Why does Socialism seem to lead to the decline of religion?

[dorave]

You've done a grand job of missing the point. Not all socialist societies share the same values and ideals. Having a preference toward socialism doesn't require sharing the values of the Nazi party. Nor does being a Christian require a person to reject socialism/communism.

The Gospel can flourish under any government where the people are free to devote themselves to their God before they devote themselves to the state.

The sad thing is even soft socialist policies gradully move society towards a failed society heigthening the opportunity for it to fall into a communist or facist state.

A socialist run society is really no different to a Bernie Madoff Ponzi Scheme.

[Vanhin]

I like this video.

Regards,

Vanhin

[FunkyTown]

Radical capitalism?? what on earth....

Capitalism is only ever corrupted when govt, esp socialist govts deride it for votes.

Really? Capitalism is only corrupted when government 'deride it for votes'?

You do realize we're not twelve years old here, right?

From dictionary.com, here's the definition of Capitalism:

An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy. Investors in these private companies (i.e. shareholders) also own the firms and are known as capitalists.

The most perfect example of pure capitalism would be the drug trade: Free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. It is not a government-controlled economy. It is run exclusively by the private sector and runs in spite of government interference, rather than because of it.

Capitalism is neither inherently good or bad but the people make it so. Because people have historically proven to have members that are selfish, violent, self-centered and unwise, governmental regulation is a requirement.

Why?

Because I can vote out the government. I can't vote out the idjit who decides dumping toxic waste in the plot next door to my house is the easiest way to make money.

[rameumptom]

If there was such a government that said, I am here to do whatever you want me to do, it wouldn't survive because the majority of people in this world are evil and choose evil over good. Having the people in charge is not the answer either because their motives as a whole are based in selfish needs.

I agree with what you have said about the choices between the lesser of the two evils. But in my mind, any form of government, in this world, is one that has to self promote and suggest that it can save the people from themselves just like Satan proposed before this world began. So, I think it is best to always choose the form that gives us the most freedom to act for ourselves and to govern ourselves, until we are in a situation where everyone around us is good.

While our current world is rather wicked in many senses, it also has much good. I look at the teachings of the Church regarding these concepts. King Mosiah I gave the government to the people because the people would normally select only things good for society, and that if the day came that they chose evil, they would be ripe for destruction.

The Doctrine and Covenants tells us that the US Constitution was inspired of God and could be used as a template for any righteous nations seeking to be free.

Perfect? No. I never stated anything concerning a perfect government. Good government? Yes. We can develop a good government, hopefully with the concept of improvement.

Today, though, we do not follow the US Constitution s the founding fathers framed it. Even the government-loving Alexander Hamilton would be shocked at the gross socialism that has crept in over the past century. We have gone from seeking to increase the freedoms of the people (such as Civil Rights, Women's Suffrage, etc), to enacting new entitlements and calling them "rights."

Socialism tends to turn great people into mediocre people. History shows time and again, whether in the Soviet bloc, China, or western Europe, whenever one delves in giving its citizens entitlements, the people stop innovating, learning, and progressing. The Ukraine was the grain belt of Europe until the Soviets took over. Suddenly they couldn't produce enough to feed their own. In the last 20 years of freedom, the Ukraine has again started to export large amounts of excess grain to Europe.

Zimbabwe used to export food and raw materials to Africa. Now under the Socialist Robert Mugabe, the nation is starving. The Soviet bloc went bankrupt, collapsed, and the nations doing well now are the ones that encouraged free enterprise and speech. China, whose decades of agricultural and industrial revolutions kept failing and starving millions, seeing what happen to the socialists, opened up their markets and expanded free enterprise. They are now a very rich nation.

In the Great Depression, The nations who recovered fastest were the ones who used free market principles and reduced government involvement. Look at how slowly our economy is recovering now. Only the sections that have received big government bail outs (banks) are doing well. for most others, it is a slow, jobless recovery and will likely hit a second dip within the next year or two.

