Opposition to political parties?

[Fiannan]

On the ACLU I like what Jon Voight has to say:

Newsmax:

David has said that he did not pick the subject matter because his ideology had changed but picked it because things have become so exaggerated that it’s truly funny.

Voight: Yes, it’s like a craziness. The ACLU used to have a meaning. At the time of the civil rights movement, it had a meaning . . . It did its part. Since that time, it’s just been corrupted, and it’s now a little bit of the lunatic fringe. The things that it’s doing, trying to find a way to keep itself important, it’s just going nuts. It’s run by Marxist atheists, as far as I’m concerned. I don’t know any other way to explain their philosophic point of view because the things that they take on are so screwball.

"http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/jon_voight_movie/2008/10/02/136823.html"

[rameumptom]

While I hate the bailout, I understand why we need it. A true libertarian would just let everything settle out on its own. But that inaction has caused Depressions in the past, including the one in 1893. Because we've had a nation that has bailed out Chrysler, the S&Ls, Bank of America and others in the past, we've prevented worse economic problems. In the past, it didn't phase most people if the stock market crashed, as most were not invested in anything but their own farms.

But it will affect millions of everyday Americans who have pensions or retirement accounts that are vested in stocks, hedge funds, etc.

Sometimes to stop a potentially deadly virus/flu, the person has to take a shot in the arm and suffer some side affects. While it may not prevent the disease, it can help keep the disease from being so virile it kills the patient.

I am a strong proponent of freedom. But I also agree with Pres Packer that we shouldn't use the virtue of freedom to beat up on other virtues. That has become the view/opinion of too many libertarian thinking people. I know, I used to be one of them.

I greatly admire Pres Benson and his efforts to stop communism from spreading across the world. However, Pres Brown was just as much anti-communist and pro-freedom as Pres Benson. They just didn't agree on how to bring it about. Many General Authorities have believed that some government assistance is not a bad thing. Elder Bruce R. McConkie, Pres Faust, and many others have also been democrats who have agreed with some social programming. So, there is a disagreement with Pres Benson on some things. In such issues, I'd say we can give all of them plenty of consideration. For to listen to Pres Benson and none of the others, is like only listening to half of the gospel.

[MarginOfError]

While I hate the bailout, I understand why we need it. A true libertarian would just let everything settle out on its own. But that inaction has caused Depressions in the past, including the one in 1893. Because we've had a nation that has bailed out Chrysler, the S&Ls, Bank of America and others in the past, we've prevented worse economic problems. In the past, it didn't phase most people if the stock market crashed, as most were not invested in anything but their own farms.

But it will affect millions of everyday Americans who have pensions or retirement accounts that are vested in stocks, hedge funds, etc.

Sometimes to stop a potentially deadly virus/flu, the person has to take a shot in the arm and suffer some side affects. While it may not prevent the disease, it can help keep the disease from being so virile it kills the patient.

I am a strong proponent of freedom. But I also agree with Pres Packer that we shouldn't use the virtue of freedom to beat up on other virtues. That has become the view/opinion of too many libertarian thinking people. I know, I used to be one of them.

I greatly admire Pres Benson and his efforts to stop communism from spreading across the world. However, Pres Brown was just as much anti-communist and pro-freedom as Pres Benson. They just didn't agree on how to bring it about. Many General Authorities have believed that some government assistance is not a bad thing. Elder Bruce R. McConkie, Pres Faust, and many others have also been democrats who have agreed with some social programming. So, there is a disagreement with Pres Benson on some things. In such issues, I'd say we can give all of them plenty of consideration. For to listen to Pres Benson and none of the others, is like only listening to half of the gospel.

RAM!? You dare imply that prophets can speak their own opinion without speaking the express will and mind of the Lord? Do you wish to bring upon yourself the Spanish Inquisition?

[a-train]

Sometimes to stop a potentially deadly virus/flu, the person has to take a shot in the arm and suffer some side affects. While it may not prevent the disease, it can help keep the disease from being so virile it kills the patient.

But what if the shot kills the patient?

-a-train

[threepercent]

in reading through the posts, I see a consistent error I would like to address.

From ETB's Proper Role of Government

"The Value Of Local Government

It is a firm principle that the smallest or lowest level that can possibly undertake the task is the one that should do so. First, the community or city. If the city cannot handle it, then the county. Next, the state; and only if no smaller unit can possible do the job should the federal government be considered. This is merely the application to the field of politics of that wise and time-tested principle of never asking a larger gr a larger group to do that which can be done by a smaller group. And so far as government is concerned the smaller the unit and the closer it is to the people, the easier it is to guide it, to keep it solvent and to keep our freedom."

