Can a Rightist be Considered a Faithful Latter-Day Saint?

[_Gadianton]

And Nehor is right again. The D&C scripture does not say that people need to achieve a certain standard standard of living. It does say that the world lies in sin because some people have more stuff than other people.

Laissez faire doctrine is taught only one time in the Book of Mormon, by Korihor, as Nehor pointed out.

[_Droopy]

2. I trust in the Lord that he can protect us without the need to send people overseas to shoot people. If we're unworthy of his protection then we should adopt the devil's methods to deal with the situation? I fail to see how a war that involved the occupation of two nations could possibly be considered defensive. The maxim of "do unto others before they do unto you" doesn't even work on the playground.

Doctrinal nonsense Nehor, but sincere doctrinal nonsense I'm sure. I can't fault you for being disingenuous.

3. Brigham Young believed that environmental fairy tale and often warned against polluting the land they were inheriting. This pollution was not purely spiritual either as his quotes make clear. He saw the two as one and the same. I'll take a Prophet's words over an environmental think tank.

What environmental fairy tale did BY believe in?

4. I don't even know how to respond to this. The entire Book of Mormon is a warning against searching for wealth

Yes, except for the clear caveats it contains, and the fact that for none of my lifetime nor that of my parents have the Brethren ever not supported the seeking of middle class affluence and economi secuity, including home and land ownership, and economic independence. Wealth has just as many benefits as it has drawbacks, and economic want, especially poverty, while it can be a refining experience, has is overloaded of negatives. I know, because I've been there in spades.

5. Simple. Eliminate capitalism and interest/usury. Yes, it's pretty impractical. I don't recall the verse in scripture that allows you to cease trying to obey the commands of the Lord because it's impractical. CFR, I guess. Fear of the economy is fear that we'll lose our riches. See Point 4.

At that point, we would, in essence, with all due to the present technological infrastructure, by living in a barter society based in local crafts, agriculture, and quite low standards of living. The capital necessary to start and maintain things like the large corporations that manufacture things like central air conditioning units and refrigerators, would disappear, as would the G&E that provides your electricity. Home ownership would cease, if by home you mean anything other than a hut.

I don't know why but I think Kant would have liked you.

I also don't understand why people throw out the principles of the Law of Moses as useless. Are you saying the higher law is easier and allows for more materialism?

They're not useless, but Jesus Christ fulfilled them and the Saints have not practiced them since. They were also a lower law, and preparatory to higher forms of living. Further, I think a little reflection will show that the economic laws and structure of a pre-industrial tribal society living 2,000 years ago in the Middle East would not function well in an advanced, technological age such as ours. The principles would be the same, but would have to be substantially modified. That is, the United Order in Enoch's day, or in Joseph's, will not look exactly like one in the 21st century.

6. Oh, those attributes are great. Still, there was a warning in scripture about the laborer in Zion seeking after his own wealth instead of the welfare of Zion. As I recall he didn't have a bright future. Yes, work is a fantastic principle and wisdom and thrift are great but not when they're used as licenses to accumulate wealth. Where your treasure is there will your heart be also. I don't think the person failing to attend the temple due to perserverance, ingenuity, and sacrifice will be more broken up by the Temple burning down then he would be by his bank account suddenly running dry.

What, in a Gospel sense, do you see wrong with accumulating wealth, keeping in mind that the accumulation of wealth is the ony manner in which opportunity can be created for others to accumulate wealth and hence alleviate poverty to a greater degree?

I should add Coggins that I agree that the Left is a moral quagmire. I just don't see how the Right is doing any better at all.

That's because you just don't understand economics Nehor. But that's alright, most of your fellow citizens don't either. Perhaps that will change in time.

Capitalism is nothing, nothing more than economic liberty; it is free agency in the economic realm. It has no moral qualities, as claimed by socialism (which is always a form charity extracted by force, a contradiction in terms) because it is not an economic system; it is not a system of anything. It is simply the individual decisions, based on individual needs and wants, of countless human beings making decisions to buy and sell predicated upon the information they receive from the phenomena of price and there own subjective preferences. It is simply economic liberty, and is hence, completely negative, making no positive claims about how society should be organized or who should have what (which, is really the burning question with socialism. Who decides what you and I shall have, in what quantity, quality, and variety, or how much of the fruits of our own labor we shall be entitled to keep, and upon what grounds? Should you decide that for your own self and family, or should a commissar in an office in a distant city seeking his own political objectives decide it for you?).

[_Gadianton]

It has no moral qualities,*

*except for when it comes to exchanging goods and services Coggins thinks are bad.

[_Droopy]

Where does God say that being at a higher economic level is good? Odd that he kept back modern conveniences for so long if our per capita GDP was so low back then and he wants it to be higher. Call up the City of Enoch and tell them they're doing it wrong. They didn't have two car garages, microwaves, or tropical vacation packages. They just had to settle for being in the presence of God.

Nehor, when you are willing to be marginally rational about this, I'll be here. Until then, you actually disappoint me here, as you're a perfectly intelligent individual. The above are the ravings of a starry eyed teenager caught up in the passion of some emotionally consuming fashionable cause, the end results of which, even if catastrophic, do not concern him one little bit.

I retire.

[_Droopy]

And Coggins's entire thesis unravels. For the typical leftist, it's harmful to the community to have a large percentage of people in poor health because they can't afford medical treatment. Coggins has no problem with command economy, so long as the commands are dictated by his personal views of what constitute negative externalities and so on.

