Trump & Nebuchadnezzar

[Guest]

Many of the Never Trumpers on this site (myself included) have made a big deal about the fact that he is morally bankrupt.  We admit he has some level of business acumen.  We admit he has managerial skills.  And we even admit that for many of the important issues like protecting America, we believe he's on the same side as we are.  But we find his morality to be offensive even repulsive.

But here we are with President-elect Donald Trump. And I'm pondering two statements put together.

Quote

And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:

Daniel 2: 21

and

Quote

 ...there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.

Benjamin Franklin

First of all, to the Trump supporters:  I'm not calling Trump a despot.  I don't know what to think of him (yet) on the liberty scale.  I'll give him a chance.

What I've been pondering is the idea that perhaps, this was what the Lord wanted.  The nation has been so corrupt that Barack Obama was President for 8 years and the media refused to say anything negative about him.  We've been so corrupt that Hillary Clinton had the pay-to-play thing going for years and the liberals defend her.  Planned Parenthood, Gay Marriage, Transgender, eliminating God/Christ out of public life, lawsuits because of a manger display... I could go on.  Bottom line -- the country has become corrupt.

What did the Lord do to the Jews when they got too corrupt?  They were taken and ruled over by a heathen king.  The Babylonian captivity under Nebuchadnezzar is a perfect example.  The ways of Babylon were certainly corrupt -- as was the king that led them.  But they had become so corrupt that they were incapable of following the Lord, and as such, they were incapable of being governed by anything other than a despot.

Do we find ourselves in a similar situation?  Have we become so corrupt that we are incapable of being governed by a liberty-minded/Consitutionally-minded leader?  Perhaps if such a leader were elected then we'd find ourselves in a worse situation than being governed by a corrupt person.

Edited December 17, 2016 by Guest

[yjacket]

My take is that Trump is neither the devil nor the angel he is made out to be. I think he is a very flawed man, but he is a leader and I generally like a lot of his picks.  I'd like them to be better, but when the President Elect calls in Judge Napolitano and chats with him for an hour about the qualifications necessary for Supreme Court I'll give Trump the benefit of the doubt.  The Judge is awesome and uber-libertarian.

Personally, I think there are still enough good, moral, decent small government people left in this country that God heard their prayers-is Trump a savior-no, but I truly do not think the person as a people we would hope for in a leader would actually be able to make it through the process. People talk about Cruz, but Cruz would not have beat Hillary-Cruz was not the "establishment" pick and all the same tricks they pulled on Trump they would have pulled on Cruz.  The difference being that Cruz would not have been able to punch back effectively.  I think Cruz loses definitively-remember the Insiders (Hillary, etc.) wanted either Cruz or Trump.  They did not want a R establishment pick.  Anybody who thinks Cruz would not have lost needs to examine how bad the rhetoric was.  In order to fight back effectively against that, you need someone who is very skilled in being a leader-the biggest thing Cruz had was that he was a Senator-hardly leadership necessary to win.

I believe that had Clinton been elected it would have been the end of this country.  I do believe in my lifetime I will see the downfall of the USA-we are morally bankrupt-but there are still enough good people left that it's not hopeless-one day I think it will be.

[askandanswer]

(Book of Mormon | Mosiah 29:25 - 27)
25  Therefore, choose you by the voice of this people, judges, that ye may be judged according to the laws which have been given you by our fathers, which are correct, and which were given them by the hand of the Lord.
26  Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.
27  And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.
 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, yjacket said:

I do believe in my lifetime I will see the downfall of the USA-we are morally bankrupt-but there are still enough good people left that it's not hopeless-one day I think it will be.

There are still some good people left.  No doubt.  But Babylon had Daniel and his companions who were certainly the epitome of the righteousness that still existed among the Jews.  But their nation still fell.

I'm not claiming any prophecy in this matter.  But if we simply follow the patterns of history, I wonder what parallels we could draw.

I'd say that Daniel and some like him represent the many good Christians today who observe to keep the Lord's commandments the best they know how.  The Jews who were not captive and taken away, but still held onto their faith in the face of oppression, would be likened unto some Christians and Jews today who believe and will still confess their faith in the face of oppression, but don't necessarily live it very well.