A huge part of our problem here is that to many "tasks" are "undertaken" at the higher level, instead of the smallest or lowest level.

to address the original post: the statement is "issued" at "all" levels.

This statement was issued in a world where some nations are run by a single political party. this is why we oppose based on principle vrs party.

If you oppose the "socialist" party, then people will take anything you might call socialist and say the church is opposed to it.

I will edit more after conference...

[a-train]

Check out this Gordon B. Hinkley Talk

We have witnessed in recent weeks wide and fearsome swings in the markets of the world. The economy is a fragile thing. A stumble in the economy in Jakarta or Moscow can immediately affect the entire world. It can eventually reach down to each of us as individuals. There is a portent of stormy weather ahead to which we had better give heed.

I urge you, brethren, to look to the condition of your finances. I urge you to be modest in your expenditures; discipline yourselves in your purchases to avoid debt to the extent possible. Pay off debt as quickly as you can, and free yourselves from bondage.

This is a part of the temporal gospel in which we believe. May the Lord bless you, my beloved brethren, to set your houses in order. If you have paid your debts, if you have a reserve, even though it be small, then should storms howl about your head, you will have shelter for your wives and children and peace in your hearts. That’s all I have to say about it, but I wish to say it with all the emphasis of which I am capable.

I leave with you my testimony of the divinity of this work and my love for each of you, in the name of the Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ, amen. - Gordon B. Hinkley 1998 GC

[Fiannan]

Proper role of government? I'd urge people to read up on John Locke as well as Adam Smith. I fear too few people today know who these men were and how they contributed to our nation.

[abqfriend]

If any church, LDS, Catholic, Protestant came out publically and opposed a specific political party they would risk losing their tax exempt status with the IRS.

If one opposes a specific political party-they are in fact making a political statement.

An individual may be opposed to the views of a political party-that is part of democracy--but not a church organization seeking or having a tax exempt status with the IRS.

Publication 557 (06/2008), Tax-Exempt Status for Your Organization

See Section under political activity.

There is a fundamental policy of most churches to avoid a conflict between Church and State-and political parties relate to State

-Carol

At the Church website, regarding "Political Neutrality":

"The Church does not: Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms..." (Emphasis Added)

Are we SERIOUS? Do we not oppose the Communist Party? Is this possible?

As a Church, we do not oppose the Communist Party, or any other political party that has, as its' goal, the abject destruction of human liberty?

SERIOUSLY?

Then, from the recent letter from the First Presidency (September 11, 2008, I can't stand the irony on this!):

"Latter-day Saints as citizens are to seek out and then uphold leaders who will act with integrity and are wise, good, and honest. Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties." (Emphasis Added)

You have got to be kidding me? Are we saying there is good in the multitude of different political parties? REALLY?

I'm really floored by this. Maybe it is nothing to you, to me, it is monumental.

As a Latter-Day Saint I am opposed to the Communist Party. I am opposed to the Socialist Party. There is NOTHING of good or the gospel in either of them. They both advocate slavery.

Come on, this cannot REALLY be true?

[threepercent]

in reading through the posts, I see a consistent error I would like to address.

From ETB's Proper Role of Government

"The Value Of Local Government

It is a firm principle that the smallest or lowest level that can possibly undertake the task is the one that should do so. First, the community or city. If the city cannot handle it, then the county. Next, the state; and only if no smaller unit can possible do the job should the federal government be considered. This is merely the application to the field of politics of that wise and time-tested principle of never asking a larger gr a larger group to do that which can be done by a smaller group. And so far as government is concerned the smaller the unit and the closer it is to the people, the easier it is to guide it, to keep it solvent and to keep our freedom."

A huge part of our problem here is that to many "tasks" are "undertaken" at the higher level, instead of the smallest or lowest level.

to address the original post: the statement is "issued" at "all" levels.

This statement was issued in a world where some nations are run by a single political party. this is why we oppose based on principle vrs party.

If you oppose the "socialist" party, then people will take anything you might call socialist and say the church is opposed to it.

I will edit more after conference...

I am not saying this so well. let me try to shorten it.

3 things:

1. The church does not come out against parties because it often has to ask those same parties to grant access to its missionarys, they teach Principles. even with the principles laid out so plainly, members consistently embrace false teachings.

