LDS Socialism

[Argentina84]

the theory of socialism is in fact contrary to the way it has been practiced, and the idea of absolute control of the state or top echelon over the population is contradictory to true socialism.

That is what I studied.

[JohnBirchSociety]

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)

Friend, this discussion is very easily resolved.

Picture if you will a person who has rightfully, morally, earned $20,000. Now picture another person who comes and takes, without permission, $3,000 of that earned money. We'd both call that theft (I hope). Now suppose 5 people come and take, without permission, $3,000. We'd still, I hope, call this theft. Now suppose the persons entire town comes and takes the $3,000. Still theft, I'd hope you would agree. Now suppose the entire state population takes $3,000. Again, it's still theft.

I hope you can logically disassociate yourself from the fallacy of socialism to realize that it is nothing more than government mandated theft. You have no inherent right to the labor of another. Nor do I. If I steal from you directly, or use the force of government to do it, it is still stealing.

It is astounding how clearly the 10 Commandments, even after 4,000 years, perfectly applies to this question. The solution to the question is to FOLLOW the 10 Commandments, not violate (no matter the pretense) one of them in the name of "humanitarianism".

Thanks.

[peanutgallery]

Friend, this discussion is very easily resolved.

Picture if you will a person who has rightfully, morally, earned $20,000. Now picture another person who comes and takes, without permission, $3,000 of that earned money. We'd both call that theft (I hope). Now suppose 5 people come and take, without permission, $3,000. We'd still, I hope, call this theft. Now suppose the persons entire town comes and takes the $3,000. Still theft, I'd hope you would agree. Now suppose the entire state population takes $3,000. Again, it's still theft.

I hope you can logically disassociate yourself from the fallacy of socialism to realize that it is nothing more than government mandated theft. You have no inherent right to the labor of another. Nor do I. If I steal from you directly, or use the force of government to do it, it is still stealing.

It is astounding how clearly the 10 Commandments, even after 4,000 years, perfectly applies to this question. The solution to the question is to FOLLOW the 10 Commandments, not violate (no matter the pretense) one of them in the name of "humanitarianism".

Thanks.

Well said.

BTW Was Robin Hood a socialist?

[JohnBirchSociety]

Well said.

BTW Was Robin Hood a socialist?

Yes, though I'm sure the poor would have voted for him (that's called democracy folks)!!!!

"Democracy is like having two wolves and a lamb decide what is for diner"-Ben Franklin

God be praised that our founders (American) gave us a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy!!!

[Moksha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanutgallery

Well said.

BTW Was Robin Hood a socialist?

Yes, though I'm sure the poor would have voted for him (that's called democracy folks)!!!!

However, there would undoubtedly exist some Society (perhaps formed by the Sheriff of Nottingham) that would offer lamentations now that the poor had money to eat at the the God given expense of the Barons. They would see a vast conspiracy of Robin and the Merry Men lurking behind every tree in the Greenwood Forrest.

[Argentina84]

I still don't understand how can people support a system that makes so many other people die from starvation all around the world.

[Rize]

Friend, this discussion is very easily resolved.

Picture if you will a person who has rightfully, morally, earned $20,000. Now picture another person who comes and takes, without permission, $3,000 of that earned money. We'd both call that theft (I hope). Now suppose 5 people come and take, without permission, $3,000. We'd still, I hope, call this theft. Now suppose the persons entire town comes and takes the $3,000. Still theft, I'd hope you would agree. Now suppose the entire state population takes $3,000. Again, it's still theft.

I hope you can logically disassociate yourself from the fallacy of socialism to realize that it is nothing more than government mandated theft. You have no inherent right to the labor of another. Nor do I. If I steal from you directly, or use the force of government to do it, it is still stealing.

It is astounding how clearly the 10 Commandments, even after 4,000 years, perfectly applies to this question. The solution to the question is to FOLLOW the 10 Commandments, not violate (no matter the pretense) one of them in the name of "humanitarianism".

