Leftism and the Gospel: How Wide the Divide?

[_Buffalo]

Joseph did practice a form of wife swapping, although I am not sure this is really a leftist ideal.

Joseph did no such thing, and not a shred of documentary evidence exists that he did. Roll the dice again, but this time blow on them and say a few words over them and hope for a high roll.

Not only Joseph, but his successors, too. If you didn't like your new wife, you could trade her off to someone else, no divorce required.

The law of consecration certainly is a form of group ownership.

You simply have no idea what your talking about here, and don't understand the doctrine involved.

I agree with you, it wasn't group ownership. Property wasn't held in common, it was held by Joseph.

[_Droopy]

Jesus said the things you see me do you shall do also, but greater. We as individuals should do that, and as individuals we make the state.

So the state is the people? There is no difference between the individual, his individual existence and its responsibilities/duties, and those of the state? The responsibilities, scope, field of activity, and prerogatives of the state are identifiable and seamlessly conflatable with those of the individual?

There is far too much empirical, statistical, and observational analysis current to take anecdotal defenses of this kind seriously, Melchett (and I've seen many like them before). The facts and conditions as they exist are available for any who wish to educate themselves upon the matter.

Please get it right. I'm offering first hand evidence, not anecdotal. I have seen the conditions and received the treatment. For free. I have witnessed the treatment of my family and friends.

Its anecdote, period. There is a mountain of longstanding critique and analysis of the NHS and Canadian systems (and similar constructions) that show quite conclusively that the British system, in particular, is as much a danger to a large segment of its patients as it is to those who it takes care of with some semblance of medical competence.

This is assuming that you are ever really taken care of at all if you have a serious disease condition requiring the seeing of specialists, laboratory analysis, biopsy's CAT scans etc. The empirical, documented reality is that Britain's system is, as to quality and availability of care, somewhere between America's and Cuba's.

By the way, please explain to me, in some detail if your can, how and in what manner Bristish health care is "free."

[_Themis]

Joseph did no such thing, and not a shred of documentary evidence exists that he did. Roll the dice again, but this time blow on them and say a few words over them and hope for a high roll.

The form of wife swapping I am talking about is Joseph marrying already married women, which you already know there is plenty of evidence.

You simply have no idea what your talking about here, and don't understand the doctrine involved.

I am certain you think so.

This has been debunked and sent to the intellectual dumpster far too many times to engage in quick, drive by sniping such as this. Much better would be some actual critical argument showing why anyone should accept this kind of claim.

It's been given to you multiple times before, so I am not going to get very involved with someone everyone knows does not discuss.

[_Droopy]

Possibly if you only go to biased sources that Droopy is famous for.

Translation: I can't for the life of me think of any counter-arguments or refutations of the arguments of those sources, so I'll just call them "biased" and hope others fall for this psychological trick.

Reality is much different. It's not that the more well do in the US will probably get better service, but on average Canadian and British get better service with less horror stories, and pay much less.

This is either flat footed prevarication or grotesque, simple minded ignorance.

They are also healthier then the average American(although that is not exclusively due to providing health care to all).

Yes, the standard fabricated ideological boilerplate and decontextualized statistics from the usual worshipers of the Great God Government (and what are your sources for these assertions, Themis?).

The US is one of the few democratic developed countries that does not have a universal health care.

We're also virtually the last remaining beacon of hope supporting the values and principles of freedom, liberty, and the unalienable rights of the individual left on earth. Europe is essentially at its end, as to that state of affairs.

The American health care system is, unarguably the best on the planet as to both qualtiy of care and availability/delivery of care. My wife was just in the hospital yet again for a life threatening condition (massive hemorrhage from the stomach/colon) and her treatment was prompt, competent (excellent, actually) and of the highest technological quality. All of these conditions are critically absent in the British and Canadian systems, and are known to be as a matter of long study and analysis.

Also, unlike Britain, my wife didn't have to sleep on a cot in a less than sanitary hallway filled with other sick people waiting in que to see a specialist or get a test done while the doctor, nurse, and supply short government system dithered along rationing what resources it has at its disposal to the patients with the least chance of draining the system economically and materially.

She was immediately given a room in emergency, and then in PCU. As this hospital operates on a for profit basis, there is actually a growing, expanding pool of money (wealth, capital resources) in the system with which to hire personnel, buy equipment, and treat patients in a timely and competent manner. Become a bit acquainted with what your talking about first, Themis, and then have this discussion.