2. People confuse principle with parties.

3. a principle can be acceptable at a city level and be improper at federal level, so to keep those who cant get #1 and #2 strait, they stick to principles.

4. The mission of the church is not to govern, its kingdom is not of this world. it "teaches correct principles and lets the people govern themselves" EVEN IF THEY FAIL AT IT.

[rameumptom]

But what if the shot kills the patient?

-a-train

There's always that chance. Some people are allergic to the shot. But I still think that having people take a flu shot with the risk of serious side affects or death to a few, is better than having another 1918 flu epidemic. Don't you?

I used to get flu shots in the Air Force annually, until one gave me Guillaume Barre Syndrome. Not a fun thing to experience. However, while I cannot take the shots anymore, I do encourage everyone else to do so.

[rameumptom]

I have studied John Locke and Adam Smith over the years. I still study them and the words offered from the Mises Foundation, as there is much truth and wisdom in it. Still, I see that not all things work perfectly in their environment, either.

Laissez Faire capitalism leads to natural adjustments in markets. These adjustments are called Depressions. I personally do not want to go through one of those, if possible.

[Guest HEthePrimate]

JBS,

Dude, take a deep breath and relax. It's not the end of the world if the First Presidency doesn't indulge in your favorite pasttime of beating up on Commies. They're running a church, not a country. I don't think you'll find too many people in the U.S. in favor of Communism, anyway, so why freak out?

HEP

[a-train]

Laissez Faire capitalism leads to natural adjustments in markets. These adjustments are called Depressions. I personally do not want to go through one of those, if possible.

A market adjustment is not a depression. Market adjustments happen every day, all the time, prices go up, prices go down. Supplies go up, supplies go down. Demand goes up, demand goes down. Prices fall with rising supplies and falling demand. Market adjustments are vital realities of any economy. A depression is a sustained and heavy contraction of the market due to prolonged and/or massive over expansion. The cause of such a depression is not the over expansion itself, but the cause of the over expansion. Bad government policy with respect to credit expansion easily creates such bubbles.

The interventions of government have yet to give us any sustained period without booms and busts, expansions and recessions, and even depressions. Today we are in a recession and what will you say if all the efforts of our Federal Government cannot keep us from a depression? Why did the U.S.S.R. have a fiancial collapse when they had a planned economy?

The 1837-1844 depression was caused by a number of factors, most of which were government policies, actions, and then the sudden change thereof with the Specie Circular. The Specie Circular was Jackson's reaction to a real estate bubble caused by speculation in land with paper money. Many blamed the Specie Circular for the panic and the depression, but the expansion of paper money that led to the Coinage Act could be just as easily called the culprit. Either way, the causes were not free market events, but government interventions.

Man is meant to live through times of plenty and times of famine and efforts to use credit to live like the times of plenty during the times of famine will only result in prolonged times wherein we must live beneath our means.

What is most troublesome is that certain generations may be compelled to live beneath their means due to the actions of their progenitors. The best way to secure this scenario is through the debauchery of the currency. Credit is expanded as long as possible to avoid the market downturn until nothing can stop a crash one way or the other.

It is therefore the fear of and subsequent actions to avoid a depression that typically leads to one.

-a-train

[BenRaines]

Recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth. There has not been one quarter reported yet of negative growth and people have us headed to the depression of 1929. While I believe we may be headed to a recession we are not yet in a reported recession, other than the media reported one. As I said before often when the media reports it it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy.

Ben Raines

[rameumptom]

The entire nation is not yet in recession, but there are geographical areas of the country which are. And there are segments of industry that are in definite recession, such as housing and automobile sales.

Many of the factors that we use to determine a recession are actually tail end factors. We aren't sure we're in a recession or headed into one until after we've been in it for a while.

While government intervention often has influenced the cause of recessions, I think the problem is deeper than that. It is greed and selfishness. It doesn't matter what government policies are made if the people were to use frugal and wise counsel, as we've been receiving from our prophets for the last many years.

Interestingly, in the past our prophets have told us to get out of debt and stay out of debt. Yesterday, Pres Monson and others told us to begin focusing on helping those who struggle because of these things. He did not say help only the innocent victims, but all who stand in need. I just don't see most Americans doing that, as too many (including many LDS) are too attached to their toys and worldly goods to reach out and "lift where you stand" (Pres Uchtdorf). We were asked yesterday not whether we have given, but whether we've given enough. Or if we've squandered our time and moneys on frivolous expenditures.