Thanks.

Haha.. says the John Birch Society. You fail to recognize that the LDS Church then would also qualify under your definition as a thief. If you read the new testament or any LDS church doctrine you would find that it calls for you to take all of your wealth are give it to the poor, it says all must be equally provided for, it also says if you don't then you will suffer eternal damnation. There are plenty of scriptures already posted in the thread detailing this. So under your definition then God is a thief and immoral for condemning those who aggregate wealth and do not divide it among the poor.

Whats funny is you say: "You have no inherent right to the labor of another." Yet what is capitalism? Those who labor, the wage slaves, do so not for their benefit, the rich upper class are stealing from the labor of the working class. Under socialism the workers control the means of production and directly benefit from the labor instead of having it stolen away by the ultra-rich and powerful who exploit them and steal from their work.

By your definition we should all disavow capitalism as it robs from the poor, exploits the working class and allows the rich to rob us of the fruits of our labor.

[peanutgallery]

Haha.. says the John Birch Society. You fail to recognize that the LDS Church then would also qualify under your definition as a thief. If you read the new testament or any LDS church doctrine you would find that it calls for you to take all of your wealth are give it to the poor, it says all must be equally provided for, it also says if you don't then you will suffer eternal damnation. There are plenty of scriptures already posted in the thread detailing this. So under your definition then God is a thief and immoral for condemning those who aggregate wealth and do not divide it among the poor.

Whats funny is you say: "You have no inherent right to the labor of another." Yet what is capitalism? Those who labor, the wage slaves, do so not for their benefit, the rich upper class are stealing from the labor of the working class. Under socialism the workers control the means of production and directly benefit from the labor instead of having it stolen away by the ultra-rich and powerful who exploit them and steal from their work.

By your definition we should all disavow capitalism as it robs from the poor, exploits the working class and allows the rich to rob us of the fruits of our labor.

What you fail to understand is that the LDS church asks us to give our money to help. They don't "take" it. Huge difference. Of course we are supposed to help the poor and needy and we will be blessed for it. Once we are forced, we lose our ability to have free agency. That was Satan's plan.

[Rize]

What you fail to understand is that the LDS church asks us to give our money to help. They don't "take" it. Huge difference. Of course we are supposed to help the poor and needy and we will be blessed for it. Once we are forced, we lose our ability to have free agency. That was Satan's plan.

The term free agency is commonly mis-used by LDS members, and has traditionally been interpreted as meaning that individuals have the ability to choose their actions freely. Many leaders of the LDS Church have pointed out that the term "free agency" should not be interpreted to mean that agency does not have consequences, but rather that agency is fraught with consequences and the result of the exercise of agency determine eternal destination. Many church manuals avoid the term "free agency" and instead say simply "agency."

[JohnBirchSociety]

Haha.. says the John Birch Society. You fail to recognize that the LDS Church then would also qualify under your definition as a thief. If you read the new testament or any LDS church doctrine you would find that it calls for you to take all of your wealth are give it to the poor, it says all must be equally provided for, it also says if you don't then you will suffer eternal damnation. There are plenty of scriptures already posted in the thread detailing this. So under your definition then God is a thief and immoral for condemning those who aggregate wealth and do not divide it among the poor.

Whats funny is you say: "You have no inherent right to the labor of another." Yet what is capitalism? Those who labor, the wage slaves, do so not for their benefit, the rich upper class are stealing from the labor of the working class. Under socialism the workers control the means of production and directly benefit from the labor instead of having it stolen away by the ultra-rich and powerful who exploit them and steal from their work.

By your definition we should all disavow capitalism as it robs from the poor, exploits the working class and allows the rich to rob us of the fruits of our labor.

What you are asserting here is called Communism. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is firmly against Communism.

The Church does not forcefully take anything from me. I give because I chose to give. I participate because I chose to.

