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

[_Droopy]

Hey Gad. What did you get your degree in again?

Who cares? J. Galbraith had a degree in economics, and he has never had the slightest idea what he was talking about as to economic policy or political economy.

[_Droopy]

Credentialism is the first refuge of an intellectual scoundrel who has lost an argument before he has ever entered the arena of ideas, which is why its always been one of E's longstanding techniques of circumvention.

[_rcrocket]

Or, more appropriately and less inflammatory perhaps, can anyone, whatever he labels him or herself, who holds to the positions below, be considered a faithful Latter Day Saint?

To avoid a scattergun approach, I'll take a group of issues and beliefs traditionally supported and maintained by the Right, and open this up to a critique of the possibility of harmonizing these specific traditional rightist positions on these issues with the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

1. The idea that free-market capitalism can be just when the D&C states that the reason the earth lies in sin is that it is not given for one to possess more then another.

2. Reliance on offensive military action to deal with 'threats' to national security. The Lamanites were a threat to the Nephite's security but God and his Prophets always shot down the idea that the method of dealing with them was to wipe them out. In fact taking this action led to their destruction.

3. Consumption unbridled by concern for life on the Earth and it's state is in violation of our stewardship from God to tend to the Earth. Instead Conservatism suggests that instead of enjoying the Earth we should spend our time trying to figure out how we can consume it and convert it into cash (Satan's plan).

4. Seeing merit in the search for wealth, a desire universally condemned by scripture.

5. Insists on a rigid financial system of debts and obligations directly opposed to the God who gave ancient Israel the Jubilee year and release from all debts and the return of property gained legally to one's brother.

6. Holds that labor and ingenuity are the keys to getting what one wants and that to place any safeguards in the way of this process is unfair and wrong. This doctrine was also espoused by one Korihor.

Your post is a ridiculous re-cast of Niblyism.

First, it assumes that the "right" is some established organization. It isn't. The "right" ranges from skinhead racist facism to Joe Liberman independence.

Second, it assumes positions the "right" takes when few "right" organizations overtly espouse your positions. Although the 2004 Republican platform is a mass of verbosity, it adopts very little of items 1 through 6 above.

Third, it grossly overstates what the Brethren or scriptures maintain, and it does it in the exact way Nibley has done. I strongly suspect, based upon your historical posts, that somebody who worships at Nibley's altar has drafted these for you. One example will suffice -- I would be very surprised to find anywhere in 20th century brethren-speak any overt support for the environmental movement. The Brethren simply have taken no position, and for good reason. Reasonable minds can differ on whether a free market economy can or cannot respond to the exigencies of environmental abuse. (Neither Stalinism nor Chinese Communism could, and they are as left as you can get.)

Fourth, you make grossly mistaken assumptions about what the scriptures and the Brethren say about war. I think Pres. Hinckley's 2003 statement about the Iraq war at http://www.LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?v ... D&locale=0
&sourceId=ae6874536cf0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 fairly explains the scriptural and Church position on war.

Don't worship at Nibley's altar. "Approaching Zion" may one of my all-time favorite reads, and it has dramatically altered my thinking on things, but it isn't gospel.


Bob

[_Droopy]

May I politely ask that the super long link be cut in half so the post is readable again? Thanks.

[_rcrocket]

May I politely ask that the super long link be cut in half so the post is readable again? Thanks.

I don't think you have read Galbraith. He is one of the greatest economic minds this continent (he's Canadian) has ever offered. He may not be much of an empiricist, but he can understand and explain what the empiricists have done.

[_Droopy]

Your post is a ridiculous re-cast of Niblyism.

First, it assumes that the "right" is some established organization. It isn't. The "right" ranges from skinhead racist facism to Joe Liberman independence.

I would have to say that the Skinhead movement is far closer to the traditional left (not liberal, but leftist) than to the right, in the sense that it is a form of identity politics and is thoroughly anti-democratic in nature. It is utterly anti-conservative in the modern sense of that term. Lieberman is very Liberal on most issues, but he's well to the right of his party on a few (Lieberman is an example of the old pre-seventies liberalism I mentioned a few posts back).

