Your opinion: Obvious or not obvious?


Vort
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 169
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Eowyn provided apostolic quotes against socialism. Can anyone provide apostolic quotes encouraging or praising socialism? I can't seem to find any that would support Annwandering's knowledge of being right.

I have some delightful Brigham Young quotes...

Besides, can you provide apostolic quotes that don't conflate socialism with Soviet totalitarianism?

Anytime a Democrat's name and Hitler are stated in the same sentence, someone is going to cry "foul", regardless of whether the two were compared. It is political correctness gone amok.

As if Republicans won't cry foul when their names are used in the same sentence with Hitler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It takes to much work, some people just blow up at everything. You are in control of your own response. If you want to hop around mad because Hitler was the first thing that came to my mind when thinking of terrible tragedies that's your day wasted being hopping mad, not mine.

My view anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a society, using Hitler and Natzi have become tabu. In general, you cannot expect to have a real conversation with regular people when you use examples like that. Kathy may have been reading into the comparison wrong, but that doesnt mean that a majority of Americans wouldnt have done the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep hearing the old canard about socialism=government force. It misses the point of a representative government. I'm adapting something I've posted elsewhere, on the degree to which our involvement in the gospel should be reflected in our politics.

What is the point of anything anyway, unless we are a light to the world? Of course it doesn’t mean what the late, great Viv Stanshall said here.

In one of the EQ lessons I taught recently, I used my favourite Martin Buber quote, one that he adapted from the Hasidic master R. Elimelech of Lizhansk. I think it does a remarkable job of explaining what it is to be a light to the world.

“R. Eleazar said: “The light that the Holy One, blessed be He, created on the first day- Adam could see with it from one end of the world to the next. Since the Holy One, blessed be He, looked at the generation of the Deluge and the generation of the Division and saw that their deeds were wicked, He concealed the light from them. And for whom did he conceal it? For the righteous in the future to come.”

Hasidim asked: “Where did he conceal it?”

They were answered: “In the Torah.”

They asked: “If so, will the Tsadikim not find some of the light as they study Torah?”

They answered: “They certainly will find some.”

They asked: “If so, what will the Tsadikim do when they find some of the concealed light in the Torah?”

They answered: “They will reveal it in the way they live.”

If we don’t allow God’s light to influence our behaviour, to reveal itself through it, shaping the very way we tackle our lives and communities, studying scriptures is a waste of time. Social quietism is a very poor model LDS to follow. There is another Buber adaptation of a hasidic teaching which complements this one.

“When Rabbi Enoch had said the verse of the psalm: “The heavens are the heavens of the Lord, but the earth hath He given to the children of men,” he paused and then went on to say:” ‘The heavens are the heavens of the Lord’—you see, they are already of a heavenly character. ‘But the earth hath He given to the children of men’—so that they might make of it something heavenly.””

How can we become a Zion society if we wait for a later date? We ought to be making our communities as heavenly as possible right here, right now. Then we will be ready for Zion. Each person should act on their political conscience, be they socialist, republican, democrat, whatever.

Continuing with Buber, in his essay Hebrew Humanism, he pointed out that our external circumstances in a large measure reflect our inner ones. Of course this does not mean that we will always succeed to the extent we want. Be it democracy or be it dictatorship, there will always be failures to one degree or another; but we have to try. We can’t lay back and think there is nothing to change, that Caesar can have what he will.

“The concrete transformation of our whole inner life is not sufficient for us. We must strive for nothing less than the concrete transformation of our life as a whole. The process of transforming our inner lives must be expressed in the transformation of our outer life, of the life of the individual as well as that of the community. And the effect must be reciprocal: the change in the external arrangements of our life must be reflected in and renew our inner life time and again.”

Biblical Humanism, a similar essay by Buber, is a little dramatic, but gets the point across.

“Biblical humanism cannot, as does its Western counterpart, raise the individual above the problems of the moment; it seeks instead to train him to stand fast in them, to prove himself in them. This stormy night, these flashes of lightning flashing down, this threat of destruction- do not escape from them into a world of logos, of perfected form! Stand fast, hear the word in the thunder, obey, respond!”This terrifying world is the world of God. It lays claim upon you. Prove yourself in it like a man of God!”

I want my government in my society to reflect my ideals as much as possible. Else, why have a representative government at all? If others disagree, they can vote against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of Reddings ten postulates of communication is that "the message received is the only one that matters" I see both interpretations as equally valid. The question is whether or not Bob is more concerned with being right than with communicating and connecting with Cathy. Cathy has stated what she heard Bob to say, and in her mind that is a valid interpretation. Bob disagrees.

-RM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that doesnt mean that a majority of Americans wouldnt have done the same thing.

Neither does it being what most people would do make it an appropriate reaction either. Sidestepping peoples emotions is exhausting, so is explaining what you said due to terrible reading comprehension.

