LDS Socialism

[Rize]

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.

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

You continually reply under the false pretense that socialism can only occur under a tyrannical government. I am talking about social democracy. socialism is not a monopoly, nor does it deprive men of the right to choose to bless their fellow man. The saints did build up Utah and early settlements under basic socialist philosophy where everyone worked for the common good and not private interests. Under a socialist state things are not controlled by a small minority, as is the case in capitalism. As I said before 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.

Do you think we really live in a democracy when elections are largely determined by who can get the most financial campaign support from major corporations and lobbyists. Under capitalism the rich are basically rigging our elections and the poor will never have a candidate who truly supports their cause. Is that the kind of system the founding fathers envisioned?

When you read Jefferson as he saw state capitalism developing he despised it. He said it’s going to lead to a form of absolutism worse than the one we defended ourselves against. In fact, if you run through this whole period you see a very clear, sharp critique of what we would later call capitalism and certainly of the twentieth century version of it, which is designed to destroy individual, even entrepreneurial capitalism.

[tiancum]

Rize, the only problem is, once a committee decides what is best for the people, the people are compelled to give to the collective.

The central idea behind socialism/communism is that the right to give of their own free will is taken from the masses and decided by a few, and adherence is mandatory, and is punishable by law. Even in the communist manifesto, (which I have read and did my thesis on) uses words like taken, required, forced, etc. It even calls for the woman to be forced to enter the workplace and the children to be raised by the state.

The money used to set up social programs would be taken, not given. It is not the governments money, it is in all reality, all God's, and he gives it to us, even though we will not use it perfectly. Giving it to us empowers us with the choice.

Don't get me wrong, giving to the poor and the needy is wonderful. Everyone would receive such blessings from doing it. The choice should lie with the individual though, not a compulsitory governmental system.

There was a plan in the preexistence that was the equiv to communism. He promised to get everyone back. he wanted to force all of us to do what was right, but deprive us of choice. He knew that if we were deprived of the chance to choose to do what is right of our own free will, then we would not progress and he would forever rule over us. His goal was to essentially damn us so that he could dominate us. He even said, "give me thine honor, which is they power, ..that not one will be lost. "

"...had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God."...and they left and were eternally damned because they chose it...and the heavens wept.

Forcing someone to do what is right is Satan's plan, and is evil.

Christ proposed that we follow the father's plan, which gave us the most potential for growth. When people make wrong choices, and don't share their substance with those less fortunate, our father does not compel them. He teaches those who will learn, and gives them opportunities to repent. The ability to choose, commit error, or righteousness, is so important to our eternal welfare that he watched his son die. All, so we would come unto him, of our own free will.

The law of consecration was not compulsitory There was always a choice. Many chose not to participate. Many did it for a while but opted out. Under this law, there is always a choice, and one cannot be punished by men for not participating.

[Rize]

The problem is you are talking in absolutes. Yes there are extremes on both sides that are morally reprehensible. You would agree that under a free market and neoliberalism that child labor and exploitation of children is wrong. It is occurring under capitalism and I think everyone can accept that as a basic moral truism it is wrong. I also agree, that the extreme versions of socialism where everything is dictated by the government is wrong.

What I am saying is basic socialist reforms such as establishing a basic minimum living wage, allowing people to have a democratic voice in the means of production. You say socialism takes from the free will of people, but you don't recognize how capitalism is doing the same thing. A choice between starvation and slavery isn't a choice, and under capitalism millions of people are faced with that on a daily basis. Look at the sweatshops in developing countries.

You enjoy many socialist reforms that you don't recognize as socialism. For instance, traditionally fire departments were private corporations and you were required to pay fire insurance so that if your house caught on fire someone would put it out. If your house was burning down and you didnt have insurance but your neighbor did, they would let yours burn to the ground. People recognized that, hey maybe it would be a good idea to pay taxes for a fire department that takes care of us all. Thats socialism.

