Your opinion: Obvious or not obvious?

[annewandering]

Your link isnt working. Dont know why. It tries to redirect but is unsuccessful.

You do know that socialists can and do believe in the constitution?

[rameumptom]

Most Prophets tend to avoid politics with good cause. We dont need any more martyrs do we?

There is also the thing about many members of the church live under other governments including socialism. Should we be calling them out as being evil? I do seem to recall and Article of Faith addressing that issue. I also recall that Jesus was not overly interested in governments except for His Fathers kingdom.

Perhaps our attention should be directed in similar ways.

My question on any apostles praising socialism still stands. Your statement avoids my questions completely.

BTW, Elder Benson did attack socialism. So did Reuben Clark from the General Conference pulpit. President David O. McKay also was rather anti-socialist. If your statements are correct, then why do we not have others praising socialism, if it is so very wonderful?

Yes, in our global religion today, our prophets and apostles are careful not to speak out regarding political institutions, because preaching the gospel is more important. But it has not always been that way. And in the past when several were speaking out against socialism, none that I know of spoke out in favor of it.

As it is, while those statements are not binding upon the membership, I'd say they hold much more weight than your statements - which have no apostolic weight of any sort behind them that I'm aware of.

So, where are statements by apostles praising socialism?

[bythelake]

Your link isnt working. Dont know why. It tries to redirect but is unsuccessful.

You do know that socialists can and do believe in the constitution?

Ok, the link is fixed.

Maybe there are socialists that believe in the constitution, but I don't think they understand its principles.

" The fifth and final principle that is basic to our understanding of the Constitution is that governments should have only limited powers. The important thing to keep in mind is that the people who have created their government can give to that government only such powers as they, themselves, have in the first place. Obviously, they cannot give that which they do not possess.

"By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft, and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute money or property nor to force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will. Government is created by the people. No individual possesses the power to take another's wealth or to force others to do good, so no government has the right to do such things either. The creature cannot exceed the creator."

----President Benson (from the linked talk)

*******

I was just looking at an interesting site.

It is from World Socialist Movement (a pro-socialism site) and it's a pdf entitled "The Principles of Socialism". Among other things it says, "Socialists are materialists and are opposed to religion which has always been a prop to

class society."

I guess there are people who believe in different kinds and degrees of socialism, but this is interesting.

Edited November 8, 2012 by bythelake

[Finrock]

Good afternoon annewandering! I hope you've been doing well. :)

[A]nd...Elder Romney never was prophet.

Just a general FYI and fact check: All apostles are prophets. Elder Romney is a prophet, a seer, and a revelator. This isn't just a technicality, it is a significant truth. Very little separates the President of the church from the rest of the apostles in terms of their right to speak authoritatively for and within the Church.

Regards,

Finrock

[MarginOfError]

So, where are statements by apostles praising socialism?

Easy*

Mormon suggested that living in a socialist environment allowed all people to live well and receive the gospel.

And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift. (4 Nephi 1:3)

The early apostles also helped institute branches of the church that lived by socialist principles (see Acts 2:44-45, Acts 4:32).

In Enoch's Zion, there were no poor (Moses 7:18). I highly doubt that unrestrained capitalism is what allowed that to happen. In fact, one example of unrestrained capitalism in the Book of Mormon results in the Gandianton robbers taking over the government, amassing wealth unto themselves at the expense of the poor (see Helaman 6:39). Eventually, this would lead to the collapse of the government.

I could also quote God, and I'd like to think his word trumps Elder Benson's.

For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things; (D&C 78:6)

* I don't necessarily agree with the line of thought I am presenting. I am only presenting an intellectual exercise. My personal belief is that there is room, and wisdom, for a combination of limited capitalism with limited social programs. It's just very hard to draw those lines (and no, I don't have good answers).

[MarginOfError]

Good afternoon annewandering! I hope you've been doing well. :)

Just a general FYI and fact check: All apostles are prophets. Elder Romney is a prophet, a seer, and a revelator. This isn't just a technicality, it is a significant truth. Very little separates the President of the church from the rest of the apostles in terms of their right to speak authoritatively for and within the Church.

Regards,

Finrock

Or to interject their personal interpretations into their discourse.