Gad, you're an economic ignoramus and know virtually nothing concerning conservative philosophy. Conclusion: Bow out. You're not even following the logical details of the argument.

[_Ray A]

D&C 56 gives a balanced outline:

16 Wo unto you rich men, that will not give your substance to the poor, for your riches will canker your souls; and this shall be your lamentation in the day of visitation, and of judgment, and of indignation: The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and my soul is not saved!
17 Wo unto you poor men, whose hearts are not broken, whose spirits are not contrite, and whose bellies are not satisfied, and whose hands are not stayed from laying hold upon other men’s goods, whose eyes are full of greediness, and who will not labor with your own hands!
18 But blessed are the poor who are pure in heart, whose hearts are broken, and whose spirits are contrite, for they shall see the kingdom of God coming in power and great glory unto their deliverance; for the fatness of the earth shall be theirs.
19 For behold, the Lord shall come, and his recompense shall be with him, and he shall reward every man, and the poor shall rejoice;
20 And their generations shall inherit the earth from generation to generation, forever and ever. And now I make an end of speaking unto you. Even so. Amen.

Apparently, only the contrite poor qualify here, as in "blessed are the poor in spirit". The arrogant rich will burn in hell until a determined time, using $100 bills as flame fodder. When the bills have all been burned up, "eternal punishment" will cease.

[_The Nehor]

You bash the Left by pointing out how they're morally corrupt using scripture.

I argue the Right can be bashed equally using scripture. You argue against me not using scripture but instead arguing that I just have no idea how the economy works. I assure you I do. I have never had a hard time making money. The Devil has the same skill. Hooray for me.

I think you're also confusing Agency and Freedom too. Capitalism doesn't give you agency. The lowliest slave in Rome possessed as much agency as the Emperor or even Jesus Christ himself. You're suggesting we give people freedom, not Agency. Speculation is a use of freedom. Building hellhole mining towns so you can feed off the profits (while living somewhere else of course) is freedom. Buying the poor widow's last cow for $5 and then praying to God and thanking him for helping you get such a good deal is a use of freedom. Joseph and Brigham condemned all these choices.

[_Droopy]

Laissez faire doctrine is taught only one time in the Book of Mormon, by Korihor, as Nehor pointed out.

Laissez faire doctrine is taught nowhere in the Book of Mormon. What Korihor does teach there is leftism: human self sufficiency, the preeminence of material wealth and individual needs, personal self absorption, and moral relativism, all things conservatives have been screaming about since the first issue of National Review rolled off the presses 53 years ago. There is no economic doctrine mentioned (except in those parts of the Book of Mormon where the righteous Nephites become wealthy due to there industry and business sense, achieving high technology and culture in the process. Oh yes, they always seemed to become wicked because they let the wealth go to their heads, but that has nothing to do with the accumulation of wealth per se and everything to do with The Fall, which affects the poor as well as the rich.).

[_The Nehor]

Where does God say that being at a higher economic level is good? Odd that he kept back modern conveniences for so long if our per capita GDP was so low back then and he wants it to be higher. Call up the City of Enoch and tell them they're doing it wrong. They didn't have two car garages, microwaves, or tropical vacation packages. They just had to settle for being in the presence of God.

Nehor, when you are willing to be marginally rational about this, I'll be here. Until then, you actually disappoint me here, as you're a perfectly intelligent individual. The above are the ravings of a starry eyed teenager caught up in the passion of some emotionally consuming fashionable cause, the end results of which, even if catastrophic, do not concern him one little bit.

I retire.

If wanting to build Zion the way God prescribed it makes me a raving starry-eyed teenager caught up in a fashionable cause (which I don't follow, Zion has never been a fashionable cause) then I'm in good company with such naïve fools as Enoch, Nephi, Joseph Smith, and Brigham Young who obviously knew nothing of economics. Those raving lunatics just kept calling society Babylon for some reason. Nutters, the lot of them.

[_Droopy]

D&C 56 gives a balanced outline:

16 Wo unto you rich men, that will not give your substance to the poor, for your riches will canker your souls; and this shall be your lamentation in the day of visitation, and of judgment, and of indignation: The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and my soul is not saved!
17 Wo unto you poor men, whose hearts are not broken, whose spirits are not contrite, and whose bellies are not satisfied, and whose hands are not stayed from laying hold upon other men’s goods, whose eyes are full of greediness, and who will not labor with your own hands!
18 But blessed are the poor who are pure in heart, whose hearts are broken, and whose spirits are contrite, for they shall see the kingdom of God coming in power and great glory unto their deliverance; for the fatness of the earth shall be theirs.
19 For behold, the Lord shall come, and his recompense shall be with him, and he shall reward every man, and the poor shall rejoice;
20 And their generations shall inherit the earth from generation to generation, forever and ever. And now I make an end of speaking unto you. Even so. Amen.

Apparently, only the contrite poor qualify here, as in "blessed are the poor in spirit". The arrogant rich will burn in hell until a determined time, using $100 bills as flame fodder. When the bills have all been burned up, "eternal punishment" will cease.

Thanks Ray. Its about the Fall, and repentance, and the attitude one takes toward his wealth (or lack of it), not wealth accumulation itself, I really hate to see rank class envy masquerading as moral theology among LDS. It hurts my stomach.