Look at our road system. Its amazing, it was established by citizens paying taxes and the government building it. Socialism.

I'm not talking about centralized planning, I'm talking about real socialist reforms where the people have a continual voice in what is occurring around them, and in things that effect their daily lives. Under capitalism you only have that voice if you are wealthy and that is by definition undemocratic.

[a-train]

You continually reply under the false pretense that socialism can only occur under a tyrannical government. I am talking about social democracy. socialism is not a monopoly, nor does it deprive men of the right to choose to bless their fellow man.

OK, so how does a man share his substance when it is taken by his government? And, when the democratic vote determines how the individual imparts of his substance this is a tyranny of the majority. A government institution, no matter what good exists in the hearts of the society by which it is upheld, is incapable of charity.

The saints did build up Utah and early settlements under basic socialist philosophy...

Do you have a reference for that? I already quoted an apostle in Conference that said otherwise.

...where everyone worked for the common good and not private interests.

The only way people can choose to work for the common good is if they have the ability to choose. Satan wanted to eliminate choice, he wanted everyone to be compelled to do the common good, although the intension seems to be a good one, the program doesn't work and it leads only to tyranny. The LORD's plan of agency allows men the freedom of choice. Only through this plan can a man bless his fellow beings.

Under a socialist state things are not controlled by a small minority, as is the case in capitalism.

OK, so in this 'democratic socialist' state everything is controlled by a monstrous bureaucracy that falls victim to every popular panic and trend.

In a free economy, the individual is able to decide for himself where to invest. Look at social security, its bankrupt. Its a failure like all the other social programs of the welfare state.

As I said before 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.

So in this system, rather than having an expert business owner make decisions about manufacturing specific products, we will have the whole state tell him how to do it? Do you feel capable at this time to vote on policies that will regulate how a doctor handles patients, what tolerances are necessary in building a bridge, or what products should or should not be available in this fascist society of mob rule? Do you not see what this leads to? Every aspect of existance becomes necessary to legislate.

Do you think we really live in a democracy when elections are largely determined by who can get the most financial campaign support from major corporations and lobbyists. Under capitalism the rich are basically rigging our elections and the poor will never have a candidate who truly supports their cause. Is that the kind of system the founding fathers envisioned?

No, that is the vision of the socialists. The socialization of American sectors is why we are in this mess. It is the big corporations that are pushing us into socialism. Why? Because they know the big secret that you haven't figured out yet. The bourgeois plan to make everyone a proletarian but themselves.

When you read Jefferson as he saw state capitalism developing he despised it. He said it’s going to lead to a form of absolutism worse than the one we defended ourselves against. In fact, if you run through this whole period you see a very clear, sharp critique of what we would later call capitalism and certainly of the twentieth century version of it, which is designed to destroy individual, even entrepreneurial capitalism.

Now, this I cannot agree with more. State capitalism is tyranny. What we want is free-markets and economic liberty. The system designed and envisioned by the framers was one that would prevent any deprivation of life, liberty, or property on the part of government or fellow citizens.

-a-train

[tiancum]

socialism

any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

Socialism by definition is extreme. The definition above does not totally gel with the definition you are suggesting

[Rize]

OK, so how does a man share his substance when it is taken by his government? And, when the democratic vote determines how the individual imparts of his substance this is a tyranny of the majority.

As a Christian and a Mormon that repeatedly condems gross aggregation of wealth in the hands of a few while poverty exists, you should be morally inclined to support a system that that imparts your wealth with others.

A government institution, no matter what good exists in the hearts of the society by which it is upheld, is incapable of charity.

Really? What do you call foreign aid?

Do you have a reference for that? I already quoted an apostle in Conference that said otherwise.

The United Order established egalitarian communities designed to achieve income equality, eliminate poverty, increase group self-sufficiency, and to ultimately create an ideal utopian society Mormons referred to as Zion. The movement had much in common with other utopian societies formed in the United States and Europe during the Second Great Awakening which sought to govern aspects of people's lives through precepts of faith and community organization. That is the basic definition of socialism.

