Comments on: A Constitutional Theocracy http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/05/12/a-constitutional-theocracy/ Stuff they don't talk about in Sunday School Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:23:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3 By: Mixing Religion and Government | Wheat and Tares http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/05/12/a-constitutional-theocracy/comment-page-1/#comment-13326 Mixing Religion and Government | Wheat and Tares Mon, 02 Jan 2012 08:09:52 +0000 http://www.mormonheretic.org/?p=525#comment-13326 [...] it is unjust to mix religion and civil government.”  As I mentioned in a previous post, even Richard Bushman has called Brigham Young’s government in Utah a theocracy, so I was curious to read the Tribune [...] [...] it is unjust to mix religion and civil government.”  As I mentioned in a previous post, even Richard Bushman has called Brigham Young’s government in Utah a theocracy, so I was curious to read the Tribune [...]

]]> By: Mormon Heretic » Mixing Religion and Government http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/05/12/a-constitutional-theocracy/comment-page-1/#comment-13323 Mormon Heretic » Mixing Religion and Government Sun, 01 Jan 2012 23:27:06 +0000 http://www.mormonheretic.org/?p=525#comment-13323 [...] it is unjust to mix religion and civil government.”  As I mentioned in a previous post, even Richard Bushman has called Brigham Young’s government in Utah a theocracy, so I was curious to read the Tribune [...] [...] it is unjust to mix religion and civil government.”  As I mentioned in a previous post, even Richard Bushman has called Brigham Young’s government in Utah a theocracy, so I was curious to read the Tribune [...]

]]> By: Mormon Heretic http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/05/12/a-constitutional-theocracy/comment-page-1/#comment-2151 Mormon Heretic Thu, 14 May 2009 19:32:45 +0000 http://www.mormonheretic.org/?p=525#comment-2151 Yes, it is interesting to see Thurmond's duplicitous behavior. Yes, it is interesting to see Thurmond’s duplicitous behavior.

]]> By: TheFaithfulDissident http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/05/12/a-constitutional-theocracy/comment-page-1/#comment-2148 TheFaithfulDissident Thu, 14 May 2009 14:41:07 +0000 http://www.mormonheretic.org/?p=525#comment-2148 Wasn't it revealed a few years ago that Strom Thurmond fathered a child with a black woman? "Segregation forever," indeed. :) Wasn’t it revealed a few years ago that Strom Thurmond fathered a child with a black woman? “Segregation forever,” indeed. :)

]]> By: Mormon Heretic http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/05/12/a-constitutional-theocracy/comment-page-1/#comment-2146 Mormon Heretic Thu, 14 May 2009 14:06:12 +0000 http://www.mormonheretic.org/?p=525#comment-2146 That's why labels are so bad. The current parties act as if you don't follow the main core of party beliefs, then you are not one of them. John McCain, Arlen Spector, Colin Powell, and Joe Lieberman have beliefs common to both parties, are left on some issues, and right on others. Of course, BY and JS should be able to do the same thing, but the inflexible among us don't want to allow this kind of latitude. As for BY being racist, surely there are racist socialists, I would think. I read a few things from Quinn's sequel, 'Extensions of Power', and learned that there was a movement around 1968 to draft Ezra Taft Benson as US president, and have Strom Thurmond of SC as his VP. Benson called the Civil Rights movement 'a communist conspiracy' on several occasions in General Conference. The Benson/Thurmond ticket is an interesting combination. Benson was a republican, and Strom Thurmond started as a democrat, ran for US President as a Dixiecrat in 1948 (democrat FOR segregation), and then he switched parties and became a republican in 1964. Even more amazing to me is that Benson called the first black general authority, Helvicio Martins in 1990. I guess some people just refuse to be pigeon-holed. That’s why labels are so bad. The current parties act as if you don’t follow the main core of party beliefs, then you are not one of them. John McCain, Arlen Spector, Colin Powell, and Joe Lieberman have beliefs common to both parties, are left on some issues, and right on others. Of course, BY and JS should be able to do the same thing, but the inflexible among us don’t want to allow this kind of latitude.

As for BY being racist, surely there are racist socialists, I would think. I read a few things from Quinn’s sequel, ‘Extensions of Power’, and learned that there was a movement around 1968 to draft Ezra Taft Benson as US president, and have Strom Thurmond of SC as his VP. Benson called the Civil Rights movement ‘a communist conspiracy’ on several occasions in General Conference.

