United Order and distribution of wealth

[JohnBirchSociety]

I'm not saying we should all become marxists. I'm not advocating socialism in that sense. The topic was how I admire the European social welfare system. I won't use the world socialism on here anymore because I don't mean it in the pure theoretical sense. I'm talking about the UK, France, Sweden etc that provide a safetly net, health care, and help to everyone. Yes, this is done by taxes.

I find it radical that anyone would think taxation is theft. I find it radical that someone would find social programs funded by the gov't to be theft.

You say our church leaders don't condone any form of socialism but Pres. Uchtdorf is GERMAN and they have one of the more generous welfare systems in Europe. But then again, i don't consider Germany socialist, I just advocate their system, as I've been saying.

It doesn't matter whether we do or don't consider them socialist. If they fit the definition (which neither of us created) then they are socialist.

They fit the definition. France is most certainly socialist (having lived there for a few years). They have a vastly larger number of unemployed. They have a lower standard of living than we do. Their health-care system is inadequate (that's why people come here from all over the Earth for good health-care). Therefore, they are socialist.

Socialism has ALWAYS been denounced by the Church as a counterfeit to individual liberty. Always.

So again, back to the question. Doesn't it even give you pause that there is universal condemnation of Socialism by Church leaders?

The ideal of human liberty, as created by the effort of man is embodied in the United States Constitution. That is church doctrine. It is church doctrine that the principles of the US Constitution are for the entire world. It says this in the Doctrine and Covenants. It also says that anything more or less than it "cometh of evil".

Pres. Uchtdorf will not be giving a discourse espousing the greatness of the German Socialist government. He'll most likely remain silent on that matter, because he is German. However, I'm assured that if you spoke with him on the matter of liberty he would full-heartedly concur with all previous and current leaders of the Church that have held up the US Constitution and the principles embodied therein as the ideal.

FINALLY, AGAIN, I DO NOT think all taxation is theft. There IS a proper function of government, of which taxation is necessary. That proper function of government is enshrined in the United States Constitution. God says that document is inspired. That document allows for PROPER taxation. THEREFORE, some taxation IS proper and NOT theft.

AGAIN, I do NOT think all taxation is theft.

[JohnBirchSociety]

I stand by my previous post regarding this issue:

This is the equivalent of saying that slaves who use their master's toilet or eat their food shouldn't feel bad about being slaves. In fact, you are saying they should feel guilty for not being slaves if they benefit in any way from their master.

Perhaps you think slavery is sensationalizing the issue. Slavery can be defined as: "A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force" (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language). In most countries there exist tax-payers and tax-consumers. Tax-consumers are essentially parasites, those living off of the money stolen from tax-payers. Tax-payers are the "principal work force," those engaging in productive activities. Tax-payers spend a large portion of their time each year to earn money which is stolen by tax-consumers (govt). Assuming an annual income tax rate of 33%, a tax-payer would have to work 4 months a year as a slave. This is justified because the slave gets to flush a toilet?

Perhaps you could respond to my slave/master analogy?

If you don't believe their exists a proper function of government, then your argument may hold some merit.

However, there is a proper function of government. It is in the protection of life and property. To do this there is a proper degree of taxation, insomuch as it maintains the ability of government to carry out its' proper function.

When the government over-steps its' proper function, such taxation becomes theft.

If you don't believe in a proper function of government, then what do you believe in? Are you a relativist? An anarchist? What then?

I believe in the proper function of government. The protection of life and liberty, that is more easily fascilitated through government than through "every man for himself" anarchy, is the proper function as defined by our Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.

Socialism is not part of that equation and has been universally denounced by the Church.

So here's the case:

1) Government is necessary to civilization.

2) There is a proper function for government.

3) Government requires financial means to carry out the proper function.

4) Taxation is the usual method of getting the financial means to carry out the proper function of government.

5) There is proper taxation.

6) Improper taxation is when the government acts outside of its' proper function in the protection of life and property.

I can't possibly be more clear or in better agreement with the Founding Fathers or with all Church leaders.

