Aelswyth
-
Posts
88 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Aelswyth
-
-
If we are in consensus that animals follow the same human principle of resurrection and knowing it is enforce today since Christ was first resurrected [see John 10:17-18, Matt 27:52-53, & 3 Nephi 23:9-10] , why are we still seeing dinosaurs’ remains [random selection of species here]? Why they are not resurrected?
The resurrection is to a body of "finer matter", not the gross matter we currently inhabit. See D&C 131:7,8.
-
I believe it is important to recognize the difference between animals and people and not get either mixed up. G-d gave man dominion over animals and has commanded man to love his fellow man as himself. It is most foolish to seek dominion over other people and have love and compassion for animals. We can and should have compassion over animals but not the same love and compassion we should have for children and neighbors.
To be honest I am disappointed with the value some have for their children when they consider animals as like members of their family. I grew up with deep respect for my childhood dog that saved my life. But that relationship is not the same as my eternal partner and wife to whom I am married to for eternity nor my children and parents to who I am sealed to for eternity.
I would also point out that it is man that is fallen not animals. Animals need no salvation or saving ordinances – they were not excommunicated from the garden of G-d nor have they violated G-d’s commandments.
The Traveler
Some quotes from Genesis:
"And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them." Genesis 6:7
"And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth." Genesis 6:12
In the Garden, God gave grains, fruits and green plants to be the food of all living things (Gen. 1:29,30). After the Fall, the earth became filled with violence, including the eating of flesh by both men and beasts. After the Flood, God established His "rainbow covenant" with both men and beasts, giving them a new allowance to consume flesh "because the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen. 8:21). In the Millennium, though, when Christ returns, the nature of the animals (and presumably man) will be returned to its original innocence - "The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD." Isa. 65:25
Obviously, the beasts did become corrupted. However, I do not believe they can be held accountable for that, since they have limited free will and function mostly by instinct (as far as we currently know). The current physiology of carnivores clearly requires a diet of flesh to maintain life. But Scripture tells us this was not always the case and will not be the case in the future. Whether they require some kind of salvation, I cannot say. But Francis of Assisi preached to the birds and beasts; who knows what merit there may be in that? Several passages in the New Testament state that Christ died for "the sins of the whole world". We allow that Christ's sacrifice covers those who are not accountable, including children and the mentally impaired; surely the "dumb beasts" fall into that category, having their "sins" covered by reason of unaccountability. Then again, perhaps each species has its own missionaries, spreading the good news.
-
The thing with the Word of Wisdom is, if God meant "tea and coffee", He could have said that. If He meant drinks containing caffeine, He could have said that. He could have been as specific as He wanted to be. But what he said was, no hot drinks. Iced tea has been around since the early 1800s, before the WoW revelation was received by Joseph Smith, yet God did not forbid it; only "hot drinks". I think God said what He meant to say. So I don't drink hot beverages. In winter I will occasionally have what I call "lukewarm chocolate" instead of hot chocolate. :) For me, the tea and coffee issue is moot, because I react badly to caffeine whether hot or cold. So that's not anything I have to be concerned about. But I don't drink hot herbal tea, either. I prepare it and then drink it at room temperature or iced. I take God's word at face value and trust that He said what He meant and meant what He said.
-
the mild effect of non cultivated marijuana used in an inscense could create a receptivity to visions,primarily through our neurochemical systems. heavenly father works through the holy spirit in us,creating visions as we are carried away by the spirit, through dreams, the still small voice, the presence or ministering of angels,the burning in the bosom, ect. there is a difference in the other worldly drifting of thought that comes from psycoactive substances and the true manifestations of the holy spirit. i think that often times in articles published now there is an effort to put the gospel into a worldly context, as if it is nothing more than a progressing cultural group think. in this, the authors deny the reality of a real heavenly father who has his loving hand in our lives and uses the priesthood to act under his guidance here. if an author caused us to atribute moses visions to the action of a drug, then what he was told could have been done by anyone, without the need for priesthood, righteousness or actualy seeking father for what he wants.
But what about the idea that Heavenly Father provided these substances for the sole purpose of communicating with Him in this way? That they are given as a kind of gateway to these experiences? I've heard it suggested that the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil that Adam and Eve ate in Eden was actually some kind of mind-altering substance, and that by it they became aware of things that had previously been unknown to them. If these things were true, it would throw some light on the ritual uses of these substances in other cultures, and would also be a strong condemnation of how people in our modern culture abuse drugs recreationally. That would really be a form of blasphemy. Like in the Word of Wisdom, how red wine is okay for the sacrament, but drinking it for any other reason is forbidden, because doing so removes it from its sacred nature and turns it into just another thing to corrupt the mind and satisfy the desires of the flesh.
