Traveler

We should open the door and let him in:
 

And for the sake of context, I believe the "basic claim" here is that Uchtdorf is "privileged"--notwithstanding his having grown up in Hitler's Germany with a father who was a non-Nazi bureaucrat, being evicted from Czechoslovakia into eastern Germany, starving in postwar Germany with the rest of his countrymen, living under occupation by Soviet troops, then ultimately having to flee east Germany because his dad was an anti-communist. 

But we know that Uchtdorf made it into the (barely-one-year-old at the time) German Air Force, which (we are to conclude) means: 
He was privileged (because if you didn't have connections you couldn't make it *anywhere* in mid-20th-century Germany) (except the chancellery, multiple times); His rise from destitution to prosperity had nothing--nothing!--to do with his own efforts, qualities, or anything else that might support the idea of meritocracy (because as we all know, German culture absolutely values caste, charisma, and the ability to schmooze at the expense of competence, efficiency, and skill); and Most germane to this discussion:  White™ Dieter simply has no idea how hard or cruel life can be; and his apostleship would have been better conferred upon some hirsute womanizing tent-dweller in Portland or some "From The River To The Sea!"-gibbering student in London; either of whom would have had the wisdom and passion to funnel the Church's vast resources towards the cronies causes  that rightfully deserve them.  

Rather than read the link I have read the responses on this thread.  I have more trust in this forum than random internet information.  I have had more experience with LGBTQ+ than I wished and I will list a number of impressions from my experiences:
1 With extreme exception, all that experience mortality will be resurrected to one of 3 Glories in the Kingdom (heaven) of G-d.  Generally, I believe that those perusing LGBTQ+ that do not repent will not be resurrected to nor live the Law and covenants of the Celestial Kingdom of glory.  Generally, it is my understanding that those that struggle with repentance will fall into the came category and are not preparing for the Celestial Kingdom of glory.  Those that do not love, enjoy and appreciate repentance – I am concerned that they are on a path to something other than Celestial.
2 As with all possibilities – I believe moral purity is more of a spectrum than binary possibility.  That with most all possibilities included in the spectrums of possibilities it is only the extremes that we come to think of as a binary choice.  The law of chastity (as with all divine laws) has both a letter and spirit of the law.  I believe that the letter of the law attempts to be binary (my impression) – it is through the spirit that we prepare for marriage.
3 There are many lies perpetrated in LGBTQ+ theory.  I believe two of the biggest are that LGBTQ+ is not a choice.  And that it is not a learned nor acquired cognitive behavior.
4 The prime directive of the Saints of G-d is love for one another and that it is impossible to love someone and intend to deprive them of agency.  I speculate that in the resurrection that only those that live Celestial Law will respect the agency of others.  All other kingdoms will preside over one another and intend to disallow agency.  I struggle with this – I have difficulty loving those that abuse their agency.
5 Loving someone does not mean that you accept (condone, support, honor and appreciate) abuses of agency that limit one’s eternal capabilities (the definition of damnation).   I am concerned that Satan may have gone off the eternal rails concerned about those that abuse their own agency to the point that he perhaps rebelled thinking to save the difficulties that occur from abuses of agency.
 
The Traveler

Rather than read the link I have read the responses on this thread.  I have more trust in this forum than random internet information.  I have had more experience with LGBTQ+ than I wished and I will list a number of impressions from my experiences:
1 With extreme exception, all that experience mortality will be resurrected to one of 3 Glories in the Kingdom (heaven) of G-d.  Generally, I believe that those perusing LGBTQ+ that do not repent will not be resurrected to nor live the Law and covenants of the Celestial Kingdom of glory.  Generally, it is my understanding that those that struggle with repentance will fall into the came category and are not preparing for the Celestial Kingdom of glory.  Those that do not love, enjoy and appreciate repentance – I am concerned that they are on a path to something other than Celestial.
2 As with all possibilities – I believe moral purity is more of a spectrum than binary possibility.  That with most all possibilities included in the spectrums of possibilities it is only the extremes that we come to think of as a binary choice.  The law of chastity (as with all divine laws) has both a letter and spirit of the law.  I believe that the letter of the law attempts to be binary (my impression) – it is through the spirit that we prepare for marriage.
3 There are many lies perpetrated in LGBTQ+ theory.  I believe two of the biggest are that LGBTQ+ is not a choice.  And that it is not a learned nor acquired cognitive behavior.
4 The prime directive of the Saints of G-d is love for one another and that it is impossible to love someone and intend to deprive them of agency.  I speculate that in the resurrection that only those that live Celestial Law will respect the agency of others.  All other kingdoms will preside over one another and intend to disallow agency.  I struggle with this – I have difficulty loving those that abuse their agency.
5 Loving someone does not mean that you accept (condone, support, honor and appreciate) abuses of agency that limit one’s eternal capabilities (the definition of damnation).   I am concerned that Satan may have gone off the eternal rails concerned about those that abuse their own agency to the point that he perhaps rebelled thinking to save the difficulties that occur from abuses of agency.
 
