Mormon vs Trump

[mirkwood]

Neither communism or socialism, no matter how you want to try and reapply their meanings, has a place in the Kingdom of God.  I don't care what the world wants to call it, i.e. religious communism or theocratic socialism.  They are incorrect terms and philosophies.  What we will eventually live is called The Law of Consecration aka United Order and is not any form of either of those other 'isms.

Feel free to read what the prophets and apostles have taught on the subject.  J. Reuben Clark Jr., Ezra Taft Benson and David O. McKay are the best sources, particularly Clark.

Your choice to use those words is doctrinally inaccurate.

Edited November 28, 2018 by mirkwood

[Colirio]

July 3, 1936:

“Communism is not a political party nor a political plan under the Constitution; it is a system of government that is the opposite of our Constitutional government.

“Since Communism, established, would destroy our American Constitutional government, to support Communism is treasonable to our free institutions, and no patriotic American citizen may become either a Communist or supporter of Communism. 

“We call upon all Church members completely to eschew [shun] Communism. The safety of our divinely inspired Constitutional government and the welfare of our Church imperatively demand that Communism shall have no place in America” (signed: Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., David O. McKay, The First Presidency, in Deseret News, 3 July 1936; italics added).

 

This was quoted in President Benson's famous talk A Witness and a Warning  which decries communism. 

 

The communalism of the saints in any era is different than Communism. 

Edited November 28, 2018 by Colirio

[mirkwood]

Is Socialism the United Order?

by Marion G. Romney

What I am going to give you now is a statement I have prepared in answer to the question, “Is Socialism the United Order?” Some of you may have already heard it. This is the first time I have ever attempted to give a talk a second time. My excuse is that the Brethren have asked me to give this talk here tonight.

I suppose the best way to start a comparison of socialism and the United Order is with a definition of the terms. Webster defines socialism as:

Socialism defined

“A political and economic theory of social organization based on collective or governmental ownership and democratic management of the essential means for the production and distribution of goods; also, a policy or practice based on this theory.” (Webster’s New International Dictionary, 2nd ed. unabridged, 1951.)

George Bernard Shaw, the noted Fabian Socialist, said that:

“Socialism, reduced to its simplest legal and practical expression, means the complete discarding of the institution of private property by transforming it into public property and the division of the resultant income equally and indiscriminately among the entire population.” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1946 ed., Vol. 20, p. 895.)

George Douglas Howard Cole, M.A. noted author and university reader in economics at Oxford, who treats socialism for the Encyclopedia Britannica, says that because of the shifting sense in which the word has been used, “a short and comprehensive definition is impossible. We can only say,” he concludes, “that Socialism is essentially a doctrine and a movement aiming at the collective organization of the community in the interest of the mass of the people by means of the common ownership and collective control of the means of production and exchange.” (Ibid., p. 888.)

Socialism arose “out of the economic division in society.” During the nineteenth century its growth was accelerated as a protest against “the appalling conditions prevailing in the workshops and factories and the unchristian spirit of the spreading industrial system.”

Communism, starting point

The “Communist Manifesto” drafted by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels for the Communist League in 1848 is generally regarded as the starting point of modern socialism. (Ibid., p. 890.)

The distinction between socialism, as represented by the various Socialist and Labour parties of Europe and the New World, and Communism, as represented by the Russians, is one of tactics and strategy rather than of objective. Communism is indeed only socialism pursued by revolutionary means and making its revolutionary method a canon of faith. Communists like other socialists, (1) believe in the collective control and ownership of the vital means of production and (2) seek to achieve through state action the coordinated control of the economic forces of society. They (the Communists) differ from other socialists in believing that this control can be secured, and its use in the interests of the workers ensured, only by revolutionary action leading to the dictatorship of the proletariat and the creation of a new proletarian state as the instrument of change. (Ibid.)

German Socialism

A major rift between so-called orthodox socialism and communist socialism occurred in 1875 when the German Social Democratic party set forth its objective of winning power by taking over control of the bourgeois state, rather than by overthrowing it. In effect, the German Social Democratic party became a parliamentary party, aiming at the assumption of political power by constitutional means.

Fabian Society

In the 1880’s a small group of intellectuals set up in England the Fabian Society, which has had a major influence on the development of modern orthodox socialism. Fabianism stands “for the evolutionary conception of socialism . . . endeavoring by progressive reforms and the nationalization of industries, to turn the existing state into a ‘welfare state.'” Somewhat on the order of the German Social Democrats Fabians aim “at permeating the existing parties with socialistic ideas [rather] than at creating a definitely socialistic party.” They appeal “to the electorate not as revolutionaries but as constitutional reformers seeking a peaceful transformation of the system.” (Ibid.)

Forms and policies of socialism

The differences in forms and policies of socialism occur principally in the manner in which they seek to implement their theories.

They all advocate:

(1) That private ownership of the vital means of production be abolished and that all such property “pass under some form of coordinated 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. . . .” (Ibid.)

So much now for the definition of socialism. I have given you these statements in the words of socialists and scholars, not my words, so they have had their hearing.

The United Order

Now as to the United Order, and here I will give the words of the Lord and not my words. The United Order the Lord’s program for eliminating the inequalities among men, is based upon the underlying concept that the earth and all things therein belong to the Lord and that men hold earthly possessions as stewards accountable to God.

On January 2, 1831, the Lord revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith that the Church was under obligation to care for the poor. (See D&C 38.) Later he said:

“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.)

Consecration and stewardship

On February 9, 1831, the Lord revealed to the Prophet what his way was. (See D&C 42.) In his way there were two cardinal principles: (1) consecration and (2) stewardship.

To enter the United Order, when it was being tried, one consecrated all his possessions to the Church by a “covenant and a deed which” could not “be broken.” (D&C 42:30.) That is, he completely divested himself of all of his property by conveying it to the Church.

Having thus voluntarily divested himself of title to all his property, the consecrator received from the Church a stewardship by a like conveyance. This stewardship could be more or less than his original consecration, the object being to make “every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.” (D&C 51:3.)

This procedure preserved in every man the right to private ownership and management of his property. At his own option he could alienate it or keep and operate it and pass it on to his heirs.

The intent was, however, for him to so operate his property as to produce a living for himself and his dependents. So long as he remained in the order, he consecrated to the Church the surplus he produced above the needs and wants of his family. This surplus went into a storehouse from which stewardships were given to others and from which the needs of the poor were supplied.

These divine principles are very simple and easily understood. A comparison of them with the underlying principles of socialism reveal similarities and basic differences.

Comparisons and contrasts: Similarities

The following are similarities: 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

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.)

Socialism not United Order

No, brethren, socialism is not the United Order. However, 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 [1964] 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.” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1965 Book of the Year, p. 736.)

United States has adopted much socialism

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 further, 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.'” (1964 Congressional Record, p. 6142, Remarks of the President to a Group of Leaders of Organizations of Senior Citizens in the Fish Room, March 24, 1964.)

