LDS Socialism

[Rize]

OK, I believe there is are serious discrepancies in what LDS doctrine teaches and the political stance of the majority of members of the church. I understand that for the most part the church proclaims it does not get involved in politics, but I see serious conflicts in what is taught in the church compared to the dominant political ideology of the Mormon people.

For example: The Mormon doctrine called the "law of consecration" administered under the United Order is taught by the LDS church to be the higher law, and "tithing" is the lower law. Comparable to Old Testament vs. New Testament. The law of consecration basically explains that everyone must give all their money to be equally distributed throughout the society.

In 1875, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued a Proclamation on the Economy; here is an exert:

The experience of mankind has shown that the people of communities and nations among whom wealth is the most equally distributed, enjoy the largest degree of liberty, are the least exposed to tyranny and oppression and suffer the least from luxurious habits which beget vice. Under such a system, carefully maintained, there could be no great aggregations of either real or personal property in the hands of a few; especially so while the laws, forbidding the taking of usury or interest for money or property loaned, continued in force.

One of the great evils with which our own nation is menaced at the present time is the wonderful growth of wealth in the hands of a comparatively few individuals. The very liberties for which our fathers contended so steadfastly and courageously, and which they bequeathed to us as a priceless legacy, are endangered by the monstrous power which this accumulation of wealth gives to a few individuals and a few powerful corporations. By its seductive influence results are accomplished which, were it equally distributed, would be impossible under our form of government. It threatens to give shape to the legislation, both state and national, of the entire country. If this evil should not be checked, and measures not taken to prevent the continued enormous growth of riches among the class already rich, and the painful increase of destitution and want among the poor, the nation is likely to be overtaken by disaster; for, according to history, such a tendency among nations once powerful was the sure precursor of ruin.

Years ago, it was perceived that we Latter-day Saints were open to the same dangers as those which beset the rest of the world. A condition of affairs existed among us, which was favorable to the growth of riches in the hands of a few at the expense of many. A wealthy class was being rapidly formed in our midst whose interests in the course of time, were likely to be diverse from those of the rest of the community. The growth of such a class was dangerous to our union; and, of all people, we stand most in need of union and to have our interests identical...

...the Latter-day Saints were acting in utter disregard of the principles of self-preservation. They were encouraging the growth of evils in their own midst which they condemned as the worst features of the systems from which they had been gathered. Large profits were being consecrated in comparatively few hands, instead of being generally distributed among the people. As a consequence, the community was being rapidly divided into classes, and the hateful and unhappy distinctions to which the possession and lack of wealth give rise were becoming painfully apparent....

Shouldn't the fundamental idea of the members of the church be to work towards redistributing their wealth throughout society. I have read through other threads on this board and have found very scathing attacks against socialism.

In 1901 Utah had 100 socialists occupying political offices throughout Utah. In 1917 LDS apostle David O McKay stated in a conference that "It looks as if Russia will have a government 'by the people, of the people, and for the people." (April 7, 1917 Conference Report).

So basically I am confused as to why such a dramatic difference in official church doctrine and the ideology of right wing, ultra-conservative beliefs of the majority of the LDS members. I guess this can be transferred to the Christian right as a whole, but it seems more predominant here in Utah. Shouldn't a true Christian believe in universal health care, and true economic equality for all. Didn't Jesus teach that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it would be for a rich person to enter heaven, and the first thing Jesus told his apostles was to redistribute their wealth to the poor and serve them? I don't recall any conditions on these doctrines, like saying "The poor people are lazy, or people will take advantage of a system that provides equally to all."

"You would have classes established here, some very poor and some very rich. Now, the Lord is not going to have anything of that kind. There has to be an equality; and we have to observe these principles that are designed to give every one the privilege of gathering around him the comforts and conveniences of life.” Lorenzo Snow (Journal of Discourses 19:349)

"It is not given that one man should possess that which is above another" (Doctrine and Covenants 49:20).

"Appoint unto this people their portions, every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs" (Doctrine and Covenants 51:3).

"That now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality" (2 Corinthians 8:14).

"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).