Second, it assumes positions the "right" takes when few "right" organizations overtly espouse your positions. Although the 2004 Republican platform is a mass of verbosity, it adopts very little of items 1 through 6 above.

This is correct. Most of Nehor's ideas of conservative beliefs are caricatures.

Third, it grossly overstates what the Brethren or scriptures maintain, and it does it in the exact way Nibley has done. I strongly suspect, based upon your historical posts, that somebody who worships at Nibley's altar has drafted these for you. One example will suffice -- I would be very surprised to find anywhere in 20th century brethren-speak any overt support for the environmental movement. The Brethren simply have taken no position, and for good reason. Reasonable minds can differ on whether a free market economy can or cannot respond to the exigencies of environmental abuse. (Neither Stalinism nor Chinese Communism could, and they are as left as you can get.)

I think this is essentially accurate, and speaks to my position on scriptures that seem to decry "capitalism" as an economic order (which it isn't. See, even I have to use common terms in describing free market economics that don't really describe it).

Fourth, you make grossly mistaken assumptions about what the scriptures and the Brethren say about war. I think Pres. Hinckley's 2003 statement about the Iraq war at http://www.LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?v ... VCM1000004
d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ae6874536cf0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
fairly explains the scriptural and Church position on war.

Let's take a look at some of this (Italics mine):

First, let it be understood that we have no quarrel with the Muslim people or with those of any other faith. We recognize and teach that all the people of the earth are of the family of God. And as He is our Father, so are we brothers and sisters with family obligations one to another.

But as citizens we are all under the direction of our respective national leaders. They have access to greater political and military intelligence than do the people generally. Those in the armed services are under obligation to their respective governments to execute the will of the sovereign. When they joined the military service, they entered into a contract by which they are presently bound and to which they have dutifully responded.

One of our Articles of Faith, which represent an expression of our doctrine, states, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” (A of F 1:12).

But modern revelation states that we are to “renounce war and proclaim peace” (D&C 98:16).

(the above is Nehor's favorite ace in the whole against my general view).

In a democracy we can renounce war and proclaim peace. There is opportunity for dissent. Many have been speaking out and doing so emphatically. That is their privilege. That is their right, so long as they do so legally. However, we all must also be mindful of another overriding responsibility, which I may add, governs my personal feelings and dictates my personal loyalties in the present situation.

When war raged between the Nephites and the Lamanites, the record states that “the Nephites were inspired by a better cause, for they were not fighting for … power but they were fighting for their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their church.

“And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God” (Alma 43:45–46).

The Lord counseled them, “Defend your families even unto bloodshed” (Alma 43:47).

And Moroni “rent his coat; and he took a piece thereof, and wrote upon it—In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children—and he fastened it upon the end of a pole.


It is clear from these and other writings that there are times and circumstances when nations are justified, in fact have an obligation, to fight for family, for liberty, and against tyranny, threat, and oppression.

When all is said and done, we of this Church are people of peace. We are followers of our Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ, who was the Prince of Peace. But even He said, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matt. 10:34).

This places us in the position of those who long for peace, who teach peace, who work for peace, but who also are citizens of nations and are subject to the laws of our governments. Furthermore, we are a freedom-loving people, committed to the defense of liberty wherever it is in jeopardy. I believe that God will not hold men and women in uniform responsible as agents of their government in carrying forward that which they are legally obligated to do. It may even be that He will hold us responsible if we try to impede or hedge up the way of those who are involved in a contest with forces of evil and repression.

Now, while I've already admitted here that there are reasonable arguments regarding the propriety of the current war and its management, I think Bob is right that Nehor has gone well beyond what the Brethren have claimed concerning it.

[_asbestosman]

1. The idea that free-market capitalism can be just when the D&C states that the reason the earth lies in sin is that it is not given for one to possess more then another.

