I personally believe Elder & President Benson’s views much more than Senator Re id’s, yet while I don’t agree with him politically, I don’t know the man personally, and am not willing to condemn him for his political views. If he is truly as far removed from the Lord’s “political” views as some of us (including myself) feel he is, or if he is wiser and closer to the Lord than we feel he is…ultimately it will be the Lord who will be his judge. We can “judge” his actions, but not his heart & spirit.

I believe, like several others, that there is a great deal of wrong-thinking and acting on the part of both major political parties. I used to consider myself a Republican, but have not voted for the Republican candidate for President since Ronald Reagan. Nor have I voted for a Democrat candidate. I am currently aligned with the Constitution Party, because that document, I think all of us agree, is an inspired document from the Lord, including the Bill of Rights. The implementation of the views of the original framers of that document is something which will continue to be debated for another 200 + years, if the country lasts that long. It is interesting to remember though, that even some of the great and inspired men who signed the Declaration of Independence had major difficulties with the Constitution-during and after the Constitutional Convention, and some of them wrote the Anti-Federalist Papers to try and prevent it from being ratified.
I do not profess to be a scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but in reading some of the authors from the time of the Founding Fathers and some of the books they read to gain understanding (Two Treatises of Government-John Locke), and others written afterward (The Law-Frederick Bastiat), I feel that Socialism is not the answer to society’s problems. In looking at Socialism, as others have pointed out, it is the Government taking from the people what the people are not willing to give up or sell freely. It is grand theft on a massive scale, because if a business or corporation, or a private citizen were to try and do what Government does, we’d be thrown in jail.

Much earlier, someone pointed out that Welfare and government helping out with disasters is a good that comes from Socialism. My view is that the Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to give this money away-because they did not earn the money-they took it from the people under threat of force. I believe that when there are natural disasters, then the local and state governments have a greater responsibility and ability to deal with the disaster than the Federal government does. As far as helping out foreign people and countries that have major problems, private citizens and charitable groups can most likely do a much more efficient job of getting the needed relief to the people than any government. There are going to be problems in some countries where the government is more corrupt than others, because the leaders would tend to keep tight control over the goods and money, rather than give it to the people. I don’t know how to get around that challenge, but again, our Federal Government doesn’t have the right nor authority to use OUR money to be a distributor of well-fare to someone else.
There are two pamphlets put out by the Constitution Party that are very good (in my opinion) at pointing out the perils of government handouts and also the constitutionality of the same. One is called “Not Yours to Give”, and the other is “The Wild & Free Pigs of the Okefenokee Swamps”. Those, along with “The Law” give good arguments against the power of government to have too much power. I also like the writings of President J. Reuben Clark, Jr & W Cleon Skousen.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the country’s most powerful Mormon politician, criticized his own church during a meeting with gay-rights activists, reportedly scolding Mormon leaders for supporting the ban on same-sex marriage in California.

The Salt Lake Tribune reported that Reid brought up the topic last week during a meeting in his office with organizers of the National Equality March, held over the weekend in Washington, D.C.

One participant told the newspaper that Reid said the decision by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to support the successful Proposition 8 ballot measure in California last year was a “waste of church resources and good will.” Another said Reid made clear that he “felt it was harmful for the church to focus on such a divisive issue.”

Though the church fought to support Proposition 8, with money and volunteers, just as it has fought other moves to legalize same-sex marriage, it is rare for the Nevada Democrat to comment on his own church’s political activity. Reid supported the gay rights march over the weekend.

It was this lack of protection which, ultimately, gave capitalism a bad reputation because it allowed the strong to take from the weak, the many to take from the few.

Or maybe highlighted one of the biggest weaknesses of capitalism. See, you’re going on the premise that the government is somehow ABOVE the capitalistic world, when in fact, the government is capitalism’s biggest contributor/consumer. Capitalism cannot control its biggest operator. It has no inherent controls to ensure that the government itself, the largest corporation in a capitalist society, doesn’t, for its own benefit and selfish desires (true capitalistic traits) abuse the rules and create a system where it because the true monopoly in a capitalistic system.

