Mormon vs Trump

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

 Destroy morality. Destroy freedom. Destroy accountability.

That's not inherent on the Left Wing.  That is the RADICAL LEFT having a bullhorn and currently challenging a diseased Democratic Party.  Stating that the left wing destroys morality, etc. etc. is the same as stating the right wing are racist white supremacists or whatever.   THIS MONSTER PAINTING NEEDS TO END.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Stating that the results of such Democratic vote is STEALING just because your vote lost spits on the face of the principles of Democracy by which your country is founded on!

You are conflating morality and legality. My stating it is stealing is a moral concept. You telling me that's spitting in the face of democracy is irrelevant (particularly in that we're not a democracy...but that aside).... I don't judge what I consider right and wrong based on what's legal. Democracy or the Republic, is not the issue. It's the usage of Democracy that is the problem.

This, too, should be obvious. If the law, by vote or mandate, does evil then it is evil. To Reductio ad Hitlerum it up a bit-- the social agreement the people had with the powers that be in WWII era Germany has no bearing on the application of right and wrong by the powers that be.

Taking someone's money to pay for someone else's stuff without the first's consent is theft and is wrong. It's wrong whether the whole world agreed to it or not.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

On 11/14/2018 at 9:43 AM, anatess2 said:

Romney, Flake

Wait, Flake is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

That is a real surprise to me with how wishy-washy he was on Kavenaugh.

[The Folk Prophet]

42 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

That's not inherent on the Left Wing. 

Silly me. Here I am thinking legal abortion, socialism, pro gay marriage, feminism, etc were left wing principles.

I suppose you're going to try and convince me the "leftists" aren't really "leftists" because they're really conservative right leaning and the "far left" have just made their conservative leftist views just seem like conservative views because they're conservative but they're not really conservative because they've proclaimed themselves "left" leaning --- or....some muddled up explanations.

Well, okay then. If they legitimately want to support conservative ideals and just call themselves "leftist" then great! Let's all vote for moral, conservative principles and call ourselves whatever we want.

If, on the other hand, they call themselves leftists because the support "leftist" ideals that are immoral to me then I don't particularly care whether you think they're "far" left or not. It's not the people I stand against. It's the principles.

Abortion is evil.

Socialism is evil.

Gay marriage is evil.

Feminism (as it currently stands) is evil.

Disarming the populace and having open borders and allowing the government to bureaucratically micromanage aspects of our lives, and all that jazz is just stupid...and stupid is a kind of evil, but less directly.

I don't care whether you label these things "left" or "far left" (though the idea that these things are not core to the left is silly to me). I care about principles of good and evil.

If you want to "win" the argument by claiming that these things are not inherent to the left -- great. Meaningless. But great.

42 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Stating that the left wing destroys morality, etc. etc. is the same as stating the right wing are racist white supremacists or whatever.

Well, actually, saying that if and when there is racism on the right that it's evil would be pretty accurate.

However, when some leftist claims I'm "racist" for opposing affirmative action or that I'm a chauvinist for my view of women's roles based on my religion, I somehow don't feel like it's the same as my claiming that abortion is morally despicable.

Edited November 27, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[JohnsonJones]

4 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Oh yes it is.

Just a note, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has twice allowed, not just social welfare, but the entirety of the economic and social system to be entrusted to the government.  One was under the Prophet Joseph Smith, the other was when Brigham Young was in charge of the Saints in Utah.  It is known as practicing the Law of Consecration.

Under Brigham Young there were many areas that stayed under this law for a while and were actually successful.  Historically we might actually consider it more akin to pure communism, but under the guise of religious communism, but it is an example of success in some areas when it was done under the direction of Brigham Young.

I'm not sure I would say that is inspired by who you may automatically think it was (as per the response).

We do know that the workings and designs of the Lord are many times imitated (and sometimes very closely) by the adversary, and apparently this is true in what happened in the USSR, China, and other areas where oligarchies and dictatorships say they have instituted a similar type of item but have included disregarding religion and Christianity as a focus. 