There are still people who have the ancient traditional knowledge of these substances and how to safely prepare and use them to commune with God. But they all say that they would not let most modern people do so, because most of us are unprepared and don't have the discipline and spiritual awareness to do it properly. I think there is a lot of truth in that. Our culture (not LDS, but the Western world in general) is very spiritually immature. It would not be safe.
-
A-train, may I ask where you obtained your statistics on global rankings for infant mortality?
As for the rest of your post, AMEN!
-
About the idea that Adam and eve needed the food for some energy, I also disagree with. The POWER that Adam and Eve used, wasn't because of Oxygen and blood pumping through there system. I believe it was there spirit that gave them energy. What fueled the spirit? who knows. Once they felt, they became mortal. Now the spirit wasn't enough, they needed the nutrients to help them grown. (which really didn't happen before).
I think you're interpreting the word "energy" too narrowly. You contrast it with "power", when those are two words meaning the exact same thing, in terms of physics. Power is energy, and both require something to fuel them. Consuming food does not necessarily have anything to do with whether you have oxygen and blood pumping through your system. Plants have a different physical system than mammals do, and they consume nutrients from sunlight and from the earth. Then we eat the plants. Ultimately all our energy comes from the same two sources, the sun and the earth. Even the sun itself is consuming massive amounts of fuel to provide the light and heat we need, and when it runs out, it will die.
I think the idea that Adam and Eve didn't need food in Eden is reading a bit too much into the narrative. It clearly states they did eat of the fruits in the garden, among other things. You don't have a desire to eat unless you feel hungry. You don't feel hungry unless your body needs nutrients to replace expended energy. Ergo, if Adam and Eve were living beings (which we are told they were), and if Adam and Eve were eating, it follows that Adam and Eve needed to consume some form of fuel to nourish themselves. Nothing lives on nothing.
-
i think shadow may have been saying that once we die we too are outside of time. it does not govern us anymore. it still runs things in order for people on earth, but not people who are dead. the rest of the world would be as the blinking of an eye to the dead. so, judgement may happen right after we die because we're not constrained by time anymore. it's not that it's a judgement for each individual person after each person dies, but it would seems as though as though once we die, that's it. we aren't gonna be up there watching the rest of the world go on and live on for how ever many years, may it be one year or three thousand years, until the second coming. once we die, we're outside of time, and thus onto the next step, i.e. judgement.
i'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anything said, and maybe i read that wrong, but that's what i understood it to say.
Thank you Jonboy. I see the point. Still not convinced, though; why would spirits be "outside time"? Are Satan and his demons outside time? And even though we're talking about the perception of time, rather than the passage of time itself, that would still involve being somewhere for that "blink-of-an-eye eternity", wouldn't it? We have been taught that the Spirit World is right here on earth; so it must still operate under earthly time. I don't see any evidence that spirits are outside time. If they were, what would be so terrible about spending a "blink-of-an-eye" in spirit prison? Heck, that wouldn't be so bad. :)
-
The estimated world population in 10,000 BC was still about a million or more.
Mmm. That's why I said, "Probably earlier."
Although, I still see these "estimate populations" as highly dubious, considering all the unknown factors that are impossible to put into the equation. Numerous times in human history we have been almost wiped out by some disaster or disease. Projecting any kind of authoritative, stable population estimate back to 10, 000 B.C. is guesswork of the most tenuous kind. And I say this as a supporter of modern science, not a dissenter. Population statistics that far back are simply not based on any kind of reliable, testable, verifiable methods. It's pseudoscience.
-
Ok, this I have to say is a good question. Notice when you say in the last day, this doesn't imply the last day for God, but us. God is
eternal and so don't have a beginning or end, and in do have this ability is not governd by time. So when some one dies they are judged and
the reward or condemnation is given instantaiously. How is this? Because God is forever present (Due to no time he is never old), right now
is just as new as yesterday and tomorrow will be. So in a sense when you die you will be at the end of days(for you). Being that we are
governed by time. Now how does this apply to Abraham's Bosom if you had to wait for Christ to save you? Well you had to "wait" because you
could not go to heaven. To answer this accuratly you would have to answer this question. If you are now not governed by time and there is
no time, how long do you "wait"? This is like saying how long is eternaty and how long will it feel to you?
