The Gospel and Leftism: How Wide the Divide Part II

[_Melchett]

1. I see no evidence in this scripture, or any other, that Caesar should provide "welfare" and medical services to the poor, or to anyone else. None whatsoever.

2. Yes, Jesus Christ would be against the state doing for others what they are capable and responsible for doing for themselves.

I also do not think he would be for the vast destruction and diversion of real wealth from actually raising the living standards of the poor into schemes for keeping the poor precisely and permanently in the place they are in so that the state may continue to take care of them in perpetuity, thereby perpetuating its own power and control over their lives and decisions.

In other words, he would be against socialism.

You are aware that the poor actually entitled to welfare in the traditional Jewish society? Did he speak out against that? If not, then he must have accepted it.

[Guest]

You are aware that the poor actually entitled to welfare in the traditional Jewish society?

Were they? This may be the case. However, to make this relevant, theologically, it would appear you would have to make Jesus Christ the originator of 1st Century Jewish Palestinian society, which I do not believe either the Old Testament or New Testament do. Ancient Israelite religion and the Mosaic law, yes. 1st Century Jewish society? Well, in some indirect sense, certainly, but if you wish, for ideological reasons, to make Jesus complicit in any specific range of ancient Jewish social or political tendencies, I think you've set yourself to walk through a pretty well stocked minefield.

A massive percentage of the Roman population were, at one point, subsisting on and entitled to the state's grain and reveling in its bread and circuses while participating little if at all in the productive processes of society that kept their stomachs full, and there is little question that this was a major factor in that state's ultimate disintegration. Bad ideas seem to get around quite a bit, among the human family.

Did he speak out against that? If not, then he must have accepted it.

So if Jesus didn't speak out against something in the New Testament, it follows logically that he accepted it? If he, following this, didn't speak out for something, it follows that he must have bee against it.

The fallacy of reasoning here is, of course, the assumption that the absence of a negative statement on some practice or phenomena necessarily implies acceptance of that practice or phenomena. Clearly,
there is no logical connection at all between the assumption that stands between the initial proposition and the conclusion in lieu of a logical bridge between them. There are other, more parsimonious and obvious explanations for Jesus having not covered every conceivable social, political, and theological issue during his short ministry (much of what he said remained in oral tradition and was never written down. Much of what was written down has not been preserved etc.)

[_SteelHead]

How do "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" and the administration of the UO by the bishop differ again?

[_Droopy]

Why do you think he counseled rich people to simply give everything they have to the poor, rather than making any attempt at teaching the poor self-sufficiency?

He didn't. He counseled a single individual, the rich young ruler, to do this, the reasons for which are opaque, but apparently having to do with an individual spiritual challenge to this specific person.

Further, I can easily post any number of scriptural references, from both the Old Testament and New Testament, showing a core gospel principle centered in the responsibility and necessity of working and producing for one's own temporal maintenance and salvation. Are you actually claiming that New Testament Christianity taught that the poor are to remain permanently dependent upon others for their sustenance. That they are to remain, in essence, both perpetually poor and perpetually dependent upon others for all they have (and hence, perpetually limited by that dependence)?

I've really at this point given up hoping that you will actually think through an argument before you make it. Paul and his associates themselves stopped and worked for long periods during their missions, only accepting alms when necessary. The idler shall not wear the garments of the laborer, shall he, Bluff?

I'm not speaking here of one who cannot work (sick, aged, handicapped etc.) but of those who can, but will not. Then there are those who cannot because government has so shrunken the source of job creation (private capital accumulation and the incentives to save, risk, and invest) that only so much economic activity is possible. This is what socialism always and everywhere accomplishes with aplomb, and which leftists, so concerned with the love of humanity in the abstract and with the forcible confiscation of other people's money in the accomplishment of their "good works" overlook in their paroxysms of moral self congratulation.

[_Analytics]

QA1. What is the proper role and place of government in human life according to The restored gospel of Jesus Christ as taught in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints [sic]?

AA1: The Church has nothing to say on the matter of the proper role of government, other than people should obey the law of the land and render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.

QA2. What is the proper role and place of government in human life according to The Left generally?

AB2: The proper role of government is to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote general welfare, and secure liberty.

[_Droopy]

How do "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" and the administration of the UO by the bishop differ again?

From the original thread (now in the Terrestrial) which I will bold for empahsis here and there:

Analytics had written:

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

I responded:

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.

[_Droopy]

And further:

...the fundamental purpose of the UO is to prepare a people for the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. The UO, as President Ezra Benson said, is not an economic experiment, but a "celestial law." Its economic dynamics are only one facet, or aspect of the entire social order.

Its core economic aspect, in regard to welfare, is not to ensure an "equal" distribution of wealth or to see that "everybody shares fairly in the wealth", but to abolish poverty. Egalitarian leveling has no necessary relation to this goal, and modern revelation has thus far made no mention of such a purpose. The fundamental purpose of the UO is the spiritual development and purification of the Saints in preparation for the Second Coming, and the fixation upon economic leveling, so beloved of some in the church with other ideological axes to grind, is not present in either the UO or the principles governing the present church welfare system.

[_Droopy]

AA1: The Church has nothing to say on the matter of the proper role of government, other than people should obey the law of the land and render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.

Is that right? Laying aside the rather formidable body of consistent GA teaching on this matter, you may wish to take another look at Section 134 of the D&C, with particular attention to the following verses:

1 We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

5 We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

7 We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy.

AB2: The proper role of government is to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote general welfare, and secure liberty.

You're the Jacky Chan of message board leftism. You're evasive skills are among the most highly developed on this or any other forum.

Clearly, no Marxist state that has ever existed has come close to even attempting such a standard of governmental structure. Indeed, we should expect this to be the case, as Marxism was developed, as a theory, in express opposition to classical liberalism and the Judeo-Christian background of the European and American social order.

[_Analytics]

AA1: The Church has nothing to say on the matter of the proper role of government, other than people should obey the law of the land and render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.

Is that right? Laying aside the rather formidable body of consistent GA teaching on this matter, you may wish to take another look at Section 134 of the D&C, with particular attention to the following verses...

Touche. I found these point salient:

1- In liberalism, "We the people" create government; it is by the people and of the people. In Mormon doctrine, it's God that institutes government.

2- Mormonism and liberalism agree that governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest.

[_Droopy]

touché. I found these point salient:

1- In liberalism, "We the people" create government; it is by the people and of the people. In Mormon doctrine, it's God that institutes government.

I'm afraid then you haven't understood the meaning of the scriptural references provided, especially as the constitution is understood to be a divinely inspired document (which, by the way, doesn't itself establish government on those grounds. That is done in the Declaration.) I also consider the major principles of the Declaration of Independence to be inspired principles. God has ordained government among men - he allows it to exist and holds us accountable for our acts in regard to it. God is not an anarchist. Government qua government is a legitimate and necessary element of the human condition, but not all forms of government are appropriate or righteous.

2- Mormonism and liberalism agree that governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest.

That' s not what verse 2 says:

We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

I have no idea what "the public interest" means, save to the extent it coincides with the divinely inspired concept of unalienable rights and that we each essentially leave each other alone unless our own conduct curtails or negates the rights of others. This also means we refrain from the overt committing of crime as well as from personal conduct that leads to our being unnecessarily parasitic upon our fellow beings or a threat to their rights, liberties, property or physical safety.