The Gospel and Leftism: How Wide the Divide Part II

[_Droopy]

Given that several people here were successful in the utter and total derailment of the first installment of this discussion on problems with the attempted integration of leftist philosophy with gospel principles onto Joseph Smith sex life (when they aren't discussing everyone else's) we will now continue with the discussion (until Buffalo and Darth get here, at least) and hope the thread remains on topic and situated in the Celestial room

The first thread asked:

Are there any aspects of leftist philosophy and ideology that are compatible/harmonizable with the doctrines and teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints?

I'd be interested in two aspects of the question here:

1. Philosophy/ideology. Central propositions and beliefs about the human condition, human nature, the purpose and meaning of life, and the proper role, scope, and prerogatives of the state.

2. Policy. Actual policies, initiatives, and laws coming from the Left that you believe can be harmonized with gospel principles.

Before a descent into a general argument over the efficacy of socialized health care systems vs. free market systems, a general attitude among some here centered on the alleged similarities between the United Order (UO) and socialism (which has, as a matter of logical argument, scriptural background, and the existing body of GA statements on the matter, been what could only be termed a closed question for quite a long time, but the carcass of which will continue to be beaten and tenderized for some time to come, I have little doubt).

That broader argument is ongoing, of course, but I don't want the thread to get corralled into just that one question. I'd like to explore a number of contemporary issues and look at how a faithful gospel perspective would look as compared with a generally leftist or "liberal" perspective given the same issue and the same basic condition or social problems to be addressed.

Let us here then, begin addressing some specific issues, policies, and places where the gospel intersects politics and core issues of political philosophy and governance.

Let us begin with the proper role, powers, scope, and perogatives of the state.

A. What is the proper role and place of government in human life according to:

1. The restored gospel of Jesus Christ as taught in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints

2. The Left generally (making room here for various schools of though among the Left within the same areas).

B. Are general leftist trends and beliefs regarding this question compatible with gospel principles/philosophy governing an LDS perspective on the same subject?

[_Melchett]

Hang on, let me go get my attempt to get it back on track.....

[_Buffalo]

I agree wholeheartedly that liberal people should not associate with the LDS Church, and their views have no place in Mormon Doctrine. :)

[_Droopy]

Well, well, the very first response is an attempted derailment.

This bodes ill, I guess, for the rest of the thread.

[_Melchett]

Droopy, don't you think that Matthew 25:41-45 shows a left leaning?

Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.'

[_Buffalo]

Well, well, the very first response is an attempted derailment.

This bodes ill, I guess, for the rest of the thread.

Droopy is never happy, even when you agree with him. :(

[_Droopy]

Droopy, don't you think that Matthew 25:41-45 shows a left leaning?

Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.'

No. Part of this is because compassion for and care of the poor is not and never was a unique leftist concern, and partly it is because I see no specifically political implications here.

[_Melchett]

No. Part of this is because compassion for and care of the poor is not and never was a unique leftist concern, and partly it is because I see no specifically political implications here.

Surely, providing welfare and healthcare falls under this?

Do you think that Jesus would have been against it?

[_Droopy]

No. Part of this is because compassion for and care of the poor is not and never was a unique leftist concern, and partly it is because I see no specifically political implications here.

Surely, providing welfare and healthcare falls under this?

Do you think that Jesus would have been against it?

1. I see no evidence in this scripture, or any other, that Caesar should provide "welfare" and medical services to the poor, or to anyone else. None whatsoever.

2. Yes, Jesus Christ would be against the state doing for others what they are capable and responsible for doing for themselves.

I also do not think he would be for the vast destruction and diversion of real wealth from actually raising the living standards of the poor into schemes for keeping the poor precisely and permanently in the place they are in so that the state may continue to take care of them in perpetuity, thereby perpetuating its own power and control over their lives and decisions.

In other words, he would be against socialism.

[_Buffalo]

I also do not think he would be for the vast destruction and diversion of real wealth from actually raising the living standards of the poor into schemes for keeping the poor precisely and permanently in the place they are in so that the state may continue to take care of them in perpetuity, thereby perpetuating its own power and control over their lives and decisions.

Why do you think he counseled rich people to simply give everything they have to the poor, rather than making any attempt at teaching the poor self-sufficiency?