If property rights were respected, there would be no pollution of rivers and streams for, if you were to dump your waste into air or water, sooner or later it would wind up on someone else’s property – then you would be in violation and subject to penalty and force.

Actually right now, you can sue someone who dumps in your backyard, even if they are a mighty corporation (think Erin Brockovich). It’s not the laws that are the problem but how well they are enforced.

And there are plenty others other than Ron Paul who make this point and they are not libertarians or Libertarians.

So….in other words it is a fascist society that produces the brains. Communists and Capitalists merely steal from fascists?

No, I was agreeing with you that capitalistic societies are not the only societies possessing innovation. I would assert however, that capitalistic society is the only society where a person can profit from his own ingenuity. In both fascist and socialist societies, profit must be given to the state in one way or another. Only capitalism allows a person to keep what he earns.

No state is fully capitalistic or socialistic. Wealth redistribution, a purely socialistic idea, is practiced by the US via welfare and income taxes. In many socialist countries such as Sweden, people may own property, a concept which is distinctly capitalist. Further, eminent domain – through which a state may take property from an individual – is distinctly socialist and is practiced, to my knowledge, by every country.

The fundamental question is: How should property rights be divided between the individual and the state? In pure capitalism, property rights remain with the individual who obtained the property without force or guile. In pure socialism, all property rights are retained by the state. Most countries are on a continuum between these extremes. The Founding Fathers felt that individuals should retain all property rights, except in certain extremely limited cases, and just recompense should be given for any property confiscated. Problems arose because government refused to protect the property rights of the individual from larger groups, such as big business or, in the case of Latter-Day Saints, mobs. It was this lack of protection which, ultimately, gave capitalism a bad reputation because it allowed the strong to take from the weak, the many to take from the few. Therefore, the first order of government should be to protect property rights. If the government did so, many of the ills of our society would be eliminated. Take pollution for example. If property rights were respected, there would be no pollution of rivers and streams for, if you were to dump your waste into air or water, sooner or later it would wind up on someone else’s property – then you would be in violation and subject to penalty and force. This point is also frequently made by Dr. Paul.

You can’t compare Orderville, Utah, or Brigham City, for that matter, to the Law of Consecration. They bore no resemblance to the revelations given to Joseph Smith in the D&C. People often try to compare Joseph Smith’s “United Order” with Brigham Young’s “United Order” which were significantly different. When you talk about the Law of Consecration, or the Lord’s Law (private ownership of property), it has very little in common with Orderville, Utah, which was a cooperative (common ownership of property).

Well, whatever it was, it was an attempt by the Church to set up a Consecration society – and my point, if you will kindly re-read what I wrote, was that the Church has never been able to live the law of Consecration nor, I believe, do we fully understand it. These things are given by revelation, and they can only be understood by revelation. Since many of us are not interested in revelation, many of us will never truly understand, not only the Law of Consecration, but any of the revelations of our leaders.

You can’t compare Orderville, Utah, or Brigham City, for that matter, to the Law of Consecration. They bore no resemblance to the revelations given to Joseph Smith in the D&C. People often try to compare Joseph Smith’s “United Order” with Brigham Young’s “United Order” which were significantly different. When you talk about the Law of Consecration, or the Lord’s Law (private ownership of property), it has very little in common with Orderville, Utah, which was a cooperative (common ownership of property).

Jay

Dan said:
Huh, so I guess America is REALLY backwards for daring to imitate from the “freer” society that was called the Soviet Union who not only put the first satellite in space, but also the first man.

Uh – we didn’t imitate them. We surpassed them – although you do make a point. Both the Soviet Union and the US received a shot in the arm by plundering rocket technology and scientific brains from Germany after WWII. It could be argued that we don’t need capitalistic incentives as long as we can trick people into thinking that they’re doing something noble.

Lasers for example, which at the time were hailed as “a solution without a problem” would never have been funded and, because of that, we would be missing some of our greatest technological advances. Any advances in such societies must either come from imitating freer societies, or the guy with the idea must be one heck of a salesman!

