Rize

Thats actually not an accurate comparison at all. Joseph Smith became a Mason on March 15, 1842 and rose to the sublime degree the following day. This initiation took place in his upper business office or Masonic lodge room (History of the Church, vol. 4, p. 550-551). Only a few weeks after Joseph's initiation into Masonry, he taught the other LDS Church leaders in the same Masonic lodge room. Joseph's interest in Masonry spread and many Mormon elders joined, and within six months the lodge had 286 candidates. He gave instructions on the Masonic rituals and temple ceremonies. (Ibid. vol. 5, p. 2) There is no doubt that Joseph's primary interest in Masonry was because of its ritual. Like Solomon, he became a temple builder. Joseph Smith's own temple records indicate his temple endowment took place on May 4, 1842, just seven weeks after his Masonic initiation. In Smith's own words he said: "In the evening I received the first degree in Freemasonry in the Nauvoo Lodge." The next day he stated: "I was with the Masonic Lodge and rose to the sublime degree." This qualified Joseph to be a Master Mason. (Ibid. 1842 vol. 4, p. 552) Shortly after their temple endowment ceremonies, Joseph Smith Jr. and other Mormons were expelled from the Masonic order for violating their oaths. It was May 4, 1842 that Joseph Smith introduced the Masonic Ceremony as the Mormon Temple Ceremony and declared that it was "received as a revelation from God." (History of the Church, vol. 5, pp. 1-2). Any research shows that there are very significant similarities between temple ceremonies and Masonic rituals, also the fact that temple ceremonies were introduced only weeks after Joseph Smith became a Mason is significant. Its disengagement to compare that to the boy scouts. According to Joseph Smith early Masonic traditions had been corrupted and needed to be restored through divine inspiration. Joseph Smith said the Masons had corrupted the ceremony originated by God in Solomon's time by removing and changing many parts.

What good is a vote without a candidate? Show me a recent President who wasn't a millionaire?

I provided you with examples of socialist reforms such as fire departments, highway infrastructure. But its not limited to that, what about public education? Should the government not provide a basic education for everyone? Should we switch to a true capitalist system where all education is private, and if the poor cant afford it then children cant attend elementary schools?

As a Christian and a Mormon that repeatedly condems gross aggregation of wealth in the hands of a few while poverty exists, you should be morally inclined to support a system that that imparts your wealth with others. Really? What do you call foreign aid? The United Order established egalitarian communities designed to achieve income equality, eliminate poverty, increase group self-sufficiency, and to ultimately create an ideal utopian society Mormons referred to as Zion. The movement had much in common with other utopian societies formed in the United States and Europe during the Second Great Awakening which sought to govern aspects of people's lives through precepts of faith and community organization. That is the basic definition of socialism. Agreed. That is why you have a social democracy, look for instance at reforms being made in Latin America; Venezuela, Chile, Brazil, Nicaragua… all are electing, democratically, governments aimed at making socialist reforms. They are choosing to live in a society focused on bettering the common good and providing for all, instead of a system based on greed, exploitation and extreme wealth accumulation. And capitalism doesn’t fall victim to every popular panic and trend? Ever watch the stock market? Again, you are looking at extreme examples, yes I think I should have a say in basic work conditions, and workers rights. I think I should have a say in environmental standards and pollution. Really? Is that why they continually oppose the formation of labor unions, work standards, minimum wage increases, environmental standards?

The problem is you are talking in absolutes. Yes there are extremes on both sides that are morally reprehensible. You would agree that under a free market and neoliberalism that child labor and exploitation of children is wrong. It is occurring under capitalism and I think everyone can accept that as a basic moral truism it is wrong. I also agree, that the extreme versions of socialism where everything is dictated by the government is wrong. What I am saying is basic socialist reforms such as establishing a basic minimum living wage, allowing people to have a democratic voice in the means of production. You say socialism takes from the free will of people, but you don't recognize how capitalism is doing the same thing. A choice between starvation and slavery isn't a choice, and under capitalism millions of people are faced with that on a daily basis. Look at the sweatshops in developing countries. You enjoy many socialist reforms that you don't recognize as socialism. For instance, traditionally fire departments were private corporations and you were required to pay fire insurance so that if your house caught on fire someone would put it out. If your house was burning down and you didnt have insurance but your neighbor did, they would let yours burn to the ground. People recognized that, hey maybe it would be a good idea to pay taxes for a fire department that takes care of us all. Thats socialism. Look at our road system. Its amazing, it was established by citizens paying taxes and the government building it. Socialism. I'm not talking about centralized planning, I'm talking about real socialist reforms where the people have a continual voice in what is occurring around them, and in things that effect their daily lives. Under capitalism you only have that voice if you are wealthy and that is by definition undemocratic.

