I have though a lot about how I would approach this first posting. First of all, this weblog is not going to be in any particular order. You may find some of the principles, concepts, and ideas to have more or less meaning to you than to some others or to myself. Please try to participate even if it is a simple sentence of additional insight, etc. I will post based on what I happen to be studying at the time, or until I receive specific suggestions from you. I've found that it is nearly impossible for me to write a short essay after all - they always end up too lengthy. And so, I will try just a few sentences introducing the topic and several quotations from scripture and from General Authorities of the Church and leave it to you to research (if you'd like) and respond in the discussion area.
Here we go:
It seems a confusing thing for me as I observe the varying opinions of the Latter-Day Saints on government's proper role. Especially with American Saints, and our unique and sacred perspective concerning the United States Constitution and the inspiration of the Founding Fathers. The leaders of the Church seem very clear on these subjects. Latter-Day Saints should not support and perpetuate systems of law or government programs that redistribute the wealth of the people (entitlement programs). The principles of individual responsibility, freedom, moral agency, one's right to own and control property, basic honesty and integrity, personal honor, thrift, self-reliance, industry, accountability, and benevolence are all violated by a system of taking from one or many and giving the spoils to another. Unfortunately these systems do exist; my feeling, however, is that the Latter-Day Saints should limit their participation in receiving from or being subsidized by these programs, and with their voices and their votes, work to eliminate these systems - and especially as they exist on the federal level.
Here are some quotations from our Church leaders on the subject:
- "Citizens should also be practitioners of civic virtue in their conduct toward government. They should be ever willing to fulfill the duties of citizenship. This includes...the numerous voluntary actions they must take if they are to preserve the principle of limited government through citizen self-reliance."
(Dallin H. Oaks, “The Divinely Inspired Constitution,” Ensign, Feb 1992, 68) - "The practice of coveting and receiving unearned benefits has now become so fixed in our society that even men of wealth, possessing the means to produce more wealth, are expecting the government to guarantee them a profit. Elections often turn on what the candidates promise to do for voters from government funds. This practice, if universally accepted and implemented in any society, will make slaves of its citizens.
"We cannot afford to become wards of the government, even if we have a legal right to do so. It requires too great a sacrifice of self-respect and in political, temporal, and spiritual independence.
"In some countries it is extremely difficult to separate earned from unearned benefits. However, the principle is the same in all countries: We should strive to become self-reliant and not depend on others for our existence.
"Governments are not the only guilty parties. We fear many parents are making “gullible gulls” out of their children with their permissiveness and their doling out of family resources. In fact, the actions of parents in this area can be more devastating than any government program."
(Marion G. Romney, “The Celestial Nature of Self-Reliance,” Tambuli, Oct 1984, 1 -- entire talk should be read!) - "In this last dispensation, the Lord has again spoken plainly on the subject. “Thou shalt not be idle,” he said. “For he that is idle shall not eat the bread nor wear the garments of the laborer.” (D&C 42:42.) “And the idler shall not have place in the Church, except he repent and mend his ways.” (D&C 75:29.)
"In light of these scriptures, no member should desire or seek to voluntarily shift the responsibility for his own maintenance to another. Rather, each member, through work, should seek to find great satisfaction in personal achievement; and thus, he will be entitled to the fruits of his labors—both temporal and spiritual."
(President Marion G. Romney, “Principles of Temporal Salvation,” Ensign, Apr 1981, 3 -- again, entire article should be read!) - “Our primary purpose was to set up, insofar as it might be possible, a system under which the curse of idleness would be done away with, the evils of a dole abolished, and independence, industry, thrift and self-respect be once more established amongst our people. The aim of the Church is to help the people to help themselves. Work is to be re-enthroned as the ruling principle of the lives of our Church membership.” (President Heber J. Grant, In Conference Report, Oct. 1936, p. 3.)
- "Individuals and families may need to alter their standards of living in doing all they can to meet their own needs. A church dole would be worse than a government dole because it would fail in the face of greater light. Church practices portray more honorable aims, more glorious potential.
(President Thomas S. Monson, “Guiding Principles of Personal and Family Welfare,” Ensign, Sep 1986, 3) - "President Stephen L Richards gave an inspired appeal as he rallied members with these sentiments: “How can sons and daughters who owe everything they have—their education, their ideals of life, their capacity to acquire independent means to live and their characters—to parents who have worked, sacrificed, prayed, wept, and striven for them to the exhaustion of their bodies and their energies agree to a scheme which would make their fathers and mothers the objects of public organizations that help the poor and cast the burden of their support on the community and stigmatize them with the loss of independence and self-respect. …
“I think my food would choke me if I knew that while I could procure bread my aged father or mother or close relatives were living on government or public assistance.” (In General Conference, Oct. 1944.)
(President Thomas S. Monson, “Guiding Principles of Personal and Family Welfare,” Tambuli, Feb 1987, 2) - "I would respectfully urge you to live by the fundamental principles of work, thrift, and self-reliance and to teach your children by your example.