The Traveler

The older I get the more I become convinced that one of the greatest evils in the world is thinking.
This child thinks he's wise, and has decided that his "wisdom" will benefit the world.
I've basically gotten to the point where, as smart and "wise" as I am, I'm full-on aware that I'm an foolish idiot.
Add to that the reality that libido basically pumps drugs into one's brain, and you've got a messed up child who's an idiot and a fool, and as good as on drugs (as all horny teenagers are) preaching his view of truth and wisdom to the world. Useful.
Well, that's the whole story of gaydom in my view. It's lunacy to look at it any way but a bunch of foolish idiots with chemically compromised brains preaching garbage that's worth less than nothing.
That is the why of commandments. That is they why of the Lord's boundaries. This stupid foolish compromised kid has no idea what he's talking about, and yet is locking himself into an eternal course. And on top of that he's preaching to others what his idea of "truth" on the matter is.
Sadly, this is common.
I, of course, think I understand things. But I'm "wise" enough to know I really don't. I have beliefs that are pretty firm. But debating from those beliefs isn't useful because, as I just said, I'm a foolish idiot.
But.... The Lord has given us standards. The Lord has given us boundaries. Within the Lord's standards and boundaries we can find happiness. Outside the Lord's standards and boundaries we never will. It's as simple as that.
Homosexuality, despite any view of the science or psychiatry of it, is not within the Lord's standards and boundaries. It never has been. It never will be. It, in any form, will never lead to peace and happiness.
Whether or not it's a choice isn't relevant to that. We all have natures that are outside the Lord's standards and boundaries. Everyone of us must put aside those things and traverse within the Lord's standards and boundaries in order to find happiness and peace.
Any view other than that is...well...foolish and stupid.
The path is narrow and few shall find it.

I only made it through chapter 6.  I have no idea where this was going.  And life is short.
While I believe this story is somewhat representative of many homosexuals navigating the life he describes, I don't believe this was truly autobiographical.  The style and flow and certain pieces that don't fit into a single person's experiences. Possible?  Yes.  Likely?  No.
I believe someone else wrote it.  Therefore, it could be the author's amalgamation of stories from multiple individuals. Regardless, I'll look at this story as it stands as a fully autobiographical piece.
I'm glad that it showed a very common reality that when those suffering from SSA come out to family and friends, there really isn't a lot of anger or hatred.  It is usually some form of acceptance (whether it is "we love you anyway" or "we'll try to help you through this" or or possibly "cool, dude") rather than rejection.
I had a problem with his exchange with Elder Rasband.  I find it difficult to believe the response was an accurate depiction.  We have been told in the Proclamation that 
It is important to note that in MULTIPLE articles on the topic, the Church has CLEARLY stated that "gender" in this sentence refers to biological sex at birth. 
(Yes, there are the extremely rare exceptions of intersex, Klinefelter Syndrome, etc.  But we at least start with the rule, then discuss the exceptions later.)
If exalted, SSA would be fundamentally incongruent with the nature of eternity and of eternal marriage.  Perhaps there is an argument for lower kingdoms (which I tend to disagree with). But to say we have no revelation on the fact for (at the very least) Eternal marriage?  Not buying that.