[a-train]

OK, I believe there is are serious discrepancies in what LDS doctrine teaches and the political stance of the majority of members of the church.

I don't like making generalizations, but this is probably somewhat true.

Shouldn't the fundamental idea of the members of the church be to work towards redistributing their wealth throughout society. I have read through other threads on this board and have found very scathing attacks against socialism.

Hmmm.. So you are of the opinion that capitalism does NOT redistribute wealth while socialism does?

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.

...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...

...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...

...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....

-President J. Ruben Clark October 1942 Conference LDS Library - Home

The LDS doctrine is vehemently opposed to socialism and the united order is entirely different from it.

Socialized health care and all the various socialist movements in this country are unhumanitarian. I strongly urge you to find out the facts of the Church's standing on socialism.

-a-train

[Moksha]

OK, I believe there is are serious discrepancies in what LDS doctrine teaches and the political stance of the majority of members of the church.

Good point. I have often thought that the dog-eat-dog, every-man-for-himself approach was good only if you were in some survivalist mode and perhaps wanted a stand off with society.

The end point for all this bellyaching over paying taxes and whining about government, is that if these folks got their way, we would be in a state of anarchy that would eventually give way to gangsterism like in the current day Russia.

The Church on the other hand is all about collectivism. We worship together and help each other. That is the polar opposite of the extreme what's-good-for-me only type of thinking. It is also antithetical to Christianity which teaches love and charity for one another.

[Rize]

Socialized health care and all the various socialist movements in this country are unhumanitarian. I strongly urge you to find out the facts of the Church's standing on socialism.

-a-train

How is providing health care to all regardless of their economic situation unhumanitarian?

Also, socialism and communism are different. Its also worth pointing out that socialism is an economic system, a true Christian or LDS member would strive for a system of economic equality therefor supporting a socialist democracy. As the first presidency said in the Proclamtion on the Economy, the growth of wealth in a small minority creates a class system where the poor are exploited. This is occurring under capitalism, socialist reforms would work to ensure wealth and power is not accumulated by the small minority of rich and instead would be redistributed equally providing basic necessities for all.

[a-train]

Today, we are in a battle for the bodies and souls of man. It is a battle between two opposing systems: freedom and slavery, Christ and anti-Christ. The struggle is more momentous than a decade ago, yet today the conventional wisdom says, “You must learn to live with Communism and to give up your ideas about national sovereignty.” Tell that to the millions—yes, the scores of millions—who have met death or imprisonment under the tyranny of Communism! Such would be the death knell of freedom and all we hold dear. God must ever have a free people to prosper His work and bring about Zion. - Ezra Taft Benson LDS.org

[the_jason]

Members of the church are not currently asked to live the law of consecration to the fullest. In the temple we make a covenant to be willing to live this law when asked. The purpose of the law of consecration is that members will give of their time, talents, and posessions for the building up of the Kingdom of God, not so that we can all have equal wealth. Capitalism is only concerned with possessions. The law of consecration is a spiritual law, and thus a higher law. Capitalism is a temporal law.

[Rize]

Today, we are in a battle for the bodies and souls of man. It is a battle between two opposing systems: freedom and slavery, Christ and anti-Christ. The struggle is more momentous than a decade ago, yet today the conventional wisdom says, “You must learn to live with Communism and to give up your ideas about national sovereignty.” Tell that to the millions—yes, the scores of millions—who have met death or imprisonment under the tyranny of Communism! Such would be the death knell of freedom and all we hold dear. God must ever have a free people to prosper His work and bring about Zion. - Ezra Taft Benson LDS.org

Again, Communism as cited here referring specifically to Communist Russia is completely different than socialism.

[a-train]

How is providing health care to all regardless of their economic situation unhumanitarian?

Because it won't actually provide healthcare for all. It will impoverish the nation and lead to the same kind of economic collapse which brought down the Soviet Union.

Also, socialism and communism are different. Its also worth pointing out that socialism is an economic system, a true Christian or LDS member would strive for a system of economic equality therefor supporting a socialist democracy.

A true apostate rejecting the prophets would support a socialist democracy. Socialism and communism are nothing but scams that enslave nations.