[annewandering]

Brigham Young:"There shall be no private ownership of the streams that come out of the canyons, nor the timber that grows on the hills. These belong to the people: all the people.”

Joseph Smith: “if you are not equal in earthly things you cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things.”

Brigham Young: “We have plenty here. No person is going to starve, or suffer, if there is an equal distribution of the necessaries of life.”

Acts 2:44-47 44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.

46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church[a] daily those who were being saved.

3Ne: 26:19-20: 19 And they taught, and did aminister one to another; and they had ball things ccommon among them, every man dealing justly, one with another.

20 And it came to pass that they did do all things even as Jesus had commanded them.

4 Ne:1: 3: And they had aall 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.

Now this chapter has a lot more that is pertinent. These very much so.

4 Ne: 25-26: 24 And now, in this two hundred and first year there began to be among them those who were lifted up in pride, such as the wearing of costly apparel, and all manner of fine pearls, and of the fine things of the world.

25 And from that time forth they did have their goods and their substance no more common among them.

Is that enough? I am sure I can find many many more.

lol ok Margin of Error beat me to some of them. Ty. :)

[Finrock]

Good afternoon rameumptom. I hope that you have been well! :)

That their words are not binding upon is may be true, but we are encouraged to prayerfully consider their words, not just reject them because they do not fit our social view.

When an apostle is speaking as a prophet, as a seer, or as a revelator, their words are binding. Those of us who are baptized and endowed have made covenants to obey the prophets; and apostles are prophets. When speaking as apostles, their words are as binding upon us as the words of the President of the church. This principle even extends to our local leaders. For instance, when our local bishops speak in their office, their words are binding upon those who are within the bishop's jurisdiction.

We've also raised our hand to sustain the apostles. Part of sustaining them is to obey their words when they are speaking in their capacity as apostles.

The notion that we are only obligated to prayerfully consider their words but that their words are not binding upon us when they are speaking within their capacity as apostles, is a false notion.

Regards,

Finrock

[Guest]

I feel that the Law of Consecration and Socialism are being equated here, when they are different things.

[annewandering]

Good afternoon annewandering! I hope you've been doing well. :)

Just a general FYI and fact check: All apostles are prophets. Elder Romney is a prophet, a seer, and a revelator. This isn't just a technicality, it is a significant truth. Very little separates the President of the church from the rest of the apostles in terms of their right to speak authoritatively for and within the Church.

Regards,

Finrock

Yes.

[MarginOfError]

Good afternoon rameumptom. I hope that you have been well! :)

When an apostle is speaking as a prophet, as a seer, or as a revelator, their words are binding. Those of us who are baptized and endowed have made covenants to obey the prophets; and apostles are prophets. When speaking as apostles, their words are as binding upon us as the words of the President of the church. This principle even extends to our local leaders. For instance, when our local bishops speak in their office, their words are binding upon those who are within the bishop's jurisdiction.

We've also raised our hand to sustain the apostles. Part of sustaining them is to obey their words when they are speaking in their capacity as apostles.

The notion that we are only obligated to prayerfully consider their words but that their words are not binding upon us when they are speaking within their capacity as apostles, is a false notion.

Regards,

Finrock

What isn't clear to me, however, is how exactly we are to determine when they are speaking in their capacity as apostles and when they are not? Was Joseph Fielding Smith speaking in his capacity as an apostle when he declared at a stake conference than man would never walk on the moon?

Or what of the story of Brigham Young giving a fired up sermon in General Conference one morning only to get up and say that Brigham Young had spoken in the morning, but now they would get to hear from the prophet?

I think Ram's point is that we need to pray about the words of the prophets and determine which words are advice, anecdote, suggestion and personal interpretation/application, and which are essential and irrefutable principles of the gospel.

[MarginOfError]

I feel that the Law of Consecration and Socialism are being equated here, when they are different things.

It is true that they are different things, but the do share a number of concepts in common.

The point of the exercise was to say that it isn't out of the realm of reality to take the scriptures and build a case for some forms of socialism (I think I'd have a hard time building a case for atheistic socialism out of the scriptures).

Whether or not we agree with those interpretations is another matter.

