It's just not fair...


2ndRateMind
 Share

Recommended Posts

To the OP:

 

I agree with you.

 

...

 

I think that's what God wants for us: To grow past our childish ways instead of hold down other people and demand they be nicer. I think that the people with power now are more afraid of what God wants than of another tyranny designed to take from others rather than give of ourselves: The first rids them of all their power while the second is just another faction to ally with.

 

An interesting perspective, FunkyTown. What, for you, is it that God wants? And how might we know that, objectively? And, if we did, how might that rob politicians of their power, and make them afraid of this eventuality?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except if everyone is keeping only what they need to survive, building skills and ways to generate income needed to rise from poverty becomes impossible. If a man keeps only what he needs to feed and shelter him for one day he is back at square one the next. You spoke of business loans - those could not exist under your system because that would mean more money than one needed.

We are looking at this from a global perspective. Taking away the ability to create wealth and livelihood ruins the economy, be it the United States, United kingdom, Narnia, or a starving island. And that helps no one.

 

Indeed so. But nowhere have I suggested that everyone should revert to subsistence living, so as to enable everyone else at least to survive at a subsistence level. There is more than enough wealth in world to allow better than this, for everybody. And, in case I should be misunderstood in this matter, I am not against wealth. I am in favour of it. But I am so much in favour of it, I am in favour of it for everyone, and not just a privileged few, at the cost of an impoverished many.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Nevertheless, I urge you to see this thing, not in terms of patriotic national self-interest, but with the dispassionate impartiality of a global citizen.

 

 

Oh for crying out loud. I'm talking about basic economics. The expenditures of the middle class drive the economy, and I'm not talking about luxury handbags. If people stop buying things, the ones that pay salaries stop having money, and the people that were buying things lose their jobs, and NO ONE has anything to pass around. 

You know absolutely nothing about me or what I care about. What I know about you is that your mind is closed to anything but the idealist and impossible solution to an enormous problem that greater minds have been trying to solve for a long, long time. 

 

And with that, I'm out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having had a little time to digest your various posts, I am wondering if the law of consecration is an issue for Latter Day Saints, given that it - well if not directly contradicts, at least generates friction with, the neo-liberal culture of the US.

 

Best wishes, 2RM

 

The United Order implementation of the Law of Consecration was impossible to institute in humanities of the fallen state... that's why it was removed as a commandment and replaced with the Law of Tithes and Offerings as the current implementation of the Law of Consecration.

 

Therefore, the full implementation of the Law of Consecration (which is not quite in line with your idea of wealth redistribution) requires a conversion to the Kingdom of God.  As the LDS can't even get you, 2ndRateMind, to believe and have faith in the restored gospel of Christ (in which the Law of Consecration is a part of) it would be impossible for the LDS to institute the Law of Consecration on the world.

 

Therefore, the neo-liberal culture of the United States that is firmly planted in the first and most important quality that God preserved in humans - Freedom of Choice - the freedom of choice to be greedy or generous and the freedom to preach one's religion - is the best method to achieve such level of righteousness in people.

 

Because, forcing people to be generous doesn't make a person generous in the same manner that forcing people to be greedy doesn't make a person greedy.  But... give people the freedom to teach others how to be generous and give people the freedom to apply generosity in his life?  It's imprinted in a person's heart and is priceless.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting perspective, FunkyTown. What, for you, is it that God wants? And how might we know that, objectively? And, if we did, how might that rob politicians of their power, and make them afraid of this eventuality?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

That we might be draped in golden jewelry instead of wrapped in golden chains.

 

Biblically, worry about the future is subsumed by trust in God. The Savior had almost unreserved love for the rich man who asked how he might make sure he could get to heaven. The Savior told him to follow the commandments and was told by the rich man he had since he was a little boy. The Savior loved him and then said to give everything he had to the poor and follow him. The rich man declined because he loved wealth more. He was wrapped in golden chains and the Savior sorrowed for him.

 

Think of what you could do if you were free of fear: No fear that you couldn't pay your rent. No fear that you couldn't afford to eat tomorrow. No fear that you wouldn't be able to clothe yourself.

 

How much control would your current boss have over you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Backroads. You ask me to fix the problem. Believe me, I would if I could. But I am only a small cog in a massive machine; my ability to affect the world for good or ill is limited, perhaps properly so. But what I can do, what we all can do, is talk about the problem, amongst ourselves, and decide if it is a problem, and, if it is, consider the best way to solve it, and, once we have that, decide we all, together, are going to tackle it in concert. We may none of us be able to solve global absolute poverty individually, but together, each playing our own small role appropriately, I believe we can, with the help of those spiritual teachings.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That we might be draped in golden jewelry instead of wrapped in golden chains.