[JohnBirchSociety]

JBS,

Hmm.... I think I understand what you are saying. I am saying it is a logically inconsistent position. You are essentially saying taxation is not theft when it is for a reason you deem a "proper function of government." I am saying taking money from one person by force is theft, no matter the reason and no matter how little the amount. It is always taking from someone against their will. If it were truly voluntary, it would not be a tax.

If I took money from you (against your will) and said I am going to use it to directly benefit you, it is still force. Otherwise it would be called a trade, and force would not be necessary.

IMO, you concede too much to the socialists. They are saying a proper function of government is to "help the poor" or "redistribute the wealth." You are just saying that is not the proper function and justifying what you think is proper. However, you are now arguing over the ends. Neither position justifies the means--taxation is still theft.

Hope this helps explain the inconsistency in your position.

The proper function of government was known long before I was born. I didn't create it. So it's not something that I've just made up to support my position. In fact, it isn't really my position to make.

The position was laid in solid granite 230+ years ago by the Founding Fathers. I'm just repeating it. I'm just repeating scripture that supports them as being inspired in that activity. I'm just showing the complete lack of support for Socialism in the Constitution or by our Church leaders.

None of this is of my own creation. And, furthermore, I have opinions on these matters that differ from the conclusions of the Founders. I've not shared any of my personal opinions on these matters.

[Starfish]

Mosiah 2: 14 And even I, myself, have labored with mine own hands that I might serve you, and that ye should not be laden with taxes, and that there should nothing come upon you which was grievous to be borne—and of all these things which I have spoken, ye yourselves are witnesses this day.

Mosiah 18: 24 And he also commanded them that the priests whom he had ordained should labor with their own hands for their support.

27: 4-5 That they should let no pride nor haughtiness disturb their peace; that every man should esteem his neighbor as himself, laboring with their own hands for their support.

Yea, and all their priests and teachers should labor with their own hands for their support, in all cases save it were in sickness, or in much want; and doing these things, they did abound in the grace of God.

Alma 30: 32 Now Alma said unto him: Thou knowest that we do not glut ourselves upon the labors of this people; for behold I have labored even from the commencement of the reign of the judges until now, with mine own hands for my support, notwithstanding my many travels round about the land to declare the word of God unto my people.

Marion G. Romney, of the 1st Presidency, 1982 (emphasis, mine)

We cannot afford to become wards of the government, even if we have a legal right to do so. It requires too great a sacrifice of self-respect and in political, temporal, and spiritual independence.

In some countries it is extremely difficult to separate earned from unearned benefits. However, the principle is the same in all countries: We should strive to become self-reliant and not depend on others for our existence.

We know there are some who for no reason of their own cannot become self-reliant. President Henry D. Moyle had these people in mind when he said:

“This great principle does not deny to the needy nor to the poor the assistance they should have. The wholly incapacitated, the aged, the sickly are cared for with all tenderness, but every able-bodied person is enjoined to do his utmost for himself to avoid dependence, if his own efforts can make such a course possible; to look upon adversity as temporary; to combine his faith in his own ability with honest toil; to rehabilitate himself and his family to a position of independence; in every case to minimize the need for help and to supplement any help given with his own best efforts.

“We believe [that] seldom [do circumstances arise in which] men of rigorous faith, genuine courage, and unfaltering determination, with the love of independence burning in their hearts, and pride in their own accomplishments, cannot surmount the obstacles that lie in their paths.

LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Celestial Nature of Self-reliance

Edited November 8, 2008 by Starfish

[fiona84]

So again, back to the question. Doesn't it even give you pause that there is universal condemnation of Socialism by Church leaders?

It bothers me. It bothers me instinctually that our church, our Christian organization, the church of Jesus Christ, would actually condemn the giving of the haves to the have-nots, even if by taxation. It seems to go against the Jesus Christ that I know.

I just don't believe that charity in all its good intentions is enough to provide for the needs of the people. And I feel we have a duty as human beings to provide for those less fortunate. I don't feel its taking away my liberty. I feels its what Christ would advocate, yes even politically and through social welfare.

I'm going to stop posting on this specific thread because I'm finding it upsetting that our church leaders have said these things (especially Benson's admonition of food stamps).

I'm going to go back to my Mormon Democrat group on Facebook and Mormons for Obama and live a quiet life, :) knowing I shouldn't speak up in church about my socialist leanings (and I'm being facicious there because i still don't see these european systems as socialist).