It was never intended in God’s divine plan that man should live off the labor of someone else. Live within your own earnings. Put a portion of those earnings regularly into savings. Avoid unnecessary debt. Be wise by not trying to expand too rapidly. Learn to manage well what you have before you think of expanding further. This is the kind of advice would give my own, and is, in my opinion, the key to sound home, business, and government management.
I would further counsel you to pay your honest tithes and contribute generously to the support of the poor and needy through the fast offerings. Then store at least a year’s supply of basic food, clothing, and fuel. Then you will find these blessings will accrue:
You will not be confronted with the danger of losing all you have because of inflation or depression.
You will have security that no government can provide, savings and supplies for emergencies.
You can ask God’s blessings and his protecting care on you and your family.
You are contributing to the solution of our country’s ills, rather than contributing to its problems.
(President Ezra Taft Benson, “America at the Crossroads,” New Era, Jul 1978, 36)
Many more could be added to this list. There are many aspects to this topic, which I hope will help the discussion. Socialism versus the United Order, the relationship between justice and mercy, God-given rights, agency, the inspired Constitution, etc.
(Please leave your comments and insights by clicking the "discussion comments" link just below.)
Posts
19 comments:
I was a big fan of Monson's quote. Thanks for putting those all together.
I think that the principles of the gospel here go quite contrarily to the practices of "smart businesses." The goals of large corporations is to maximize profit. With that goal in mind, many benevolent virtues are pushed away. Large corporations exploit their own employees and bully competition around with their money. A certain retail store (for this discussion I will refer to it as "Megalomart") has a very high net profit. When that is divided by the number of employees in the company, we see that each employee is responsible for well over one million dollars a year. A majority of these employees make close to minimum wage. This same megalomart at times is know to open a retail store in a quasi-remote location and lower it's prices to undercut the local businesses. Megalomart can easily handle a $500,000 loss, but the locals lose their business long before they lose that much. When Megalomart is the only one left they can raise their prices to whatever they want, being the only store in the remote location. They then employ former business owners who are then enslaved and paid minimum wage. Megolomart does some community promotions, including local charities, and come out looking like the hero. This exploitation, and getting money that you didn't earn sounds much like what the quotes above were referring too. At least to me.
It seems to me that we should prepare ourselves to live a consecrated life, and make the law of tithing our MINIMUM. Consecration is coming, and it's not going to be easy to change, especially for those who are using "good business" practices to get ahead.
I am quoting myself from a discussion on a different blog randomravingramblings.blogpot.com
and a paper I wrote for Ethics and Values class:
I consider myself a critic of capitalism. When I read "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith, I was inspired (and assigned by a professor) to write a paper on it. I titled the paper "A Sad Indicator" You said that "the rich get richer by making everyone else's lives richer as well." Adam Smith makes the same point and says that one seeking to get rich is led by "an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention."
It is sad that the main motivation for "making everyone else's lives richer" is a byproduct of a purely selfish action. As benvolence is not necessarily part of the intention of the successful capitalists motivation, and 'virtues' such as shrewdness, competition, and efficiency are, the lesser of these becomes part of the capitalists main focus. These 'virtues' are close to being tainted shrewdness becomes dishonesty, deceit and greed, competition becomes resentment, malice and hatred, efficiency becomes exploitation and oppression. It takes a great man (or board of directors) to cling to benvolence and other pure virtues when it must wholly embrace the principles that hang so closely to the fringe.
This is just Bob, not Holly.
Capitalism creates powerful individuals, but makes them monsters in the process. Monsters bred to destroy all competition. It promotes survival of the fittest (businesses) and death and slavery to the rest.
Low prices are given to us by the invisible hand, while the hand of intention destroys honest individuals that are quite as shrewd, competitive or efficient.
Bob
What is your solution then? I agree that profit motive has the potential to destroy the integrity of the individual. Do you think it is proper for government to define who has and who has not - and then take from the haves and give what was taken to the have-nots? Or is it expedient for government to determine who is greedy and who is needy? It seems to me that these are unreasonable solutions. Rather, the spreading of the Gospel, with its principles of truth and holiness, would do more good than the supposed good of government intervention. One system respects the rights and moral agency of others, while the other system forces philanthropy. Shades of Satan's premortal plan.
Bob and Holly
I think it is an easy thing to to see "Megalomart" as a bad company. However, let us remember, the thousands and thousands that are employed by "Megalomart" in the first place. Also, we must remember that there is a free market out there for employeement. Wal-Mart is not enslaving it's employees; rather, it is paying them an amount that the employee has agreed to receive. Lastly, remember that Wal-Mart ("Megalomart") has a responsibility to its shareholders. These share holders have made the investment and took the risk. And a risk of losing the investment principle only exists because there is a potential for profits. The employees of Wal-Mart are certainly able to invest their own money into the company and either individually or collectively they can make their case for higher wages at the potential loss of their invested principle. Until they do that, they have no claim for anything more than what they already agreed to receive for employment. They can refuse to continue working for their wages, and if all or most of their coworkers did the same, Wal-Mart would have to increase wages as the demand for labor would far exceed the supply. Therefore the price for labor would rise. These are basic and simple truths. Wal-Mart is not the bad guy any more than success and progress are bad things.