However, even with the imitations it does not necessarily mean that the idea of such things, especially when led by Righteous leaders who are led by the Lord and it is done in the manner that the Lord has explained and shown, are evil or wrong.

In my opinion...obviously.

Edited November 27, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Lost Boy said:

I agree.  That said I certainly think it is way bigger than it needs to be and we waste more money on it that we need to. 

I don't think it is bigger than it needs to be.  But that's a matter of opinion laced with bias because, as a Filipino, a super strong USA means peace to the Philippines. 

That said, I believe the only people that can clearly determine how big it needs to be is the military.  Therefore, putting good, non-political, mission-oriented people in charge of the military with a clear combat-readiness mission is a better position than ordinary people deciding that the military is too big/too small.

 

1 hour ago, Lost Boy said:

Universal basic health care does not have to be a huge entity.  Yes, there would be a lot of money that flows through it, but that money goes straight to the private sector and provides a service that benefits all.  I am no bleeding heart.  I really don't care about the sick.  What I care about is the affect the sick have on me.  A healthier population is better for all.  

This is political naivete, if I may be so bold as to say so.  Any money that the government manages becomes government money.  The private sector treats it as government money (inexhaustible with guaranteed payment... government doesn't default on anything because government can print money) therefore, not subject to capitalist risks.  This is exactly the same issue that plagued higher education and the same issue that caused the housing market bubble.  When the government decided to give loans to students so they can go to college, colleges treated it as guaranteed income, accepting any student without much regard for whether the student has the aptitude for the core competency, and even not caring about competitive edge through program quality.  They don't have to.  Money is guaranteed by the government.  Demand for higher education increased - a lot of which is due to kids not having marketable skills after graduating from high school so they take college as an extension of high school with the added benefit of college dorm parties.  Cost of college skyrocketed (increased demand, higher price... capitalism in action) and students graduate the same way they entered... without marketable skills.  So now, the government is deciding to solve the problem it created by offering free college.  It's insane.

Now, about healthcare... government paying for healthcare doesn't mean a healthier population... (see, college graduates without marketable skills).  It simply means government insertion into the capitalist health market impeding the market's ability to self-correct without regard for the quality of service rendered.  Now, as the cost of healthcare increases due to more sick people, then it becomes necessary for government to regulate health... so then you'll have government dictate how many ounces of soda you can drink a day or how many pizzas you are allowed to consume or what extreme sports you can engage in... or it simply dictates what kind of healthcare you are allowed such as, an age cap on knee replacement surgeries, etc. etc.

And saying "any government service doesn't have to be a huge entity" is out of your control once you authorize the government to manage it.  Putting the government in charge of a service makes that service a campaign issue.  It is pretty difficult for any political candidate to run on a platform of.... (@zil, what's the word I'm looking for??? Starts with an S, I think. Means "tighten the belt"),  whereas it is very easy for a political candidate to run on a platform of... "Free spa massages, free botox, free sex change operations" effectively expanding the meaning of "basic healthcare".

So, really, there are 3 options - 1.) small government, private healthcare, 2.) medium government, healthcare safety net in much the same way as food stamps, 3.) big government, universal healthcare.

I prefer 1.

1 hour ago, Lost Boy said:

First, High school is really a must.  Can you make due without?  yeah, but generally not very well.  

High School is not a must.  Literacy is a must for a functioning governable society.   The only reason a high school diploma becomes a requirement is either to raise one's self out of the blue collar to the white collar or to eliminate competition for a job.  A plumber, for example, does not need a High School Diploma to perform the job.  Nor a store manager, a firefighter, a police officer, etc. etc.  But, to be able to communicate and become governable, one must at least be literate.  Therefore, more important than a High School diploma for economic success is the availability of labor opportunities.  Because, if there are 3 plumbers available to work 1 plumber's job, a high school diploma becomes a way to eliminate the competition.  Whereas, if there was 1 plumber available to work 3 plumber's jobs, then a high school diploma becomes irrelevant.

