It's just not fair...

[Silhouette]

Deleted. DUH-ble post.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Silhouette

[2ndRateMind]

 

...

 

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.

 

 

That is, of course, exactly what the Roman Catholics say. And many others. As Housman puts it:

 

So, how am I to face the odds,

  Of man's bedevilment, and God's,

I, a stranger and afraid

  Alone, in a world I never made?

 

My own answer is to pursue the good, without compromise. It is all I can do.

 

You say, for example, that the world is not good enough for the Law of Consecration. But instead of working diligently towards it, you appear simply to have jettisoned it, in favour of a more congenial system. Or, do I have that wrong?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited November 7, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[The Folk Prophet]

If our talking holds no meaning, why do it?

 

I'll say it once more (and for the last time) I didn't say that. You're determination to be antagonistic to me is wearing thin.

 

I'm done.

[Just_A_Guy]

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.

Precisely. Thousands of consecrated lives coming together for the common good and for God's glory. Adam Smith's invisible hand runs a very distant second place.

But I think history shows that there is no idea short of the gospel of Jesus Christ that can effectuate this vision on a basis that is both just and sustainable--not the writings of Herr Marx, the guns of Comrade Stalin, the smug sophistication of European nanny-staters who rely on American military spending to deter the thugs and kleptocrats to their east, or the pie-in-the-sky promises of American politicians who insist that we can do it all.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

 God has deliberately given each of us a unique perspective. 

 

Right. God gave Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, and Adolf Hitler their unique perspectives just to add variety to the world.  How can we possibly understand truth without serious discussion and consideration of their opinions, because every opinion is just as valid as the next, and it's just plain arrogance to assume that we understand something better or have a greater grasp on truth than Jeffery Dahmer did. And God just made us all different, so obviously difference is good and we should embrace it all. There's no universal truth. 

 

I'll say it again -- just not to Paulsifer -- I did not even imply in the slightest that we should folllow blindy or discontinue all discussion. Such an interpretation of my comment is ridiculous.

[Guest]

 

 

 

 

That is, of course, exactly what the Roman Catholics say. And many others. As Housman puts it:

 

So, how am I to face the odds,

  Of man's bedevilment, and God's,

I, a stranger and afraid

  Alone, in a world I never made?

 

My own answer is to pursue the good, without compromise. It is all I can do.

 

 

 

Yes, that's what the Roman Catholics say.  With good reason.  TFP touched on it above - Truth is universal.  A Roman Catholic who says there is One God is saying a Universal Truth.  And as such, an LDS who says there is One God is not wrong just because he is LDS and not Roman Catholic.  An atheist who says there is No God would be wrong.  But an atheist saying Love is Service would be saying a Universal Truth.

 

So, if you want to pick truth a'la carte, that's your choice.  The LDS Church do not claim that they're the only ones that has truth.  Having spent more years as a Catholic than an LDS, I can tell you the Catholic Church has truth!  But the LDS do claim that they have all truth that has been revealed.

 

 

 

My own answer is to pursue the good, without compromise. It is all I can do.

 

 

 

Sure... but the Theory of Knowledge would tell you - you don't know what you don't know.  So, without a compass, you're idea of what is good may not be good.

 

 

 

You say, for example, that the world is not good enough for the Law of Consecration. But instead of working diligently towards it, you appear simply to have jettisoned it, in favour of a more congenial system. Or, do I have that wrong?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

 

A complete misunderstanding of what I'm saying.  Read my post on that again.  Carefully.

[2ndRateMind]

 

...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... 

 

 

Right. God gave Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, and Adolf Hitler their unique perspectives just to add variety to the world.  How can we possibly understand truth without serious discussion and consideration of their opinions, because every opinion is just as valid as the next, and it's just plain arrogance to assume that we understand something better or have a greater grasp on truth than Jeffery Dahmer did. And God just made us all different, so obviously difference is good and we should embrace it all. There's no universal truth. 

 

I'll say it again -- just not to Paulsifer -- I did not even imply in the slightest that we should folllow blindy or discontinue all discussion. Such an interpretation of my comment is ridiculous.

