You need to be a Right-Wing Conservative to be a Mormon?

[_Droopy]

Ah, but the very core of conservatism is based on justifying and keeping undeserved wealth. It is the opposite of Christ's position to
love and care for one another.

Moksha's cartoon understanding of what he terms "conservatism" is displayed above, upon which I rest my case regarding the intellectual substance of his criticism.

[_Tarski]

Well, we are our brother's keeper

No we're not

You only think you are Christian.

"My Brother’s Keeper"
President Thomas S. Monson
Second Counselor in the First Presidency
http://LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnex ... &hideNav=1

[_Tarski]

Yet another different talk of the same title by Monson
http://LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnex ... &hideNav=1

and again



Lyrics
Savior, may I learn to love thee,
Walk the path that thou hast shown,
Pause to help and lift another,
Finding strength beyond my own.
Savior, may I learn to love thee-
Lord, I would follow thee.

Who am I to judge another
When I walk imperfectly?
In the quiet heart is hidden
Sorrow that the eye can't see.
Who am I to judge another?
Lord, I would follow thee.

I would be my brother's keeper;
I would learn the healer's art.
To the wounded and the weary
I would show a gentle heart.
I would be my brother's keeper-
Lord, I would follow thee.

Savior, may I love my brother
As I know thou lovest me,
Find in thee my strength, my beacon,
For thy servant I would be.
Savior, may I love my brother-
Lord, I would follow thee.

[_EAllusion]

I don't think one needs to examine liberals' familiarity with conservative arguments and vica versa. What makes Coggins' statement so obnoxious is he caricatures, misunderstands, and misrepresents the range of liberal views to such a cartoonish degree that it is almost hard to believe he is serious. He's only a few steps removed from Time Cube guy when he rails against "leftists". He picked one of his most glaring faults and accused a substantial part of the board of it.

[_moksha]

Ah, but the very core of conservatism is based on justifying and keeping undeserved wealth. It is the opposite of Christ's position to
love and care for one another.

Moksha's cartoon understanding of what he terms "conservatism" is displayed above, upon which I rest my case regarding the intellectual substance of his criticism.

Coggins, I simply chose to describe the unspoken underlying principle of conservatism: Trying to justify the ownership of undeserved wealth and privilege. All the other stuff is just talk.

Let me give an illustration from the author of God and Man at Yale. On his program, Firing Line, Buckley said that the only four items he thought the government should give to the poor were: bulgar wheat, powdered milk, water and lard. From that he said they could make a rather tasty fry bread. So much for the teachings of Jesus and the right-wing. They really don't jive. Jesus was against the hoarding of riches. What was not done for the least of them was not done for Him.

[_ajax18]

Let me give an illustration from the author of God and Man at Yale. On his program, Firing Line, Buckley said that the only four items he thought the government should give to the poor were: bulgar wheat, powdered milk, water and lard. From that he said they could make a rather tasty fry bread. So much for the teachings of Jesus and the right-wing. They really don't jive. Jesus was against the hoarding of riches. What was not done for the least of them was not done for Him.

I don't remember Jesus forcing anyone to do anything. Why didn't he just use his marvellous power to force Caesar to divide up his wealth?

I can see condemning actions such as "oppressing the hireling in his wages," as having eternal consequences, but I don't remember Jesus trying to enforce his principles politically or militarily. In fact a big part of why the Jews were so dissappointed in Jesus, and would not accept Him as the Messiah, was that He didn't use his power to get the Jews where they wanted to be in this life "right now."

The reason I don't see Christianity jiving with the left is that Christianity is about the next life. Most leftist don't even believe in the after life.

Lastly I believe in family. I believe that a man has the right to bequeath his earthly goods to whom he wills at his death. The left would like to see the state seize a man's assets at death. They see inheritance as undeserved wealth. Theft is undeserved wealth. The spoils of war are undeserved wealth (of course it's war so sovereignty is all that matters). A man saving money to give his offspring a better life than he had is not undeserved wealth. What it is, is a manifestation of the lack of patience, foresight, and perseverance on the part of leftist thinkers. Interestingly, these are the principles upon which wealth is built not, "What's good for me right now because tomorrow is too late."