[Seminarysnoozer]

While our current world is rather wicked in many senses, it also has much good. I look at the teachings of the Church regarding these concepts. King Mosiah I gave the government to the people because the people would normally select only things good for society, and that if the day came that they chose evil, they would be ripe for destruction.

The Doctrine and Covenants tells us that the US Constitution was inspired of God and could be used as a template for any righteous nations seeking to be free.

Perfect? No. I never stated anything concerning a perfect government. Good government? Yes. We can develop a good government, hopefully with the concept of improvement.

Today, though, we do not follow the US Constitution s the founding fathers framed it. Even the government-loving Alexander Hamilton would be shocked at the gross socialism that has crept in over the past century. We have gone from seeking to increase the freedoms of the people (such as Civil Rights, Women's Suffrage, etc), to enacting new entitlements and calling them "rights."

Socialism tends to turn great people into mediocre people. History shows time and again, whether in the Soviet bloc, China, or western Europe, whenever one delves in giving its citizens entitlements, the people stop innovating, learning, and progressing. The Ukraine was the grain belt of Europe until the Soviets took over. Suddenly they couldn't produce enough to feed their own. In the last 20 years of freedom, the Ukraine has again started to export large amounts of excess grain to Europe.

Zimbabwe used to export food and raw materials to Africa. Now under the Socialist Robert Mugabe, the nation is starving. The Soviet bloc went bankrupt, collapsed, and the nations doing well now are the ones that encouraged free enterprise and speech. China, whose decades of agricultural and industrial revolutions kept failing and starving millions, seeing what happen to the socialists, opened up their markets and expanded free enterprise. They are now a very rich nation.

In the Great Depression, The nations who recovered fastest were the ones who used free market principles and reduced government involvement. Look at how slowly our economy is recovering now. Only the sections that have received big government bail outs (banks) are doing well. for most others, it is a slow, jobless recovery and will likely hit a second dip within the next year or two.

You are much more optimistic than I am. Like in most things, there is a way provided for success and "perfection" but most will fall short of that mark in this life. I agree that the U.S. constitution was inspired. And because of that the U.S. gentile nation was given an opportunity to be a light to the world. But we all know how the story ends, the government itself will fall short. That is because it takes righteous people to have righteous government and I don't see any sign that we are becoming more righteous as a whole than we were before. So, unless the people turn around this form of government also will fail.

Like you stated in your last paragraph, the only thing we can hope for is to pick the form of government that will slow down the rate of decline, but they all head downward eventually. This is the cycle we learn about in the BOM, prosperity - pride - fall.

[Suzie]

I don't agree with socialism, however to each it's own. I think our political views shouldn't be mixed with religion and if some folks believe in socialism, good for them! I just don't want my religion to influence what political stand I should have.

[dorave]

Really? Capitalism is only corrupted when government 'deride it for votes'?

You do realize we're not twelve years old here, right?

From dictionary.com, here's the definition of Capitalism:

The most perfect example of pure capitalism would be the drug trade: Free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. It is not a government-controlled economy. It is run exclusively by the private sector and runs in spite of government interference, rather than because of it.

Capitalism is neither inherently good or bad but the people make it so. Because people have historically proven to have members that are selfish, violent, self-centered and unwise, governmental regulation is a requirement.

Why?

Because I can vote out the government. I can't vote out the idjit who decides dumping toxic waste in the plot next door to my house is the easiest way to make money.

But you cant vote out policy. Esp socialist leaning ones, like HealthCare, any politican voting against free healthcare once it is fully implemented is commiting political suicide. So vote all you want it means little, once the societal system is socialized.

Politicans deride a capitalist system when welfare policies, benefits and entitlements (which are merely just bribes for votes) are deemed to big to fail, and therefore bailed out from the Federal Reserve (a govt created program) with credit (not real money) card money ...in a pure capitalist system, its fix program is called 'failure', 'bust', or 'bankruptcy' - this fix ensures the right outcome results from greed, selfishnes, or unwise choices.... politicians just get in the way of this process for votes and lack faith.