Huh, so I guess America is REALLY backwards for daring to imitate from the “freer” society that was called the Soviet Union who not only put the first satellite in space, but also the first man.

Ron Paul supporters have a lot of heart, but they sure lose a lot of sound reasoning when it comes to logic.

On Socialism and Communism: Any type of central control will stifle creativity and innovation for the simple fact that people by nature hate and fear change. Any new idea would need to receive approval by some committee which would be predisposed to nix the allocation of vital resources to some “hair-brained scheme”. Lasers for example, which at the time were hailed as “a solution without a problem” would never have been funded and, because of that, we would be missing some of our greatest technological advances. Any advances in such societies must either come from imitating freer societies, or the guy with the idea must be one heck of a salesman!

On Capitalism: I agree that capitalism has its weak points – but it is the only system we currently know of that can guarantee that each person retains the freedom to take risks, and thereby promote innovation and change. Until we get Consecration right, it’s the best system we know. I am not referring to Mercantilism, nor am I advocating government protection of businesses. The only function of government in a capitalist economy, as far as I can tell, is the protection of private property rights, which has been sorely neglected by our government for many, many years and has, in my opinion, been chiefly responsible for capitalism’s bad reputation in our country. In other words, large corporations were allowed to violate the property rights of other corporations and individuals and, since they represented prosperity under capitalism, came to embody its cutthroat reputation.

For anybody interested in the disparity between Socialism and real Capitalism, I heartily recommend the book Socialism, an Economic and Sociological Analysis by Ludwig von Mises. Download it for free here.

The only quote you provided that I must disagree with publicly is this one:

“Most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applies to themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own….THE HARM DONE BY ORDINARY CRIMINALS, MURDERERS, GANGSTERS, AND THEIVES IS NEGLIGIBLE IN COMPARRISON WITH THE AGONY INFLICTED UPON HUMAN BEINGS BY THE PROFESSIONAL ‘DO-GOODERS’, who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others – with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means.”

The man who said this obviously didn’t know the power wielded by the finance-military-industrial complex and the great evils and murders this complex is responsible for. The members of this society are not do-gooders, they are card holding members of the Gadianton society that seek to destroy the freedom of all countries and cause huge suffering in the world. They got us into the Iraq war and profit from it hugely. The hue and cry against socialism amongst our church membership is energy that would be much better used in fighting the great secret combination of our day that realistically, has little to do with socialism.

Thomas Paine wrote: “Rights are not gifts from one man to another, nor from one class of men to another… It is impossible to discover any origin of rights otherwise than in the origin of man; it consequently follows that rights appertain to man in right of his existence, and must therefore be equal to every man.” (P.P.N.S., p. 134)

Thomas Jefferson asked: “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?” (Works 8:404, P.P.N.S., p. 141)

Bastaiat explained: “Each of us has a natural right – from God – to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but the extension of our faculties?” (The Law, p. 6)

John Locke clearly understood: “For nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life of property of another.” (Two Treatises of Civil Government, II, 135; P.P.N.S. p. 93)

Ezra Taft Benson proclaimed that his attitude toward government is succinctly expressed by the following provision taken from the Alabama Constitution: “That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression.” (Art. 1, Sec. 35)

Thomas Jefferson further declared: “With all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens – a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it had earned.” (Works 8:3)

Henry Grady Weaver wrote, in his excellent book, The Mainspring of Human Progress: “Most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applies to themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own….THE HARM DONE BY ORDINARY CRIMINALS, MURDERERS, GANGSTERS, AND THEIVES IS NEGLIGIBLE IN COMPARRISON WITH THE AGONY INFLICTED UPON HUMAN BEINGS BY THE PROFESSIONAL ‘DO-GOODERS’, who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others – with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means.” (p.40-1;P.P.N.S., p. 313)

Former FBI agent Dan Smoot succinctly pointed out that: “England was killed by an idea: the idea that the weak, indolent and profligate must be supported by the strong, industrious, and frugal – to the degree that tax-consumers will have a living standard comparable to that of taxpayers; the idea that government exists for the purpose of plundering those who work to give the product of their labor to those who do not work.