Also God is just and loving, yes. But this don't mean what you implied it to mean. Because God is just, you fear him because he cannot let
sin go on without being punish for if he let sin slide, he may be good to you, but now not just. And actually we all deserve to go to Hell,
that is why Christ came so that we may have to ability to go to heaven.
Well you kind of used a poor analagy for that. In the prison thing. It is almost like this. Say you everyone over on earth was dirty. And God
didn't want you to mess everything up and so contructed a temperery motel that you could "stay" at until Christ was to come over and say
God is ready for you to come over to his Hotel where he was able to put down some plastic covers so you didn't get dirt all over the place.
Now everyone can go to his Hotel because he has done the neccassary work so you don't mess it up. This doesn't mean that the old motel has
to be torn down. It just means no one has to stay there any more. (I did this one on the fly
so you kind of have to forgive me).Okay, I get what you're saying. I understand your viewpoint and how it all hangs together. But, I disagree with your conclusions and don't see them supported in Scripture. I think most Christians would agree with me that there is a single, final Judgment Day for all souls, not a separate one for each. I've rarely heard anyone espouse the idea that each soul undergoes final judgment immediately upon death. One point that immediately presents itself to me is that such a system would seem to make death itself rather pointless. What happens, you die one day, you're buried, and then the next you're resurrected and off to Heaven or Hell? Do you believe in the bodily resurrection? Most Christians do, and I haven't noticed any reports of mysteriously empty coffins lately.
Out of curiosity, what scriptural passages do you see as supporting the idea that each soul undergoes final judgment immediately after death?
-
Exacly my point. What is one of the most debated creeds of Christianity and Mormonism? The Trinity.... The Christian's belive that
God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are one in being, while the Mormons deny it. That would mean that you do not believe in
the same God as Christians.
Ever heard of Unitarians? They're Christian. They don't believe in the Trinity.
There are also many Evangelical Christians who hold to Nontrinitarianism.
The Christadelphians are Nontrinitarian.
Here is a nice little quote from the Wikipedia article on Nontrinitarianism:
"Although some denominations require their members to profess faith in the trinity, most mainline denominations have taken a "hands-off" policy on the subject of the trinity, realizing that since personal study and free thought have been encouraged for years, it is not surprising that some of the conclusions reached would be nontrinitarian. The recognition here is that the trinity is a tool for pointing to a greater truth. In other words, Christianity has historically sought to look beyond its doctrines (see Apophasis) to the greater truth they are intended to address, i.e. God. It is not uncommon for a Methodist, Presbyterian, or Anglican to profess non-trinitarian views, even among the clergy. The response from the governing bodies of those denominations is usually neutral, so long as the disagreement is voiced in respect."
I would also point out that there have been General Authorities of the Church, and other prominent Mormons, who have indeed espoused an understanding of the Trinity and even used the term in their writings.
Don't you think it's a little arrogant and, well, unChristlike to decide for yourself who is and isn't a real Christian? I think this calls for a few words from Christ himself:
"Do not judge, lest you be judged. For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged. And with the same measure you use, it shall be measured to you. And why do you look at the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not notice the plank in your own eye?" Matt. 7:1-3
"Not everyone who says to me, "Master, Master," shall enter into the reign of the heavens, but he who is doing the desire of my Father in the heavens. Many shall say to me in that day, "Master, Master, have we not prophesied in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and done many mighty works in your name?" And then I shall declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from me, you who work lawlessness!""
I humbly point out that this could just as easily refer to you as it could to me; so maybe we should leave all the judgments about who is or is not a true follower of Christ up to him and his Heavenly Father.
-
There's been a lot of replies saying that the WoW specifically forbids tea and coffee. Um, no it doesn't. It generally forbids "hot drinks". The interpretation of those hot drinks as being tea and coffee is later guidance provided by leaders of the Church. Just wanted to clarify that.