Good point, but I'd ask whether the General Authorities can still be considered Faithful Latter-Day Saints (they live better than saints in poor areas like Haiti).

2. Reliance on offensive military action to deal with 'threats' to national security. The Lamanites were a threat to the Nephite's security but God and his Prophets always shot down the idea that the method of dealing with them was to wipe them out. In fact taking this action led to their destruction.

Few "rightists" that I know of favor wiping out an enemy nation. Some may favor "premptive strikes", but I know of nobody who favors total annihilation.

3. Consumption unbridled by concern for life on the Earth and it's state is in violation of our stewardship from God to tend to the Earth. Instead Conservatism suggests that instead of enjoying the Earth we should spend our time trying to figure out how we can consume it and convert it into cash (Satan's plan).

Greed is of course problematic for any true disciple of Christ, and the D&C does speak of requiring us to account for the life of each creature we use. However, I'm not sure that one can convert the Earth's resources into cash nor why cash is desireable without goods and services. Furthermore I'm not sure how that's Satan's plan even though I can certanly how it isn't God's plan. I'm also uncertain about what you mean by the difference in "enjoying the Earth" and "consuming it". We need to use the Earth to a great extent in order to eat, reproduce, and enjoy the benefits of modern medicine, transportation, etc. I absolutely think the world should do better at conserving (and I'm trying to do my part of saving, but for admittedly for financial reasons which I suppose is the wrong reason).

4. Seeing merit in the search for wealth, a desire universally condemned by scripture.

True, but the scriptures say that seeking wealth can be wonderful if it is done for the right reasons: to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, liberate the captive, etc. Personally I am seeking for wealth, not so I can buy a nice boat or car, but so that I can help ensure that my family has enough food, shelter, medicine, etc when the storms come.

5. Insists on a rigid financial system of debts and obligations directly opposed to the God who gave ancient Israel the Jubilee year and release from all debts and the return of property gained legally to one's brother.

Anything I say about that will be out of ignorance.

6. Holds that labor and ingenuity are the keys to getting what one wants and that to place any safeguards in the way of this process is unfair and wrong. This doctrine was also espoused by one Korihor.

True, but I don't see it espoused by "the right", at least not the guys I know. Unless your government is an anarchy, there will be taxes in the way. The question then is to what purpose we employ these taxes. We can also ask what laws should be in place to encourage fair opportunities.

[_The Nehor]

I'm glad that you do think that capitalism is at least inferior to the United Order. I will not praise capitalism as you do though. Even if it is second-best, I consider it a stopgap that should be gotten rid of as soon as possible and replaced with the real thing and that arguing between socialism and capitalism is choosing between two evils.

We will have to part company here again Nehor. There is, again, no such thing as capitalism. Capitalism is a concept created by Marx as a foil against which to implace his own system, which is, most certainly, evil. The problem Nehor, is that in calling economic liberty (which is all capitalism is, a purely negative freedom to make one's own economic decisions based upon one's own desires and moral philosophy) evil, you have just called free agency evil; you have termed freedom itself as an evil to be rectified. And yet, we are here to be tested in the context of our free agency, to see if we will do all that our Father in Heaven asks of us. This includes economic behavior as with all other areas of life. If you can abrogate my freedom in the realm of economics, what prevents you from seeking to abrogate it in any other area of our mortal probation?

What I see in your general attitude Nehor, is not the kind of totalitarian mindset that drives so much of secular socialism, but a deep and pervasive fear of your own freedom and the choice in the use of your agency this affords you. This is common among many in the modern world.

I think among many moderns, the primary psychological motivations that animate socialistic or "communitarian" sentiments are an authoritarian desire to control the lives of others, envy, and finally the fear of freedom itself, which ultimately I think closes a circle and returns again to envy in the sense of a fear and resentment of hierarchy in human affairs and human attainments, and I do not think the Gospel can be used to support any of those motivations.