As the first presidency said in the Proclamtion on the Economy, the growth of wealth in a small minority creates a class system where the poor are exploited.

I'm sorry, but you'll have to go back and read that again, that proclamation is not supporting socialism one bit. Socialism is a system based on a elite class that rules over slaves.

This is occurring under capitalism, socialist reforms would work to ensure wealth and power is not accumulated by the small minority of rich and instead would be redistributed equally providing basic necessities for all.

You are mistaken, the further this country goes toward socialism the more poverty will rise, the worse health care will be as we place all the nation's wealth in a few hands. Capitalism does the opposite, it distributes wealth. Socialism puts all power, control, and wealth in the hands of a small group of elite.

-a-train

[NeuroTypical]

socialism is an economic system, a true Christian or LDS member would strive for a system of economic equality therefor supporting a socialist democracy.

Socialism involves central planning, with a select few figuring out what's best for everybody, and then making it happen, right?

Well, the weakness of the system is immediately apparent to me. Make the first presidency and quorum of 12 the people calling the shots, and I'm game. Any other group of people, and it'll end up being those skilled at stealing and holding power.

socialist reforms would work to ensure wealth and power is not accumulated by the small minority of rich and instead would be redistributed equally providing basic necessities for all.

Just like it did with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Or did they just do it wrong somehow. If the latter, how do you propose having us not do it wrong in exactly the same way?

LM

[a-train]

Again, Communism as cited here referring specifically to Communist Russia is completely different than socialism.

Either way, the prophets have long been opposed to both, and the United Order can ONLY exist in a free market of individuals with economic liberty.

-a-train

[Rize]

I'm sorry, but you'll have to go back and read that again, that proclamation is not supporting socialism one bit. Socialism is a system based on a elite class that rules over slaves.

It says and I directly quote: "One of the great evils with which our own nation is menaced at the present time is the wonderful growth of wealth in the hands of a comparatively few individuals."

"They were encouraging the growth of evils in their own midst which they condemned as the worst features of the systems from which they had been gathered. Large profits were being consecrated in comparatively few hands, instead of being generally distributed among the people."

I don't know how you can more clearly condemn wealth consolidation and call for redistribution of wealth. Seriously read the last sentence: "Large profits were being consecrated in comparatively few hands, instead of being generally distributed among people."

Because it won't actually provide healthcare for all. It will impoverish the nation and lead to the same kind of economic collapse which brought down the Soviet Union.

Universal healthcare caused the collapse of the Soviet Union? Again, socialism is completely different than what was practiced under Communist Russia. I'm saying as a Christan and a humanitarian how could you ever deny someone health care. That seems like a basic human right.

A true apostate rejecting the prophets would support a socialist democracy. Socialism and communism are nothing but scams that enslave nations.

So I'm a true apostate for thinking everyone should have their basic needs taken care of, like food, clothing, shelter, healthcare? Or that the poor should have equal access to education regardless of their economic situation?

I think Jesus might take issue with that statement:

[Mat 19:21] Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

[Luke 1:53] He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.

[Mark 10:21] Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven:

You are mistaken, the further this country goes toward socialism the more poverty will rise, the worse health care will be as we place all the nation's wealth in a few hands. Capitalism does the opposite, it distributes wealth. Socialism puts all power and control over wealth in the hands of a small group of elite.

I think you have it backwards, Capitalism is putting power in the hands of the rich minority who in turn are exploiting the working class. Under a socialist democracy we would be electing those in power, whereas under capitalism the power lies with an unelected rich minority.

[a-train]

Here is a Marion G. Romney talk that burns socialism. In it he says: 'As our modern societies follow the course which led to the fall of Rome and other civilizations which succumbed to the deceptive lure of the welfare state and socialism, I think it not inappropriate for me to emphasize again the Lord’s plan for the temporal salvation of His mortal children.'

[Fiannan]

There is a huge difference between supporting the concept of free enterprise and individual choice and becomming a desciple of consumerism and materialism.

[Rize]

Here is a Marion G. Romney talk that burns socialism. In it he says: 'As our modern societies follow the course which led to the fall of Rome and other civilizations which succumbed to the deceptive lure of the welfare state and socialism, I think it not inappropriate for me to emphasize again the Lord’s plan for the temporal salvation of His mortal children.'