Capitalism is meant to be both good and bad, its no different to the tree of good and evil.

Edited May 13, 2010 by dorave

[Elgama]

Isn't England a socialist nation?

nope Its now official we have a centre/right of centre government. However my understanding is they are using the Churchill definition of conservatism rather than later models like Thatcherism etc The plan is to create a net, you keep everyone in the net but provide provision for people who can to climb out of it.

[Rosabella]

For me personally I look to the Prophet and Apostles to help guide my life in all areas. I search what they have said regarding all matters including politics. I feel that if God is speaking through His mouth pieces, which I believe, and they speak about politics I should listen. The Brethren concerns expressed mostly have been over moral issues, not issues between political parties, but they make it clear what systems of Government can best fruit the Gospel Plan. It is the systems like Communism, Socialism that are the concern not as much the political parties. Republicans, Democrats, Independents etc. can expose and promote Socialist or Communistic ideas and platforms. We must understand the Constitution and what the Church leaders have said about that to understand the big picture. We have been told that the Constitution is a divinely inspired document, created so the Gospel can prosper. The other systems of Government limit ones right to freedom of religion. What we are seeing now in society is the right of freedom of religion being threatened.

I thought this was a good talk I was reading today.

Meeting the Challenges of Today by Neal A Maxwell 1978.

Some highlights from this talk:

We are now entering a period of incredible ironies. Let us cite but one of these ironies which is yet in its subtle stages: we shall see in our time a maximum if indirect effort made to establish irreligion as the state religion. It is actually a new form of paganism that uses the carefully preserved and cultivated freedoms of Western civilization to shrink freedom even as it rejects the value essence of our rich Judeo-Christian heritage.

What the secularists are increasingly demanding, in their disingenuous way, is that religious people, when they act politically, act only on secularist grounds. They are trying to equate acting on religion with establishing religion. And--I repeat--the consequence of such logic is really to establish secularism. It is in fact, to force the religious to internalize the major premise of secularism: that religion has no proper bearing on public affairs. [Human Life Review, Summer 1978, pp. 51–52, 60–61]

Brothers and sisters, irreligion as the state religion would be the worst of all combinations. Its orthodoxy would be insistent and its inquisitors inevitable.

Your discipleship may see the time come when religious convictions are heavily discounted. M. J. Sobran also observed, "A religious conviction is now a second-class conviction, expected to step deferentially to the back of the secular bus, and not to get uppity about it" (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, p. 58). This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain of people's opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions. Resistance to abortion will soon be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened.

In its mildest form, irreligion will merely be condescending toward those who hold to traditional Judeo-Christian values. In its more harsh forms, as is always the case with those whose dogmatism is blinding, the secular church will do what it can to reduce the influence of those who still worry over standards such as those in the Ten Commandments. It is always such an easy step from dogmatism to unfair play--especially so when the dogmatists believe themselves to be dealing with primitive people who do not know what is best for them. It is the secular bureaucrat's burden, you see.

We will notice paradoxically that the new pagans however are not so devoted to the beliefs they are willing fund their own programs. They prefer to use the funds of believers but without having to take the latter's opinions.

Our founding fathers did not wish to have a state church established nor to have a particular religion favored by government. They wanted religion to be free to make its own way. But neither did they intend to have irreligion made into a favored state church. Notice the terrible irony if this trend were to continue. When the secular church goes after its heretics, where are the sanctuaries? To what landfalls and Plymouth Rocks can future pilgrims go?

Edited May 13, 2010 by Rosabella

[FunkyTown]

But you cant vote out policy. Esp socialist leaning ones, like HealthCare, any politican voting against free healthcare once it is fully implemented is commiting political suicide. So vote all you want it means little, once the societal system is socialized.