You, nor I, have right to another's labor. Employee's in a free market (which has never fully existed) contract, freely, to provide labor in exchange for wage. They are not forced to work for any specific employer.

What you espouse is straight Communism. In fact, you are quoting from the Communist Manifesto to a large extent.

The Church is completely opposed to Communism.

[peanutgallery]

The term free agency is commonly mis-used by LDS members, and has traditionally been interpreted as meaning that individuals have the ability to choose their actions freely. Many leaders of the LDS Church have pointed out that the term "free agency" should not be interpreted to mean that agency does not have consequences, but rather that agency is fraught with consequences and the result of the exercise of agency determine eternal destination. Many church manuals avoid the term "free agency" and instead say simply "agency."

Of course their are consequences to our actions. I can choose to follow the commandments and live my life according to God's laws and return to him. Or I can choose to deny God and live how I want and not return to him. Still my choice - my agency. Satan wanted all of us to be forced to live God's laws and be forced to return to him. Sounds kind of like socialism.

[Rize]

What you are asserting here is called Communism. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is firmly against Communism.

The Church does not forcefully take anything from me. I give because I chose to give. I participate because I chose to.

You, nor I, have right to another's labor. Employee's in a free market (which has never fully existed) contract, freely, to provide labor in exchange for wage. They are not forced to work for any specific employer.

What you espouse is straight Communism. In fact, you are quoting from the Communist Manifesto to a large extent.

The Church is completely opposed to Communism.

I actually am not endorsing Communism, to quote Elder Marion G. Romney:

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.

I am endorsing a social democracy based on egalitarianism, workers rights, and the elimination of all poverty. Not violent revolution or dictatorship. What I am saying is that under the pretense of scriptures, Church teachings, and under the guidance of our spiritual leaders it is immoral to aggregate wealth and not redistribute it too the poor.

[Guest Malcolm]

Until the collapse of the former Soviet Union, ALL "Socialist" countries in the eastern block and elsewhere had a dismal level of "social benefits" and pseudo-economies barely sustained by the sale of Soviet oil, gas and weapon systems. Other countries like China, Cuba, Nicaragua and the African countries that tried the experiment had survival economies and were entirely dependent on Soviet subsidies to feed their people. During the '90s and after the collapse of the Soviet Union when ALL subsidies stopped most people in those countries in order to survive were reduced to eating things that later were never again spoken off in the family, my own family included.

Beyond that, a system that incarcerates, kills, intimidate and represses ALL ideological (I am not even talking about political) dissent has no real benefit to any one. In a country where anyone can be taken from their home by the government who, 1 hour later can blatantly deny knowing anything about your whereabouts, be accused and found guilty without any evidence on the strength of "common sense assumptions" (some diabolical legal invention of the communists) and put to the firing squad within 30 days I fail to see the "social" upside.

From the bottom of my heart, and in all humility, I appeal to my bretheren and sisters of the church and all those who read this; please do not compare the Gospel of our Savior with Socialism. Do not engage in an intellectual exercise that only demonstrate lack of insight and complete ignorance about the conditions under which others lived and died at the hands of these regimes. It was God who described Zion and the mind and hearts of those to dwell therein. Communism appropriate the doctrine, removed God and replaced it with its own utopia where the soul of men means nothing and the survival of (those that control) the state should be above all by any means necessary. That is the real legacy of Socialism; death, destruction, oppression, fear and hunger.

[Rize]

Until the collapse of the former Soviet Union, ALL "Socialist" countries in the eastern block and elsewhere had a dismal level of "social benefits" and pseudo-economies barely sustained by the sale of Soviet oil, gas and weapon systems. Other countries like China, Cuba, Nicaragua and the African countries that tried the experiment had survival economies and were entirely dependent on Soviet subsidies to feed their people. During the '90s and after the collapse of the Soviet Union when ALL subsidies stopped most people in those countries in order to survive were reduced to eating things that later were never again spoken off in the family, my own family included.