 

Just so. I have often thought the phrase 'the trappings of wealth', generally taken to mean accompanying good things about wealth, has a significant double meaning. It is surely true that those accustomed to wealth may be trapped by it.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh for crying out loud. I'm talking about basic economics. The expenditures of the middle class drive the economy, and I'm not talking about luxury handbags. If people stop buying things, the ones that pay salaries stop having money, and the people that were buying things lose their jobs, and NO ONE has anything to pass around. 

You know absolutely nothing about me or what I care about. What I know about you is that your mind is closed to anything but the idealist and impossible solution to an enormous problem that greater minds have been trying to solve for a long, long time. 

 

And with that, I'm out.

 

Dear Eowyn, I am sorry to see you leave the thread. I always value your contributions. Nevertheless I feel bound to point out that no-one is suggesting that people should stop spending money. Instead, I am suggesting that if that money were more equitably distributed, that expenditure would be on more basic, and morally justifiable, goods and services. Expenditure would not stop, just be diverted towards things poor people need to stay alive with, and die without, away from the frivolities of the middle class, and the luxuries of the elite.

 

I hope you will reconsider your decision to go; you may want to counter this point.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The United Order implementation of the Law of Consecration was impossible to institute in humanities of the fallen state... that's why it was removed as a commandment and replaced with the Law of Tithes and Offerings as the current implementation of the Law of Consecration.

 

Therefore, the full implementation of the Law of Consecration (which is not quite in line with your idea of wealth redistribution) requires a conversion to the Kingdom of God.  As the LDS can't even get you, 2ndRateMind, to believe and have faith in the restored gospel of Christ (in which the Law of Consecration is a part of) it would be impossible for the LDS to institute the Law of Consecration on the world.

 

Therefore, the neo-liberal culture of the United States that is firmly planted in the first and most important quality that God preserved in humans - Freedom of Choice - the freedom of choice to be greedy or generous and the freedom to preach one's religion - is the best method to achieve such level of righteousness in people.

 

Because, forcing people to be generous doesn't make a person generous in the same manner that forcing people to be greedy doesn't make a person greedy.  But... give people the freedom to teach others how to be generous and give people the freedom to apply generosity in his life?  It's imprinted in a person's heart and is priceless.

 

I am not ignoring this post. It seems to me to be important. But I would like to collect some more perspectives before I respond in full.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having had a little time to digest your various posts, I am wondering if the law of consecration is an issue for Latter Day Saints, given that it - well if not directly contradicts, at least generates friction with, the neo-liberal culture of the US. This is not a dig, but a genuine enquiry. How do you guys think on this consecration thing?

It's a communitarian notion, that fits ill, to my mind, with rugged individualism of the self-reliant pioneer ideal I believe to be an important icon for you, socially, economically and politically.

 

I will try to speak only for myself and not for others, but I agree that there is some "conflict" between the current social structure and the social structure I envision under the "law of consecration", and I am not sure exactly how to bridge these gaps.

 

1) As I noted earlier, "Zion" seems to be an "ideal" that we are hopefully aiming for, but we are, in many ways, a long way away from acheiving or hoping to acheive this ideal. How are we supposed to understand and use such an "ideal" to inform our behavior and actions in the imperfect world we currently live in?

 

2) It seems to me that there are political forces that have muddied these waters. Again, speaking only for myself, it seems to me that the McCarthy -istic "communist witch hunts" of the Cold War put a strain on our rhetoric, because we did not want to promote anything that bore any resemblance to the communism the Soviet Union. How do you discuss an ideal society where everyone in the community shares all things in common when political expediency also means refuting a similar but different form of having all things in common?

 

3) As you note, how does one reconcile this ideal sense of community with "rugged individualism"? I find it interesting that you compare to our pioneer ancestry in this. In many ways, the 19th century Mormon migration westward was less individualistic than the other migrants. Mormon's were organized by their leadership into camps and groups for the westward migration, where most others came across as individuals and families. In addition, the Mormons "shared" the expense of crossing the plains through projects like the Perpetual Emigration Fund that allowed those in Utah to send money to those waiting in the Midwest to purchase supplies. More than other emigrants, Mormons had a sense of "community" that was different from the real individualists migrating alone or as families of the same time period. Perhaps it is a matter of trying to understand how this sense of "social community" fits into "economic community".

 

4) One element that has been mentioned, but I think it is significant, is the question of "motivation". The scriptural accounts of these successful Zion societies indicate that they worked because the people were motivated by a love of God and a love of their fellowman. I think part of the reason that we as a community are not more like these ideals is because we are still growing and developing our love of God and love of man. One of the things I see in your comments, 2RM, is that you are willing to forego "luxuries" of life in order to help others have essentials. In my opinion, this is probably where it all starts. Like you, I think we Mormons are trying to do the same things (within the limits of our own ability and spiritual growth).