Politicans deride a capitalist system when welfare policies, benefits and entitlements (which are merely just bribes for votes) are deemed to big to fail, and therefore bailed out from the Federal Reserve (a govt created program) with credit (not real money) card money ...in a pure capitalist system, its fix program is called 'failure', 'bust', or 'bankruptcy' - this fix ensures the right outcome results from greed, selfishnes, or unwise choices.... politicians just get in the way of this process for votes and lack faith.

Capitalism is meant to be both good and bad, its no different to the tree of good and evil.

First of all: You're using emotional arguments. What you're saying is basically designed to evoke feelings of the Bolshevik revolution and 'In Mother Russia, coat wears YOU!'

Let's take your concerns in reverse order:

'Credit is not real money' - Real money is not real money. 'Real money' is just a promissory note that says 'This person has done work equivalent to this amount and we back it'. The only 'real money' is barter and I don't see you arguing for a return to the barter system. Unless you can come up with how many chickens a complex brain surgery costs to remove a tumor, money is the simplest method of guaranteeing a swift exchange of goods from one area to the other.

Secondly: 'The Federal Reserve is a government created program'. Yep. It is. So is the military - Funny how I don't see people who argue that taxes for the military are socialist. Their argument that any government program that takes taxes from everyone and applies it to a universal program is socialist applies equally to a governmental military. Why not just return to a government raised militia rather than a standing army? You can come up with very good reasons not to do this, I bet.

That makes you a little bit of a socialist, since you're suggesting the government should tax people to do a job that the private industry could.

Thirdly: 'You can't vote out policy'. Yes, you can. You just need to vote in a government that's going to repeal it. Do people not vote in politicians who take away all their safety net?

That's the price of living in a Democratic society(And to avoid a pointless argument that I know happens every time I say that, I know the US is a Republic. That is still a Democratic society. It's just not a true Democracy.).

[dorave]

First of all: You're using emotional arguments. What you're saying is basically designed to evoke feelings of the Bolshevik revolution and 'In Mother Russia, coat wears YOU!'

Let's take your concerns in reverse order:

'Credit is not real money' - Real money is not real money. 'Real money' is just a promissory note that says 'This person has done work equivalent to this amount and we back it'. The only 'real money' is barter and I don't see you arguing for a return to the barter system. Unless you can come up with how many chickens a complex brain surgery costs to remove a tumor, money is the simplest method of guaranteeing a swift exchange of goods from one area to the other.

Secondly: 'The Federal Reserve is a government created program'. Yep. It is. So is the military - Funny how I don't see people who argue that taxes for the military are socialist. Their argument that any government program that takes taxes from everyone and applies it to a universal program is socialist applies equally to a governmental military. Why not just return to a government raised militia rather than a standing army? You can come up with very good reasons not to do this, I bet.

That makes you a little bit of a socialist, since you're suggesting the government should tax people to do a job that the private industry could.

Thirdly: 'You can't vote out policy'. Yes, you can. You just need to vote in a government that's going to repeal it. Do people not vote in politicians who take away all their safety net?

That's the price of living in a Democratic society(And to avoid a pointless argument that I know happens every time I say that, I know the US is a Republic. That is still a Democratic society. It's just not a true Democracy.).

You posted all that text wizardy and it held little impact and tbh it wasn't very relevant. No need to get heated.

[FunkyTown]

You posted all that text wizardy and it held little impact and tbh it wasn't very relevant. No need to get heated.

I'm sorry you thought that was heated. It wasn't meant to be.

It was meant to be direct. Whether or not it had impact is irrelevant.

You are simply wrong in the way you argue things.

[Elgama]

But you cant vote out policy. Esp socialist leaning ones, like HealthCare, any politican voting against free healthcare once it is fully implemented is commiting political suicide. So vote all you want it means little, once the societal system is socialized.

Surely that is democracy in action? If the vast majority of people didn't want healthcare they could vote it out. Kinda says something about national healthcare though ie once established the overwhelming reaction to it, is this is the right thing. You won't find many in my country who feel it should go, those who have experienced healthcare in the US tend to be the most ardent supporters of the NHS with all its faults.

