jkwilliams Posted May 24, 2016 Posted May 24, 2016 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: The city of Enoch is a precedent one could cite to show that it can work in a mortal world. And the indication I get from my reading is that it did work with the Nephites in the first few generations following the appearance of the risen Christ to them. But perhaps these examples are too far removed from our day and time to be meaningful to most people. At any rate, there was not force or despotism involved in these examples, only voluntary love and devotion. I suppose if I took those stories literally, I would probably agree that it could work. But I don't see self-interested humans making that kind of system work without a drastic change in human nature.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 24, 2016 Posted May 24, 2016 8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: The city of Enoch is a precedent one could cite to show that it can work in a mortal world. And the indication I get from my reading is that it did work with the Nephites in the first few generations following the appearance of the risen Christ to them. But perhaps these examples are too far removed from our day and time to be meaningful to most people. At any rate, there was no force or despotism involved in these examples, only voluntary love and devotion. As long as you don't count the forced slaughter of all the wicked people living with the Nephites after Christ's death...
Scott Lloyd Posted May 24, 2016 Posted May 24, 2016 7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I suppose if I took those stories literally, I would probably agree that it could work. But I don't see self-interested humans making that kind of system work without a drastic change in human nature. A drastic change in human nature is the very thing we seek to bring about in candidates for conversion -- including ourselves. Incidentally, looking back over this thread, I was reminded that Analytics made a remark about captialism being cynical, or some such thing. In reality, probably the ultimate display of cynicism is on the part of a despotic ruler (be he socialist or fascist) who will not trust the citizens to do what he wants them to without being forced.
Analytics Posted May 24, 2016 Posted May 24, 2016 4 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Where did I say the underlined passage? You are reading things into it that I never said. I never said that Marxism is opposed to positive liberty- but it is possibly opposed to negative liberty, though I also have not said that. My one and only point is that Marxism uses force and building Zion does not. Incidentally I have also never spoken about the "United Order" which was one failed attempt to establish Zion. The ideal theoretical Marxist state, as defined by Marx, demands the use of force to establish it. The ideal theoretical Zion state, as defined by the scriptures, does not. I thought your whole point with bringing the concept of "positive liberty" into this conversation was to juxtapose it with the "force" that you say Marxism uses. If that wasn't your point, I stand corrected. But it sounds like your position has shifted--originally you said that the two economic systems were not even close to alike, and now you are limiting your point to arguing about one alleged difference. Marxism only advocates force in the same way that, say, Thomas Jefferson advocated for force--the people revolting against their oppressors in order to secure their human rights. All governments enforce society's rules on the people--Marxism is no different. The United Order would be no different either, if the people chose to enter it on a national scale.
Analytics Posted May 24, 2016 Posted May 24, 2016 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: The city of Enoch is a precedent one could cite to show that it can work in a mortal world. And the indication I get from my reading is that it did work with the Nephites in the first few generations following the appearance of the risen Christ to them. But perhaps these examples are too far removed from our day and time to be meaningful to most people. At any rate, there was no force or despotism involved in these examples, only voluntary love and devotion. Exactly--those legends describe Marxism quite well in all its purity and glory.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 24, 2016 Posted May 24, 2016 10 minutes ago, Analytics said: Exactly--those legends describe Marxism quite well in all its purity and glory. The glaring difference is the lack of despotism that is totalitarian communism. 2
jkwilliams Posted May 24, 2016 Posted May 24, 2016 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: The glaring difference is the lack of despotism that is totalitarian communism. Does Marxism require totalitarianism? Leninism does, IMO.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 24, 2016 Posted May 24, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: As long as you don't count the forced slaughter of all the wicked people living with the Nephites after Christ's death... By natural disasters, you mean? With communist despotism, it's innocents who get slaughtered. I don't recall any reports of anyone being slaughtered within the first couple hundred years of peace that followed the coming of Christ, when everyone voluntarily had all things in common. Edited May 24, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 24, 2016 Posted May 24, 2016 13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: By natural disasters, you mean? With communist despotism, it's innocents who get slaughtered. I don't recall any reports of anyone being slaughtered within the first couple hundred years of peace that followed the coming of Christ, when everyone voluntarily had all things in common. Just saying its a little easier to accomplish when God stacks the deck by killing the bad apples up front.
