Why does Socialism seem to lead to the decline of religion?


Guest mormonmusic
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 249
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Here is a good reason why the Church stays neutral on politics, This is straight from the IRS.

Charities, Churches and Politics

"The ban on political campaign activity by charities and churches was created by Congress more than a half century ago."

"In 1954, Congress approved an amendment by Sen. Lyndon Johnson to prohibit 501©(3) organizations, which includes charities and churches, from engaging in any political campaign activity. To the extent Congress has revisited the ban over the years, it has in fact strengthened the ban. The most recent change came in 1987 when Congress amended the language to clarify that the prohibition also applies to statements opposing candidates.

Currently, the law prohibits political campaign activity by charities and churches by defining a 501©(3) organization as one "which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."

As you can see the freedom of speech of Churches is forced to be silent on matters that could be conceived as promoting or opposing candidates. Therefore Churches must be very careful to stay completely neutral in public comments. This neutrality or silence does not show the lack of position, just the lack of their legal ability to state it openly. You can note this drastic change when looking at talks prior to the legislation and after.

After the laws were changed we only get statements like this: "long grip of godless communism" or "freed from Communist rule" "After many years of Communist hostility to religion, these countries were suddenly and miraculously given a measure of religious freedom."

If we look back during the years prior to these laws, our Church was very open on political matters and very forthright on where they stood. This is the great sadness resulting from socialist laws. They start to take away freedoms of speech. There were reasons why the laws were made at the time that appeared practical, just as all socialist laws do, but when one is searching for guidance from Prophets of God and they are silenced not by God but by laws this is a great tragedy. Our country was based on freedom of Religion and Speech, but is slowly turning to bondage. We were warned that if we strayed from the Constitution religious freedom was in grave jeopardy. We are being warned the same now with the New Civil Rights. We are told they will take away our freedom of religion. Will we listen this time or dismiss it as not possible?

Edited by Rosabella
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does socialism lead to a decline in religion?

No. Just look at First Century Christians in both the Old World and New World who "had all things in common."

What a cool way of putting a 'happy face' on socialism. 'had all things in common' - that sounds so awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure. I just want to know what your definition of socialism is, Dorave.

Just give me a definition. I want to know if you're a socialist, based on your own definition.

I bet you are. And if you are, then stop using the very stupid argument of 'That sounds like SOCIALISM!'

I. Am. A. Socialist. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I. Am. A. Socialist. :)

Thank you, dorave. I am making this in to my signature.

Rosa - This is exactly the reason why I asked dorave the socialistfor a definition on what Socialism is.

Here's Dictionary.reference.com's 1st definition:

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Does stopping churches from endorsing candidates advocate the vesting of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution of capital/land/etc in the community as a whole?

It does not. In fact, you could argue that such a law was 'Tyrannical', but not 'socialist'.

The second definition is this:

procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

This, also, does not fit how you used your word, either.

The third definition is this:

(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

This particular nebulous definition would mean that you were saying 'Telling churches they can't endorse candidates means we're being taken over by the COMMIES!'

Was that what you meant to say, Rosa?

If not, what you're basically engaging in is what's known as 'newspeak'.

Orwell wrote about it. When people change the definition of a word to mean whatever they want, it lets those people define how you think.

If you want to have a meaningful dialoge on socialism, please define how you're using the term so we all can catch up. I should warn you, however, that I will probably pick apart your definition to show that it includes things that you support.

This neutrality or silence does not show the lack of position, just the lack of their legal ability to state it openly. You can note this drastic change when looking at talks prior to the legislation and after.

After the laws were changed we only get statements like this: "long grip of godless communism" or "freed from Communist rule" "After many years of Communist hostility to religion, these countries were suddenly and miraculously given a measure of religious freedom."