Black tea and green tea are from the exact same plant. They are both real tea, as is white tea, which is is made from the youngest leaves. Any other "tea" is not actually tea, but a herbal tisane. If you are drinking green tea for the health benefits it can provide, I suggest looking into "red tea", otherwise known as rooibos or redbush tea. It is a tisane made from a plant native to parts of Africa, does not contain any caffeine, is low in the tannins that make coffee and tea bitter, and contains high levels of antioxidants comparable to the levels in green tea. There is also honeybush tea, which is very similar to rooibos but slightly sweeter, contains less than 0.01% caffeine, and also contains high levels of flavones and isoflavones (antioxidants). These two teas can provide the same benefits as green tea, without the dubious standing vis-a-vis the WoW.
-
I just found this article about an Israeli researcher who claims that, like many other cultures, the Hebrews used mind-altering ritual substances to experience visions and communicate with God.
I've heard theories of this kind before, usually pointing out that the recipe for incense given in the Torah includes cannabis, which could conceivably inspire visions etc. if it included the flowering buds.
Opinions?
-
Yes, a "sub-clan" is called a sept (Latin for "branch"). For example, my main line of Scottish ancestry is through my maternal grandmother, Margaret Grey. Grey/Gray is a sept of Clan Stewart. To make things confusing, though, sometimes a name can be associated with multiple clans, e.g. Grey/Gray can also be a sept of Clan Sutherland; so you have to delve deep to find out which Clan your particular branch of the family is descended from.
-
I was mistaken here, the general population of Mormons are just as spiteful, intolerant, bigoted, self righteous and misinformed as the evangelical Christian that posted here, it's fortunate that LDS doctrine and leaders aren't like that.
???
Where did that come from? It's not a very charitable attitude.
I know very few spiteful people, in any walk of life. I suppose pretty much all people possess the other foibles you mention, to varying degrees. But you sound very venomous here. Did something happen?
-
Sorry to be blunt, but any man who complains about taking care of your children because he "didn't make them" is not a righteous or kind man. You may not want your children to go through another divorce, but neither would you want them to live in that house exposed to an undercurrent of resentment from their stepfather and made to feel like second-class citizens because they were fathered by another man. He needs a huge attitude adjustment, finances aside.
-
Actually, from what I understand vultures are immune to just about any microbe or parasite and their stomach acids are the most powerful of any vertebrate species.
I have to agree with you on the burial process. I remember watching a sci-fi horror moview once where they did an embalming on a body and it was really quite disturbing at the time. I know one of the big reasons for embalming becoming popular 100 yeras ago was due to the incredible fear of being buried alive -- no chance if you have been embalmed.
The rear was so great that many people had tubes into their coffins with a strong attached to a bell that was above ground. A person would have the job to sit in the graveyard (even at night) and listen in case a bell was rung by a person who had been buried alive. That is where the term "graveyard shift" came about.
I think the whole embalming thing stems from the same reason the Egyptians mummified their corpses: a very literalistic belief in physical resurrection. Same reason why burial was considered preferable to cremation in the West for such a long time; how can the body be resurrected when it's disintegrated into ashes? Of course, now we know that even in burial the body will eventually disintegrate, so the resurrection must be accomplished by means unknown to us at this time. But the practice remains, even though we know it's unnecessary (or at least we hope!). :)
-
Interesting. I had no idea of such a practice actually surviving to the present day. The deceased is wrapped, given a funeral, and then three days later put on an alter, chopped up and fed to vultures. This would be quite fascinating to witness. I wonder how the Han Chinese react to this when they move there to take over and find this custom.
The Zoroastrians (from whence came the three wise men) practice, or used to practice, this kind of thing. The body was put on the top of a tower and left for the carrion birds. They are known in English as "Towers of Silence". The reason behind it is the law laid out in the Avesta, which states that the corpse in unclean and should not pollute either earth, water or fire; so it is instead exposed to sun and birds on the tower until the bones are clean and bleached (which can take up to a year). The bones are then placed in an ossuary with lime until they disintegrate. The remains mix with run-off rainwater and go through a series of sand and coal filters before being washed out to sea.
It is not practiced now by Iranian Zoroastrians, since the Islamic government outlawed it in the 1970s. But it is still practiced to this day by the Zoroastrian community in India, the Parsi, and is considered one's final act of charity, by providing the birds with what would otherwise be destroyed.
I think the Tibetan sky burial may have come from early nomadic Zoroastrians who remained on the steppes instead of settling in Persia, and ended up in India and Tibet. The one difference that has developed is that the Tibetans chop the corpse up; this is not done by the Zoroastrians.