Socialism takes: United Order gives

That is the spirit of socialism: We’re going to take. The spirit of the United Order is: 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.

As to the fruits of socialism, we all have our own opinions. I myself have watched its growth in our own country and observed it in operation in many other lands. But I have yet to see or hear of its freeing the hearts of men of selfishness and greed or of its bringing peace, plenty, or freedom. These things it will never bring, nor will it do away with idleness and promote “industry, thrift and self-respect,” for it is founded, in theory and in practice, on force, the principle of the evil one.

As to the fruits of the United Order I suggest you read Moses 7:16-18 and 4 Nephi 2:-3, 15-16. If we had time we could review the history, what little we know, of Zion in the days of Enoch and about what happened among the Nephites under those principles of the United Order in the first two centuries following the time of the Savior.

What can we do?

Now what can we do about it?

As I recently reminded my wife of the moratorium on the United Order, which the Lord placed in 1834 (D&C 105:34), that socialism is taking over in the nations and that its expressed aims will surely fail, she spiritedly put to me the question: “Well, then, what would you suggest, that we just sit on our hands in despair and do nothing?” Perhaps similar questions have occurred to you. The answer is, “No, by no means!” We have much to do, and fortunately for us the Lord has definitely prescribed the course we should follow with respect to socialism and the United Order.

Constitution God-inspired

He has told us that in preparation for the restoration of the gospel, he himself established the Constitution of the United States, and he has plainly told us why he established it. I hope I can get this point over to you. He said he established the Constitution to preserve to men their free agency, because the whole gospel of Jesus Christ presupposes man’s untrammeled exercise of free agency. Man is in the earth to be tested. The issue as to whether he succeeds or fails will be determined by how he uses his agency. His whole future, through all eternity, is at stake. Abridge man’s agency, and the whole purpose of his mortality is thwarted. Without it, the Lord says, there is no existence. (See D&C 93:30.) The Lord so valued our agency that he designed and dictated “the laws and constitution” required to guarantee it. This he explained in the revelation in which he instructed the Prophet Joseph Smith to appeal for help,

Just and holy principles

“According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

“That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

“And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose. . . .” (D&C 101:77-78, 80.)

Sustain Constitutional law

Previously he had said:

“And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.

“And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind and is justifiable before me.

“Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land [the test of its constitutionality in the words of the Lord here is whether it preserves man’s agency];

“And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this cometh of evil.

“I, the Lord God, make you free therefore ye are free indeed; and the law [that is, constitutional law] also maketh you free.

“Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.

“Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.” (D&C 98:4-10.)

These scriptures declare the Constitution to be a divine document. They tell us that “according to just and holy principles,” the Constitution and the law of the land which supports the “principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before” God; that, “as pertaining to [the] law of man whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.” They remind us that the Lord has made us free and that laws that are constitutional will also make us free.

“When the wicked rule, the people mourn”

Right at this point, almost as if he were warning us against what is happening today, the Lord said: “Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.” Then, that we might know with certainty what we should do about it, he concluded: “Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold. . . .”

In its context this instruction, according to my interpretation, can only mean that we should seek diligently for and support men to represent us in government who are “wise” enough to understand freedom—as provided for in the Constitution and as implemented in the United Order—and who are honest enough and good enough to fight to preserve it.

“. . . under no other government in the world could the Church have been established,” said President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., and he continued:

“. . . if we are to live as a Church, and progress, and have the right to worship as we are worshipping here today, we must have the great guarantees that are set up by our Constitution. There is no other way in which we can secure these guarantees.” (Conference Report, October 1942, pp. 58-59.)

Now, not forgetting our duty to eschew socialism and support the just and holy principles of the Constitution, as directed by the Lord, I shall conclude these remarks with a few comments concerning what we should do about the United Order.

What to do about United Order

The final words of the Lord in suspending the order were: “And let those commandments which I have given concerning Zion and her law be executed and fulfilled, after her redemption.” (D&C 105:34.)

Further implementation of the order must therefore await the redemption of Zion. Here Zion means Jackson County, Missouri. When Zion is redeemed, as it most certainly shall be, it will be redeemed under a government and by a people strictly observing those “just and holy principles” of the Constitution that accord to men their God-given moral agency, including the right to private property. If, in the meantime, socialism takes over in America, it will have to be displaced, if need be, by the power of God, because the United Order can never function under socialism or “the welfare state,” for the good and sufficient reason that the principles upon which socialism and the United Order are conceived and operated are inimical.

In the meantime, while we await the redemption of Zion and the earth and the establishment of the United Order, we as bearers of the priesthood should live strictly by the principles of the United Order insofar as they are embodied in present church practices, such as the fast offering, tithing, and the welfare activities. Through these practices we could as individuals, if we were of a mind to do so, implement in our own lives all the basic principles of the United Order.

As you will recall, the principles underlying the United Order are consecration and stewardships and then the contribution of surpluses into the bishop’s storehouse. When the law of tithing was instituted four years after the United Order experiment was suspended, the Lord required the people to put “all their surplus property . . . into the hands of the bishop” (D&C 119:1); thereafter they were to “pay one-tenth of all their interest annually. . . .” (D&C 119:4.) This law, still in force, implements to a degree at least the United Order principle of stewardships, for it leaves in the hands of each person the ownership and management of the property from which he produces the needs of himself and family. Furthermore to use again the words of President Clark:

“. . . in lieu of residues and surpluses which were accumulated and built up under the United Order, we, today, have our fast offerings, our Welfare donations, and our tithing all of which may be devoted to the care of the poor, as well as for the carrying on of the activities and business of the Church.”

What prohibits us from giving as much in fast offerings as we would have given in surpluses under the United Order? Nothing but our own limitations.

Furthermore, we had under the United Order a bishop’s storehouse in which were collected the materials from which to supply the needs and the wants of the poor. We have a bishop’s storehouse under the Welfare Plan, used for the same purpose. . . .

“We have now under the Welfare Plan all over the Church, . . . land projects . . . farmed for the benefit of the poor. . . .

“Thus . . . in many of its great essentials, we have, [in] the Welfare Plan . . . the broad essentials of the United Order. Furthermore, having in mind the assistance which is being given from time to time . . . to help set people up in business or in farming, we have a plan which is not essentially unlike that which was in the United Order when the poor were given portions from the common fund.”

It is thus apparent that when the principles of tithing and the fast are properly observed and the Welfare Plan gets fully developed and wholly into operation, “we shall not be so very far from carrying out the great fundamentals of the United Order.” (Conference Report, October 1942, pp. 51-58.)

The only limitation on you and me is within ourselves.

A Prayer:

And now in line with these remarks for three things I pray:

(1) That the Lord will somehow quicken our understanding of the differences between socialism and the United Order and give us a vivid awareness of the awful portent of those differences.

(2) That we will develop the understanding, the desire, and the courage born of the Spirit, to eschew socialism and to support and sustain, in the manner revealed and as interpreted by the Lord, those just and holy principles embodied in the Constitution of the United States for the protection of all flesh, in the exercise of their God-given agency.

