Perspectives Re: Latter-day Saints and Nazis

[Malc]

9 hours ago, manol said:

For me, the two great commandments are like looking at the exact same thing from two slightly different angles.

Let me illustrate: Close your left eye and look at something on your desk. You see a two-dimensional scene. Keep looking and open your left eye while closing your right. You see the same two-dimensional scene but from a slightly different angle. Cycle back and forth a few times. 

Now open both eyes, and suddenly you can see the third dimension. You now have depth perception.  You now have a more correct perception.  No "accommodation" needed. 

Hah!

Many years ago (40 or so, actually) I used an example like this in a workshop on enriching family history. It was for a Relief Society education day.

I followed up by talking about how a camera acts as a "third eye", and adds a fourth dimension to our perception.

While I don't remember any further details, I could probably make up a good story 😃

During the class I was somewhat emotional, which some sisters interpreted as being due to how strongly I felt about the topic. Actually, I had been given some of the worst news of my life just a few hours earlier, and was in shock. The class was, as they say, well received.

[Danzo]

Just about everyone I saw on church Sunday mentioned the election. (They were congratulating me on winning another four years on the city counsel).

I wonder if they should be reported to the stake president. 😁

[CV75]

7 hours ago, Danzo said:

Just about everyone I saw on church Sunday mentioned the election. (They were congratulating me on winning another four years on the city counsel).

I wonder if they should be reported to the stake president. 😁

Are any of you Nazis by any chance?  Joke!

[nuclearfuels]

On 11/13/2024 at 12:41 AM, smac97 said:

Thoughts?

1. President Trump is not Hitler. Full stop. 

2. Guilt by association due to "journalists" weaponized against the people - hasn't worked for decades

2. Most people, including many/most of those in the US, and FDR were what might be called Accommodationists or laissez faire in international relations or "Not my problem-ists - that is until FDR knowing the Pearl Harbor attack was imminent, did nothing - so the US would enter the war and revive the economy he strangled. 

• "The Pearl Harbor Story" by Rear Admiral Robert A. Theobald (1954)

• "Pearl Harbor: The Story of the Secret War" by George Morgenstern (1947)

• "Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath" by John Toland (1982)

• "Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor" by Robert Stinnett (2000)

[JVW]

15 hours ago, Rain said:

I was replying directly to what you said here: "So I am confused, for example, by the choice the church made to close all of the temples during the Covid years. We are taught that in the temple is basically the fulfillment of the purpose of why God created everything. So why would God direct His prophets to acquiesce to an oppressive government and pause the fulfillment of the entire purpose for our existence on Earth?"

As far  as I am aware there were no temples closed for covid reasons in Taliban ruled areas or Israel.

 

Sorry, I was being obtuse there. A few hours after I replied I had a "shower thought" moment and realized what you meant when I was out and about running errands.

There was probably a little of both with the church picking "doing it because we're screwed by the government if we don't" and "we care about people not dying".

Refresh of a few things I quoted earlier "In 1936, Apostle John A. Widtsoe articulated the church’s stance on the authoritarian regimes of the time, writing that “Communism, Fascism, and Nazism may be judged by this principle — whatever endangers to the least degree man’s right to act for himself is not of God and must be resisted by Latter-day Saints.” and D&C 134:5 "... all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience."

Based on these words, all governments around the world during covid time should have faced some resistance from the LDS church. They used their right to "enact such laws as in their own judgments [were] best calculated to secure the public interest" but they did not "[hold] sacred the freedom of conscience". There is really no argument there, especially if one was Australian (all of my in-laws are Australian and their Covid stories made other countries appear to be "freedom of conscience" respecting paradises).

Now it may be that what an Apostle of God says a hundred years ago shouldn't be regarded with much weight, but if that is not the case then the church may have erred; they offered no resistance to the exchange of "freedom of conscience" for "public interest".

[JVW]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Did he or did they just think he did?  If he is the Son of God, were his claims blasphemy?

They thought he did. But what the government thinks is what its judgments and policies are based off of. Was someone who refused to salute Hitler a traitor, or a hero? According to the context of the government at the time, they were a traitor and treated as such.