The only way people can choose to work for the common good is if they have the ability to choose. Satan wanted to eliminate choice, he wanted everyone to be compelled to do the common good, although the intension seems to be a good one, the program doesn't work and it leads only to tyranny. The LORD's plan of agency allows men the freedom of choice. Only through this plan can a man bless his fellow beings.

Agreed. That is why you have a social democracy, look for instance at reforms being made in Latin America; Venezuela, Chile, Brazil, Nicaragua… all are electing, democratically, governments aimed at making socialist reforms. They are choosing to live in a society focused on bettering the common good and providing for all, instead of a system based on greed, exploitation and extreme wealth accumulation.

OK, so in this 'democratic socialist' state everything is controlled by a monstrous bureaucracy that falls victim to every popular panic and trend.

And capitalism doesn’t fall victim to every popular panic and trend? Ever watch the stock market?

So in this system, rather than having an expert business owner make decisions about manufacturing specific products, we will have the whole state tell him how to do it? Do you feel capable at this time to vote on policies that will regulate how a doctor handles patients, what tolerances are necessary in building a bridge, or what products should or should not be available in this fascist society of mob rule? Do you not see what this leads to? Every aspect of existance becomes necessary to legislate.

Again, you are looking at extreme examples, yes I think I should have a say in basic work conditions, and workers rights. I think I should have a say in environmental standards and pollution.

It is the big corporations that are pushing us into socialism. Why? Because they know the big secret that you haven't figured out yet. The bourgeois plan to make everyone a proletarian but themselves.

Really? Is that why they continually oppose the formation of labor unions, work standards, minimum wage increases, environmental standards?

[Rize]

socialism

Socialism by definition is extreme. The definition above does not totally gel with the definition you are suggesting

I provided you with examples of socialist reforms such as fire departments, highway infrastructure. But its not limited to that, what about public education? Should the government not provide a basic education for everyone? Should we switch to a true capitalist system where all education is private, and if the poor cant afford it then children cant attend elementary schools?

[a-train]

The problem is you are talking in absolutes. Yes there are extremes on both sides that are morally reprehensible. You would agree that under a free market and neoliberalism that child labor and exploitation of children is wrong.

I had my first job when I was 9, I made $1.10 an hour, that was in 1985. In a real free market, nobody, including children, are compelled to work.

What I am saying is basic socialist reforms such as establishing a basic minimum living wage, allowing people to have a democratic voice in the means of production.

Minimum wage is a fantasy. The government is powerless to inforce it and it only hurts the poorest among society. It raises unemployment and prices simultaneously.

You say socialism takes from the free will of people, but you don't recognize how capitalism is doing the same thing. A choice between starvation and slavery isn't a choice, and under capitalism millions of people are faced with that on a daily basis. Look at the sweatshops in developing countries.

Socialism isn't a choice at all, you can't even decide between slavery and starvation, you are a slave PERIOD. Now, if these people are working there against their will, then yes this is reprehensible. But, if they need the income and are willing to work for it, what is the problem?

You enjoy many socialist reforms that you don't recognize as socialism. For instance, traditionally fire departments were private corporations and you were required to pay fire insurance so that if your house caught on fire someone would put it out. If your house was burning down and you didnt have insurance but your neighbor did, they would let yours burn to the ground. People recognized that, hey maybe it would be a good idea to pay taxes for a fire department that takes care of us all. Thats socialism.

Believe me, I know about the socialization of America and if it were up to me we would reverse all of it. Now I am not saying that townships should not be running fire departments or police departments, but these institutions do not regulate commerce or deprive people of their liberties (at least they're not supposed to, of course ).

Look at our road system. Its amazing, it was established by citizens paying taxes and the government building it. Socialism.

