Leftism and the Gospel: How Wide the Divide?

[_Buffalo]

Most of the first dozen of Joseph's wives were already married to other men. Not all of the men knew about it. And at least one of the women testified on behalf of the LDS church that the relationship was sexual. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Not even a nice try, Bluffalo.

There is no evidence that ANY of the marriages weren't sexual.

We also have not the slightest evidence that you are not beating your wife or that you have closed down that meth lab in your basement.

Bye.

It is logical to conclude a sexual relationship where there is a marriage, unless there exists evidence to the contrary.

In this case, not only is there no evidence to the contrary, but we have testimony from at least one of the polyandrous wives and several of the polygamous wives that their marriages with Joseph were sexual.

So, as usual, you've got precisely nothing. :)

[_Darth J]

There is no evidence that ANY of the marriages weren't sexual.

We also have not the slightest evidence that you are not beating your wife or that you have closed down that meth lab in your basement.

Bye.

As much as you would like to say this is arguing from ignorance, it is a reasonable presumption that marriage involves a sexual relationship. Mormon scripture specifies having kids as the justification for plural marriage.

Jacob 2

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

D&C 132:63

But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

Generally, the way you get a female pregnant is by having sex with her.

So since the verses specifying having children as the justification for plural marriage are canonized in the Standard Works, and there is absolutely nowhere in the scriptures that talks about "ceremonial dynastic polyandry," and we have one of Joseph Smith's polyandrous wives talking about sexual relations with him, why should anyone presume anything other than a sexual component to Joseph Smith's polyandrous marriages? And what do you bring to the table to rebut that presumption?

[_Darth J]

By the way, Ron Lafferty:


Jacob 2

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

D&C 132:63

But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

If Joseph Smith did not have any children with any of his numerous plural wives, it means that he was not following the conditions set by the Lord under which plural marriage was acceptable to Him.

"Joseph Smith didn't do anything wrong because he failed to follow an affirmative duty given to him by commandment of God" is not the most impressive defense of the Prophet's righteousness.

[_Runtu]

As I recall, the one polyandrous wife who provides evidence of a sexual relationship is Sylvia Lyon. She told her daughter, Josephine, that she (Josephine) was the daughter of Joseph Smith, not Windsor Lyon. She did not say this to any of her other children. She told Josephine and other family members that Josephine had been conceived at a time when Windsor Lyon had become estranged from the church and was living separately (about a block and a half away from Sylvia).

None of this makes any sense if she hadn't had sexual relations with Joseph Smith. First of all, why tell Josephine alone that she was Joseph's child (besides the obvious fact that the separation from Windsor and marriage to Joseph match up with the time of conception)? Also, why bother explaining that she was separated from Windsor at the time if nothing sexual had happened?

[_Droopy]

So there is compulsion involved. I thought this was voluntary?

You should really try to decide, Jason, whether, in your continual attempt to find fault with the Church, you wish to tag the UO as a libertarian anarchic society without rules, regulations, or government, or as a socialist welfare state without economic liberty. Either way, you can probably have your cake and eat it too.

There is no compulsion in the manner in which one utilizes his stewardship. There are rules governing entrance into and presence within Zion, however. One goes into that situation with eyes open and, just as in the Church itself, one could be separated from it if one chooses to live contrary to its principles. Do you think there will be porn produced and consumed in Zion, Jason? If one attempted to introduce such in a Zion community, do you not think compulsion would be used to remove that influence?

If one enters Zion, and then leaves through transgression, one's inheritance stays in Zion. This is clear at the outset.

Thus compulsion. They are not free to give what they think and live as they wish. The government seizes property and or puts you in jail for not paying taxes. Zion will kick you out if you do not give.

Apples and oranges. One is free to enter or exist Zion at will. One has no choice but to enter into the tax and regulatory system of the country in which one lives (unless one simply wishes not to work or work in the criminal underground) and little choice as to whether one remains within it. In fully socialized countries, mine fields, barbed wire fences, walls, and machine gun towers are used to see to it that people cannot leave the economic circumstances in which they find themselves.

Further, Zion is a rather specialized kind of society with a specific mission and purpose demanding a specific kind of person as a member of it. There will be little incentive for entering it if one's personality and orientation are not conducive to success within that society. I would doubt much compulsion would ever be necessary here, as most people who find a Zion society distasteful, will leave of their own accord, once they get a taste of it. Most others won't

Who decides what is reasonable?

Read the relevant D&C verses. The individual, his family in consultation and counsel with his priesthood leaders based on individual circumstances and conditions.

And if the property is not the states, I mean the Church's then why do they leave their inheritance. Clearly this is not theirs to do as they wish. Thus communism.

Right, Jason.

Anyway, in a socialist society, one is not free to enter or to leave, and one's property becomes the state's by force. In Zion, one is free to enter or exit the community at any time, and one is apprised of the conditions and rules of entrance at the outset. There is no compulsion whatsoever as to deeding one's property to the Church. One does not have to do so. Once may simply choose not to enter a Zion community and remain outside it and hence, outside the jurisdiction of its laws. If you leave your property in Zion because, once there, you choose not to abide by its laws and rules of citizenship, the church has not deprived you of it by force, but you have deprived yourself of it by contractual agreement.

Huge, huge difference.

[_Droopy]

No, they don't show what you claim. One of your studies compared colon cancer rates of Britain with other European (read: socialized medicine) countries. It said nothing about how single payer health care systems (read: socialized medicine) compare to the US.

