Smack down from On High.... take that Bcspace

[_bcspace]

It was contrary to LDS doctrinal and scriptural principles not to lead the world in war against the Soviet Union to aid you and overthrow it.

That is clearly a statement criticizing the Brethren for their non-action.

How so? The criticism was directed at the 1956 US administration. Republican by the way.

[_harmony]

It was contrary to LDS doctrinal and scriptural principles not to lead the world in war against the Soviet Union to aid you and overthrow it.

That is clearly a statement criticizing the Brethren for their non-action.

How so? The criticism was directed at the 1956 US administration. Republican by the way.

Ah. I see. Okay. But why would the government care about complying with LDS doctrine and scriptural principles? So why mention LDS doctrine and scriptural principles, if you meant it in the context of the US government?

[_Jason Bourne]

BC

D&C 98 is in direct opposition to your comment that LDS Doctrine would have promoted a war against the Soviet Union due to the aggression in Hungary.

Also, other than some social issues what else in the Democratic policy is against the LDS doctrine?

Lastly, the conservative agenda of unfettered free markets with tax breaks for Mega Corporations certainly is against the Gospel message of the teacher who told the rich man to sell all he had and give to the poor. Joseph Smith would not recognize it either.

[_bcspace]

D&C 98 is in direct opposition to your comment that LDS Doctrine would have promoted a war against the Soviet Union due to the aggression in Hungary.

Doesn't seem to fit. Usually when one upholds a constitution, one goes to war to defend it. And if one goes to war to defend their constitution, who is my neighbor?

Also, other than some social issues what else in the Democratic policy is against the LDS doctrine?

Besides some very egregious stances on social issues, there is also economics and often foreign policy.

Lastly, the conservative agenda of unfettered free markets with tax breaks for Mega Corporations certainly is against the Gospel message of the teacher who told the rich man to sell all he had and give to the poor. Joseph Smith would not recognize it either.

I think he would. Capitalist and free market principles underpinned the Law of Consecration. An unfettered market is merely a neutral principle with good or evil coming from it based on the choices of individuals. That is the gospel plan.

How so? The criticism was directed at the 1956 US administration. Republican by the way.

Ah. I see. Okay. But why would the government care about complying with LDS doctrine and scriptural principles?

Indeed. But that is the battle; whose principles with rule.

So why mention LDS doctrine and scriptural principles, if you meant it in the context of the US government?

Because the gospel contains principles by which governments should operate.

[_Buffalo]

I think he would. Capitalist and free market principles underpinned the Law of Consecration. An unfettered market is merely a neutral principle with good or evil coming from it based on the choices of individuals. That is the gospel plan.

Agreed, just as capitalist and free market principles underpin Marxism.

[_sethpayne]

Outside the Church venue, I freely state that a Democrat cannot be a good Mormon. It's too obvious a truism to back away from. To be a Democrat means one is in direct opposition to fundamental LDS doctrines of agency and personal responsibility not to mention various moral stands.

BC,

You are a smart guy but this is probably the most ignorant thing I have ever seen you write.

I have *several* family members in New Mexico who are registered democrats and who are Stake Presidents, Bishops, and servde on High Councils.

Perhaps you should alert the First Presidency.

Seth

[_Jason Bourne]

BC is more deluded than I thought if he thinks D&C 98 would have supported a US intervention against the USSR over Hungary.

I am also more convinced that his first religion is really uber conservatism if he can say what he does about tax breaks for mega corporations and how unfettered capitalism is at the core of the law of consecration. Such a position is so preposterous it is not worth discussing. Joseph Smith came from a family that was in poverty most of his up bringing. It is clear from the scripture that came from or through him that the inequities of worldly economics was a huge concern for him. Full throttle capitalism was not the solution to him. The LOC on it very first requirement of turning over property to the control of the church rather than leaving it in private hands is totallly in opposition to capitalism and unlimited free markets.

But BC will certainly continue to preach his twisted gospel even though the man called Jesus would not recognize much of it.

[_3sheets2thewind]

as for the LoC what were the Israelites told "no poor among them", capitalism is in direct opposition to having "no poor" as capitalism requires a caste system.

[_asbestosman]

Creating tax shelters for the wealthy which the poor cannot enjoy has LDS doctrine written all over it?

What LDS doctrine would this be in conflict with?

D&C 49:20
Now granted, we shouldn't force rich people to share their wealth. That's not what I'm arguing. However, it's clearly wrong to place a bigger personal relative tax burden on poorer people. What? You think the poor don't pay taxes because many don't have income tax? Let's see what I can get here: gas tax, sales tax, various taxes on phone service, Social Security (caps on it favor the wealthy). Add to that tax shelters for the wealthy, and it becomes an unfair playing field. Again, I'm not talking about forcing the rich to do the right thing and give to the poor. I'm talking about Republicans supporting a playing field that is unnaturally tilted against the poor. Tha tis clearly wrong. It's wrong by everything Jesus says about wealth in the New Testament. It's wrong by King Benjamin's speech in Mosiah. It's wrong by many sections in the D&C. It's wrong by the principles of loving your neighbor. It's wrong based on the warnings from scripture about favoring the rich for their riches.

Goodness, it's even wrong based on any respectable morality I can think of--secular or religious. The only way to justify the problem is to pretend that the inequality isn't what I said it is--that the poor aren't really taxed unfairly despite the taxes I listed, and that the tax shelters are justified because they bring more wealth to everyone else.

It's wrong to use compulsion on finances, but okay when it comes to drugs, or prostitution?

Please be more specific.

Why is it wrong to use compulsion (fines / incarceration) to get people to help the poor, but okay to use compulsion to prevent people from using certain drugs like marijuana, or to prevent prostitution?