[bythelake]

Our objective is Zion...the United Order. But the United Order and socialism are not the same, and church leaders have not espoused socialism.

In a talk entitled, "Is Socialism the United Order", Marion G Romney talks about socialism, and the similarities differences between socialism and the United Order. I think you already know the similarities. Here are the differences, as he has explained well.

****

Differences

Now the differences:

(1) 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) 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.

One time the Prophet Joseph Smith asked a question by the brethren about the inventories they were taking. His answer was to the effect, “You don’t need to be concerned about the inventories. Unless a man is willing to consecrate everything he has, he doesn’t come into the United Order.” (Documentary History of the Church, Vol. 7, pp. 412-13.) On the other hand, socialism is implemented by external force, the power of the state.

(3) In harmony with church belief, as set forth in the Doctrine and Covenants, “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.

God-given agency preserved in United Order

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) The United Order is non-political.

Socialism is political, both in theory and practice. It is thus exposed to, and riddled by, the corruption that plagues and finally destroys all political governments that undertake to abridge man’s agency.

(5) A righteous people is a prerequisite to the United Order.

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

The United Order exalts the poor and humbles the rich. In the process both are sanctified. The poor, released from the bondage and humiliating limitations of poverty, are enabled as free men to rise to their full potential, both temporally and spiritually. The rich, by consecration and by imparting of their surplus for the benefit of the poor, not by constraint but willingly as an act of free will, evidence that charity for their fellowmen characterized by Mormon as “the pure love of Christ.” (Moro. 7:47.)

******

Also, this quote from Joseph Smith:

Joseph Smith

“I attended a second lecture on Socialism, by Mr. Finch; and after he got through, I made a few remarks… I said I did not believe the doctrine.” (History of the Church 6:33)

Edited November 8, 2012 by bythelake

[Wingnut]

In a talk entitled, "Is Socialism the United Order", he talks about socialism, and the similarities differences between socialism and the United Order. I think you already know the similarities. Here are the differences, as he has explained well.

Who is "he?" Please provide a reference for the talk.

[Guest]

Here's a thread with all the discussion you've ever wanted on the topic:

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/14150-law-consecration-vs-socialism.html

[annewandering]

Now is the time we clarify what socialism is. Most do socialists do not regard force as any part of it. No doubt most capitalists do not regard money mongering as part of their creed either. It is probably better to let each define their own terms without the emotional baggage flame points.

The United Order has all things in common. Every person has their needs and wants addressed as is possible. Every person contributes to the society as is possible. This is socialism to me.

In our government we elect officials to be our voice. If we object to them we put someone else in place. If a program is voted in that someone doesnt like they are free to fight it with new officials or persuasion of the ones already in office. That does not sound like force to me unless you prefer another form of government which of course you are free to find.

Oh and for the reference to Joseph Smith saying he does not believe in that form of government, it would be more convincing if we could see the talk presented to see what he actually objected to.

Edited November 8, 2012 by annewandering

[carlimac]

Anne- When you say your husband is a socialist, how can he be one without others to practice it with? It takes more than just two people ( your husband and son) to be socialist. Don't you mean he just believes strongly in the tenets of socialism? Or is there a socialist compound or group somewhere that y'all live in to put it in practice? Just curious.

Also, when you say most socialists don't believe in force...which socialists are you talking about? I've not heard of a free will socialist community since Orderville ( which technically wasn't socialist). Force by the government is present in every socialist country I've ever heard of.

Edited November 8, 2012 by carlimac

[Just_A_Guy]

Most do socialists do not regard force as any part of it. No doubt most capitalists do not regard money mongering as part of their creed either. . .

In our government we elect officials to be our voice. If we object to them we put someone else in place. If a program is voted in that someone doesnt like they are free to fight it with new officials or persuasion of the ones already in office. That does not sound like force to me unless you prefer another form of government which of course you are free to find.

But once socialism becomes part of a government agenda, it must ultimately be imposed by force of arms and - by the prima facie definition of "socialism" that you provided - ceases to be socialism. Moreover, even a democracy can become a tyranny - just ask Plato. It was a democracy that put Socrates to death. That same democracy was perfectly OK with ownership of slaves. The Founders, and early observers like de Tocqueville, were acutely aware of this and wrote about it extensively. It's a major reason for our not having a standing army for the first century of our existence.