This is not socialism. Although it does have some effect on the economy there is still a long disconnect from socialism.

I'm not talking about centralized planning, I'm talking about real socialist reforms where the people have a continual voice in what is occurring around them, and in things that effect their daily lives. Under capitalism you only have that voice if you are wealthy and that is by definition undemocratic.

Certainly if our system had digressed (and I believe it is very rapidly) to the point where only the rich could vote, I could see your point, but nobody is advocating that. American Mormons who support our God given Constitution are advocating one vote per individual regardless of their monetary status.

-a-train

[Rize]

Certainly if our system had digressed (and I believe it is very rapidly) to the point where only the rich could vote, I could see your point, but nobody is advocating that. American Mormons who support our God given Constitution are advocating one vote per individual regardless of their monetary status.

What good is a vote without a candidate? Show me a recent President who wasn't a millionaire?

[a-train]

As a Christian and a Mormon that repeatedly condems gross aggregation of wealth in the hands of a few while poverty exists, you should be morally inclined to support a system that that imparts your wealth with others.

I do. It is called a free market.

Really? What do you call foreign aid?

Theft from the American worker in the effort to enrich the bourgeois.

The United Order established egalitarian communities designed to achieve income equality, eliminate poverty, increase group self-sufficiency, and to ultimately create an ideal utopian society Mormons referred to as Zion. The movement had much in common with other utopian societies formed in the United States and Europe during the Second Great Awakening which sought to govern aspects of people's lives through precepts of faith and community organization. That is the basic definition of socialism.

OK, I guess if your definition of socialism is different from everyone else including the prophets, cool. If what you are advocating is the united order, great. But if you think that government imposed socialistic measures are synonymous with the law of concecration, you are teaching something directly contrary to the teachings of the latter-day prophets.

And capitalism doesn’t fall victim to every popular panic and trend? Ever watch the stock market?

Did Uncle Sam take your money out of your check and put it into the stock market? In a free market, only those who panic panic. Nobody is forced to buy or sell or panic with them at all. In socialism, we are all invested, so what befalls one, befalls all. The Soviet system was so bad they ran out of toilet paper.

Again, you are looking at extreme examples, yes I think I should have a say in basic work conditions, and workers rights. I think I should have a say in environmental standards and pollution.

This is all in the Constitution. Socialism will take rights away not give them.

Really? Is that why they continually oppose the formation of labor unions, work standards, minimum wage increases, environmental standards?

It is the bourgeois that are pushing socialism the hardest. Which politician pushing these socialist reforms is a middle-class never-took-a-junket do gooder without connection to some corporate lobbiest or some special interest group backed by the wealthy elite? Why do you and I pay into a bankrupt social security system while Congressmen pay nothing for their lucrative pension program? Why do American's pay social security only up to $100,000? It is the elite who put out these lies that by giving up our liberty we will obtain prosperity. It is satanic teaching contrary to the scriptures and the prophets.

-a-train

[a-train]

What good is a vote without a candidate? Show me a recent President who wasn't a millionaire?

Exactly, America keeps buying in to this socialist garbage. When a good man, of humble and modest means, of integrity and constitutional mind, runs for office, America rejects him because he doesn't offer 'free' retirement, 'free' healthcare, or some other 'free' welfare handout.

Of course, the phony millionaire candidate does the tap dance about how he is doing it all for the American worker and how socialist reform will spread the wealth. LIE!

We have to stop voting for these guys who sell us out. There are good candidates who run, but everyone wants those freebies. Thus, as iniquity falls upon the nation, the idle people look more and more to government to supply them and not to God who is the True Provider. They are delivered into the hands of the enemy who tempts them and they fall into destruction.

A free-market gives each man personal liberty to rely on God for his increase. Whether it is the gift of an expert hand or a good crop, it is a gift from God. To deny a man the blessing which God has seen fit to give is robbery in every case.