I read the whole thing, though I lightly skimmed through some parts. (It's 43 pages long. That's not a quick ten-minute read.)
I had a lot of thoughts while reading it, a few positive, some negative, and many quite ambiguous. At the moment, I agree with mikbone: Not a fan. Not an enemy, but not a fan.
The author went on about how wonderful that he didn't feel judged. He told about the first seven hundred times he "came out", and every report was positive. Then he mentioned one time when he was talking (or texting, or somehow communicating) with a guy who asked an eminently reasonable question: Would a gay couple who adopted a child be likely to try to convince that child to follow a homosexual lifestyle, like their own? The author's snarky response was:
"In a world where conversion therapy exists, gay people would not do that."
This is a snarky, contemptuous response, not an honest answer to a perfectly good question. It's also false.
Which world is it where conversion therapy exists? Not in the world of the western democracies such as the US, where conversion therapy is openly frowned on and even illegal. So this is a bullcrap answer just from a perspective of an honest representation of reality. Assuming for the moment that conversion therapy in the US is actually a viable option (it is not), are we really expected to believe that all homosexual couples literally would not teach their children to pursue and value intimate homosexual relationships because of the threat of conversion therapy? This is absurd. No one with an IQ above tap water temperature would believe this. I openly and enthusiastically tried to model a good, healthy, heterosexual relationship to my children and let them know what a fulfilling thing I thought my relationship to be. But we're supposed to believe that conscientious homosexual couples would never, ever do the same with their children? Well, but this is a young man, not even yet of missionary age, who has no experience with adult topics like child rearing, so he can't be blamed for spouting of some ridiculous stuff. We all do it.
...eh, maybe. I've certainly said my share of stupid things, so it's hard to point the finger of blame. But consider that this is not an off-the-cuff discussion list post. Rather, it is a carefully considered, very long essay designed to present his ideas and beliefs to the world in what I can only assume to be an attempt at a positive way. Inviting honest dialog and then responding with contempt to an honest question does not offer a positive portrayal.
The topic, given so much front-and-center attention in our society for the past two decades, may elicit a knee-jerk negative response from many who, like myself, are really tired of hearing nonstop blaring about the evils of those who do not wholeheartedly embrace homosexuality and who continue the benighted, unforgivably hateful practice of considering homosexual intimacy to be a violation of God's will and a destructive, harmful practice. (So much for tolerance from the homosexual lobby. What ever happened to live and let live?)
On the other hand, as I read the essay, I considered how I would feel and how I would respond if he had been my son. I concluded I would probably have responded as his parents did, because what else am I supposed to do? Cut my beloved child off? Tell him I think he's horrid? Withdraw from him and leave him to his problems? I see no other choice than to hold him, kiss him, and tell him that I love him and admire his wonderful qualities that I have enjoyed since he was born. And if he began following the path that this young man seems to be taking, what am I to do then? If I have misgivings about what he's doing, maybe I tell him if he asks my opinion. But I'm no expert on homosexuality (and I don't recognize anyone else's supposed expertise on the matter). I do not understand the spiritual roots of homosexuality. I don't understand the biological roots of homosexuality, though I'm of the impression that prenatal cerebral development is an important factor. In the end, I suppose that I would likely see no other choice than to offer my son love and encouragement, and make sure he understood both that I love him (and that would not change) and that I believe what has been shown to me by God and the Spirit (and that would not change, either).
The OP's question was about "the forum's opinion [as if there is only one consensus opinion] on this type of belief system and behavior from an active missionary." My opinion is that a belief system that adopts homosexual practice as acceptable is wrong, though I don't see that is necessarily what has happened in this case, and that this behavior (that is, writing and publishing an open letter like this) strikes me as greatly unwise and potentially troublesome for the rest of one's life—though if, as he seems to suggest, this has actually been encouraged or approved by those with authority in these matters, then I guess I can't really raise an objection to it. I believe that if I were the father, I would counsel my son not to expose himself publicly like this, because it would raise issues that would follow him for the rest of his life.

I don't mind his overall message. It's good for people, no matter what they struggle with, to know they are loved. So to that extent it addresses a very real issue.
But as a missionary whatever he decides to share should always come back to Jesus Christ, his restored gospel, and the truthfulness of this Church and I don't think this does. 
As a side note (and this is based on limited experience so maybe I'm off) but it seems like those with same-sex attraction who intend to live a chaste life for the rest of their life don't make a big deal about having same-sex attraction and don't see it as part of their identity. Where as the bigger the deal they make of it and define themselves by it the more likely they are to eventually start to live a gay lifestyle.