 

 

In the end, I don't think I understand human nature well enough to really speak to the issue. There seems to me to be an ideal that we should be shooting for. Part of learning to live that ideal is learning to be generous in our charitable contributions. I don't know how much it really means, but Utah is frequently cited as among the most "generous" in terms of charitable giving of any state in the US. How much of that is going to the tithing coffers of the Church and how much is going to other charitable groups and causes, I can't say. I also can't say how much of that is motivated by the Church directly. but it does show up frequently. But, since there are clearly still poor and rich among us, we have not yet reached the ideal of Zion. Exactly how we are going to grow into that role, I can't foresee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no-one is suggesting that people should stop spending money. 

 

No...the suggestion seems to be that we stop earning money (or that any excess we earn is ripped away from us forcefully). And, of course, if we earn less (or have less) money, by default, we spend less too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So some things don't seem fair???

Some questions to think about!!

The question is what is more important to you worldly stuff or spiritual stuff????

Do you realize how blessed you are?

As our last general conference  we had in Oct 2014.  I'm not sure of the title of the talk, but it was about which way do u face?? to the world, or God???  Awesome talk take a look at it on www.lds.org

I don't have a lot of money, sure Id like some more.

I also want to say theirs nothing wrong with wealth, its how we use it!!!! And how we might think we are better then others cause we might have it.  None of us are better then any one alse!

And those who don't have wealth have other gifts, and talent.

 

Are we seeking for worldly pleasures or spiritual??

Are we seeking to build the kingdom of God??

Or ourselves???

Edited by Roseslipper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Your objective is to twist truth until it lines up with mortal thinking? To what end? Bring them into the church based on falsehoods?

 

Haha, I love how you jump to, "If you don't agree with me your twisting the truth."  It makes me laugh.

 

No, what your comment suggested was that we follow everythin we hear blindly and that logical debate meant nothing to us.  I disagree.  I think God gave us minds so we could think through things.  I think truth (and a better understanding of truth) can be found through debate (especially those of differing viewpoints), and thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The major flaw I see with your idea of redistributing wealth, is that wealth isn't so much a bunch of stuff, but a lifestyle.  This is shown by many a doctor, or lawyer, or whatever other highly paid professional you can think of, who can't seem to reign in his spending, so he finds himself waistdeep in debt.  Throwing money at the poor will do very little for them (at least in the USA) because they don't have the skills to do with that money what they would need to in order to generate more wealth.  This is shown by lottery winners, inheritors, and the welfare system in England.

 

What I would really like to see is more of the charitable work you pointed to earlier, where business people are loaned the capitol needed to start a business that will (as JaG illustrated) create wealth.  What needs to be done (though I'm not sure how to do it) here in the USA is teach people, not how to work harder (because, let's face it, we know plenty of people working 3 jobs who just can't get ahead), but how to manage their money so they can eventually have more wealth.  Of course, there's the old addage "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."  Not sure how the teaching could be implimented so people would start spending their hard earned dollars on that which would do them the most good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha, I love how you jump to, "If you don't agree with me your twisting the truth."  It makes me laugh.

 

No, what your comment suggested was that we follow everythin we hear blindly and that logical debate meant nothing to us.  I disagree.  I think God gave us minds so we could think through things.  I think truth (and a better understanding of truth) can be found through debate (especially those of differing viewpoints), and thought.

 

Blindly? Who's the one jumping to conclusions about meaning?  My comment suggests nothing of the sort. Nothing about blindness (very clearly the opposite, actually, as it directly addresses seeking truth), and doesn't speak to debate whatsoever. The context was quite clear. He said that if we convince him that our views align with his then he's ours forever. I say in response that we're not interested in making our views align with his if they don't fit God's truth.

 

If you disagree, then you're more than welcome to make your views fit his so he'll be yours forever and you can skip off to happy la-la land content in your self-satisfaction that you have found mutual agreement. Go for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We believe that revealed truth (which does not play into politics much) gives us the truth of God's ideas, and therefore, we believe it behooves all mankind to alter their ideas to become compatible with said revealed truth.

Beyond that, no mortal persuasion or agreement holds any meaning.

This is from your original post. We believe that what the prophets say is revealed truth, I don't believe this behooves mankind to change their ideas just because I believe it's revealed truth, I believe they should consider it.

And basically what is stated here is, if it's not been revealed, we mere mortals need not talk about it, because it doesn't hold any meaning. I disagree. Both what we assume as revealed truth, and what has not been revealed can and should be thought about, discussed, debated, etc. And my hope is to convince him to consider our beliefs, and, if he gains a witness, to believe also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is from your original post. We believe that what the prophets say is revealed truth, I don't believe this behooves mankind to change their ideas just because I believe it's revealed truth, I believe they should consider it.