[JVW]

I don't know where I read it, but I recall learning about one of the brilliant things that Hitler did in operating the concentration camps and gas chambers. He isolated the jobs of people so that nobody knew what others were doing, and the person's job was innocuous. One guy, all his job was to do was push a button that turned on the gas. Pushing a button is not a hard ask. Another guy, all his assignment was was to usher Jews onto the trains. While both were complicit in the deaths that followed, in isolation, neither of those actions (pushing a button, or ushering a train) were immoral actions. I'm expressing a general sentiment here, don't quote me on that, I could be wrong and that wasn't pioneered by Hitler, idk.

I keep getting reminded of Gulag Archipelago quotes as well so I'm just going to drop these in here, because I do think having a personal line and resisting when it's been crossed is important. Regardless of personal beliefs or political affiliations.

Quote

At what point, then, should one resist? When one's belt is taken away? When one is ordered to face into a corner? When one crosses the threshold of one's home? An arrest consists of a series of incidental irrelevancies, of a multitude of things that do not matter, and there seems no point in arguing about one of them individually...and yet all these incidental irrelevancies taken together implacably constitute the arrest.

 

Quote

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.

 

[webbles]

2 hours ago, JVW said:

Sorry, I was being obtuse there. A few hours after I replied I had a "shower thought" moment and realized what you meant when I was out and about running errands.

There was probably a little of both with the church picking "doing it because we're screwed by the government if we don't" and "we care about people not dying".

Refresh of a few things I quoted earlier "In 1936, Apostle John A. Widtsoe articulated the church’s stance on the authoritarian regimes of the time, writing that “Communism, Fascism, and Nazism may be judged by this principle — whatever endangers to the least degree man’s right to act for himself is not of God and must be resisted by Latter-day Saints.” and D&C 134:5 "... all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience."

Based on these words, all governments around the world during covid time should have faced some resistance from the LDS church. They used their right to "enact such laws as in their own judgments [were] best calculated to secure the public interest" but they did not "[hold] sacred the freedom of conscience". There is really no argument there, especially if one was Australian (all of my in-laws are Australian and their Covid stories made other countries appear to be "freedom of conscience" respecting paradises).

Now it may be that what an Apostle of God says a hundred years ago shouldn't be regarded with much weight, but if that is not the case then the church may have erred; they offered no resistance to the exchange of "freedom of conscience" for "public interest".

Elder Widtsoe lived through the Spanish Flu epidemic of 1918-1920.  He wasn't an apostle yet; he was called in 1921.  Utah and many places enacted fairly strict lockdowns during the epidemic.  Utah banned all public gatherings, including church.  Since he didn't mention that in his talk and was pointing out regimes where people don't have the ability to worship how they want, I think you are misunderstanding his point.  I don't think pandemic lockdowns have anything to do with "freedom of conscience" or "endanger[ing] to the least degree man's right to act for himself".

Edited to add: Here's a link to a 1918 article that talks about the shutdown - https://newspapers.lib.utah.edu/details?id=18635633

Edited November 14, 2024 by webbles

[JVW]

23 minutes ago, webbles said:

Elder Widtsoe lived through the Spanish Flu epidemic of 1918-1920.  He wasn't an apostle yet; he was called in 1921.  Utah and many places enacted fairly strict lockdowns during the epidemic.  Utah banned all public gatherings, including church.  Since he didn't mention that in his talk and was pointing out regimes where people don't have the ability to worship how they want, I think you are misunderstanding his point.  I don't think pandemic lockdowns have anything to do with "freedom of conscience" or "endanger[ing] to the least degree man's right to act for himself".

Edited to add: Here's a link to a 1918 article that talks about the shutdown - https://newspapers.lib.utah.edu/details?id=18635633

Whether it's right or not, that is exactly what happened in 1918 according to the news articles you shared. And, in some ways, Covid responses mirrored that of the Spanish Flu. Freedom of conscience was exchanged for the public interest. I'm not saying whether or not that it's a good thing. But it's definitely a thing that is on a scale that needs to be weighed. At what point, and in what context, is that exchange too much, or too long in duration? Are people who have very little tolerance for giving up their freedom in exchange for security bad? Are people with a high degree of tolerance for that bad?