 

I did not say we should agree with everyone, or that some perspectives are not evil. I said we should understand them. How else can we know, not just that they are wrong, but exactly why they are wrong? And how they should be countered? Argument by assertion, even if one is wholly, objectively correct (which I do not believe possible in this life) is a very lazy, and quite ineffective, way to proceed. It persuades no one but the protagonist and his like-minded cronies, and progresses the sum of human knowledge not one whit.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited November 7, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[FunkyTown]

 

 

You say, for example, that the world is not good enough for the Law of Consecration. But instead of working diligently towards it, you appear simply to have jettisoned it, in favour of a more congenial system. Or, do I have that wrong?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

 

No, you are precisely correct.

 

The church is designed to make the individual more malleable to God's will: To consecrate all we have to building God's kingdom.

 

 

However, know that as bad as that is,  we are trying. We need to lift each other up rather than tear each other down. Some of the most passionately pro-

 

Precisely. Thousands of consecrated lives coming together for the common good and for God's glory. Adam Smith's invisible hand runs a very distant second place.

But I think history shows that there is no idea short of the gospel of Jesus Christ that can effectuate this vision on a basis that is both just and sustainable--not the writings of Herr Marx, the guns of Comrade Stalin, the smug sophistication of European nanny-staters who rely on American military spending to deter the thugs and kleptocrats to their east, or the pie-in-the-sky promises of American politicians who insist that we can do it all.

 

So the answer is to live the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

I don't know what the future holds, but I have hope for mankind. I think we can follow God's will.

 

Maybe just having a bit more patience with one another, treating other people the way we do small children - Not condescendingly, but genuinely happy with every attempt at improvement made and with an endless patience with the stumbling that we all do.

[The Folk Prophet]

I did not say we should agree with everyone, or that some perspectives are not evil. I said we should understand them. How else can we know, not just that they are wrong, but exactly why they are wrong? And how they should be countered? Argument by assertion, even if one is wholly, objectively correct (which I do not believe possible in this life) is a very lazy, and quite ineffective, way to proceed. It persuades no one but the protagonist and his like-minded cronies, and progresses the sum of human knowledge not one whit.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

It is not argument by assertion.

 

We don't claim we have the truth because we just do, or that our interpretation just happens to be more valid than anyone else's (as you well know by countless discussions you've had with us). We claim knowledge of truth by a specific process of qualification and testing -- a process you deny as valid, which is your right -- but it is not simply argument by assertion any more than me claiming knowledge of any individual I've had personal contact with. It is nothing more or less than a witness of something we have directly experienced, which witness is considered valid in any circle unless there is reason to suspect the witness to be erroneous by deception or malice.

 

Claim we're crazy or underhanded and I'll take it as a valid response. Claiming we're just arguing from assertion is ignoring our actual premise.

Edited November 7, 2014 by The Folk Prophet

[2ndRateMind]

Yes, that's what the Roman Catholics say.  With good reason.  TFP touched on it above - Truth is universal.  A Roman Catholic who says there is One God is saying a Universal Truth.  And as such, an LDS who says there is One God is not wrong just because he is LDS and not Roman Catholic.  An atheist who says there is No God would be wrong.  But an atheist saying Love is Service would be saying a Universal Truth.

 

So, if you want to pick truth a'la carte, that's your choice.  The LDS Church do not claim that they're the only ones that has truth.  Having spent more years as a Catholic than an LDS, I can tell you the Catholic Church has truth!  But the LDS do claim that they have all truth that has been revealed.

 

 

 

 

Sure... but the Theory of Knowledge would tell you - you don't know what you don't know.  So, without a compass, you're idea of what is good may not be good.

 

 

 

A complete misunderstanding of what I'm saying.  Read my post on that again.  Carefully.

 

OK, there is what the Catholics say is true. And what the LDS say is true. And there is some overlap. There are some things that both the Catholics and the LDS say are true. And there are some areas of contention; there are some things the Catholics say are true, that the LDS say are false, and some things that the LDS say are true, that the Catholics say are false.