I know you have all meant well but its reminding of me of the religious right on here, an organization I know all too much about and which I've always been so grateful the LDS church isn't like.

God bless. :)

[funkymonkey]

John Birch, I'm pretty dissapointed with this thread. Ideals are being thrown around as "god's method."...which it totally false. Like I said before, if you're going to complain about the EVIL government taking your money, you should be complaining about being taxed alltogether...no matter what the amount is we all are FORCED to pay them. Come-on, of all the things to be opposed of.

It really makes my stomache roll that there are so many that are opposed to this program (OF ALL the screwed up programs in the government). Do our welfare programs need work? Absolutely. But they are without a doubt needed.

Over half of our membership is not in the US, and God's children are all over the planet. No government on the planet right now is "good" or "righteous"...they're all corrupt (including our own). I highly doubt that God wants us to leave the poor and needy on the street to die every single day. There are none among us that are good enough to freely give to the needy, so how else are we to help them?? ...God would say "take care of your people".

I agree that we should be self sufficient...but I have always interpreted that meaning self sufficient to refer just as much to us as a PEOPLE, as individuals. Do you really think the world would be a better place without government welfare programs?? Comeon, you obviously have never TRULY whitnessed the hardships of those poverty stricken people. Go to Africa for even just a few days, have your eyes opened...the needy are not all lazy in even our own country and to assume such is friggin self-righteous.

It goes back to the "liberal is evil" "conservative is of God"...which to me is a big trick by the adversary...evil lurks in both parties.

I would like to ask one simple question... The last time you drove or walked by a needy person on the street, did YOU stop and help? Did you extend a hand with money, or food, or warmth?

Even us (representatives of God) are not willing to volunteer as we should.

Oh wait! A government program is EVIL so we should just let all these people suffer die instead.

Those of you that are so adamately opposed to these programs, (which I am positive some of you will need these programs in the near future when you get laid off, or when you retire)... I'm pretty sure you'll take the money when you need it, and in your own mind that will mean that you're partaking of the devil's programs. SINNER. OH NO! Satan is helping the poor and needy! Give me a break.

Edited November 8, 2008 by funkymonkey

[a-train]

Fiona,

I can appreciate your desire to help others and the reason this conversation is so important is because I care deeply about others. I am passionate and talk as much as possible to everyone around me on the subject of liberty not for my own benefit, but because I care a lot about others, especially the unborn generations in front of us. The issue is not about helping people with temporal needs, I am not arguing that we should not help people at all, in fact I am arguing that we SHOULD help people and that socialism is not help, but tremendous harm.

How much socialism does it take before things go wrong?

Should people be allowed to keep 60% of their income? 50%? 40%? 20%? 10%?Where do we say things have gone too far?

Should I be allowed to start a business and be a self-started integral part of my local economy? How much of the decisions regarding that should be mine?

Now the BIG question: What about our children? Their children? If our generation is born into a controlling heavily taxed system that we simply make even more controlling and with higher taxes, and then our children simply add more socialist policy to that where does it end? It is all moving ever closer to totalitarianism. I want my posterity to be free, not slaves.

How about this? Suppose after the civil war the U.S. constitution was amended and new laws were drafted that made slave owners put slaves in nice housing with good clothing and a clean working environment. A new bureaucracy: The Bureau of Unemancipated Workers Protection, sees to it that slaves have a great education, good food, clothing, housing, fantastic health care, they even have new limits on how much work in a day they have to perform. With all of that, many non-slaves live a standard of living beneath that of the slaves. Are you good to go then on slavery? It's OK now? What is more important? Raising the temporal standards of human living, or liberty?

-a-train

Edited November 8, 2008 by a-train

[funkymonkey]

Are you good to go then on slavery? It's OK now? What is more important? Raising the temporal standards of human living, or liberty?

-a-train

I love reading your posts A-Train...they're always so well written and you make a lot of sense.

BUT, I have family that are in Sweden... they're not Slaves. Their quality of life is better than most of ours here in the states. (I'm not socialist, I'm just sayin)

[a-train]

I'm pretty dissapointed with this thread.

