Isolationism And The Pride Cycle

[_Coggins7]

1. I'm saying God many times blesses the righteous with wealth, and that the unrighteous who follow correct economic principles or are in the right place at the right time with a concept or idea, can have wealth come to them as a natural consequence of their business acumen.

2. I'm also saying that wealth, under various conditions and when combined with other cultural and psychological elements, can create a moral and cultural malaise that, if left to run its course, can become quite dangerous to the the survival of that society.

[_harmony]

1. I'm saying God many times blesses the righteous with wealth, and that the unrighteous who follow correct economic principles or are in the right place at the right time with a concept or idea, can have wealth come to them as a natural consequence of their business acumen.

2. I'm also saying that wealth, under various conditions and when combined with other cultural and psychological elements, can create a moral and cultural malaise that, if left to run its course, can become quite dangerous to the the survival of that society.

If the society is unrighteous, God won't bless it. So why would you care if it survived or crashed?

[Guest]

Coggins the Book of Mormon in addition to the pride cycle shows that the military solution doesn't work, only repentance works. The Nephites tried the military solution by taking the battle to their enemies and even won for a while...but it was at that point that Mormon refused to lead them. The problem was hardly one of complacency on the part of the Nephites. It was a radical militant attitude that spelled their doom.

If the Left is Babylon's prosperity and wealth then the Right is Assyria's conquering hordes. Neither side has reached the climactic end yet where they fully personify what I'm saying but I think both are getting closer.

[_Coggins7]

If the society is unrighteous, God won't bless it. So why would you care if it survived or crashed?

Who says he's blessing "it"? He blesses righteous individuals and he allows conditions within a society to be
conducive to wealthicreation and prosperity. As I already mentioned, the ultimate crash doesn't come until a people are "ripe". God is in control of the time frame on these matters, and as, again, I already mentioned, the parable of the wheat and the tares speaks directly to this situation.

[_harmony]

If the society is unrighteous, God won't bless it. So why would you care if it survived or crashed?

Who says he's blessing "it"? He blesses righteous individuals and he allows conditions within a society to be
conducive to wealthicreation and prosperity. As I already mentioned, the ultimate crash doesn't come until a people are "ripe". God is in control of the time frame on these matters, and as, again, I already mentioned, the parable of the wheat and the tares speaks directly to this situation.

So what's the point of this thread?

[_The Nehor]

The philosophies of the late Sixties and early Seventies have been stunningly successful in eroding and even stripping away (in the public schools, most strikingly) an understanding of and sense of loyalty to the principles of individual liberty and of our political and social freedoms, such that many, if not most of us, are quite literally sleepwalking through WWIII, wrapped securely in our silken cocoons of technology, leisure, sensual comforts, and material convenience. Nehor is, unfortunately, a textbook example of this attitude, and, coming from a Mormon, quite stunning, as most of this kind of stuff comes from International ANSWER types.

Where did you get the idea that I thought we were safe? This is a strange accusation...especially since earlier this month I was called a 'prophet of doom'.

I agree that there is a problem Coggins. I just don't agree with you about the solution.

[_Coggins7]

Coggins the Book of Mormon in addition to the pride cycle shows that the military solution doesn't work, only repentance works. The Nephites tried the military solution by taking the battle to their enemies and even won for a while...but it was at that point that Mormon refused to lead them. The problem was hardly one of complacency on the part of the Nephites. It was a radical militant attitude that spelled their doom.

If the Left is Babylon's prosperity and wealth then the Right is Assyria's conquering hordes. Neither side has reached the climactic end yet where they fully personify what I'm saying but I think both are getting closer.

I completely disagree Nehor. The Book of Mormon is loaded with successful military solutions throughout. The only time the military solutions began to fail was when the Nephites sank into apostasy and moral deterioration. That, and only that, is the point at which the military became an unrighteous military, and hence, ineffective.

Its important to note that talk of "military solutions" to things, whether the endless degradations of the Lamanites upon the Nephites or the present world struggle with political Islam, in many cases, those who are attacked and who's culture, rights, and lives are at stake do not have the luxury of surveying 'solutions" to the problem. People have two choices, whether they be Poles, Brits, Frenchmen, South Vietnamese, or Europeans and Americans at the present: appeasement and surrender, or war. Both have consequences. All ideas and choices do. In other words, when you are attacked, or at the point at which someone else is a war with you, whether you are at war with, or desire to be at war with them, your enemy has just, whether you like it or not, severely limited your options.

What do you then make of the fact that Moroni, as with several other major Book of Mormon prophets, were warrior prophets? They were prophets of the Lord, ecclesiastical leaders, and professional military men? They did poorly only when their society degenerated morally and spiritually. Being warriors in defense of their liberties and lives per se didn't seem to have anything to do with their spiritual standing before the Lord?

[_The Nehor]

Coggins the Book of Mormon in addition to the pride cycle shows that the military solution doesn't work, only repentance works. The Nephites tried the military solution by taking the battle to their enemies and even won for a while...but it was at that point that Mormon refused to lead them. The problem was hardly one of complacency on the part of the Nephites. It was a radical militant attitude that spelled their doom.

If the Left is Babylon's prosperity and wealth then the Right is Assyria's conquering hordes. Neither side has reached the climactic end yet where they fully personify what I'm saying but I think both are getting closer.

I completely disagree Nehor. The Book of Mormon is loaded with successful military solutions throughout. The only time the military solutions began to fail was when the Nephites sank into apostasy and moral deterioration. That, and only that, is the point at which the military became an unrighteous military, and hence, ineffective.

