is political, both in theory and practice. It is thus exposed to, and riddled by, the corruption that plagues and finally destroys all political governments that undertake to abridge man’s agency.“(5) A righteous people is a prerequisite to the United Order.“Socialism argues that it as a system will eliminate the evils of the profit motive.“The United Order exalts the poor and humbles the rich. In the process both are sanctified. The poor, released from the bondage and humiliating limitations of poverty, are enabled as free men to rise to their full potential, both temporally and spiritually. The rich, by consecration and by imparting of their surplus for the benefit of the poor, not by constraint but willingly as an act of free will, evidence that charity for their fellowmen characterized by Mormon as ‘the pure love of Christ.’ [Moroni 7:47.]” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1966, p. 97.)President J. Reuben Clark Jr. said: “The United Order has not been generally understood. … [it] was not a communal system. … The United Order and communism are not synonymous. Communism is Satan’s counterfeit for the United Order. There is no mistake about this and those who go about telling us otherwise either do not know or have failed to understand or are wilfully misrepresenting.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1943, p. 11.)President Marion G. Romney warned about the continuing imitations of the adversary: “In this modern world plagued with counterfeits for the Lord’s plan, we must not be misled into supposing that we can discharge our obligations to the poor and the needy by shifting the responsibility to some governmental or other public agency. Only by voluntarily giving out of an abundant love for our neighbors can we develop that charity characterized by Mormon as ‘the pure love of Christ.’ [Moroni 7:47.]” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1972, p. 115; or Ensign, Jan. 1973, p. 98.)President Romney noted:“I suggest we consider what has happened to our agency with respect to … government welfare services. …“The difference between having the means with which to administer welfare assistance taken from us and voluntarily contributing it out of our love of God and fellowman is the difference between freedom and slavery. …“When we love the Lord our God with all our hearts, might, mind, and strength, we will love our brothers as ourselves, and we will voluntarily, in the exercise of our free agency, impart of our substance for their support. …“President [J. Reuben] Clark, … referring to government gratuities, said:“‘The dispensing of these great quantities of gratuities has produced in the minds of hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of people … a love for idleness, a feeling that the world owes them a living. It has made a breeding ground for some of the most destructive political doctrines that have ever found any hold, … and I think it may lead us into serious political trouble. …“‘… Society owes to no man a life of idleness, no matter what his age. I have never seen one line in Holy Writ that calls for, or even sanctions this. In the past no free society has been able to support great groups in idleness and live free.’ (CR, Apr. 1938, pp. 106–7.) …“… Both history and prophecy—and I may add, common sense—bear witness to the fact that no civilization can long endure which follows the course charted by bemused manipulators and now being implemented as government welfare programs all around the world.“Babylon shall be destroyed, and great shall be the fall thereof. (See D&C 1:16.)“But do not be discouraged. Zion will not go down with her, because Zion shall be built on the principles of love of God and fellowman, work, and earnest labor, as God has directed.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1976, pp. 164–66, 169; or Ensign, May 1976, pp. 120–21, 123.) 2
The Nehor Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 There is NOTHING Machiavellian about the free market. You have been poisoned by too much socialist propaganda.You can't fool me with your denials. I have worked in Marketing.
The Nehor Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 The United Order is Socialism.No, it is actually an economic system run by an authoritarian monarch we call Dad or God. The workers do not own the means of production; God does.There are some similarities but other important differences. 3
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 The United Order is Socialism.That is news to me. Rofl. 1
The Nehor Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 No. The battle is STILL ongoing. Lucifer is using the same strategy of stealing away our agency. A little at a time until he has complete control. Depending on whether we yield to Satan.Nope. We have agency. The devil has agency. The devil seeks to pervert our use of agency to take away our freedom but he cannot touch agency. No one can except maybe God and he will not. 1
thesometimesaint Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 That is news to me. Rofl. We're supposed to learn something new to us everyday. SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Order
Kenngo1969 Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 The United Order is Socialism.No, it's not, because one must choose to participate in it.
Mystery Meat Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 We're supposed to learn something new to us everyday. SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Order So you still persist in telling a lie inspired by Satan? Good to know.
Gray Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) Your arguments are disjointed. Jim Crow laws were institutionalized through force of government (state and local). It only took a vocal minority to bring it about. I am guessing a third of the population had positive feelings for the blacks but were cowed by the noisy and belligerent one fourth. The remainder were uncaring or too complacent. 87% of statistics are made up on the spotThe Federal government intervened only because of shaming by Ghandi-like MLK and his allies. It took time to gradually remove more and more elements of Jim Crow laws and institutional discrimination. The Feds were able to act because the Constitution was clearly violated by these things. Sadly it took so long for corrections to be made. Right, so the free market didn't bring an end to Jim Crow. There were NO laws against homosexual marriage (not to be confused with anti-sodomy laws of previous decades). Society needs the serious support of government protection for many aspects of the basic unit (mother/father/children) which I argued for in the previous thread ("the one ring to rule them all"). There are many important, critical, crucial reasons for sustaining and promoting the basic unit. If you want to support straight families, attacking gay families is exactly the wrong way to go about doing it. You can best support all families by fighting against poverty and abuse. Edited July 8, 2015 by Gray
CV75 Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 I couldn't really suss out what you were trying to say, or what the answer to my question might be based on your comments and quotes I see. You asked, “If laws against discrimination are satanic, what do you make of laws against gay marriage? Also satanic?” They are two different kinds of law. Anti-discrimination laws refer to the equal treatment of people in employment, consumer transactions, public services and civic participation. Marriage laws refer to defining a marriage’s validity and the eligibility, rights and obligations of the spouses. Marriage laws are not a subset of or driven by anti-discrimination laws, and anti-discrimination laws do not compel people to serve over their religious objection any more than they deny people equality because of their religious preferences. D&C 101 was first given to saints living in a free market system supported by a divinely-inspired Constitution. While the guidance also applies to any other system and its laws, it is helpful in this discussion as it speaks to the support of Constitutionally-sound laws that “should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles.” Consistent with verses 77-78, the equality of God’s children in maximizing their moral agency to thrive in their respective society is a just and holy principle, and so laws that actually protect it are “good.” Gay marriage is not a just and holy principle, so laws against it would not be “satanic.”