Beyond that, a system that incarcerates, kills, intimidate and represses ALL ideological (I am not even talking about political) dissent has no real benefit to any one. In a country where anyone can be taken from their home by the government who, 1 hour later can blatantly deny knowing anything about your whereabouts, be accused and found guilty without any evidence on the strength of "common sense assumptions" (some diabolical legal invention of the communists) and put to the firing squad within 30 days I fail to see the "social" upside.

From the bottom of my heart, and in all humility, I appeal to my bretheren and sisters of the church and all those who read this; please do not compare the Gospel of our Savior with Socialism. Do not engage in an intellectual exercise that only demonstrate lack of insight and complete ignorance about the conditions under which others lived and died at the hands of these regimes. It was God who described Zion and the mind and hearts of those to dwell therein. Communism appropriate the doctrine, removed God and replaced it with its own utopia where the soul of men means nothing and the survival of (those that control) the state should be above all by any means necessary. That is the real legacy of Socialism; death, destruction, oppression, fear and hunger.

Citing things like Communist Russia, Cuba, 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.

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.

As Latin America for instance has suffered greatly under free market capitalism it is now making many socialist reforms and democratically electing socialist parties into power to address the vast disparity between rich and poor and to eliminate the exploitation that has been going on due to free-market reforms pushed on their countries by U.S. interventionalism and neo-liberal policies enforced by the WTO, World Bank and other "free-market" trade agreements.

[Guest Malcolm]

Again, you address a subject of which you have no direct knowledge, experience or involvement. For you is a purely theoretical and intellectual exercise. The descriptions of the Socialists and Communists regimes that I offered are the ONLY real life evidence of such systems. There is no successful communist country on the earth. You keep insisting it is possible. Well, I point to 50 million dead and 80 years of failed political (Communist and Socialist) doctrine to point in the opposite direction.

For you to theorize that Christ intended such a system is beyond naive. We speak of Zion for we know it existed inspired and built by faithful souls as a true offering onto God. I tried to explain that Marx and Engels pulled the framework for Communism from the Bible, removed all references to God and faith and replaced it with the State High and Mighty, forced obedience and death as the means to their ends of accomplishing a perfect society. That sounds more like the plan of that fallen angel we rarely mention.

[JohnBirchSociety]

I actually am not endorsing Communism, to quote Elder Marion G. Romney:

I am endorsing a social democracy based on egalitarianism, workers rights, and the elimination of all poverty. Not violent revolution or dictatorship. What I am saying is that under the pretense of scriptures, Church teachings, and under the guidance of our spiritual leaders it is immoral to aggregate wealth and not redistribute it too the poor.

Unfortunately, what you endorse does not match what GOD has endorsed, which is the United States Constitution. The United States Constitution doesn't allow what you espouse.

Social Democracy is theft. You cannot take what is not yours. My labor is not yours, and visa versa. Even if the majority votes to take what is not theirs to take, and give it to another, it is still theft. I hope you can realize this.

As to your final sentence, I don't think anyone here is arguing against you on it. Selfishness is wrong. If one is blessed with good fortune, one should freely impart it to others. What you are wrong about is the means of "redistribution". The means must be voluntary. The ends, remember, do not justify the means (unless, of course, you are communist).

Again, you are, for the most part, quoting from the Communist play book, which the Church is against.

Theft is theft, regardless of pretense or government or majority sanction.

[Rize]

Again, you address a subject of which you have no direct knowledge, experience or involvement. For you is a purely theoretical and intellectual exercise. The descriptions of the Socialists and Communists regimes that I offered are the ONLY real life evidence of such systems. There is no successful communist country on the earth. You keep insisting it is possible. Well, I point to 50 million dead and 80 years of failed political (Communist and Socialist) doctrine to point in the opposite direction.

You know nothing about me to make that statement. I know first hand the exploitation of the poor throughout Latin America by the capitalist system. Today, many Latin American countries are providing excellent examples of socialist reform. I previously cited the case of Chile:

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 vastly improved as they increasingly have abandoned the old free market policies of the dictatorship, it has been a slow transition but a transition supported by the people.