Analytics Posted May 24, 2016 Posted May 24, 2016 20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: The glaring difference is the lack of despotism that is totalitarian communism. I couldn't agree more. Despotism is defined as a government run by a king or other ruler with absolute, unlimited power. What word could better describe a society personally ruled over by none-other than the Son of God Himself? In contrast, Marxism is a stateless society where everybody gets along without the need of a government of any kind.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 24, 2016 Posted May 24, 2016 (edited) On 5/24/2016 at 3:09 PM, Analytics said: I couldn't agree more. Despotism is defined as a government run by a king or other ruler with absolute, unlimited power. What word could better describe a society personally ruled over by none-other than the Son of God Himself? I had in mind this online definition of despotism: Quote a system ruled by a tyrant or dictator having absolute, usually oppressive power. But if you prefer, you may substitute the word tyranny for despotism. Quote In contrast, Marxism is a stateless society where everybody gets along without the need of a government of any kind. What happens when they don't get along? History has shown that the recourse has been to resort to tyranny to try to make them get along. Edited May 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
The Nehor Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 9 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: As long as you don't count the forced slaughter of all the wicked people living with the Nephites after Christ's death... I cannot find it in me to mourn their deaths considering what they were up to. I am a strong opponent of people taking the lives of other people. I have no objection to God taking people back. 7 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Just saying its a little easier to accomplish when God stacks the deck by killing the bad apples up front. If that is a hopeful statement I can give you solace in the fact that it will happen again.
The Nehor Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 23 hours ago, BCSpace said: Free Market Capitalism, unlike the Corporatism supported by the Left (and some on the Right unfortunately) when they want people to erroneously believe they support Free Market Capitalism (cf. PPACA etc. etc.), is a neutral system in the same way the Plan of Salvation outlined in 2 Nephi 2 is a neutral system. Any good or evil therein is brought by the individual and not inherently part of the system. Marxism is inherently evil relative to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Law of Consecration because it removes choice and personal responsibility. What Marx couldn't quite grasp was why the value of goods was greater than the labor and material cost of producing them. So he proposed redistribution of the 'surplus value'. In other words, a Marxist doesn't know how wealth is created. He believes all wealth is stolen and tries to steal it back. Relative to the Gospel, surplus value, or profit, is the analog of the enticements found in 2 Nephi 2. Without such enticements, man cannot choose for himself (2 Nephi 2:16). Under the Law of Consecration, a man may make a profit, or increase his stewardship, and is now faced with the choice of what to do with it. Does he need it? Can it be put to some greater good? Does he invest it in order to realize greater profits? Does he selfishly hide it away? Etc. It's all up to him and no one but God and His authorized earthly representatives can righteously judge him on it in stark contrast to Marxism. And thus we see how Marxism/Communism/Socialism, all monikers for the same unrighteous principle, is antithetical and contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Law of Consecration. I find it weird that you see 2 Nephi 2:16 as being primarily about how we spend our money. And the weird attempt to make the Plan of Salvation neutral (!?!?) to try to put it on the same level as capitalism. 1
why me Posted May 26, 2016 Posted May 26, 2016 On 18.5.2016 at 5:05 AM, JAHS said: Someone has asked me a question about holding a temple recommend and being a supporter of the Brazilian communist party. I know there are different forms of communism out there in the world and how strong a presence communism is in certain countries. I know nothing about the communist party in Brasil. My gut feeling is to say, of course you can not support the communist party and hold a temple recommend or even be a member of the church. Is communism in any country always contrary to the teachings of the Church? Can someone support such a party in their home country and be a Church member in good standing? My answer is, No. Am I wrong? There is nothing wrong with supporting a communist party and getting a temple recommend. Communists tend to be very human centered and their reasons for being communists is to support a more fair and just society. So, nothing wrong with being a communist. In fact, some may claim that jesus was also a socialist. Church members throughout the world are: conservative, liberal, socialist, social democrat, communist, green, center etc. And many countries have more than two parties to choose from. 2
why me Posted May 26, 2016 Posted May 26, 2016 Maybe a better question would be: should one be able to get temple recommend being a capitalist? What is capitalism? Exploitation of humans by humans. The ability to commodify the human condition. And to make money from human labor by concentrating on their productivity and by making people's lives depended on a amoral market. It doesn't sound good. And it does sound antichistian.