If Wal-Mart, as you say does indeed take over all other smaller companies, then it is because you and I have chosen to shop there rather than at the mom-and-pop shop. If Wal-Mart becomes a monopoly and raises prices to exploit their situation, then mom-and-pop will say I can bring that product to the market at a better price and suddenly you and I will be shopping the smaller businesses once again. You see, in a free market equilibrium is naturally sought by all market participants. The Latter-Day Saints have the unique and holy perspective of the Gospel. We can bring to business our Gospel principles. But let us teach others a better way, not coerce them. Really, there is no need for coercion of any kind. The liar is eventually found out and ruined. The one that is over-charging isn’t getting much business. The one that is under paying doesn’t have many employees. The one that is likeable and generous and Christ-like, I think you will be surprised is surprisingly successful. Look at Costco, look at Jet Blue, look at Marriott. Costco pays their employees very well and with very good benefits – it drives Wall Street nuts – but they are successful. Jet Blue, is the budget airliner – they have no first class section – it drives business travelers nuts – but they are successful. Marriott charges exactly one arm and one leg for its rooms, in drives the cheapskate nuts – yet Marriott is very successful. Wal-Mart’s wages are pathetic, it drives their employees (and Bob and Holly) nuts, but people shop at Wal-Mart and it is a successful company too. You and Holly may not shop there – and I applaud that. That is the free market at its best – market participants using their preference for the small mom-and-pop shop to boycott the big fish and give their business to the small fish. Kudos, for that – there is no hypocrisy there. And I believe this is the proper way of the free market.
Now, how does any of this relate to government’s proper role in subsidizing one group by taxing another? I don’t know. But I thought I’d offer a rebuttal do your comments – which reflect my true feelings on the matter. However the issue at hand here – in this discussion – is whether it is proper for the Latter-Day Saints to lean on the government for support. I think, as has already been demonstrated in the original posting that it would be improper. Government subsidies conflict, in my mind and according to my understanding of Christ’s Gospel, with the principle of provident living among other important Gospel principles. The poor and the suffering have always been with us and the scriptures have always prescribed the same treatment:
To those that have enough and can – give to them, teach them, love them, and lead them. Never have the scriptures taught of the use of plunder to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. The poor and unfortunate of this country can only receive what is freely given, they have no claim upon another man’s property. They may petition the passerby and solicit the wealthy, but they cannot legislate food into their mouths and clothes on their back – no they cannot take from another, what another has earned and is rightfully his. That is plunder and is condemned by the scriptures. Mercy cannot rob justice. With that in mind, let us that are blessed with fortunes remember our Gospel responsibility and give to the poor generously – so the poor (and, for some reason, the liberal intellectuals) of our country will cease petitioning the government to do that which the government never had a right to do. Mercy, indeed, cannot rob justice. Mercy, rather, can satisfy the demands of justice. Justice says food must be purchased with money, but the hungry fellow has no money. If the fellow steals the food, he has robbed justice. If the fellow robs another for money to pay for the food, he has robbed justice. If he has received money in a government program where money was forced our of the hands of another, he and the government have robbed justice. But if another gives his money or food freely to the hungry fellow, no principle of justice has been violated – mercy has successfully satisfied the demands of justice.
Let’s keep the discussion focused on government’s role in redistributing the wealth and property of its citizens from now on.
Kent,that was an excellent rebuttal of the ubiquitous Wal Mart complaint, I applaud you, and I, as do you, share a certain amount of confusion at how this diatribe relates to the issue at hand. But you bring up several points in your defense of the free market that I am curious to discover how you apply to a system of free government. If we hold the freedom to choose what and where we purchase to be an important freedom, than it follows that what we choose as a people through democratic governmental means should also be considered something sacrosanct. Therefore, if the voice of the people have agreed to appoint social programs that are designed to benefit the poor (whether or not they are successful is immaterial)then the die is cast and that is what is proper until the voice of the people in the free government decide that the benefits of said programs are no longer viable and the vote will then swing the other way. These natural swings in public opinion are a natural part of finding ways toward equilibrium. My one question however is, the Book of Mormon indicates that the the voice of the people can go wrong and woe be unto the people when such is the case. In the marketplace, is there a point when the voice of the people (i.e. the free market) can go astray?
Ryan Muldowney
It seems to me that the majority, if not all of the addresss by General authorities are directed toward members and are warning them not to become wards of the state.
No where is an inspired statement that says programs run by the government to help the poor are wrong. In fact we have plenty of scriptoral examples of governments helping the needy. Too suggest that we have some sacred duty to oppose social programs is a very narrow interpretation of both ancient and modern scripture.
The truth is many poor are not poor because they are idle.
Truth is that if you have no money, it is very hard if not impossible to elevate your life status if you are on the bottom...without a lift up from someone.