And, if I may have a prideful moment, I believe the Lehites and Mulekites would be likened to the Latter-Day Saints.  While we aren't geographically separated from our Christian brothers or our Jewish cousins, we are separated culturally.  We have been, and are, and ever will be a peculiar people.  That is how we have been preserved.

In the days to come:

https://askgramps.org/reason-study-u-s-constitution/

[Just_A_Guy]

 

13 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Have we become so corrupt that we are incapable of being governed by a liberty-minded/Consitutionally-minded leader?  Perhaps if such a leader were elected then we'd find ourselves in a worse situation than being governed by a corrupt person.

As lamentable as the decline of classical liberalism is, the true corruption of our society is that we no longer believe in the power of godly people to make a difference.  A long succession of fundamentally decent (sometimes even reasonably godly) people were absolutely savaged by folks who were bound and determined to see the fulfillment of their slavish fetish for seeing Donald Trump put all his enemies under his feet.

We have treated D&C 98:10 like so much toilet paper; choosing instead to go a-whoring after known liars (or master persuaders, as it has become fashionable to call them) who distress our enemies and make us feel good.

Trump may be a politically convenient destructor; but Zion will not be built through the antics of liars and false accusers and thieves and whoremongers--let alone by folks who pal around with dictators and make excuses for mass murderers.

Edited December 18, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

I reject the premise that Trump is morally bankrupt.

i also reject the premise that the US has never had a morally bankrupt President in its history.

Therefore, this "it is the end of America because Trump became President" talk is utter nonesense.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

23 hours ago, Carborendum said:

What I've been pondering is the idea that perhaps, this was what the Lord wanted.

I disagree.  I don't think that every leader is chosen by the Lord.  Just as in other aspects of our lives, the Lord allows people to have their agency--for better or for worse.  For example, I also don't think the Lord "wanted" King Noah, Herod, Hitler, Stalin or Mao.  I'm not saying Trump is as bad as any of them; I'm not talking about him right now--simply that I don't think that everything that bad happens in the world is the Lord's will.  Quite the contrary.  

[Guest MormonGator]

44 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I disagree.  I don't think that every leader is chosen by the Lord.  Just as in other aspects of our lives, the Lord allows people to have their agency--for better or for worse.  For example, I also don't think the Lord "wanted" King Noah, Herod, Hitler, Stalin or Mao.  I'm not saying Trump is as bad as any of them; I'm not talking about him right now--simply that I don't think that everything that bad happens in the world is the Lord's will.  Quite the contrary.  

100% correct. 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I reject the premise that Trump is morally bankrupt.

i also reject the premise that the US has never had a morally bankrupt President in its history.

Therefore, this "it is the end of America because Trump became President" talk is utter nonesense.

The second two points: Totally not what I said.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I disagree.

That's ok.  I'm not certain I 100% agree with what I said.  It was more-or-less an I wonder.

4 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I don't think that every leader is chosen by the Lord. 

Nor do I.  But just because it is a bad leader, I don't necessarily discount the possibility of the Lord's appointment.

4 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

 I also don't think the Lord "wanted" King Noah, Herod, Hitler, Stalin or Mao. 

Yes, perhaps "wanted" has the wrong connotations.  But I don't know a better way to state it except with the further defining explanation which I gave throughout the post.

I believe that it is the Lord's way that when the people become corrupt, a corrupt leader is chosen.  You can figure out for yourself the Lord's input as you see fit.

4 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

 I don't think that everything that bad happens in the world is the Lord's will.  Quite the contrary.  

I don't think I said anything like that.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I don't think I said anything like that.

I agree. Sorry I didn't mean to imply that you did. In church culture that is often implied. In fact just today in my ward. 

[yjacket]

The biggest problem I see (and this happened especially during the primary) is that everyone thinks (especially in the LDS culture) that their guy is a morally upstanding guy (a.k.a. McCullin/Cruz), yet Trump was seen as the devil.  Yet the simple truth is that there are very, very few individuals involved at the national politics who are not in some way corrupt and morally bankrupt.  The biggest hypocrisy among LDS is believing that their guy is so pristine and pure-even the LDS politicians to much extent have betrayed their morality (Harry Reid anyone??).  

