Leftism and the Gospel: How Wide the Divide?

[_Buffalo]

Communism is an economic system conceived with Utopian ideals with the objective of creating a wealthy society where everybody contributes and everybody shares fairly in the wealth. Every attempt to implement Communism has been a colossal failure.

In contrast, the United Order is an economic system conceived with Utopian ideals with the objective of creating a wealthy society where everybody contributes and everybody shares fairly in the wealth. Every attempt to implement the United Order has been a colossal failure.

I think we can all see that these two systems have nothing whatsoever in common.

[Guest]

For what man among you having twelve sons, and is no respecter of them, and they serve him obediently, and he saith unto the one: Be thou clothed in robes and sit thou here; and to the other Be thou clothed in rags and sit thou there—and looketh upon his sons and saith I am just?

-D&C 38:25

And behold, thou wilt remember the poor, and consecrate of thy properties for their support that which thou hast to impart unto them, with a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken.

-D&C 42:29

The intent of the law of consecration was that every man is to be “equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.”

-Marion G. Romney, First Presidency Message, January 1980

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

-Karl Marx

To anyone who actually understands both Marxist doctrine and gospel doctrine, the glaring philosophical mistake Analytics continues to make here is more than obvious:

1. The first two verses he quotes are clearly mandates to individuals within a context of individual responsibility to serve others and care for the poor. No government action or inclusion is even remotely implied here.

2. The third quote, from Elder Romney, undercuts his own traditional positions, so I'm not sure why he used it, except for the fact that he appears to believe there is some connection between it and Marx' totalitarian statist proposition phrased as "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

The problem here is that in Romney's formulation, the Lord's property as deeded to the Church is deeded back to the individual and handled from that time forth as essentially the private property of the recipient, to be invested, cultivated, and used to increase its value through productive economic activity. The stewardship is private, and responsibility for its use rests with the steward.

In a socialist society, all property is held by the state and private property ceases to exist among the individual/family. The state determines how resources shall be used, allocated, and in what quantities. It also sets prices and determines the income for various jobs/professions with the ultimate goal of equalizing economic conditions among the population. The statement "from each according to ability, to each according to need" is not harmonizable with the gospel for the rather obvious, if subtle reason that this principle implies some core assumptions difficult to reconcile with gospel principles, among them being:

1. Everyone lives essentially at the expense of everyone else. Each and every person in a socialist society is, in essence, parasitical upon the time, talents, and labor of each of his neighbors. From each is forcibly taken to supply each with what they "need." In the UO, as in the present church welfare system, the fundamental principle and purpose of the system is economic independence and self sufficiency. The vast majority work (produce real wealth) to support themselves and their families (and productive enterprises) and the excess goes to the Bishop's storehouse to provide for the needs of those who cannot work or are temporarily indigent.

In the UO, each produces according to his ability and gives to the Bishop's storehouse the excess beyond his and his family's unique needs and wants as determined at the local ecclesiastical level with priesthood leaders for the needs of the indigent. No two systems could be father apart, especially as Marx' system involves the utter destruction of economic, social, and political freedom as a precondition of the achievement of the actual state of affairs sought in socialist theory, which is not care of the poor, per se, but equality of economic condition across an entire society, a state of affairs the LoC and UO do not take into consideration.

2. Marx formulation implies a preemptive claim upon the time, talent, labor, and property of others based upon no other ground other than poverty itself, and hence essentially makes one entire class of human beings to some degree, the slaves of another class. In the UO, while the affluent have a sacred mandate and responsibility to care for the poor, the poor have no automatic claim upon their property on a percentage basis as in a progressive tax system.

Property flows from the rich to the poor as a matter of Christian charity and the LoC, but the poor cannot clamor for a certain set percentage of it (to each according to need, as defined by someone upon some criteria), nor can they claim a right to "equal shares" of what is produced as non-producers, nor on the grounds that absolute material equality is somehow fundamental to a righteous social order.

Marx' system, as with all utopian or revolutionary collectivist variants, is grounded psychologically and emotionally in the envy and resentment of wealth, success, achievement, and affluence, and the desire to punish affluence through leveling. In the UO, individual differences in ability and talent are recognized, as are the variations in the value of various forms of labor, products or services to a community. Mosiah tells us that no one who is not stripped of envy is suited for the Kingdom of God, and class envy has no meaning in a society in which there is no class consciousness (even though variations in economic attainments remain).

Class consciousness and class resentment are features of the fallen, Telestial world, and actually has little to do with the actual existence of various levels of economic attainment and living standards. To one who is class conscious, class is everything and conditions everything. To one who is much more concerned with their own conditions of life and their position before God, we can congratulate others for their success, be happy for them instead of resentful of them (as if there wealth has taken something from us we would otherwise have had), and at the same time enjoy our own lives within the sphere our own talents and abilities have capacitated us for, knowing also that the Bishop's storehouse is there if need arises. We need not stay up nights concerned that our neighbor drives a nicer car than we have, or has a pool in his backyard and we do not, when we a going about our Father's business and secure in the knowledge that we will not be alone in time of economic need.

[_Melchett]

Why doesn't the church use the money it has to build hospitals instead of malls?

When JC gets back, I think one of the questions he'll be asking is "how did you care for the sick", and not "let's go shopping!"

[Guest]

It would be nice, from your perspective, if there was a particle of evidence showing that Joseph ever married already married woman. Unfortunately, there isn't, and so your "wife swapping" defamation is just a scrap taken from the playbook of the worst of the anti-Mormon intellectual hacks of the past.