Politically supporting someone who understands this is not contrary to the gospel.
To assume that all poor are idlers, that all social programs are hand-outs, or that democrats are evil is not only innacurate but wrong.
(I am in no way a Democrat)
In regards to the difference between a governments role in assisting the poor as oppossed to individuals freely giving, th eissue here is scope and scale.
Maybe Marriot can help improve society but I do not have the funds neaded to support schooling programs. I alone have the ability to possibly give a handout, or a little time.
There are some social ills that are so wide spread and all affecting that relying on voluntary individual donors, or the simple preaching of the gospel, will not fix or help.
Children of all classes or parentage deserve first class education... individual voluntary donors cannot provide this.
Generations of people in remote areas, or depressed urban areas, suffer from family structures that disintegrated long before the current generation. The numbers are large enough that the consequences of the actions of people who have long left this earth are crippling individuals here now. If you have no social support structure, who is going to help you? Who has the reach and ability to affect change on a societal level?
The govt. does.
Even in the free'est of markets no segment of society exists on an island.
Bob and all those interested. I suggest reading a great article on Wal-Mart titled "The Causes and Consequences of Wal-Mart’s Growth" by Emek Basker. I did a research paper on the topic and found Basker's analysis to be top notch and extremely eye opening. Google (or live.com) the title quoted above and you'll find the article quick.
I don't have too much time right now to reply to a lot of what was said but I'll say the following.
I believe that The Book of Mormon is the Word of God and that the words written inside of it do not contradict a single teaching of the (correctly translated) Bible. On a similar but non-scriptural note, I belive that modern American Economic Theory is in complete harmony with the teachings of the gospel. It's the cunning of the devil and the foolishness of man that distort such theories and abuse the capitalist system.
America is the powerhouse it is today largely in part because of the free market that has been established and the widespread posterity that market has brought to this land. The prophesied demise of America is being actualized because of the wickedness across the land.
I wish I had more time to expound but I don't! Thaks for this blog Kent...Allan likey!
In response to Ryan:
First of all, let us be clear that our government is not a democracy (pure democracy), rather it is a Constitutional Republic. The constitution with its indirect voting process and its system of checks and balances provides a much needed tempering effect to democracy. I’ll allow you to explore some of President Ezra Taft Benson’s talks and other literature for more on that subject ( "The Constitution--A Heavenly Banner" is a good start).
Secondly, and I’ll try to make this brief. The whole purpose of the Constitution of the United States was to secure freedoms while providing definite and important limits. The legalization of murder, rape, theft, and plunder were never meant to be up for a vote. If pure democracy were to legalalize crime then the premise for having government in the first place is completely undermined. In other words, government is the creature and man is its creator. If man, naturally, has no right or claim to another man’s life, labor, or property – to take, or to give, or to redistribute, etc. – then how can man delegate that which he never had in the first place to man’s creation – the government. How can the creature (government) ever exceed its creator (man) and its original purpose for creation (a protection of pre-existent rights and freedoms)? Man cannot give a power to government which power man never possessed in the first place. I may rightfully protect my life from being taken from another; therefore I may delegate that right of life for government to secure in my stead. I may rightfully protect myself and my family from being enslaved by another; therefore I may delegate that power of protection of liberty to government. I may rightfully protect my property – the fruits of my labors; therefore I may allow my government to do the same for me. However, I cannot take from one man that I deem well-enough off and give what was never mine to begin with to another man I deem more deserving – this is plunder. This was never my naturally right in the first place, so how can delegate the right to plunder to government to handle when plunder was never one of my rights in the first place. So, we will never be able to hold a logical discussion about any principle of truth while entertaining the notion that it seems appropriate that the voice of the people may override natural pre-existent principles? That is ridiculous. Popularity has never been a good measure of truth and eternal principles were never up for a vote. We may collectively in society choose that which is unnatural and unholy but we are accomplishing little more than fulfilling the sad prophecies of the prophets and securing upon ourselves the destruction described by them. And so now, let’s address the third issue which is the easiest I think.
Ryan asked: “In the marketplace, is there a point when the voice of the people (i.e. the free market) can go astray?” Yes, there is. When the market participants largely cease to obey principles of free trade, the market has clearly gone astray. So how is this done? Burglary, money laundering, deceit, theft, slavery, etc. are all examples of market participants voting by their actions against law and order. If any of these activities become widespread you have anarchy and ultimate market failure. Another proper role of government is to manage and minimize troubles in markets by enforcing contracts and ensuring honest market activity, and punishing violations accordingly.