Why would no politician even a right wing one stand on a no NHS ticket, because democracy and the will of the people they serve has decided to keep it.

Politicans deride a capitalist system when welfare policies, benefits and entitlements (which are merely just bribes for votes) are deemed to big to fail, and therefore bailed out from the Federal Reserve (a govt created program) with credit (not real money) card money ...in a pure capitalist system, its fix program is called 'failure', 'bust', or 'bankruptcy' - this fix ensures the right outcome results from greed, selfishnes, or unwise choices.... politicians just get in the way of this process for votes and lack faith.

Are you arguing doing away with democracy?

[rameumptom]

You are much more optimistic than I am. Like in most things, there is a way provided for success and "perfection" but most will fall short of that mark in this life. I agree that the U.S. constitution was inspired. And because of that the U.S. gentile nation was given an opportunity to be a light to the world. But we all know how the story ends, the government itself will fall short. That is because it takes righteous people to have righteous government and I don't see any sign that we are becoming more righteous as a whole than we were before. So, unless the people turn around this form of government also will fail.

Like you stated in your last paragraph, the only thing we can hope for is to pick the form of government that will slow down the rate of decline, but they all head downward eventually. This is the cycle we learn about in the BOM, prosperity - pride - fall.

I am optimistic because I know who wins in the end. I also understand that with every destruction comes a new creation.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I am optimistic because I know who wins in the end. I also understand that with every destruction comes a new creation.

Absolutely, and government is part of the destruction side of the cycle. Government is not the winner. "a new creation" to do away with the previous system, i.e. Helaman's world.

Let me clarify (thought I was clear enough) I am not as optimistic about government helping the situation as much as you are.

[LinuxGal]

What was the sin of the people Jacob preached against? They had begun to search for gold and silver. And some of them were better searchers than others, so they tricked out their apparel to show off that they were more ambitious and competent that their brothers. Apparently God wants everyone to be comrades who don't flaunt their private property, but share and share alike:

Jacob says, "Think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free with your substance, that they may be rich like unto you."

The same process repeated in 4 Nephi: A socialist utopia came to an end when the people asserted private property again. So while it puzzles me that Mormons are mostly Republicans, it puzzles me even more to see a thread that claims that socialism leads to a dwindling in unbelief.

[Rosabella]

What was the sin of the people Jacob preached against? They had begun to search for gold and silver. And some of them were better searchers than others, so they tricked out their apparel to show off that they were more ambitious and competent that their brothers. Apparently God wants everyone to be comrades who don't flaunt their private property, but share and share alike:

Jacob says, "Think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free with your substance, that they may be rich like unto you."

The same process repeated in 4 Nephi: A socialist utopia came to an end when the people asserted private property again. So while it puzzles me that Mormons are mostly Republicans, it puzzles me even more to see a thread that claims that socialism leads to a dwindling in unbelief.

That is a very good question and one it took me a while to understand, for we should and must feed the needy, cloth the naked etc. Or we are failing one of the two greatest commandments which is "love thy neighbor as thyself".

The Bible, Mark chapter 12 verses 28-31

28 ¶ And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?

29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:

33 And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.

So the two most important commandments are first to love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and second to love your neighbor as yourself.

How do we do this? It must be from the heart and we must be the ones to decide and willingly do this. Neither loving of God can be forced nor can the loving of ones neighbor. It must be something we choose or it is not righteousness. We cannot be forced to worship God and be called his sheep or followers. One cannot be forced to love his brother as himself and be called charitable and truly loving. These things must be by choice not force. Blessings of God and fulfilling commandments must come from what is in our heart and actions, not merely from the outcome of forced actions.

For me personally I look forward to living the United Order. I have am very much willing to consecrate all that I have and all that I can do for God and my brothers and sisters. The highest commandment is to consecrate all to God. But there is a difference between consecrating all to God and to consecrate to a government not run by God.

