Doesn’t “these people” refer to “Members of the church” and not Pres. Benson?

I take the comment to mean that having republican prophets has caused “these people” to make improper assumptions about the church and what party you “should be.”

Can’t speak for him, but that’s kinda what I took it as. I hope he didn’t mean that Pres. Benson did a bad job or misleads people. I think it’s just a case of an ambiguous pronoun.

I’d have to say I’d take a dose of socialism before I’d enter another unnecessary war, though. In that respect, I think Dems are ahead of the GOP.

Though I do wish the Dems had enough gusto to back up their claims and stop at least some of this nonsense.

Maybe we need to agree to disagree.

Members of the church are obedient and followers in the true sense of the word, but these people have taken members of the church down the path that is the wrong path

I don’t see why “these people” would refer to something in another sentence and completely skip over the nearest subject, “Members of the church”.

To me “these people” == “Members of the church.” It’s right there in the same sentence.

I don’t see how you can tie that pronoun to something in a different sentence, and if you can, why it would be that way rather than pointing to the nearest subject in the same sentence. :/

John,

I would definitely have to agree with Connor - your interpretation doesn’t really make logical sense given the context. The ellipsis Connor added might not actually even be there - it may be cited in the Tribune exactly as it was spoken, otherwise the Tribune intentionally misrepresented his remarks. Bottom line, I’m pretty sure Harry Reid does not believe in President Benson as far as political doctrines are concerned.

It’s not redundant.

[certain] members of the church have taken [certain] members of the church down the path that is the wrong path.

That seems redundant, doesn’t it? The subject is referring to itself. Sure, members of the church can lead other members of the church down a path, but it seems incorrect to say that Joe took Joe down a wrong path, for example.

I must be the former then - members are leading other members down the wrong path. That’s how I read it. The reason it sounds funny is exactly why he used the pronoun. Paraphrased, I read it as:

Members of the church are obedient and followers in the true sense of the word, but these same “obedient” people have taken other members of the church down the path that is the wrong path (i.e. thinking that the republican way is the prophet’s official stance).

If you can at least understand how I read it, I’m fine with you disagreeing with which meaning he intended.

I don’t care for Reid much, but I think his point is valid. Much of the affinity that LDS people have for the Republican party comes from Pres. Benson. That affinity has made them support the fascist agenda of the neo-cons without really thinking about it.

Connor, I think that you’re letting your passion for the words of Pres. Benson cloud your judgment here. Senator Reid’s comments were not meant to denigrate Pres. Benson or other right-wing Mormons. The way I see it, he was saying that the Church members’ blind obedience to the Republican party is a bad thing, which it is. Not everyone who criticizes the fear rhetoric employed by Pres. Benson toward socialism or his fierce partisanship is criticizing him as a prophet. There is a difference between President Benson the prophet and President Benson the Secretary of Agriculture.

BTW, isn’t judging someone’s worthiness when you aren’t their priesthood leader wrong??

Chris:

If it doesn’t make logical sense, it helps me to see why you think that way.

Bottom line, I’m pretty sure Harry Reid does not believe in President Benson as far as political doctrines are concerned.

“Pretty sure” statements that speak for other people aren’t a great way to find out the facts. Let’s let Mr. Reid speak for himself.

Jeff reads it the way I do, though is delivery is a little more extreme and abrasive than I would put it.

Isn’t there a quote where Elder Benson said that it isn’t possible to be liberal and a good Mormon? I have a feeling Harry Reid was referring to a partisan remark like that - which represented Elder Benson’s strong personal political opinion. I’m sure he believed it when he said it - but that doesn’t make it gospel.

The Church has made a point recently of saying that there are good Mormons who are of a wide variety of political orientations. You can find it here on a Church-sponsored YouTube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nEQBDyYjXw

I wholly doubt that. In my opinion, few members really listened to Pres. Benson. I don’t see how he was the catalyst for the fusion of the GOP and LDS population.

Utah’s conversion to right-wing ideology seems to trace back to the early ’70s. Before that, Utah was much more balanced in its political views. Some trace that change to Roe v. Wade and the Dems endorsement of it, but I think the case can be made that Benson, with his right-wing views, helped the Saints make this transition. He became president of the Quorum of the Twelve in ‘73, the same year as Roe.

Who are you speaking to, and what sentence are you referring to?

I meant to delete this before I posted, but since you ask (and since I forgot to delete it ), I was referring to this comment in your original post:

Little wonder that some members of the Church question the faithfulness of Senator Reid.

It sure sounds like you’re judging his worthiness by tacitly agreeing with those who do, which definitely is not your place.

John,

Sorry you found my delivery “extreme and abrasive.” I didn’t intend it to be.

Absolutely. Following your line of thought, there is a difference between the venue of speaking as Prophet, and venue as Agriculture. One uses a pulpit, the other uses a press conference. And so, when speaking over the pulpit, he wasn’t speaking as Sec. of Ag.

We’ve been down this road, and we’re not going to agree. Prophets are men with opinions, and they are allowed to express those opinions without them being interpreted as doctrine (even from the pulpit). True doctrine is repeated ad nauseum in the Church’s correlated material. Benson’s anti-socialist rhetoric hasn’t been. That’s all I’ll say because I know we’ll never come to a consensus on this issue.

John,

Directly from the tribune article:

“On some church leaders:
In the past years we’ve had some very prominent members of the church, like Ezra Taft Benson, who are really right-wing people. Members of the church are obedient and followers in the true sense of the word, but these people have taken members of the church down the path that is the wrong path.
- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, in remarks to the media after his address at BYU.”

If you have trouble interpreting that correctly, then I don’t think there’s much reason to argue further. I am not pretty sure, I am absolutely sure that Harry Reid said prominent members of the church, like Ezra Taft Benson, have taken members of the church down the path that is the wrong path. That’s what he meant. No misinterpreting there. This is basic reading comprehension here.

You’re being stubborn here. It is not only redundant, but it doesn’t make sense that the “members” in the beginning of the sentence are the “people” who are referred to as leading the other “members” down the wrong path, especially when these first “members” are referred to as “obedient” and “followers.” So you’re insisting that he meant that the obedient followers are the people who are leading the other members. Since when do obedient followers lead?

Bottom line: in word and in practice, Harry Reid does not believe in President Benson’s words concerning politics.

I honestly don’t understand why you go to such great lengths to reason your way into an illogical conclusion. Is it that you can’t bear to admit that Harry Reid might have well rejected President Benson’s politics? You keep defending this conclusion that Harry Reid didn’t say what he said. Is it just pride that makes it hard for you to admit, after it is logically demonstrated to you, that you were wrong in your interpretation?