To Brohommas
You are correct. I have only posted statements that address our obvious responsibility for ourselves and our families with the included warnings about using the government as our crutch. I think the natural consequence – and I hope you agree – of every person in the world heeding the prophet’s counsel on this issue would be the elimination of every existent government subsidy program in existence. The sad thing is the world largely ignores God’s prophet. But what’s worse, the baptized disciples of God’s Church often do as well. Elder Oaks, after retelling the Parable of the Ten Virgins in a General Conference address entitled "Preparation for the Second Coming" say this: "The arithmetic of this parable is chilling [5 in 10 virgins unprepared]. The ten virgins obviously represent members of Christ’s Church, for all were invited to the wedding feast and all knew what was required to be admitted when the bridegroom came. But only half were ready when he came." The sad fact is many members, though aware of the prophets’ counsel, do not heed their counsel. You see, there are too many of us that want to be commanded in all things. They say what you have, in essence, said: "Show me where the prophet says that." Or,"I know of no such teaching." Etc. Then you show them the teaching or teach them the principle and the excuses begin to flow. Well, I could cite exhaustive sources for you. I suspect, however, that even direct quotes would be challenged somehow by those that have already made up their mind. I’ll provide one quote for illustration. But my fear is that it will be trampled underfoot.
Elder Ezra Taft Benson was ordained an Apostle of the Lord on 7 October 1943; Twenty-two years later, now a seasoned Apostle, he published an article entitled "The Proper Role of Government". I have studied this document and listened to and read many other talks and publications by Ezra Taft Benson on the subject of government. I know his teachings and counsel are wise and true. This is what he says under the heading "Things Government Should NOT Do":
"A category of government activity which, today, not only requires the closest scrutiny, but which also poses a grave danger to our continued freedom, is the activity NOT within the proper sphere of government. No one has the authority to grant such powers, as welfare programs, schemes for redistributing the wealth, and activities which coerce people into acting in accordance with a prescribed code of social planning. There is one simple test. Do I as an individual have a right to use force upon my neighbor to accomplish this goal? If I do have such a right, then I may delegate that power to my government to exercise on my behalf. If I do not have that right as an individual, then I cannot delegate it to government, and I cannot ask my government to perform the act for me."
I hope that statement clears things up on that issue. I would wonder why it wouldn’t. But the sad and hard fact is – it will be and currently is challenged, even among the membership of the Church. I now quote from Gordon B. Hinckley, he says this in a talk entitled "Loyalty":
"The Church will not dictate to any man how he should think or what he should do. The Church will point out the way and invite every member to live the gospel and enjoy the blessings that come of such living. The Church will not dictate to any man, but it will counsel, it will persuade, it will urge, and it will expect loyalty from those who profess membership therein."
In that same talk he tells a sad story of member disobedience:
"In 1933 there was a movement in the United States to overturn the law which prohibited commerce in alcoholic beverages. When it came to a vote, Utah was the deciding state.
"I was on a mission, working in London, England, when I read the newspaper headlines that screamed, "Utah Kills Prohibition."
"President Heber J. Grant, then President of this Church, had pleaded with our people against voting to nullify Prohibition. It broke his heart when so many members of the Church in this state disregarded his counsel."
I suppose that Ezra Taft Benson turns in his grave to see the membership of the Church ignore his life-long counsel to avoid and root out government entitlement programs with all the problems they cause. The implication I am making isn’t necessarily that we have some "sacred duty" to oppose social welfare programs. Rather I am simply persuaded that social welfare programs are forced philanthropy. I do not believe the means of such a system justify the end. Principles must supersede supposed pragmatism. Furthermore, I would invite you to cite any example in the scriptures where a government’s treasury is used for charity and where this practice is encouraged by scripture.
I have no qualms with the poor and needy in a hard spot. I do not argue that they brought this upon themselves, etc. – for often times they have not. Instead I try to help them through charitable giving as opposed to charitable legislating. You say what many are saying: "There are some social ills that are so wide spread and all affecting that relying on voluntary individual donors, or the simple preaching of the gospel, will not fix or help." Fair enough, but please do not accuse my views of being narrowly interpreted or narrow-minded after a statement like that. Call me faithful, label me hopeful or an optimist – but "narrow-minded" seem entirely inaccurate for following what is right and true. I believe the Gospel will cure all of these ills, and that the Gospel’s eternal truths can and one day will fill the earth. On the subject of narrow-mindedness I recommend listening to a talk by President Mark E. Petersen entitled "Tolerance" start at about 6 min. and 30 seconds into that talk for the relevant portion of the sermon on narrow-mindedness (only audio is available that I know of).
Now, I strongly invite every additional comment to include some references to scripture and/or to talks and articles by General Authorities. So far such references are lacking and therefore the arguments that are void of them are less persuasive.
For reference:
Frédéric Bastiat, a nineteenth century French Economist, who is often quoted by both Ezra Taft Benson and Cleon Skousen, has some insights that might be useful for some. Brohammas, as well as Bob and Holly have talked a lot about that which is seen. Most of us easily discern, of course, that which is seen. But it takes the peeling away of the outer layer to discover that which is not seen. An understanding of how things really are is much more useful than an understanding of how things appear. Anyway, Bastiat addressed many of these economic issues while battling the socialist sophistries of France during the first half of the nineteenth century. He, like Beethoven, was a contemporary of the Prophet Joseph Smith and therefore Frédéric Bastiat, like Ludwig Beethoven, hold a special place in my heart as I believe there was much light and knowledge that flooded their minds that pertained to their particular fields during the restorative period of the Gospel. And so, for your consideration, are some of Bastiat’s writings on the subject of "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen".