And basically what is stated here is, if it's not been revealed, we mere mortals need not talk about it, because it doesn't hold any meaning. I disagree. Both what we assume as revealed truth, and what has not been revealed can and should be thought about, discussed, debated, etc. And my hope is to convince him to consider our beliefs, and, if he gains a witness, to believe also.

 

You have read into my statement that we shouldn't talk about it or discuss it. I did not say that. I said that in believing that we have truth, we are in a position where we aren't going to say thing just to appease someone else's thinking.

 

Your determination that I mean no discussion or debate should be had is invalid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have read into my statement that we shouldn't talk about it or discuss it. I did not say that. I said that in believing that we have truth, we are in a position where we aren't going to say thing just to appease someone else's thinking.

Your determination that I mean no discussion or debate should be had is invalid.

If our talking holds no meaning, why do it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course something's wrong.  I've already conceded that--and even provided scriptural support, to boot!  This goose poops.  But note that even here--someone's feeding his family on the money he makes from producing luxury handbags.

 

But here you are, saying we should kill the goose that's laying the golden eggs.  Okay, then--but first, show me your goose and explain to me why you can be sure it is going to produce more gold and less poop.

 

I don't think you can.

 

Under the current system, JAG, the free market is the best possible system. It's a system of economic, rather than physical, compulsion to those under its rule.

 

This(And I think this is the original poster's point) is not the best potential system. I agree with that. The best potential system is one run by two rules:

 

1) Love the lord thy God with all thy might, strength and purpose.

 

And;

 

2) Love thy neighbor as thyself.

 

This requires a more social evolution rather than an economic evolution, however. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't want to destroy the current status quo. I want it to be irrelevant.

 

Think of how the Amish work together: The community will get together, work for an afternoon and raise a barn. They'll then celebrate at night in a community. They are part of the free market, but by working together they have rendered part of the free market irrelevant because there was no economic exchange for this goods and service.

 

It was not compelled by government, nor forced by legislation. When acts of compulsion are used, you concentrate power in the hands of a few. Rather than redressing wrongs, you simply create a different tyrant and the system restarts itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

 

No, what your comment suggested was that we follow everythin we hear blindly and that logical debate meant nothing to us.  I disagree.  I think God gave us minds so we could think through things.  I think truth (and a better understanding of truth) can be found through debate (especially those of differing viewpoints), and thought.

 

I just wanted to endorse this view. God has deliberately given each of us a unique perspective. Partial, but unique. We cannot possibly know the whole of the truth, without understanding each of these perspectives; the more different from our own, the more difficult, but the more important. It's why I am here, to learn from you all, especially those who disagree with me. If I am sometimes robust in my comments, it is only because this particular cause is one very close to my heart, being as it is, so often a matter of life and death, touching on God's desires for us, which I am convinced is always our collective and individual best interests, and the nature and possibility of a truly good society. 

 

So, we have ethics, philosophy of religion, and political philosophy all wrapped up in this one topic, with some economics thrown in. That's bound to be a potent mix.

 

I also want to add how much I am enjoying these discussions with you all, and how I find you more open to discussing these kind of ideas than many another Christian forum I have visited, over these past few years. I truly appreciate that.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

What I would really like to see is more of the charitable work you pointed to earlier, where business people are loaned the capitol needed to start a business that will (as JaG illustrated) create wealth.  ...

 

 

If you really are interested in this kind of scheme, you might like to run the name 'Deki' through your search engine of choice, for a more complete view of how they operate.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blindly? Who's the one jumping to conclusions about meaning?  My comment suggests nothing of the sort. Nothing about blindness (very clearly the opposite, actually, as it directly addresses seeking truth), and doesn't speak to debate whatsoever. The context was quite clear. He said that if we convince him that our views align with his then he's ours forever. I say in response that we're not interested in making our views align with his if they don't fit God's truth.

 

If you disagree, then you're more than welcome to make your views fit his so he'll be yours forever and you can skip off to happy la-la land content in your self-satisfaction that you have found mutual agreement. Go for it.

 

Just to clarify. I am interested in the alignment of our views, rather than 'making' you adjust your views to suit me. Even if that were possible, it would be an incredibly arrogant thing for me to expect of you. We have, incidentally, since discovered that this Law of Consecration might turn out to be some degree of common ground. So there is a little hope for me yet!

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clarify. I am interested in the alignment of our views, rather than 'making' you adjust your views to suit me. Even if that were possible, it would be an incredibly arrogant thing for me to expect of you. We have, incidentally, since discovered that this Law of Consecration might turn out to be some degree of common ground. So there is a little hope for me yet!

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

The Folk Prophet is right on his response.

 

The Mission of the LDS Church is not to seek members whose views align with the Church.  Rather, the mission of the LDS Church is to present to you the truth so you might have the opportunity to align your views with the Church.

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