 

And that is just the Catholics and the LDS. Add in all the other schisms, denominations, sects, and cults, not to mention the other religions, and you get some idea of the complexity of the issue, and I am not sure we are that much further forward. So, if I reserve judgment for the moment, I mean no disrespect. I simply do not have the required knowledge to decide the rights and wrongs of the various Christian perspectives. So, I am exploring.

 

As for the good, I make no claim that I know it completely. But I have a moral sense, and, as it guides me, I find my idea of the good develops, and, perhaps, gains a little more accuracy with each decision I make, be it correct or mistaken, as my conscience subsequently informs me. And this is the way we all proceed, I think, and so we should.

 

I have read your post again. I can see my misunderstanding of it, and apologise if it made me seem churlish towards you.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited November 7, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[2ndRateMind]

It is not argument by assertion.

 

We don't claim we have the truth because we just do, or that our interpretation just happens to be more valid than anyone else's (as you well know by countless discussions you've had with us). We claim knowledge of truth by a specific process of qualification and testing -- a process you deny as valid, which is your right -- but it is not simply argument by assertion any more than me claiming knowledge of any individual I've had personal contact with. It is nothing more or less than a witness of something we have directly experienced, which witness is considered valid in any circle unless there is reason to suspect the witness to be erroneous by deception or malice.

 

Claim we're crazy or underhanded and I'll take it as a valid response. Claiming we're just arguing from assertion is ignoring our actual premise.

 

Do not take my comment as an attack on you personally, or the LDS Church. It was not meant as such, just as an observation, and a warning because there seemed, on the thread, to be a tendency to slide in this direction. As I said before, I am impressed by this forum's willingness to debate, which seems to me to be an improvement on several other Christian forums I have visited.

 

Best wishes, 2RM

[Guest]

OK, there is what the Catholics say is true. And what the LDS say is true. And there is some overlap. There are some things that both the Catholics and the LDS say are true. And there are some areas of contention; there are some things the Catholics say are true, that the LDS say are false, and some things that the LDS say are true, that the Catholics say are false.

 

And that is just the Catholics and the LDS. Add in all the other schisms, denominations, sects, and cults, not to mention the other religions, and you get some idea of the complexity of the issue, and I am not sure we are that much further forward. So, if I reserve judgment for the moment, I mean no disrespect. I simply do not have the required knowledge to decide the rights and wrongs of the various Christian perspectives. So, I am exploring.

 

As for the good, I make no claim that I know it completely. But I have a moral sense, and, as it guides me, I find my idea of the good develops, and, perhaps, gains a little more accuracy with each decision I make, be it correct or mistaken, as my conscience subsequently informs me. And this is the way we all proceed, I think, and so we should.

 

I have read your post again. I can see my misunderstanding of it, and apologise if it made me seem churlish towards you.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

As far as the Catholics and the LDS (the 2 religious beliefs I know very well), I can see the exact pattern that leads the Catholic church to stand on their principles and I can see the exact pattern that leads the LDS church to stand on their principles.  I was born Catholic but I'm LDS now for a reason.  And the reason is not because the Catholic Church is wrong and the LDS Church is right.  That doesn't quite describe my discovery.  Rather, it is simply that the Catholic Church is incomplete which leads them to the only logical path that can be derived from an incomplete gospel.

 

I know the basic premise of Protestants - and I can also see the pattern that led them to their own flavor of Christianity.

 

I know the basic premise of Jews - and the same thing - I can also see the pattern that led them to their beliefs.

 

Muslims, the same.

 

And because of all this - I am LDS.

 

Now, of course, this takes certain basic things on faith that, 1.)  There is a God, 2.) Jesus is the Savior, 3.) He speaks through his prophets.

 

Those 3 things are the foundation that everything else I believe is founded on.

[2ndRateMind]

Yes, I take a similar view to this sort of 'foundationalism'

 

I discovered there was a God by a search for perfect morality, and came to believe that, in their perfect expression, ideals like the Good, the Right, the Just, the True, the Noble, the Brave, the Kind, the Wise, etc - well these things, in some transcendent sense, actually are God, and articulations of the love of God.

