Korihor was not a Leftist

[_Gadianton]

According to the LDS Church Book of Mormon Student Manual:

From this followed a clear-cut philosophy of laissez-faire: ‘Therefore every man prospereth according to his genius, and ... every man conquered according to his strength,’ with right and wrong measured only by nature’s iron rule of success and failure

http://institute.LDS.org/manuals/book-o ... al-6-7.asp

You've read the portion in bold correctly. The Church teaches that Korihor believed in a free market.

He was not a leftist.

Therefore, when Droopy preaches (say, in chat or other places) that Korihorism is leftism, he is teaching false doctrine that is contradicted by the Church's official publications.

I implore Droopy to repent of his apostasy in this matter.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Excellent post Dean.

It's clear from your research that Droopy is indeed teaching false doctrine. I join you in imploring Droopy to cease spreading falsehoods.

Droopy, I hope you will read Gadianton's research and take appropriate action before you teeter off the edge of apostasy. It's not too late thanks to Gadianton's research and the Savior's Atonement.

Cassius University, saving the world, one soul at a time.

[Guest]

According to the LDS Church Book of Mormon Student Manual:

From this followed a clear-cut philosophy of laissez-faire: ‘Therefore every man prospereth according to his genius, and ... every man conquered according to his strength,’ with right and wrong measured only by nature’s iron rule of success and failure

http://institute.LDS.org/manuals/book-o ... al-6-7.asp

You've read the portion in bold correctly. The Church teaches that Korihor believed in a free market.

He was not a leftist.

Therefore, when Droopy preaches (say, in chat or other places) that Korihorism is leftism, he is teaching false doctrine that is contradicted by the Church's official publications.

I implore Droopy to repent of his apostasy in this matter.

There are two very seriously confused people who need to be dealt with here. The first is the author of the confused, philosophically disheveled paragraph Gad has referenced, and Gad himself, who failed to quote the entire paragraph, which would have provided some perspective.

From this followed a clear-cut philosophy of laissez-faire: ‘Therefore every man prospereth according to his genius, and ... every man conquered according to his strength,’ with right and wrong measured only by nature’s iron rule of success and failure: ‘... and whatsoever a man did was no crime.’

"Laissez-faire economics" claims only that human beings should be let alone to compete with each other in open, free markets for the "market share" or economic support of those they serve by providing goods and services. Value or metaphysical claims regarding the nature of right and wrong are no part of free market economic philosophy save as Judeo-Christian morality applies to the conduct of business affairs and relations. "Capitalism" makes no such value judgments regarding metaphysical verities such as the author claims for it.

Fascinatingly, the author of this paragraph, immediately after labeling Korihor as a laissez-faire capitalism, associates him directly with Huxly, John Dewey, and Karl Marx.

"Survival of the fittest" is an idea taken from social Darwinism, a concept that has no relation whatsoever to either liberal free market economic theory or modern conservatism (if anything, it's much more compatible with the Left as a general matter of philosophical affinity).

For Korihor the only free society was one in which everyone thought exactly as he thought ( Alma 30:24 )—which was also the liberal gospel of Huxley, Dewey, Marx, et al.

Apparently, for the author of this text, Korihor was both a free market capitalist and a dyed-in-the-wool collectivist. Both Marx and Hayek.

The author clearly doesn't understand either leftism or classical liberalism - let alone contemporary conservatism, and hence cannot discern the differences between them. Conflating Marx and Dewey with Von Mises and Bastiat is, I would submit, indicative of a need for some policing in the Church educational system.

Gad couldn't care less about any intellectual precision here, so no point in belaboring the issue.

[_Droopy]

Excellent post Dean.

It's clear from your research that Droopy is indeed teaching false doctrine. I join you in imploring Droopy to cease spreading falsehoods.

Droopy, I hope you will read Gadianton's research and take appropriate action before you teeter off the edge of apostasy. It's not too late thanks to Gadianton's research and the Savior's Atonement.

Cassius University, saving the world, one soul at a time.