"But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin" D&C 49:20

[a-train]

It says and I directly quote: "One of the great evils with which our own nation is menaced at the present time is the wonderful growth of wealth in the hands of a comparatively few individuals."

That is the rise of American socialism, not the benefit of economic liberty.

I don't know how you can more clearly condemn wealth consolidation and call for redistribution of wealth. Seriously read the last sentence: "Large profits were being consecrated in comparatively few hands, instead of being generally distributed among people."

Socialism IS consolidation sir. It places the wealth of the whole nation in the hands of a few elite. Read some Ezra Taft Benson.

Universal healthcare caused the collapse of the Soviet Union?

The foibles of the men who made the economic decisions for the whole nation caused the collapse.

Again, socialism is completely different than what was practiced under Communist Russia. I'm saying as a Christan and a humanitarian how could you ever deny someone health care. That seems like a basic human right.

Exactly, if we are Christians and humanitarians, why would we adopt a system that we already know would lead to the impoverishment of our citizens and a massive shortage of healthcare. Socialism is the very opposite of what we want and what the prophets have taught us.

So I'm a true apostate for thinking everyone should have their basic needs taken care of, like food, clothing, shelter, healthcare? Or that the poor should have equal access to education regardless of their economic situation?

It is indeed an apostate notion to believe that we have any provider other than God. It is further an apostate suggestion that the members of this Church should be deprived of their ability to offer food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, and so forth to those that need it and that is the goal of socialism.

[Mat 19:21]Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

Jesus did not tell the young man to go forth and deprive others of their economic liberty to help the poor. He did not in any way advocate the satanic notion of socialism.

[Luke 1:53] He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.

The National Socialist German Workers Party sure did the opposite didn't they.

I think you have it backwards, Capitalism is putting power in the hands of the rich minority who in turn are exploiting the working class. Under a socialist democracy we would be electing those in power, whereas under capitalism the power lies with an unelected rich minority.

A lie, don't believe it. Listen to the prophets not these elitists pushing their power-trip agendas. The socialists only want us to give them power over our economic liberty and our lives in general so they can enslave us.

I urge you to do some more study of the scriptures and the prophets of the latter days on this subject. The principles of socialism have been repudiated heavily and we have been warned greatly against this falsehood.

-a-train

[a-train]

"But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin" D&C 49:20

Precisely, the world has long groaned under the tyranny and sin of those who possess that which is above another. Dictators have long deprived men of their economic liberty that they may be enriched and upheld above their fellows. Socialism is a horrible system that puts an elite group into power that once in place, usually requires bloodshed to remove.

'Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well.' - George Bernard Shaw

-a-train

[a-train]

[pushka]

Rize, your posts are like a breath of fresh air to me.

I won't try arguing for Socialism, or some kind of Christian/LDS Socialism..Communism even! as I know that the members of this site are well versed in their arguments against it.

I think it is sad that the LDS community which originally tried to live the Law of Consecration was unsuccessful

[Traveler]

Most all modern socialist orders have denounced religion. Fundamentally communism opposes all religion as an opiate of the people. Please do not disgrace the United Order by a comparison to socialist orders that are anti to religion.

I would also point out that the LDS welfare, fast offering and consecration is not free market capitalist economy. Neither is the United Order. My great grandfather was secretary (CEO) of the Box Elder United Order and I am well studied in the articles and principles of that specific order.

Please understand that it is the order of G-d to have his children come into his “Kingdom” and social order as a manner of agency and expression of free will. It is the order of Satan to demand by force of law that man should be forced and taxed with no escape or relief from taxation.

I personally see the redistribution of wealth under the current taxes in this country as it stands today to be more closely associated with the order of Satan than of G-d. And as long as the laws demand disassociation with all that is religious from the halls of justice – I believe that nothing but loss of freedoms will result.

When we are not free to choose we are not free and if the majority is not the basis of order there is no democratic or free society.