Perhaps I am insensitive, I would rather someone get worked into a knot misreading what I correctly wrote rather than work myself into a knot trying to construe some PC crap to avoid offending random Internet guy number 3456822321.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of Reddings ten postulates of communication is that "the message received is the only one that matters" I see both interpretations as equally valid. The question is whether or not Bob is more concerned with being right than with communicating and connecting with Cathy. Cathy has stated what she heard Bob to say, and in her mind that is a valid interpretation. Bob disagrees.

So where does Bob's duty to use audience-accessible speech leave off and Cathy's duty to understand what is intended pick up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep hearing the old canard about socialism=government force. It misses the point of a representative government. I'm adapting something I've posted elsewhere, on the degree to which our involvement in the gospel should be reflected in our politics.

What is the point of anything anyway, unless we are a light to the world? Of course it doesn’t mean what the late, great Viv Stanshall said here.

In one of the EQ lessons I taught recently, I used my favourite Martin Buber quote, one that he adapted from the Hasidic master R. Elimelech of Lizhansk. I think it does a remarkable job of explaining what it is to be a light to the world.

“R. Eleazar said: “The light that the Holy One, blessed be He, created on the first day- Adam could see with it from one end of the world to the next. Since the Holy One, blessed be He, looked at the generation of the Deluge and the generation of the Division and saw that their deeds were wicked, He concealed the light from them. And for whom did he conceal it? For the righteous in the future to come.”

Hasidim asked: “Where did he conceal it?”

They were answered: “In the Torah.”

They asked: “If so, will the Tsadikim not find some of the light as they study Torah?”

They answered: “They certainly will find some.”

They asked: “If so, what will the Tsadikim do when they find some of the concealed light in the Torah?”

They answered: “They will reveal it in the way they live.”

If we don’t allow God’s light to influence our behaviour, to reveal itself through it, shaping the very way we tackle our lives and communities, studying scriptures is a waste of time. Social quietism is a very poor model LDS to follow. There is another Buber adaptation of a hasidic teaching which complements this one.

“When Rabbi Enoch had said the verse of the psalm: “The heavens are the heavens of the Lord, but the earth hath He given to the children of men,” he paused and then went on to say:” ‘The heavens are the heavens of the Lord’—you see, they are already of a heavenly character. ‘But the earth hath He given to the children of men’—so that they might make of it something heavenly.””

How can we become a Zion society if we wait for a later date? We ought to be making our communities as heavenly as possible right here, right now. Then we will be ready for Zion. Each person should act on their political conscience, be they socialist, republican, democrat, whatever.

Continuing with Buber, in his essay Hebrew Humanism, he pointed out that our external circumstances in a large measure reflect our inner ones. Of course this does not mean that we will always succeed to the extent we want. Be it democracy or be it dictatorship, there will always be failures to one degree or another; but we have to try. We can’t lay back and think there is nothing to change, that Caesar can have what he will.

“The concrete transformation of our whole inner life is not sufficient for us. We must strive for nothing less than the concrete transformation of our life as a whole. The process of transforming our inner lives must be expressed in the transformation of our outer life, of the life of the individual as well as that of the community. And the effect must be reciprocal: the change in the external arrangements of our life must be reflected in and renew our inner life time and again.”

Biblical Humanism, a similar essay by Buber, is a little dramatic, but gets the point across.

“Biblical humanism cannot, as does its Western counterpart, raise the individual above the problems of the moment; it seeks instead to train him to stand fast in them, to prove himself in them. This stormy night, these flashes of lightning flashing down, this threat of destruction- do not escape from them into a world of logos, of perfected form! Stand fast, hear the word in the thunder, obey, respond!”This terrifying world is the world of God. It lays claim upon you. Prove yourself in it like a man of God!”

I want my government in my society to reflect my ideals as much as possible. Else, why have a representative government at all? If others disagree, they can vote against it.

In the U.S. the statistics are plain to see, those who love freedom give more, those who love security (entitlements) give less. Those in socialist countries give far far less.

The Catholic vote was split, those who attended Mass weekly voted for Romney, Catholics who don't voted for Obama.

There is a reason it's called the religious right and the secular left. Evidently the light is not found in religion if the religious are not choosing government.

Biblical Humanism != Secular Humansim, isn't that what Buber is saying? Yet you say you choose a government (along with others) that ultimately at the point of a gun raises "the individual above the problems of the moment"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So where does Bob's duty to use audience-accessible speech leave off and Cathy's duty to understand what is intended pick up?

I think our duty is to understand first. Steven Covey said Seek first to understand, then seek to be understood. We also have counsel via scripture and modern prophets to beware and avoid being offended.

So the correct way would have been for Cathy to understand Bob's point and then kindly request that he could have made the same point with a less offensive example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hidden

There are also a religious left and secular right.

Yeah..it's called Europe though we are joining you shortly.

I'm being very general there, and actually think in truth the closest one can get to being honest and truly irreligious is agnosticism, I believe athiesim as well as any form of secularism to be religion whether they admit it or not.

