Leftism and the Gospel: How Wide the Divide?

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

Whether or not there were sexual relations with polyandrous wives in not determinable. But all the rest above is simple equivocation. These were however considered marriages plain and simple and believing LDS historians would agree with that. Many of the polyandrous wives had husbands they could be sealed to. And in the case of Zina Hunington Jacob BY took her from Henry as a polyandrous wife and fathered a child with her. So there was sex on that one.

[_Jason Bourne]

What happens is someone wants to horde their wealthy and not contribute?

Then they can leave Zion.

So there is compulsion involved. I thought this was voluntary?

Will that be of or is there some mandate like tithing? Tithing is really a tax that is imposed to prove faithful. If not why impose it for temple entrance?

The law of tithing will be superceded by the LoC.

My point was tithing is not optional if one wants to be in good standing and enjoy all the benefits of the Church.

So what if Brother and Sister Brown make a million a year and want a mansion, BMWs and fancy trips and this they only give a bit, say $20k because that is their voluntary surplus.

Then they can show their local ecclesiastical leaders that this is a reasonable body of "needs and wants" according to their individual circumstances and conditions, or they can leave Zion.

Thus compulsion. They are not free to give what they think and live as they wish. The government seizes property and or puts you in jail for not paying taxes. Zion will kick you out if you do not give.

Then we have Brother Jones who makes 1ook per year and let's say he and his are disposed to live very modestly and they give half of what they make. What happens then? What happens if there is not enough in the coffers to assist those who have little to nothing?

Those that do not wish to contribute the realistic sums expected of a covenant people can leave. However, their inheritance remains in Zion. Those that remain will be contributors by definition.

Who decides what is reasonable? And if the property is not the states, I mean the Church's then why do they leave their inheritance. Clearly this is not theirs to do as they wish. Thus communism.

[_Melchett]

The second is also incorrect too, and rather insulting. I've paid into the system and I've had my healthcare, but have never put my hand out for anything.

No self parody of the classic leftist mindset could have been as sweet and satisfying as this. I couldn't have done it better myself.

Really? I took up my right to health care because I was sick? Next time I'll tell them not to bother with the ambulance. I have been unemployed in the UK, and never took the option of popping down the dole office for some cash.

i live in the USA, and as a British Citizen, I have no right to claim any welfare from the system my taxes now flow in to.

U.S. citizens have a right to medical treatment at any emergency room in the nation, by law. So do illegal Mexicans, so you must as well. Whether that right is of the unalienable kind is another question.

That's nice to know, but I get no funding from the Federal government for anything else. No welfare for me, but that's a horrible leftie idea anyway. I'm sure a man of your sensibilities wouldn't ever think of taking a handout. I admire you for that.

Have you ever visited anwhere in the world other than your own little corner of it, or is whatever comes from Fox News enough.

Yes, its time to degenerate into the Kevin Graham-hissing-and-spitting-in-the-corner mode of discourse, as you have now run out of the fumes that were propelling your argumentation prior to now.

Not hissing and spitting. A reasonable question....

I have visited the U.K., Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, and Holland, and lived in Germany.

..... to which I got the answer. I do come across many here who have no personal experience of the world. Great places, with some great social schemes. I lived in Germany myself for a time too! Must have been a bold move to do so.

There is evidence that JFK was killed by Cuba, or Johnson, or the Mafia, or the CIA, or whomever you could think of on the internet, and of course it must all be true. There are even sites with evidence it was Lee Oswald!

It was, indeed Oswald, in the name of primarily Cuban socialism, and perhaps with Cuba's acquiescence.[/quote]

Thank you for solving that. I'll let the internet know.

Ah! The Eloi. Created by that great Socialist H.G. Wells. I wasn't aware you enjoyed Socialist literature.

I love it.

Excellent. If you keep reading, it will eventually make sense.

[_Droopy]

Whether or not there were sexual relations with polyandrous wives in not determinable.

That's my point.

But all the rest above is simple equivocation.

No, its a benefit of the doubt to Joseph grounded in my testimony of him as what he claimed to be.

These were however considered marriages plain and simple and believing LDS historians would agree with that. Many of the polyandrous wives had husbands they could be sealed to. And in the case of Zina Hunington Jacob BY took her from Henry as a polyandrous wife and fathered a child with her. So there was sex on that one.