In places like India or the Philippines where there are a whole lot more people than there are jobs, a Master's Degree gets you a job managing McDonald's, a High School Degree gets you a job selling cigarettes at the street corner.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lost Boy said:

Please explain how government subsidized tuition is government dictating its labor force.  As for vocation, the amount may be adjusted so that you are still responsible for a certain portion.  For University, I would not have it so college is completely covered.

Dude, if you don't consider your College Degree a vocation, you're wasting your time and your money. 

Government expenditure is a waste when it cannot raise economic outlook.  The purpose of spending money on education is so that you can put people to work.  The justification for education spending is it is going to be paid for by the taxes of productive workers that became possible through the free education.  But, if your vocation produces a lower probability of tax revenues compared to another vocation, the government has the authority - as the provider of such education - to push its citizenry out of such vocational opportunity thereby controlling the labor force giving low-tax-revenue jobs to... say, foreign workers that don't receive such educational benefits.

Edited November 27, 2018 by anatess2

[anatess2]

48 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Silly me. Here I am thinking legal abortion, socialism, pro gay marriage, feminism, etc were left wing principles.

I suppose you're going to try and convince me the "leftists" aren't really "leftists" because they're really conservative right leaning and the "far left" have just made their conservative leftist views just seem like conservative views because they're conservative but they're not really conservative because they've proclaimed themselves "left" leaning --- or....some muddled up explanations.

<snip>

Abortion is evil.

Socialism is evil.

Gay marriage is evil.

Feminism (as it currently stands) is evil.

Sigh.

Legalization of something is not a COMPULSION for something.  It is not Satanic to have the FREEDOM to choose according to the dictates of your own conscience even if such dictates lead you to immoral choices.  It would be Satanic if the Left Wing runs on the platform of "If you elect Democrats, we will make Traditional Marriage illegal".

KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.

Christ-loving people MAY CHOOSE to organize themselves such that they believe it less beneficial to force people to do right for themselves by sending the guns of the government to take them to jail if they do wrong.  It is not Satanic to hold such position even if you and I disagree with it in the same manner that you don't think it Satanic to not compel people to be charitable by being a Capitalist!

 

P.S.  I'm going to add that Feminism is Cancer.  It's not endemic to the Left.  Ivanka Trump just got STEM subsidies for women passed as a Republican in an effort to "bridge the wage gap" with right wing support!  I'm not going to call Ivanka nor any legislator supporting such feminist legislations Satanic.

Edited November 27, 2018 by anatess2

[zil]

42 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

(@zil, what's the word I'm looking for??? Starts with an S, I think. Means "tighten the belt")

I haven't been following this thread - didn't even read your entire post.  "Austerity" might be what you're looking for.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Sigh.

Well.....OH YEAH?!?

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

P.S.  I'm going to add that Feminism is Cancer.  It's not endemic to the Left.  Ivanka Trump just got STEM subsidies for women passed as a Republican in an effort to "bridge the wage gap" with right wing support!  I'm not going to call Ivanka nor any legislator supporting such feminist legislations Satanic.

I am. And, decidedly, leftist!

[anatess2]

51 minutes ago, zil said:

I haven't been following this thread - didn't even read your entire post.  "Austerity" might be what you're looking for.

THAT'S THE ONE!  That's why it didn't come to me... I kept thinking S-something when the S is in the middle of the word!

... campaign on Austerity Measures... was what I needed.

Sanderson really missed out on you!

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

that you don't think it Satanic to not compel people to be charitable by being a Capitalist!

Parsing by eliminating the double negs....

I [don't] think it Satanic to [not] compel people to be charitable....

True. Depending on what one means by "compel", I suppose. But true....