 

The rest came as an answer to an inadvertent prayer, and I discovered Jesus to be real, not myth, that He lived, taught, was crucified, was buried, became resurrected, and persists in Heaven where He still concerns Himself with mortal affairs.

 

That is the sum and total extent of my faith. All else, I consider debatable, to be proven or disproven, or simply to be assessed as more or less likely, according to what we know of the world through the evidence of our senses (including scientific findings), and the rules of logic and reason, and the principles of morality.

 

So, there I stand, open-minded about Christian manifestations and implementations, but not so open minded that I will believe anything, or what most people believe, or what is merely convenient and congenial.

 

So, I mention this as my foundation, because you have mentioned yours, and it might help you to know where I currently stand, and what my perspective is.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited November 9, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[Crypto]

Since this thread has recently touched on your search for truth 2ndRateMind.  What I would recommend, as a latter day saint, is that you read the Book of Mormon, and pray asking in faith if
#1 It is true

and
#2 if God would have you join our church.

This is probably the most common and foundational way we start building our faith, and testimonies. (There are others, but less common)

 

I believe investigation about our, and others beliefs are very important to do likewise, but that a spiritual investment, and investigation is also important. This may include visiting various church services, speaking with members (I'd also recommend missionaries from our church), Fasting, Prayer, and Reading and studying Scripture.

(I don't know if you have been doing this already, and I suspect you may have already heard this, so I apologize if this is sounding like a broken record.)


 

In the Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi, describes a time of great strife, and then with the visit of the Savior to the America's the development of a society where:
 

 

 19 And they taught, and did minister one to another; and they had all things common among them, every man dealing justly, one with another.

 20 And it came to pass that they did do all things even as Jesus had commanded them.
--3 Nephi 26

This seems like the Chapter for you!   


There may be disagreement by individuals as to whether society should have all things in common, but it is very much a part of our scripture that it is something we should aspire to obtain.

Having all things in common doesn't necessarily mean a redistribution of money, or wealth. My personal view is that sharing of our possessions, time, and talents will fulfill the law of consecration. All that I have would be yours, all that you have would be mine. As I need so doth I receive, As you need so doth you partake.

There are alternative views to this, such as pooling resources and then redistributing etc...
Tithing, and fast offerings(bishops storehouses) to support the poor and needy. 

In this way your views are very similar to ours.

 

The disagreement seems to start when we try and figure out how this is to work when
#1 Not everyone wants to live like this.
#2 Some people want to live it, but only partially.
#3 Physical constraints in geographical area.
#4 How should it be put into practice.
#5 Doing it in such a way that causes improvement for all over time, rather than a temporary improvement.
#6 Dealing with corruption.
#7 We no longer live in an agrarian society, New level of difficulty obtained.

Resistance to your ideas stems from the fact that some people if given, will not contribute. Over time these people seem to increase which would cause such a system to fail. Reality beckons to our fallen state and all that we have to deal with.

[2ndRateMind]

 

 

Since this thread has recently touched on your search for truth 2ndRateMind.  What I would recommend, as a latter day saint, is that you read the Book of Mormon, and pray asking in faith if

#1 It is true

and

#2 if God would have you join our church.

This is probably the most common and foundational way we start building our faith, and testimonies. (There are others, but less common)

 

I believe investigation about our, and others beliefs are very important to do likewise, but that a spiritual investment, and investigation is also important. This may include visiting various church services, speaking with members (I'd also recommend missionaries from our church), Fasting, Prayer, and Reading and studying Scripture.

(I don't know if you have been doing this already, and I suspect you may have already heard this, so I apologize if this is sounding like a broken record.)

 

 

 

Thanks Crypto, for your kind advice. I will start to implement it, but gradually. I am not much of a praying, church-going, psalm-singing Christian - perhaps not much of a Christian at all - but I will proceed by getting hold of the Book of Mormon, and by talking to your missionaries more seriously, when they next accost me.