The simple truth is that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The amount of power that individual Congresscritters wield is enormous and thus that power attracts those who seek and aspire for power. Those who seek and aspire for power over others are by definition morally bankrupt-Christ never sought for power and the Evil one was thrown out of Heaven for seeking power. As such, and given the massive amount of money required to successfully run for a national position it is nigh impossible for a non-morally bankrupt individual to come close to winning such positions.  Some have done it, but they are more the exception rather than the rule.

From my perspective, I didn't see any candidate in 2016 for president who embodied DC 98:10-just varying degrees of moral bankruptcy.

In my lifetime, I have only seen a couple of candidates for President who I can say with confidence I believed they were not morally bankrupt.  How can one determine-through a long track record.  Having a no-name candidate who has no track-record of taking a moral stand when it's hard and having a Senator with only 3 years of experience and declaring them pristine is a little presumptive.

Yet, just because a leader has committed adultery or multiple marriages, etc. does not mean that God cannot work through them.  So if I conclude that all candidates are morally bankrupt then I choose a leader based on their politics and what would be good for the nation.

[Guest MormonGator]

13 minutes ago, yjacket said:

 Yet the simple truth is that there are very, very few individuals involved at the national politics who are not in some way corrupt and morally bankrupt.  

Absolutely right. We all want to think that our side is morally pure and wonderful but that's not reality. Politics is like making hot dogs. You don't want to know how it's done.

A good line  from a political operative, Andrew Young-"Everyone knows politics is dirty, but I am beginning to think it's disgusting." 

Edited December 19, 2016 by MormonGator

[anatess2]

19 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The second two points: Totally not what I said.

I didn't say it was.

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I didn't say it was.

So, you just decided to add some declarations wit emphasis out-of-the blue for no particular reason and addressed it to no one.  Is that what I am to understand?

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

So, you just decided to add some declarations wit emphasis out-of-the blue for no particular reason and addressed it to no one.  Is that what I am to understand?

You are to understand that I made a general comment related to your topic.  I usually quote people when I directly reference what they said and not just the topic in general.

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I didn't say it was.

15 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

a general comment related to your topic.

You made general comments about my topic while agreeing I never made such statements that you rejected via those general comments...

 

Edited December 19, 2016 by Guest

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

You made general comments about my topic while agreeing I never made such statements that you rejected via those general comments...

 

Okay dude.  This is getting REALLY frustrating.  If you want to take what I said according to what YOU WANT to think I said and then accuse me of SAYING it... That's on YOU.

I explained to you the context of what I said.  It is not complicated.  It is 3 VERY DIRECT sentences.  I have no idea how you conclude from those 3 simple sentences that that's what I think YOU said especially after I just explained to you DIRECTLY and SIMPLY that I did not imply that it is what you said on your OP.  But whatever.  I'm tired of you constantly twisting my very simple English.  It's like you just want to come up with any reason to attack me.

 

Edited December 19, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I can see both sides.  When I start a thread, I tend to think everything that is said is a response directly to my post---forgetting the way threads take on a life of their own and sometimes get seriously derailed.

When I'm commenting on a thread, I often comment on what that thread brings to my mind which may or may not be directly related to the previous posts.  I think everyone does this and it is a good thing.  This is what makes thread interesting is this expanded view.   And I can relate to the frustration of someone arguing with you after you explained what you meant, but the other person is sure you said something else.  

Edited December 19, 2016 by LiterateParakeet

[anatess2]

8 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I can see both sides.  When I start a thread, I tend to think everything that is said is a response directly to my post---forgetting the way threads take on a life of their own and sometimes get seriously derailed.

When I'm commenting on a thread, I often comment on what that thread brings to my mind which may or may not be directly related to the previous posts.  I think everyone does this and it is a good thing.  This is what makes thread interesting is this expanded view.   And I can relate to the frustration of someone arguing with you after you explained what you meant, but the other person is sure you said something else.  

This is the nature of forums.  But Carb just doesn't want to understand me.  Doesn't even get my lame jokes.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

But Carb just doesn't want to understand me.  Doesn't even get my lame jokes.