The economic and social cannibalism produced by this communist-socialist idea will destroy any society which adopts it and clings to it as a basic principle – ANY society.”

Finally, the following sage advice from Marcus Tullius Cicero offered in 42 B.C. to the Roman Senate which I found at Liberty-Tree.ca, and it implies my sentiments exactly: “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gate is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”

I agree with you on this. It’s about us consecrating our lives, talents and energy to helping others and to building the kingdom. And that is the difference between socialism and the Lord’s Law. Agency. Socialism says, “We take from you and give to others.” The Lord’s way says, “You freely give to others according to the righteous desires of your heart.” There is no force.

While trying not to be judgmental of others, I admit that it does bother me when I see the excess living among members. One of the areas that particularly stood out to me was in the neighborhood surrounding the Las Vegas Temple, where there are many members. They live in houses as extravagant as the temple that they surround. I remember one house that was so immaculate, you could see through the ornate glass front doors, all the way through the entry, through huge pane windows in the back of the house that overlooked the valley. It was a brilliant view at night. According to my aunt who lives in that neighborhood, they spent more on their front doors than I did on my whole house. Impressive, breath taking, but is that kind of living necessary?

Yet, we see it so much among the membership of the Church and it seems to be quite common among the leadership. I have family members in high callings, mission and temple presidents, one who owns six fancy houses in as many countries and lives in a beach house mansion in Corona Del Mar. I don’t judge him, I don’t envy him, and I don’t really know or care what he does with his money. But I would be dishonest if I said that I didn’t wonder about what appears to be such excess.

Has anyone read this article by Orson Scott Card? It’s my favorite all-time story of his.

Jay

You may be right when you say socialism is Satan’s plan. I believe though, that you swat at this gnat, or possibly bigger animal of socialism, while possibly swallowing the camel that the scriptures warn us about so much. Actually this should be a general statement against the members of the Church and probably not you all, who seem like a group of good people to me.

This camel I speak of is that mentioned in D&C 49:20. It is the reason the world lieth in sin!! No, it is not socialism. The scripture states:

20 But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.

The scriptures tell me that if we seek after wealth we are stealing from the Lord and as we read in D&C 104:

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

This is the reason the world lieth in sin!! As a Church we often speak out against socialism but only rarely address the sin that we indulge in wholeheartedly… that of seeking after worldly riches and taking that which is above our neighbor. It is modern day idolatry and it is the reason the world lieth in sin and we as a church are hand in hand with Satan in partaking of his spoils. This is the sin that concerns me more than what my government takes from me.

I wonder just how close we are to this scenario

Not even close.

Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly with Jay.

I don’t even agree with all the traffic laws, and I believe that some of them are onerous and wrong.

I agree with that statement also.

Mosiah Hancock, son of a close friend and bodyguard of Joseph Smith, recorded an important prophecy as having been made by the Prophet. According to his diary, this prophecy was made the day after Joseph made his final speech to the Nauvoo Legion (Wednesday, June 19, 1844; eight days before his martyrdom). After telling how the Prophet discussed a map of the West and foretold the route the Saints would follow in their Western exodus, Hancock records Joseph Smith’s statement to him that,

There will be two great political parties in this country. One will be called the Republican, and the other the Democrat party. These two parties will go to war and out of these two parties will spring another party which will be the Independent American Party. The United States will spend her strength and means warring in foreign lands until other nations will say, “Let’s divide up the lands of the United States”, then the people of the U. S. will unite and swear by the blood of their fore-fathers, that the land shall not be divided. Then the country will go to war , and they will fight until one half of the U. S. Army will give up, and the rest will continue to struggle. They will keep on until they are very ragged and discouraged, and almost ready to give up – when the boys from the mountains will rush forth in time to save the American Army from defeat and ruin. And they will say, ‘Brethren, we are glad you have come; give us men, henceforth, who can talk with God’. Then you will have friends, but you will save the country when it’s [sic] liberty hangs by a hair, as it were.

I wonder just how close we are to this scenario.