(3) That through faithful observance of the principles of tithing, the fast, and the welfare program, we will prepare ourselves to redeem Zion and ultimately live the United Order, in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

 

Source: Marion G. Romney, General Conference Address, April 1966

[mirkwood]

The United Order Vs. Communism

by J. Reuben Clark Jr.

by President J. Reuben Clark Jr., First Counselor in the First Presidency. The United Order Vs. Communism. General Conference Report October 1942, 2nd Session.

Brethren:

I have been trying for a week to relieve you of this experience, but Brother McKay, so kind, so sweet, and so merciful, has been perfectly adamant. So I stand before you here, not to preach, but to counsel with you.

There is a great deal of misapprehension among our people regarding the United Order.

I have not been able to believe that the United Order meant what some people have thought it meant, so within the last months I have spent quite a little time reading the revelations thereon, also reading our history, and at the same time giving some consideration to a dissertation which has been written regarding the Order.

There is a growing-I fear it is growing-sentiment that communism and the United Order are virtually the same thing, communism being merely the forerunner, so to speak, of a reestablishment of the United Order. I am informed that ex-bishops, and indeed, bishops, who belong to communistic organizations, are preaching this doctrine. So I thought that perhaps if I said just a few words to you tonight regarding the way I interpret the revelations that are printed about this in the D&C (if there are other revelations about the Order, I do not know of them), I thought if I said something about it, it might be helpful. I recommend that you, my brethren, read a few of the Sections of the D&C which cover this matter, beginning with Sections 42 and 51. ( See also Sections 70, 78, 82, 83, 85, 90, 92, 96, and 104.) If you will go over these sections, I feel sure that you will find that my explanation of the United Order will be substantially accurate.

Early Deviations

I may say to begin with, that in practice the brethren in Missouri got away, in their attempts to set up the United Order, from the principles set out in the revelations. This is also true of the organizations set up here in Utah after the Saints came to the Valleys. So far as I have seen there has been preserved only one document that purports to be a legal instrument used in connection with the setting up of the United Order, and that document is without date. It is said to have been found among the papers of Bishop Partridge. It was a “lease-lend” document. You may have heard that phrase before. Under this instrument the Church leased to Titus Billings a certain amount of real estate and loaned him a certain amount of personal property.

This instrument is not in accordance with the principle laid down in the revelations touching upon the United Order.

The basic principle of all the revelations on the United Order is that everything we have belongs to the Lord; therefore, the Lord may call upon us for any and all of the property which we have, because it belongs to Him. This, I repeat, is the basic principle. (D. &. C. 104: 14-17, 54-57)

One of the places in which some of the brethren are going astray is this: There is continuous reference in the revelations to equality among the brethren, but I think you will find only one place where that equality is really described, though it is referred to in other revelations. That revelation (D. & C. 51:3) affirms that every man is to be “equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.” ( See also D. & C. 82 17; 78: 5-6. ) Obviously, this is not a case of “dead level” equality. It is “equality” that will vary as much as the man’s circumstances, his family, his wants and needs, may vary.

Consecration

In the next place, under the United Order every man was called to consecrate to the Church all of the property which he had; the real estate was to be conveyed to the Church, as I understand the revelations, by what we would call a deed in fee simple. Thus the man’s property became absolutely the property of the Church. (D. & C. 42:30; 72:15) Then the bishop deeded back to the donor by the same kind of deed, that is, in fee simple, and also transferred to him by an equivalent instrument, so far as personal property was concerned, that amount of real and personal property, which, the two being taken together, would be required by the individual for the support of himself and his family “according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.” This the man held as his own property. (D. & C. 42:32; 51:4-6; 83:3

In other words, basic to the United Order was the private ownership of property, every man had his own property from which he might secure that which was necessary for the support of himself and his family. There is nothing in the revelations that would indicate that this property was not freely alienable at the will of the owner. It was not contemplated that the Church should own everything or that we should become in the Church, with reference to our property and otherwise, the same kind of automaton, manikin, that communism makes out of the individual, with the State standing at the head in place of the Church.

Now, that part of a man’s property which was not turned back to him, if he had more than was needed under this rule of “equality” already stated, became the common property of the Church, and that common property was used for the support of the poor of the Church. It is spoken of in the revelations as the “residue” of property. ( D. & C. 42:34-36)

Land Portions

Furthermore, it was intended, though apparently it did not work out very well, that the poor coming into Zion, and by Zion I mean, here, Missouri-the poor coming into Zion were to have given to them a “portion” of land, which land was to be either purchased from the Government (and it was planned to purchase large areas from the Government), or purchased from individuals, or received as consecrations from members of the Church. The amount of this “portion” was to be such as would make him equal to others according to his circumstances, his family, his wants and needs.

The land which you received from the bishop by deed, whether it was part of the land which you, yourself, had deeded to the Church, or whether it came as an out-right gift from the Church as just indicated, and the personal property which you received, were all together sometimes called a “portion” (D. & C. 51:4-6), sometimes a “stewardship” ( D. & C. 104:11-12), and sometimes an “inheritance.” ( D. & C. 83 3 )

As just indicated, there were other kinds of inheritances and stewardships than land or mere personal property; for example, the Prophet and others had a stewardship given to them which consisted of the revelations and commandments (D. & C. 70:1-4 ); others had given to them a stewardship involving the printing house (D. & C. 104:29-30); another stewardship was a mercantile establishment. (D. & C. 104:39-42)

Surplus

I repeat that whatever a steward realized from the portion allotted to him over and above that which was necessary in order to keep his family under the standard provided, as already stated above, was turned over by the steward to the bishop, and this amount of surplus, plus the residues to which I have already referred, went into a bishop’s storehouse (D. & C. 51 13 and citations above), and the materials of the storehouse were to be used in creating portions, as above indicated, for caring for the poor (D. & C. 78:3), the widows and orphans ( D. & C. 83 6), and for the elders of the Church engaged in the ministry, who were to pay for what they received if they could, but if not, their faithful labors should answer their debt to the bishop. (D. & C. 72:11 ff)

Other Institutions

Now, as time went on and the system developed, the Lord created two other institutions besides the storehouse: one was known as the Sacred Treasury, into which was put “the avails of the sacred things in the treasury, for sacred and holy purposes.” While it is not clear, it would seem that into this treasury were to be put the surpluses which were derived from the publication of the revelations, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and other similar things, the stewardship of which had been given to Joseph and others. (D. & C. 104:60-66) The Lord also provided for the creation of “Another Treasury,” and into that other treasury went the general revenues which came to the Church, such as gifts of money and those revenues derived from the improvement of stewardships as distinguished from the residues of the original consecrations and the surpluses which came from the operation of their stewardships. (D. & C. 72:11 ff)

The foregoing is the general outline as it is gathered from the revelations of the law of the United Order which the Lord spoke of as “my law.” (D. & C. 44:6; 51:15) There are passages in the revelations which, taken from their context and without having in mind the whole system, might be considered as inconsistent with some of the things which I have set out, but all such passages fall into line if the whole program is looked at as contained in all of the revelations.