Why all the ill feelings? I am not advocating that people shouldn't be cared for, I am advocating that they SHOULD be and big government bureaucrats are swindling the people and hiding behind this notion of welfare.

My mother became a widow with three children at the age of 25. We lived in near poverty. She was still required to pay 12.5% of her income in social security, medicare, and medicaid. She still paid federal, state, and local taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and all sorts of other taxes including the worst of all: inflation tax. Our assistance came from the Church and from family.

Now I want to get rid of these taxes from families in that situation. Is that not Christlike? Am I doing something wrong?

I am not accusing you of being unChristlike. What I say is out of legitimate concern. A growing number of people around the world believe in socialism and not just a little. They want TOTAL socialism. They believe that we should gradually work toward that goal, one piece of legislation at a time. I am warning about what I see is the greatest danger to our society as a whole: fabian socialism.

-a-train

[funkymonkey]

Now I want to get rid of these taxes from families in that situation. Is that not Christlike? Am I doing something wrong?

Couldn't agree more. Many see this ideal as theft...that's what I take issue with.

Just read my previous post...sorry. It was a little more heated than I intended.

Edited November 8, 2008 by funkymonkey

[funkymonkey]

Mosiah 18:27 And again Alma commanded that the people of the church should impart of their substance, every one according to that which he had; if he have more abundantly he should impart more abundantly; and of him that had but little, but little should be required; and to him that had not should be given.

4 Ne. 1: 3

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.

[a-train]

I love reading your posts A-Train...they're always so well written and you make a lot of sense.

BUT, I have family that are in Sweden... they're not Slaves. Their quality of life is better than most of ours here in the states. (I'm not socialist, I'm just sayin)

Thanks. And no, the Swedish people are not slaves to the extent as were the African slaves of the colonial British Empire, and neither are Americans or even Russians. That reality is used by the crafty methods of fabian socialism. The people living in NAZI Germany leading up to the war saw tremendous increases in the general standard of living.

But what does all that matter? You know as well as I that politicians will always blame one another for poor economic conditions and take credit for good, regardless of whether the circumstances either negative or positive were caused by government at all. What are we trying to accomplish? Are we trying to give people liberty or government benefits at the cost of liberty? Jesus proclaimed liberty. Take a look at Jeremiah 34 and read about what happened to the Jews when they forgot to proclaim liberty.

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, almighty god! I know not what course others may take; but, as for me, give me liberty, or give me death! ---Patrick Henry

-a-train

[a-train]

Mosiah 18:27 And again Alma commanded that the people of the church should impart of their substance, every one according to that which he had; if he have more abundantly he should impart more abundantly; and of him that had but little, but little should be required; and to him that had not should be given.

4 Ne. 1: 3

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.

Notice that Alma did not command the Church to shift their obligation to the poor over to some bureaucracy. You will not find that notion in our scriptures, Jesus taught by word and deed the methods by which we should help the poor. Among those methods were not found the notion of petition to governments to tax the general populace and undertake the work of welfare. The cold heartless halls of government cannot build up the poor and give to them those things which are truly needful.

The whole notion of poverty solved by government is a fake. The swindling politicians and bureaucrats are looking out for themselves and for the rich that support them, not for the poor. They pay a mountain of lip service to their help and give but a penny. Meanwhile they take as much as the general public can tolerate and spend it in wars and government programs designed to benefit but a tiny privilidged minorty. All the while, our power to truly help the poor is limited by the burden of taxation for these insidious schemes.

How do we know who to trust? Anyone asking us to sacrifice liberty is the first suspect.

-a-train

Edited November 8, 2008 by a-train

[funkymonkey]

I agree with most of your perspective, although you and I have different concepts of the term "slave".

There must be a way to help our needy and eliminate the likelihood of slowly adding and growing that system. (moderation in all things) I think our own system has been slowly plundered and corrupted over the years. I would like to see it get back to what it was originally intended to do.

Back in the days of the scriptures...church and government were far more intertwined than it is now. There was generally one religion for a people, so their government was also their faith. In this nation with so many different faiths, having faith rule government is not a possibility...so how else are we to help the needy? Do we just let them starve and die?