-a-train

[tiancum]

I provided you with examples of socialist reforms such as fire departments, highway infrastructure. But its not limited to that, what about public education? Should the government not provide a basic education for everyone? Should we switch to a true capitalist system where all education is private, and if the poor cant afford it then children cant attend elementary schools?

The US government was set up by divine inspiration according to Joseph Smith. The constitution was brought forth "'...and anything more or less is not of God"

Honestly, I believe the government has it's hand in too many pots.... including education.

(So that you know, I am a public school teacher... ) You suggest that education would only be for the rich if the government did not step in. That is simply not true. The degree to which the populous is educated does not directly correlate to Governmental control over it, but the righteousness of the populous. The degree to which people adhere to the will of the father.

The Lord will have an educated people, and as long as they are humble, he will guide them on how to do it.

[Argentina84]

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.

It's a very interesting thread, Rize!

I have always noticed this discrepancy, and I think it's due to prejudice and some sort of ignorance. Most people base their ideas on the actions of the Russian communist goverment...but THAT was NOT socialism...so..we cannot get to any conclusion.

I have read many books on the subject, and I personally think that socialism is the closest economic system in the world to the law of consecration . But...I also think that we still cannot practise a "perfect" socialism for the same reason we cannot practise the law of consecration: most of us are still selfish and greed. And very competitive.

Things are a little bit different in Latin America, where the members of the Church are not well-off. We usually don't follow the "every-man-for-himself" lifestyle. We need and help each other.

Sorry for any language mistake I might have made.

Regards!

[a-train]

When will the LDS people begin to hearken unto the prophets?

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 discrepancy is not with the Church or the Prophets, it is with those members who think they are better informed, more mentally capable, and greater in righteousness than the prophets whom the LORD has sent.

Socialism is not only entirely different from the law of consecration, it has been declared so by our prophets and we have been warned of this satanic falsehood.

-a-train

[Moksha]

How would multilevel marketing fair under this law of consecration?

[Mathonihah]

OK Argentina and Rize, Lets get some defintions straight.

Communism acooring to wikipedia:

Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production.[1] It is usually considered a branch of the broader socialist movement that draws on the various political and intellectual movements that trace their origins back to the work of theorists of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution[2].

Communism by that definition is socialism and I think thats a fair definition of communism. Wouldn't you agree?

[Argentina84]

Thanks for the link!

But I don't think that capitalism will help us live like this:

" And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them." Moses 7

I will not talk about Politics any more here.

Regards!

[a-train]

How would multilevel marketing fair under this law of consecration?

HAHAHAHAHAHA:lol:

Those poor multi-level marketers. Lord bless them all.

-a-train

[Rize]

OK Argentina and Rize, Lets get some defintions straight.

Communism acooring to wikipedia:

Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production.[1] It is usually considered a branch of the broader socialist movement that draws on the various political and intellectual movements that trace their origins back to the work of theorists of the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution[2].

Communism by that definition is socialism and I think thats a fair definition of communism. Wouldn't you agree?

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 co-ordinated control of the economic forces of society. They 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.

[Guest Malcolm]

The early social theologian extracted from the Bible the social framework of Communism but removed every reference to God and replaced it with the state. The problem is that such systems require the total and complete submission of the individual and the absolute control of the state (those in the top echelon) over the rest of the population. The obliteration of rights to the point where the ends justify the means. It also assumes the "omniscient" nature of those that enforce and regulate the system.

It is a ploy that appeals to the heart of people but has been responsible to the mass extermination of millions.

[Rize]

The early social theologian extracted from the Bible the social framework of Communism but removed every reference to God and replaced it with the state. The problem is that such systems require the total and complete submission of the individual and the absolute control of the state (those in the top echelon) over the rest of the population. The obliteration of rights to the point where the ends justify the means. It also assumes the "omniscient" nature of those that enforce and regulate the system.