Gray Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 No, it didn't, but given enough time it might have. Maybe, in a couple of hundred years. Not fast enough. I'm happy enough that they hurried the process along -- growing up as a white guy in a location with so few blacks I didn't ever so much as pass by one in the schoolyard until we moved to Canada in 1967, Jim Crow didn't much impact me, except to make me sick to my stomach. Gosh, that was awful. Passing through Louisiana at age 15 I saw my first restroom marked "Colored", right next to "Men" and "Women". It shocked me to my core. Now THAT was Satanic. Forcing human behavior through laws is a delicate business. Negative laws prohibiting murder, theft and other immoral interactions are laws well-adopted to keep human interactions peaceful (or as peaceful as they can be, at least), but positive laws forcing me to do things I don't want to do, can be very problematic. Especially if failure to do them is a created and not a real harm, such as refusal to bake a wedding cake. There are those who would force everyone to behave in certain ways through the power of law. Like the Wisconsin prosecutor who used his powers to attack conservatives sympathetic to Gov. Scott Walker, not because they did anything wrong, but because they were conservative. In general, refusing service based on customer demographics is enormously harmful. Wedding cakes themselves might not be a matter of life or death, but the law needs to be implemented broadly to ensure fairness for all.
Gray Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 No, it's not, because one must choose to participate in it. Still socialism.
strappinglad Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 The problem with the United Order is that it requires a righteous society and probably an isolated one at that. When dealing with millions of people it's tough to wait around for a society to form which will voluntarily give all that is necessary to protect and sustain the vulnerable. It is notable that Americans are , as a group, very charitable and make many efforts to help when needed. On the other hand, the government has programs to help also and occasionally they work. When people go from saying, " We should do something to help here. " to " The Government should do something to help here. " , there is a loss. 1
Gray Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 I see. You asked, “If laws against discrimination are satanic, what do you make of laws against gay marriage? Also satanic?” They are two different kinds of law. Anti-discrimination laws refer to the equal treatment of people in employment, consumer transactions, public services and civic participation. Marriage laws refer to defining a marriage’s validity and the eligibility, rights and obligations of the spouses. Marriage laws are not a subset of or driven by anti-discrimination laws, and anti-discrimination laws do not compel people to serve over their religious objection any more than they deny people equality because of their religious preferences. D&C 101 was first given to saints living in a free market system supported by a divinely-inspired Constitution. While the guidance also applies to any other system and its laws, it is helpful in this discussion as it speaks to the support of Constitutionally-sound laws that “should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles.” Consistent with verses 77-78, the equality of God’s children in maximizing their moral agency to thrive in their respective society is a just and holy principle, and so laws that actually protect it are “good.” Gay marriage is not a just and holy principle, so laws against it would not be “satanic.” But your earlier reason for decrying public accommodation laws as Satanic was that they forced people to behave righteously. What force is present in public accommodation laws that was also not present in, say, Prop 8? Who is saying that it is? This is much like Churchill's dictum that Democracy is the worst form of government in the world, except for every other. The free market, if truly free, will tend to equity among individuals and groups, but it isn't perfect. There is no perfect system, but the free market is the least imperfect. Any other system, such as one that forces people to have good will despite their actual desires, have the scent of brimstone about them. Just as Lucifer promised to bring every child of God back to the Father, by virtue of being forced to do no evil but to do good continuously, a system which compels equity is Satanic. Only the allowance for free and untrammeled choice can produce the results that God wants. Prop 8 removed the "free and untrammeled choice" that existed prior to its implementation, did it not?
Gray Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 No its not. Socialism is not defined by whether or not people have a choice to take part in it. Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.
CV75 Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 In general, refusing service based on customer demographics is enormously harmful. Wedding cakes themselves might not be a matter of life or death, but the law needs to be implemented broadly to ensure fairness for all.I don’t see this sort of thing as discrimination against individuals for whom or what they are, but exercising the right to conscientiously withhold tacit support of or participation in religiously offensive practices. It's not a matter of "we don't serve your kind" but a matter of "you are crossing a religious line I do not observe."
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 8, 2015 Posted July 8, 2015 Still socialism. Wishful thinking at best. Socialism is always forced. That is how it works. The government takes. UO is people give it of their one free will. That is a colossal difference. 1
Recommended Posts