When Hitler first rose to power it seems like people were more than willing to give up their freedom for security, and contextually that attitude made sense. They got treated terribly after WW1 and were in a bad economic state. And if Hitler had stopped doing meth and put the brakes on plans for world domination he may have ended up being a great leader for the German people, who knows? But at what point in Hitler's quest for power should people have resisted and said, "Enough is enough, I'm not complying with the government's mandates anymore."?

Right now there are people of all beliefs who are concerned about the government's role in our lives. There are people who are scared of WW3 happening soon. People worried about their country coming under the rule of an authoritarian regime. There are extreme allusions to people being fascists or communists. There are all sorts of innocuous things happening in governments around the world that result in less freedom and more security. At some point, since power corrupts, it could very well lead to people being under the rule of an authoritarian regime just as it was in Hitler's Germany. (See how good I am at staying on topic right now? :D)

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

There are all sorts of innocuous things happening in governments around the world that result in less freedom and more security.

And there are things that result in more freedoms.

[JVW]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

And there are things that result in more freedoms.

As a general rule of thumb, the more security a nation has, the less freedom it has. And I would also suggest that the more powerful a government becomes, the less likely it will be that freedom for its constituents will be expanded. I am not saying that the perception of freedom can't increase under powerful governments. They have the propaganda machine at their disposal and alter perceptions in a very tangible way. I am suggesting that actual freedom generally will not increase under a large, powerful government rule.

At this point in the game, with how absolutely massively powerful the governments, MNCs, etc. are I think most perceived freedoms are smoke and mirrors. The government could literally knock on my door right now, arrest me on whatever made up charge it wants, and detain me for an extended period of time against my consent, even if I did nothing wrong. They can take my property through imminent domain. The Patriot Act after 911 was a huge loss of freedom in which it became legal for the US government to spy on its citizens. I recently watched a police body cam video the other day of a man who was pulled over for no reason in Nevada. He fully cooperated with the police and they seized his life savings. He didn't get the money back for nearly a year and is still in court trying to get the situation fully rectified. And that's not even the federal government, that was the state. https://ij.org/press-release/marine-veteran-wins-first-round-of-lawsuit-challenging-nevadas-civil-forfeiture-laws/

If I look at the freedom Americans had in 1800 vs today, I would say that they were generally much more free. There wasn't even an income tax back then AFAIK. But they were also much less secure. The idea is closely tied to the ideological differences between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Jefferson had a vision of a largely agrarian society in which people had maximum freedom and autonomy. Adams had a vision that people would become more metropolitan over time and exchange some of their freedom for security and comfort.

[CV75]

25 minutes ago, JVW said:

As a general rule of thumb, the more security a nation has, the less freedom it has. And I would also suggest that the more powerful a government becomes, the less likely it will be that freedom for its constituents will be expanded. I am not saying that the perception of freedom can't increase under powerful governments. They have the propaganda machine at their disposal and alter perceptions in a very tangible way. I am suggesting that actual freedom generally will not increase under a large, powerful government rule.

At this point in the game, with how absolutely massively powerful the governments, MNCs, etc. are I think most perceived freedoms are smoke and mirrors. The government could literally knock on my door right now, arrest me on whatever made up charge it wants, and detain me for an extended period of time against my consent, even if I did nothing wrong. They can take my property through imminent domain. The Patriot Act after 911 was a huge loss of freedom in which it became legal for the US government to spy on its citizens. I recently watched a police body cam video the other day of a man who was pulled over for no reason in Nevada. He fully cooperated with the police and they seized his life savings. He didn't get the money back for nearly a year and is still in court trying to get the situation fully rectified. And that's not even the federal government, that was the state. https://ij.org/press-release/marine-veteran-wins-first-round-of-lawsuit-challenging-nevadas-civil-forfeiture-laws/

If I look at the freedom Americans had in 1800 vs today, I would say that they were generally much more free. There wasn't even an income tax back then AFAIK. But they were also much less secure. The idea is closely tied to the ideological differences between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Jefferson had a vision of a largely agrarian society in which people had maximum freedom and autonomy. Adams had a vision that people would become more metropolitan over time and exchange some of their freedom for security and comfort.