Another excellent case is Bolivia. Under World Bank requirements the country was forced to privatize its water supply. Bechtel and Aguas de Tunari raised water rates an average of 35% to about $20 a month. While this seemed minuscule in the developed nations that the Aguas de Tunari staff had come from, many of their new clients only earned about $100 a month and $20 was more than they spent on food. So under capitalism the poor agrarian society could not afford water. Following popular protests, Evo Morales was elected, under the socialist party and remains widely popular for his extensive socialist reforms to benefit the population. As soon as he took power he cut his own salary and other government officials salary by 50% and increased minimum wage by 50% He also has provided legal documents for all citizens, before the indigenous population largely was not given legal status and therefore not allowed to vote.

[Rize]

Unfortunately, what you endorse does not match what GOD has endorsed, which is the United States Constitution. The United States Constitution doesn't allow what you espouse.

Social Democracy is theft. You cannot take what is not yours. My labor is not yours, and visa versa. Even if the majority votes to take what is not theirs to take, and give it to another, it is still theft. I hope you can realize this.

As to your final sentence, I don't think anyone here is arguing against you on it. Selfishness is wrong. If one is blessed with good fortune, one should freely impart it to others. What you are wrong about is the means of "redistribution". The means must be voluntary. The ends, remember, do not justify the means (unless, of course, you are communist).

Again, you are, for the most part, quoting from the Communist play book, which the Church is against.

Theft is theft, regardless of pretense or government or majority sanction.

I'm not, I have never once cited the "Communist play book" I have only cited scriptural references and direct quotes from LDS Prophets and General Authorities.

According to Prophet John Taylor,

“Referring to

the United Order, the Lord has given us to understand that whosoever refuses to comply with

the requirements of that law, his name shall not be known in the records of the Church, but shall

be blotted out, neither shall his children have inheritance in Zion…It is the word of God to me; it

is the word of God to you” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 21, p. 58).

The law called for the redistribution of wealth to create an egalitarian society.

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)

Proclamation on the Economy: "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."

"Large profits were being consecrated in comparatively few hands, instead of being generally distributed among people."

"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

If you do not redistribute your wealth to the poor you are damned. Supporting a system that endorses the exploitation of the poor, and the aggregation of vast sums of wealth is contrary to the basic pretense of the bible and teachings of our prophets and leaders.

You cite the constitution, but the constitution was established to: "Promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of Liberty" Promoting the general welfare and establishing liberty run contrary to capitalism, as capitalism exploits the poor and as the rich consolidate power the poor cannot experience true liberty. Capitalism has established a plutocracy in our nation.

According to the constitution: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

So it is constitutional for the government to collect taxes to provide for the general Welfare of the United States.

[rusure]

Rize, YOU are apparently not the one redistributing your wealth to the poor because you can only name "tithing" as how the church already does this in a sacred manner.

Honestly, if you can't wear your big boy panties and give willingly to others as it is, why would you want EVERYONE to be forced into submission by the government? I mean, it's clear you are in need of repentance on this, but speak for yourself and quit trying to herd everyone together under the government's control just because YOU can't be more giving yourself.

BTW, the law of consecration isn't all about money anyway.

You're also free to help others with your able body, should you have been blessed with one, or other blessings that come by way of having a body.

[Rize]

Rize, YOU are apparently not the one redistributing your wealth to the poor because you can only name "tithing" as how the church already does this in a sacred manner.

Honestly, if you can't wear your big boy panties and give willingly to others as it is, why would you want EVERYONE to be forced into submission by the government? I mean, it's clear you are in need of repentance on this, but speak for yourself and quit trying to herd everyone together under the government's control just because YOU can't be more giving yourself.

BTW, the law of consecration isn't all about money anyway.

You're also free to help others with your able body, should you have been blessed with one, or other blessings that come by way of having a body.