Edited November 8, 2008 by funkymonkey

[austro-libertarian]

In an attempt to return to the intent of this thread--the United Order and distribution of wealth (i.e., Socialism)--I hope the following helps.

This is from an excellent talk by Elder Marion G. Romney in 1996 at BYU. He was asked to talk about "Socialism and the United Order." Anyone that is serious about this issue should read this talk.

The importance of this topic is fundamental. What we are dealing with is Satan's counterfeit, Socialism, to the Lord's program, the United Order. To the extent that the world moves toward Socialism is the extent to which Heavenly Father's children move toward Satan's plan and away from the Lord's plan. Darkness increases, light and knowledge decrease; and we must work harder to fight Socialism. This is spiritual warfare and we all should be anxiously engaged. That so many church members do not understand this is disheartening.

Below is a brief summary of the talk (I apologize for the length but it's that good).

Socialism

All forms of socialism advocate 3 things:

(1) That private ownership of the vital means of production be abolished and that all such property "pass under some form of co-ordinated public control."

(2) That the power of the state be used to achieve their aims.

(3) "That with a change in the control of industry will go a change in the motives which operate in the industrial system . . ."

United Order

In contrast, the United Order's program for eliminating inequalities is based on the idea that the Lord (not Govt) owns all things; men hold earthly Possessions as stewards accountable to God (not Govt).

"I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth, . . . and all things therein are mine. And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine. But it must needs be done in mine own way." (D&C 104:14-16.)

The United Order consists of (1) consecration and (2) stewardship. It preserves the right to private ownership and management of property. As Elder Romney says, "At his own option he could alienate it or keep and operate it and pass it on to his heirs."

Similarities between Socialism and the United Order

Both (1) deal with production and distribution of goods; (2) aim to promote the well-being of men by eliminating their economic inequalities; (3) envision the elimination of the selfish motives in our private capitalistic industrial system.

Differences between Socialism and the United Order

(1)

United Order: The cornerstone of the United Order is belief in God and acceptance of Him as Lord of the earth and the author of the United Order.

Socialism: wholly materialistic, is founded in the wisdom of men, and not of God. Although all socialists may not be atheists, none of them in theory or practice seek the Lord to establish His righteousness.

(2)

United Order: The United Order is implemented by the voluntary free-will actions of men, evidenced by a consecration of all their property to the Church of God.

Socialism: Socialism is implemented by external force, the power of the state.

(3)

United Order: As to property, in harmony with Church belief, as set forth in the D&C, "that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property" (D&C 134:2), the United Order is operated upon the principle of private ownership and individual management.

Socialism: Socialism is operated on the principle of collective or governmental ownership and management.

Thus in both implementation and ownership and management of property, the United Order preserves to men their God-given agency, while socialism deprives them of it.

(4)

United Order: The United Order is non-political.

Socialism: Socialism is political, both in theory and in practice. It is thus exposed to, and fiddled by, the corruption which plagues and finally destroys all political governments which undertake to abridge man's agency.

(5)

United Order: A righteous people is a prerequisite to the United Order.

Socialism: Socialism argues that it as a system will eliminate the evils of the profit motive.

Socialism as the Wave of the Future

Elder Romney: "Notwithstanding my abhorrence of it, I am persuaded that socialism is the wave of the present and of the foreseeable future. It has already taken over or is contending for control in most nations.

"At the end of the year [1965] parties affiliated with the [socialist] International were in control of the governments of Great Britain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Israel, and the Malagasy Republic. They had representatives in coalition cabinets in Austria, Belgium, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, and Switzerland; constituted the chief opposition in France, India, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand and West Germany; and were significant political forces in numerous other countries. Many parties dominant in governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America announced that their aim was a socialist society."

The United States Converting to Social Welfare State

For those in the US Elder Romney says the following:

"We here in the United States, in converting our government into a social welfare state, have ourselves adopted much of socialism.

"Specifically, we have to an alarming degree adopted the use of the power of the state in the control and distribution of the fruits of industry.

"We are on notice, according to the words of the President, that we are going much farther, for he is quoted as saying:

We're going to take all the money we think is unnecessarily being spent and take it from the "haves" and give it to the "have nots." (Congressional Record, 1964, p. 6142-White House Speech, March 24, 1964.)