All well and good, as my criticisms here have been aimed squarely at two principle systems, the British and Canadian. At least one of my sources points out that some other European systems work much better than the British and Canadian systems, precisely because a fair degree of free market mechanisms have been left in place at the core of those systems, while the government provides a "safety net" outside the private sector for those who "fall thought the cracks" While these systems are still, grounded in the laws of economics, going to be operating under distinct inefficiencies and distortions of market dynamics, creating a sub-optimum system, they are substantially better than the fully socialized British and Canadian systems, there the destruction of market incentives and disciplines is the severest.

[_Droopy]

Let see, I source arguments and research that supports my views, and place them against your sources and claims, which argue against mine. Yes, Themis, extreme and dishonest.

Actually some of the sources are, which I have shown with the first one you linked

.

All you've shown is that you believe they are extreme, or want others to believe they are, which is an ad hominem attack devoid of logical content and also of your unwillingness or incapacity to refute them.

I also notice that you think that my sources have an "agenda" and that your sources apparently do not.

Yours are obvious.

Still waiting for sources.

Are you kidding? How many do you want?

None of these systems are static, and evaluating success and failure is needed to improve them. Same with the US.

Just stalling for time. The British system has been laboring under the same problems and criticisms since the 1950s.

If they are unsustainable, then the US is in real trouble since more money is spent on it, yet these other countries do better in overall health of the population.

You're simply prevaricating and bluffing to save face now, so I think the debate is pretty much over between us here. I've already shown, with just a smattering of the serious research that's been done, that this claim is hokum, across a number of dimensions, and for a number of reasons, few of which are directly connected to the health care system of a particular country.

Welfare programs exist in all countries, and even many church's like the LDS church. The purpose is to help others, and if possible to get them to be self sufficient.

Government welfare systems, in the main, have nothing to do with "helping people" in any marginally Judeo-Christian sense, and certainly, if history and empirical evidence are any guide, with making people economically self sufficient. "Welfare," in the secular, governmental sense, is a vast gratuity given to the citizens of a country in return for the continual support of the political class in power. It is a vast quid pro quo between an entrenched political class and a body politic, and the intellectual and moral corruption engendered in both that political class and those dependent upon it for economic sustenance, not to mention extra bread and circuses, is equally vast in its consequences and implications.

If a welfare system does not do this then it needs to change. In reality Governments have motivation in this area since more people on welfare means more costs to them and less revenue to pay for it.

Welfare costs government nothing. Governments have no money to pay of any welfare programs, or anything else. All welfare programs are paid for by the taxpaying producers of any society. When it becomes to economically or politically risky to extract further taxes, a government will simply fund their welfare programs through inflation. There is no rational limit to that process - until the collapse comes.

[_Melchett]

Welfare costs government nothing. Governments have no money to pay of any welfare programs, or anything else. All welfare programs are paid for by the taxpaying producers of any society. When it becomes to economically or politically risky to extract further taxes, a government will simply fund their welfare programs through inflation. There is no rational limit to that process - until the collapse comes.

Droopy, just about everything the government pays for is with money from taxes.

[_Droopy]

Widely understood by who?

Numerous intellectuals, scholars, academics, and social critics, among whom are many of the best contemporary minds out and about.

Public education is as good as it ever has been.

Nice assertion.

This is more a commentary on the low place it was coming from, but in terms of real outcomes children are better educated than they have been in the past.

This notion dissipates very quickly as soon as one begins to take a hard look at the answers a substantial quantity of American youths, and particularly the Gen-Xers and post Xers, give to questions about history, economics, political philosophy, government, current events, science, and anything remotely within the realm of the humanities.

The ability of vast numbers of them to articulate coherent, logical arguments for their views in either verbal or written form is also a major problem, as anyone who has actually studied the issue would understand.

Literacy rates are higher than they were in the 1960's, not lower.

Yes, you do need some degree of literacy to play video games, read gaming magazines, and check the internet to see when the next Slipknot or Lady Ga Ga concert will be. Higher literacy rates? Sure. High literacy? Another question entirely.

What has happened is a gradual decline in US student performance relative to the pace of the rest of the world concentrated primarily in the ares of science and math.

No, not concentrated there. It manifests itself there in a more acute manner, in the short cultural and intellectual run, than do the massive deficiencies in the humanities and social sciences, where the real precipitous decline - and the most dangerous - has been taking place since Dewy, but most especially over the last 30 to 40 years.

Politicization probably plays a role here, though in precisely the opposite way you imagine.

I suspect that the kind of politicization that has taken place is pretty much the kind you like, so no doubt, you would have little criticism on that wise.

[_Droopy]

I thought it was generally accepted by critics and apologists alike that at least some of Joseph Smith's marital relationships had a sexual dimension. I guess it comes down to whether one believes the wives who said they had sexual relations with Joseph Smith. I do.

Here are the facts of the matter: Some of Joseph's plural marriages may have had a sexual dimension. Regarding the derailment of this thread into the Trailerpark's favorite theme, Joseph Smith's sex life (when it isn't waxing eloquent about the liberating joys of homosexuality), the main theme in play were plural marriages to wives who still had living husbands married according to civil law. In the first case, there may have been some sexual relations, but there is a dearth of evidence here, not the least of which is the absence of descendents not traceable to Emma.

In the second case, there is no evidence whatsoever, and Buffalo's challenge to prove the there wasn't, in lieu of showing some evidence that there was, is not going to get us very far.