I can only name tithing? I wrote extensively on the United Order, and the Law of Consecration, also have repeatedly cited quotes from Church doctrine, scriptures, and prophets about the need to redistribute wealth to the poor.

I am not personally trying to herd anyone. I am only citing scriptural references that condemn you for not being more giving. Take heed of what the scriptures say, if you continually support systems of exploitation and wealth accumulation without true redistribution you are failing to live up to requirements of the gospel as have been clearly stated.

I agree the law of consecration isn't all about money, everyone should work for the common good. Supporting a system of dominance that is undemocratic such as capitalism is the complete opposite of the basic pretense of the law of consecration and the teachings of the prophet.

[Elgama]

Tony Blair is a socialist/was a socialist

_Charley

[JohnBirchSociety]

Tony Blair is a socialist/was a socialist

_Charley

As is George W. Bush, William J. Clinton, and nearly every former President of the last 110 years.

[rusure]

I can only name tithing? I wrote extensively on the United Order, and the Law of Consecration, also have repeatedly cited quotes from Church doctrine, scriptures, and prophets about the need to redistribute wealth to the poor.

I am not personally trying to herd anyone. I am only citing scriptural references that condemn you for not being more giving. Take heed of what the scriptures say, if you continually support systems of exploitation and wealth accumulation without true redistribution you are failing to live up to requirements of the gospel as have been clearly stated.

I agree the law of consecration isn't all about money, everyone should work for the common good. Supporting a system of dominance that is undemocratic such as capitalism is the complete opposite of the basic pretense of the law of consecration and the teachings of the prophet.

Take away one of your Thanks points, that was me hitting it on accident when I meant to hit Quote.

Yes, tithing is all you can mention.

The proof is here in your blog:

I said:

I don't know what kind of people you hang around with, but the Mormons I know are very generous with their time and money and "redistribute their wealth" of time, energy, and money through a sacred and trustworthy vehicle -- The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I suppose it's an option to do so instead through the government, but you have to take everything that goes with that including that absolute power corrupts absolutely, abortions would be free and accessible to all who sought them until the child is born breathing, and more ills.

It's very easy to make the argument how your perspective is vitally flawed.

You apparently don't trust the church with the sacred tithing money you give it, but I do!

You said:

Tithing is only 10% of your income and goes to build temples and church buildings not to provide for the poor.

"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

That means supporting a system of complete wealth redistribution, at a minimum one should endorse a system that provides the basic essentials to all such as food, clothing, shelter and healthcare. The LDS church is very charitable but the majority of its members are supporting very right wing ideologies which do not support the idea that the poor should be provided for and wealth should should be redistributed.

I said:

If you only chose to give tithes and no other offerings, maybe that would explain why you think the government needs to be involved to compel you and others to be more giving with what you've been blessed with. It's odd you'd want the government to compel you, though, can't you be a big boy and do it all on your own?

And then there's the pesky liberal abortion laws to contend with, the entitlement mentality that would rage in the vacuum you suggest and that sort of thing. It seems to not bother you, but neither does it bother you not to give other offerings to the sacred institution you belong to so I don't follow your logic, but you're entitled to it.

You said:

.....

Well, it doesn't matter what you said b/c your whole POV is so flawed in the first place it doesn't bear repeating. :D

[rusure]

Tony Blair is a socialist/was a socialist

_Charley

And yet in the UK he's considered to be right of center (but then again they have already swallowed the heavy tax burden of a lot of socialism including socialized medicine so maybe in that context it's easy to seem "right of center."

[Rize]

You apparently don't trust the church with the sacred tithing money you give it, but I do!

That is what you said in response to my blog. In response I explained to you that tithing is used to build temples and churches not to provide food, clothing or shelter to the poor. If you read my response afterwards I explained that I did not only cite tithing, I actually never cited tithing, I quoted various church authorities and scriptures as to why we are required to fully redistribute our wealth to the poor.