Leftism and the Gospel: How Wide the Divide?

[_Droopy]

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.

In other words, because it appears to be free to you (no out-of-pocket expenses from your own personal funds at the time of treatment), you have come to believe that you are not paying for it.

[_Buffalo]

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.
.

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.

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

[_Darth J]

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.

And for more on how Joseph Smith most certainly did not have sex with his plural wives, you can go to anti-Mormon intellectual hack, Richard L. Bushman:

Partly to maintain secrecy, Joseph could not have spent much time with [Louisa] Beaman or any of the women he married. He never gathered his wives into a household--as his Utah followers later did--or accompanied them to public events. Close relationships were further curtailed by business. Joseph had to look after Emma and the children, manage the Church, govern the city, and evade the extradition officers from Missouri. As the marriages increased, there were fewer and fewer opportunities for seeing each wife. Even so, nothing indicates that sexual relations were left out of plural marriages.

Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, 438-39

And there's some more on page 494.

[Guest]

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.

At the federal level, it is not only ostensibly inconsistent with both the Constitution and the classical liberal ideals of the proper role and scope of the state, and as the Constitution and many of these classical liberal ideas are inspired in nature, that inconsistency arguably extends to the gospel of Jesus Christ as well.

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.

CFR

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.

Whatever they choose?

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.

As to the institutional church's relationship to the secular political world and the specific views of its members in the political realm within that context, this is correct.

Then, on the other hand, there are the actual doctrines and teachings of the gospel, and their philosophical/doctrinal implications and their application on an individual level.

And that's another matter entirely.

[Guest]

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.

At least you can find out how the government is spending the money.

[_Themis]

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.

Well we are still waiting for you to provide some evidnce. http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Take a look at this chart and how much each country pays for health care and how they rank. The US pays the most yet gets less for it's money. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHO%27s_ranking_of_healthcare_systems

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

still waiting.

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?).

And where are your sources. It's nice for attack others simply due to disagreements.

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.

Still waiting. The US is a beacon as are many other countries, many which rank higher then the US. http://www.photius.com/rankings/freedom_country_ranks_2011.html This site has a lot of information showing that the US is not alone and many do rank better in many areas

The American health care system is, unarguably the best on the planet as to both qualtiy of care and availability/delivery of care.

Clearly not correct. Availability is one of the biggest problems, as is quality for those who lack the necessary resources.

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.

CFR

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.

CFR by the way I am not suggesting any system is perfect, only that other systems are better then what we have in the US.

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

Better then no education, and certainly we can do better. When it comes to public education, again the US does not fair well compared to other democratic developed countries.

[_Darth J]

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.

At the federal level, it is not only ostensively inconsistent with both the Constitution and the classical liberal ideals of the proper role and scope of the state, but with the gospel of Jesus Christ as well.

You are intermingling political ideology with law (the Constitution), and you never fail to do so.

And I am quite sure that your ideas about what "the gospel of Jesus Christ" entails is 100% irrelevant to the powers of Congress enumerated in Article I of of the Constitution.

If it something is within the purview of Article I, it is, by definition, constitutional. Your disagreeing with any given program because you don't like it is not a constitutional issue, but a political one.

By the way, I am not interested in hearing your hilariously uninformed opinions about how "the Socratic method is the courtroom," or how torts are implicitly bad (when you have no demonstrated understanding of what a tort is), as a rejoinder to your failure to be able to tell the difference between a legal question and a political one.

It is not particularly impressive to see your verbosity about the what you think the Framers intended when, true to your Skousenite talking points, you think that case law is a perversion of the Constitution, despite the fact that the Constitution presupposes that the United States is a common law country.

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.

CFR

How about if we start with your idea that art is only protected speech if it is political?

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=13788&p=344138

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.

Whatever they choose?

A person who understood what rights and duties are would not respond with this question.

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.

As to the institutional church's relationship to the secular political world and the specific views of its members in the political realm within that context, this is correct.

Then, on the other hand, there are the actual doctrines and teachings of the gospel, and their philosophical/doctrinal implications and their application on an individual level.

And that's another matter entirely.

And that's why Harry Reid cannot possibly be a good Mormon.

See: No True Scotsman Fallacy

[_Darth J]

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.

However, Melchett is mistaken to relate his own experiences with his country's health care system.

[_Analytics]

Communism is an economic system conceived with Utopian ideals with the objective of creating a wealthy society where everybody contributes and everybody shares fairly in the wealth. Every attempt to implement Communism has been a colossal failure.

In contrast, the United Order is an economic system conceived with Utopian ideals with the objective of creating a wealthy society where everybody contributes and everybody shares fairly in the wealth. Every attempt to implement the United Order has been a colossal failure.

[_Darth J]

We also see how the Gospel is consistent with "classical liberal ideals" in the example of Joseph Smith's respect for freedom of the press.