Date: December 09, 2018 10:45PM
> Think back in time, back to
> 1800. America was designed by wealthy farmers back
> in Philadelphia, they were all conservatives and
> they designed a conservative nation with the idea
> of letting it's citizens have the most freedom
> imaginable with the lowest government control,
> lowest taxes, no aristocracy, deep faith in god,
> relying on mans own boots straps and potential.
You'll actually have to go back before 1800, by which time the constitution had been up and running for quite a while. The founders of the constitution were not conservatives but, in fact, revolutionary liberals. Hence the term "American Revolution." Europe viewed the American experiment as extremely dangerous because of the threat that it posed to established institutions. The Americans were ripping up the old political order, not conserving it.
"Letting. . . citizens have the most freedom imaginable with the lowest government control" is, in fact, a liberal proposition. Hence the word "liberty."
As for "lower taxes," I think you need to reread your constitution. If you do, you may notice that there is no discussion of the appropriate level of taxes. And if you were to look carefully at the personal lives and beliefs of the Founders, you would discover that many of them did not have "faith in God."
> Remember that Brigham Young's father was under
> General Washington in the great war, and the
> Youngs took as a model Washington as a great
Evidence? Do you seriously think BY modeled himself after a restrained leader who voluntarily relinquished power?
> They adopted the Virginia idea of how to
> rule underlings and blacks. That the upper class
> has the obligation to "conserve" the estate for
> future generations. That underlings were the
> burden that the gentry have to carry by virtue of
> being born into a more privileged situation. They
> held the same idea of the Indians, They are the
> white mans burden.
With "the white man's burden," you are off by over a century and in the wrong country (look it up), but let's put that aside for the time being. I am intrigued by your notion that noblesse oblige entailed a moral imperative to take care of the Native Americans. Didn't you write a week or two ago of one of your ancestors, saying that the massacre of "Indians" was justified because it facilitated the spread of Western civilization? So your notion of "taking care" of people is slaughtering them?
> Progressivism is something else, something new.
> Joe tried it and was a dismal failure with sharing
> stuff (consecration) so by the time of Heber J
> Grant, they scrapt the plan of sharing and stuck
> with what works, "conservatism."
If you read Mormon doctrine carefully, you may discover that the United Order was not an experiment by JS but the word of God. And if you search your memory, you may recall that the Law of Consecration is still in the temple ceremony. During major political campaigns, like Prop 8, church leaders today call wealthy Mormons and ordered them to donate. So no, the church has not given up consecration and it does not believe that individuals have sole control over their resources.