Capitalism and our faith

I am in the middle of an interestig discussion over at the fairlds.org forum. Here is the link: http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=3182

The topic started because the poster was wondering if Capitalism was compatable with Christianity and the gospel. Here is my post:

Musser, first of all I have to say I agree with you in most of your ideas. However I don't necessarily think capitalism is an evil, it is a system and of course can be used by good or evil men.

However I do think that the seeking of great wealth does detract for many of us from our worship of God.


QUOTE
24 ¶ No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Matthew 6:24

This is pretty clear, we are either focused on God or on Money, we cannot be focused on both. We can get wealthy through good works and being rewarded, but seeking after that wealth is in general an evil. The only exception of this is to seek after wealth in order to be able to do good works with it. However I read this as a requirement that if you get the great wealth you must use it for good, not hold on to much of it and use some of it for good works. That is not how it works.

How can a true follower of Christ justify buying luxury items when others are hungry and lack the basic necessities of life?

How can a true follower of Christ exploit people who are working for them, by using their labor to enrich themselves?

How can a true follower of Christ live in a society where we have the largest disparity of income between the wealthiest and the poorest, and not want to change that?

I don't think wealth is a problem. I do think, however, that it should be a people who get wealthy as a whole, not one individual over another.

Think about the society that was set up by the early Christians in Acts. They held all property communally. Those who failed to sell all their goods and kept some back were struck dead! Is this not an important lesson?

What kind of society did the early saints in our dispensation try to set up. It was a society where there were no rich and poor, where everyone gave as they could, and received as they needed. This was not capitalism.

What kind of society was the city of Enoch.


QUOTE
18 And the Lord called his people ZION, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.

Moses 7:18

What kind of society will we live under in the Millenium.

The perfect societies that we have examples of throughout history all have one characteristic. That is that they were righteous, and they lived communally, and there were no poor amongst them. Pure capitalism always will have those who are richer and those who are poorer. The closer you get to pure capitalism, the greater the disparity between the rich and poor.

So while capitalism isn't itself an evil, it is not leading us to the perfect society we have examples of in the scriptures.


- posted by Jolard @ 3:13 PM

 
I am Curious, why the strong support?

The LDS church has come out in favor of bans against gay marriage, has asked the members to support policies in their areas that deny marriage to same sex couples. However this just seems strange to me.

I know that homosexual behavior is wrong, and I don't believe that the Church should stop saying that, however it does seem that the church is working at counter purposes when it is asking for Government intervention into who can marry who. With our history of fighting the federal government for them to stay out of our right to have polygamist marriages, why would we now want the government to get involved in stopping someone else's marriage choices?

Now I realize there is one important distinction. That is that we mostly just wanted to stop getting prosecuted under bigamy and morality laws. There is an element of this in the current gay marriage issue, especially when you consider the recent fight over anti sodomy laws in Texas. However gay marriage advocates want their marriages to also be recognized under the law to allow them the same rights as heterosexual couples.

The argument will be that because we were only trying to avoid prosecution, and they are trying to gain rights under the law, that it is a different situation. However I do not think that this distinction is as great as many suspect. I believe that if we still had polygamy today, we would be demanding the same rights as other married couples, to have our children legally recognized, to be able to visit spouses in the hospital, to be able to have power of attorney over each other, to be able to make decisions on behalf of each other, to be able to claim all my wives as beneficiaries of my health insurance, etc. These rights would be fought for and expected.

Here is the crux of the argument. To most of the country, we would be seen as immoral individuals who are destroying the sanctity of marriage! We would have fought for those rights, and fought strongly to keep the federal government out of deciding what is moral and what is not. We would have fought to keep the state out of our bedroom so to speak. I also believe that we would have likely been allies (admittedly unlikely allies) with those now calling for gay marriage.

The arguments are the same. They basically come down to the following:

- The state does not have the right to intervene in the relationships of consenting adults.