The Benson/Thurmond ticket is an interesting combination. Benson was a republican, and Strom Thurmond started as a democrat, ran for US President as a Dixiecrat in 1948 (democrat FOR segregation), and then he switched parties and became a republican in 1964. Even more amazing to me is that Benson called the first black general authority, Helvicio Martins in 1990.

I guess some people just refuse to be pigeon-holed.

]]> By: TheFaithfulDissident http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/05/12/a-constitutional-theocracy/comment-page-1/#comment-2145 TheFaithfulDissident Thu, 14 May 2009 08:58:59 +0000 http://www.mormonheretic.org/?p=525#comment-2145 BY is one of those interesting fellows because while he can sound like a socialist in one instance, he can sound like a Republican in another. He could come across as a redneck racist, and then as a loving do-gooder to all mankind. To be honest, I don't know what to make of the guy. :) BY is one of those interesting fellows because while he can sound like a socialist in one instance, he can sound like a Republican in another. He could come across as a redneck racist, and then as a loving do-gooder to all mankind. To be honest, I don’t know what to make of the guy. :)

]]> By: Mormon Heretic http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/05/12/a-constitutional-theocracy/comment-page-1/#comment-2142 Mormon Heretic Thu, 14 May 2009 03:49:37 +0000 http://www.mormonheretic.org/?p=525#comment-2142 FD, perhaps Joseph was the first Social Democrat in America! I think that the United Order has a similar goal as socialism--to help everyone be equal. Since the United Order experiment was such a failure, I don't think Joseph was inclined to try to put the nation there. Remember, he was for low taxes, and for cutting the salary of Congress. I think he was a realist to know that his United Order experiment wouldn't work on a large scale when he couldn't even get it to work on a small scale either. I just kind of scanned your link. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Brigham Young sound like a socialist? FD, perhaps Joseph was the first Social Democrat in America! I think that the United Order has a similar goal as socialism–to help everyone be equal. Since the United Order experiment was such a failure, I don’t think Joseph was inclined to try to put the nation there. Remember, he was for low taxes, and for cutting the salary of Congress. I think he was a realist to know that his United Order experiment wouldn’t work on a large scale when he couldn’t even get it to work on a small scale either.

I just kind of scanned your link. Now correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Brigham Young sound like a socialist?

]]> By: TheFaithfulDissident http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/05/12/a-constitutional-theocracy/comment-page-1/#comment-2134 TheFaithfulDissident Wed, 13 May 2009 09:26:41 +0000 http://www.mormonheretic.org/?p=525#comment-2134 Now, if Joseph's "civic ideals" did not include the separation of church and state, I have to wonder what he had in mind for the economy. Was it the United Order? <i>"Smith wasn’t the only one who supported a theocracy. Brigham Young often derided capitalism, and promoted a theocracy as well. After all, many people have lamented the abuses in capitalism. Certainly, capitalists do not want equality of wealth, while a theocracy supports equality of all people."</i> That hot-button term "equality of wealth" is always interesting. It reminds me of <a href="http://www.mesj.org/library/proc-on-econ.html" rel="nofollow">The Proclamation On The Economy </a> from 1875. <i>"The church set up schools, it managed the courts, it regulated the irrigation system – no small thing – and it created a political party, the People’s Party, distinct from Republicans and Democrats."</i> "The People's Party." Almost sounds like a revolution, doesn't it? :) The Church managing the courts sounds pretty troublesome to me if all people are truly going to be equal and have freedom of religion. In a theocracy, religious -- not secular -- law would have to be upheld, right? Sort of like Sharia law in Iran. And we all know how that's working. Now, if Joseph’s “civic ideals” did not include the separation of church and state, I have to wonder what he had in mind for the economy. Was it the United Order?

“Smith wasn’t the only one who supported a theocracy. Brigham Young often derided capitalism, and promoted a theocracy as well. After all, many people have lamented the abuses in capitalism. Certainly, capitalists do not want equality of wealth, while a theocracy supports equality of all people.”

That hot-button term “equality of wealth” is always interesting. It reminds me of The Proclamation On The Economy from 1875.

“The church set up schools, it managed the courts, it regulated the irrigation system – no small thing – and it created a political party, the People’s Party, distinct from Republicans and Democrats.”

“The People’s Party.” Almost sounds like a revolution, doesn’t it? :)

The Church managing the courts sounds pretty troublesome to me if all people are truly going to be equal and have freedom of religion. In a theocracy, religious — not secular — law would have to be upheld, right? Sort of like Sharia law in Iran. And we all know how that’s working.

]]>