 

 

 

There may be disagreement by individuals as to whether society should have all things in common, but it is very much a part of our scripture that it is something we should aspire to obtain.

Having all things in common doesn't necessarily mean a redistribution of money, or wealth. My personal view is that sharing of our possessions, time, and talents will fulfill the law of consecration. All that I have would be yours, all that you have would be mine. As I need so doth I receive, As you need so doth you partake.

There are alternative views to this, such as pooling resources and then redistributing etc...

Tithing, and fast offerings(bishops storehouses) to support the poor and needy. 

In this way your views are very similar to ours.

 

The disagreement seems to start when we try and figure out how this is to work when

#1 Not everyone wants to live like this.

#2 Some people want to live it, but only partially.

#3 Physical constraints in geographical area.

#4 How should it be put into practice.

#5 Doing it in such a way that causes improvement for all over time, rather than a temporary improvement.

#6 Dealing with corruption.

#7 We no longer live in an agrarian society, New level of difficulty obtained.

 

 

As for holding things in common, well that's great for things we can share, and I'm happy to champion that idea. It seems a nutty sort of system, and a sad waste of scarce resources, when every household in the land has a cordless DIY drill, lying 99.9% unused, instead of, say, 1 in 20 households, lying 95% unused. But there are things that we cannot share. Food I eat cannot be food you eat. My house (1 bed rented flat, actually) cannot be your house, simultaneously. The land I grow my crops on cannot be the land you grow your crops on. Doubtless, though, these things can be worked out, if we have the will to do so. I guess my hope is that Christianity in general will lead the way in this working out process, and, by doing so, provide the kind of example to non- and un-believers that will be more persuasive than any amount of sermons.

 

 

 

Resistance to your ideas stems from the fact that some people if given, will not contribute. Over time these people seem to increase which would cause such a system to fail. Reality beckons to our fallen state and all that we have to deal with.

 

 

I agree the free-rider problem is a problem. But I am not sure that it is quite so much of a problem as the neo-liberals would like it to be. People are very good at spotting those who take advantage. Altruism operates most effectively when it is reciprocal. Often, all that is required to bring a free-rider to heel is to refuse further cooperation, until they have demonstrated they are willing to cooperate in return.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited November 9, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[paulsifer42]

The struggle though, and this may be one of the big problems many of us have with your idea, is how do we stop cooperating with people when it is government implemented?  Do we hire several people to walk around and act as task masters to make sure everyone is giving it their all?  This is why it seems to make more sense to live this way as well as we can independent of government mandate, where we can see the situation and act accordingly.

[Guest]

Yes, I take a similar view to this sort of 'foundationalism'

 

I discovered there was a God by a search for perfect morality, and came to believe that, in their perfect expression, ideals like the Good, the Right, the Just, the True, the Noble, the Brave, the Kind, the Wise, etc - well these things, in some transcendent sense, actually are God, and articulations of the love of God.

 

The rest came as an answer to an inadvertent prayer, and I discovered Jesus to be real, not myth, that He lived, taught, was crucified, was buried, became resurrected, and persists in Heaven where He still concerns Himself with mortal affairs.

 

That is the sum and total extent of my faith. All else, I consider debatable, to be proven or disproven, or simply to be assessed as more or less likely, according to what we know of the world through the evidence of our senses (including scientific findings), and the rules of logic and reason, and the principles of morality.

 

So, there I stand, open-minded about Christian manifestations and implementations, but not so open minded that I will believe anything, or what most people believe, or what is merely convenient and congenial.

 

So, I mention this as my foundation, because you have mentioned yours, and it might help you to know where I currently stand, and what my perspective is.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Crypto is correct that reading the Book of Mormon is a good start.

 

I think though, in your case, getting an in-depth understanding of the LDS view on the Plan of Salvation is the better starting point.  It's a logical continuation of your foundation.  Basically, it's the next line to the "line upon line, precept upon precept" learning method of spiritual study.

 

And as a bonus, the Plan of Salvation goes in-depth into Free Will that also impacts this thread's question on ultra-rich versus ultra-poor dynamic.

