Rize

The US provides Israel with approximately 3 billion dollars annually. LINK Israel is not a democracy, if anything it is an ethnocracy where Jews were preferred over members of the country's ethnic and religious minorities. A substantive democracy must be a country for all its citizens and must ensure full equality for all of them. However, Israel's definition as a Jewish, democratic state implies that Israeli democracy applies only to the country's Jewish citizens. Saying the US supports democracies in the Middle East is a pretty ignorant statement. Why do we support Saudi Arabia, but overthrew Mosadeq in Iran?

"A Latter-Day Perspective on Muhammad" Ensign, August, 2000 LDS.org - Ensign Article - A Latter-day Saint Perspective on Muhammad "As early as 1855, at a time when Christian literature generally ridiculed Muhammad as the Antichrist and the archenemy of Western civilization, Elders George A. Smith (1817–75) and Parley P. Pratt (1807–57) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles delivered lengthy sermons demonstrating an accurate and balanced understanding of Islamic history and speaking highly of Muhammad's leadership. Elder Smith observed that Muhammad was "descended from Abraham and was no doubt raised up by God on purpose" to preach against idolatry. He sympathized with the plight of Muslims, who, like Latter-day Saints, found it difficult "to get an honest history" written about them. Speaking next, Elder Pratt went on to express his admiration for Muhammad's teachings, asserting that "upon the whole, … [Muslims] have better morals and better institutions than many Christian nations." 9 Latter-day Saint appreciation of Muhammad's role in history can also be found in the 1978 First Presidency statement regarding God's love for all mankind. This declaration specifically mentions Muhammad as one of "the great religious leaders of the world" who received "a portion of God's light" and affirms that "moral truths were given to [these leaders] by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals." 10" "Ishmael, Our Brother" Ensign, June, 1979 LDS.org - Ensign Article - Ishmael, Our Brother "The Lord describes Ishmael's descendents, the Arabs, in these terms: "And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation" (Gen. 16:12; Gen. 17:20). "

I work downtown and live in Virginia. The Arlington area is nice and you can find some reasonably priced apartments. I'm in Crystal City, right above a metro stop.. most 1-2 bedrooms in my area go for about 1300-2000 a month. Check craigslist you might find something there: craigslist: washington, DC classifieds for jobs, apartments, personals, for sale, services, community, and events

I didnt overlook your post. I responded:While he openly critiques communism and in particular communist Russia he never says one thing about socialism. In this thread I have openly criticized Communist Russia. Communism and Socialism are two separate things. Socialist democracies exist all over the world. And socialist reforms do not necessarily include relinquishing property rights or complete redistribution of wealth. Everything can be twisted to be negative when you only address extremes. I am not looking to derail the subject, but when quotes were brought up from Ezra Taft Benson I put them into the proper context. He was a political figure, a very far right political figure. When he became President of the Church he never again made political statements such as those quoted by others here. The Quorum repeatedly voiced concerns about his use of church publications and venues as a place to disseminate his political ideologies which did include very harsh critiques of the Civil Rights Act and movement along with MLK Jr. I have repeatedly cited over and over again scriptures and references from prophets and church leaders calling for wealth redistribution, and the condemnation of the accumulation of vast majorities of wealth in the hands of a few. Again to cite a few: "You would have classes established here, some very poor and some very rich. Now, the Lord is not going to have anything of that kind. There has to be an equality; and we have to observe these principles that are designed to give every one the privilege of gathering around him the comforts and conveniences of life.” Lorenzo Snow (Journal of Discourses 19:349) "It is not given that one man should possess that which is above another" (Doctrine and Covenants 49:20). "Appoint unto this people their portions, every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs" (Doctrine and Covenants 51:3). And behold, thou wilt remember the poor, and consecrate of thy properties for their support that which thou hast to impart unto them, with a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken. (D&C 42:30) Therefore, if any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart not his portion, according to the law of my gospel, unto the poor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment. (D&C 104:18) Wo unto you rich men, that will not give your substance to the poor, for your riches will canker your souls; and this shall be your lamentation in the day of visitation, and of judgment, and of indignation: The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and my soul is not saved! (D&C 56:16)

I was pointing out that at the beginning of the Russian Revolution many people widely supported it. Even high officials in the LDS church, so claiming the Civil Rights Movement was funded and connected to Communist Russia because one member provided some funds to the Russian Revolution of 1917 is absurd. Also, while he openly critiques communism and in particular communist Russia he never says one thing about socialism. In this thread I have openly criticized Communist Russia. Communism and Socialism are two separate things. Socialist democracies exist all over the world. And socialist reforms do not necessarily include relinquishing property rights or complete redistribution of wealth. Everything can be twisted to be negative when you only address extremes.