If we look back during the years prior to these laws, our Church was very open on political matters and very forthright on where they stood. This is the great sadness resulting from socialist laws. They start to take away freedoms of speech. There were reasons why the laws were made at the time that appeared practical, just as all socialist laws do, but when one is searching for guidance from Prophets of God and they are silenced not by God but by laws this is a great tragedy. Our country was based on freedom of Religion and Speech, but is slowly turning to bondage. We were warned that if we strayed from the Constitution religious freedom was in grave jeopardy. We are being warned the same now with the New Civil Rights. We are told they will take away our freedom of religion. Will we listen this time or dismiss it as not possible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rosabella makes a great point. While on the surface United Order/Consecration seems equal to Socialism/Communism/Marxism, there are major differences:

1. A belief in God and keeping his commandments

2. Private property rights vs public property

3. Individual freedom vs statism

In the United Order, one is expected to covenant with God to obey. One can leave the Order at any time. While a person is expected to consecrate all he has to God, private property still exists as a stewardship that the individual controls.

In Marxism, the state owns everything and controls how everything is managed. There is no easy way to opt out. Even if the state "gives" a person property to use, they can take it back at any time, or dictate how you will use it. You may want to grow wheat on your farm, but are told to grow radishes instead.

Both can have open markets. But they are still different. In the United Order, I can buy/sell from anyone - even those outside of the order. In Marxism, I buy and sell as directed, at the price they dictate. Currently, China's state driven markets allows them to cheat the system. Look at what they do: they bring in private companies to invest and provide money. But then the state's requirements for part ownership, etc., allows them to eventually replace the companies with state run organizations that get up to speed. This is what is happening with Google, which was forced out. Right now, car companies are doing well in China, but in 5 years the state run manufacturer will be up to snuff and will force American manufacturers out. We'll see this occur one industry at a time.

We see this in France, also, in the wine industry. They are heavily subsidized and protected from wines from California and elsewhere. I can go on giving many examples from countries with varying levels of socialism....

We can have free markets in the United Order, they are state run in Marxism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Marxism, I buy and sell as directed, at the price they dictate. Currently, China's state driven markets allows them to cheat the system. Look at what they do: they bring in private companies to invest and provide money. But then the state's requirements for part ownership, etc., allows them to eventually replace the companies with state run organizations that get up to speed. This is what is happening with Google, which was forced out. Right now, car companies are doing well in China, but in 5 years the state run manufacturer will be up to snuff and will force American manufacturers out. We'll see this occur one industry at a time.

We see this in France, also, in the wine industry. They are heavily subsidized and protected from wines from California and elsewhere. I can go on giving many examples from countries with varying levels of socialism....

We can have free markets in the United Order, they are state run in Marxism.

Wait... Just so I can confirm... You're saying that China is successfully beating the US at the Capitalism game by using Socialism? o.O

I thought part of the argument was that Government does everything sloppily, poorly and over-budget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait... Just so I can confirm... You're saying that China is successfully beating the US at the Capitalism game by using Socialism? o.O

I thought part of the argument was that Government does everything sloppily, poorly and over-budget.

and most of the people. . .?:eek:

What is their condition compared to us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These discussions are always simultaneously frustrating and amusing. But in general, I find it disturbing when people pull to either pole of the arguments. Unrestrained socialism is just as bad as unrestrained capitalism is just as bad as unrestrained monarchism is just as bad as unrestrained fascism.

Simply put, all these types of policies are tools that can be used to accomplish a goal. Some tools are better suited to accomplishing certain goals than others. But at times, it seems like we're determined to pick our favorite tool and use it for everything. But would we use a hammer to cut a baseboard? Would we use a saw to hang drywall?

Instead, doesn't it make a lot more sense to have all of the tools at our disposal and to use them wisely, and in the correct context. I'll admit, that's a lot easier to say than it is to do, but it's easier to say "build a house" than it is to actually build a house.

Some mormons really like to use the Church as the quintessential example of everything. In this, it's no different. The Church employs socialist programs to care for the poor; namely, fast offering. Through this program, the Church asks people to give generously, often expecting those with more resources to give more, and then telling those who are receiving assistance not to contribute to fast offering.