Jeff,

President Benson’s opinions were not dictated to him by the Republican Party - nor was he ever towing a party line. President Benson supported his opinions with truths from the Gospel, from the scriptures themselves. If you don’t believe that anything “more or less” than the Constitution of the United States “cometh of evil” - you need to take that up with the Lord Himself, not President Benson. It’s in the scriptures, go look it up.

And as far as the neocons go, they are some of the worst socialists in the history of our country. Bush has spent more by far than any president, including Clinton. We are more in debt than we have ever been before.

If you want to point out flaws with Benson’s philosophy, and try to paint him as a Republican Party line-tower, you obviously don’t know Benson very well at all. First and foremost, Benson was a Patriot, not a Republican. It just so happened that at his time, the Republican’s shared more of his patriotic ideals. I guarantee you that if Benson were alive today, he would not be in favor of or support any of the fascist/socialist/warmongering policies of the Republican Party or the neocons. Had more people studied and received the true spirit of his words, many more church members, including myself, would never have supported such things. I am opposed to the Republican Party in a good measure because of what Benson and other prophets have taught.

You believe you are wiser than a Prophet of God. I readily admit that nobody is perfect, and that all prophets have said things that have been incorrect, and that there is a line to draw between the man and the prophet. However, when it comes to Benson, it seems that you and others like you draw that line where his political discourse disagrees with your own political views. Prophets have a right to speak about all things, including politics, and to speak with authority. They have always done so, and for you to reason those words away is to reject that prophet. President Benson’s words have been and are being fulfilled. Members who have rejected that significant portion of his ministry which dealt with politics and good government will one day regret that they did so. It is a shame that so many must be compelled to be humble. Open your eyes. It is all happening just as predicted. We cannot escape the consequences of bad choices, no matter what our motivations in making them.

Chris,

Um, the issue isn’t crystal clear or we wouldn’t be having this conversation, would we?

Forgive us stubborn people who have no basic reading skills, who work at great lengths to unknowingly be illogical, but I’d like to continue the discussion all the same.

Let’s keep it clean here - I didn’t insult you, so I expect the same respect from you.

It is not only redundant, but it doesn’t make sense that the “members” in the beginning of the sentence are the “people” who are referred to as leading the other “members” down the wrong path, especially when these first “members” are referred to as “obedient” and “followers.” So you’re insisting that he meant that the obedient followers are the people who are leading the other members. Since when do obedient followers lead?

Um, I’d say my bishop is an obedient follower and a leader, as an example.

Maybe I should clarify something: I can see how you would read it like Connor does. That reading makes sense, and I can see it. I just don’t believe that particular reading is necessarily what Mr. Reid meant.

I think it’d be pretty gutsy to say, at BYU, as a Mormon, that a prophet led the church astray. I just don’t see it as being probable.

Bottom line: in word and in practice, Harry Reid does not believe in President Benson’s words concerning politics.

What’s wrong with that? The Church is not officially advocating any particular party or candidate. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nEQBDyYjXw)

I honestly don’t understand why you go to such great lengths to reason your way into an illogical conclusion. Is it that you can’t bear to admit that Harry Reid might have well rejected President Benson’s politics?

Whoa now, settle down. First of all, if you think it’s illogical, please state *why.* Secondly, I do think Mr. Reid disagrees with Pres. Benson’s politics. So, uh, I guess I can bear that.

You keep defending this conclusion that Harry Reid didn’t say what he said. Is it just pride that makes it hard for you to admit, after it is logically demonstrated to you, that you were wrong in your interpretation?

Hm. Add you calling me prideful to the list of unwarranted insults. Not sure what I did to anger you personally, but I’d suggest you remove your emotions from the argument and stick to logic and the facts. Calling me names isn’t going to help anyone.

I could sure be wrong. I’m simply pointing out that there is a plausible alternate interpretation of what he said.

There is a difference between asking you about pride and calling you prideful. I am not angry. I demonstrated why your interpretation was illogical. There is no emotion in an honest question of why you keep stubbornly defending an erroneous conclusion. Connor’s and my responses are more logical and fact-based than yours. What more do you want?

By the way, the Church does not endorse candidates or parties, but it does endorse principles, and those principles are being violated by Harry Reid. The Lord Himself endorsed the Constitution, and we are duty-bound to follow it, as Latter-day Saints. People like Harry Reid, George Bush, and many others on both sides of the line have been tearing down the Constitution for the entirety of their national political careers. Socialism is not compatible with God’s plan of free agency, nor is it compatible with the Constitution. Benson was not a political candidate; he was a prophet.

The only demonstration you’ve made is re-stating things. I offered why I think it works the other way (i.e., usually the antecedent for a pronoun is in the same sentence). You just call it clear cut and leave it at that.

What more do I want? Why you think that’s incorrect, or why you think that your interpretation is more correct.

There is a difference between asking you about pride and calling you prideful.

Let’s try it out. Tthe following sentence is presented as an example:

“Is it your stupidity that keeps you from agreeing with me?”

Is it fair to say I’m not being a jerk (if I had said that) - that I’m just “talking about stupidity.”

No, I think it’s the insinuation that I can’t read, am prideful, stubborn, etc. that is the insult. Just because you don’t come right out and say it doesn’t mean it’s insulting. I think it’s really just sophistry to say otherwise.

Leave the emotive speak at home please.

Please don’t derail the subject - we’re not talking about upholding the constitution here, we’re talking about what Mr. Reid said and what he might have meant.

And by the way, which do you think the Law of Consecration is more like: capatalism or socialism? I’m not advocating socialism for modern America just yet, but I don’t think you can say that its is against God’s plans.

President Benson was a Political candidate *and* a prophet. Do you think the policies he advocated in the cabinet serve as church policy? Anyone who thinks that is probably the kind of person Mr. Reid was saying leads people down the wrong path.

Alright - no more insinuations/insults. Let’s focus on the topic at hand.