Our Constitution specifically states that it exists to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". It also happens to guarantee a republican form of government; but this concept is important: Liberty isn't about the amount of input you get into the process of legislative sausage-making; it's about the things you as an individual are permitted or restricted from doing by the government as you go about your everyday business. It is hypothetically possible (though certainly not under our constitution) for the citizens of an absolute monarchy to enjoy more individual liberty than the citizens of a democracy.

The bottom line to all this is, once the President decides I've earned enough and a critical mass of his acolytes agree, I MUST pay my excess to the government. If I resist, I will be imprisoned. If I resist imprisonment, I will be killed. The scriptures tell us that's OK in a theocracy. Moses got away with it in the Old Testament, and Peter sort of did in the New Testament. Brigham Young arguably claimed that power as a matter of theory, though LDS apologists would argue steadfastly that he never exercised it.

If you want to argue that President Obama, or his co-partisans, are on an authoritative par with Moses or Peter or Brigham Young . . . I'm listening. But last I heard, most democrats seemed to have this odd fixation on the separation of church and state and the impropriety of enforcing religious mores through legislative fiat.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

Now is the time we clarify what socialism is. Most do socialists do not regard force as any part of it.

This is pure falsehood. All socialism by definition is enforced by the weight of law. Socialism is not a volunteers-only form of anarchy.

[Echo2002]

I agree with Loudmouth, as soon as the word "Hitler" is uttered, no words after that matter, because you just said "Hitler". I don't think Bob was comparing Obama's victory to Hitler, but I guess in a way Bob is equating Obama's reelection with events such as genocide and terrorism. Maybe if Bob were to compare it with something less dramatic.

[mordorbund]

ADAM (original Facebook posting): Well, Obama won, the Republicans retained the House, gay marriage gains approved, and guess what? The world didn't end.

MORDORBUND (LDS.net posting): Sounds like Satan's plan to me.

[pam]

After reading through this thread, I've come to the personal conclusion that it's the Bob's of this world that are the cause of all our problems.

[Saldrin]

ADAM (original Facebook posting): Well, Obama won, the Republicans retained the House, gay marriage gains approved, and guess what? The world didn't end.

BOB: Well, Hitler killed six million Jews, terrorists flew airplanes into the WTC, and a family was wiped out in an automobile accident. And guess what? The world didn't end. But the fact that the world didn't end does not mean those things were not bad or hurtful.

CATHY: Oh, very nice, Bob, comparing Obama to Hitler. Nothing extreme about that. :)

BOB: Cathy, I didn't compare Obama to Hitler. I said that Adam's observation that "the world didn't end" doesn't mean the things he mentioned were of no consequence. Not sure how to make this any clearer. Did you also think I was comparing Obama's re-election to a family being wiped out? Or was it just the Hitler thing?

CATHY: You compared Obama's reelection to Hitler's genocide (and the WTC bombings). I think my interpretation was perfectly reasonable.

BOB: No, I did not. Again, I don't know how to make this any clearer.

************************

What say ye? Was Cathy's interpretation perfectly reasonable? Was Bob's invocation of Godwin's Law reasonably interpreted as a comparison with Obama?

No she was reading into it what she wanted to, probably just itching to argue.

[Praetorian_Brow]

I find it funny that an inflammatory comment on a rather hypothetical situation, resulted in an argument about political process. The very mention of Hitler only seemed to encourage inconclusive and divisive arguments.

Socialism, communism or even democracy is not inherently evil. All those political systems seek to solve in an organized fashion, many issues that press a nation. Put in practice, all political systems have their benefits as well as their drawbacks, however, the variable with the most impact, is the leaders of those systems and their integrity. As we all know, integrity more often than not, is dependent on a leaders sense of opportunity.

Hitler was only a socialist until he was elected, after his election, he disbanded the government and named himself the only authority, which is fascism. Even his election was achieved through dictatorial means.

[Bini]

After reading through this thread, I've come to the personal conclusion that it's the Bob's of this world that are the cause of all our problems.

Tactfulness goes a long way. Seriously, if everyone used just a smidgen more of sensitivity in their dealings with others, things would be a smidgen more pleasant.