Private Ownership Fundamental

The fundamental principle of this system was the private ownership of property. Each man owned his portion, or inheritance, or stewardship, with an absolute title, which he could alienate, or hypothecate, or otherwise treat as his own. The Church did not own all of the property, and the life under the United Order was not a communal life, as the Prophet Joseph, himself said, (History of the Church, Volume III, p. 28). The United Order is an individualistic system, not a communal system.

The Welfare Plan and the United Order

We have all said that the Welfare Plan is not the United Order and was not intended to be. However, I should like to suggest to you that perhaps, after all, when the Welfare Plan gets thoroughly into operation-it is not so yet-we shall not be so very far from carrying out the great fundamentals of the United Order.

In the first place I repeat again, the United Order recognized and was built upon the principle of private ownership of property; all that a man had and lived upon under the United Order, was his own. Quite obviously, the fundamental principle of our system today is the ownership of private property.

In the next place, in lieu of residues and surpluses which were accumulated and built up under the, United Order, we, today, have our fast offerings, our Welfare donations, and our tithing, all of which may be devoted to the care of the poor, as well as for the carrying on of the activities and business of the Church. After all, the United Order was primarily designed to build up a system under which there should be no abjectly poor, and this is the purpose, also, of the Welfare Plan.

In this connection it should be observed that it is clear from these earlier revelations, as well as from our history, that the Lord had very early to tell the people about the wickedness of idleness, and the wickedness of greed, because the brethren who had were not giving properly, and those who had not were evidently intending to live without work on the things which were to be received from those who had property. (D. & C. 56:16-20)

Storehouses and Projects

Furthermore, we had under the United Order a bishop’s storehouse in which were collected the materials from which to supply the needs and the wants of the poor. We have a bishop’s storehouse under the Welfare Plan, used for the same purpose.

As I have already indicated, the surplus properties which came to the Church under the Law of Consecration, under the United Order, became the “common property” of the Church (D. & C. 82 18 ) and were handled under the United Order for the benefit of the poor. We have now under the Welfare Plan all over the Church, ward land projects. In some cases the lands are owned by the wards, in others they are leased by the wards or lent to them by private individuals. This land is being farmed for the benefit of the poor, by the poor where you can get the poor to work it.

We have in place of the two treasuries, the “Sacred Treasury” and “Another Treasury,” the general funds of the Church.

Thus you will see, brethren, that in many of its great essentials, we have, as the Welfare Plan has now developed, the broad essentials of the United Order. Furthermore, having in mind the assistance which is being given from time to time and in various wards to help set people up in business or in farming, we have a plan which is not essentially unlike that which was in the United Order when the poor were given portions from the common fund.

Now, brethren, the Church has made tremendous advances in the Welfare Plan. We shall have to make still greater advances. As the Message of the First Presidency said this morning, we are being told by Government officials that we face what we used to call “hard times.” If the Welfare Plan is fully operative, we shall be able to care for every destitute Latter-day Saint wherever he may be.

The Constitution

Now, I would like to say something else, brethren, again by way of counsel I shall be accused, when I do, of talking politics, and perhaps on this point I may say I do not read anonymous letters. When they come in I just throw them into the wastebasket. I only read enough of the signed scurrilous letters that are sent to know that they are scurrilous, and then they follow along. So it is useless for anyone to try to take out any personal feeling in that way.

You and I have heard all our lives that the time may come when the Constitution may hang by a thread. I do not know whether it is a thread, or a small rope by which it now hangs, but I do know that whether it shall live or die is now in the balance.

I have said to you before, brethren, that to me the Constitution is a part of my religion. In its place it is just as much a part of my religion as any other part. It is a part of my religion because it is one of those institutions which God has set up for His own purposes, and, as one of the brethren said today, set up so that this Church might be established, because under no other government in the world could the Church have been established as it has been established under this Government.

I think I would be sale in saying that my fellowship with you in the Church depends upon whether or not I accept the revelations and the principles which God has revealed. If I am not willing to do that, then I am not entitled to fellowship. Anyone else who fails to accept the revelations and the principles which God has revealed stands in precisely the same situation.

In the 101st Section of the D&C, which contains a revelation received by the Prophet in 1833, when the persecution in Missouri was at its highest, the Lord told the brethren that they should appeal for help. Then He added these verses, which I want to read to you:

According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the fights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood. (D. & C. 101:77-80)

Influence in the Americas

I suppose you brethren will all know, but I will recall it to your attention, that the Constitution of the United States is the basic law for all of the Americas, or Zion, as it has been defined by the Lord.

You brethren from Canada know that, your great British North America Act, in its fundamental principles, is based upon our Constitution, and you know that in the courts of Canada, the reports of our Supreme Court, and our Federal courts generally, are just as persuasive as the decisions of the courts of England, and even more so, where questions of constitutional law and constitutional interpretation are involved.

You brethren also know that from the Rio Grande down to the Horn there is no constitutional government except those that are rounded primarily upon our own Constitution. In Mexico the revolutionary party which more than a century and a quarter ago rebelled against the king of Spain and established a republic, copied almost verbatim, and practically overnight, our Constitution, and made it their own. Neither Mexico nor the others to the South interpret their Constitutions as we interpret ours. They have different standards and different canons of interpretation, for their fundamental system is the civil law, while ours is the common law. But the great essentials of that document, the Constitution of the United States, which God Himself inspired, is the law of Zion, the Americas.

The Law of Zion

So, brethren, I wish you to understand that when we begin to tamper with the Constitution we begin to tamper with the law of Zion which God Himself set up, and no one may trifle with the word of God with impunity.

Now, I am not caring today, for myself, anything at all about a political party tag. So far as I am concerned, I want to know what the man stands for. I want to know if he believes in the Constitution; if he believes in its free institutions; if he believes in its liberties, its freedom. I want to know if he believes in the Bill of Rights. I want to know if he believes in the separation of sovereign power into the three great divisions: the Legislative, the Judicial, the Executive. I want to know if he believes in the mutual independence of these, the one from the other. When I find out these things, then I know who it is who should receive my support, and I care not what his party tag is, because, brethren, if we are to live as a Church, and progress, and have the right to worship as we are worshipping here today, we must have the great guarantees that are set up by our Constitution. There is no other way in which we can secure these guarantees. You may look at the systems all over the world where the princiles of our Constitution are not controlling and in force, and you will find there dictatorship, tyranny, oppression, and, in the last analysts, slavery.

Allegiance

I have said enough. I believe you understand what I have said. Today, our duty transcends party allegiance; our duty today is allegiance to the Constitution as it was given to us by the Lord. Every federal officer takes an oath to support that Constitution so given. The difference between us and some of those to the South of us is this: down there, their fealty runs to individuals; here, our fealty and our allegiance run to the Constitution and to the principles which it embodies, and not to individuals.