Joseph was sealed for eternity to some woman who were already civilly married (in most, if not all cases, with the consent the men involved), but as there was no sexual relationships involved in such "spiritual wifery," (and there is no evidence of any such), the question is moot. Joseph Smith never engaged in "polyandry" of any kind. This is anti-Mormon myth. What he did actually engage in has no relation to "polyandry" in any normative sense.

And for more on how Joseph Smith most certainly did not have sex with his plural wives, you can go to anti-Mormon intellectual hack, Richard L. Bushman:

Partly to maintain secrecy, Joseph could not have spent much time with [Louisa] Beaman or any of the women he married. He never gathered his wives into a household--as his Utah followers later did--or accompanied them to public events. Close relationships were further curtailed by business. Joseph had to look after Emma and the children, manage the Church, govern the city, and evade the extradition officers from Missouri. As the marriages increased, there were fewer and fewer opportunities for seeing each wife. Even so, nothing indicates that sexual relations were left out of plural marriages.

Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, 438-39

No, nothing except the complete lack of descendents from any of these marriages save for those traceable to Emma. But not to quibble, if there was sexual relations between Joseph and the plural wives lawfully given to him under priesthood authority, there is no moral problem here, as these marriages are, under gospel law, legitimate.

In any case, Themis was speaking of Joseph's alleged polyandry, not plural marriage per se, which is another issue entirely.

Now, enough thread derailment. Don't you have a breast implant case to work on, Johnnie?

[_Darth J]

The state determines how resources shall be used, allocated, and in what quantities.........

In the UO, each produces according to his ability and gives to the Bishop's storehouse the excess beyond his and his family's unique needs and wants as determined at the local ecclesiastical level with priesthood leaders for the needs of the indigent.

No two systems could be father apart.............

[_Buffalo]

No, nothing except the complete lack of descendents from any of these marriages save for those traceable to Emma. But not to quibble, if there was sexual relations between Joseph and the plural wives lawfully given to him under priesthood authority, there is no moral problem here, as these marriages are, under gospel law, legitimate.

In any case, Themis was speaking of Joseph's alleged polyandry, not plural marriage per se, which is another issue entirely.

Now, enough thread derailment. Don't you have a breast implant case to work on, Johnnie?

So if Joseph had sex with one of his polyandrous wives, he's done something morally repugnant in your view?

[_Droopy]

Better then no education, and certainly we can do better. When it comes to public education, again the US does not fair well compared to other democratic developed countries.

This is the only statement you've made thus far, in your entire cornucopia of extracts from Wikipedia and transcripts from old Countdown with Keith Olbermann episodes that have even the slightest empirical or serious analytical content.

The claims for the superiority of socialist health care systems have been debunked as the statistical hokum they are for a very long time, and I've fielded these arguments for years here and in other forums. I'm not going to bother digging up and linking to the serious sources available as you will not read them, and if you do read them, simply dismiss them as "biased" because they do not share your bias.

Its not worth the cerebral cortex damage. Do your own homework and look at both sides of the issue in a rigorous and thorough manner. Its not that difficult.

[_Darth J]

And for more on how Joseph Smith most certainly did not have sex with his plural wives, you can go to anti-Mormon intellectual hack, Richard L. Bushman:

Partly to maintain secrecy, Joseph could not have spent much time with [Louisa] Beaman or any of the women he married. He never gathered his wives into a household--as his Utah followers later did--or accompanied them to public events. Close relationships were further curtailed by business. Joseph had to look after Emma and the children, manage the Church, govern the city, and evade the extradition officers from Missouri. As the marriages increased, there were fewer and fewer opportunities for seeing each wife. Even so, nothing indicates that sexual relations were left out of plural marriages.

Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, 438-39

No, nothing except the complete lack of descendents from any of these marriages save for those tracible to Emma.

Right, Droopy. Sex always results in the birth of a baby.

I have to say that is a curious defense of the Prophet, though, seeing as how D&C 132 explicitly says that the purpose of plural marriage is to have children, and Joseph Smith never did that with his plural wives.

But not to quibble, if there was sexual relations between Joseph and the plural wives lawfully given to him under priesthood authority, there is no moral problem here, as these marriages are, under gospel law, legitimate.

And how about the ones where he violated the conditions given in D&C 132?

In any case, Themis was speaking of Joseph's alleged polyandry, not plural marriage per se, which is another issue entirely.

I didn't see anti-Mormon intellectual hack Bushman making this distinction anywhere. Is argument by logorrhea where you are going to leave it in the face of contrary evidence?

Now, enough thread derailment. Don't you have a breast implant case to work on, Johnnie?

The O.J. Simpson murder trial was without doubt one of the most famous products liability cases of the 20th-century.

Droopy, your talk-radio education is most magnificently shown when you eulogize the Constitution while demonizing torts, which are suits at common law, protected by the 7th Amendment.

[_Darth J]

Has anyone so far found a substantive distinction between what Droopy says the United Order is and Droopy's understanding of communism other than his preference to be ruled by priesthood leaders instead of a secular government?

[_Darth J]

Marx' system involves the utter destruction of economic, social, and political freedom as a precondition of the achievement of the actual state of affairs sought in socialist theory, which is not care of the poor, per se, but equality of economic condition across an entire society,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Order

Smith was troubled because of the number of members joining the church in poverty in Kirtland, Ohio. Revenue was needed for the church to publish books and tracts. At this time, Smith and Rigdon were both in economic distress. Smith and his wife Emma lived on the Morley farm for a period of time.

On February 4, 1831, Smith said he had received a revelation calling Edward Partridge to be the first bishop of the church. Five days later, on February 9. 1831, Smith described a second revelation detailing the Law of Consecration.