The knee jerk reaction of anti-socialists is that fast offering is not compulsory-that there's no punishment or consequence of not paying fast offering. This is disingenuous, because there is a consequence. It just isn't a temporal consequence. And when I observe mormons who deride forms of government they don't like, that tends to be their message, is that 'socialism takes away my free agency.' But that isn't true, socialism just imposes temporal consequences instead of eternal consequences. But that seems perfectly consistent since we're talking about temporal government here.

So, it seems to me that the discussion about whether socialism (using socialism as a proxy for any form of government) is evil or not fails to grasp the complexity of reality. The question ought to be which social programs are beneficial to society and how do we execute them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These discussions are always simultaneously frustrating and amusing. But in general, I find it disturbing when people pull to either pole of the arguments. Unrestrained socialism is just as bad as unrestrained capitalism is just as bad as unrestrained monarchism is just as bad as unrestrained fascism.

Simply put, all these types of policies are tools that can be used to accomplish a goal. Some tools are better suited to accomplishing certain goals than others. But at times, it seems like we're determined to pick our favorite tool and use it for everything. But would we use a hammer to cut a baseboard? Would we use a saw to hang drywall?

Instead, doesn't it make a lot more sense to have all of the tools at our disposal and to use them wisely, and in the correct context. I'll admit, that's a lot easier to say than it is to do, but it's easier to say "build a house" than it is to actually build a house.

Some mormons really like to use the Church as the quintessential example of everything. In this, it's no different. The Church employs socialist programs to care for the poor; namely, fast offering. Through this program, the Church asks people to give generously, often expecting those with more resources to give more, and then telling those who are receiving assistance not to contribute to fast offering.

The knee jerk reaction of anti-socialists is that fast offering is not compulsory-that there's no punishment or consequence of not paying fast offering. This is disingenuous, because there is a consequence. It just isn't a temporal consequence. And when I observe mormons who deride forms of government they don't like, that tends to be their message, is that 'socialism takes away my free agency.' But that isn't true, socialism just imposes temporal consequences instead of eternal consequences. But that seems perfectly consistent since we're talking about temporal government here.

So, it seems to me that the discussion about whether socialism (using socialism as a proxy for any form of government) is evil or not fails to grasp the complexity of reality. The question ought to be which social programs are beneficial to society and how do we execute them?

What social system creates the social programs is what is important, not just what the programs are. A godless system will make godless laws and godless programs. The constitution was not godless but was changed to become more godless over time, but that was not its original intent. Therefore the original Constitution is far better then what it has degenerated into.

The Church has clearly stated that its programs are not socialist or communist. The important piece that people miss is that God is in charge of the Church and its programs not man. All the other social systems are man made. The constitution in its original form we have been told clearly by Prophets is the way the Lord wants government to be structured in this terrestrial world, because it is the best suited to protect free agency for man to chose His Gospel or not. This is the only governmental system the Lord has stated He approves of and of which He said He inspired the authors. For me it is simple and clear when I read the words of Prophets. There is only one approved "tool" to use. All the rest are of men or the adversary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Church has clearly stated that its programs are not socialist or communist.

I think this goes back to what FunkyTown was trying to establish -- each person (especially those who vehemently profess to be anti-socialism) seems to have a different definition of what socialism is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What social system creates the social programs is what is important, not just what the programs are. A godless system will make godless laws and godless programs. The constitution was not godless but was changed to become more godless over time, but that was not its original intent. Therefore the original Constitution is far better then what it has degenerated into.

I hereby challenge you to show me where God appears in the Constitution. I also assert that the Constitution is quite literally godless.

The Church has clearly stated that its programs are not socialist or communist. The important piece that people miss is that God is in charge of the Church and its programs not man. All the other social systems are man made. The constitution in its original form we have been told clearly by Prophets is the way the Lord wants government to be structured in this terrestrial world, because it is the best suited to protect free agency for man to chose His Gospel or not. This is the only governmental system the Lord has stated He approves of and of which He said He inspired the authors. For me it is simple and clear when I read the words of Prophets. There is only one approved "tool" to use. All the rest are of men or the adversary.