So this thread has evolved into attacking the Civil Rights Movement as a Russian funded subversion in the United States? Wow. At least you guys are showing your true colors. Whats really funny is your connection is that one member of the NAACP at one point helped finance the Russian Revolution of 1917. Here is a quote for you: "It looks as if Russia will have a government 'by the people, of the people, and for the people.'" -David O. McKay, (Report of the Semi-Annual Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, April 7, 1917) You mean David O. McKay also supported the Bolsheviks? I am not twisting the text of the constitution, it clearly provides congress with the right to tax to provide for the general welfare. It also did not in any way address capitalism or wealth disparities as they exist today. You ask if I believe that Christ claimed authorship of the constitution. Many of the founding fathers adamantly denied any spiritual influence in the writing of the constitution. While many would argue with their beliefs, it is fair to say that there are plenty of quotes in the Bible, BoM, Doctrine and Covenants to clarify that Christ in fact repeatedly called for wealth redistribution.

I know, I cited multiple cases where prior to Romney's dropping out he was openly endorsed in threads and posts, and other candidates were criticized. The thread I created that was closed was merely asking questions and broke no forum rules whatsoever, so why was it closed? But this one is not?Then I received multiple threats from Mods and Admins about "outbursts." I only wanted an explanation and the ability to voice my concerns. Is calmly asking a rational question considered an outburst?

I agree, but at the same time when I tried to point out that there was a bias in the censorship of political discourse on the site, my thread was closed. How is this thread different than my thread, which you said should be closed? I'm not looking to create contention, I just think its in everyones interest to have a fair board with open discussion.

If you are implying that Russian Communists funded the Civil Rights Movement, Id like to see any kind of evidence to prove that. On Benson, he was making those remarks in his political position not church, and stopped making them when he became President of the Church. There was much controversy at the time in the Quorum about his political statements. They do not in any way represent Church doctrine. If the Church included Benson's political ideology as official Church doctrine it would be openly opposed to the Civil Rights Act, therefore supporting racial segregation and discrimination. Are you saying the LDS church supports segregation and discrimination? I believe that most Church leaders would say no.

Isn't the point of this site to answer questions about Church doctrine, and share experiences and testimony? If people don't fully discuss and examine Church doctrine how can they ever really gain a testimony? Cutting down on questions and threads exploring Church doctrine would turn the site into a pure fluff site where people wouldn't feel comfortable asking questions. It's one thing if the question is deliberately derogatory and was framed for example like:"Oranges are stupid and you are all idiots and vegetable lovers if you like to eat oranges for breakfast, its a satanic ploy to make you think you need vitamin C and you will burn for your belief in fruit." There is no questioning there it is only attacking. If for example someone heard that oranges actually made you sick in the morning, talked to a doctor who agreed and wanted to know from other orange lovers what their experience was... then they should be able to. That could include serious discussion and critiques on both side done in a fair, open manner. Without threats or attacks from either side. The more tough questions asked, the more you will learn as you are forced to research and look into the issue. It works for both sides. I hope no fruit or vegetable eaters were offended in the making of this post.

As I said before: The constitution was established to: "Promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of Liberty" Promoting the general welfare and establishing liberty run contrary to capitalism, as capitalism exploits the poor and as the rich consolidate power the poor cannot experience true liberty. Capitalism has established a plutocracy in our nation. According to the constitution: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." So it is constitutional for the government to collect taxes to provide for the general Welfare of the United States. Quotes from Ezra Taft Benson are disingenuous as he was political figure in that era working under Eisenhower, and was widely recognized as being a very far right-wing politician who even opposed providing price support and aid to farmers. President Hugh B. Brown, a member of The First Presidency under President David O McKay, was particular upset with Elder Benson's conspiracy theories and his sometimes use of Mormon publishers and pulpits to promote them.In 1963 The First Presidency decided to send Elder Benson on a mission to become the new Mission President of the European Mission. This was the first time an Apostle had been put in charge of a mission of the Church since the beginning of the 20th century. W. Averill Harriman, then the U.S. Under-secretary of State for European Affairs, wrote to Hugh B. Brown; asking him how long Elder Benson was intending to stay in Europe (Elder Benson was the Secretary of Agriculture under U.S. President Eisenhower and the State Dept. was worried he would stir-up the Communists with his Birchism. Joseph Fielding Smith identified Benson's European mission as intentional exile. The Quorum of Twelve's president wrote to Congressman Ralph R. Harding (Idaho) on 30 October: "I think it is time that Brother Benson forgot all about politics and settled down to his duties as a member of the Council of the Twelve." JFS also said, "He (Benson) is going to take a mission to Europe in the near future and by the time he returns I hope he will get all of the political notions out of his system." (Smith to Harding, 30 Oct. 1963, photocopy in folder 2, box 4, King Papers, and in folder 22, box 5, Buerger Papers.) Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: "I am glad to report to you that it will be some time before we hear anything from Brother Benson, who is now on his way to Great Britain where I suppose he will be, at least for the next two years. When he returns I hope his blood will be purified." (Wilkinson diary, 14 Dec. 1963; Joseph Fielding Smith to Congressman Ralph Harding, 23 Dec 1963) To demonstrate how far right Benson was he called Martin Luther King Jr. a communist and said the entire Civil Rights Movement was a communist conspiracy. (Deseret News, Dec. 14, 1963) He wrote a book titled An Enemy Hath Done This where he continued the theme that the Civil-Rights Movement was Communist inspired and directed. He did say some harsh things about Dr. King in that book; which was not published by the Church but by a small private Mormon publisher. At the 1965 General Conference in Salt Lake City, he told the Members: "What are we doing to fight it [communism]? Before I left for Europe I warned how the Communists were using the civil-rights movement to promote revolution and eventual take-over of this country." (Salt Lake Tribune, April 7, 1965, p.A-5) In 1985 Elder Benson, then the senior Apostle, became President Ezra Taft Benson; the 13th President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. His time as President of the Church was marked by an emphasis on reading and studying The Book of Mormon, but in no sermon did he mention politics, the Civil-Rights Movement, nor Communism.