-
I beleive the biggest issue with bibles translated in the last few years is that they are not inspired, the printers claim the N.I.V and other retranslations to be easier to understand; And sometimes it is a good thing, but in a lot of instances there retranslations according to what the uninspired translater is writing is so very damaging to the original scripture.
One instance i can think right off hand is in the N.I.V it says that satan will be brought down to his grave rather than the K.J.V that states satan will be sent to hell and prison e.t.c..... So if the N.I.V is correct, then that means satan will be ressurected along with all of us? I dont think that is what the lord had in mind, do you? but anyway there are many thousands of such incorrect translations in many of todays versions, The K.J.V had enough problems over the thousands of years of its coming to fruitation, why do we want to beleive uninspired men whom are for the most part simply making some money by claiming a better product? :)
Um, who are we to decide who is and is not inspired? I certainly don't have any kind of inner track on that. If the KJV was divinely inspired, then why are so many of the translations in it simply not correct? The truth is it was translated by learned and devout men who possessed a decent but limited knowledge of the ancient languages, a decent but limited understanding of Middle Eastern culture, and did not have access to the better-quality manuscripts scholars now have at their disposal. And let us not forget that the KJV translators were men with an agenda of their own, also, and their doctrines were the doctrines of the apostasy.
"Grave" and "Hell" are two words used to translate the Hebrew word "Sheol". Both are used in the KJV at different places, as is "Pit". They all refer to the Spirit World (Hell in olden times did not necessarily mean a place of torment, it was the Old English name for the Spirit World of the Ancestors). So, regardless of which word is used to translate the underlying concept, the meaning is exactly the same. Satan cannot be resurrected, he has never had a body to be resurrected with.
Yes, some modern translations suffer from a too-liberal interpretation of many words and phrases; but exactly the same thing can be said for the KJV. It is a flawed translation. There are others much more accurate to the sense of the original manuscripts, though none are perfect, all being subject to the filter of the human mind.
-
The low estimate of world population in 5000 BC was 5 million... that is people were being born and dying long before Adam as well as after.
I suppose that God could have created Adam and Eve though some process other than birth like the millions of other people living at that time but it would be odd if he did.
Of course, there's always the possibility that the genealogies by which that date was established are not complete/correct due to the numerous interruptions, captivities, etc. over the millennia; a possibility not so far out there, since we know already of genealogical discrepancies and also that the records of the Hebrews have been subject to much editing and revision (and much has been lost). There is, too, the known tendency in the Bible for genealogies to skip generations for whatever reason and yet present themselves as unbroken lines, because the ancestor/descendant relationship is still known even though the links in between may not be. A "father" may be your great-great-great-great grandfather, a "son" may be six or seven generations removed.
A simple reading of the Biblical narrative seems to indicate a beginning much, much earlier than 5000 B.C. So I tend to regard the genealogical approach to establishing a time-frame as inherently flawed. Based on the internal details of the story, I'd have to place Adam and Eve at the latest around 10, 000 B.C., probably earlier.
-
To answer the last question (why not bring religion to Libertarianism), imho, it, like Communism on a different political wing, is difficult to mesh with Christian faith. The two philosophies are both utopian, and both rely on the inherent goodness of humanity to work. Even in Atlas Shrugged, we find that Libertarianism (or Objectivism, to be more accurate) fails for most, because people are not good, and they ultimately envy and subdue to radically independent and talented individual.
The current free enterprise/government regulatory/hodge podge social services network that is the United States, works. Taxes are substantial, but bareable. Social services are significant, but not comfortable.
Maybe. But I have to say that though our social services may be "significant", they are concentrating in the wrong areas. We have the worst health care of any of the developed nations. Our infant mortality rate is second only to Latvia; we are on the same rung as Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia, at the bottom of the industrialized nations. Guess which nations have the best rankings in every aspect of health care? The ones with socialized health care systems.
I would venture to say that in your personal system of belief, you can combine your spiritual and political beliefs in any way you see fit, providing you can reconcile them without too much cognitive dissonance.
I think in some ways you might be confusing libertarianism with anarchism. I would consider anarchism and communism to be two extremes of political thought, both incompatible with Christian doctrine, as you pointed out. But libertarianism is really not an extreme position but rather a middle-of-the-road one, which accepts the need for government but limits its functions to those ensuring, as our constitution states, the rights of the people to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". But, maybe I'm more of a centrist libertarian rather than a right or left extremist. I believe I did score somewhere around there on a political quiz one time! :)
-
Does it say they required food? Not by my reading. It says "thou mayest freely eat." It's not advertised as a life necessity, but a desirable option which Adam and Eve were offered as the stewards of the Garden.