God give us wisdom and enable us in these times of trouble and strife clearly to see our way, that we may be instrumental in sustaining the Constitution, in upholding our free institutions, our civil rights, our freedom of speech, of press, of religion, and of conscience. If we shall stand together we shall save the Constitution, just as has been foreseen, and if we do not stand together, we cannot perform this great task.

God grant that we may be true, I pray, in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

[Vort]

3 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

It amazes me that in one breath you say we can't trust government with our money "health care & education" and in the same breath you say we need to trust government with our money "military."

Government should take care of government-related areas like military protection, which is practically the definition of what a government is for, and not non-government-related areas like health care.

3 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

We don't need to be world cops any more.  No one is looking to invade the Philippines.  The world is a very different place than it was 70 years ago.

I am speechless at your naivete.

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

It amazes me that in one breath you say we can't trust government with our money "health care & education" and in the same breath you say we need to trust government with our money "military."  

Letting the military decide how big they need to be is ridiculous.  We don't need to be world cops any more.  No one is looking to invade the Philippines.  The world is a very different place than it was 70 years ago.

No one is looking to invade the Philippines?  Where have you been, man?  We just got done reclaiming Marawi!  That's why people outside of the USA just shake our heads at the naivete of Americans.  The world is not so very different from 70 years ago and Europe is getting worse everyday.  But what does make it different from 70 years ago is.... tat-tada... the US of A... for better AND worse.  E.g. - Better - Pacific Theater 2018.  Worse - Libya 2011

The military is not the government.  It won't be unless you are under Martial Law.   You don't need to be the world cops, Filipinos reclaimed Marawi, not Americans even as we got logistics support from the Americans... that's why 80+% of Filipinos love Trump.  He's the first American President in several decades that has a SANE foreign policy because he actually gives clear mission objectives to the military and then allow them to do their jobs the way it needs to be done.  And that mission objective includes leaving autonomous governments to solve their own problems instead of getting controlled by Americans, something that the Filipinos have been fighting for ever since we kicked out the US military bases.  

People don't sign up for a career in the military, risk their lives in combat, so they can pocket tax money.  What makes your military dysfunctional are the civilians talking in the Oval Office, not the military leadership.   Therefore,  the people who know best how to accomplish a mission objective is the military.  The people needs to put the RIGHT CIVILIANS IN THE OVAL OFFICE that gives clear mission objectives and not dictate how the military should accomplish such objectives.   Because it is the height of stupidity for a civilian to give a mission "Provide logistical support to the Afghan military to defeat ISIS" and then have that civilian dictate how it should be accomplished, "But you have to only have 1,000 troops and you have to pull out of there in 6 months because voters will not re-elect me if we put 2,000 troops".  

 

2 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

And universal health care would mean a healthier population.  You are afraid of a much more expensive system.  The world disagrees with you.  The U.S. health care cost per capita is double that of most modern countries.  And those countries cover their entire population.  Also, today's system if very much not a market system.  I don't just get to go out and decide what health insurance I want.  I get what is given to me by my employer.  And then I am limited to the doctors and hospitals in the plan.  This is not a market system in the least.  It is stupid and broken.  A universal system would open up choice to all doctors.  This would mean that doctors that want to succeed have to be the best in their field.  They are not guaranteed an income.  They still have to get patients and bad doctors would not get patients.

 

"Those countries" can afford universal healthcare because they spend barely nothing for their national defense because they rely on the USA to provide it.  And they have a populace who are culturally conditioned through their historical monarchies to rely on their government for everything.  If you want to transform the USA into that kind of society, then of course you can.  It would be an irony that you fought a giant war to free yourselves from the British to escape this culture only to go back to it 250 years later.

The problem with today's healthcare system is exactly because it is not a market system.  Today's problems are a factor of government regulations stifling market competition.  But instead of freeing the market from government regulations, now you want the entire market to be under government control.  You're going the opposite way.

"Doctors looking for patients" is also silly.  Put a line of doctors on a table and tell people with cough and cold symptoms they can consult with any of these doctors for $25.  See how many people will line up.  Now, put the same line of doctors on a table and tell people they get free consultations.  How many patients will you have?  Now, look for doctors to join the table and tell them they can charge whatever they want for their service, see how many doctors you get.  Now, tell the doctors they can only charge $10, how many doctors will you get?

You don't even really need to experiment with a line of doctors on a table.  You just need to go check out Canada.  You want somebody to check that swollen leg?  You're going to wait 3 months at the Canadian universal healthcare doctors.  You can get a consultation today at a private Canadian doctor who will charge you money.

A universal system does not make it a market system.  Socialism and Capitalism does not mix, not even in China.  If it did, the best US doctors would be working with the VA and the best teachers will be teaching in public schools.  A universal system would put doctors and your health care under the decision-making of the government.  Healthcare is not free.  Somebody has to pay for it.  A government has no function to earn money to pay for it.  It can only take it from somebody to give to somebody else.  Therefore, if the cost of care becomes high (more demand, price goes up), it will have to either find somebody to tax to pay for it (higher taxes cause low economic productivity), or it will have to tell the doctors they will only get X amount of dollars for care (government price control).  Neither of which incentivizes doctors to be good doctors.

 

2 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

As for government subsidized education... your are putting your fears in just one possibility of a system.  There are many ways to set it up to ensure government doesn't coerce its population into one degree or another.  

In the same manner that you can't ensure that a government can define what "assault weapon" means or what "basic healthcare" means (Obamacare thinks basic healthcare includes sex reassignment surgery) ensuring that government doesn't control education is a crap shoot.  That's why the Constitution is designed to LIMIT government because it is inevitable that if you give government a job to squash an ant, it will take the entire molehill. 

 

2 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

And I completely disagree with the need for a high school education.  Just because a plumber can turn a wrench without a high school degree does not mean he shouldn't have one.  The more knowledge a population has, the better chance they have at making better choices.  Maybe we wouldn't have the screwed up election that gave us choice of Hillary and Donald.

 

Nobody is saying he shouldn't have one.  I said it is not the government's job (nor my job as a taxpayer) to give him one.  And Hillary vs Donald is a by-product of your stupid public high school education.  It is sad that I, a Filipino, know more about your government than your average public high school graduate.

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

To me, regardless of how the specifics or legalities work, the difference between socialism (of any type) vs the Law of Consecration is this:

1) Socialism begins with the FALSE and EVIL notion that I have a right to YOUR property if I need it badly enough.
2) The Law of Consecration begins with the CORRECT and DIVINE notion that God owns everything.  We're just stewards.

You an talk about voluntary or not.  Forced or not.  Efficient or not. None of that really matters.  One of the above premises is false and evil.  The other is correct and divinely instituted.  That's really all that matters.

If you don't believe in our faith, then you obviously don't see it as divinely instituted.  Hence, you wouldn't see the difference.  And if our faith is wrong, then you're right.  There is no difference.  But if we believe this, then we have to recognize the difference between God's property and "government" property.