And strangely, when I read the words of the same prophets, I see numerous references to "godless communism." The implication being that there was more objection to the atheistic push of those contemporary forms of government. The objection was that those governments required absolute loyalty and devotion to state and no acceptance of God's existence. They objected to men using power and government to coerce those under them to cater to the ruler's self interest and pride.

Would you be as adamantly opposed to 'god-full communism?' Would they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this goes back to what FunkyTown was trying to establish -- each person (especially those who vehemently profess to be anti-socialism) seems to have a different definition of what socialism is.

Anything that helps people is not necessarily socialism. Socialism is when the government owns and controls the principle industries such as agriculture, utilities, education, health-care, transportation, and much of the root manufacturing industries such as mining, oil refining, etc. It also can imply that the government owns all land and that citizens "rent" it from the government (We call it property tax). Private ownership is usually limited to retail and small scale manufacture.

We do not truly own our property even once it is paid for out right. If we do not pay taxes every year on said property we lose it. The government takes it away. So do we at this time really own property? No. We pay a huge deposit (cash or mortgage) then pay yearly rental fees (taxes) and if we do not meet those rental costs we are evicted from our property that we thought we owned. This is not owning property, this is bondage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hereby challenge you to show me where God appears in the Constitution. I also assert that the Constitution is quite literally godless.

The Constitution presupposes a belief in Natural Law- requiring an absolute law of nature to govern the affairs of men. All the founders believed in 'the Deity' who created (or operated according to) said Natural Law.

The Constitution presupposes a divine Creator, but doesn't adhere to any specific religious creed. Since you accept the modern scripture as divine, I remind you that in the Doctrine and Covenants it claims that the Constitution was set up by "wise men" to preserve liberty in this land.

And strangely, when I read the words of the same prophets, I see numerous references to "godless communism." The implication being that there was more objection to the atheistic push of those contemporary forms of government. The objection was that those governments required absolute loyalty and devotion to state and no acceptance of God's existence. They objected to men using power and government to coerce those under them to cater to the ruler's self interest and pride.

Months ago, when I was posting as Maxel, you made this argument when discussing communism with me. I responded with a talk from Elder Oaks on Socialism- general socialism, not any specific type- and he explains why exactly it's so evil and the difference between socialism/communism and the United Order.

It's not just "godless communism" as you assert.

Would you be as adamantly opposed to 'god-full communism?' Would they?

There is no such thing as 'god-full communism'. It does not and cannot exist as we understand 'communism'.

To restate, the United Order is not communism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hereby challenge you to show me where God appears in the Constitution. I also assert that the Constitution is quite literally godless.

And strangely, when I read the words of the same prophets, I see numerous references to "godless communism." The implication being that there was more objection to the atheistic push of those contemporary forms of government. The objection was that those governments required absolute loyalty and devotion to state and no acceptance of God's existence. They objected to men using power and government to coerce those under them to cater to the ruler's self interest and pride.

Would you be as adamantly opposed to 'god-full communism?' Would they?

Godlessness is not independent of the social system. The essence of any form of "state-ism" is that they encourage or require worship of the state in place of God. You cannot have a powerful central government such as is necessary to run a socialist or communist society, without it developing into state-ism, whether the founders intended it or not.

Let's look at it this way. Can the city of Zion be built under Socialism? Would we be allowed to set up an independent economic society such as the United Order within a system that required absolute integration with the powerful state? I think the answer is clear. We at this time cannot legally even use the barter system precisely because it is not taxable and therefore not under the control of the almighty state. Food coops are being raided and shut down. Why? They are no real threat, but again they are not playing in the system that the government demands from its slaves.

When the Saints fled to Utah they were able to live without much interference from the federal government. Where can we flee to now? Where is a safe place to build Zion. We are told at some point Zion will be built in Missouri and it will not be part of the world's government, socialist or communist or whatever it might be at that time, because it cannot exist with those kinds of systems.