Everything that exists requires something to maintain its existence. Energy expended requires energy to replace it. "There is nothing new under the sun", just the same elements and energies recycling over and over; all food or fuel is just a form of energy. Nothing is created "ex nihilo". Even gods and angels must consume something to replace the energy they expend, it's a cosmic law.
-
The professional singers didn't start on American Idol that you can be sure of. All it is is a show to get ratings for Fox. It's very boring and a waste of programming time.
You do know that previous winners are being dropped from their record labels right?
It doesn't matter to me whether they are being dropped or not. I don't buy their albums. I barely even watch the show. I'm not defending the show or the singers in any way; I simply take umbrage at your implication that only "professional" singers can be any good, when nobody starts out professional.
-
Yes, I know he did not go straight to the father, but he when down to Abrahams Bosom. When he went down there he set
the captives free. They are now no longer there, but in heaven. Abraham's Bosom is no longer because Christ died and went
down (just as you said) and saved the captives. Also you did not answer my question, where in the Bible does it say it still exists to
this day?
More to the point, where does it say it no longer exists? Since it clearly did exist, and since all indications are that it continues to exist (such as the prophesied Judgment Day), I believe the burden of proof is on you to show that somehow it has simply vanished from existence.
I'm curious, if you do not believe in Paradise/Abraham's Bosom/the spirit world, then what on earth do you think happens when people die? Obviously, if they don't go to the Spirit World, they must go either to Heaven or Hell. Since the Judgment is not until the last day, then the destination cannot yet be based on any final worthiness; so either everyone goes to Heaven (an impossibility since no unclean thing can enter the presence of God) or everyone goes to Hell (not exactly just OR loving, wouldn't you say?).
Clearly, the only way to reconcile end-time prophecies with a just and loving God is the continued existence of the Spirit World, i.e. Abraham's Bosom. Just because Christ freed the captives who were there at the time of his death and resurrection does not by any stretch of meaning imply that the place itself ceased to exist. If you free all the inmates from a prison, does the prison magically vanish? Do people stop committing crimes and being sent there? Of course not, on both counts. People have not stopped dying since Christ came, so there is still need for a Spirit World where we can dwell until the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord arrives. If you do not believe this, then how do you explain the final judgment?
-
This will mainly be for Frank and Sixpack--but all are welcome to the table. I dabbled in Libertarianism in my youth (did that just drip with condecension--
). I still have a philosophical attraction to it. I loved Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Further, I sat under the tutelage of the Acton Institute (classic liberal, more than strictly Libertarian). Doug Bandow (sp?) was an evangelical, as well as a fellow at the Cato Institute, so I know that it is possible to be both.And yet...as Doug admitted, it's not common. Rand, in particular, despised religion. Her novels exalt secular humanism. In the end, I abandon Libertarianism as philosophically flawed--seeing that it denied the fallen nature of humanity.
Even Adam Smith's "invisible hand," seems to err on this point. Government is a necessary evil. In an ideal world, perhaps classic liberalism, with limited government, would work so well. And yes, in a fallen world, Acton was right--power corrupts.
Neverthless, Romans 13 tells me that God has chosen to use government to restrain a fallen and corrupt humanity.
As a libertarian, I believe in limited government, existing mostly to defend and preserve the freedoms of the people it serves. However, in a departure from most libertarians, I also believe in certain elements of democratic socialism and am a firm supporter of socialized health care.
I don't believe our fallen nature is denied in libertarian philosophy; quite the contrary, libertarianism is all about exercising our free agency, to choose for ourselves the good or the evil as long as we don't infringe upon the rights of anyone else. It is this "knowledge of good and evil", and our ability to distinguish between them, that is the lasting legacy of the fall. I see the tenets of the LDS Church as being fundamentally libertarian in nature. Libertarianism may not embrace religion (or rather, any specific religion), but I certainly believe the true gospel embraces a kind of libertarian-socialist hybrid philosophy with the greatest of ease.
And if to your eyes libertarianism lacks religion, why not bring religion to it? :)
). I still have a philosophical attraction to it. I loved Ayn Rand's
Some interesting doctrines of LDS
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
I know, Jonboy... sorry, I was kind of replying to Shadow by way of your clarification... not intending to draw you into the fray! :)