....but how on earth does being a Capitalist tie in?

Nope...you lost me.

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Legalization of something is not a COMPULSION for something.

Is compulsion the only evil you believe in?

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

It is not Satanic to have the FREEDOM to choose according to the dictates of your own conscience even if such dictates lead you to immoral choices. 

Of course you're only presuming the "why" of my view that these ideologies are evil.

It's pretty naive, in my opinion, to presume that legalization of gay marriage is primarily about freedom of choice.

Even if that is the "objective" of the individuals who fought for it on the political left, that doesn't mean the underlying corruption isn't being ultimately driven by the master of sin. Injecting the "well, they're well meaning and don't intend evil" bury-ones-head-in-the-sand approach of letting evil flourish is "Satanic" too.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing...." and all that.

The homosexual agenda, whether those fighting for it know it or not, is about destroying eternal families. And it's certainly about legitimizing sin and presenting it as if it were no sin at all. It is also, most certainly, is built upon a bedrock of lies.

Yep. I'm sticking with Satanic. (Well...except that's a weird way to put it as it implies ideas like a group of caped, hooded characters chanting pseudo latin-esque phrases while they stand circling a pentagram wherein a bound virgin is about to be sacrificed.....  So I'll go with "evil" as my word. I'm sticking with "evil").

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Christ-loving people MAY CHOOSE to organize themselves such that they believe it less beneficial to force people to do right for themselves by sending the guns of the government to take them to jail if they do wrong.

Just so we're clear. I'm not making an argument that the government has no right to force by threat of guns and jails. There are things that are right to force and there are things that are wrong to force.

Leftism takes things that are wrong to force and puts them in the right to force bucket. It's the "wrong to force" part of it that makes it evil. 

 

[mirkwood]

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Historically we might actually consider it more akin to pure communism, but under the guise of religious communism, but it is an example of success in some areas when it was done under the direction of Brigham Young.

Comparing The Law Of Consecration to communism is a terrible analogy.  The LOC has nothing to do with communism, or the other side of the coin: socialism.  Communism and socialism are compulsory.  Nothing about the LOC is compulsory.

[Tyme]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Parsing by eliminating the double negs....

I [don't] think it Satanic to [not] compel people to be charitable....

True. Depending on what one means by "compel", I suppose. But true....

....but how on earth does being a Capitalist tie in?

Nope...you lost me.

Is compulsion the only evil you believe in?

Of course you're only presuming the "why" of my view that these ideologies are evil.

It's pretty naive, in my opinion, to presume that legalization of gay marriage is primarily about freedom of choice.

Even if that is the "objective" of the individuals who fought for it on the political left, that doesn't mean the underlying corruption isn't being ultimately driven by the master of sin. Injecting the "well, they're well meaning and don't intend evil" bury-ones-head-in-the-sand approach of letting evil flourish is "Satanic" too.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing...." and all that.

The homosexual agenda, whether those fighting for it know it or not, is about destroying eternal families. And it's certainly about legitimizing sin and presenting it as if it were no sin at all. It is also, most certainly, is built upon a bedrock of lies.

Yep. I'm sticking with Satanic. (Well...except that's a weird way to put it as it implies ideas like a group of caped, hooded characters chanting pseudo latin-esque phrases while they stand circling a pentagram wherein a bound virgin is about to be sacrificed.....  So I'll go with "evil" as my word. I'm sticking with "evil").

Just so we're clear. I'm not making an argument that the government has no right to force by threat of guns and jails. There are things that are right to force and there are things that are wrong to force.

Leftism takes things that are wrong to force and puts them in the right to force bucket. It's the "wrong to force" part of it that makes it evil. 

 

Let me guess you’re the arbitrator of what is right and wrong to force.

[SilentOne]

Is this

11 hours ago, Tyme said:

I know nothing is wrong with LGBT with the full conviction of my heart.

because of this?