I don’t see Adams vs Jefferson as freedom vs. constraint, but as valuing some aspects of freedom over others, as follows: Security and comfort are freedom from vulnerability and want. Freedom from dependence is autonomy, and interdependence is freedom from both autonomy and subservience. Interdependently maintained security and comfort is freedom from both isolation and the vulnerability to which this leads, the want to which vulnerability leads, and the unmet dependence (failure) to which want leads. Zion integrates all aspects of freedom (and liberty). Worldly politics/economics, in light of the material beings we are, tend to consolidate power and control as a means to establish security and comfort.

Edited November 15, 2024 by CV75

[webbles]

4 hours ago, JVW said:

Whether it's right or not, that is exactly what happened in 1918 according to the news articles you shared. And, in some ways, Covid responses mirrored that of the Spanish Flu. Freedom of conscience was exchanged for the public interest. I'm not saying whether or not that it's a good thing. But it's definitely a thing that is on a scale that needs to be weighed. At what point, and in what context, is that exchange too much, or too long in duration? Are people who have very little tolerance for giving up their freedom in exchange for security bad? Are people with a high degree of tolerance for that bad?

When there is a threat to the society, the society will usually hunker down and protect itself.  During the Spanish Flu pandemic, society enacted multiple types of shutdowns to protect people.  America Samoa enacted a quarantine for the entire island and didn't have a single case or death by it.  They only had it for the temporary duration so it was definitely worth it.

An ancient situation was during and after the 2nd Punic War.  This was the war where Hannibal crossed the alps and obliterated the Roman armies at Cannae.  Rome was extremely close to loosing everything.  Multiple laws were passed that restricted a lot of privileges.  They resumed human sacrifice, made it illegal for certain people to leave the city, and restricted the types of clothing that a person may wear.  After the war, most of the laws were undone, but one stayed around: Lex Oppia.  This law restricted what a woman could wear, how a woman could travel in the city, and several other items.  The law was put in place in 215 BC and wasn't repealed till 195 BC.  It was repealed because the women got fed up with the law and stormed the city.  In this case, the initial situation did warrant the restrictions.  The Romans were fighting for their existence.  1/5 of all men over 17 had died after Hannibal invaded.  They had lost many of their allies.  A Greek king was revolting.  The Romans needed the money to be focused on the war effort and not on fancy clothing.  But after the war, the law wasn't needed.  But it stayed around because men were in charge and they saw no reason to allow their wives to waste their money.

Another case is in the Book of Mormon.  Captain Moroni discovered that the Amalickiah was trying to gain power over the people.  He formed an army and then forced anyone who disagreed with him to either give up their previous belief or he killed them.  Moroni felt it was necessary (and Mormon who gives us the story thinks it was necessary) and he was willing to restrict the freedom of conscience of those who disagree with him.  Luckily, Moroni only did this for a short time so it was probably a good thing for his nation.

I see the point in these stories (and others that I've read) is that when a threat happens, it is fine to hunker down.  But once the threat is gone, the hunkering needs to be relaxed.  Covid and Spanish Flu were like this.  The threat lasted for a few years but is now almost completely gone and the vast majority of the restrictions are gone.  But Nazism and Fascism don't act like this.  They declare that a threat is always present.  There is always a fight that has to be done.  Followers feel like they must always hunker down and give up freedoms.  The threat will never go away and that allows the leaders to take away more and more freedoms.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, webbles said:

Covid…… like this.  The threat lasted for a few years but is now almost completely gone and the vast majority of the restrictions are gone. 

And guess what just showed up at my house for the first time ever today, well… late yesterday, lol….

My husband looks and sounds awful (he doesn’t handle being sick well at all, drives me buggy trying to get him to do healthy stuff) , but got him on the antiviral, so not worrying too much.  Picked up some fresh tests so if needed my daughter and I can test and rush off to get the same stuff if needed.  No stoicism allowed in the house for at least a week.