[mirkwood]

Communism is Satan’s counterfeit for the gospel plan, and . . . it is an avowed enemy of the God of the land. (Marion G. Romney as quoted by Ezra Taft Benson, CR, Oct. 1979; Ensign, Nov 1979, pgs. 43-47)

 

 

[mirkwood]

Communism: A Statement of the Position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

by David O. McKay

A statement by President David O. McKay concerning the position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on Communism.

In order that there may be no misunderstanding by bishops, stake presidents, and others regarding members of the Church participating in nonchurch meetings to study and become informed on the Constitution of the United States, Communism, etc., I wish to make the following statements that I have been sending out from my office for some time and that have come under question by some stake authorities, bishoprics, and others.

Church members are at perfect liberty to act according to their own consciences in the matter of safeguarding our way of life. They are, of course, encouraged to honor the highest standards of the gospel and to work to preserve their own freedoms. They are free to participate in nonchurch meetings that are held to warn people of the threat of Communism or any other theory or principle that will deprive us of our free agency or individual liberties vouchsafed by the Constitution of the United States.

The Church, out of respect for the rights of all its members to have their political views and loyalties, must maintain the strictest possible neutrality. We have no intention of trying to interfere with the fullest and freest exercise of the political franchise of our members under and within our Constitution, which the Lord declared he established “by the hands of wise men whom [he] raised up unto this very purpose” (D&C 101:80) and which, as to the principles thereof, the Prophet Joseph Smith, dedicating the Kirtland Temple, prayed should be “established forever.” (D&C 109:54.) The Church does not yield any of its devotion to or convictions about safeguarding the American principles and the establishments of government under federal and state constitutions and the civil rights of men safeguarded by these.

The position of this Church on the subject of Communism has never changed. We consider it the greatest satanical threat to peace, prosperity, and the spread of God’s work among men that exists on the face of the earth.

In this connection, we are continually being asked to give our opinion concerning various patriotic groups or individuals who are fighting Communism and speaking up for freedom. Our immediate concern, however, is not with parties, groups, or persons, but with principles. We therefore commend and encourage every person and every group who is sincerely seeking to study Constitutional principles and awaken a sleeping and apathetic people to the alarming conditions that are rapidly advancing about us. We wish all of our citizens throughout the land were participating in some type of organized self-education in order that they could better appreciate what is happening and know what they can do about it.

Supporting the FBI, the police, the congressional committees investigating Communism, and various organizations that are attempting to awaken the people through educational means is a policy we warmly endorse for all our people.

The entire concept and philosophy of Communism is diametrically opposed to everything for which the Church stand’s — belief in Deity, belief in the dignity and eternal nature of man, and the application of the gospel to efforts for peace in the world. Communism is militantly atheistic and is committed to the destruction of faith wherever it may be found.

The Russian Commissar of Education wrote: “We must hate Christians and Christianity. Even the best of them must be considered our worst enemies. Christian love is an obstacle to the development of the revolution. Down with love for one’s neighbor. What we want is hate. Only then shall we conquer the universe.”

On the other hand, the gospel teaches the existence of God as our Eternal and Heavenly Father and declares: “. . . him only shalt thou serve.” Matt. 4:10.)

Communism debases the individual and makes him the enslaved tool of the state, to which he must look for sustenance and religion. Communism destroys man’s God-given free agency.

No member of this Church can be true to his faith, nor can any American be loyal to his trust, while lending aid, encouragement, or sympathy to any of these false philosophies; for if he does, they will prove snares to his feet.

[mirkwood]

We must ever keep in mind that collectivized socialism is part of the communist strategy. Communism is fundamentally socialism. We will never win our fight against communism by making concessions to socialism. Communism and socialism, closely related, must be defeated on principle.”

by Elder Ezra Taft Benson of the Council of the Twelve Apostles. General Conference, October 1961.

[Lost Boy]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Government should take care of government-related areas like military protection, which is practically the definition of what a government is for, and not non-government-related areas like health care.

I am speechless at your naivete.

Government related items is whatever you specify them to be whether it be military, health care, education, etc.  There is no cosmic definition from on high what it is to do.  It should be what the people want from it.  Clearly you want it for military.  I do as well, but I also believe it would be beneficial in administering health care costs.

And calling me naive does not help your case.  It is what people do that do have the intellectual capacity to make their case.  Let's leave out the insults and stick to making an actual case or not.  Or you can stick with insults.  I guess it really doesn't matter.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 hours ago, Godless said:

I'm probably the closest thing we have to a "resident Marxist" here, 

Actually @Carborendum and @mirkwood have you beat by a mile, but anyway. 

[mirkwood]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Actually @Carborendum and @mirkwood have you beat by a mile, but anyway. 

I got pitchforks and torches around here somewhere...

[anatess2]

16 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Government related items is whatever you specify them to be whether it be military, health care, education, etc.  There is no cosmic definition from on high what it is to do.  It should be what the people want from it.  Clearly you want it for military.  I do as well, but I also believe it would be beneficial in administering health care costs.

And calling me naive does not help your case.  It is what people do that do have the intellectual capacity to make their case.  Let's leave out the insults and stick to making an actual case or not.  Or you can stick with insults.  I guess it really doesn't matter.

Actually there is.  It is SPECIFICALLY DEFINED in the US Constitution.   You can't vote out a US Military except to get rid of the US Constitition.  But yes, you can vote in handing over your healthcare to the government.  The US Constitution can only limit government as much as the people want it limited.  The US Constitution gives the government very specific limited functions, the primary and ONLY Constitutionally defined functions of which is National Defense, Inter-state Commerce, and protection of the Bill of Rights, functions for which you can't vote out except for discarding the US Constitution.

Yes, you can vote to give government authority over education, healthcare, housing, food, clothing, childcare and everything else.  The wisdom of such endeavor is questionable because the reason the US became as successful as it is within its short lifespan is because the US Constitution limits the government from taking such power for itself.

Edited November 28, 2018 by anatess2

[Lost Boy]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

Actually there is.  It is SPECIFICALLY DEFINED in the US Constitution.   You can't vote out a US Military.  But yes, you can vote in handing over your healthcare to the government.  The US Constitution can only limit government as much as the people want it limited.  You can vote housing, food, clothing, everything to be handled by your government.  The wisdom of such endeavor is questionable because the reason the US became as successful as it is within its short lifespan is because the US Constitution limits the government from taking such power for itself.

Actually there isn't.  The constitution is a man made construct.  It can be abolished.  It can be amended and it has been amended many times.  And yes, you can vote out the military through amendment.  But I never said I don't want the military.  I want a smaller cheaper military.

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Actually there isn't.  The constitution is a man made construct.  It can be abolished.  It can be amended and it has been amended many times.  And yes, you can vote out the military through amendment.  But I never said I don't want the military.  I want a smaller cheaper military.