The Law of Consecration is not like socialism in practice or in outcome. You could make the case that in the end, ideally, each results in the elimination of poverty, but in the process you end up with two very different poverty-free worlds. In one, you have the kingdom of God, and in the other you have a world of people who have been denied the right to make decisions for themselves, the right to take care of each other, and who have surrendered responsibility over their lives into the hands of government. Though well-fed and medically provided for, these people are very poor when it comes to real substance of character. In reality, socialism is a failed ideology. Since the rise of socialism in the US, poverty has increased. Socialism does not have the power to create a poverty-free world, and even if it did, it would not be the Kingdom of God. Such a place in actuality would be more like the kingdom Lucifer had in mind. Benson, Kimball, and more have noted this clear distinction between the Law of Consecration and socialism. Joseph Smith himself, after learning about socialism, said he , “did not believe the doctrine.” Joseph received the Law of Consecration directly from the Lord; like the prophets that would follow him, he understood the principles underlying it, and easily recognized the fraud in socialism.

Socialism operates upon the principle of force, consecration operates upon the principle of free agency. Socialism gives up on people and places faith in government; consecration places faith in the human family and in God, that they will someday learn to take care of each other. Socialism is an easy path toward unfulfilled promises; consecration is a hard but sure path toward becoming a millenial people - the only true and lasting way to achieve eternal peace and prosperity.

Furthermore, the Law of Consecration can only operate in a capitalist or free society. Capitalism is not an evil ideology, it is an incomplete one. It is built around the principle of freedom - the principles of life, liberty, and property. We should never take away someone’s rights over his own property, and redistribute it against his will. This violates the principle of agency. If you were to take somone’s property against his will, that would be called stealing. The government does the same thing and we call it welfare.

We have a responsibility to care for each other, and capitalism does not preclude that. Rather, it places the responsibility to care for one another right where it belongs - in our own hands. Do you believe it would be possible right now to practice the Law of Consecration? How can you give everything that is yours to the Lord if the government first takes half of it? Our ability to live the Law of Consecration, if not completely destroyed, is significantly hindered by the socialist society that we live in.

I believe that many in the Church who support socialism do so out of good motivations (i.e. love and charity). I feel that this is the case with Senator Reid. On the other hand, we have been warned by prophets of God against the evils of socialism, and have been shown the true way to care for one another, and we are accountable to God for how we treat that counsel.

Perhaps one of the most debilitating philosophies entertained by social liberals of the Church is that somehow the Church’s perceived absence from political endorsement implies that the leaders of the Church do not endorse political truth. As arguments become more fundamental and correct principles of natural law itself are threatened or thrown to the wayside, God who is the creator of that very code of natural law speaks to His chosen servants.
Upon watching Elder Ballard’s statement on youtube (by the way, I would recommend visiting lds.org for presenting official doctrine of the church – you’ll gain greater vision of the connotations and implications of a statement than you could from watching a minute and a half video clip), I am thoroughly convinced that Elder Ballard and every member of the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency absolutely deplore same-sex marriage (including tolerance of such an evil practice), the erroneous philosophy of pro-choice, and absolutely disdain socialist and communist philosophy. This is isn’t something that started with some revolution by Pres. Ezra Taft Benson. Prophets and apostles from Joseph to Pres. Hinckley have not been silent on these issues and “in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.”
Metaphysical and moral relativism have twisted the minds of Americans and frankly members of the Church for too long. A liberal thinker doesn’t want me to simply accept their right. They wish for me to accept that pernicious sin which they desire to have a right to. I don’t think that many comprehend that mere choice is not agency. When Elder Ballard refers to agency in his presentation, he is not speaking of rights without responsibility, nor is he implying that absolute truth does not surpass political platforms and make its way to our pulpits. Ultimately, if I condone or advocate the right of another to sin without enduring a just consequence, I am hindering their agency. The choice wasn’t really theirs because I was involved in allowing them to get away with it. Choice without consequence does not merit agency. It is subtle compulsion. (See Elder Dallin H. Oaks’ talk entitled “Weightier Matters” published in the Ensign January 2001).
I know that I have broadened the issue, but I am simply tired of members of the Church viewing the Church’s stance on remaining aloof from party politics as an open forum for seeking to satisfy an irreconcilable conscience that never can fully connect two spheres of truth to one another. Our government was founded upon inspired, absolute truth. The writing of the constitution began the political preparation for the Kingdom of God. It was paid for with the blood of honest men. Why are we so insistent on progressing past something God Himself both gave us and endorsed through revelation?
Elder Maxwell once warned, “Don’t expect the world’s solutions to the world’s problems to be very effective. Only the Gospel of Jesus Christ is constantly relevant.” Alma taught the same thing to Helaman in Alma Chapter 37. The Church is engaged in the only work which will truly save the world. While absolute truth can cross party lines, we cannot expect to be faithful in our covenant responsibility to stand as witnesses of Christ if we are convinced that we can cross or support others in crossing the line of absolute truth which finds its roots not in the philosophy of man, but in the revelations of God. “What I the Lord have spoken I have spoken, and I excuse not myself.” In sustaining the revelations of the Lord repeatedly given to His chosen servants, I excuse not myself in stating that Harry Reid’s statement was absolutely evil.

Connor,

In the preceding sentence (I added an ellipse because I’m not sure, from the SLTrib article, if they were said in succession) he was referring to the leaders of the Church. Here in this sentence, he’s describing two sets of people: “these people” and “members of the Church”. One is the actor, one is the receiver. So he’s not saying “members of the church have taken members of the church down the path…”, but instead is referring specifically to the leaders of our church.

I think you misinterpreted Senator Reid’s comments. He was NOT referring to “leaders of the church.” He was referring to “some very prominent members of the church” (one of which was Ezra Taft Benson) who “are really right wing people.” His criticism is NOT of the prophet, but of “prominent right-wing members of the church,” who he felt, rightly, led the church down a wrong path. And he is right. Note how much effort the current church leadership has had to make to correct the wrongness of the right-wingers’ direction. Note how often they have had to come out and say that it is indeed fine to be a Mormon and a Democrat. Now, why on earth would President Hinckley have to even say something like that? Why on earth would that even be a question needing answering? Why, because people like Ezra Taft Benson kept instilling in members that it was NOT okay to be a Mormon and a Democrat. Because people like Ezra Taft Benson kept instilling in Mormons that it was against their best eternal interests to ally themselves with the Democratic party. And yes, that was a wrong direction for Ezra Taft Benson and the rest of his right-winger pals to have done. C’est La Vis. Thankfully today’s “prominent church members” tend not to be concerned about political affinity as those of Ezra Taft Benson’s day.

Connor,

I wholly doubt that. In my opinion, few members really listened to Pres. Benson. I don’t see how he was the catalyst for the fusion of the GOP and LDS population

Are you kidding? Dude, I know you love the guy, but stop pretending that he didn’t actually make any mistakes, including serious ones. Indeed members of the church turned Republican as Ezra Taft Benson gained prominence in the church. Take a look at your history again.