Please visit the references listed in this and previous comments and posts.Allan has also made a reference to an article in response to Bob and Holly’s comments on the subject. Here is the link to the PDF file of Emek Basker’s "The Causes and Consequences of Wal-Mart’s Growth". I hope to see some more discussion soon.
Kent,
I did not, nor would not, call you narrow minded. It was my understanding that this was a forum for religious discussion. In your retort to my post there was an assumptive tone that insinuated that to disagree with you is not only to be wrong but opposing the church.
[Please do not accuse my views of being narrowly interpreted or narrow-minded after a statement like that. Call me faithful, label me hopeful or an optimist – but "narrow-minded" seem entirely inaccurate for following what is right and true.]
This assumption that your interpretations or those that are directly in line with yours are the only possibility is not a discussion but a discourse.
I could cite exhaustive sources for you. I suspect, however, that even direct quotes would be challenged somehow by those that have already made up their mind. I’ll provide one quote for illustration. But my fear is that it will be trampled underfoot.
Do you know my views so well after two posts? Before you assume what I will do with your quotes I suggest asking questions. To argue a point from the basis of an assumption is not only, not persuasive, but very often, a waste of time. I do not entirely disagree with you and I do not ignore the brethren. I would not visit this forum were I not open to ideas and have a desire to explore both God’s word and the real, modern, and even political application of his word.
Are you open to ideas as well?
I find it interesting that you early on accuse me of needing to be commanded in all things. I do not. My request for information from an official source was not to be commanded but to find the prohibition you are purporting exists. I do not believe the Lord’s Church has told us what political views to espouse (excepting some rare issues i.e. Gay marriage and abortion etc.) You gave a great example in Pres. Benson’s writings, but a copyrighted private publication is not the same as a general conf. address or Ensign message. I again, am not looking to be commanded but rather believe that we as members have no right to teach as gospel truth, ideas that are outside the official declarations of the inspired leaders in manuals, scriptures, and declarations. You have every right to your beliefs, which may very well be inspired, and you even have the right to persuade others by appropriate means, but you do not have the green light to teach them as doctrine or insinuate as much.
We are taught principles then expected to use our minds, hearts, and the spirit to apply these principles in daily life.
After deriding my request for authoritarian information, you later ask me to provide scriptures and quotes from authorities in order to be persuasive. Are you asking to be commanded in all things?
I am not averse to providing some documentation:
Leviticus14:21 command not to glean fields but leave them for the poor
Ezekiel 16:49 Sodom and Gomorrah did not strengthen the poor
Matt 19:21, Mark 10:21, Luke 18:22 to be perfected we have to sell and give to poor
Mosiah 4 is a King telling his people to give to the poor, beggars v 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 26
Alma 1:27 happy people, judges give to the poor
Alma 5:55 rebuke for turning backs on the poor
Alma 34:28 if you withhold your substance from poor your prayer is in vain
Hel 4:12 loss in war due to oppressing poor
Mormon 8:37 Nephites love money more than the poor
D&C 42:39 consecrate riches to the poor
Moses 7:18 Zion had no poor
4Nephi 1:3 having all things in common
Shall I go on?
I'll post a comment soon. I've had a really busy week.
Alright. So I don't have a lot of time to respond. I will simply say this. Socialism is evil. The forced redistribution of wealth is morally wrong. It is plunder at its heart. The scriptures have never taught, nor do they suggest, that it is in government's role to redistribute wealth by compulsory means. Anyone who teaches socialism as a principle of truth is out of line, and certainly that person is out of touch with sound Gospel Principles. To mingle this wicked philosophy with sacred scripture is, in my estimation, a dangerous course. I hope a lengthy quote will suffice. It is again given by Ezra Taft Benson. As the previous quote I posted was discarded as not authoritative (as I suspected it would be - and as if to philosophize about these things is thought to be a better and more authoritative method than heeding the words of a wise and inspired prophet) I will say that this was Ezra Taft Benson speaking as an Apostle of our Lord, on His errand. His talk is entitled (and I think the title is significant): “A Vision and a Hope for the Youth of Zion”. For, in my experience, it is those that are young and inexperienced “that think they are wise” - these are they that have trouble “hearkening unto the counsels of God, for they set it aside, thinking they know of themselves. Wherefore, there wisdom is foolishness and profiteth them not…” Well, for those under 30, here it is. A Vision and a Hope for the youth of Zion (get comfortable, it’s a long one):
Socialism Disguised under Welfare State Measures
As citizens of this noble land, we have marched a long way down the soul-destroying road of socialism. If you question that statement, consider the recent testimonial from the Nobel prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman. He indicated that government spending in the United States at all levels amounts to over forty percent of today's total national income. If we continue to follow the trend in which we are heading today, two things will inevitably result: first, a loss of our personal freedom, and second, financial bankruptcy. This is the price we pay when we turn away from God and the principles which he has taught and turn to government to do everything for us. It is the formula by which nations become enslaved.