Recently while doing some research on the internet, I came across an individual, Jordon Peterson, quite by accident.  I found his opinions and expressions rather intriguing – and for me - logical.   For those that are not familiar with Jordon he has interesting insights into discussions and the importance of challenges in discussions, especially expressing differing opinions and listening to other opinions.  What I found most interesting is his idea that if we do not like an opinion, we out to express that notion and why.
What he did not seem to cover is how to resolve heated discussions.  He seems to have the notion that we need to learn to deal with difficult discussions.  This resonates with me but with the spiritual caveat that when we become angry, we lose a spiritual light of truth.  I believe we must learn two things from disagreements.  One is that we should love others. (D&C 121:43).  That when we show love towards others we do not express disagreements with anger.
The other thing that is even more difficult is to learn to listen to those with whom we disagree.  This is difficult for me because it seems that if I ask any questions to clarify what I think I understand – it seems to upset those I am trying to understand.
Here is an example clip:
 
The Traveler

I like Jordan Peterson. He doesn't mind standing up to the demands of political correctness. (That's something that takes a lot of courage these days!)

Recently while doing some research on the internet, I came across an individual, Jordon Peterson, quite by accident.  I found his opinions and expressions rather intriguing – and for me - logical.   For those that are not familiar with Jordon he has interesting insights into discussions and the importance of challenges in discussions, especially expressing differing opinions and listening to other opinions.  What I found most interesting is his idea that if we do not like an opinion, we out to express that notion and why.
What he did not seem to cover is how to resolve heated discussions.  He seems to have the notion that we need to learn to deal with difficult discussions.  This resonates with me but with the spiritual caveat that when we become angry, we lose a spiritual light of truth.  I believe we must learn two things from disagreements.  One is that we should love others. (D&C 121:43).  That when we show love towards others we do not express disagreements with anger.
The other thing that is even more difficult is to learn to listen to those with whom we disagree.  This is difficult for me because it seems that if I ask any questions to clarify what I think I understand – it seems to upset those I am trying to understand.
Here is an example clip:
 
The Traveler

You have my full attention – what contractors?  What kickback promised in the form of what to who?
I suspect many kickbacks occurring to both political parties, media corporations and educational institutions.  I am quite sure that foreign money is funneled through George Soros that directly effects our border security (among other security interests ), but I do not see much going to the Republicans.  I understand that that Shia backed funds (mostly through Qatar) reaches educational institutions (almost exclusively liberal) and China invests in media (though I suspect they desire our borders are open and a distraction away from ports of entry sescurity).  I suspect that a lot of political lobbying offers back and forth through Pharmaceuticals effecting the advertising of prescription drugs and fact tracking various vaccines.  I do not doubt that there is a connection between failing green energy companies and various elected officials.  But again, all this is weighted more towards the progressive democrats.
Then again it is hard to tell who are the good guys verses the bad guys in politics – that is if there are any good guys.  I think I would prefer that political money, in regards to our southern border, be funneled more towards US companies giving kick banks to government officials than to Mexican and China drug cartels giving kickback to government officials.
 
The Traveler

Hummmmmm -- maybe I whould have better luck training your cat.
 
The Traveler

I suspect it may have been as simple as that Jesus' disciples did not consider being rich a sin. On the contrary, as in our society (probably moreso), the rich were considered blessed by God and probably more virtuous than the average person. If, as in the case of the rich young man, a rich person uses his wealth generously and honorably, and otherwise lives a covenant life, yet still is not fit to enter heaven, then who is?
The answer, of course, is: No one. None of us is worthy to enter heaven on our own merits. The rich have an additional and substantial struggle: They must overcome the desire for their own money. As Christ taught, with men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible. That makes this into a tale of hope, not despair.

I remember when new apostles were not called until general conference where they were sustained by the Church.  Under such conditions many thought that sustaining was like a vote or an election by the membership.  I appriciate the way they are currently called - making clear that our sustaining vote is not a means of expressing our choice but rather our aproval and alignment with G-d's choice.
 
The Traveler.

Just a bit of a side note.  I spent some time consulting with some Hollywood types.  A number of weeks on set.  Some in this industry are LDS and perhaps otherwise reasonable.  I know that BYU has a fine arts center and there is a speech and drama major.  I personally think it would be better labeled screech and trauma.  If one is to boycott those in such fields based on their poor (even irrational) treatment of others no one would ever go to any movie and unlikely attend any play, concert or any creative art display.
My father that was an artist that eventually would not publicly display his art and there seemed to be more people and places that he refused to sale anything to or talk to about art.  A personal prejudice of mine is that those that make art their lifelong profession – generally end up quiet messed up.  Those, like my father, that make their living one way and rely on art for art sake and as a personal release – seem to have a better chance to retain their humanity.
 