The point that the Constitution has nothing to do with God and is Godless only works if you do not believe the words of Prophets and the writings of the creators of the Constitution. My Mother was a Historian of this very subject and it very clear what the founders intended and created. It is misrepresented when God is taken out of the equation of the Constitution and the founding of this Country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Constitution presupposes a belief in Natural Law- requiring an absolute law of nature to govern the affairs of men. All the founders believed in 'the Deity' who created (or operated according to) said Natural Law.

The Constitution presupposes a divine Creator, but doesn't adhere to any specific religious creed. Since you accept the modern scripture as divine, I remind you that in the Doctrine and Covenants it claims that the Constitution was set up by "wise men" to preserve liberty in this land.

So, let me get this straight. You're saying that because the scriptures have the Constitution in them, the Constitution must have God in it? :huh:

Months ago, when I was posting as Maxel, you made this argument when discussing communism with me. I responded with a talk from Elder Oaks on Socialism- general socialism, not any specific type- and he explains why exactly it's so evil and the difference between socialism/communism and the United Order.

It's not just "godless communism" as you assert.

There is no such thing as 'god-full communism'. It does not and cannot exist as we understand 'communism'.

To restate, the United Order is not communism.

It was actually comments from Marion G. Romney that you provided, and he used the same weak defense that Rosabella is trying to apply. Namely, "It can't be socialism/communism because it was religious government and not civil government." This comes back to what I said before about the difference between temporal and eternal consequences. What really is the difference between civil government saying "If you don't live our laws we'll take your house." and God saying, "If you don't live my law I'll take away your mansion in heaven?"

What's more, your comments to me revert back to the assumption of advocating total socialism, which I've not done. So before you answer the question above, keep in mind that I've already stated that socialism unfettered is a pretty bad thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Godlessness is not independent of the social system. The essence of any form of "state-ism" is that they encourage or require worship of the state in place of God. You cannot have a powerful central government such as is necessary to run a socialist or communist society, without it developing into state-ism, whether the founders intended it or not.

At least we've established that you're capable of picking out a few sentences you don't like and ignoring everything else said. Perhaps you should go up and few posts and read what I've said about socialist and capitalist (and other) governments.

Let's look at it this way. Can the city of Zion be built under Socialism? Would we be allowed to set up an independent economic society such as the United Order within a system that required absolute integration with the powerful state? I think the answer is clear. We at this time cannot legally even use the barter system precisely because it is not taxable and therefore not under the control of the almighty state. Food coops are being raided and shut down. Why? They are no real threat, but again they are not playing in the system that the government demands from its slaves.

Let's look at it the other way then...can the city of Zion be built under Capitalism?

As for not being able to barter, you clearly don't use craigs list much :D.

When the Saints fled to Utah they were able to live without much interference from the federal government. Where can we flee to now? Where is a safe place to build Zion. We are told at some point Zion will be built in Missouri and it will not be part of the world's government, socialist or communist or whatever it might be at that time, because it cannot exist with those kinds of systems.

It's been made abundantly clear that we are to build Zion in the places where we live. Remember, God "called his people Zion, because they were of bone heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them." Zion is not built upon government, or geography, or social policy. It is built on righteousness. Zion can be built anywhere, and under any form of government.

The point that the Constitution has nothing to do with God and is Godless only works if you do not believe the words of Prophets and the writings of the creators of the Constitution. My Mother was a Historian of this very subject and it very clear what the founders intended and created. It is misrepresented when God is taken out of the equation of the Constitution and the founding of this Country.

In the same breath you've tried to dismiss the challenge and then defend the "god-fulness" of the Constitution with the defense, "because my mother said so." Seriously, tell me where God is in the Constitution. The fact that people that wrote the Constitution believed in deity no more puts God in the Constitution than my belief in God puts Him in my manuscript about robotic surgery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, let me get this straight. You're saying that because the scriptures have the Constitution in them, the Constitution must have God in it? :huh:

No, but that's a convenient straw-man. Perhaps you skipped over the part about Natural Law. The scriptures merely support that argument for God "being in" (i.e., having influence on) the Constitution- they are not the source thereof.