- The state should allow individuals to make commitments to each other and then the state should not discriminate based on the makeup of the individuals involved.

- While the majority in the country feel that the practice of (polygamy/homosexuality) is immoral and destructive, we do not believe that is true, and we should not have to live under the tyranny of the majority.

Do you see what I am saying? I am not saying that we should allow homosexual marriage. What I am saying is that it surprises me that so many members have taken the stance that they have.
- posted by Jolard @ 2:34 PM

 
Definitions

In order to facilitate this dialog, it is important to understand what I mean when I say Conservative, or Progressive, or Liberal or Right or Left or Republican or Democrat. I see these two groups as follows:

Liberal/Progressive/Democrat/Left.

This is a philosophy that encompases a range of views, from socialism to the ideals preached by those who call themselves New Democrats. In a nutshell however, this philosophy emphasises certain things:

- Government can be a force for good in the world. Government can be used in different ways (regulations, spending, taxation priorities, public works) to imprive the lives of the citizens.

- Social Services - It is important to have strong social services that provide for the unfortunate and the needy in society. These should be provided by the state, and be funded by taxpayers.

- Public Education - It is important to have strong public education, funded by taxpayers

- Redistribution of wealth - While it is a radical idea, many liberals support taxing the wealthy at a higher rate, and using the funds to assist those at the bottom of society.

- Strong international law and institutions. I believe this is a liberal idea, that we should resolve our disputed through international laws and institutions wherever possible, only using war as a last resort.

- Controls and regulations on corporations, to ensure they are acting responsibly, not polluting the environment, not endangering their employees, and ensuring good citizenship, to counter the profit motive.

- Tolerance. The importance of ensuring equal rights for all Americans, no matter race, creed, color, orientation, beliefs etc. Racism, sexism, and institutionalized bigotry are wrong.


Conservative/Republican/Right

Conservatives are a little more difficult to categorize in one group, since there are really two distinct belief sets which sometimes contradict in their ideals. At the extreme, these are represented by the Libertarians and the Religious Right. I will try and include both ideas in my definitions, and show where they contradict.

- Government. Most conservatives believe that Government should stay out of most aspects of life, and that bloated overlarge government is a hindrance to society, not a help. This is different in a sense for some in the Religious Right, who believe that government should be more intrusive in certain areas, mostly regarding morality.

- Social Services. These should not be provided by the government, but should instead be taken care of through private philanthropy and Church groups.

- Public Education. Generally would rather minimize necessary contributions to public education, it is more important to allow private and religious schools to function without guidelines or restrictions from the federal government.

- Redistribution of wealth is an evil, and no person should have their money taken from them to give to another person. Usually believe in the strength of the capitalist ideal, and the survival of the fittest. More interested in personal responsibility for poverty.

- Has little respect for international law and institutions, believing that they put undue hardship on the United States, and effect our sovreignity. This lack of faith in international law and institutions leads to a view of the world where the only thing that is respected is might and force, and that the United States should use the military as a political instrument.

- Believes that there are too many restrictions and controls on businesses and corporations, and that these cause more problems than they solve. Believes that capitalism and the profit motive will lead to good if it is unrestricted.

- Tolerance. Generally conservatives are less interested in tolerance. They have fought against desegregation, women's rights, worker's rights etc. They now are fighting against the rights of homosexuals. They live in a very black and white world, where everything is evil or good, with little grey areas.




These definitions are not perfect, and there is a lot of variation on both sides, however I think they will be important when we review the scriptures, and apply them to those definitions.




- posted by Jolard @ 2:37 PM

 
The Old Testiment

I wanted to spend a lot of my time on this blog looking to the scriptures and using them to support my idea that they lead us to more Liberal than Conservative positions. To that end, I thought I would begin in the Bible, however I will be skipping the Old Testiment and going straight to the new.

Why you ask?