Chris,

I guarantee you that if Benson were alive today, he would not be in favor of or support any of the fascist/socialist/warmongering policies of the Republican Party or the neocons.

Are you sure of that? What did Ezra Taft Benson have to say about the Vietnam War?

Chris,

There are two things you need to understand about me before you start lobbing your “not following the prophet” rhetoric at me:

1- I’m a libertarian who absolutely believes in free market capitalism, and

2- I’m an atheist who attends church for family and social reasons.

That being said, the only reason I commented on this thread in the first place was because I believed that Connor was unfairly representing Sen. Reid’s statement, which I still believe he is. No one has of yet tried to refute my interpretation of Reid’s remarks that I gave in comment 8. I know that Pres. Benson would absolutely hate the neo-con agenda, and that it is antithetical of what his political views were. What I was saying is that because of members’ love of the Republican party (a love spurred on by the partisan Pres. Benson–you can say he wasn’t partisan, but you’re rewriting history if you do) Mormons have embraced an ideology that Benson would have hated, not because they think that it’s good, but because it is put forward by the Republican party. Please read my comment above and try to refute it instead of attacking my political ideology that, if we’re going to be truthful, probably closely resembles yours (although I’ll happily take God out of the equation). I just don’t like people misrepresenting the thoughts of others to try to forward a political agenda or, in the case of many here, to condemn them as satanic or evil.

As for the rest of your comment, I’ll take my chances that I’m too prideful and that I’ll have to face the consequences of my choices. But, I have to say that your self-righteous and self-serving rhetoric doesn’t scare me or encourage me to change; it amuses me.

Josh,

Perhaps one of the most debilitating philosophies entertained by social liberals of the Church is that somehow the Church’s perceived absence from political endorsement implies that the leaders of the Church do not endorse political truth

And perhaps one of the most debilitating philosophies entertained by fascist conservatives of the Church is that somehow the Church’s perceived absence from political endorsement implies that leaders of the church endorse their perverse ways.

Furthermore, Elder Dallin H. Oaks said:

Those who govern their thoughts and actions solely by the principles of liberalism or conservatism or intellectualism cannot be expected to agree with all of the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As for me, I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism—but I find no salvation in any of them

Huh, he finds wisdom in liberalism.

I am thoroughly convinced that Elder Ballard and every member of the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency absolutely deplore same-sex marriage (including tolerance of such an evil practice), the erroneous philosophy of pro-choice, and absolutely disdain socialist and communist philosophy

I guess I shouldn’t remind you that President James E. Faust was a Democrat to the end of his days, the person President Henry B. Eyring wishes he could be. Huh…

A liberal thinker doesn’t want me to simply accept their right. They wish for me to accept that pernicious sin which they desire to have a right to

There we go again, calling liberals sinners. Connor, can you see why I have such derision for these kinds of Mormons?

Elder Maxwell once warned, “Don’t expect the world’s solutions to the world’s problems to be very effective. Only the Gospel of Jesus Christ is constantly relevant.” Alma taught the same thing to Helaman in Alma Chapter 37. The Church is engaged in the only work which will truly save the world.

How does this quote in ANY WAY condemn liberalism and support conservatism?

“What I the Lord have spoken I have spoken, and I excuse not myself.” In sustaining the revelations of the Lord repeatedly given to His chosen servants, I excuse not myself in stating that Harry Reid’s statement was absolutely evil.

Are you equating yourself to the Lord? The Lord does not have to excuse himself, but you do. You are NOT the Lord. Again, Connor, this is another example of why it is so hard to show any kind of kindness to these types of Mormons. Can you just feel the derision ooze out of his words towards those who he does not agree with politically?

Josh,

In sustaining the revelations of the Lord repeatedly given to His chosen servants, I excuse not myself in stating that Harry Reid’s statement was absolutely evil.

I excuse not myself…??? Does using scriptural syntax make your silly argument sound more appealing??

Connor,

I’m too tired to research deeper than a mere google search, but here is a site that explains the history of the Republican party in Utah. Note that the Republicans gained their current stronghold in the 1950s with the rise of Ezra Taft Benson and others like-minded prominent members.

Connor,

Before we go throwing around words like liberalism and conservatism, one must understand the definition. Liberalism 200 years ago was quite different than the flavor found today. Both conservatism and liberalism have been hijacked and now promote a welfare/warfare state with centralized authority. Old school liberals would be disgusted.

Um, Elder Dallin H. Oaks is NOT 200 years old. He said that in 1987.

Connor,

Elder Oaks was not speaking in a vacuum. He was speaking to people who would understand what he was talking about. Here is a link to the quote. (It’s at the bottom of the page). You can see that he is not differentiating between modern liberalism and that of the early 1800s. Because he doesn’t do that, and because the subject is “criticism” it is fair to deduce that he is referring to modern liberalism.

I know you really really hate modern liberalism, but you’ve gotta accept that there really is “some wisdom” in it. Especially since the recently deceased Second Counsellor in the First Presidency of the Church believed in that philosophy. Or are you saying James E. Faust was deluded and was as ignorant as you claim Elder Staheli is on the CFR? Or perhaps they are not the boogeymen President Benson tried to paint them as….

Let me put it this way, Connor. You’ve created your own straw man of what a liberal is, so that you can easily lump whoever you like into that group without feeling bad about it. Because you created it in your own fashion, you can also exclude whomever you desire. In this way, you will always exclude someone like President Faust, because in your eyes, it is impossible for a leader of the church to be a liberal, as you define liberalism. In your eyes, it is impossible that someone like President Faust could even remotely be interested in the liberalism you defined.

Two important facts have been omitted from this discussion. The first is that according to legal documents, Pres. Faust did not die a registered Democrat and had not been affiliated with the party for many years. Let’s not forget that the Kennedy administration fostered and supported some of the most conservative acts in U.S. History. Second, just like rat poison, which is 1 percent arsenic and 99 percent cookie, “some wisdom” doesn’t serve as a blanket umbrella to condone liberal philosophy. The meaning of that word is relative to the one who defines it. Let’s not get into a battle of semantics and get to the core of all of this. The core is absolute truth. The truth is, the brethren have vehemently and clearly taken a stance against many of the core issues which most people consider to be the crux of liberal philosophy. Again, read the words of Elder Oaks published in the January Ensign 2001, entitled “Weightier Matters”. Let’s unite rather than disagree in staying with the brethren.