The Traveler

Gotchya.
The following is in no way meant to convince you of anything. Just sharing:
I remember when Evita came out that my sister refused to see it because Madonna was in it. I have a friend who refuses to see anything with certain left-leaning actors. Etc.
I can sort of understand this. It can be difficult to separate the personal jerk-faced-ness of the individual out enough to be able to enjoy their playing a role. But, honestly, with me it depends on how well they can act. If their personality bothers me and then that personality bleeds into their acting...yeah.
But I really don't get my friends, "I won't watch that because so-n-so is a lefty."
Um.... it's Hollywood. It's almost ALL lefties.
Which, okay... don't partake of Hollywood. I could get behind that and respect it. It's when he watches movies with other actors who are just as evil and lefty, but slightly less outspoken maybe, that I start thinking there's some inconsistency problems and bias going on there.
For the most part, I've been able to separate out that personal lives of the actors from the characters they play. If the character is honorable, then that usually works for me.
As for Tom Cruise, I actually respect his stances. Note that I do not mean I agree with them. But to stand for a position (no mind altering drugs) and hold true to it against the hate of the world....
I mean if someone was taking Marijuana to deal with something a lot of us (including myself) would probably say that's a bad idea. If the world (including the medical community) decided alcohol was the proper way to treat some ailment we would definitely consider it a mistake.
Tom did sincerely apologize to Brooke Shields (according to her) for bringing her into it they way he did. I think he recognized that his "how" was mistaken. But he's remained true to his position on drugs none-the-less. And though I do disagree with him on it, I respect his conviction.
That being said (and, as I said, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I respect your view on the matter), none of that plays into my enjoyment or not of Tom Cruise's movies. He's never (that I know of) preached against post-partem drugs in his roles. And if he did, I would not be interested in that movie.
Anyhow. Just my thoughts. No arguments or contention intended whatsoever.  

Obviously, there is more to this than people committing some alliance of sin – other wise it is unlikely that the human species would have survived this long.  The term ripe in iniquity is very ambiguous.   It seems that whenever someone draws a “red” line that it somehow gets crossed, and the prophesy is not fulfilled.  I would submit that the red line of ripe in iniquity is the endangerment of children. 
From the flood to Sodom and Gomorrah to the Tower of Bable to Ninevah to the destruction of the wicked at the end of times – I would suggest that when the voice of the people allows the offences of abuse of children (especially young children under that age of accountability) that the laws and covenants of heaven require that G-d intervein to save the children.
Wars have always taken place – as well as violence and other acts of abuses deliberately targeting young children that ought to be protected by society – I speculate that the keys of destruction lay when the lives of children are sacrificed for pleasure, profit and power – that G-d will destroy such a society.
 
The Traveler

For sake of discussion, I will put forward some ideas.  There is a title of Messiah or Christ that goes beyond the person that receives that title.  The ancient meaning of Messiah or Christ was the anointed one.  In addition, there is also a mention of the spirit of Christ.  My personal thinking is that this is something other than the spirit person of Jesus that was our older brother in our first estate.  Perhaps the attitude and persona that Jesus took upon himself in our first estate that distinguished him there as The Son of G-d - the only begotten of the Father.  In terms of Jesus Christ or Jesus the anointed - has unique and singular meaning directly associated with the “plan of salvation” and the atonement, in that all that are anointed for any divine cause must be anointed according to the order of the priesthood of Christ.
The title of Christ is appointed to the name of Jesus by which he was anointed and by which we know him and partake with him in the plan of salvation.   There are scriptures by which Jesus presents himself as our covenant proctor in the Father’s plan thereby under the covenant he has the role and title of father by which we partake of the covenant and Jesus becomes the unique and only way or path to return to the kingdom of heaven to be a citizen and agent that is one with the Son and the Father (See the gospel of John chapter 17).
 
