Politics, The Chosen Land, and Why we Fight

[_Ray A]

Heh! When we moved back to the States from Japan my mom was pulled over for driving on the wrong side of the road. :) She told them "But this is the right side of the road!"

I can tell you about some elderly American missionary couples doing the same thing here in a moment of absentmindedness. I think once the cops hear the American accent all is forgiven.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Heh! When we moved back to the States from Japan my mom was pulled over for driving on the wrong side of the road. :) She told them "But this is the right side of the road!"

I can tell you about some elderly American missionary couples doing the same thing here in a moment of absentmindedness. I think once the cops hear the American accent all is forgiven.

My mother was given just a warning. Fortunately! :)

[_guy sajer]

What do you all think about the current state of affairs... has democracy lost to capitalism?

Are the wealthy few, running the country?

Along these lines, I also reread an article by Nibley, Breakthroughs I Would Like to See, where he argues that the church must return to the Law of Consecration in order to prepare for Zion. He uses the D&C to support his understanding that this law is required by all Saints.

in my opinion, the church seems to be continually moving toward more power, money, eliticism, wealth, etc. etc. etc. My observation is that there is a move away from the idea of communal living. Is the Law of Consecration no longer taught as something that will exist? Is Nibley's interpretation of the D&C wrong?

Any thoughts?

1. We do not live in a democracy. If we did, however, it is far more likely that Capitalism would be destroyed by democracy than the other way around.

2. Capitalism is liberty in the economic sphere; it is economic freedom. The general term for this is property rights, and they are of the unalienable sort. Without them, the rest of the rights in the Constitution are utterly moot.

3. Nibley was an economic illiterate who's views of the possibilities of human social organization were quite naïve, although he was brilliant in his sphere of expertise. The question is, of course, what do we mean when we say "law of consecration"? What do we mean by "communal living" and do we really understand what we're getting into when we pine away for it?

There is an inviolable and unequivocal tension between the collective and the individual and always will be until all men are angels. Until that time, "communal" living, without the deep, direct, and unfettered oversight of the Holy Spirit will end where all such experiments have always ended, in failure or human disaster. To the extent the original United Order worked, it worked to the extent free agency and property were respected.

However, that situation was a situation of naked survival in an unforgiving desert that had to be built up and made productive. There is no reason to believe that the United Order practiced then was in any manner fully revealed, or that it was revealed in a manner consistent with how it might be revealed if brought back into practice at the present time.

Hey Coggs, I think this is very well-stated. I'd personally throw out the last paragraph and expunge the reference to the Holy Spirit, but other than that, I think you're spot on.

I always get a bit nervous when I read or hear persons with little to no knowledge in the functioning of economic systems pontificating on how they should be structured.

Personally, even if we were angels, I wouldn't want to live in anything remotely like a United Order. I enjoy economic freedom, and I don't believe in the type of radical economic equality the UO implies. I have no problem with a distribution of income and wealth, though I do have a problem if it results in overly wide disparities.

[Guest]

I recently watched, Why we Fight, (thank you Beastie), and a few other documentaries about war and the United States, and I got to thinking.

It seems to me like America (The United States), is not really the Chosen Land it was/is supposed to be.

Do the leaders of the church still think America is a great nation, directed by Godad He inspired its leaders? Or, do they think it may be about ready to fall? (Where the constitution will hang by a thread and the Priesthood will save it)?

What do you all think about the current state of affairs... has democracy lost to capitalism?

Are the wealthy few, running the country?

Along these lines, I also reread an article by Nibley, Breakthroughs I Would Like to See, where he argues that the church must return to the Law of Consecration in order to prepare for Zion. He uses the D&C to support his understanding that this law is required by all Saints.

in my opinion, the church seems to be continually moving toward more power, money, eliticism, wealth, etc. etc. etc. My observation is that there is a move away from the idea of communal living. Is the Law of Consecration no longer taught as something that will exist? Is Nibley's interpretation of the D&C wrong?

Any thoughts?

~dancer~

Most Americans are blind to the truth about our country, just like TBM's are blind to the truth about the church. If a person cares about the truth, and really wants to know the truth no matter down what path it leads, the truth can be found. But once you go down that road you can't go back.

Now, just because a person knows and recognizes the truth about what America does in the world doesn't make that person a Benedict Arnold. It just opens their eyes to realities that most Americans don't know about - or don't want to know about. You can still love your country while it is imperfect. You love your country - so you hope it will progress and be the shining example to the world that you think it should be.

The truth is that the American government and its ruling class do a lot of harm throughout the world - for the benefit of the few. Our country is imperialistic, and is directly or indirectly responsible for much suffering and bloodshed. Knowing this does not make one a traitor, just sad.

Most of the TBM's I know are right-wing nut jobs who believe all the propaganda they get from FOX "news", Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. etc. They are sure that AMerica is the good guy, going throughout the world just trying to help, and always being so misunderstood. Trying to tell these kinds of people the truth about what AMerica really does is like trying to tell them the church isn't true. They simply won't believe it! Or, they become apologists.