You continually reply under the false pretense that socialism can only occur under a tyrannical government. I am talking about social democracy. socialism is not a monopoly, nor does it deprive men of the right to choose to bless their fellow man. The saints did build up Utah and early settlements under basic socialist philosophy where everyone worked for the common good and not private interests. Under a socialist state things are not controlled by a small minority, as is the case in capitalism. As I said before 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. In order for planning to work, a socialist society must be democratic--much more so than the current system. Democracy and capitalism don’t really go hand in hand. In fact, repressive dictatorships run many so-called models of the free market in less developed countries. Even in countries that brag about how democratic they are, democracy is limited to electing representatives to government every two or four years.Do you think we really live in a democracy when elections are largely determined by who can get the most financial campaign support from major corporations and lobbyists. Under capitalism the rich are basically rigging our elections and the poor will never have a candidate who truly supports their cause. Is that the kind of system the founding fathers envisioned? When you read Jefferson as he saw state capitalism developing he despised it. He said it’s going to lead to a form of absolutism worse than the one we defended ourselves against. In fact, if you run through this whole period you see a very clear, sharp critique of what we would later call capitalism and certainly of the twentieth century version of it, which is designed to destroy individual, even entrepreneurial capitalism.

You rail against socialism but benefit in many ways from socialist reforms in the United States. For instance under true capitalism there would be no minimum wage, or workers rights or safety programs such as OSHA. We would go back to the days when children were working 16 hour days in the factories, because if thats what the free market wants who is the government to get involved and say its wrong. Citing things like Communist Russia, 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. Look for instance at economies that have operated under true laissez-faire economics. Chile for instance is a perfect example if you look at the US sponsored overthrow of democratically elected socialist president Salvador Allende and the installment of a military dictator Augusto Pinochet. If you want to see an example of true free market capitalism take a look at Chile under Pinochet. It was lauded as an "economic miracle" by Margaret Thatcher and the US for its change from socialism to a free market system under Pinochet. While Pinochet was in power from 1973 and 1990 , there were large cuts to incomes and social services. Wages decreased by 8%. Family allowances in 1989 were 28% of what they had been in 1970 and the budgets for education, health and housing had dropped by over 20% on average. 5% of the population received 25% of the total national income in 1972, it received 50% in 1975. Wage and salary earners got 64% of the national income in 1972 but only 38% at the beginning of 1977. Malnutrition affected half of the nation's children, and 60% of the population could not afford the minimum protein and food energy per day. Infant mortality also increased sharply. Cumulative cuts in health funding totaled 60% between 1973 and 1988. The cuts indirectly caused a significant rise in many preventable diseases and mental health problems. These included rises in typhoid (121%,) viral hepatitis, and an increase in the frequency and seriousness of mental ailments among the unemployed. Since the restoration of democracy Chile has favored the socialist party and both Ricardo Lagos and Michelle Bachelet (the past two presidents) are both members of the socialist party. Since the socialists took power the economy has improved as they increasing have abandoned the old free market policies of the dictatorship, which has been a slow transition but a transition supported by the people. That said Chile still has not experienced true socialist economics, but it has favored socialist economic reforms as do the majority of Latin American countries in response to US interventionism and neo-liberal free market exploitation that has plagued the continent. So what you are saying is that it is evil and wrong for the poor to say, "we are tired of being exploited, we are tired of living in abject poverty working multiple jobs with no healthcare or even food for our children," and democratically elect a reformist government focused on fair economic distribution and work standards? That is evil? Its not evil for the rich to exploit the poor and steal from them, but its wrong for the poor to demand economic equality? Socialism is based on the idea that we should use the vast resources of society to meet people’s needs. It seems so obvious--if people are hungry, they should be fed; if people are homeless, we should build homes for them; if people are sick, the best medical care should be available to them. A socialist society would take the immense wealth of the rich and use it to meet the basic needs of all society. The money wasted on weapons could be used to end poverty, homelessness, and all other forms of scarcity. 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. In order for planning to work, a socialist society must be democratic--much more so than the current system. Democracy and capitalism don’t really go hand in hand. In fact, repressive dictatorships run many so-called models of the free market in less developed countries. Even in countries that brag about how democratic they are, democracy is limited to electing representatives to government every two or four years. 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. All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45) 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) For it shall come to pass, that which I spake by the mouths of my prophets shall be fulfilled; for I will consecrate of the riches of those who embrace my gospel among the Gentiles unto the poor of my people who are of the house of Israel. (D&C 42:39) 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)