The Traveler

For sake of discussion, I will put forward some ideas.  There is a title of Messiah or Christ that goes beyond the person that receives that title.  The ancient meaning of Messiah or Christ was the anointed one.  In addition, there is also a mention of the spirit of Christ.  My personal thinking is that this is something other than the spirit person of Jesus that was our older brother in our first estate.  Perhaps the attitude and persona that Jesus took upon himself in our first estate that distinguished him there as The Son of G-d - the only begotten of the Father.  In terms of Jesus Christ or Jesus the anointed - has unique and singular meaning directly associated with the “plan of salvation” and the atonement, in that all that are anointed for any divine cause must be anointed according to the order of the priesthood of Christ.
The title of Christ is appointed to the name of Jesus by which he was anointed and by which we know him and partake with him in the plan of salvation.   There are scriptures by which Jesus presents himself as our covenant proctor in the Father’s plan thereby under the covenant he has the role and title of father by which we partake of the covenant and Jesus becomes the unique and only way or path to return to the kingdom of heaven to be a citizen and agent that is one with the Son and the Father (See the gospel of John chapter 17).
 
The Traveler

https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders/2023/12/8/23993658/elder-patrick-kearon-called-and-ordained-as-a-member-of-the-quorum-of-the-twelve-apostles
 

I am convinced that there is very little in scripture that can be understood except by and through the spirit of G-d ---- especially those things that relate to eternal life.  I do not want to pretend that I have the concepts of wealth all figured out – however, perhaps I have some ideas to be considered.
First – I would submit that there is a spiritual difference between riches and wealth.  But this is not so obvious because we do not read scripture as they were written but rather as they are interpreted and translated.  It is quite possible that our translations state riches when wealth was spiritually intended and vice versa.  All this leaves enough ambiguity that anyone can rationalize whatever they wish concerning wealth and riches – not just now in mortality but in the eternities.
Second – I would suggest that when the scriptures refer to “Glory” of the resurrection that one could understand that a reference is being made to eternal riches (wealth and power) which is in essence a form of eternal money.  All the references to kingdoms of “Glory” are in essence a form of eternal spiritual wealth and money.  Thus, the mansions of the Celestial Glory display a much greater wealth than the living quarters of the Telestial Glory.
Third – Our president, prophet and current proxy of Christ has admonished us to “think Celestial”.  Jesus taught that the greatest in the kingdom of Heaven is the servant.  This means that in the eternal scheme of things the greatest accumulation of spiritual money comes from service – which is contrary to non-Celestial thinking that wealthy individuals heir servants to serve them.  I would submit that even in this mortal world that anyone that accumulates riches by not serving others – is doing so through the lie of sin and rebellion against G-d the Father.
Fourth – the accumulation of wealth through any other means other than eternal service is sin, the beginning of lies and is outright rebellion against G-d the Father.  Because Lucifer desired the Glory (eternal money and wealth) of G-d the Father without offering himself in service is what turned Lucifer into Satan – the father of lies.  Getting rich without true service (providing eternal benefit to others) is acting as an agent of evil (in the greatest service of Satan).   
Perhaps I could explain these 4 thoughts better.  Surely, I can continue to learn and better serve my G-d and fellow men.
 
The Traveler

It is what it means.  The "small gate" called the eye of the needle didn't exist at the time of Christ.
Yes, some rich people will say "oh we only need to..." then don't actually do that.
No, the issue is two fold. 
The interpretation is usually wrong.  Even with the right interpretation, people don't actually abide by the counsel the Savior was trying to convey.

Obviously, there is more to this than people committing some alliance of sin – other wise it is unlikely that the human species would have survived this long.  The term ripe in iniquity is very ambiguous.   It seems that whenever someone draws a “red” line that it somehow gets crossed, and the prophesy is not fulfilled.  I would submit that the red line of ripe in iniquity is the endangerment of children. 
From the flood to Sodom and Gomorrah to the Tower of Bable to Ninevah to the destruction of the wicked at the end of times – I would suggest that when the voice of the people allows the offences of abuse of children (especially young children under that age of accountability) that the laws and covenants of heaven require that G-d intervein to save the children.
Wars have always taken place – as well as violence and other acts of abuses deliberately targeting young children that ought to be protected by society – I speculate that the keys of destruction lay when the lives of children are sacrificed for pleasure, profit and power – that G-d will destroy such a society.
 
The Traveler

Milton Friedman has already been referenced – I will reference him again especially for the benefit of @Carborendum .  But I would bend the idea of basic income to what Milton calls the negative income tax.  For those interested here is a video of Milton explaining his negative income tax:
 
 
The Traveler