It was actually comments from Marion G. Romney that you provided,

You're right; I apologize for the faulty recall.

and he used the same weak defense that Rosabella is trying to apply. Namely, "It can't be socialism/communism because it was religious government and not civil government."

Another nice straw-man. To refresh, I'll link the talk itself. The covenant nature of the United Order (infallible God governing men) is wholly different from the compulsory nature of temporal governments (fallible man governing men). One of the key differences is "who is doing the ruling?" It was James Madison who said "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

There are similarities between socialism and the United Order- just as there are similarities between God and Satan; the Plan of Salvation and Lucifer's plan. This is an old analogy, but it has been repeated numerous times by different modern prophets.

This comes back to what I said before about the difference between temporal and eternal consequences. What really is the difference between civil government saying "If you don't live our laws we'll take your house." and God saying, "If you don't live my law I'll take away your mansion in heaven?"

The major difference I can think of is the sphere each law operates. Civil law is and always will be stuck in the telestial realm. Celestial law is of the celestial kingdom.

What's more, your comments to me revert back to the assumption of advocating total socialism, which I've not done. So before you answer the question above, keep in mind that I've already stated that socialism unfettered is a pretty bad thing.

I don't really care what you're advocating, MoE. I responded to your two simplistic and ultimately false claims: that the Constitution is godless (it is ONLY if we divorce it from the atmosphere and philosophy in which it was created), and that the prophets' major problems have been with "godless communism", which the paper I linked shows is a faulty claim.

I'm not interested in discussions about "how much socialism is okay?". To me, it's akin to arguing about "how much cancer is okay?".

Edited by Matthew0059
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but that's a convenient straw-man. Perhaps you skipped over the part about Natural Law. The scriptures merely support that argument- they are not the source thereof.

Then perhaps you could point out where Natural Law is in the Constitution

Another nice straw-man.

Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.

Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

To refresh, I'll link the talk itself. The covenant nature of the United Order (infallible God governing men) is wholly different from the compulsory nature of temporal governments (fallible man governing men). One of the key differences is "who is doing the ruling?" It was James Madison who said "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

There are similarities between socialism and the United Order- just as there are similarities between God and Satan; the Plan of Salvation and Lucifer's plan. This is an old analogy, but it has been repeated numerous times by different modern prophets.

And my point is that this mutually exclusive definition between socialism and the United Order doesn't hold. Socialism and the United Order have more in common than they have in contrast. In other words, the United Order was a form of socialism.

I guess if you want to dig down to the really technical level, I'd have to admit that you're right, because socialism is an abstract -- a set of values and ideals that can be applied in various ways and degrees. The United Order, on the other hand, was not any kind of an abstraction. But when you say "The United Order is not socialism (or communism)" you stand on the assumption that there is only one expression or manifestation of socialism. Is it possible that there is historical context to be considered with Elder Romney's words?

The major difference I can think of is the sphere each law operates. Civil law is and always will be stuck in the telestial realm. Celestial law is of the celestial kingdom.

Which is exactly as it should be, no?

I don't really care what you're advocating, MoE. I responded to your two simplistic and ultimately false claims: that the Constitution is wholly godless (it is ONLY if we divorce it from the atmosphere in which it was created),

This is not a claim I made. I claimed that god was not in the Constitution. What's more, I believe the authors of the Constitution were divinely inspired to specifically leave him out of the Constitution. (are you still going to assert that my claim is simplistic?)

and that the prophets' major problems have been with "godless communism", which the paper I linked shows.

Again...historical context? Your arguments continue to assert only one possible manifestation of communism.

I'm not interested in discussions about "how much socialism is okay?". To me, it's akin to arguing about "how much cancer is okay?".

Ironically, that's a question that clinicians deal with every day. Cancer, at times, seems to be ubiquitous, and it takes many forms. Consider, for instance, prostate cancer. A huge number of men in the US die with prostate cancer, but they don't die of prostate cancer. In the majority of cases, prostate cancer is not anything to worry about--it's benign--and cutting out a benign cancer can have worse side effects than leaving it in. So, in reality, we very often have to ask ourselves how much cancer is okay.