Secular Humanist

Yes, dictatorial government who were installed by U.S. sponsored coups of democratically elected governments to set up free-market capitalism to provide the rich and powerful a means to exploit the poor working class and the resources. See: Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Argentina, Venezuela, Cuba, Panama, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Brazil...

That is what you said in response to my blog. In response I explained to you that tithing is used to build temples and churches not to provide food, clothing or shelter to the poor. If you read my response afterwards I explained that I did not only cite tithing, I actually never cited tithing, I quoted various church authorities and scriptures as to why we are required to fully redistribute our wealth to the poor.

I can only name tithing? I wrote extensively on the United Order, and the Law of Consecration, also have repeatedly cited quotes from Church doctrine, scriptures, and prophets about the need to redistribute wealth to the poor.I am not personally trying to herd anyone. I am only citing scriptural references that condemn you for not being more giving. Take heed of what the scriptures say, if you continually support systems of exploitation and wealth accumulation without true redistribution you are failing to live up to requirements of the gospel as have been clearly stated. I agree the law of consecration isn't all about money, everyone should work for the common good. Supporting a system of dominance that is undemocratic such as capitalism is the complete opposite of the basic pretense of the law of consecration and the teachings of the prophet.

I'm not, I have never once cited the "Communist play book" I have only cited scriptural references and direct quotes from LDS Prophets and General Authorities. According to Prophet John Taylor, The law called for the redistribution of wealth to create an egalitarian society. If you do not redistribute your wealth to the poor you are damned. Supporting a system that endorses the exploitation of the poor, and the aggregation of vast sums of wealth is contrary to the basic pretense of the bible and teachings of our prophets and leaders. You cite the constitution, but the constitution was established to: "Promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of Liberty" Promoting the general welfare and establishing liberty run contrary to capitalism, as capitalism exploits the poor and as the rich consolidate power the poor cannot experience true liberty. Capitalism has established a plutocracy in our nation. According to the constitution: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." So it is constitutional for the government to collect taxes to provide for the general Welfare of the United States.

You know nothing about me to make that statement. I know first hand the exploitation of the poor throughout Latin America by the capitalist system. Today, many Latin American countries are providing excellent examples of socialist reform. I previously cited the case of Chile: Another excellent case is Bolivia. Under World Bank requirements the country was forced to privatize its water supply. Bechtel and Aguas de Tunari raised water rates an average of 35% to about $20 a month. While this seemed minuscule in the developed nations that the Aguas de Tunari staff had come from, many of their new clients only earned about $100 a month and $20 was more than they spent on food. So under capitalism the poor agrarian society could not afford water. Following popular protests, Evo Morales was elected, under the socialist party and remains widely popular for his extensive socialist reforms to benefit the population. As soon as he took power he cut his own salary and other government officials salary by 50% and increased minimum wage by 50% He also has provided legal documents for all citizens, before the indigenous population largely was not given legal status and therefore not allowed to vote.