This nation was established by the God of heaven as a citadel of liberty. A constitution guaranteeing those liberties was designed under the superintending influence of heaven. I have recounted here before what took place in the St. George Temple when the Founding Fathers of this nation visited President Wilford Woodruff, who was then a member of the Twelve and not president of the Church. The republic which was established was the most nearly perfect system which could have been devised to lead men toward celestial principles. We may liken our system to the law of Moses which leads men to the higher law of Christ.
Today, two hundred years later, we must sadly observe that we have significantly departed from the principles established by the founders of our country. James Madison opposed the proposal to put Congress in the role of promoting the general welfare according to its whims in these words:
If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasure; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor. . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for [and it was an issue then], it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America. [quoted in Donald L. Newquist, Prophets, Principles, and National Survival, p. 342]
That statement, given as a warning, has proved prophetic. Today Congress is doing what Madison warned about. Many are now advocating that which has become a general practice since the early 1930s: a redistribution of wealth through the federal tax system. That, by definition, is socialism!
Americans have always been committed to taking care of the poor, aged, and unemployed. We have done this on the basis of Judaic-Christian beliefs and humanitarian principles. It has been fundamental to our way of life that charity must be voluntary if it is to be charity. Compulsory benevolence is not charity. Today's socialists--who call themselves egalitarians--are using the federal government to redistribute wealth in our society, not as a matter of voluntary charity, but as a so-called matter of right. One HEW official said recently, "In this country, welfare is no longer charity, it is a right. More and more Americans feel that their government owes them something" (U.S. News and World Report, April 21, 1975, p. 49). President Grover Cleveland said--and we believe as a people--that though the people support the government the government should not support the people.
The chief weapon used by the federal government to achieve this "equality" is the system of transfer payments. This means that the federal governments collects from one income group and transfer payments to another by the tax system. These payments are made in the form of social security benefits, Medicare and Medicaid, and food stamps, to name a few. Today the cost of such programs has been going in the hole at the rate of 12 billion dollars a year; and, with increased benefits and greater numbers of recipients, even though the tax base has been increased we will have larger deficits in the future.
Today the party now in power is advocating and has support, apparently in both major parties, for a comprehensive national health insurance program--a euphemism for socialized medicine. Our major danger is that we are currently (and have been for forty years) transferring responsibility from the individual, local, and state governments to the federal government--precisely the same course that led to the economic collapse in Great Britain and New York City. We cannot long pursue the present trend without its bringing us to national insolvency.
Edmund Burke, the great British political philosopher, warned of the threat of economic equality. He said,
A perfect equality will indeed be produced--that is to say, equal wretchedness, equal beggary, and on the part of the petitioners, a woeful, helpless, and desperate disappointment. Such is the event of all compulsory equalizations. They pull down what is above; they never raise what is below; and they depress high and low together beneath the level of what was originally the lowest.
Are we part of the problem or part of the solution?
Recently a letter came to my office, accompanied by an article from your Daily Universe, on the matter of BYU students taking food stamps. The query of the letter was: "What is the attitude of the Church on taking food stamps?" The Church's view on this is well known. We stand for independence, thrift, and abolition of the dole. This was emphasized in the Saturday morning welfare meeting of general conference. "The aim of the Church is to help the people to help themselves. Work is to be re-enthroned as the ruling principle of the lives of our Church membership" (Heber J. Grant, Conference Report, October 1936, p. 3).
When you accept food stamps, you accept an unearned handout that other working people are paying for. You do not earn food stamps or welfare payments. Every individual who accepts an unearned government gratuity is just as morally culpable as the individual who takes a handout from taxpayers' money to pay his heat, electricity, or rent. There is no difference in principle between them. You did not come to this University to become a welfare recipient. You came here to be a light to the world, a light to society--to save society and to help to save this nation, the Lord's base of operations in these latter days, to ameliorate man's social conditions. You are not here to be a parasite or freeloader. The price you pay for "something for nothing" may be more than you can afford. Do not rationalize your acceptance of government gratuities by saying, "I am a contributing taxpayer too." By doing this you contribute to the problem which is leading this nation to financial insolvency.
Society may rationalize immorality, but God cannot condone it. Society sponsors Sabbathbreaking, but the Church counsels otherwise. Society profanes the name of Deity, but Latter-day Saints cannot countenance it. Because society condones a dole, which demoralizes man and weakens his God-given initiative and character, can we?
I know what it is, as many of your faculty members do, to work my way through school, taking classes only during winter quarters. If you don't have the finances to complete your education, drop out a semester and go to work and save. You'll be a better man or woman for so doing. You will have preserved your self-respect and initiative. Wisdom comes with experience and struggle, not just with going through a university matriculation. I hope you will not be deceived by current philosophies which will rob you of your godly dignity, self-respect, and initiative, those attributes that make a celestial inheritance possible. It is in that interest, and that only, that I have spoken so plainly to you.