"That is the spirit of socialism: 'We're going to take.' It isn't the spirit of 'We're going to give.'

"We have also gone a long way on the road to public ownership and management of the vital means of production. In both of these areas the free agency of Americans has been greatly abridged. Some argue that we have voluntarily surrendered this power to government. Be this as it may, the fact remains that the loss of freedom with the consent of the enslaved, or even at their request, is nonetheless slavery." (That is an amazingly true statement!! I've been trying to say that in multiple posts.)

(end of my summary)

-----------------------------

As I have stated before: It is "nonetheless slavery," as Elder Romney says. For those who do not think this is a big deal, remember: Socialism is Satan's counterfeit to the United Order. Govt is not in the Lord's plan to eliminate poverty or inequalities (nor can it do it). Remember, the Lord takes the slums out of people and they take themselves out of the slums.

[austinrobinson]

I personally am very grateful for the work-ethic, talents, upbringing, and opportunities God has Provided. As long as my government isn't preventing me from life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (note: I personally don't find changes in my wealth to affect my happiness at all) then I am nothing but content to pay my taxes, whatever they may be.

[a-train]

I agree with some of your perspective, although you and I have different concepts of the term "slave".

There must be a way to help our needy and eliminate the likelihood of slowly adding and growing that system. (moderation in all things) I think our own system has been slowly plundered and corrupted over the years. I would like to see it get back to what it was originally intended to do.

Back in the days of the scriptures...church and government were far more intertwined than it is now. There was generally one religion for a people, so their government was also their faith. In this nation with so many different faiths, having faith rule government is not a possibility...so how else are we to help the needy? Do we just let them starve and die?

Of course not. We help them, directly. We get people to help out in supporting both with time and means the work of helping the poor. There are hundreds of charitable organizations in any given metro area which have all come about privately. They are all competing for donations and volunteers. The taxed-to-death middle class could afford to give a lot more support to these institutions if they were not so taxed.

With a multitude of various organizations, whether they are faith based or community based, many different ideas will be tried and tested. We call that a free market of ideas. The efficacy of any one notion will be much more easily tested against other ideas than in a system where only a selected group of ideas is enacted by a single monolithic bureaucracy.

Plus, if you decide that a given organization is more effective than another, you have the agency to give of your time and means to that one, thus empowering the better institution. Such a possibility does not exist in a single government monopoly on helping the poor.

We are constantly being preached to by proponents of big government that without given government programs people will starve and go homeless and naked. It is a hoax. On any given night I can walk into any one of over a dozen shelters in my metro area and get food, clothing, and a place for the night, no questions asked.

Try this. Use the internet and locate as many such organizations in your area. Perhaps someone already has a website with links and information about metro organizations. You may be shocked to see just how much is available. That is the true spirit of Christianity.

James put it this way:

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. (James 1:27)

Look at verse 25 above that. He calls the gospel "the perfect law of liberty".

One major conflict of interests that results from government welfare which was feared by the framers is that if allowed to exchange votes for money, the voting decisions of welfare recipients could be manipulated. In other words, people on welfare will be more likely to vote in favor thereof or for candidates that promise it.

The original intention of the Framers was evident in their writings and in the Constitution. They respected the right to property and believed in the people to care for one another. They did not trust the care of the poor to politics. They felt the matter best handled locally and certainly did not advocate federal welfarism as that was deemed unconstitutional.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison criticizing an attempt to grant public monies for charitable means, 1794

This view was shared throughout the 19th Century. In fact, the Supreme Court upheld that such actions were unconstitutional until 1937.

[i must question] the constitutionality and propriety of the Federal Government assuming to enter into a novel and vast field of legislation, namely, that of providing for the care and support of all those … who by any form of calamity become fit objects of public philanthropy ... I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded. - President Franklin Pierce while vetoing a bill that granted federal social welfare, 1854

What is the "whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded"?

Dallin H. Oaks wrote:

I see divine inspiration in these four great fundamentals of the U.S. Constitution:

• the separation of powers in the three branches of government;

• the Bill of Rights;

• the division of powers between the states and the federal government; and

• the application of popular sovereignty.