Citing things like Communist Russia, Cuba, or the National Socialist Party of Germany is blatantly disingenuous. It is the same argument people use to say all Mormons are Polygamists who marry their underage cousins because thats what the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does... and hey, they both say Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.Again, all I am saying is the teachings of Christ, and the actual doctrine of the Church call for redistribution of wealth and economic equality. You are absolutely right when you say depriving someone of his economic liberty is morally flawed. Capitalism allows a small minority of rich white males to dictate the living conditions and economic freedom of the majority of the world, and without socialist reforms such as the establishment of basic working standards and a liveable wage, this small minority is an undemocratic tyranny depriving true freedom. Unfortunately, the record of the former USSR, China, and other so-called socialist countries has created the impression that socialism is a top-down society run by party bosses. This has nothing to do with genuine socialism--or, for that matter, with the whole experience of working-class struggle. Socialism will be democratic in a more fundamental way. As Latin America for instance has suffered greatly under free market capitalism it is now making many socialist reforms and democratically electing socialist parties into power to address the vast disparity between rich and poor and to eliminate the exploitation that has been going on due to free-market reforms pushed on their countries by U.S. interventionalism and neo-liberal policies enforced by the WTO, World Bank and other "free-market" trade agreements.

I actually am not endorsing Communism, to quote Elder Marion G. Romney: I am endorsing a social democracy based on egalitarianism, workers rights, and the elimination of all poverty. Not violent revolution or dictatorship. What I am saying is that under the pretense of scriptures, Church teachings, and under the guidance of our spiritual leaders it is immoral to aggregate wealth and not redistribute it too the poor.

The term free agency is commonly mis-used by LDS members, and has traditionally been interpreted as meaning that individuals have the ability to choose their actions freely. Many leaders of the LDS Church have pointed out that the term "free agency" should not be interpreted to mean that agency does not have consequences, but rather that agency is fraught with consequences and the result of the exercise of agency determine eternal destination. Many church manuals avoid the term "free agency" and instead say simply "agency."

Haha.. says the John Birch Society. You fail to recognize that the LDS Church then would also qualify under your definition as a thief. If you read the new testament or any LDS church doctrine you would find that it calls for you to take all of your wealth are give it to the poor, it says all must be equally provided for, it also says if you don't then you will suffer eternal damnation. There are plenty of scriptures already posted in the thread detailing this. So under your definition then God is a thief and immoral for condemning those who aggregate wealth and do not divide it among the poor. Whats funny is you say: "You have no inherent right to the labor of another." Yet what is capitalism? Those who labor, the wage slaves, do so not for their benefit, the rich upper class are stealing from the labor of the working class. Under socialism the workers control the means of production and directly benefit from the labor instead of having it stolen away by the ultra-rich and powerful who exploit them and steal from their work. By your definition we should all disavow capitalism as it robs from the poor, exploits the working class and allows the rich to rob us of the fruits of our labor.

If you want to be a member you have to be a tithe payer, what if you dont wan't to be a tithe payer? You are being forced to live in a way that enslaves you to damnation, according to Prophets you will "not be not be known in the records of the Church, but shall be blotted out, neither shall his children have inheritance in Zion." The only difference is that under a socialist government they are only threatening you with fines, under the church you are threatened with your eternal salvation.

That train of thought fails to recognize a few things.As a Member you really don't "Choose" to pay tithing. It is the law of tithing that you must follow as a member. Otherwise you can't join the church or enter the temple. According to Talmage in Articles of Faith: Because of the early saints greed, selfishness and weakeness the current law only calls for 10% but the true law is that you dedicate all of your property, talents and time. After reading D. & C. 85, LDS Prophet John Taylor said on September 21, 1878, “Referring to the United Order, the Lord has given us to understand that whosoever refuses to comply with the requirements of that law, his name shall not be known in the records of the Church, but shall be blotted out, neither shall his children have inheritance in Zion…It is the word of God to me; it is the word of God to you” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 21, p. 58). So if you fail to give all your time, wealth, and property you would be struck from the records of the church and your children would not have inheritance in Zion. Doesn't sound too voluntary to me.

Under the communist systems in say Russia or China, but the theory of socialism is in fact contrary to the way it has been practiced, and the idea of absolute control of the state or top echelon over the population is contradictory to true socialism. Under socialism, the majority of people would plan democratically what to do and how do it as the means of production--the factories, offices, mines, and so on--would be owned by all of society. Under capitalism though, the offices, mines and factories are owned by the top echelon of the rich, who are not democratically elected.

The distinction between Socialism, as represented by the various Socialist and Labour Parties of Europe and the new world, and Communism, as represented by the Russians, is one of tactics and strategy rather than of objective. Communism is indeed only Socialism pursued by revolutionary means and making its revolutionary method a canon of faith. Communists, like other Socialists, (1) believe in the collective control and ownership of the vital means of production, and (2) seek to achieve, through state action the co-ordinated control of the economic forces of society. They differ from other Socialists in believing that this control can be secured, and its use in the interests of the workers ensured, only by revolutionary action leading to the dictatorship of the proletariat and the creation of a new proletarian state as the instrument of change.