Racism and Mormonism

[_Ray A]

Is it not possible to balance the two imperatives?

Don't waste your time, Danna, as far as Droppy is concerned we both live in corrupt communist countries.

[_Droopy]

Is it not possible to balance the two imperatives?

Yes, it is possible to balance them (as free market capitalism under a liberal democratic social and political order grounded in the rule of law and equality under the law has, of all other systems, been most successful in accomplishing). It is not possible, however, to have a full or perfect realization of either together as a unity in mortality, a condition governed by the existence of scares resources with alternative uses.

It can be balanced, but there is no solution to the perennial tension between quality and equality in this life through political means. In the Millennium, however, this will no longer be a problem as economics will no longer be relevant.

[_Droopy]

For kicks why don't you start by explaining what is wrong with "equality as a material/social fact". Start with the "united order" please.

1. The United Order is a freely entered into covenant community in which property is understood to belong to the Lord and is made available to the others within the community for whatever purpose. As such, free agency is central, and the choice to come into or exit the covenant is fully respected.

2. No scriptures or teachings of the GAs indicate equality of material condition as being the purpose of the United Order, but the building of Zion in preparation for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ as well as separation of the righteous from Babylon and its corruption. The sharing of resources is then a spiritual discipline (much like fasting) that conditions and tempers the soul in preparation for higher spiritual interests and desires. It is not either an end in itself or, like socialism, grounded in the base human attribute of envy and the coveting of the fruits of the labor or property of others.

3. The United Order is only appropriate for the Saints at certain times and under certain conditions. It comes and goes, and hence is clearly not required of all Saints at all times and is not a requirement of salvation (in a literal sense, even though the attitudes and disposition of the Saints toward material wealth should be similar, i.e., that material wealth does not ultimately belong to us but to the Lord, and is his to use as he feels appropriate).

4. Wealth is not confiscated by force through taxation and given to others irregardless of their spiritual/moral/cultural state in relation to the greater community. All contributions are by covenant and promise according to the free agency and choice of those who covenant.

5. Since the purpose of the United Order is not equality of condition but a unified community seeking the realization of higher spiritual ideals, a coercive regimentation of society and a leveling of individuality is not necessary. The communalization of resources is a means to a higher spiritual end, not the end itself.

6. No scripture speaks of the United Order as a situation involving some kind of complete equality among its people, but only mentions that there are no rich or poor. This does not imply anything on the order of a classless society or that a brain surgeon or mechanical engineer would not be worth more to that society than a ditch digger or attendant at a car wash. Read the D&C, each individual goes before the Bishop, depending upon his skills, talents, and income, and determines, in concert with the Bishop, his family's needs and wants. Any excess beyond this goes to the Bishop's storehouse. Each case is individual, which, if more than any other feature, makes the United Order utterly different in kind from human notions of "socialism".

As to your question of what is wrong with equality of condition: at least outside the Gospel and the mediation of any such society by the authority of the Priesthood and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and unless done in the Lord's way, any such system destroys and squanders wealth (and hence makes prosperity and higher living standards well nigh impossible), flattens and levels human individuality and uniqueness, destroys the incentive and desire to create, invent, and improve, suppresses or prohibits teh expression and use of free agency, and requires a coercive uniformity of thought, perception, and attitude for which the lowest common human denominator is the frame of reference.

It is, in other words, evil.

[_Tarski]

The sharing of resources is then a spiritual discipline (much like fasting) that conditions and tempers the soul in preparation for higher spiritual interests and desires. It is not either an end in itself or, like socialism, grounded in the base human attribute of envy and the coveting of the fruits of the labor or property of others.

Spiritual discipline. LOL. BS rationalization. Amazing.

Wealth is not confiscated by force through taxation and given to others irregardless of their spiritual/moral/cultural state in relation to the greater community. All contributions are by covenant and promise according to the free agency and choice of those who covenant.

Let's just say that society uses taxes for the greater good (like the roads you drive on) and it is part of a social contract that we enter into by being citizens etc. So, you are free to leave the country just like one is free to leave the Mormon commune. LOL. (spiritual discipline! LOL). The rest of us want to, umm, damned cooperate and get something done.

Oh, and please remember not to pay taxes and definitely don't drive on public roads or expect any police to come and save you. Maybe there is a tract of land in the antarctic somewhere for you.


I do enjoy your rationalizations though so give me another. Try this:
"If you would be perfect, go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."

[_Ray A]

6. No scripture speaks of the United Order as a situation involving some kind of complete equality among its people, but only mentions that there are no rich or poor. This does not imply anything on the order of a classless society or that a brain surgeon or mechanical engineer would not be worth more to that society than a ditch digger or attendant at a car wash. Read the D&C, each individual goes before the Bishop, depending upon his skills, talents, and income, and determines, in concert with the Bishop, his family's needs and wants. Any excess beyond this goes to the Bishop's storehouse. Each case is individual, which, if more than any other feature, makes the United Order utterly different in kind from human notions of "socialism".

Section 38:

26 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?
27 Behold, this I have given unto you as a parable, and it is even as I am. I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine.

Droopy, you don't understand Mormon doctrine, and the problem is that you're too brainwashed, like BC, with extreme right-wing politics. All bigots like you and BC know is "right-left-right-left-right-left".

But keep going, characters like you and BC will turn more people against Mormonism than the Tanners could ever dream of in their wildest imaginations.