In my experience, I have had misunderstandings with both of you, and found you both reasonable to work things out with.

I hate it when people don't get my jokes too, and I'm hilarious.  

[Guest]

18 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I can see both sides.  When I start a thread, I tend to think everything that is said is a response directly to my post---forgetting the way threads take on a life of their own and sometimes get seriously derailed.

When I'm commenting on a thread, I often comment on what that thread brings to my mind which may or may not be directly related to the previous posts.  I think everyone does this and it is a good thing.  This is what makes thread interesting is this expanded view.   And I can relate to the frustration of someone arguing with you after you explained what you meant, but the other person is sure you said something else.  

What sides?  I was just confused by what she posted.  And I continued to simply ask clarifying questions.  She's the one that got all huffy.  So, whatever.

[anatess2]

 

16 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

What sides?  I was just confused by what she posted.  And I continued to simply ask clarifying questions.  She's the one that got all huffy.  So, whatever.

This is a clarifying question?

On 12/19/2016 at 11:00 AM, Carborendum said:

You made general comments about my topic while agreeing I never made such statements that you rejected via those general comments...

 

You asked a question.  I answered it.  You didn't believe my answer and you continue to tell me I said something I didn't.  That's the problem.

Edited December 20, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

What sides?  I was just confused by what she posted.  And I continued to simply ask clarifying questions.  She's the one that got all huffy.  So, whatever.

Carb, I just meant to say, "I can understand where each of you are coming from."  Nothing more or less than that.

[classylady]

On December 17, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Carborendum said:

Many of the Never Trumpers on this site (myself included) have made a big deal about the fact that he is morally bankrupt.  We admit he has some level of business acumen.  We admit he has managerial skills.  And we even admit that for many of the important issues like protecting America, we believe he's on the same side as we are.  But we find his morality to be offensive even repulsive.

But here we are with President-elect Donald Trump. And I'm pondering two statements put together.

and

First of all, to the Trump supporters:  I'm not calling Trump a despot.  I don't know what to think of him (yet) on the liberty scale.  I'll give him a chance.

What I've been pondering is the idea that perhaps, this was what the Lord wanted.  The nation has been so corrupt that Barack Obama was President for 8 years and the media refused to say anything negative about him.  We've been so corrupt that Hillary Clinton had the pay-to-play thing going for years and the liberals defend her.  Planned Parenthood, Gay Marriage, Transgender, eliminating God/Christ out of public life, lawsuits because of a manger display... I could go on.  Bottom line -- the country has become corrupt.

What did the Lord do to the Jews when they got too corrupt?  They were taken and ruled over by a heathen king.  The Babylonian captivity under Nebuchadnezzar is a perfect example.  The ways of Babylon were certainly corrupt -- as was the king that led them.  But they had become so corrupt that they were incapable of following the Lord, and as such, they were incapable of being governed by anything other than a despot.

Do we find ourselves in a similar situation?  Have we become so corrupt that we are incapable of being governed by a liberty-minded/Consitutionally-minded leader?  Perhaps if such a leader were elected then we'd find ourselves in a worse situation than being governed by a corrupt person.

For me, I can only hope that Trump, if he is morally bankrupt, will at least do the right thing for the people. I look at Morianton in the book of Ether, and see perhaps a parallel in Trump? The people in Ether had been subjected to all manner of taxes and heavy burdens by king Riplakish. The people rose up and rebelled against him. Riplakish was killed in the rebellion, and Morianton came in and gained power over the people. Ether 10:10 "And after that he had established himself king he did ease the burden of the people, by which he did gain favor in the eyes of the people, and they did anoint him to be their king. 11 And he did do justice unto the people, but not unto himself because of his many whoredoms; wherefore he was cut off from the presence of the Lord. 12 And it came to pass that Morianton built up many cities, and the people became exceedingly rich under his reign, both in buildings, and in gold and silver, and in raising grain, and in flocks, and herds, and such things which had been restored unto them."

It doesn't say if the people were righteous at this time.  But, at least they were being prospered, and their king did deal with them justly.