11 hours ago, Tyme said:

The spirit has whispered to me that God loves all his children, wants them in the church and wants them to have joy.

 

[The Folk Prophet]

41 minutes ago, Tyme said:

Let me guess you’re the arbitrator of what is right and wrong to force.

As is everyone.

If we get it wrong, it's to everyone's peril...but especially our own.

[LePeel]

On 11/27/2018 at 7:53 AM, Tyme said:

The point I'm trying to get across when discussing this with everyone is way different than you might think. My point is that this issue runs deep into peoples souls and hearts. People can't be convinced one way or the other by a simple talk or arguing on forums. That's why the churches stance on ex-communicating or not allowing members in who disagree with their stance will never work.  This issue goes just as deep as religion. It's like when members say the church is true with the full conviction of their hearts. I know nothing is wrong with LGBT with the full conviction of my heart. There is nothing that will change that accept revelation from the spirit. I've received and always believed that LGBT will be solemnized in the Temple EVENTUALLY. The spirit has whispered to me that God loves all his children, wants them in the church and wants them to have joy. I also know that the Prophets are receiving revelation from God on this matter. That when the church is ready LGBT will be allowed full fellowship. I'm going to try to refrain from engaging in these discussions on this forum for that very reason. The reason is that nobody is going to change their mind. It's a fruitless endeavor. I along with 50% of the youth of the church have received whispers from the spirit that there is nothing wrong with LGBT. Then there are members who have received whispers that LGBT is of the devil and will never be allowed in the church. That doesn't mean one group is necessarily wrong. It just means we're at different stages in our discipleship. It will be interesting to see how the spirit directs each group in the future.

Don't leave the church over this issue, because we're never going to get that revelation. By revelation we know that God ordained the powers of procreation for use ONLY between a husband and wife. Never at any time will God condone sodomy. Nor will God allow sodomy in the eternities. Two men cannot have children, and you make God a liar if you think a sodomite couple can enter into his covenant of marriage, which is a continuation of the seeds forever.

There will come a time when you won't be able to be both a practicing Latter-day Saint and a practicing Leftist. You will have to choose.

 

 

 

Edited November 29, 2018 by LePeel

[Vort]

8 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Just a note, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has twice allowed, not just social welfare, but the entirety of the economic and social system to be entrusted to the government.  One was under the Prophet Joseph Smith, the other was when Brigham Young was in charge of the Saints in Utah.  It is known as practicing the Law of Consecration.

This is false on at least two counts:

1. The law of consecration is not the same as the united order, which is what you're talking about. The united order is a specific application of the law of consecration. We no longer live in an economic united order, and have not for generations. But we still live the law of consecration.

2. The united order was entered into voluntarily and could be left at any time. It was not a compulsory government-run institution.

[Vort]

3 hours ago, Tyme said:

Let me guess you’re the arbitrator of what is right and wrong to force.

No. I am.

[Lost Boy]

16 hours ago, anatess2 said:

 

 

This is political naivete, if I may be so bold as to say so.  Any money that the government manages becomes government money.  The private sector treats it as government money (inexhaustible with guaranteed payment... government doesn't default on anything because government can print money) therefore, not subject to capitalist risks.  This is exactly the same issue that plagued higher education and the same issue that caused the housing market bubble.  When the government decided to give loans to students so they can go to college, colleges treated it as guaranteed income, accepting any student without much regard for whether the student has the aptitude for the core competency, and even not caring about competitive edge through program quality.  They don't have to.  Money is guaranteed by the government.  Demand for higher education increased - a lot of which is due to kids not having marketable skills after graduating from high school so they take college as an extension of high school with the added benefit of college dorm parties.  Cost of college skyrocketed (increased demand, higher price... capitalism in action) and students graduate the same way they entered... without marketable skills.  So now, the government is deciding to solve the problem it created by offering free college.  It's insane.