The United Order isn't about envy, the desire to meddle in the lives and decisions of others, or fear and resentment of the varying skills, abilities, and achievements of various individuals based upon their use of their own agency. Its about purifying ourselves and being prepared to welcome Christ to this earth as Lord of Lord and King of Kings.

There is such a thing as capitalism. It's freedom for those who possess to do what they will with their possessions. It can become as corrupt as any socialist regime if we let it.

I'm afraid of my power to choose? I don't think so. I like capitalism. I think I like it too much to be honest. I'm usually a winner at it. There's a thrill to building wealth. A desire to possess that is not godly.

I think you're afraid of losing your pet economic system. Hey, turnabout is fair right? ;)

[_The Nehor]

Or, more appropriately and less inflammatory perhaps, can anyone, whatever he labels him or herself, who holds to the positions below, be considered a faithful Latter Day Saint?

To avoid a scattergun approach, I'll take a group of issues and beliefs traditionally supported and maintained by the Right, and open this up to a critique of the possibility of harmonizing these specific traditional rightist positions on these issues with the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

1. The idea that free-market capitalism can be just when the D&C states that the reason the earth lies in sin is that it is not given for one to possess more then another.

2. Reliance on offensive military action to deal with 'threats' to national security. The Lamanites were a threat to the Nephite's security but God and his Prophets always shot down the idea that the method of dealing with them was to wipe them out. In fact taking this action led to their destruction.

3. Consumption unbridled by concern for life on the Earth and it's state is in violation of our stewardship from God to tend to the Earth. Instead Conservatism suggests that instead of enjoying the Earth we should spend our time trying to figure out how we can consume it and convert it into cash (Satan's plan).

4. Seeing merit in the search for wealth, a desire universally condemned by scripture.

5. Insists on a rigid financial system of debts and obligations directly opposed to the God who gave ancient Israel the Jubilee year and release from all debts and the return of property gained legally to one's brother.

6. Holds that labor and ingenuity are the keys to getting what one wants and that to place any safeguards in the way of this process is unfair and wrong. This doctrine was also espoused by one Korihor.

Your post is a ridiculous re-cast of Niblyism.

First, it assumes that the "right" is some established organization. It isn't. The "right" ranges from skinhead racist facism to Joe Liberman independence.

Second, it assumes positions the "right" takes when few "right" organizations overtly espouse your positions. Although the 2004 Republican platform is a mass of verbosity, it adopts very little of items 1 through 6 above.

Third, it grossly overstates what the Brethren or scriptures maintain, and it does it in the exact way Nibley has done. I strongly suspect, based upon your historical posts, that somebody who worships at Nibley's altar has drafted these for you. One example will suffice -- I would be very surprised to find anywhere in 20th century brethren-speak any overt support for the environmental movement. The Brethren simply have taken no position, and for good reason. Reasonable minds can differ on whether a free market economy can or cannot respond to the exigencies of environmental abuse. (Neither Stalinism nor Chinese Communism could, and they are as left as you can get.)

Fourth, you make grossly mistaken assumptions about what the scriptures and the Brethren say about war. I think Pres. Hinckley's 2003 statement about the Iraq war at http://www.LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?v ... D&locale=0
&sourceId=ae6874536cf0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 fairly explains the scriptural and Church position on war.

Don't worship at Nibley's altar. "Approaching Zion" may one of my all-time favorite reads, and it has dramatically altered my thinking on things, but it isn't gospel.


Bob

ALL HAIL NIBLEY!

ALL HAIL NIBLEY!

It's not working, I guess I'll go back to worshipping God.

[_EAllusion]

Credentialism is the first refuge of an intellectual scoundrel who has lost an argument before he has ever entered the arena of ideas, which is why its always been one of E's longstanding techniques of circumvention.

I think you are thinking of DCP. All I'm doing is pointing out that there's a good chance Gadianton, right or wrong, probably isn't "poorly read" on subjects like microeconomics in comparison to the vast majority of people, including yourself.