[_Chap]

I don't remember Jesus forcing anyone to do anything. Why didn't he just use his marvellous power to force Caesar to divide up his wealth?

The honest answer from people like me is "Because he had no such powers".

The reason I don't see Christianity jiving with the left is that Christianity is about the next life.

I take it that you are aware that a very large number of Christians down the ages would have disagreed with you there? I don't seem to recall Jesus comforting the sick by telling them that things would be better when they were dead. The stories show him making them better, here and now and in this life.

You might also consider, for instance, the author of the Letter of James, chapter 2:

8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
13 For he shall have judgment without bmercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

A man saving money to give his offspring a better life than he had is not undeserved wealth. What it is, is a manifestation of the lack of patience, foresight, and perseverance on the part of leftist thinkers. Interestingly, these are the principles upon which wealth is built not, "What's good for me right now because tomorrow is too late."

Compare James again, chapter 5:

1 Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you.
2 Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten.
3 Your gold and silver is cankered; and the crust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days.
4 Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth.
5 Ye have lived in pleasure on the earth, and been wanton; ye have nourished your hearts, as in a day of slaughter.
6 Ye have condemned and killed the just; and he doth not resist you.

More leftism, no doubt.

Of course there has always been controversy amongst theologians about what such passages meant, and how far Christian faith required this-worldly action, and if so of what sort, and to what degree such action needed to involve the state.

My point is just that your kind of "Christianity = free-market capitalism with low taxation" equation is childishly simplistic and ignorant about what have always been acknowledged to be complex moral and theological problems.

[_moksha]

The reason I don't see Christianity jiving with the left is that Christianity is about the next life. Most leftist don't even believe in the after life.

But we were talking about religious people and whether they are required to have a certain outlook in their politics. There are both right-wing and left-wing atheists. You might as well make an argument over leftist's distaste for multi-level marketing as not jiving with Mormonism.

[_Droopy]

Coggins, I simply chose to describe the unspoken underlying principle of conservatism: Trying to justify the ownership of undeserved wealth and privilege. All the other stuff is just talk.

And bc called for some substantiation for that claim. Poop or get off the pot.

Let me give an illustration from the author of God and Man at Yale. On his program, Firing Line, Buckley said that the only four items he thought the government should give to the poor were: bulgar wheat, powdered milk, water and lard. From that he said they could make a rather tasty fry bread. So much for the teachings of Jesus and the right-wing. They really don't jive. Jesus was against the hoarding of riches. What was not done for the least of them was not done for Him.

Assuming you have stated Buckley's words accurately, I see no problem whatsoever, as Buckley believed, correctly, that charity and alms are to come from the individual, and groups of individuals working together to alleviate suffering, not from the state, who's motives and competence to do so are well outside of any proper Christian understanding such activities.

Buckley saw nothing in the New Testament regarding Caesar's role in the giving of alms, and neither do I.

[_Droopy]

I don't remember Jesus forcing anyone to do anything. Why didn't he just use his marvellous power to force Caesar to divide up his wealth?

Moksha believes that the way to improve the lot of the poor is to attack and punish the affluent. His fundamental attitude is not one of raising up but of leveling and flattening. He has no interest in teaching the poor how to succeed and prosper, but only to confiscate the fruits of the labor of those who have worked for it - a form of class punishment for economic success - and distribute it to the poor in an ever widening closed loop of economic stagnation. Alms and charity then become a punitive moral expedition against success, achievement, excellence and economic freedom in the name of moral absolution, not charity in the New Testament sense.

It makes him feel socially conscious and morally superior, however, and so serves its purpose.

Envy was not counted among the seven deadly sins for nothing.

Indeed, the resentment and continued attack on achievement (because it creates hierarchal distinctions in the realms of talent, ability, and personal development) is one of the primary marks of leftist philosophy.