In fact, it was just this kind of thing that made me question the church. If the brethren were really inspired, I thought, why were they so wrong about politics? Look at Ezra Taft Benson. My mother (TBM) says that George W. Bush will go down in history as one of the greatest presidents ever!!! My sister (TBM) and her whole family listen to Rush Limbaugh and believe that global warming is a conspiracy to keep people from believing that the SAvior is causing all the climate problems. Most of my friends and neighbors hate environmentalists, gays, liberals, feminists and intellectuals. They are all TBM's. It is so frustrating to talk to these good people - who are so unimformed.

The most eye-opening books I have read lately about America:

Democracy for the Few by Michael Parenti
Understanding Power by Noam Chomsky
Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since WWII by William Blum
A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn

These books should be "must" reading for every American who really wants to know the truth.

[_Ray A]

The most eye-opening books I have read lately about America:

Democracy for the Few by Michael Parenti
Understanding Power by Noam Chomsky
Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since WWII by William Blum
A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn

These books should be "must" reading for every American who really wants to know the truth.

I think you need to do some more reading. Chomsky has compared America to Nazi Germany, with which you might agree, since you speak so highly of him. One of his balls-ups was the "invasion" of Grenada. I spoke to people who were there, since I was born some 100 miles from Grenada, and they were almost all relieved that America intervened, even if under the "pretense" of the Monroe Doctrine. It's idiots like Chomsky who foisted this "invasion" idea, when it was anything but an "invasion", and the pop-media are no less irresponsible. If you swallow this CRAP and link it with "TBM Mormonism", your agenda is revealed. Apples and oranges.

[_ktallamigo]

Uhhhh - Chomsky is no idiot. He is one of the most influential and respected intellectuals in our country - he revolutionized the field of linguistics. Because of his fame and prominent position he can speak his mind without worrying about getting fired.

And I simply equate the firm belief of a TBM with the firm belief of a person who doesn't know or doesn't want to know the truth about America's foreign policy.

ktall

[_Ray A]

Uhhhh - Chomsky is no idiot. He is one of the most influential and respected intellectuals in our country - he revolutionized the field of linguistics. Because of his fame and prominent position he can speak his mind without worrying about getting fired.

And I simply equate the firm belief of a TBM with the firm belief of a person who doesn't know or doesn't want to know the truth about America's foreign policy.

ktall

Like I said - you need to do some more reading.

http://newcriterion.com:81/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm

Now consider alternative views about Chomsky, if you are really open-minded. Chomsky is a lot like John Pilger, and maybe you need to do some reading on Pilger too. Pilger is a one-way agenda looking for a wall to nail himself on. The trouble with many "skeptics" is that they start to worship the idols who hold their views, without question. Dawkins comes to mind. "Dawkins said.....", almost like "the prophet said....".

I don't swallow anything without question, including Windshuttle, but I think he makes some valid points.

What is "the truth" about America's foreign policy? During the Second World War "the Americans" "invaded" Trinidad. Tongue-in-cheek. Because Trinidad had reserves of oil and pitch second to none. Probably built 90% of the roads in England. They took out a 99 year "lease" on a portion of Trinidad. You could not enter that area without passing Military Police, and I remember this as a child. So what did "America" do after the war was over? No, they did NOT colonise Trinidad - they LEFT it! Just like they planned to do in Iraq. By the 1970s the US bases were GONE. No doubt Trinidad was of strategic importance as far as oil and pitch reserves, and the Germans did try to get it, unsuccessfully, because of US defense. But once the war was over, the "yankees" went home - no doubt much to the disappointment of local girls, which was about the most "negative impact" US policy had in Trinidad.

Chomsky is full of utter CRAP. Quite a lot like "Mister Scratch".

[_Ray A]

You may also want to note this from the link I gave:

After the Cataclysm also presented a much more extended critique of refugee testimony. Chomsky revealed his original 1977 source for this had been Ben Kiernan, at the time an Australian graduate student and apologist for the Pol Pot regime, who wrote in the Maoist-inspired Melbourne Journal of Politics. What Chomsky avoided telling his readers, however, was that well before 1980, the year After the Cataclysm was published, Kiernan himself had recanted his position.

Kiernan had spent much of 1978 and 1979 interviewing five hundred Cambodian refugees in camps inside Thailand. They persuaded him they were actually telling the truth. He also gained a mass of evidence from the new Vietnamese-installed regime. This led him to write a mea culpa in the Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars in 1979. This was a left-wing journal frequently cited by Chomsky, so he must have been aware that Kiernan wrote: “There can be no doubting that the evidence also points clearly to a systematic use of violence against the population by that chauvinist section of the revolutionary movement that was led by Pol Pot.” Yet in After the Cataclysm, Chomsky does not acknowledge this at all.

Ben Kiernan was one of my tutors/lecturers in Australian/Asian relations and history at the University of Wollongong.

[_aussieguy55]

Country

1. Norway
2. Sweden
3. Canada
4. Belgium
5. Australia
6. United States
7. Iceland
8. Netherlands
9. Japan
10. Finland

I found this in a chart of standards of living. It seems some of those wicked "socialist" countries are doing well. In Australia some people fear we will have followed the American model and end up with working poor who are homeless.

[_Ray A]

From the article:

In short, Chomsky believes that only he and those who share his radical perspective have the ability to rise above the illusions that keep everyone else slaves of the system. Only he can see things as they really are.

My emphasis. Yeah, the only true "know-alls". They know the truth, just like you said! "Gospel Truth." Everyone else is "enslaved" to
"delusions".