I would say the reason that LDS do not believe socialism or communism is because it requires forced righteousness and not love freely given. If it is forced by a government it is no longer consecration but the government taking or stealing from one to give to another. If a man gives without coercion of his bounty to the needy his is blessed. If a man's bounty is taken from him without choice how can the Lord bless him, for he did nothing from his heart? It was taken from him and he had no choice. He also has no choice in how it is used. It could go to funding things that go against the laws of God when governments use the money.

Analogy:

I am hungry and I come to you and ask for food and you willingly agree to give me food in my time of need. Or I go to your neighbor and his says he has no food for me but then comes to your house breaks in and takes food out of your house then feeds me. Do you get the credit from God for this action? No. I am fed but by what means. Was it stolen or was it given? The neighbor gave it to me but did you? Is the neighbor blessed for stealing the food?

For giving to be a pure Christ-like means it must be given from the heart freely and honestly. In the action of giving it through our agency and not being forced is wherein lies the blessing of God, not in the mere fact one was fed. If the neighbor came to you and asked for food for me and you agreed, then you would be blessed of God. You will be blessed even more if you sought out those in need and gave to them.

As LDS we do this through our fast offerings, or time spent working in the canneries, the Bishops Storehouse, and volunteer work etc... We are told not to build up treasures on earth but to build treasures in heaven. We are told to build the Kingdom of God on earth and not build up private empires. If one is not doing those things then they are failing in one of the two greatest commandments. We are not forced to do those things. We are asked to and if we do them with a willing heart that seeks to help the needy, not coerced or forced then we are doing what the Lord has commanded. It should never be forced upon men. It should come from their desire to help. Otherwise it really is stealing from them which fruits no love or eternal blessings.

The United order is voluntary. No one forces you to participate. It is done by ones own conscious.

Socialism and Communism do not encourage the first commandment to love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. They actually discourage it because the "ism" needs you to give it all of your heart, soul, mind and strength to support it. So they end up in competition with Religions for your bounties.

Here are some talks by LDS leaders that say socialism or communism is not the United Order but a counterfeit.

Elder Harold B. Lee Of the Council of the Twelve Apostles CR April 1942

They suit their approaches to the particular group they seek to deceive. Among the Latter-day Saints they speak of their philosophy and their plans under it, as an ushering in of the United Order. Communism and all other similar isms bear no relationship whatever to the United Order. They are merely the clumsy counterfeits which Satan always devises of the gospel plan. Communism debases the individual and makes him the enslaved tool of the state to whom he must look for sustenance and religion; the United Order exalts the individual, leaves him his property, "according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs,"

(D. & C. 51:3) and provides a system by which he helps care for his less fortunate brethren; the United Order leaves every man free to choose his own religion as his conscience directs. Communism destroys man's God-given free agency: the United Order glorifies it. Latter-day Saints cannot be true to their faith and lend aid, encouragement, or sympathy to any of these false philosophies. They will prove snares to their feet.

Elder Harold B. Lee Of the Council of the Twelve Apostles CR October 1941

There are some things of which I am sure, and that is that contrary to the belief and mistaken ideas of some of our people, the United Order will not be a Socialistic or Communistic set-up: it will be something distinctive and yet will be more capitalistic in its nature than either Socialism or Communism, in that private ownership and individual responsibility will be maintained. I am sure also that when it comes it will come from the leaders of this Church whom you sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators, and will not come from some man who does not occupy that position. It will not come as a political program, legislated by men not possessed of that authority. I am also convinced that the time is here when Zion must put on her beautiful garments preparatory for the second coming of the Savior, and I believe firmly that that preparation is in progress. I am likewise persuaded that the Church Welfare Plan is contributing mightily to that preparation.