Now, about healthcare... government paying for healthcare doesn't mean a healthier population... (see, college graduates without marketable skills).  It simply means government insertion into the capitalist health market impeding the market's ability to self-correct without regard for the quality of service rendered.  Now, as the cost of healthcare increases due to more sick people, then it becomes necessary for government to regulate health... so then you'll have government dictate how many ounces of soda you can drink a day or how many pizzas you are allowed to consume or what extreme sports you can engage in... or it simply dictates what kind of healthcare you are allowed such as, an age cap on knee replacement surgeries, etc. etc.

And saying "any government service doesn't have to be a huge entity" is out of your control once you authorize the government to manage it.  Putting the government in charge of a service makes that service a campaign issue.  It is pretty difficult for any political candidate to run on a platform of.... (@zil, what's the word I'm looking for??? Starts with an S, I think. Means "tighten the belt"),  whereas it is very easy for a political candidate to run on a platform of... "Free spa massages, free botox, free sex change operations" effectively expanding the meaning of "basic healthcare".

So, really, there are 3 options - 1.) small government, private healthcare, 2.) medium government, healthcare safety net in much the same way as food stamps, 3.) big government, universal healthcare.

I prefer 1.

High School is not a must.  Literacy is a must for a functioning governable society.   The only reason a high school diploma becomes a requirement is either to raise one's self out of the blue collar to the white collar or to eliminate competition for a job.  A plumber, for example, does not need a High School Diploma to perform the job.  Nor a store manager, a firefighter, a police officer, etc. etc.  But, to be able to communicate and become governable, one must at least be literate.  Therefore, more important than a High School diploma for economic success is the availability of labor opportunities.  Because, if there are 3 plumbers available to work 1 plumber's job, a high school diploma becomes a way to eliminate the competition.  Whereas, if there was 1 plumber available to work 3 plumber's jobs, then a high school diploma becomes irrelevant.

In places like India or the Philippines where there are a whole lot more people than there are jobs, a Master's Degree gets you a job managing McDonald's, a High School Degree gets you a job selling cigarettes at the street corner.

 

Dude, if you don't consider your College Degree a vocation, you're wasting your time and your money. 

Government expenditure is a waste when it cannot raise economic outlook.  The purpose of spending money on education is so that you can put people to work.  The justification for education spending is it is going to be paid for by the taxes of productive workers that became possible through the free education.  But, if your vocation produces a lower probability of tax revenues compared to another vocation, the government has the authority - as the provider of such education - to push its citizenry out of such vocational opportunity thereby controlling the labor force giving low-tax-revenue jobs to... say, foreign workers that don't receive such educational benefits.

Quote

I don't think it is bigger than it needs to be.  But that's a matter of opinion laced with bias because, as a Filipino, a super strong USA means peace to the Philippines. 

That said, I believe the only people that can clearly determine how big it needs to be is the military.  Therefore, putting good, non-political, mission-oriented people in charge of the military with a clear combat-readiness mission is a better position than ordinary people deciding that the military is too big/too small.

It amazes me that in one breath you say we can't trust government with our money "health care & education" and in the same breath you say we need to trust government with our money "military."  

Letting the military decide how big they need to be is ridiculous.  We don't need to be world cops any more.  No one is looking to invade the Philippines.  The world is a very different place than it was 70 years ago.

 

And universal health care would mean a healthier population.  You are afraid of a much more expensive system.  The world disagrees with you.  The U.S. health care cost per capita is double that of most modern countries.  And those countries cover their entire population.  Also, today's system if very much not a market system.  I don't just get to go out and decide what health insurance I want.  I get what is given to me by my employer.  And then I am limited to the doctors and hospitals in the plan.  This is not a market system in the least.  It is stupid and broken.  A universal system would open up choice to all doctors.  This would mean that doctors that want to succeed have to be the best in their field.  They are not guaranteed an income.  They still have to get patients and bad doctors would not get patients.