It is a ploy that appeals to the heart of people but has been responsible to the mass extermination of millions.

Under the communist systems in say Russia or China, but 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. 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. Under capitalism though, the offices, mines and factories are owned by the top echelon of the rich, who are not democratically elected.

[peanutgallery]

I just want to ITA A-train and the others and add a little something that the comments made me think about.

The Law of Consecration is like the Law of Tithing in the sense that we are not and never will be forced to obey. The Lord gave us free agency. Comparing a socialist government to the Law of Consecration is like comparing tithing to taxes. We choose to pay tithing, we are forced to pay taxes. Our church is involved in countless humanitarian projects. We are encouraged to volunteer and help the poor and needy. It's not like we are just abandoning those in need.

[Rize]

I just want to ITA A-train and the others and add a little something that the comments made me think about.

The Law of Consecration is like the Law of Tithing in the sense that we are not and never will be forced to obey. The Lord gave us free agency. Comparing a socialist government to the Law of Consecration is like comparing tithing to taxes. We choose to pay tithing, we are forced to pay taxes. Our church is involved in countless humanitarian projects. We are encouraged to volunteer and help the poor and needy. It's not like we are just abandoning those in need.

That train of thought fails to recognize a few things.

As a Member you really don't "Choose" to pay tithing. It is the law of tithing that you must follow as a member. Otherwise you can't join the church or enter the temple.

According to Talmage in Articles of Faith:

The (LDS) Church today follows the doctrine of tithe-paying…In the present dispensation the law of

tithing has been given a place of great importance, and particular blessings have been promised for its

faithful observance…The law of tithing, as observed by the Church today, is after all but a lesser law, given

by the Lord in consequence of human weaknesses, selfishness, covetousness, and greed, which prevented

the (Latter-day) saints from accepting the higher principles, according to which the Lord would have them

live. Specific requirements regarding the payment of tithes were made through revelation in 1838; but, seven

years prior to that time, the voice of the Lord had been heard on the subject of consecration, or the

dedication of all of one’s property, together with his time, and talents, to the service of God, to be used as

occasion may require…A system of unity in temporal matters has been revealed to the Church in this day;

such is currently known as the Order of Enoch, or the United Order, and is founded on the law of

consecration (pp. 435-439).

Because of the early saints greed, selfishness and weakeness the current law only calls for 10% but the true law is that you dedicate all of your property, talents and time.

After reading D. & C. 85, LDS Prophet John Taylor said on September 21, 1878, “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).

So if you fail to give all your time, wealth, and property you would be struck from the records of the church and your children would not have inheritance in Zion. Doesn't sound too voluntary to me.

[peanutgallery]

That train of thought fails to recognize a few things.

As a Member you really don't "Choose" to pay tithing. It is the law of tithing that you must follow as a member. Otherwise you can't join the church or enter the temple.

I would venture a guess that there are thousands, maybe more LDS members that are not tithe payers. That is beside the point anyway. Fact is no one is forced to pay tithing. Even if you had to pay it to be a member, no one forces you to be a member of the church. What would we do with the people in the US who didn't want to be socialists? Send them to live on an island somewhere? No, they would be forced to live in a way that enslaved them to their government.

[Rize]

I would venture a guess that there are thousands, maybe more LDS members that are not tithe payers. That is beside the point anyway. Fact is no one is forced to pay tithing. Even if you had to pay it to be a member, no one forces you to be a member of the church. What would we do with the people in the US who didn't want to be socialists? Send them to live on an island somewhere? No, they would be forced to live in a way that enslaved them to their government.

If you want to be a member you have to be a tithe payer, what if you dont wan't to be a tithe payer? You are being forced to live in a way that enslaves you to damnation, according to Prophets you will "not be not be known in the records of the Church, but shall be blotted out, neither shall his children have inheritance in Zion."

The only difference is that under a socialist government they are only threatening you with fines, under the church you are threatened with your eternal salvation.