I have only gotten infectious sick 2 or 3 times in 10 years.  I am about due, but hoping I skip it.

Edited November 15, 2024 by Calm

[JVW]

13 hours ago, webbles said:

I see the point in these stories (and others that I've read) is that when a threat happens, it is fine to hunker down.  But once the threat is gone, the hunkering needs to be relaxed.  Covid and Spanish Flu were like this.  The threat lasted for a few years but is now almost completely gone and the vast majority of the restrictions are gone.  But Nazism and Fascism don't act like this.  They declare that a threat is always present.  There is always a fight that has to be done.  Followers feel like they must always hunker down and give up freedoms.  The threat will never go away and that allows the leaders to take away more and more freedoms.

Thanks for sharing those stories and your thoughts. It would be nice if the hunkering down was a voluntary action by the citizens. If people used their freedom on purpose to restrict their freedom temporarily then I see no issue.

You're right, authoritarian regimes don't act like that. The threat is always present. Followers do feel like they must give up their freedoms permanently. The problem is that the threat is determined by the government and when it goes away is determined by the government. Under Hitler, at the very start of his rule he didn't erect concentration camps, he cleaned up the cities. He incrementally made decisions that were small and over time built up to the Nazi regime and millions of deaths. At what point should resistance have began?

It didn't happen this way, but in an alternate reality Covid could have still been presented as a national security threat and all of the restrictive measures could have become standard. Thankfully the government decided that the threat was over, but they didn't have to. Essentially nobody was resisting their directives.

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, JVW said:

Essentially nobody was resisting their directives.

You saw a very different response than I did.

[JVW]

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

I don’t see Adams vs Jefferson as freedom vs. constraint, but as valuing some aspects of freedom over others, as follows: Security and comfort are freedom from vulnerability and want. Freedom from dependence is autonomy, and interdependence is freedom from both autonomy and subservience. Interdependently maintained security and comfort is freedom from both isolation and the vulnerability to which this leads, the want to which vulnerability leads, and the unmet dependence (failure) to which want leads. Zion integrates all aspects of freedom (and liberty). Worldly politics/economics, in light of the material beings we are, tend to consolidate power and control as a means to establish security and comfort.

You term it as "freedom from vulnerability and want" that isn't a type of freedom. "I want something. I just bought the thing I wanted. Now I'm free from wanting it." That isn't how people talk about it. Or "I have something serious to discuss with my wife. I'm going to be vulnerable with her because I want to. I'm done talking to her, now I'm free from feeling vulnerable."

Consider the least secure place on Earth where someone could live. There's no surveillance, if a community lived there they would fiercely depend on each other for survival. Zero security. What comes to my mind would be like the middle of the Amazon rain forest. Or somewhere in a remote mountain wilderness. In the book of Mormon it would be like when Lehi's family arrived in the New World. Ultimate freedom to do whatever you want, whenever you want, without needing to answer to anyone. But you could be ripped apart by a bear in the middle of the night.

Now consider the most secure place on Earth that someone could live, a "maximum security facility" if you will. What immediately comes to my mind is a prison, or some sort of secret military compound. In those places, there is no danger from the outside world. All needs are taken care of, and everyone is constantly monitored. There is no freedom, but there is plenty of security.

Now let's consider instead something like the freedom of Speech, or freedom of religion, or freedom to abort, etc.

Freedom of speech. If speech has ultimate freedom there is no security. A rapist could talk publicly all day about how he wants to rape all of these people he's interacting with, with no consequence, and everyone around the rapist would not feel secure. I'd bring up a more extreme example but I don't want to get the thread locked. Another example, yelling fire in a movie theater or joking about having a bomb on a plane. No security, maximum freedom.

Freedom of religion. If people can truly believe and behave however they want according to the dictates of their conscience (or lack there of) you never know if the person next to you will suicide bomb, or ritually sacrifice you. There's no security in a society in which there is 100% freedom of conscience.

Freedom to abort means that the most secure place we ever experience in life, the womb, is no longer secure. But if that freedom doesn't exist then the security returns.