Dan,

You’re going to have to produce here, and quit talking like you know Benson’s discourse so well. Show me where President Benson “instilled” in members that it was not okay for them to Mormon and Democrat. Show me where he said that. Don’t just make things up.

To interject if I may. I’m a mormon who is not an atheist but who also thinks that in the absence of Zion where the law of Consecration is lived and where there are no poor, there is nothing wrong with a little bit of socialism. I’d go for more of a democratic form than an autocratic form of course, but I don’t see that it is any worse than our current form of socialism for the wealthy and powerful and capitalism for the poor.

Whether Benson led us down the wrong path or not and whether or not that is what Reid is saying, I don’t really care. Benson taught us some precious truths… have you ever read the talk about what he wants us to teach our children about the temple, at the 100 year anniversary of the Logan Temple? Or the pride or Book of Mormon talks? Awesome stuff. I disagree with his idea of the proper role of government. If pure libertarian principles were followed in government now, we’d see a collapse of society. There is definitely a role for socialist policies in keeping society from chaos. Socialism is not Satan’s plan. Satan does just fine with Capitalism. In fact, the major secret combinations of the day are thrilled with our so-called “free trade” deals (which you probably know is quite a misnomer in the class of “military intelligence”) and Satan uses his capitalist loot to buy up the armies of the earth to reign with blood and horror.
I know that socialism is not God’s way of economics, but we will not be living God’s way of economics as a society until we decide to as a group. Nibley suggests (and I concur) that we can live the law of Consecration as we covenant to do in the temple, as individuals. We don’t have to wait for the group to get it started. Unfortunately, as most readers of this blog are aware, this church’s membership is a bit too idolatrous to be living a celestial law according to Pres. Kimball in 1976.
I’m with my libertarian friends in longing for a United Order, a utopian society, an order of Enoch. However, the best way to bring this about is not to oppose socialism in our government… the only way to bring about Zion is from the inside out… by preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ by the Spirit. When a group of people are converted as the people of Enoch or Melchizedek were converted to the Lord, then is Zion possible.
Until then, I support providing my country’s tax revenues for children’s healthcare, infrastructure, education, helping victims of natural disasters, elderly people’s medications, disabled folks living etc.
The only way we will get to Zion is to follow the recipe provided for us by Elder Wirthlin in the Saturday afternoon session of conference last weekend.

I almost went to listen to that guy… glad I didn’t

Connor,

Answer my question: are all Democrats liberals? Does the fact that Pres. Faust was a Democrat mean he was liberal? If so, how? You’ll need to define liberalism before using it to describe people as you desire to do.

No group is monolithic. Nor does it mean that if one is one label (Democrat) he takes on all the characteristics of the major philosophy of that group. Nor does it mean that he DOESN’T take ANY characteristic of that group.

Going down the path of defining liberalism is a trap I choose not to go down. Sorry Connor.

Chris,

Show me where President Benson “instilled” in members that it was not okay for them to Mormon and Democrat. Show me where he said that. Don’t just make things up.

Please, that’s too easy. Here is one example, from a General Conference talk in October 1961.

Communism is fundamentallly socialism. … No true Latter-day Saint and no true American can be a socialist or a communist or support programs leading in that direction.

Let me repeat that: “or support programs LEADING in that direction.” In other words, in his view, you cannot be a good latter-day saint, and also not a real American if you support programs LEADING in the direction of socialism or communism. Now, this is going to sound like common sense to you, because you’ve already bought this hook, line, and sinker. But alas, he is wrong.

And I shouldn’t even bring up Harold B. Lee’s infamous “no liberal member has a testimony.” It doesn’t matter how he spun it, that what he was referring to were members of the church who took church doctrine and interpreted it liberally. Conservative members of the church went ahead and took the word “liberal” and made it their number one bad guy.

So sad.

Curtis,

Satan does just fine with Capitalism.

Well said. It’s really funny to see conservatives jump up with joy at “Capitalism”…I wonder if they really know that the person who coined the term “capitalism” (and thusly define it) was none other than Karl Marx himself.

Heh, the irony.

Connor,

What think ye of the First Presidency statement regarding communism, and indirectly its sister socialism, that said:

Do you see where the difference is between what Ezra Taft Benson said and the First Presidency said? The First Presidency said, as you quote them:

We call upon all Church members completely to eschew Communism. The safety of our divinely inspired Constitutional government and the welfare of our Church imperatively demand that Communism shall have no place in America.

A true Latter-day Saint upholds and defends the Constitution. Communism and socialism are not in harmony w/ that document, but instead in direct opposition to it. It’s easy to boil down the equation and see that Latter-day Saints should oppose such things.

That’s fine and dandy. I don’t have much of a problem with that. What I have a problem with is what Ezra Taft Benson ADDS to that statement:

Communism is fundamentallly socialism. … No true Latter-day Saint and no true American can be a socialist or a communist or support programs leading in that direction.

THAT is where Ezra Taft Benson is wrong.

To be sure, Satan does just fine with any economic system, for there are always corrupt men willing to take advantage of others and work the system to their personal advantage. Does that mean capitalism is inherently bad or evil? No!

That is NOT the reason why capitalism is inherently evil or bad. Capitalism’s inherent badness stems from its lack of compassion. But that’s for another thread. In any case, we’re going to have to agree to disagree here.

Connor,

Any person who truly upholds and defends the Constitution will not support programs that oppose its principles and precepts, whether explicitly or gradually. They’re saying essentially the same thing in different words.

You totally and completely ignored Ezra Taft Benson’s words! Did you not even CATCH the extra words he added to the phrase? How big must I make them for you?

or support programs leading in that direction.

He is wrong on this, and will always be wrong on this.

Connor,

But the First Presidency message does NOT add that extra. Read it again.

In any case, we’re off track here. Chris asked where I got the notion that Ezra Taft Benson “instilled” in members that you couldn’t be a good Mormon and a Democrat at the same time. As your answers clearly show, he succeeded in converting you to that line of thinking.

In his book, This Nation Shall Endure, ETB said that there isn’t sound government among either of the major parties. I won’t claim to know what he thinks, like some people here who claim to be mind readers, but it would seem to me from his talks and statements, particularly in his later life, that he did not endorse the republican party or encourage people in that direction.

No form of socialism or communism can be reconciled with the scriptures. Even under Joseph Smith’s “united order” there was not communal ownership of property. Everyone held title to his own property.

Jay

[…] big “thanks” to Connor on digging up that quote from An Enemy Hath Done This - a book I read over 15 years ago and need to […]

Jay,
Have you read the book of Deuteronomy? There are quite a few socialist policies put into place by Moses there.