So God approves of a "class society"? The problem is that you and BC think that God approves of 1950s-style capitalism and 20th century politics. Thus saith the Lord:

left liberal social left liberal socialist left liberal socialist
left liberal social left liberal socialist left liberal socialist
left liberal social left liberal socialist left liberal socialist
left liberal social left liberal socialist left liberal socialist
left liberal social left liberal socialist left liberal socialist
left liberal social left liberal socialist left liberal socialist
left liberal social left liberal socialist left liberal socialist
left liberal social left liberal socialist left liberal socialist
left liberal social left liberal socialist left liberal socialist
left liberal social left liberal socialist left liberal socialist
left liberal social left liberal socialist left liberal socialist
left liberal social left liberal socialist left liberal socialist
left liberal social left liberal socialist left liberal socialist
left liberal social left liberal socialist left liberal socialist
left liberal social left liberal socialist left liberal socialist
left liberal social left liberal socialist left liberal socialist
left liberal social left liberal socialist left liberal socialist
left liberal social left liberal socialist left liberal socialist

[_Brackite]

Religion is better than left-wing Liberalism.

Hardly

Yes, it is. Religion is indeed better, left-wing Liberalism.

Here is James 1:27:

James 1:27: (New King James Version):

27 Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

[_Roger Morrison]

It seems your whole mental world is organised around one central bogeyman.

How come they are found as the root of most of the world's problems today?[/quote]

What rooted "most of the world's problems" through out human history?

[_Roger Morrison]

Appropriately, I'm in RED ;-)

Is it not possible to balance the two imperatives?

Yes, it is possible to balance them (as free market capitalism under a liberal democratic social and political order grounded in the rule of law and equality under the law has, of all other systems, been most successful in accomplishing). By George, I think 'e 'as IT eh-what! It is not possible, however, to have a full or perfect realization of either together as a unity in mortality, a condition governed by the existence of scares resources with alternative uses. The secret in all things delicious/correct/workable/useful is the proper mix/portions/allocation of all necessary ingredients/materials/labour/time/etc... IT is the balance! Has anyone here suggested it isn't?

It can be balanced, And IS in other less Radically Rightist countriesbut there is no solution to the perennial tension between quality and equality in this life through political means. In the opinion of Radical Religious Rightists In the Millennium, however, this will no longer be a problem as economics will no longer be relevant. Thank you for "...In the Milenium..." clarification. Is belief in the "Millenium" justification for discouraging the world to come together in respect and concern for each other? Achieving a working "balance" until the "Millenium" is upon us??

Loran, I think I now understand your vehemence towards all-things-socialist. Is it the conflict you see between the theological and the secular worlds? The balance between the two simply requires too much faith on your part. So it becomes an uncompromising choice for you and your camp?

Intelligent creative humankind, resolving imperfectly in Science-based secularism. OR, obedient-to-the-word-of-God, as understood by the Faith-based, approach to human problem solving??? For you it's the latter. Right?

However, I do hope you will honour the Democratic process and support Barack Obama and his efforts to remedy America's problems as best they can be. Centuries of corruption, deceitful persuasion and mismanagement will not be corrected in any short time...

Quick question to you Droopy, and to others: In your opinion, is Obama's entry onto the world stage a sign that the Millenium is about to happen soon?

Wonders Roger...

[_antishock8]

So am I.

Of course you are.

Lol. You're hot.

That aside, I think I must have gotten a healthier dose of racism growing up than you did. It sounds like your parents were reasonable people.

--------

Here in NC, a teacher in the Cumberland county school system was filmed being hostile, under the aegis of teaching kids about our political system in the Presidential election cycle, to anyone she discovered who 'would vote McCain'. The poor kids. The humiliation starts around the 20 second mark. My own child was in the receiving in of one these lectures where a Black school teacher openly advocated Obama precisely because he is Black.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DM45kYAKyCU

Notice the one kid says he's voting for Obama because he's Black. How is this not bigotry?

I remember when I was a kid our town elected its first Black mayor back in the early 80's. Everyone was positively excited about it (perhaps with the exception of my parents).

http://www.blackpast.org/?q=aaw/chase-james-e-1914-1987

http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?Di ... le_id=8788

This was a phenomenal achievement for a city whose Black population was less than 2% in terms of "progressive" behavior. For all of us latently "racist" white people, how is it possible that a Black man in Spokane garnered 82% of the vote? This is why I bristled at being labelled a racist because I didn't support Obama. It's patently absurd when it's clear most people Center and Center-Right don't have issues voting for anyone as long as they share similar ideologies or motivations.

[_Ray A]

Quick question to you Droopy, and to others: In your opinion, is Obama's entry onto the world stage a sign that the Millenium is about to happen soon?

Wonders Roger...

My guess, I'm afraid to say, Roger, is that to Christians/Mormons/conservative Catholics/Opus Dei/Southern Bapists/Right-wing Protestants-for-Ian-Paisely/The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith/Oral Roberts University/Ed Decker/The John Birch Society/The Jimmy Swaggert Confessional Society/ The Bill-Tammy Baker Free-tax-Fraud-Society/The BillyGoat-Graham-Born-Again-Society/Saturday Christian Lawn-mowers Association/Beetle-bugs for Jesus/Christian surfers/Save The Born-Again whales Society/ Droopy/and finally, The Relief Society - are all agreed about one thing---

Obama is the Anti-Christ!

And the remainder of the 21st century, shall be Gay.

Jesus will be here --- soon. (When he finishes his cup of dark Al Arabia coffee, and a post-coffee ciragette, Marlbourough, of course, riding a nicotene-fur-stained horse.)

Does all of this sound hard to believe?

Would you believe, then, that Christian Jews who practised the law of Moses lived in America in 600 BC? I thought that would be easier for you.