[Backroads]

The struggle though, and this may be one of the big problems many of us have with your idea, is how do we stop cooperating with people when it is government implemented?  Do we hire several people to walk around and act as task masters to make sure everyone is giving it their all?  This is why it seems to make more sense to live this way as well as we can independent of government mandate, where we can see the situation and act accordingly.

We all agree helping one another and ridding the world of poverty is good and what we should seek. But many of us feel a government declaration without the full will of the people is Satan's twist on the ideal. Like Paulsifer suggested it would become slavery

[Windseeker]

Interesting article offers some perspective

 

 

 

We’re often told that to be poor in the US is much worse than being poor in the social democracies of Europe. And the bottom 10% in the US are indeed worse off than the bottom 10% in Sweden. But they’re better off than the bottom 10% in Germany or France: places where we are told that there is indeed that social democracy.

 

Maybe there’s something for this capitalism red in tooth and claw then: given that it does seem to improve the lives of the poor.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Windseeker

[2ndRateMind]

I'm not entirely persuaded. There are nations, particularly in South and Central America, and in Asia, where capitalism has been allowed to run riot, with no benefit to the poor whatsoever. They still work in dangerous sectors like mining, or in garment sweat shops, for next to no pay and with working conditions best described as inhuman. On the other hand, the US and Europe are comparatively wealthy nations with plenty of opportunity, a history of social activism, and a philosophical conviction that all humanity is created equal. It is not surprising that here, the poor might be less poor in relative terms.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited November 15, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[Blackmarch]

I'm not entirely persuaded. There are nations, particularly in South and Central America, and in Asia, where capitalism has been allowed to run riot, with no benefit to the poor whatsoever. They still work in dangerous sectors like mining, or in garment sweat shops, for next to no pay and with working conditions best described as inhuman. On the other hand, the US and Europe are comparatively wealthy nations with plenty of opportunity, a history of social activism, and a philosophical conviction that all humanity is created equal. It is not surprising that here, the poor might be less poor in relative terms.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

capitalism will work better somewhat longer than socialism will, but without restraint it too will fail- when you set it up so that it will be a dog eat dog world eventually there will be those who will combine to totally upset the balance… and eventually morph it away from being an equal capitalist opportunity. and will likely morph into some other way further from that.

[paulsifer42]

I'm not entirely persuaded. There are nations, particularly in South and Central America, and in Asia, where capitalism has been allowed to run riot, with no benefit to the poor whatsoever. They still work in dangerous sectors like mining, or in garment sweat shops, for next to no pay and with working conditions best described as inhuman. On the other hand, the US and Europe are comparatively wealthy nations with plenty of opportunity, a history of social activism, and a philosophical conviction that all humanity is created equal. It is not surprising that here, the poor might be less poor in relative terms.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

This is where our culture seriously fails.  We believe in only two sides to every story.  Either it's 100%, no-holds-barred, every-man-for-himself Capitalism, or it's Socialism.  100% Capitalism doesn't work (for the reasons you pointed out).  Capitalism where companies are forced to be transparent and keep their products up to some kind of reasonable code, now that's a system I could really get behind.  Just to be clear, what America is doing right now, that's not the kind of Capitalism I'm talking about.  That kind of Capitalism is where companies own the government and make things really snuggly for their friends, and really uncomfortable for their enemies. 

[pkstpaul]

I take it that on an LDS forum, I am talking mainly to Mormons. I have allocated you a year of my time, some of which has still to elapse. Persuade me your ideas are compatible with mine, and I am yours, forever.

 

If not, there are the Jehovah's witnesses, or the Southern Baptists, or the Roman Catholics, or the Scottish Presbyterians. But, I came to you guys first, because I like your sense of community.

 

 

Hey 2RM, I have seen many, many intellectuals such as yourself "investigate" the Church. You are welcome here, of course, but my experience is intellectuals are never satified in regards to religious thought. You will always be looking for more, doubting, and challenging. Myself, I don't "examine" faith, I live it. If you want to know what Mormons do and think, come participate. You won't be disappointed.