(and for the record, that isn't a straw-man, that's sophistry)

Edited by MarginOfError
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least we've established that you're capable of picking out a few sentences you don't like and ignoring everything else said. Perhaps you should go up and few posts and read what I've said about socialist and capitalist (and other) governments.

You do not need to revert to jabs to make you view points. It does not make one want to discuss things with you.

Let's look at it the other way then...can the city of Zion be built under Capitalism?

I was not discussing capitalism I was discussing the Constitution there are differences.

As for not being able to barter, you clearly don't use craigs list much :D.

The Craig's list has nothing to do with a barter system.

It's been made abundantly clear that we are to build Zion in the places where we live. Remember, God "called his people Zion, because they were of bone heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them." Zion is not built upon government, or geography, or social policy. It is built on righteousness. Zion can be built anywhere, and under any form of government.

Yes, now we are to build Zion where we are. That is because Zion must be redeemed. The Saints will not be allowed to return to the new Jerusalem until they change their hearts and purify their lives, but that does not mean the City will not be built.

Can you tell me what the City of Zion or the New Jerusalem in Independence Missouri is? Is it just a myth or symbol? Or is it a real place that will be built? Is it just a state of mind the world is going to build to through these socialist and world-oneness philosophies, that we will evolve to a world wide unity? Is that the means by which you think Zion is built?

We are told to build Zion where we are, for that is building the Lord's kingdom on earth but there will be a time when there is a city called Zion and it cannot be built under socialism.

In the same breath you've tried to dismiss the challenge and then defend the "god-fulness" of the Constitution with the defense, "because my mother said so." Seriously, tell me where God is in the Constitution. The fact that people that wrote the Constitution believed in deity no more puts God in the Constitution than my belief in God puts Him in my manuscript about robotic surgery.

Mocking my deceased mother has won no points in your favor. My point is History, Scriptures and Prophets seem to differ from your view on the Constitution. You may find other Historians that do not agree with my mother's findings for they are against the Constitution, but I dare say you will find no prophet to back you. I think D&C 101 is pretty simple and to the point. God said "I established the Constitution of this land". If you do not believe the D&C and God's words that is fine. But you cannot recreate what the scriptures and prophets have said.

Edited by Rosabella
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not interested in discussions about "how much socialism is okay?". To me, it's akin to arguing about "how much cancer is okay?"

Ironically, that's a question that clinicians deal with every day. Cancer, at times, seems to be ubiquitous, and it takes many forms. Consider, for instance, prostate cancer. A huge number of men in the US die with prostate cancer, but they don't die of prostate cancer. In the majority of cases, prostate cancer is not anything to worry about--it's benign--and cutting out a benign cancer can have worse side effects than leaving it in. So, in reality, we very often have to ask ourselves how much cancer is okay.

(and for the record, that isn't a straw-man, that's sophistry)

This ends my discussion with you. This has gotten silly beyond absurdity. Arguments can be made out of anything. I can say the sun is the moon and the moon is the sun and argue you that I am right because of Historical context, linguistics, subjective refection etc. This is only arguing for argument's sake and is no longer a discussion but has degenerated to absurd intellectual games, which is contention and in which I have no interest in participating. I am willing to discuss and even debate ideas but not when it degenerates into this.

Edited by Rosabella
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least we've established that you're capable of picking out a few sentences you don't like and ignoring everything else said. Perhaps you should go up and few posts and read what I've said about socialist and capitalist (and other) governments.

You do not need to revert to jabs to make you view points. It does not make one want to discuss things with you.

Then you could make an effort to accurately reflect the statements that I have made

Let's look at it the other way then...can the city of Zion be built under Capitalism?

I was not discussing capitalism I was discussing the Constitution there are differences.

Then perhaps you would care to clarify what economic system the God-inspired Constitution endorses.

As for not being able to barter, you clearly don't use craigs list much .

The Craig's list has nothing to do with a barter system.

No one ever gets my jokes.