Teens with cell phones? If there's anything that is frivolous, that's one of them.

[a-train]

While government intervention often has influenced the cause of recessions, I think the problem is deeper than that. It is greed and selfishness. It doesn't matter what government policies are made if the people were to use frugal and wise counsel, as we've been receiving from our prophets for the last many years.

I fully agree. However, what I am pointing out here is that government under the control of the greedy and selfish, will intervene in the intrests of those self-interested persons. And, if we allow that to happen, no matter what our spiritual preparedness, no matter our feelings of love for our fellow man, we will suffer as did the many saints before us, the persecutions of tyranny. For the LORD said: "Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil." (D&C 98) Why did he say that? For said he: "Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn."

Thus He counseled: "Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil."

The constitution did not endorse nor provide the power for federal planning of the economy.

-a-train

[rameumptom]

I agree. The problem is determining who is "wicked" and who is among the honest of heart who are seeking methods to allay the suffering they find in the world. King Limhi and other righteous kings ordered their people to take care of the widows and orphans after horrific wars. That sounds like government mandates to me.

While we would hate to have kings rule over us, the Book of Mormon states that if we could have kings like Benjamin, it would be wonderful for us to have them. But since we see that many end up being wicked, like King Noah, we're left with bureaucracies, such as judges or Congress. We replace one potentially dangerous government type with one that is safer, but with greater tendency toward bloat, etc.

Remember, it was during the rule of judges that Capt Moroni struggled to get enough soldiers to fight the Lamanites. Those judges included many king-men. At least, that is the Nephite version of the story. Chances are they were admirers of the Ammonites and wanted to be pacifists, and the negative environmental impact war makes on the planet turned many tree-huggers off. Getting a well-trained army was not a problem for King Benjamin or Mosiah. And the those kings were marvelous.

[a-train]

I agree. The problem is determining who is "wicked" and who is among the honest of heart who are seeking methods to allay the suffering they find in the world. King Limhi and other righteous kings ordered their people to take care of the widows and orphans after horrific wars. That sounds like government mandates to me.

While we would hate to have kings rule over us, the Book of Mormon states that if we could have kings like Benjamin, it would be wonderful for us to have them. But since we see that many end up being wicked, like King Noah, we're left with bureaucracies, such as judges or Congress. We replace one potentially dangerous government type with one that is safer, but with greater tendency toward bloat, etc.

It can be easily determined that a man who is openly advocating a departure from the constitution and a centralization of power (into his hands, or those of his cronies) is not going to be among the righteous defenders of liberty, no matter what his promises are.

Many have said: "Give me control and I'll make everything better. The only reason I can't make everything better now is because I don't have enough control, not enough power. Give me that, and I'll fix everthing."

We have a simple and clear-cut counsel on the subject: "Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil."

There is never a reason good enough to depart from constitutionality, for any such departure "cometh of evil".

-a-train

[rameumptom]

So, ATrain, you would have to assume that Capt Moroni was wicked for insisting on "more control"? He did, after all force king men into military service. Rather than allowing the local citizens to handle their land disputes, he went and crushed Morianton and his people. He did not allow them to leave the area and settle in a new place. Of course, he also accused Pahoran falsely of sedition.

So, just how do we apply your insistence on freedom to the stories in the scriptures? Was Capt Moroni truly a good guy, or was he evil for insisting on grabbing control?

[JohnBirchSociety]

So, ATrain, you would have to assume that Capt Moroni was wicked for insisting on "more control"? He did, after all force king men into military service. Rather than allowing the local citizens to handle their land disputes, he went and crushed Morianton and his people. He did not allow them to leave the area and settle in a new place. Of course, he also accused Pahoran falsely of sedition.

So, just how do we apply your insistence on freedom to the stories in the scriptures? Was Capt Moroni truly a good guy, or was he evil for insisting on grabbing control?

Ummm....Wow....

Uh, Capt. Moroni, et.al, in the scriptures were not American citizens and they predate the existence of the Constitution.

Therefore, it is absurd to compare them to us. Furthermore, Moroni did not live in a time when there even was a Doctrine and Covenants that stipulated the "cometh of evil" stipulation on the Constitution that A-Train makes reference to.

We MUST as American LDS, DEMAND that our civic leaders obey the Constitution. Anything, anything at all, no exceptions, more or less than the Constitution in this respect, "cometh of evil". Those aren't our words, that's GOD tellin' us how it is...