I'm reminded of Elder Oaks talk for some strange reason, "Truth and Tolerance" from 2011

Quote

This inspired caution reminds us that for persons who believe in absolute truth, tolerance for behavior is like a two-sided coin. Tolerance, or respect, is on one side of the coin, but truth is always on the other. You cannot possess or use the coin of tolerance without being conscious of both sides.

I feel like freedom and security are two sides of the same coin as well. I'm interesting to see if you can come up with any example of a freedom a person can enjoy that can simultaneously exist in full measure as their level of relevant security increases.

I do recognize that it is impossible to experience 100% maximum freedom in this life without very serious risks. That it is necessary to exchange freedom for security and that each person has their own personal level of how much their willing to exchange. The government, and the people, that started the American Revolution and existed immediately after was very high on the scale of freedom and they threw their security right out the window. The government that exists in the U.S. now, and the people who support that government, are much more focused on feeling secure and don't really care about personal freedom anymore. For some, they feel like too much freedom has been exchanged, for others they feel like we still have a long way to go to reach the security "goal" and are willing to trade a lot more freedom for it.

I personally feel like America has been lulled into a false sense of security. I think the society in this country is like a giant Oak tree that has been hollowed out from the inside, but appears strong on the outside and it'll just take one good storm for it to topple over. I think a lot of people, regardless of political persuasion feel the same way, that what we have is fragile and can be easily lost.

[JVW]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

You saw a very different response than I did.

You didn't see the 99.5% of people wearing masks everywhere, everyone standing in queues spaced 6 feet apart, nobody attending social events, and 99% of people 65+ receiving the covid shots before any threats of job loss from the government? I'm not talking about how people acted online, everyone is tough online, I'm talking about what did you actually see in reality when you left your house to get groceries during covid?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JVW said:

You didn't see the 99.5% of people wearing masks everywhere, everyone standing in queues spaced 6 feet apart, nobody attending social events, and 99% of people 65+ receiving the covid shots before any threats of job loss from the government? I'm not talking about how people acted online, everyone is tough online, I'm talking about what did you actually see in reality when you left your house to get groceries during covid?

I saw a lot of people not wearing masks, even at church.  Or they had masks on but hanging around their neck.  I wasn’t in places which needed queues much and there were lots of family get togethers happening.  Lots of people I knew refused to get vaccines.

Edited November 15, 2024 by Calm

[Rain]

2 hours ago, JVW said:

You didn't see the 99.5% of people wearing masks everywhere,

On the few occasions I went out for food not even close to 99.5%

2 hours ago, JVW said:

everyone standing in queues spaced 6 feet apart,

Only sometimes.

2 hours ago, JVW said:

nobody attending social events,

Heard from people attending social events.  One of which was when we dropped a card off at a primary child in our class for her birthday and they had a great big party going on.  We were invited to stay and declined. We did however find out online about someone at the party was in the hospital the next week an fighting covid.  

 

2 hours ago, JVW said:

and 99% of people 65+ receiving the covid shots before any threats of job loss from the government? I'm not talking about how people acted online, everyone is tough online, I'm talking about what did you actually see in reality when you left your house to get groceries during covid?

Yep, what I saw in person.

Edited November 15, 2024 by Rain

[CV75]

2 hours ago, JVW said:

You term it as "freedom from vulnerability and want" that isn't a type of freedom. "I want something. I just bought the thing I wanted. Now I'm free from wanting it." That isn't how people talk about it. Or "I have something serious to discuss with my wife. I'm going to be vulnerable with her because I want to. I'm done talking to her, now I'm free from feeling vulnerable."

Consider the least secure place on Earth where someone could live. There's no surveillance, if a community lived there they would fiercely depend on each other for survival. Zero security. What comes to my mind would be like the middle of the Amazon rain forest. Or somewhere in a remote mountain wilderness. In the book of Mormon it would be like when Lehi's family arrived in the New World. Ultimate freedom to do whatever you want, whenever you want, without needing to answer to anyone. But you could be ripped apart by a bear in the middle of the night.

Now consider the most secure place on Earth that someone could live, a "maximum security facility" if you will. What immediately comes to my mind is a prison, or some sort of secret military compound. In those places, there is no danger from the outside world. All needs are taken care of, and everyone is constantly monitored. There is no freedom, but there is plenty of security.