The Religion of Secularism by Rabbi Ariel Bar Tzadok

Religion/truth does not flourish in social economies like it does in free economies.

Greed affects both.

Link to comment

There are also a religious left and secular right.

Yeah..it's called Europe though we are joining you shortly.

I'm being very general there, and actually think in truth the closest one can get to being honest and truly irreligious is agnosticism, I believe athiesim as well as any form of secularism to be religion whether they admit it or not.

The Religion of Secularism by Rabbi Ariel Bar Tzadok

Faith does not flourish in social economies like it does in free economies.

Greed affects both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither does it being what most people would do make it an appropriate reaction either. Sidestepping peoples emotions is exhausting, so is explaining what you said due to terrible reading comprehension.

Perhaps I am insensitive, I would rather someone get worked into a knot misreading what I correctly wrote rather than work myself into a knot trying to construe some PC crap to avoid offending random Internet guy number 3456822321.

I am with you, but if you know that what you correctly wrote will not be understood? So rather than being correct and having everyone miss your point. Why not write it in a way that it cannot be interpreted wrong. By doing so, you are no less of a person and are no more/less correct than you would have been before. Save the correctness for the people that will understand you, not for the druthers of society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see Bob's point, but the mention of Hitler puts people in a non-listening state. I would use some examples like the world not ending even though there are so many unemployed or underemployed people, more people about to lose jobs, more people getting unaffordable insurance plans vs. affordable, more people losing their homes, etc.

To them, it does feel like their world is ending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So where does Bob's duty to use audience-accessible speech leave off and Cathy's duty to understand what is intended pick up?

I think both are responsible. A few years ago my wife and I were out for a drive when she noticed that the local ice cream parlor had opened for the summer and she said "look _____is open". I responded with "yes, it is,". And kept driving. She was a little upset.

I responded very clearly to what she said....but not to what she thought she said.

If our goal is to be right then I could argue that I had responded correctly. If she is saying that it was her intent that mattered then she could also claim to be right. If we want to actually communicate then we need to try to seek understanding. In your original example I feel like both participants are more concerned with "being right" than with reaching a shared understanding. You asked what we thought. My take is I can see what both are saying, and I think both are to blame for the miscommunication.

-RM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep hearing the old canard about socialism=government force. It misses the point of a representative government.

The point of representative government - as understood by those who actually fought and died to bring it about during the Revolution - is that humans have natural inalienable rights; and that representative government less likely to violate those rights than absolutist government is.

The point is not, and never was (at least, in the early history of the US), to create a system where the majority could enlist armed government functionaries in their quest to get their hands on the minority's stuff. If it were, we'd have elected for a pure democracy and would need never bother with separation of powers, a bicameral legislature, or a Supreme Court with the power of judicial review.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ones who fought and died had little say in the form of government we have. They were dead.

I am looking around and see no one with guns telling me what I have to do or not do.

We have the form of government we have due to compromise, which is not a dirty word. No one got the exact form of government they favored. In fact the first form failed. On the second try they worked till they came up with a form that everyone settled on. In the years since we have amended that form in quite a few ways, and re-amended, till we have the form we have today. Some day we will put the perfect form of government into effect. Till then we have to work together perfecting what we have now. Digging in our heels for any form, but the one with God at its head, is pointless and defeats our own selves. Working together to improve our government is an ongoing process and one we are very mistaken to shut down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eowyn provided apostolic quotes against socialism. Can anyone provide apostolic quotes encouraging or praising socialism? I can't seem to find any that would support Annwandering's knowledge of being right.

I wasn't able to find the word 'socialism'. I was able to find an example of it, however, when I went to 4 Nephi 1:3 

Now, there will be those who say 'But that's not Socialism!" I've heard this argument before. But if you ask an actual Socialist what they want and this is what they will describe as their goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, there will be those who say 'But that's not Socialism!" I've heard this argument before. But if you ask an actual Socialist what they want and this is what they will describe as their goal.

If you ask a whore what she wants, she will tell you she wants money and love. So I guess we're all whores.

Or, just maybe, some people adopt the wrong means to try to achieve their otherwise worthy end.

Socialism is manifestly not the Zion society under which the Nephites lived. To even suggest it is is to betray your utter ignorance of both Zion and socialism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you ask a whore what she wants, she will tell you she wants money and love. So I guess we're all whores.

Or, just maybe, some people adopt the wrong means to try to achieve their otherwise worthy end.

Socialism is manifestly not the Zion society under which the Nephites lived. To even suggest it is is to betray your utter ignorance of both Zion and socialism.

Now, this is kind've like the Hitler reference. Out of all the comparisons you could have made, like 'If you ask a nun what she wants...' or 'If you ask a banker what she wants...', you choose a whore. Not that whores don't have wants or needs, of course. But why did you choose that as your example?

Gee, I didn't even notice your direct cut to my ignorance. Nice hit.

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