[Moksha]

I think all of us try to vote with our conscience.

This year people will be voting their pocketbook and conscience. We are obviously in for a rough economic time ahead. Maybe Great Depression tough. We need a leader that can be our Franklin Roosevelt and pull us through it.

Utah was one of the hardest hit states in the Great Depression. Hopefully we won't be again.

[JohnBirchSociety]

This year people will be voting their pocketbook and conscience. We are obviously in for a rough economic time ahead. Maybe Great Depression tough. We need a leader that can be our Franklin Roosevelt and pull us through it.

Utah was one of the hardest hit states in the Great Depression. Hopefully we won't be again.

Franklin Roosevelt? Are you kidding me?

[Moksha]

Franklin Roosevelt? Are you kidding me?

I know the conservatives say he was a traitor to his class, but I dislike the idea of rigid socio-economic classes anyway. Give me anthropology 101 for everybody.

Franklin Roosevelt was a tremendous president. Public works that are still in use today came about solely from his vision to help put Americans back to work.

[a-train]

So, ATrain, you would have to assume that Capt Moroni was wicked for insisting on "more control"? He did, after all force king men into military service. Rather than allowing the local citizens to handle their land disputes, he went and crushed Morianton and his people. He did not allow them to leave the area and settle in a new place. Of course, he also accused Pahoran falsely of sedition.

So, just how do we apply your insistence on freedom to the stories in the scriptures? Was Capt Moroni truly a good guy, or was he evil for insisting on grabbing control?

Certainly Moroni did NOT 'insist on more control'. "Now, Moroni being a man who was appointed by the chief judges and the voice of the people, therefore he had power according to his will with the armies of the Nephites, to establish and to exercise authority over them." (Alma 46:34)

His role in overturning the efforts of the king-men was that of preventing a coup that would enslave the people. His request, accompanied by a petition from the people, for an executive order from the governor "to compel those dissenters to defend their country or to put them to death" was for the cause "to put an end to such contentions and dissensions among the people." (Alma 51:16) In obtaining authorization, Moroni did not circumvent the legal process of his country, even in the face of emergency. The implementation of this order was not a criminal investigation nor a matter of searches and seizures, but a battle of the scope of several thousand dissenters gathered in a militia against Moroni's army.

The difference here between our modern hunt for "terrorists" and the outright disregard for unalienable rights of specified individuals is quite different from a domestic army staging a coup. Indeed, a military force of several thousand armed Americans marching to war against our military to overthrow our government and establish a king would not only necessitate military action, but such defense would indeed be constitutional. In fact, the situation of the king-men was indeed characterized as a civil war (Alma 60:16).

Upon the end of the battle with the king-men, Moroni recruited all those who would join his military in defending the Nephites against the Lamanites. This was indeed a sign of faith and forgiveness. Those placed in prison were the leaders of the movement who were most openly defiant of the libertarian principles of Nephite government. We are not told that they were tortured nor treated with cruelty.

Moroni's role in the border dispute between the lands of Lehi and Morianton was not of invasion and/or intervention in foreign affairs. Rather, his position was that of Captain of a federal or union army. Lehi and Morianton were domestic lands wherein a domestic militia rose up in civil war. Those of the land of Lehi appealed to Moroni for what amounted to federal protection.

Mormon did not tell us the details of the intentions of Morianton and his people in the flight northward. We have but a single sentence on the matter which tells us that they were laying "a foundation for serious consequences among the people of Nephi, yea, which consequences would lead to the overthrow of their liberty." (Alma 50:32)

You will further notice that the people of Morianton were not destroyed, but "upon their covenanting to keep the peace they were restored to the land of Morianton, and a union took place between them and the people of Lehi." (Alma 50:36)

Moroni's supposition of the sedition of Pahoran was certainly incorrect, but upon hearing the truth, Moroni instantly corrected his position. His suspicion was not a sign of self-interest, but of concern for the welfare of freedom. Indeed, it is with that same suspicion that I look to many of our leaders today. But unfortunately we have much better communication in our day and the culprits are neither innocent nor penitent.

Moroni is a shining example of a man who sought to keep peace and order while working within the confines of his legal and lawful authority and in the love of his people and their freedom. His memory serves as a beacon of patriotic love for the freedom of all.

-a-train

[Hemidakota]

Franklin Roosevelt? Are you kidding me?

Concur....if I had the opporunity, I would kick over his statue in D.C..