The reason for such principles? The natural rights of man, also known as LIBERTY. Read The Proper Role of Government by Ezra Taft Benson.

Elder Oaks also said:

U.S. citizens should follow the First Presidency’s counsel to study the Constitution. They should be familiar with its great fundamentals: the separation of powers, the individual guarantees in the Bill of Rights, the structure of federalism, the sovereignty of the people, and the principles of the rule of the law. They should oppose any infringement of these inspired fundamentals.

Also, look at this. I saved this Ensign booklet and have it this day. It is on my bookshelf, it is 21 years old. It teaches so plainly: "To keep our freedom we must obey the LORD and obey the Constitution."

Big Government bureaucrats who wish to enrich themselves at the cost of our liberty (the definition of slavery) make promises of prosperity and wealth through unconstitutional means. They lull us with the notions of prosperity and they scorn us with accusations of contempt for the welfare of our fellow beings. Many even stoop so low as to accuse the framers of caring not for the poor.

This re-writing of history needs to stop. We need to see through the lies and follow the prophets.

One of the arguments for federal welfare is that many rich self-interested people will not help the poor and thus it is necessary to tax them to obtain the funds needed to help the poor. This makes no sense to me. If it is true that these big-business types don't want to help the poor, why would we give what money we have for the poor to politicians that only seek out the interests of these greedy people?

The Framers, the scriptures, the Prophets, and most importantly the Saviour Himself, all show us the same proper method for caring for the poor and not a single one advocates transferring our individual obligation to any government bureaucracy.

-a-train

[a-train]

Elder Romney: "Notwithstanding my abhorrence of it, I am persuaded that socialism is the wave of the present and of the foreseeable future. It has already taken over or is contending for control in most nations.

"At the end of the year [1965] parties affiliated with the [socialist] International were in control of the governments of Great Britain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Israel, and the Malagasy Republic. They had representatives in coalition cabinets in Austria, Belgium, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, and Switzerland; constituted the chief opposition in France, India, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand and West Germany; and were significant political forces in numerous other countries. Many parties dominant in governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America announced that their aim was a socialist society."

This whole process is the aim and goal of Fabian Socialists. Fabian Socialism is this notion of implementing socialism through a slow gradual means, one piece of legislation at a time. The original Fabian Society used a turtle as its symbol and named itself after the Fabian strategy of Fabius Maximus who defeated Hannibal by wearing his troops down slowly over time while avoiding any direct and decisive battle.

This is the main reason I am such an opponent to small units of socialism, because they lead to more and more and more. I have my posterity to think about.

-a-train

[ruthiechan]

I bet dollars to donuts that those saying that taxation for the government welfare system is evil have never had to rely on it.

Many people are going to have to rely on it now with all of the layoffs happening.

[funkymonkey]

Of course not. We help them, directly. We get people to help out in supporting both with time and means the work of helping the poor. There are hundreds of charitable organizations in any given metro area which have all come about privately. They are all competing for donations and volunteers. The taxed-to-death middle class could afford to give a lot more support to these institutions if they were not so taxed....

Just wanna make sure I understand you correctly...you would like to see welfare be a purely donation-type system? (I don't)

Do you support tax relief for the poor and a little more tax responsibility for the uber rich?...to alleviate the stress on the middle class? (I do)

You have more confidence in those most capable to give than I do. Throughout history, the wealthy has not been a source of charity, but rather tyrany and oppression. Generally this social class is not a class of Christlike characteristics.

We have seen this in action in the past 8 years with the tax break for the wealthy. I have seen the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I didn't see these people "freely donating" to the needy. Seeing what "non-government people of power" have done in the stock market and housing market...I suspect the charity thing would be just as screwed up as the government has it right now, only it would happen a lot faster.

I think independent charities are a fantanstic option for people and I am so glad that they are out there. What a lot of people don't realize is they receive money from their state and federal government in the form of subsodies and grants every year. Without government contributions, many of them would go belly-up.