For the record, I agree with Jeff’s sentiments in comment #8. It took me a while to get to that point, but now I do. For the record as well, I also subscribe to Ezra Taft Benson’s views that socialism is wrong, and I think the Ultimate Decider of Truth will sanction them in the great and final debate, but I could be wrong.

I revere Ezra Taft Benson as both a politician and a prophet. I think Senator Reid can disagree with him politically and still believe that he is a prophet of God.

I came away from Reid’s speech at the Marriott Center thinking, although I disagree with him, I think he is sincere, and I think he is a great man. Ezra Taft Benson can run circles around Reid when it comes to the proper role of government, but that doesn’t make Reid a crook or any less sincere.

Of course I’ve read Deuteronomy. Please be specific.

Jay

Thanks, Frank. I think we’ve spent all this time arguing over a simple misunderstanding of a statement (a misunderstanding fueled by bias). Politics would be much easier if everyone’s meaning was 100% clear all the time. Unfortunately, language is an imperfect medium and is open to interpretation, especially when seen through the lens of bias. When bias is present, separating the true meaning from the skewed interpretation is almost impossible.

Dan,

I’m sorry, but your assertion on Benson and the Democrats is wrong. Saying that President Benson decried socialism/communism and saying that he decried the Democratic Party are two different things. The first is a statement concerning a principle, and the latter is a statement concerning a party. The Democratic Party is not exclusively a socialist party, and so being a member of the Democratic Party, for whatever reason, does not automatically mean someone must support socialism. People can be members of a political party for many different reasons. I am still a registered Republican, but I don’t support everything (or most things) that my party supports in mass. In fact, the Republican Party has become largely socialist themselves. Even in today’s world, I don’t believe that one has to support socialism to support the Democratic Party. One may support them on the grounds of human rights (i.e. anti-torture, discrimination, etc), or on the grounds of being anti-war. Hey, what the heck - I believe in those ideals too, and so did President Benson, and I am happy if people support the Democratic Party for those reasons. Likewise, I am against those in the Republican Party who want to create perpetual wars, torture, centralize power, etc.

You have not defended your assertion that “people like Ezra Taft Benson kept instilling in Mormons that it was against their best eternal interests to ally themselves with the Democratic party.” If you wish to make the assertion that “people like Ezra Taft Benson instilled in Mormons that it was against their best eternal interests to support socialism,” then I would wholeheartedly agree with you, and that is the only assertion you have actually defended. Until you can show where Ezra Taft Benson told members not to support the Democratic Party, you have not supported your statement. All of his political statements that I’ve read up to this point have been about principles. Even in Connor’s Benson quote about parties, Benson said they both had problems.

Jay,
They are fairly recognizable. The prohibition against usury, the rules which forbade going back and picking up dropped harvest since that was for the poor, the whole jubilee debt forgiveness thing (you couldn’t even refuse a request for a loan because it was a week before the jubilee when the debt was to be forgiven) etc.
I’d have guessed that many in the Church haven’t read Deuteronomy, and if they have, these subtleties probably go right over their head.

I am very suspicious of your assertions. Please don’t make general statements that you can’t support. Provide evidence of your arguments.

Jay

Chris,

I’m not going to tie myself down to the statement I said at first, because when you get to technicalities, you’ll find ways to get around the main thrust, and that is that Ezra Taft Benson and others like him kept instilling in members of the church that they should avoid like the plague anything remotely “socialist”, keeping very vague exactly what that entailed, but stoking enough innuendo that most members decided for themselves that what they were referring to was the Democratic party. Why else would you get Republicans joking that party affiliation should be a temple recommend question?

BTW, I’m well aware of the fact that it was considered a sin to charge interest on a loan, but being a sin and being against the civil laws of the land, with a loss of freedoms attached, are two different things. What was the punishment for usury, for instance?

In the Church, members are required to pay fast offerings, for instance, but that isn’t socialism by any stretch of the definition.

Jay

I’ve seen a share of Democrats who believe that Republicans shouldn’t be allowed to hold recommends, including a member of a stake presidency in Arizona, so it goes both ways. President Benson eschewed socialism and pointed out that both parties were steeped in it. I do not ever recall him singling out the Democrat party or even suggesting it. I suspect that if anyone thinks that he was, there must be some measure of self-guilt. No doubt, the Democrats are a party of socialists, but the Republicans are not far behind.

Jay

No, Connor, that’s not what that means. What that means is that my original point was not that Ezra Taft Benson specifically told members to avoid the Democratic party. Chris wished to tie me down to that statement. I will not be tied to that.

Take Jay’s comment just now:

No doubt, the Democrats are a party of socialists

See how easy it is for a conservative to smear and incorrectly label a party like that? Where do you think that came from? Not only that but Jay presses further:

but the Republicans are not far behind.

Must be easy to live in this fantasy world where everyone is a bad guy but you. Must be easy when the religion millions of people adhere to can only really be lived properly your way or not at all. If they don’t believe as you believe, then they must be socialists, and we KNOW what ETB said about socialists!

But Connor, you can’t confuse the issue with things like, uh, like facts. I mean, there are known “knowns.” There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know. So when we do the best we can and we pull all this information together, and we then say well that’s basically what we see as the situation, that is really only the known knowns and the known unknowns. And each year, we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns.

So get your facts straight, man.

Jay

Dan,

Are you calling me a “conservative” as opposed to a “liberal”? And where would you ever get that idea? Do you have some warped idea that I align my principles with the Republican party? I believe that I’ve made it pretty clear that I consider the Democrats to be the lesser of the evils, but I would not choose either of the evils.

There are a lot of good guys . . . they are just hard to find among the major parties.

Jay

My apologies Jay. I’ve had a busy day and I missed your earlier comments.

Not a problem, Dan. Thanks.

Jay

As far as Clinton’s “baby bond” well, she went a little overboard. I would actually start them with a mere $1000. In 20 years that’s a lot of money.

But see, how I would propose that would be different, in that I would make it a tax break for families that set aside a certain amount of money (a one time deal) for college for their children, that that money will be taken off the amount they owe in taxes. So if you owe $1700 in taxes, you will only have to pay $1000. Now THAT’S how to do it.