As this is a joke thread, and had no intention of being intellectually serious from its inception, I will treat it as such.

[_Gadianton]

"Laissez-faire economics" claims only that human beings should be let alone to compete with each other in open, free markets for the "market share" or economic support of those they serve by providing goods and services. Value or metaphysical claims regarding the nature of right and wrong are no part of free market economic philosophy save as Judeo-Christian morality applies to the conduct of business affairs and relations. "Capitalism" makes no such value judgments regarding metaphysical verities such as the author claims for it.

Indeed. Which is why all the metaphysical and moral qualms you have with Korihor do not subtract from the fact that he taught free market economics.

There is not a single term that covers all possible moral failings simultaneously in the world beyond the manifestos you write.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

I don't think that's what the free market is, my respected Dean. Although political science is slightly outside my field, I have always understood a free market to mean a condition where actors are free to conduct business and transactions without the tool of initiated coercion being applied. In other words a person is free to choose what to do with himself and his property, so long as he does not infringe on that equal right of others.

[_EAllusion]

Korihor, an ancient Mayan or whatever, coincidentally speaks just like a strawman stereotype of an atheist/skeptic type would in the 19th century. And what he is expressing there is that the success of man rises and falls according to his own merits. And since there is no atonement, anything goes. Free markets require minimal ground rules with a system of enforcement, and Korihor doesn't seem to be advocating that. His view is, "There's no Christ, so whatever, do what you want. Victory to the strong." That's compatible with any might makes right system, such as mafia cartel economies.

[_Gadianton]

With greatly reciprocated respect for my colleagues at the University, I do not believe the notion of "laissez-faire" is so rigidly defined. A text I consulted this morning defines the word to mean that market forces make decisions with minimal government intervention, leaving a high degree of subjectivity to determine what constitutes "minimal." Ultimately, the word is most useful to represent one end of a spectrum with considerations made for the context of the discussion. For instance, in a simple micro-economic model with two agents bartering in only apples and wine, the introduction of government-regulated currency can influence equilibrium conditions, therefore, one could speak of the institution of something as basic as money as a relaxation of laissez-faire assumptions in that context. I think we must be careful not to impregnate the word with padding such that it becomes a doctrine of rationality by definition. I imagine any free-market economist believes that markets can break down in some way; if one believes that government is needed to deter the creation of cartels and therefore, "laissez-faire economics" can be inclusive of this policy, then this doesn't directly imply that one who worries about said policy is an anarchist or believes that might makes right even when the doctrine becomes self-stultifying.

Even if Korihor was meant to be a caricature of the doctrine of individualism expressly to charge secular "enlightened self interest" with the eventual undermining of society and I do concede that he is no Adam Smith or Paul Samuelson, he's certainly no "leftist" in any sense at all. I do think it's entertaining, however, to see the Church's official commentary on the Book of Mormon consider the words of Korihor, the most wicked philosopher to ever live, to be laissez-faire, which represents the core of Droopy's religion.

[Guest]

declaims belaboring the point while belaboring it for many paragraphs

Korihor was clearly an example of an anarcho-libertarian working to pervert an orderly, religious society, arguing ". . . and whatsoever a man did was no crime" (Al. 30:17). He clearly opposed a social compact. He certainly was no leftist, categorically. A more interesting question would be if he were tortured to death by the Zoramites.

[_Gadianton]

There are two very seriously confused people who need to be dealt with here. The first is the author of the confused, philosophically disheveled paragraph Gad has referenced

You mean, the author of the commentary published by the official arm of church education?

There are other options besides his confusion. It's your assumption, Droopy, that Korihor must have preached a ubiquitous gospel of the left. The author may not actually be confused, his concern may not be to neatly tie Korihor together, but rather discuss various strains of thought at work that he sees. Korihor may have been "confused."

Personally, I think the author likely was trying to cover all modern godless thinking, be it from the right or left, within Korihor's gospel. To Droopy, this is unthinkable, as the left defines all that is bad and the right all that is good; Adam Smith and Charles Darwin might as well have been born on different planets. I get it.