Unfortunately these independent charities are always one of the first things to go when the economy weakens. I have seen a dozen charities forced to close their doors in just the past two months...where are the people to swoop in to "freely give" right now? They're holding onto their money tighter than ever to maintain their quality of life. Then the government's assistance is inevitable and because we live in such an unChristlike world, the governemtn has to even increase their help (for example, the extension of unemployment benefits, opening more homeless shelters, etc).

Edited November 8, 2008 by funkymonkey

[Moksha]

There are a lot of places to stay this time around. There are a lot of shelters in my area, none are government operated.

-a-train

These religious and other charitable shelters are certainly wonderful. If our worsening economy results in massive unemployment, these shelters will not be adequate. In addition, President Obama might have to institute Public Works again to compensate. Actually Public Works, ties in well with the LDS philosophy of helping people.

[austro-libertarian]

We have seen this in action in the past 8 years with the tax break for the wealthy. I have seen the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

The "poor getting poorer" is a hoax; it's a myth.

I have tried two arguments to advocate free agency and do things of our own free will and choice (who knew this would be so difficult among LDS folk?) to solve ANY "problems" (not just "helping the poor"). So far people seem not to dispute these arguments directly but respond with something to the effect of, "but there will be poor people."

The two arguments are (1) taking from others no matter what the reason is theft and (2) socialism (taking from others their "surplus") is Satan's counterfeit for the United Order (or just living the gospel; not taking, but giving).

If we go back to the original two plans which were put forth by Satan and Jesus Christ, which one does the "but there will be poor people" response most resonate with? Satan said all would be redeemed--not a single soul would be lost--and Christ said men should be able to choose. Satan sought to destroy the agency of man and was "cast down."

[austro-libertarian]

If you could choose where to live as a poor person on this earth, the US is your best option. The US has the richest poor people in the world--and they are getting richer, not poorer. It is false that the poor get poorer. Here are some statistics which show a more realistic picture, as opposed to rhetoric or media sensationalism:

• Forty-six percent of all poor households own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

• Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

• Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

• The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

• Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

• Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television. Over half own two or more color televisions.

• Seventy-eight percent of America's poor own a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

• Seventy-three percent of America's poor own microwave ovens; more than half have a stereo; and one-third have an automatic dishwasher.

[Elgama]

Explain to me why if the church is so anti a government welfare system that in a country where we have a decent one - when we go to branch president/Bishop for help first thing they do is suggest we look at the welfare system in place? Surely if it is such a problem the church would take the stance that as LDS we do not use the government welfare and place the strain instead on the Church.

And I have never ever heard a British Latter Day Saint talk in such a manner. In fact only LDS I know have stood for parliament or office have stood for the more left wing parties. What I find particularly refreshing here over the church in the US is noone is afraid to have a different polictical viewpoint. My Stake Patriach was wonderful I had, had stressful time with some American Missionaries because I read a left wing paper, he said not only did he do as well, he felt it was important that I went with my conscience after personal study, prayer and revelation. I find it diffcult to believe that if socialism in all its forms and welfare state so evil that truly great, spiritual men would be lead that way.

We do not have Mosiah in charge and none of our polictical parties are ever going to be 100 per cent Christlike - I have yet to see a Republican US President refuse his life long salary paid at tax payers expense along with his life long security etc So personally I choose the one that spends more on its people and less on itself or killing people. Everyone in society contributes to its welfare in someway or another even the man that won't work free's up work for the man that will - compulsion is no more of the united order than a welfare state. I just don't see if you don't recognise everyone's value how you can ever accept a United Order. Society needs to work together or it will not work

I know that I do not give all that I can - I did not need to spend £3 on light sticks at the bonfire night that could have gone on offerings, my son did not need bits and pieces for his birthday I could have contributed that to offerings, but I didn't I don't have the kind of faith in myself that I would live by only what is adequate for my needs and give the rest away.

-Charley

[Elgama]

I personally am very grateful for the work-ethic, talents, upbringing, and opportunities God has Provided. As long as my government isn't preventing me from life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (note: I personally don't find changes in my wealth to affect my happiness at all) then I am nothing but content to pay my taxes, whatever they may be.

my feelings exactly Austin, in fact paying taxes contributes and has done in the past to my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. I love my life and where a live and huge part of that comes from people working together and contributing to the society in which they live in.

-Charley