"But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin" D&C 49:20

It says and I directly quote: "One of the great evils with which our own nation is menaced at the present time is the wonderful growth of wealth in the hands of a comparatively few individuals.""They were encouraging the growth of evils in their own midst which they condemned as the worst features of the systems from which they had been gathered. Large profits were being consecrated in comparatively few hands, instead of being generally distributed among the people." I don't know how you can more clearly condemn wealth consolidation and call for redistribution of wealth. Seriously read the last sentence: "Large profits were being consecrated in comparatively few hands, instead of being generally distributed among people." Universal healthcare caused the collapse of the Soviet Union? Again, socialism is completely different than what was practiced under Communist Russia. I'm saying as a Christan and a humanitarian how could you ever deny someone health care. That seems like a basic human right. So I'm a true apostate for thinking everyone should have their basic needs taken care of, like food, clothing, shelter, healthcare? Or that the poor should have equal access to education regardless of their economic situation? I think Jesus might take issue with that statement: [Mat 19:21] Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. [Luke 1:53] He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away. [Mark 10:21] Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: I think you have it backwards, Capitalism is putting power in the hands of the rich minority who in turn are exploiting the working class. Under a socialist democracy we would be electing those in power, whereas under capitalism the power lies with an unelected rich minority.

Again, Communism as cited here referring specifically to Communist Russia is completely different than socialism.

How is providing health care to all regardless of their economic situation unhumanitarian? Also, socialism and communism are different. Its also worth pointing out that socialism is an economic system, a true Christian or LDS member would strive for a system of economic equality therefor supporting a socialist democracy. As the first presidency said in the Proclamtion on the Economy, the growth of wealth in a small minority creates a class system where the poor are exploited. This is occurring under capitalism, socialist reforms would work to ensure wealth and power is not accumulated by the small minority of rich and instead would be redistributed equally providing basic necessities for all.

OK, I believe there is are serious discrepancies in what LDS doctrine teaches and the political stance of the majority of members of the church. I understand that for the most part the church proclaims it does not get involved in politics, but I see serious conflicts in what is taught in the church compared to the dominant political ideology of the Mormon people. For example: The Mormon doctrine called the "law of consecration" administered under the United Order is taught by the LDS church to be the higher law, and "tithing" is the lower law. Comparable to Old Testament vs. New Testament. The law of consecration basically explains that everyone must give all their money to be equally distributed throughout the society. In 1875, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued a Proclamation on the Economy; here is an exert: Shouldn't the fundamental idea of the members of the church be to work towards redistributing their wealth throughout society. I have read through other threads on this board and have found very scathing attacks against socialism. In 1901 Utah had 100 socialists occupying political offices throughout Utah. In 1917 LDS apostle David O McKay stated in a conference that "It looks as if Russia will have a government 'by the people, of the people, and for the people." (April 7, 1917 Conference Report). So basically I am confused as to why such a dramatic difference in official church doctrine and the ideology of right wing, ultra-conservative beliefs of the majority of the LDS members. I guess this can be transferred to the Christian right as a whole, but it seems more predominant here in Utah. Shouldn't a true Christian believe in universal health care, and true economic equality for all. Didn't Jesus teach that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it would be for a rich person to enter heaven, and the first thing Jesus told his apostles was to redistribute their wealth to the poor and serve them? I don't recall any conditions on these doctrines, like saying "The poor people are lazy, or people will take advantage of a system that provides equally to all." "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). "That now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality" (2 Corinthians 8:14). "And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift" (4 Nephi 1:3).