President J. Reuben Clark Jr First Counselor in the First Presidency CR October 1943

The United Order and communism are not synonymous. Communism is Satan's counterfeit for the United Order. There is no mistake about this and those who go about telling us otherwise either do not know or have failed to understand or are wilfully misrepresenting.

[MisterT]

Easy way to explain why socialisms rise leads to declining church attendance; put simply, you can't have two Gods that compete for the same spot. The State is God to the people, and The Father is nothing more than a fairytale, hardly worth telling.

And with each successive generation, spiritual roots are torn from the ground, the cement and steel of state sponsored industry gradually takes over the places of worship, and the people struggle under a cruel bow before they are finally liberated; only to forget the lessons learned by failing to secure the freedoms and rights of each successive generation that follows.

[Elgama]

ok methinks you need to define socialism? because my country is more socialist than the US but actually has Christianity as its State Religion - most schools do still include religious observance and prayer, and our army, police, scouts, etc pledge allegiance to God, Queen and Country in that order not State:)

[Suzie]

Just to clarify eh, let's not generalize and say LDS folks don't believe in Socialism/Communism. Just like there are lots of Democrats and LDS, there are many LDS folks who believe in Socialism.

[Rosabella]

Just to clarify eh, let's not generalize and say LDS folks don't believe in Socialism/Communism. Just like there are lots of Democrats and LDS, there are many LDS folks who believe in Socialism.

Yes there are members that believe in Socialism. But I ask to please share any Prophet and Apostle quotes that say any of them has supported it. All the quotes I find on the topic are against communism and socialism. I am not talking Democrat or Republican just Socialism, Communism or even Fascism. All the quotes I find back the US Constitution as the Divinely inspired document and state that Socialism and Communism are its opposite and condemning them as even Satan's counterfeit and anti-Christ.

I would love to see any quotes that say different by the General Authorites.

[Elgama]

Yes there are members that believe in Socialism. But I ask to please share any Prophet and Apostle quotes that say any of them has supported it. All the quotes I find on the topic are against communism and socialism. I am not talking Democrat or Republican just Socialism, Communism or even Fascism. All the quotes I find back the US Constitution as the Divinely inspired document and state that Socialism and Communism are its opposite and condemning them as even Satan's counterfeit and anti-Christ.

I would love to see any quotes that say different by the General Authorites.

US socialism definition or the European definition?

Also what is the most recent quote you can find the one's on this thread seem to be very old and polictical definitions change over time, they were also mostly before the start of our welfare state and for that matter end of WW2 off to check the other quotes

Edited May 15, 2010 by Elgama

[Elgama]

ok dates on quotes used are 1940s, 1963 and 1978, we are now in 2010. Where are the quotes from President Monson, President Hinckley and perhaps more revelingly for me would be President Uchtdorf

[Guest mormonmusic]

I'm only speculating here, but I think the silence of modern prophets on whether socialism or conservatism is better, is due to modern laws which prohibit Churches from endorsing political parties or candidate -- otherwise we would lose or tax status as a charitable organization.

I think that's why the Church is always careful NOT to tell people who to vote for. And that's why there is probably very little modern guidance on political issues from the Prophets.

Years ago, in the Church news, George (not W) Bush visited Gordon B Hinckley (when he was a counselor in the First Presidency and the prophet was ill) on "how to promote family values in American society". There was a picture of the two of them in the Church news. I think the article was meant to show the affinity a Christian religion like ours has for conservative political thought, without actually endorsing it. In fact, the byline under the picture said "Gordon B Hinckley welcomed President Bush as a leader of a nation, and not a political party leader".

So, in modern times, prophets have less freedom to speak politically. That's why you hear less direction. If we were able to speak openly about such things to sway our people to vote, it wouldn't surprise me if the endorsement was for parties with more right wing values on most issues.

[JohnnyRudick]

The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out

of other people's money. Margaret Thatcher.

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always

depend on the support of Paul. George Bernard Shaw:rolleyes:

Edited May 15, 2010 by JohnnyRudick
Afterthought:-)