[I’m weighing in pretty late, so I have to admit that — in my quick reading – somebody might have already made my following observations:]

Rather than arguing about whether or not Elder Benson was directly attacking Democrats in General Conference, I think we can all agree that he was much more respectful and careful in what he said politically in his official church actions and in official church forums like conference. Specifically KSL radio reported on Wednesday a quote from a media interview (not Conference or anything) where Elder Benson did in fact say it was nigh unto impossible (in his opinion) to be a good Mormon *and* a Democrat way back in the early 70’s (I’ll try and find the real quote if anybody cares…my paraphrase may have transmuted it pretty badly but the gist is accurate, I believe).

I think we can also agree that Senator Reid was likewise pretty thoughtful in what he said in his actual forum address in the Marriot center. (No! I’m not comparing a silly BYU forum to the General Conference lol — what I’m saying is that both of these passionate political men were more respectful and careful in official forums.) But after his prepared speech, Reid cut loose and turned [what I feel was] way too partisan in the media questioning.

I also think that no matter what you think of the political beliefs of either man, most people here would be open to the idea that in less scripted contexts such as that Q&A *both* Elder Benson and Sen. Reid might have gone too far in their political rhetoric. I don’t think it was wise or respectful of Sen. Reid to tie Elder Benson’s name to his statement about members being improperly herded towards the Republican party.

I also find fairly compelling the readings that I’ve done (of official Deseret Book publications lol) that document President McKay, President Kimball, and a number of the apostles having quite sincere heart-to-hearts with President Benson about either reining in his political rhetoric *or* specific secular ideas they disagreed with him on. There are timeless tales for instance about disagreements between Elder Hugh B. Brown and Elder Benson on specific politics wherein at least once, for instance, President McKay had to specifically break it up.

The more informed I get, the more I admire President Benson’s political statements and career. But I have to admit I still admire Elder Brown’s different take on things a great deal as well.

Personally I am incredibly disappointed with both of our major political parties in the US at the current time. I can empathize quite sincerely with those that are passionate LDS in both parties and understand their strengths. But the weaknesses in each are just so vast! I believe we might do well to seek less to be “of the world” in trying to twist ourselves to identify so strongly with any secular [inherently imperfect] party despite the fact that there certainly have been some great men and women who may have displayed some weakness in that regard.

If you ever find yourself getting too passionate about one particular secular party then you’re in the company of some of Jesus’s orginal twelve apostles, for example. Jesus called both a publican (those who had decided to accept Roman rule) and a zealot (those who felt religious obligation to fight the Roman rule until the Messiah came to overthrow their unrighteous dominion) to his original Twelve. ” There was not room for middle ground on politics like that. And yet the Saviour found a man of each party worthy to serve as an apostle. That’s the part I always found interesting.

Basically I think I agreed most with Frank Staehli above when he said:

I revere Ezra Taft Benson as both a politician and a prophet. I think Senator Reid can disagree with him politically and still believe that he is a prophet of God.

I came away from Reid’s speech at the Marriott Center thinking, although I disagree with him, I think he is sincere, and I think he is a great man. Ezra Taft Benson can run circles around Reid when it comes to the proper role of government, but that doesn’t make Reid a crook or any less sincere.

Jay,

I am very suspicious of your assertions. Please don’t make general statements that you can’t support. Provide evidence of your arguments.

What do you mean Jay? I am speaking of specific instances in Deuteronomy where socialistic principles are addressed. Do you mean you want the references? I’d have thought one who has read the book (as you so emphatically stated) would understand what I was referring to.

In any case, if you need references I’d be glad to provide them.

Yes, I’d like specific references where you conclude that socialism was practiced. Again, you would need to convince me that it was more than just religious practice. One could argue that giving tithes and offerings are socialistic in nature, however, there is a big difference. Like I said, I know that some things, such as usury, were considered sinful, but that doesn’t mean they were enforced under socialistic government. If a person attempted to charge interest on a loan, was he subject to civil action, i.e., fines, penalties, imprisonment, etc., or was it just a church matter?

Jay

I did a little bit of research on usury, which is one of the things that you brought up, and it appeared that usury was lawful when dealing with gentiles, but was only considered sinful with reference to lending money to other Jews. So it would appear to me that it was more of a religious thing than a law of the land. It’s difficult for me to reconcile that with socialism.

I’m looking further into it, but I would still like your references.

Thanks,

Jay

Jay,

All right. You have a handle on the usury thing. So, let’s start with something else.

First in Deuteronomy 23 the Lord says:

24 When thou comest into thy neighbour’s vineyard, then thou mayest eat grapes thy fill at thine own pleasure; but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel.
25 When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbour, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbour’s standing corn.

This statement is kind of heavy, because, the neighbor is apparently not given any choice in the matter. You could walk into his yard and eat his crops without the approval of the owner. This is in fact the reason that the cities of Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed. They wouldn’t live by this sort of code and their meanness of spirit and selfishness/covetousness and pride is what Ezekiel lists as the reasons for their destruction.

As for the jubilee Moses introduces it in chapter 15 as thus:

1 At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release.
2 And this is the manner of the release: Every creditor that lendeth ought unto his neighbour shall release it; he shall not exact it of his neighbour, or of his brother; because it is called the LORD’s release.

So every 7 years, all debt is released. Moses then states that you can’t even withhold a loan because the release year is just around the corner:

9 Beware that there be not a thought in thy wicked heart, saying, The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and thine eye be evil against thy poor brother, and thou givest him nought; and he cry unto the LORD against thee, and it be sin unto thee.
10 Thou shalt surely give him, and thine heart shall not be grieved when thou givest unto him: because that for this thing the LORD thy God shall bless thee in all thy works, and in all that thou puttest thine hand unto.

Additionally, any servant or slave you have bought, no matter the price, must be released after 6 years of servitude: From Chapter 15:

12 And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.

Not only must you release him, you have to send him away with a uhaul truck full of stuff (from the same chapter):

13 And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty:
14 Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him.

In chapter 15 Israel is commanded:

7 If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother:
8 But thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he wanteth.

Moses gave this curious commandment as well. In Chapter 23 he says:

15 Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee:

Indeed, not only did you have to refrain from returning him to his rightful owner, we are told:

16 He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.

All meanness of spirit or greediness was forbidden under the law of Moses and this is well seen in Chapter 24 were we learn:

19 ｶ When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hands.
20 When thou beatest thine olive tree, thou shalt not go over the boughs again: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow.
21 When thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean it afterward: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow.

Great rules to live by here.

The Lord knew that there would always be poor in the land and His laws were meant to provide for the poor (Chapter 15):

11 For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.

You are right about the usury issue. Chapter 23 states this:

19 ｶ Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:
20 Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.