Its important to note that talk of "military solutions" to things, whether the endless degradations of the Lamanites upon the Nephites or the present world struggle with political Islam, in many cases, those who are attacked and who's culture, rights, and lives are at stake do not have the luxury of surveying 'solutions" to the problem. People have two choices, whether they be Poles, Brits, Frenchmen, South Vietnamese, or Europeans and Americans at the present: appeasement and surrender, or war. Both have consequences. All ideas and choices do. In other words, when you are attacked, or at the point at which someone else is a war with you, whether you are at war with, or desire to be at war with them, your enemy has just, whether you like it or not, severely limited your options.

What do you then make of the fact that Moroni, as with several other major Book of Mormon prophets, were warrior prophets? They were prophets of the Lord, ecclesiastical leaders, and professional military men? They did poorly only when their society degenerated morally and spiritually. Being warriors in defense of their liberties and lives per se didn't seem to have anything to do with their spiritual standing before the Lord?

The blame for every war in the Book of Mormon is assigned to the wickedness of the people. There are quite a few warrior Prophets but they led a wicked people every single time. Zion never goes to war. In 4 Nephi and in Moses you don't read of great battles where God strengthened them. You read of total peace and of one attack that God averted entirely by himself (in Moses).

War sucks. It is completely opposed to everything God wants. If you must fight a defensive war you do but you should accept from the outset that both sides in war are always wrong and need to repent. The warrior-prophets were God's help to a people who needed to be reminded that they should trust in God, not people who trusted in him already. Moroni retired as soon as he could from the army. I admit I don't entirely trust the military history of the Book of Judges. I personally believe if the Israelites were righteous that Joshua would have led a missionary campaign and not a military one into the Promised Land. The Saints were cast out of Missouri for their sins. Zion's Camp was a learning experience....just like war can be (Alma 62:41). It is not a test that a Zion people ever get.

I would add that offensive war is entirely condemned in the Book of Mormon and the Law of War in the D&C. Once the enemy leaves your borders you STOP! The backlash from 9/11 is to destroy anyone who can conceivably hurt us again. I understand the need for some anti-terrorist measures within the U.S. but our invasions seem way too much like the Nephites going on to attack the Lamanites lands. Our foreign policy record though is much worse than the Nephite government's ever were.

[_Coggins7]

If the Left is Babylon's prosperity and wealth then the Right is Assyria's conquering hordes. Neither side has reached the climactic end yet where they fully personify what I'm saying but I think both are getting closer.

We clearly have radically different political views Nehor. I diverge from this with a vengeance too. I understand what you're saying here, but don't accept the premises or implied definitions.

The Left cannot be Babylon's prosperity. Leftism, whatever else it is, is socialism; its egalitarian and collectivist in economic theory and practice. Socialism of any kind, even in its most benign forms, eats wealth that is created while encouraging less and less new wealth to be generated, indeed, emplacing numerous barriers to precisely that generation. Egalitarian economic systems transfer wealth between groups, but do not create new wealth, and destroy much of the incentive for that creation.

Babylon has, I think, two problems with wealth and prosperity, the first being the widespread nature of that prosperity alongside Babylon's materialism and moral relativism. The second is its socialism, which is the legalized theft of vast sums of the fruits of the labor of productive individuals within it. Both situations, the moral and value relativism of the mass culture, and the lawlessness of the state, feed into a continuing degradation of the rule of law. High taxes and the redistribution of wealth from those to whom it belongs, to those to whom it does not, also feeds the corruption of government by the creation of long term alliances with various special interests who's existence is dependent upon the largess of its fellow citizens, and resentments and a class warfare mentality that pollutes economic and political discourse and behavior.

"The Right", by which I assume you mean modern conservatism (and I consider mainstream, serious Libertarianism (of the CATO variety), to be a philosophical sibling) is so far from being militaristic that I'm having a great deal of difficulty understanding upon what basis you are making these assertions. That, of course, was a myth created by the Left during the Cold War era as a foil for their own ideology of appeasement toward Communist aggression around the world. Conservatism is a modern remnant and reworking of Classical Liberalism, and as such, although it abhors war (as much as the Left claims it does), it is, unlike the Left and Libertarianism (for different reasons, however) willing to go to war to maintain the rights and liberties thought to be God given and unalineanble. That others aren't, although they lay claim to love of liberty, is a major difference between these philosophies.

Some of this may be a matter of libertarianism's hard secularist streak, but I'm not altogether sure.

[_harmony]

The blame for every war in the Book of Mormon is assigned to the wickedness of the people. There are quite a few warrior Prophets but they led a wicked people every single time. Zion never goes to war. In 4 Nephi and in Moses you don't read of great battles where God strengthened them. You read of total peace and of one attack that God averted entirely by himself (in Moses).

War sucks. It is completely opposed to everything God wants. If you must fight a defensive war you do but you should accept from the outset that both sides in war are always wrong and need to repent. The warrior-prophets were God's help to a people who needed to be reminded that they should trust in God, not people who trusted in him already. Moroni retired as soon as he could from the army. I admit I don't entirely trust the military history of the Book of Judges. I personally believe if the Israelites were righteous that Joshua would have led a missionary campaign and not a military one into the Promised Land. The Saints were cast out of Missouri for their sins. Zion's Camp was a learning experience....just like war can be (Alma 62:41). It is not a test that a Zion people ever get.

I would add that offensive war is entirely condemned in the Book of Mormon and the Law of War in the D&C. Once the enemy leaves your borders you STOP! The backlash from 9/11 is to destroy anyone who can conceivably hurt us again. I understand the need for some anti-terrorist measures within the U.S. but our invasions seem way too much like the Nephites going on to attack the Lamanites lands. Our foreign policy record though is much worse than the Nephite government's ever were.

I agree. With all of what you said. (I am setting you up for a vicious attack from Loran, but still... I wanted you to know you're right, especially about Missouri and Zion's Camp).