The Traveler

[Mathonihah]

There is a danger in taking a little excerpt of any paper or document out of context. There context within the document itself and also historical context. What was going on back then that was so bad that the Church had to issue a proclamation on it? I read the entire document which the discussion about redistribution of wealth seems (to me) only a preamble. It leads up to people buying stock in ZCMI and supporting other cooperative ventures. This sounds to me like a very capitalist venture.

From the Proclamation on the Economy, 1875:

When the proposition to organize Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution was broached, it was hoped that the community at large would become stockholders; for if a few individuals were to own its stock, the advantages to the community would be limited. The people, therefore, were urged to take shares, and large numbers responded to the appeal. As we have shown, the business proved to be as successful as its most sanguine friends anticipated. But the distribution of profits among the community was not the only benefit conferred by the organization of cooperation among us.

It goes on to say:

Cooperation has submitted in silence to a great many attacks. Its friends have been content to let it endure the ordeal. But now it is time to speak. The Latter-day Saints should understand that it is our duty to sustain cooperation and to do all in our power to make it a success. The local cooperative stores should have the cordial support of the Latter-day Saints. Does not all our history impress upon us the great truth that union is strength? Without it, what power would the Latter-day Saints have? But it is in not our doctrines alone that we should be united, but in practice and especially in our business affairs.

from Wikipedia:

A cooperative (also co-operative, coöperative, or co-op) is defined by the International Co-operative Alliance's Statement on the Co-operative Identity as an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise[1]. A cooperative may also be defined as a business owned and controlled equally by the people who use its services or who work at it.

So it seems to me the the First Presidency and Quorum or the Twelve were urging the saints to participate in cooperative ventures not urging the saints to modify their form of Government in any way.

You sited a few scripture which you say are in favor of socialism. Well here is on for you. Explain to me the the Parable of the Talents? (Read Mathew 25:14-30) The Master gave one servant 5, another servant 2, and another servant 1 talent (unit of money). Hmmm, doesn't sound equally distributing His wealth does it? The Master then leaves for a time and come back. The servant with 5 talents made 5 more. The servant with 2 made 2 more. But the servant with one did nothing and hid his talent and the Master TOOK AWAY HIS TALENT AND GAVE IT TO THE SERVANT WHO HAD 10 (Mathew 25:28). Sounds like redistibution of weath alright. But wait! It's in the wrong direction! The rich gets the one talent from the poor (assuming that the talents the master gave were the only talents they possessed). Doesn't sound like socialism does it?

I'd like to say a word or too about socialism and communism: the USSR was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Not the word socialist. Communism is a form of socialism. So was National Socialism (Nazi Germany). To be fair I suppose there is democratic socialism. Like Sweden (go look at their economy and compare it to ours).

I believe the economic position of the Church is that every man is responsibly for his own economic prosperity. If he cannot meet his own needs he can look toward his family then the Church.

[Fiannan]

Rize, your posts are like a breath of fresh air to me.

I won't try arguing for Socialism, or some kind of Christian/LDS Socialism..Communism even! as I know that the members of this site are well versed in their arguments against it.

I think it is sad that the LDS community which originally tried to live the Law of Consecration was unsuccessful

Anyone is free, I suppose, to practice socialism. They can get like-minded people together and buy a plot of land and set up their own socialist community -- there are still hippie communes in places like Oregon and northern California where poeople did just that and many of the polygamist groups live like this as well.

As long as the government doesn't try to impose socialism on everyone then...

[Moksha]

As long as the government doesn't try to impose socialism on everyone then...

When they finally get around to extending health care to all, you can take to the hills... Darn bunch of commies...

[a-train]

A family with a $53,750 income pays $6,000 a year in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid alone. Now after all the collection costs and everything three of these families pays for one retired grandma. Couldn't grandma just move in with the family and save everyone thousands?

NO WAY! Because then, the corporations in bed with that system wouldn't make all those profits. The more we deprive Americans of their economic liberty, the more delapitated and poverty stricken this nation will be.

Government spending has done nothing but increase in the last 50 years or so, but I still pass homeless guys. There are more uninsured americans in 2006 than ever. Why is this happening? Uncle Sam is supposed to be fixing all this! Right?!? WRONG!