Now let's consider instead something like the freedom of Speech, or freedom of religion, or freedom to abort, etc.

Freedom of speech. If speech has ultimate freedom there is no security. A rapist could talk publicly all day about how he wants to rape all of these people he's interacting with, with no consequence, and everyone around the rapist would not feel secure. I'd bring up a more extreme example but I don't want to get the thread locked. Another example, yelling fire in a movie theater or joking about having a bomb on a plane. No security, maximum freedom.

Freedom of religion. If people can truly believe and behave however they want according to the dictates of their conscience (or lack there of) you never know if the person next to you will suicide bomb, or ritually sacrifice you. There's no security in a society in which there is 100% freedom of conscience.

Freedom to abort means that the most secure place we ever experience in life, the womb, is no longer secure. But if that freedom doesn't exist then the security returns.

I'm reminded of Elder Oaks talk for some strange reason, "Truth and Tolerance" from 2011

I feel like freedom and security are two sides of the same coin as well. I'm interesting to see if you can come up with any example of a freedom a person can enjoy that can simultaneously exist in full measure as their level of relevant security increases.

I do recognize that it is impossible to experience 100% maximum freedom in this life without very serious risks. That it is necessary to exchange freedom for security and that each person has their own personal level of how much their willing to exchange. The government, and the people, that started the American Revolution and existed immediately after was very high on the scale of freedom and they threw their security right out the window. The government that exists in the U.S. now, and the people who support that government, are much more focused on feeling secure and don't really care about personal freedom anymore. For some, they feel like too much freedom has been exchanged, for others they feel like we still have a long way to go to reach the security "goal" and are willing to trade a lot more freedom for it.

I personally feel like America has been lulled into a false sense of security. I think the society in this country is like a giant Oak tree that has been hollowed out from the inside, but appears strong on the outside and it'll just take one good storm for it to topple over. I think a lot of people, regardless of political persuasion feel the same way, that what we have is fragile and can be easily lost.

Conversations like these are more personality and semantic tests than anything else, which is fine. So, examples of freedoms that exist in full measure as security increases are the same ones you listed, since virtuous speech and virtuous religious observance are the intent of protection (security). We can include virtuous press, assembly and petition; bearing arms, etc. Virtuous abortion might fall under religious observance or privacy; some might place it under quartering (just kidding). Unvirtuous action leads to destruction. What is considered “virtuous” is ascertained by society, which by nature is not autonomous (the adage from 1 Corinthians 12:21.

The tradeoff between freedom and security is a convenient model in introducing the basic principles of American civics.

[JVW]

31 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Conversations like these are more personality and semantic tests than anything else, which is fine. So, examples of freedoms that exist in full measure as security increases are the same ones you listed, since virtuous speech and virtuous religious observance are the intent of protection (security). We can include virtuous press, assembly and petition; bearing arms, etc. Virtuous abortion might fall under religious observance or privacy; some might place it under quartering (just kidding). Unvirtuous action leads to destruction. What is considered “virtuous” is ascertained by society, which by nature is not autonomous (the adage from 1 Corinthians 12:21.

The tradeoff between freedom and security is a convenient model in introducing the basic principles of American civics.

If I understand you correctly are you saying that freedom and security are only two sides of the same coin if people are unrighteous? If everyone was righteous we could have both to ghe greatest degree? I'm reminded of the parallels between the law of consecration and communism. The only difference between the two is one of them is voluntary and the other is not, and one of them is managed by God and the other by the State. The law of consecration, I think, seeks to maximize security, and the freedom is retained because it's 100% voluntary. Communism seeks to maximize security, but requires an authoritarian arm to enforce because of people's unrighteousness. Am I kind of connecting the dots with what you're saying or am I totally off base here?

The thing is though is that I think I'm seeing things in a more absolute manner. Either there is freedom of speech, or there isn't. Freedom of only virtuous speech isn't true freedom of speech because one does not have the right to say whatever they want if it isn't virtuous. If speech was restricted to only good things, then there would definitely be security, but that would be cutting off a large portion of what one is currently free to speak in order to maintain that level of security. 