Go to any country with universal health care.  They are not getting free botox, face lifts, boob jobs, etc.  They cover necessary treatments.  That is all.  The current system sucks.  It is expensive and slow and gives me less choice of doctors and hospitals.

As for government subsidized education... your are putting your fears in just one possibility of a system.  There are many ways to set it up to ensure government doesn't coerce its population into one degree or another.  

And I completely disagree with the need for a high school education.  Just because a plumber can turn a wrench without a high school degree does not mean he shouldn't have one.  The more knowledge a population has, the better chance they have at making better choices.  Maybe we wouldn't have the screwed up election that gave us choice of Hillary and Donald.

 

[Lost Boy]

21 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Strange how the Repubs lost the House here then.

Ok.  it is king in presidential elections.  The house is a bit of a different animal.  As is the senate.

[JohnsonJones]

12 hours ago, mirkwood said:

Comparing The Law Of Consecration to communism is a terrible analogy.  The LOC has nothing to do with communism, or the other side of the coin: socialism.  Communism and socialism are compulsory.  Nothing about the LOC is compulsory.

Actually, that's what it is called.  It's a form of theocratic government which has the same principles of communism, but led by religious leaders rather than atheistic leaders.

The reason you may find it offensive is because you have been trained to think that this is a dirty word.  Instead of seeing what it actually entails, you automatically bring up ideas of Marxism or Marxist type communism ruled over by an oligarchy or dictatorship such as the USSR was. 

However, the idea itself is not evil or bad and some of the first forms of it are brought up in the New Testament in relation to how the early church was run.  It is the basis behind several religious movements which practiced communism FAR before Marx relayed his personal interpretation of how it should be done or run.

8 hours ago, Vort said:

This is false on at least two counts:

1. The law of consecration is not the same as the united order, which is what you're talking about. The united order is a specific application of the law of consecration. We no longer live in an economic united order, and have not for generations. But we still live the law of consecration.

2. The united order was entered into voluntarily and could be left at any time. It was not a compulsory government-run institution.

Not with what you brought in with you.  In some instances, yes, you could leave but leaving would be even MORE fatal than if you tried to leave the USSR.  You would die of starvation or thirst FAR before you got to an area which you could support yourself without being in the territory ruled by either those you tried to leave, or the Tribes which would kill you instead.

Once again, yes, the Mormons ran Religious communism in their early years.  In some areas it actually is a successful example of where a community shares what it has with everyone getting what they need and no one dying or starving to support others survival.  In many ways, after the choice was made to participate, or at least accept the calling to go where the prophet told you to go (and would you tell the prophet no?) it WAS mandatory to practice it in some areas.  Everyone gave all that they gained to the community, and it was divided as per what each needed in the amounts of what they had.

It was far more successful out West (where I suppose there were not as many outward influences) in the limited areas where it was practiced.  In some ways I would attribute it's practice to the very survival of certain areas and why they were successful when if it had been settled by others who did not practice such things...they would have failed miserably.

Once again, the resistance to something being called religious communism is specifically because people have been taught that the word communism is a BAD word.  It is like saying that the word Polygamy is a BAD word, and that anyone talking about such thing is bad, or that the things the Old Testament are bad because they talk about regulating things that we have been TAUGHT are bad in our western society.  It is not necessarily BAD, but we are taught that some words mean bad things and want to disassociate from them, even when they describe exactly what we don't want to accept.

They've noticed a similar thing with other words where you can have two words or say two things which say the exact same item, but because society views one word as a BAD word and the other without such connotation, they do not see it the same way even if it says the same thing.