Yes, it can be abolished by getting rid of the United States of America and making independent nations out of each State.  Good luck.  You'll be a Republic of Texas in short order.

Really, Lost Boy... this is crazy talk, man.  The US Constitution is WHAT MADE YOU GREAT.  It's the beacon on the hill.  It's what the Philippines wished it had!  It's what the USSR and the EU lacked which made both fail!

Edited November 28, 2018 by anatess2

[Lost Boy]

Just now, anatess2 said:

Yes, it can be abolished by getting rid of the United States of America and making independent nations out of each State.  Good luck.  You'll be a Republic of Texas in short order.

Or it can just be amended and still I have not suggest that we get rid of the military so chill a bit.

[Tyme]

You guys have to understand the city of enoch and the early saints both practiced a form of communism in the purest sense of the word. The difference between historical communism and what early saints practiced is the type of government. They practiced theocratic communism. The major communist nations you are talking about and trying to separate the church from has combined political ideology of mostly authoritarian with communism. It must be noted that communism in its purest form is an economic system not a political system.

All the quotes you shared show that the church was trying to distance itself from communism during the red scare. They needed to move far away from anything that looked like communism. It has just stuckk with the church since then.

I know it seems like a hard concept for some to grasp.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Tyme

[anatess2]

5 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Or it can just be amended and still I have not suggest that we get rid of the military so chill a bit.

Yes, it can be amended.  That's not what you are saying.  You are saying "There's no cosmic definition from on high".  THERE IS.  It's called the US Constitution.  You can amend it if you want.  It doesn't get rid of the "cosmic definition".  Some things cannot be changed without abolishing the entire document.

I'm very chill.  You'll know when I'm not.  @Just_A_Guy will tell you. 

 

Edited November 28, 2018 by anatess2

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, Tyme said:

You guys have to understand the city of enoch and the early saints both practiced a form of communism in the purest sense of the word.

All the quotes you shared show that the church was trying to distance itself from communism during the red scare. They needed to move far away from anything that looked like communism.

What is that Princess Bride quote again, @Carborendum?  That doesn't mean the way you think it means?  Or some such.

[Lost Boy]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

Yes, it can be amended.  That's not what you are saying.  You are saying "There's no cosmic definition from on high".  THERE IS.  It's called the US Constitution.  You can amend it if you want.  It doesn't get rid of the "cosmic definition".  Some things cannot be changed without abolishing the entire document.

I am saying that the constitution is not the word of God.  It may have inspiration in it, but it is not scripture.  And therefore can change.  That is what I am saying.

[anatess2]

5 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I am saying that the constitution is not the word of God.  It may have inspiration in it, but it is not scripture.  And therefore can change.  That is what I am saying.

Ok, you have jumped the shark now.

If we're going to use that metric for CAN CHANGE... then sure.  USA can change to either be Enoch or Venezuela tomorrow.  I will bet you my last Lucky Charms your universal healthcare proposition or abolishing the US Constitution will be closer to changing you to Venezuela than Enoch.

Edited November 28, 2018 by anatess2

[mirkwood]

Some of you really need to educate yourself on the Church and it's position on freedom, the Constitution, and the two 'isms.

 

President Ezra Taft Benson October Conference 1987

My beloved brethren and sisters, what a glorious blessing to be assembled in another great general conference of the Church. I ask for an interest in your faith and prayers as I speak to you about a subject that is very close to my heart and that affects the worldwide Church.

We have recently celebrated the bicentennial of the signing of the United States Constitution. That commemoration marked the beginning of a series of bicentennial anniversaries of events leading up to the ratification of the Constitution, implementation of the government it created, and the writing and ratification of the Bill of Rights. We look forward to the future commemoration of each of these important events during the next four years. It is as a result of these events that we are able to meet today in peace as members of the restored Church of Jesus Christ. For this we should all be eternally grateful.

I desire, therefore, to speak to you about our divine Constitution, which the Lord said “belongs to all mankind” (D&C 98:5; italics added) “and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles” (D&C 101:77; italics added).

The Constitution of the United States has served as a model for many nations and is the oldest constitution in use today.

“I established the Constitution of this land,” said the Lord, “by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose” (D&C 101:80).

For centuries the Lord kept America hidden in the hollow of His hand until the time was right to unveil her for her destiny in the last days. “It is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations,” said Lehi, “for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance” (2 Ne. 1:8).

In the Lord’s due time His Spirit “wrought upon” Columbus, the pilgrims, the Puritans, and others to come to America. They testified of God’s intervention in their behalf (see 1 Ne. 13:12–13). The Book of Mormon records that they humbled “themselves before the Lord; and the power of the Lord was with them” (1 Ne. 13:16).

Our Father in Heaven planned the coming forth of the Founding Fathers and their form of government as the necessary great prologue leading to the restoration of the gospel. Recall what our Savior Jesus Christ said nearly two thousand years ago when He visited this promised land: “For it is wisdom in the Father that they should be established in this land, and be set up as a free people by the power of the Father, that these things might come forth” (3 Ne. 21:4). America, the land of liberty, was to be the Lord’s latter-day base of operations for His restored church.

The Declaration of Independence affirmed the Founding Fathers’ belief and trust in God in these words: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

The Doctrine and Covenants states, “We believe 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, and the protection of life” (D&C 134:2). Life, liberty, property—mankind’s three great rights.

At the conclusion of the Declaration of Independence, they wrote, “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” This Declaration was a promise that would demand terrible sacrifice on the part of its signers. Five of the signers were captured as traitors and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons in the Revolutionary War; another had two sons captured. Nine died from wounds or from the hardships of the war. The Lord said He “redeemed the land by the shedding of blood” (D&C 101:80). Nephi recorded that the Founders “were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations” (1 Ne. 13:19).

The years immediately preceding the Constitutional Convention were filled with disappointments and threats to the newly won peace. Washington was offered a kingship, which he adamantly refused. Nephi had prophesied hundreds of years before that “this land shall be a land of liberty unto the Gentiles, and there shall be no kings upon the land” (2 Ne. 10:11; italics added).

Between the critical years of 1783 and 1787, an outsider viewing the affairs of the United States would have thought that the thirteen states, different in so many ways, could never effectively unite. The world powers were confident that this nation would not last.

Eventually, twelve of the states met in Philadelphia to address the problem. Madison said at the beginning of the Convention that the delegates “were now digesting a plan which in its operation would decide forever the fate of Republican Government” (26 June 1787, Records of the Federal Convention, 1:423).

“The Lord knoweth all things from the beginning,” said Nephi, “wherefore, he prepareth a way to accomplish all his works among the children of men” (1 Ne. 9:6).

Four months later, the Convention delegates had completed their work. As Gladstone said, it was “the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man” (William Gladstone, North American Review, Sept.–Oct. 1878, p. 185), and the Prophet Joseph Smith called it “a glorious standard … a heavenly banner” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1938, p. 147).

The delegates were the recipients of heavenly inspiration. James Madison, often referred to as the father of the Constitution, wrote: “It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution” (The Federalist, no. 37, ed. Henry Cabot Lodge, New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1983, p. 222).