Well I see the old testiment as a difficult egg to crack. In fact, there may be some who will accuse me of taking the easy road. This is because the Old Testiment is often quoted by those seeking support for Republican/Conservative/Right views. Many of the polarizing issues of our day are supported by quotes from the O.T. However I think we need to read the O.T. in a different light from the new for a few reasons. First, I don't think anyone is saying we should live every law found in the O.T. Obviously we do not condone stoning people who commit adultery, or even stoning people who disobey their parents. These are extreme examples, but the O.T. is full of laws like this, that we no longer believe are enforced. When Christ came to Earth, he supplanted the old law, and replaced it with a new. This is not something that members are unaware of, however they sometimes forget that when they quote old testiment scripture to support their views. We either have to pick and choose which O.T. admonitions we will follow (a very dangerous practice) or assume that all the O.T. laws and admonitons are there for enlightening us and instructing us, but not for us to rigidly live by.

That is why I will not spend a lot of time in the O.T. I may go there to rebut other's use of O.T. scripture to support conservative views, but I won't worry about it much myself. To me the parts of our scriptures that we are required to follow are the New Testiment, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. The Old Testiment is useful, but not binding.


- posted by Jolard @ 2:01 PM

 
The 2 big "exceptions"

I wanted to get these right out of the way. These are of course the Abortion issue, and the Gay rights issue.

When I speak to many LDS about Liberal ideals and the Democratic party, these are the issues they bring up the most. To them it would be impossible to vote for a party or an individual who supported these two things. They become wedge issues, or "make or break" issues. I have spoken to LDS conservatives who will agree with nearly every liberal position. In fact they would likely vote Democrat, if it wasn't for these two issues.

This is a real shame, as they are only two small pieces in the spectrum of ideas. Yes many Deomocrats support these issues, but many do not. For me, it is all the other ideas that matter more. I (for example) could never vote for a politician who would reduce funding for public education. I could never vote for someone who would reduce access to health care. I could never vote for someone who advocated policies that increased poverty in America. I could never vote for someone who believes that violence is the solution to international issues. These are make or break issues for me, just like abortion and gay rights are for many others.

However to me there is a HUGE difference. Let's take abortion for example. Abortion happened when it was illegal. It happens when it is legal. The difference is that it is regulated and safe, not done in back alleys with dirty tools. Outlawing abortion would only drive people back to that situation. Now I am not condoning abortion. I believe that as LDS members we should continue to preach that abortion is wrong, and we should continue to call people to repentance. However a law banning abortion only drives it underground.

The gay rights debate is similar. Banning homosexual marriages is not going to stop people being homosexual. It is not going to change their orientation. They are still going to be gay. However gay marriage also brings stability, and reduces dangerous behavior. A gay couple in a monogomous long term relationship is at least not sleeping around with multiple partners over a long period. Also, the right for gay couples to have some legal protections seems fair to me. Once again, I am not advocating homosexuality. We should continue to preach that homosexual sex is wrong. It is abhorent to the Lord. But marriage for homosexuals is not going to effect anyone but homosexuals, and we don't need to go beyond that.

Anyway, my bottom line point is that just because of these two issues, many members will never vote Democrat. I believe this is misguided. We should look for the party that holds most of its values in common with us, and then vote for them. In my case, the vast majority of my values are represented by the Democratic party, and two small issues will not turn me away. There are too many issues in the Republican party that are anti Christian in my mind.
- posted by Jolard @ 9:45 AM

 
The Beginning

Welcome to my blog!

I am a Liberal, and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. To many this is an incompatible position. To many members, to be LDS means you also must be conservative, and you must support the Republican party in the United States.

I don't believe this is true. In fact, I believe that the LDS church's principles are more closely alligned with those that most would see as progressive, or liberal. With a few exeptions, these Liberal ideals lead me to believe that in order to be a good Mormon, I also should be a good progressive liberal.

This blog will be an exploration of this issue. It will be a way for me to learn about my beliefs, and hopefully to help others understand the issue. I look forward to the journey.
- posted by Jolard @ 4:34 PM