JAHS Posted May 26, 2016 Author Posted May 26, 2016 (edited) 20 minutes ago, why me said: There is nothing wrong with supporting a communist party and getting a temple recommend. Communists tend to be very human centered and their reasons for being communists is to support a more fair and just society. So, nothing wrong with being a communist. In fact, some may claim that jesus was also a socialist. Church members throughout the world are: conservative, liberal, socialist, social democrat, communist, green, center etc. And many countries have more than two parties to choose from. Thank you. I haven't seen an actual response to the original OP for a while now on this thread. Edited May 26, 2016 by JAHS
why me Posted May 26, 2016 Posted May 26, 2016 12 minutes ago, JAHS said: Thank you. I haven't seen an actual response to the original OP for a while now on this thread. One needs to look at the theory of communism to understand it. When one looks at the life of Karl Marx, he more or less sacrificed his life for the cause which he believed in and what he saw around him that tended to mold his beliefs: child labor, no labor laws, poverty, great wealth, misery, poor houses, debtor's prisons, vast inequalities, all caused by a capitalism that created class differences and absolute misery for many working people and their familes. Charles ****ens captured the moment rather well in his novels. And we need to remember that Albert Einstein was also a socialist: http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/
The Nehor Posted May 26, 2016 Posted May 26, 2016 On May 24, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Scott Lloyd said: By natural disasters, you mean? With communist despotism, it's innocents who get slaughtered. I don't recall any reports of anyone being slaughtered within the first couple hundred years of peace that followed the coming of Christ, when everyone voluntarily had all things in common. Then they all got slaughtered when they stopped.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 26, 2016 Posted May 26, 2016 1 hour ago, why me said: One needs to look at the theory of communism to understand it. When one looks at the life of Karl Marx, he more or less sacrificed his life for the cause which he believed in and what he saw around him that tended to mold his beliefs: child labor, no labor laws, poverty, great wealth, misery, poor houses, debtor's prisons, vast inequalities, all caused by a capitalism that created class differences and absolute misery for many working people and their familes. Charles ****ens captured the moment rather well in his novels. And we need to remember that Albert Einstein was also a socialist: http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/ I've learned from experience that if you're going to write that author's name on this board, you need to circumvent the censoring function of the software. I generally accomplish that by interspersing the letters with hyphens: D-i-c-k-ens. I'm rather a passionate D-i-c-k-ens fan. I have learned that, for all of his championing of the poor and downtrodden, he did not have a great deal of patience for lack of industry, and in his book The Uncommercial Taveler, he wrote rather disparagingly of what he called "tramps." See here.
GrainofSalt Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 Back in 1995 the whole province of Quebec was going through a referendum to leave Canada and become a separate nation. They came pretty close to breaking up the country. So what do you do with Quebec Separatists who are also faithful, card carrying members of the LDS Church? Some people thought they should be excommunicated. But to my knowledge none of them were ever disciplined. So I guess my question is if this happened in America, and not Canada, would the Church take action against its American members who engaged in treason?
JAHS Posted May 28, 2016 Author Posted May 28, 2016 46 minutes ago, GrainofSalt said: Back in 1995 the whole province of Quebec was going through a referendum to leave Canada and become a separate nation. They came pretty close to breaking up the country. So what do you do with Quebec Separatists who are also faithful, card carrying members of the LDS Church? Some people thought they should be excommunicated. But to my knowledge none of them were ever disciplined. So I guess my question is if this happened in America, and not Canada, would the Church take action against its American members who engaged in treason? One man's treason is another's escape. Normally the Church doesn't get involved in political movements such as that. Members are allowed to decide for themselves which way they want to go in such matters. Some Church statements: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is neutral in matters of party politics. This applies in all of the many nations in which it is established." The Church "Expect its members to engage in the political process in an informed and civil manner, respecting the fact that members of the Church come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences and may have differences of opinion in partisan political matters." The church only gets involved in politics for matters of moral issues.
why me Posted May 28, 2016 Posted May 28, 2016 On 26.5.2016 at 1:40 AM, Scott Lloyd said: I've learned from experience that if you're going to write that author's name on this board, you need to circumvent the censoring function of the software. I generally accomplish that by interspersing the letters with hyphens: D-i-c-k-ens. I'm rather a passionate D-i-c-k-ens fan. I have learned that, for all of his championing of the poor and downtrodden, he did not have a great deal of patience for lack of industry, and in his book The Uncommercial Taveler, he wrote rather disparagingly of what he called "tramps." See here. He was looked upon as the 'champion of the poor' because of his books. http://****ens.ucsc.edu/resources/faq/poor.html He was also extremely weathly. But I don't think that he had much love for America. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17017791
Recommended Posts