Alexander Hamilton, famous as the originator of The Federalist papers and author of fifty-one of the essays, said: “For my own part, I sincerely esteem it a system, which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interest” (Essays on the Constitution of the United States, ed. Paul L. Ford, 1892, pp. 251–52).

Charles Pinckney, a very active participant and author of the Pinckney Plan during the Convention, said: “When the great work was done and published, I was struck with amazement. Nothing less than the superintending Hand of Providence, that so miraculously carried us through the war … could have brought it about so complete, upon the whole” (Essays on the Constitution, p. 412).

Within ten months, the Constitution was ratified by nine states and was therefore in force for them. Prophecy had been fulfilled.

During his first inaugural address in 1789, President George Washington, a man who was raised up by God, said: “No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the affairs of men, more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency” (First Inaugural Address, 30 Apr. 1789).

In compliance with Article 6 of the Constitution, the very first act passed by Congress and signed by President Washington on June 1, 1789, was the actual oath to support the Constitution that was to be administered to various government officers.

The dedicatory prayer for the Kirtland Temple, as dictated by the Lord and found in the Doctrine and Covenants, contains these words: “May those principles, which were so honorably and nobly defended, namely, the Constitution of our land, by our fathers, be established forever” (D&C 109:54).

Shortly after President Spencer W. Kimball became President of the Church, he assigned me to go into the vault of the St. George Temple and check the early records. As I did so, I realized the fulfillment of a dream I had had ever since learning of the visit of the Founding Fathers to the St. George Temple. I saw with my own eyes the record of the work which was done for the Founding Fathers of this great nation, beginning with George Washington.

Think of it: the Founding Fathers of this nation, those great men, appeared within those sacred walls and had their vicarious work done for them.

President Wilford Woodruff spoke of it in these words: “Before I left St. George, the spirits of the dead gathered around me, wanting to know why we did not redeem them. Said they, ‘You have had the use of the Endowment House for a number of years, and yet nothing has ever been done for us. We laid the foundation of the government you now enjoy, and we never apostatized from it, but we remained true to it and were faithful to God’” (The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, sel. G. Homer Durham, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1946, p. 160).

After he became President of the Church, President Wilford Woodruff declared that “those men who laid the foundation of this American government were the best spirits the God of heaven could find on the face of the earth. They were choice spirits … [and] were inspired of the Lord” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1898, p. 89).

Unfortunately, we as a nation have apostatized in various degrees from different Constitutional principles as proclaimed by the inspired founders. We are fast approaching that moment prophesied by Joseph Smith when he said: “Even this nation will be on the very verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the ground, and when the Constitution is upon the brink of ruin, this people will be the staff upon which the nation shall lean, and they shall bear the Constitution away from the very verge of destruction” (19 July 1840, as recorded by Martha Jane Knowlton Coray; ms. in Church Historian’s Office, Salt Lake City).

For centuries our forefathers suffered and sacrificed that we might be the recipients of the blessings of freedom. If they were willing to sacrifice so much to establish us as a free people, should we not be willing to do the same to maintain that freedom for ourselves and for future generations?

Only in this foreordained land, under its God-inspired Constitution and the resulting environment of freedom, was it possible to have established the restored church. It is our responsibility to see that this freedom is perpetuated so that the Church may more easily flourish in the future.

The Lord said, “Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land” (D&C 98:6).

How then can we best befriend the Constitution in this critical hour and secure the blessings of liberty and ensure the protection and guidance of our Father in Heaven?

First and foremost, we must be righteous.

John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (The Works of John Adams, ed. C. F. Adams, Boston: Little, Brown Co., 1851, 4:31). If the Constitution is to have continuance, this American nation, and especially the Latter-day Saints, must be virtuous.

The Book of Mormon warns us relative to our living in this free land: “Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever” (2 Ne. 1:7).

“And now,” warned Moroni, “we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity” (Ether 2:9).

Two great American Christian civilizations—the Jaredites and the Nephites—were swept off this land because they did not “serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ” (Ether 2:12). What will become of our civilization?

Second, we must learn the principles of the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers.

Have we read The Federalist papers? Are we reading the Constitution and pondering it? Are we aware of its principles? Are we abiding by these principles and teaching them to others? Could we defend the Constitution? Can we recognize when a law is constitutionally unsound? Do we know what the prophets have said about the Constitution and the threats to it?

As Jefferson said, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free … it expects what never was and never will be” (Letter to Colonel Charles Yancey, 6 Jan. 1816).

Third, we must become involved in civic affairs to see that we are properly represented.

The Lord said that “he holds men accountable for their acts in relation” to governments “both in making laws and administering them” (D&C 134:1). We must follow this counsel from the Lord: “Honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil” (D&C 98:10).

Note the qualities that the Lord demands of those who are to represent us. They must be good, wise, and honest.

Fourth, we must make our influence felt by our vote, our letters, our teaching, and our advice.

We must become accurately informed and then let others know how we feel. The Prophet Joseph Smith said: “It is our duty to concentrate all our influence to make popular that which is sound and good, and unpopular that which is unsound. ‘Tis right, politically, for a man who has influence to use it. … From henceforth I will maintain all the influence I can get” (History of the Church, 5:286).

I have faith that the Constitution will be saved as prophesied by Joseph Smith. It will be saved by the righteous citizens of this nation who love and cherish freedom. It will be saved by enlightened members of this Church—among others—men and women who understand and abide the principles of the Constitution.

I reverence the Constitution of the United States as a sacred document. To me its words are akin to the revelations of God, for God has placed His stamp of approval upon it.

I testify that the God of heaven sent some of His choicest spirits to lay the foundation of this government, and He has now sent other choice spirits to help preserve it.

We, the blessed beneficiaries of the Constitution, face difficult days in America, “a land which is choice above all other lands” (Ether 2:10).

May God give us the faith and the courage exhibited by those patriots who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

May we be equally as valiant and as free, I pray in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

[Guest MormonGator]

38 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Some of you really need to educate yourself on the Church and it's position on freedom, the Constitution, and the two 'isms.

The problem isn't education-because if it was, that would be easy to cure. The real problem is that people don't want to educate themselves on the churches position on communism and socialism because it goes against their beliefs. 

[Lost Boy]

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Ok, you have jumped the shark now.

If we're going to use that metric for CAN CHANGE... then sure.  USA can change to either be Enoch or Venezuela tomorrow.  I will bet you my last Lucky Charms your universal healthcare proposition or abolishing the US Constitution will be closer to changing you to Venezuela than Enoch.

Or maybe doing a universal health care will just get everyone covered and decrease the cost for most americans.

I would love to go to a market system, but clearly the stupid republicans don't want that because in the two years they were in power they did zilch to fix health care.  So either do a market driven system, or do a government managed one, but the in between sucks.

That said. Even if we go market driven, I would still want everyone to have basic coverage.