There's no convincing evidence that Joseph Smith fathered a child by any of the twelve woman he had sealed to him in ceremonial polyandrous marriages. He does have descendents - all however, from Emma.

[_Droopy]

Excellent. If you keep reading, it will eventually make sense.

The reason I despise it so, and will fight with my last breath against its ideas, is precisely that it does make sense, within its own mental and psychological frame of reference.

In the church, we call that being "spiritually dead."

[_Melchett]

The reason I despise it so, and will fight with my last breath against its ideas, is precisely that it does make sense, within its own mental and psychological frame of reference.

In the church, we call that being "spiritually dead."

Of course. Jesus hates socialism, and probably likes shopping.

[_Jason Bourne]

My wife just had a critical and fairly long term illness, requiring expensive and intensive treatment. We have no insurance, and the hospital knew that at the outset. The treatment continued until it was medically realistic to send her home, and not before. You have not the slightest idea what you're talking about, and at the level of economic illiteracy at which you are laboring, you are not likely to understand either the theoretical or practical aspects of why socialized medicine debases and degrades the quality of care for most people and why a market based system is, as in most other areas, vastly preferable. Mouthing anti-capitalist platitudes osmotically absorbed from the BBC isn't going to get you very far.

This is intriguing. The only time I have seen hospitals willing to treat uninsured without payment up front of part of the cost is in emergency rooms. I assume this was not. When I was a bishop I had uninsured members needing procedure and never would the doctors do work with out payment, again of at least part of the cost of the procedure. My son in law recently needed surgery and he is uninsured. Again no treatment with out money up front. Fortunately they found a hospital that treated him for practically nothing because they are poor college students and they qualified for the hospitals assistance program. They paid about $1500 of an $11,000 bill.

[_Jason Bourne]

No, its a benefit of the doubt to Joseph grounded in my testimony of him as what he claimed to be.

Regardless of your testimony Joseph Smith married women, yes married, that had men that could take them to the temple. We did he need to do that?

These were however considered marriages plain and simple and believing LDS historians would agree with that. Many of the polyandrous wives had husbands they could be sealed to. And in the case of Zina Hunington Jacob BY took her from Henry as a polyandrous wife and fathered a child with her. So there was sex on that one.

There's no convincing evidence that Joseph Smith fathered a child by any of the twelve woman he had sealed to him in ceremonial polyandrous marriages. He does have descendents - all however, from Emma

So what? This is evidence of nothing. Why do defenders want to argue Smith may not have had sexual relations with plural wives when D&C 132 says children are one of the main purposes of this? And we know his successors certainly had sex with their plural wives.

And I see you ignored the facts about BY and Zina. Why is that?

[_Themis]

Apparently, you haven't done your homework, either, Droopy. Do you even read these or just do a search?

Reading the article in your link above (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... world.html), the last line says:

The report also found that United States ranks near the bottom in life expectancy among wealthy nations despite spending more than double per person on healthcare than the OECD average.

This is the problem when dealing with extremist. They are not interested in real discussion. He regurgitates sources which have the same agenda and avoids those that don't. In the cancer issue, it really is not very relevant since places in Africa have much less incident and mortality rates, but I doubt anyone is going to argue a superior health care system. Australia and New Zealand score very well. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.20107/pdf

The real issue is whether universal heath care is a good thing. I think it is, and I think the evidence supports it. It dos not mean most Americans do not have quality health care. They do, just as Canada, UK, Australia, and a whole host of other countries do as well. The US does not rank the best nor the worst of developed democratic nations, but it has a messed up system that does not cover everyone. And this from a conservative, but then to an extremist most people are leftists. :)

by the way this article shows that stats about the UK breast cancer rates are misleading, but that doesn't stop those with an agenda
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/12/uk-lowest-cancer-death-rate

[_Blixa]

Dear Melchett. You do your avatar proud. I may just have to give up Knife Girl for a photo of Miranda Richardson as Queenie in tribute.

However, when conversing with Droopy, I suggest you adopt the demeanor of your later descendant General Melchett and pooh-pooh the pooh-pooh.