How is it so bad that none of these countries want to get rid of it after having it for so long. It's much the same as the idea of a public education system so that everyone can at least get a basic education.

1. Sheep love their shepherds, so long as the shepherds continue to supply bread and circuses to the sheep as they graze the commons.

2. To a vast degree, public education is not educating most children, so you appear to have run headlong into a box canyon here.

[_Melchett]

Its anecdote, period. There is a mountain of longstanding critique and analysis of the NHS and Canadian systems (and similar constructions) that show quite conclusively that the British system, in particular, is as much a danger to a large segment of its patients as it is to those who it takes care of with some semblance of medical competence.

I take it that the witness statements to the Book of Mormon are anecdotal?

This is assuming that you are ever really taken care of at all if you have a serious disease condition requiring the seeing of specialists, laboratory analysis, biopsy's CAT scans etc. The empirical, documented reality is that Britain's system is, as to quality and availability of care, somewhere between America's and Cuba's.

I had kidney failure. I was treated very well, and had all the specialists I needed, thank you. My father had to have blood transfusions every fortnight for the last three years of his life, and a lot of specialist treatment. He was in his 80's, and wasn't turned away or denied treatment. My mother had lymphatic cancer in her late 60's. She was treated and is now cancer free.I was there to see how they received their treatment, and my story is not an unusual one.

By the way, please explain to me, in some detail if your can, how and in what manner Bristish health care is "free."

It's paid for through National Insurance contributions, that also covers things like never ending benefits and state pensions. Even if you've never paid anything, you are covered for treatment. No co-pays (apart from prescriptions, which is £7.40, regardless of brand) and no disqualification for pre-existing conditions.

[_Darth J]

You guys seem to have missed the point of this thread, so I will help you:

It is inconsistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ for a representative democracy to vote to use tax dollars to help poor people, help sick people, or to get people a basic education.

However, it is righteous for a representative democracy that guarantees individual liberties to impose Droopy's preferred moral value judgments on society as a whole.

If you endorse people's right to make their own decisions regarding their personal lives, this is, morally and philosophically speaking, exactly the same as endorsing whatever they choose to do with that freedom.

Some Latter-day Saints, including General Authorities authorized to speak specifically to this issue on the Church's behalf, as well as official statements by the Church, indicate that the Church does not endorse any particular political ideology. Such Latter-day Saints allege that there are good people in various political parties. But they are not True Scotsmen.

[_Droopy]

The form of wife swapping I am talking about is Joseph marrying already married women, which you already know there is plenty of evidence.

It would be nice, from your perspective, if there was a particle of evidence showing that Joseph ever married already married woman. Unfortunately, there isn't, and so your "wife swapping" defamation is just a scrap taken from the playbook of the worst of the anti-Mormon intellectual hacks of the past.

Joseph was sealed for eternity to some woman who were already civilly married (in most, if not all cases, with the consent the men involved), but as there was no sexual relationships involved in such "spiritual wifery," (and there is no evidence of any such), the question is moot. Joseph Smith never engaged in "polyandry" of any kind. This is anti-Mormon myth. What he did actually engage in has no relation to "polyandry" in any normative sense.

You simply have no idea what your talking about here, and don't understand the doctrine involved.

I am certain you think so.

I know so, as you've made it quite clear through your own posts.

In any case, this is a typical Buffalo derailment, and I'm not going any further with it after this.

[_Darth J]

Joseph was sealed for eternity to some woman who were already civilly married

And that's exactly what D&C 132 said was acceptable to God.

[_Buffalo]

1. Sheep love their shepherds, so long as the shepherds continue to supply bread and circuses to the sheep as they graze the commons.

I'm not sure this works as an insult coming from an someone whose church's only unwavering principle is absolute obedience to leadership.

[_Analytics]

For what man among you having twelve sons, and is no respecter of them, and they serve him obediently, and he saith unto the one: Be thou clothed in robes and sit thou here; and to the other Be thou clothed in rags and sit thou there—and looketh upon his sons and saith I am just?

-D&C 38:25

And behold, thou wilt remember the poor, and consecrate of thy properties for their support that which thou hast to impart unto them, with a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken.

-D&C 42:29

The intent of the law of consecration was that every man is to be “equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.”

-Marion G. Romney, First Presidency Message, January 1980

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

-Karl Marx