It's been made abundantly clear that we are to build Zion in the places where we live. Remember, God "called his people Zion, because they were of bone heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them." Zion is not built upon government, or geography, or social policy. It is built on righteousness. Zion can be built anywhere, and under any form of government.

Yes, now we are to build Zion where we are. That is because Zion must be redeemed. The Saints will not be allowed to return to the new Jerusalem until they change their hearts and purify their lives, but that does not mean the City will not be built.

Can you tell me what the City of Zion or the New Jerusalem in Independence Missouri is? Is it just a myth or symbol? Or is it a real place that will be built? Is it just a state of mind the world is going to build to through these socialist and world-oneness philosophies, that we will evolve to a world wide unity? Is that the means by which you think Zion is built?

We are told to build Zion where we are, for that is building the Lord's kingdom on earth but there will be a time when there is a city called Zion and it cannot be built under socialism.

You can name a city and call it Zion easily enough. That doesn't make it the same kind of Zion that the Lord called his people when they were of one heart and one mind. Zion was as much a lifestyle as it was a city. So while the city prophesied to be build in Independence may be called Zion, it won't be Zionistic until it's inhabitants embrace the Gospel. The Lord's definition or Zion cannot be accomplished simply by building a city.

In short, I'm pretty sure Zion will be built as both a state of living throughout the world and as a city.

As for the city, it couldn't be built under any form of government anyway, because We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. The Zion you speak of would have it's own independent government that would be led according to the principles of the Gospel, presumably as interpreted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I'm pretty sure such a government would be in violation of the US Constitution. Thus, Zion wouldn't be able to be built under the Constitution...at least by your arguments.

In the same breath you've tried to dismiss the challenge and then defend the "god-fulness" of the Constitution with the defense, "because my mother said so." Seriously, tell me where God is in the Constitution. The fact that people that wrote the Constitution believed in deity no more puts God in the Constitution than my belief in God puts Him in my manuscript about robotic surgery.

Mocking my deceased mother has won no points in your favor. My point is History, Scriptures and Prophets seem to differ from your view on the Constitution. You may find other Historians that do not agree with my mother's findings for they are against the Constitution, but I dare say you will find no prophet to back you. I think D&C 101 is pretty simple and to the point. God said "I established the Constitution of this land". If you do not believe the D&C and God's words that is fine. But you cannot recreate what the scriptures and prophets have said.

I've not mocked your mother. I've mocked your argument. I think that's a pretty significant difference.

What's more, I've already stated that I believe that the Lord had his hand in the establishment of the Constitution, and that he inspired the authors of that document to leave Him out of it. And you have yet to show me where God is in the Constitution. So far, you've failed to meet that challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This ends my discussion with you. This has gotten silly beyond absurdity. Arguments can be made out of anything. I can say the sun is the moon and the moon is the sun and argue you that I am right because of Historical context, linguistics, subjective refection etc. This is only arguing for argument's sake and is no longer a discussion but has degenerated to absurd intellectual games, which is contention and in which I have no interest in participating. I am willing to discuss and even debate ideas but not when it degenerates into this.

You can verify everything I've said on Wikipedia. It states there that 16% of men will receive diagnoses of prostate cancer, but only 3% of them will die of the disease.

If you want a more prominent example, the mammographers at my institution regularly mark abnormal looking growths on the imaging scans to track at the next mammogram. Some of them grow, most do not. We don't just go in and cut out everything that looks abnormal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can verify everything I've said on Wikipedia. It states there that 16% of men will receive diagnoses of prostate cancer, but only 3% of them will die of the disease.

If you want a more prominent example, the mammographers at my institution regularly mark abnormal looking growths on the imaging scans to track at the next mammogram. Some of them grow, most do not. We don't just go in and cut out everything that looks abnormal.

So, what benifit is the harmless cancer to the patient?

You say a little Socialism sprinkled here and there is good for society.

Where is the "cancer" good for the patient?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, what benifit is the harmless cancer to the patient?

You say a little Socialism sprinkled here and there is good for society.

Where is the "cancer" good for the patient?

He didn't say that the cancer was beneficial to the patient. He pointed out that it is not harmful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share