We should just give Uncle Sam more money and THEN he'll be able to solve all this, right? WRONG!!!

I just had an idea. What if we CUT government spending and allowed american's to keep their money so that they can afford health insurance?

Oh, a-train, that's a stupid idea it will never work. You see, the government will get such huge discounts on everything that it will be so much cheaper in the long run....

What? Name one thing. ONE THING that the government is able to make cheaper than a free economy.

Socialism doesn't work. It never has. It never will. Depriving a man of his economic liberty in an effort to be humanitarian is morally, idealogically, and logistically flawed. We cannot save the poor by forcing them to buy whatever we want them too. Just the sound of it is ridiculous.

If we really want to help the poor we should do the right thing and stop robbing them.

-a-train

[Rize]

What? Name one thing. ONE THING that the government is able to make cheaper than a free economy.

Socialism doesn't work. It never has. It never will. Depriving a man of his economic liberty in an effort to be humanitarian is morally, idealogically, and logistically flawed.

You rail against socialism but benefit in many ways from socialist reforms in the United States. For instance under true capitalism there would be no minimum wage, or workers rights or safety programs such as OSHA. We would go back to the days when children were working 16 hour days in the factories, because if thats what the free market wants who is the government to get involved and say its wrong.

Citing things like Communist Russia, or the National Socialist Party of Germany is blatantly disingenuous. It is the same argument people use to say all Mormons are Polygamists who marry their underage cousins because thats what the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does... and hey, they both say Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Again, all I am saying is the teachings of Christ, and the actual doctrine of the Church call for redistribution of wealth and economic equality. You are absolutely right when you say depriving someone of his economic liberty is morally flawed. Capitalism allows a small minority of rich white males to dictate the living conditions and economic freedom of the majority of the world, and without socialist reforms such as the establishment of basic working standards and a liveable wage, this small minority is an undemocratic tyranny depriving true freedom.

Look for instance at economies that have operated under true laissez-faire economics. Chile for instance is a perfect example if you look at the US sponsored overthrow of democratically elected socialist president Salvador Allende and the installment of a military dictator Augusto Pinochet.

If you want to see an example of true free market capitalism take a look at Chile under Pinochet. It was lauded as an "economic miracle" by Margaret Thatcher and the US for its change from socialism to a free market system under Pinochet.

While Pinochet was in power from 1973 and 1990 , there were large cuts to incomes and social services. Wages decreased by 8%. Family allowances in 1989 were 28% of what they had been in 1970 and the budgets for education, health and housing had dropped by over 20% on average. 5% of the population received 25% of the total national income in 1972, it received 50% in 1975. Wage and salary earners got 64% of the national income in 1972 but only 38% at the beginning of 1977. Malnutrition affected half of the nation's children, and 60% of the population could not afford the minimum protein and food energy per day. Infant mortality also increased sharply. Cumulative cuts in health funding totaled 60% between 1973 and 1988. The cuts indirectly caused a significant rise in many preventable diseases and mental health problems. These included rises in typhoid (121%,) viral hepatitis, and an increase in the frequency and seriousness of mental ailments among the unemployed.

Since the restoration of democracy Chile has favored the socialist party and both Ricardo Lagos and Michelle Bachelet (the past two presidents) are both members of the socialist party. Since the socialists took power the economy has improved as they increasing have abandoned the old free market policies of the dictatorship, which has been a slow transition but a transition supported by the people.

That said Chile still has not experienced true socialist economics, but it has favored socialist economic reforms as do the majority of Latin American countries in response to US interventionism and neo-liberal free market exploitation that has plagued the continent.

So what you are saying is that it is evil and wrong for the poor to say, "we are tired of being exploited, we are tired of living in abject poverty working multiple jobs with no healthcare or even food for our children," and democratically elect a reformist government focused on fair economic distribution and work standards? That is evil? Its not evil for the rich to exploit the poor and steal from them, but its wrong for the poor to demand economic equality?

Socialism is based on the idea that we should use the vast resources of society to meet people’s needs.

It seems so obvious--if people are hungry, they should be fed; if people are homeless, we should build homes for them; if people are sick, the best medical care should be available to them. A socialist society would take the immense wealth of the rich and use it to meet the basic needs of all society. The money wasted on weapons could be used to end poverty, homelessness, and all other forms of scarcity.