The law required a certain level of human dignity be afforded to servants or slaves in Chapter 24:

14 Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates:
15 At his day thou shalt give him his hire, neither shall the sun go down upon it; for he is poor, and setteth his heart upon it: lest he cry against thee unto the LORD, and it be sin unto thee.

Thus in the Mosaic Law, the right to eat, the right to be nurtured, was more important than the right to make a profit. There were even laws that made them treat their beasts of burden well:

4 Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.

Even oxen have to eat.

Now, admittedly, this is the Mosaic Law, a religious law that the people of Israel were to live by. However, as you also know, it was a binding law. The law allowed for capital punishment where it was called for. For example, anyone caught red-handed in human trafficking (perhaps what we might compare to sweatshop labor, child labor etc.) was to be put to death! Chapter 24:

7 If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you.

This was the religious law, but pretty much the law of the land as far as the people were concerned. Admittedly as well, these laws were to be performed out of love for God and for fellowman, for compassion on one’s fellow man, constantly remembering the captivity in Egypt and the great mercy of God, and His mercy on the people of Israel.

These laws were made to fit this people as a people of God. But, remember, this was the lesser law! Can we even live the lesser law today? Even these laws would be entirely impractical in our society today, even in a community of Mormons in the middle of Utah! We are indeed still far away from the Celestial Law.

There was a punishment given for collective disobedience to these laws. A huge list of curses ends the book of Deuteronomy, mostly from the Lord. Of course, the wicked Pharisees took the law and twisted it to fit their own purposes. This law was supposed to point the people towards Christ. If we could live like this I’m sure we all agree that we could have a people prepared for Christ when He comes again.

As you notice, there are a few laws in here that you don’t have any choice in the matter over. Some will say that this is socialistic in nature and I bring it up, not because Socialism is the ideal way to run an economy, but because it is as viable an alternative to the utopian society we envision as “Zion” as any other system in my mind. Man’s economic systems will always fail though. I’m really for Zion or bust, but I desire to see my fellow man taken care of along the way.

I fail to see socialism in this. What you are talking about is the laws of the Lord unto the people of His church and laws which applied to the Jews with respect to other Jews. Socialism goes so far as to deny God but the Mosiac laws are the laws of God, not of a man made government.

I also like to see my fellow man taken care of along the way, however, it is my duty to do it as a son of God, and not to compel others to do it through the laws of man. That would be Satan’s counterfeit plan of salvation. We will force them to be good . . .

Jay

You force people to do good with other types of laws. Why not with laws concerning economics?

Actually, I’m not a big believer in force. Laws are for the protection and enhancement of our liberties. PERIOD! Anything beyond that is oppression. I have the liberty to help my fellow brothers and sisters and I am morally obligated to do so. I also have the responsibility to respect other people’s property and I don’t have the right to coerce you or anyone else to part with your substance to feed the poor or help the sick. And it’s equally immoral for me to vote for the government to do so. The government has no more power, or should have no more power, than the individual. We are its creator.

Those who vote to redistribute wealth, in any form, in my opinion, are guilty of buying into Satan’s counterfeit plan of salvation.

Jay

So Jay, in your world there would be no government aid for victims of disaster? This is forceful use of taxpayer money and redistribution of wealth is it not? If the government takes your money and sends it to Nicaragua to help hurricane victims this is part of Satan’s plan right?

Right.

Jay

Sorry man. This is definitely where I part ways with you. You can call me a Satan worshipper if you like (many church members have after they learn of my socialist leanings). I definitely am not a libertarian.

Do other LIbertarians on this thread feel the same as Jay on this subject? Connor?

As I have tried to follow this topic, I am often reminded of what the scene was like leading up to Lucifer and a third of the Hosts of Heaven being cast out. I have even wondered if any of those who chose the plan of Satan wished they had not been so quick to align themselves with his plan. While I may be viewing the scene in a far too simplistic manner, I do believe that as one of those who kept his First Estate, I am grateful to have made the eternally wiser choice. At least I believe it was wiser. Hopefully there are none participating in this topic who believe otherwise. Of course, we all know that in the final analysis, there will be many of Heavenly Father’s children who kept their First Estate who will choose to follow after the plans of Satan and will reject the Plan of Salvation completely. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that some of us engaged currently in this thread will do so, and I sincerely hope that is not the case since it is our chosen duty as members of the Lord’s Church to do all that we can to “bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.” That includes ALL men starting with our self.

It is my belief that we as individuals should be actively engaged in helping our fellow men realize the goal of Eternal Happiness. Were we all to be doing that very thing, we would realize the “United Order.” Unfortunately in the current realm of time, many of us are far too engaged in self gratification with the things of the world. It seems that some of us are completely fixated upon storing up worldly treasures for ourselves while the rest are trying to do so for others. It seems to me that we are wrong in both cases.

We are in the last days of the struggle to define our allegiance. Our eternal lives depend upon whether or not we make the correct choices. The ability to see clearly through the confusion and strife of the world is making it more and more difficult to know what is right and what is not. We must keep in mind that our individual choices, at some point, will have eternal consequences so it is critical to not permit ourselves to be dissuaded from pursuing truth in all circumstances including political and societal truth.

Politically speaking, we must all keep in mind that we should support those individuals who best represent our personal beliefs and moral standards. In doing so we must first understand if our own personal beliefs and moral standards are correct. It seems to me that is the really hard part, and is likely the reason most of us participate in this type of forum. If we are seeking after truth, I believe there is some to be found here, but if we are seeking false doctrine, I believe there is a little of that too. The dilemma for me is in trying to find absolute truth within words of personal opinions derived from a mixture of truth and lies. I have concluded that it is unlikely that I shall ever realize perfection so long as I listen to anyone other than the Lord Jesus Christ.

Of course, we all know that in the final analysis, there will be many of Heavenly Father’s children who kept their First Estate who will choose to follow after the plans of Satan and will reject the Plan of Salvation completely. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that some of us engaged currently in this thread will do so,

Michael just can’t help it. He has to say this kind of thing about those who comment on your blog, Connor. This is offensive language.

Much of the affinity that LDS people have for the Republican party comes from Pres. Benson.

I’ve never seen any quote by Benson urging people to become Republican. Today, Republicans ideological foundation is far a field of any principle Benson ever spoke of…save Ron Paul.

but I don’t see that in what he was saying,

Connor, given all that Michael has said in the past about me, how can you say this? If I were not commenting on your blog, do you think Michael would even say something like this about people commenting on your blog? Of course not, because for the most part, yo