Also, I don't think the freedom vs security thing is only applicable to America. I think this applies to any power dynamic, any nation, in any time period. And I think it's particularly relevant to the rise of Nazism in the '30s.

Edited November 15, 2024 by JVW

[webbles]

3 hours ago, JVW said:

Thanks for sharing those stories and your thoughts. It would be nice if the hunkering down was a voluntary action by the citizens. If people used their freedom on purpose to restrict their freedom temporarily then I see no issue.

In the various forms of democracies, citizens also voluntarily select who makes decisions as a group.  So I don't see an issue with the citizen leaders making decisions for the good of the rest of the citizens.  It is the same thing to me.

3 hours ago, JVW said:

You're right, authoritarian regimes don't act like that. The threat is always present. Followers do feel like they must give up their freedoms permanently. The problem is that the threat is determined by the government and when it goes away is determined by the government. Under Hitler, at the very start of his rule he didn't erect concentration camps, he cleaned up the cities. He incrementally made decisions that were small and over time built up to the Nazi regime and millions of deaths. At what point should resistance have began?

This partially fits with the Lex Oppia story.  At the beginning, the restrictions was warranted.  The Romans were facing an existential crisis.  But after the crises went away, the law wasn't rescinded and so the women rose up and demanded it to be gone.  With Nazism, they gained power through identifying various enemies that had caused problems with Germany (capitalists, jews, England/France, etc).  Many of the Germans felt that those were valid enemies and so were willing to give them more power.  But once they had enough power, then the Nazis really went crazy.  Resistance could have started at the beginning point by showing that the enemies defined by the Nazis weren't really enemies.  Or to point out that they are just using these enemies to gain power.  Or to show that they weren't acting in a democratic manner but an authoritarian manner.

Another example is Captain Moroni.  He started with an enemy (Amalickiah).  For those that didn't like Amalickiah, they rallied to Moroni's banner.  After the threat of Amalickia was past, it appears that the Nephite government went back to normal.  If Moroni had kept the power to himself or used it to do any more things, then people should start resisting.

3 hours ago, JVW said:

It didn't happen this way, but in an alternate reality Covid could have still been presented as a national security threat and all of the restrictive measures could have become standard. Thankfully the government decided that the threat was over, but they didn't have to. Essentially nobody was resisting their directives.

If a lot of the restrictive measures had become standard, it would show that the governments were becoming less democratic and more authoritarian.  The restrictive measures didn't last all that long and that is a sign of how much resistance did happen.  The elected officials couldn't implement really restrictive measures because too many people were fighting them.

2 hours ago, JVW said:

You didn't see the 99.5% of people wearing masks everywhere, everyone standing in queues spaced 6 feet apart, nobody attending social events, and 99% of people 65+ receiving the covid shots before any threats of job loss from the government? I'm not talking about how people acted online, everyone is tough online, I'm talking about what did you actually see in reality when you left your house to get groceries during covid?

I, personally, think everything you mentioned was a smart idea so I don't see why anyone would resist doing it.  None of the things took away freedoms or the ability to do anything.  If the government had started to weld people into their houses, then I'd agree that resistance is needed.

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, JVW said:

The only difference between the two is one of them is voluntary and the other is not

There is more that just that difference except on a superficial level if you studied the variations of the United Order and assume those were close to what God intends for Zion.

I am not talking about how communism exhibits in the real world, but the ideal version…which has potential for good unlike the real world version where imo men used the idea of communism to con others into giving them power (there were some true believers, but they did not end up on top).   There are very few similarities between real world communism and the law of consecration, so please don’t anyone jump on me for defending real life communism.  That falls into my “very not good” file.  As far as ideal communism, I have very strong views that it’s not possible.

Edited November 15, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, JVW said:

Either there is freedom of speech, or there isn't. Freedom of only virtuous speech isn't true freedom of speech because one does not have the right to say whatever they want if it isn't virtuous.

So you believe people should be allowed to slander others?  Incite violence?  Serious question meaning to explore how you see it working, not to challenge.