Under socialism, the majority of people would plan democratically what to do and how do it as the means of production--the factories, offices, mines, and so on--would be owned by all of society.

In order for planning to work, a socialist society must be democratic--much more so than the current system. Democracy and capitalism don’t really go hand in hand. In fact, repressive dictatorships run many so-called models of the free market in less developed countries. Even in countries that brag about how democratic they are, democracy is limited to electing representatives to government every two or four years.

Unfortunately, the record of the former USSR, China, and other so-called socialist countries has created the impression that socialism is a top-down society run by party bosses. This has nothing to do with genuine socialism--or, for that matter, with the whole experience of working-class struggle. Socialism will be democratic in a more fundamental way.

All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

(Acts 2:44-45)

And behold, thou wilt remember the poor, and consecrate of thy properties for their support that which thou hast to impart unto them, with a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken. (D&C 42:30)

For it shall come to pass, that which I spake by the mouths of my prophets shall be fulfilled; for I will consecrate of the riches of those who embrace my gospel among the Gentiles unto the poor of my people who are of the house of Israel. (D&C 42:39)

Therefore, if any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart not his portion, according to the law of my gospel, unto the poor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment. (D&C 104:18)

Wo unto you rich men, that will not give your substance to the poor, for your riches will canker your souls; and this shall be your lamentation in the day of visitation, and of judgment, and of indignation: The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and my soul is not saved! (D&C 56:16)

[a-train]

The united order, according to Elder Harold B. Lee, is “more capitalistic … than either Socialism or Communism, in that private ownership and individual responsibility will be maintained.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1941, p. 113)

The Primitive Church did not set up a socialist state. No person was compelled to enter into their union, no person was born with any obligation to that union.

Could the saints have built the economy and infrastructure of Salt Lake if it had been in a socialist state where these things were controlled by the government? For that matter, if socialism was the doctrine of the Church, why did the saints not establish a socialist state in Utah?

Could the charitable organizations such as the Breast Cancer Fund, or the March of Dimes have been created in a socialist economy?

It is a flawed notion that the so-called 'free-market' system installed by Pinochet was really free. It wasn't. It was plagued by monopolies installed mainly by Pinochet himself. He did not create a free market, he simply sold the market to private investors whose main purpose was speculation. Further, it is impossible to imagine that the economy was free at all in a police state complete with concentration camps and torture.

There is no doubt that the hungry should have the opportunity of food, the homeless should have the availability of shelter and so forth. The trouble is the fact that any system of government no matter what lip service it pays to any so-called liberty, if it deprives its people of life or property, it isn't free, it isn't humanitarian, and it will not bless the poor.

If you believe that the great folly of the true free economy is that it places too much wealth and power in the hands of a few elite, then why in the world would a government enforced system that does just that be any better?

Socialism is not a remedy to the troubles of monopoly, it is in and of itself a monster monopoly.

The Political Motto of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

The Constitution of our country formed by the Fathers of liberty. Peace and good order in society. Love to God, and good will to man. All good and wholesome laws, virtue and truth above all things, and aristarchy, live forever! But woe to tyrants, mobs, aristocracy, anarchy, and toryism, and all those who invent or seek out unrighteous and vexatious law suits, under the pretext and color of law, or office, either religious or political. Exalt the standard of Democracy! Down with that of priestcraft, and let all the people say Amen! that the blood of our fathers may not cry from the ground against us. Sacred is the memory of that blood which bought for us our liberty. - Joseph Smith

In D&C 98 & 101 we see that the establishment of the United States and the Constitution was the work of God. Why did the Framers not establish a socialist state if this was the desire of the LORD?

Look, I understand perfectly well your desire to bless the sick, the poor, the needy, and the afflicted. No true latter-day saint is not engaged in that work. But socialism will do just the opposite. A special elite will control all while the masses are impoverished under socialism.

Socialism is akin to the pattern Satan introduced in the grand council. It deprives men of the right to choose to bless their fellow man and entrusts all such rights in an elite.

-a-train