Religious Communism has been around FAR longer than Marxism or The Communistic ideas that are in the USSR, China or other places.  In many ways, it is a copy that tears out the heart and soul of what Religious Communism was about all along.  Religious Communism had at it's heart, religion and dedicating all that you had to the Lord.  Marxism and the Communism espoused by Marxist took out the very heart and soul of it (one could even say ripped it out) and tried to make it a vehicle that operates without it.  Much like a body without a heart or a soul, we could say the body soon dies without it and devolves into something far darker and sinister (such as what the USSR really devolved into as an Oligarchy or N. Korea is as a dictatorship).

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Actually, that's what it is called.  It's a form of theocratic government which has the same principles of communism, but led by religious leaders rather than atheistic leaders.

You're making a very common mistake here. "A theocracy" (notice the quotes) is just as bad as a dictatorship.  In fact, it IS a dictatorship.  I put it in quotes because it is still subject to the whims of men, not God.

If it were a real theocracy -- i.e. actually headed by God, Himself -- then you've mislabelled it again, for the following reason.

The communism you describe says one of two things

• Everyone owns everything.
• The government owns everything.

An actual government run by God, Himself says two things:

• God owns everything.
• He grants us stewardship over some of it to do His will.

It is because of this distinction that we do not call it "communism".  It isn't about people grouping their resources.  It is about recognizing that all things belong to God, and he is the one who can give or take at will, not man.

You can argue definitions and semantics all day long.  And if you really want to call it communism, go right ahead.  But if you deny these differences I've indicated, then you missed the entire point of the Law of Consecration.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Guest

[JohnsonJones]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

You're making a very common mistake here. "A theocracy" (notice the quotes) is just as bad as a dictatorship.  In fact, it IS a dictatorship.  I put it in quotes because it is still subject to the whims of men, not God.

If it were a real theocracy -- i.e. actually headed by God, Himself -- then you've mislabelled it again, for the following reason.

The communism you describe says one of two things

• Everyone owns everything.
• The government owns everything.

An actual government run by God, Himself says two things:

• God owns everything.
• He grants us stewardship over some of it to do His will.

It is because of this distinction that we do not call it "communism".  It isn't about people grouping their resources.  It is about recognizing that all things belong to God, and he is the one who can give or take at will, not man.

You can argue definitions and semantics all day long.  And if you really want to call it communism, go right ahead.  But if you deny these differences I've indicated, then you missed the entire point of the Law of Consecration.

Well, actually, most of the world would label it as Religious Communism. 

It should be expected that AMERICAN Mormons would contest it, NOT based on facts, but as I said, because they were brought up thinking the Word Communism means a bad word. 

Religious Communism is actually what is considered the type of life the Christians in the Book of Acts were living under.  By that, IF MORMONS actually WERE living the same laws and ideas as the early church, they therefore would have been living under Religious Communism (or more specifically, the subset of it that is today called Christian Communism).

This idea existed FAR before Marx and will exist far AFTER Marxism is dead and gone.  You are confusing Marxism and Contemporary Communism with Religious Communism. 

One focuses on the LORD and giving him all that you have, the other rejects this notion and focuses on the Virtue of MEN.  In many ways they are FAR more opposite in the extreme than the idea of Capitalism and Communism that we were brought up with in the West.

However, BECAUSE it is seen as a dirty word by Americans, I expect that US Mormons (and not just members of our church) will vehemently deny that this (probably also due to a complete misunderstanding WHAT Religious Communism actually is, which is basically the opposite of Marxism and Contemporary Communism with the very heart and center of focus of each being polar opposites of each other) could be and refuse try to give all sorts of explanations (many of which won't make any sense as they don't even apply to what Religious Communism is) of why this is so.

[Guest Godless]

I'm probably the closest thing we have to a "resident Marxist" here, so I'll just say that if I'm understanding the LoC correctly (spoiler alert, I'm a bit rusty) it is probably closer to theocratic socialism than communism. The important distinction is that, as @Carborendum pointed out, all things are property of God, not the people, and God rations it out. This can fit a socialist model, but not the Marxist communist model that all resources, property, and means of production belong to the people, and the government is simply a vessel through which those things are distributed.