Brohammas
You cited many scriptures - very good passages on the subject of providing care and relief to the poor and widows, etc. I have a testimony of these principles, as I know you do. I know I must strive better to live the hard principle of charity and service. However, none of the passages you quoted suggest it is government's purpose or role to mete out welfare. I think there is something very wrong with the whole idea of government's involvement with charity. And I worry that you are interpreting those passages as evidence to support government programs designed to redistribute wealth.
Furthermore, it seems to me that your last comment was more an argument towards me, than a defense of your position. Discussion and debate is healthy. At least, it has been for me. Please, take no offense. I present the evidence for my convictions on these matters, and I invite you and all others to present yours just the same. But let us not let the debate become what this presidential race has become - personal, etc.
You asked if you should go on listing scriptures. I wish you would, but let's save it, instead, for a more appropriate weblog - This one isn't simply about charity (of which your list references very well). Rather, it is about the government's responsibility for charity. I believe, as is obvious, that the government is not to become a charity (it is wrong and dangerous). You disagree with me, it seems, and feel it is appropriate and you support that direction. Here's what our Prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, has said from the pulpit during General Conference on the matter (he even uses one of your scriptures - Mosiah 4:26):
"Appearing as a golden thread woven through the tapestry of the welfare program is the truth taught by the Apostle Paul: “The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” (2 Cor. 3:6.)
"President Ezra Taft Benson frequently counsels us: “Remember, Brethren, in this work it is the Spirit that counts.”
"What has the Lord said about the spirit of this work? In a revelation given to the Prophet Joseph at Kirtland, Ohio, in June of 1831, He declared: “Remember in all things the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted, for he that doeth not these things, the same is not my disciple.” (D&C 52:40.)
"In that marvelous message delivered by King Benjamin, as recorded in the Book of Mormon, we read: “For the sake of retaining a remission of your sins from day to day, that ye may walk guiltless before God—I would that ye should impart of your substance to the poor, every man according to that which he hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally.” (Mosiah 4:26.)
"When we depart from the Lord’s way in caring for the poor, chaos comes. Said John Goodman, president of the National Center for Political Analysis, as reported this year in a Dallas, Texas, newspaper:
"“The USA’s welfare system is a disaster. It is creating poverty, not destroying it. It subsidizes divorce, unwed teenage pregnancy, the abandonment of elderly parents by their children, and the wholesale dissolution of the family. The reason? We pay people to be poor. Private charities have always been better at providing relief where it is truly needed.”
"In 1982 it was my privilege to serve as a member of President Ronald Reagan’s Task Force on Private Sector Initiatives. Meeting in the White House with prominent leaders assembled from throughout the nation, President Reagan paid tribute to the welfare program of the Church. He observed: “Elder Monson is here representing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If, during the period of the Great Depression, every church had come forth with a welfare program founded on correct principles as his church did, we would not be in the difficulty in which we find ourselves today.” President Reagan praised self-sufficiency; lauded our storehouse, production, and distribution system; and emphasized family members assisting one another. He urged that in our need we turn not to government but rather to ourselves."
I hope this clears up his position. Ezra Taft Benson, Marion G. Romney, J. Reuben Clark, Thomas S. Monson, David B. Haight, Neil A. Maxwell, L. Tom Perry and several of the Seventy have - as I have studied their words and felt the confirming Spirit about these principles - persuaded me that, though it is a personal matter, it is inappropriate to participate in government programs designed to redistribute the wealth of its citizens. Furthermore, I am convinced it is inappropriate to support the perpetuation of these schemes (as Ezra Taft Benson frequently calls them) - they are designed by the Devil to enslave, not liberate, its participants. Let's be careful about these issues. For me, the message is clear – work hard and honestly, live basically, get out of debt, obtain food storage, seek help from family when needed, and participate in the Church Welfare Program when family cannot help. This is the standard I try to live by. For me, government assistance is simply not an option.
I look forward to more discussion.
This is a highly academic argument here, the reality is that the Church counsels employment and welfare specialists and bishops to use whatever public and government resources at their dispossal to help members in need.
"A certain retail store (for this discussion I will refer to it as "Megalomart") has a very high net profit. When that is divided by the number of employees in the company, we see that each employee is responsible for well over one million dollars a year. A majority of these employees make close to minimum wage."
That is ridiculous. Your numbers are off by two orders of magnitude. According to Fortune/CNN, in 2005 Walmart had profits of 11231.0 million dollars while employing 1.8 million people. That is a net profit of $6239 per employee.
To make a million dollars per employee, Walmart would have to have net profits of 1.8 trillion dollars - 160 times more - on sales a healthy multiple of the net revenues of the federal government (2.6 trillion in 2008).
See http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2006/snapshots/1551.html
Alaris - "Lord of the Seraphim" - his real identity.
DOB 4/4/1977
Ryan Page Hutchings
4076 Claxton Ave, Gilbert, AZ 85297
ryanphutchings@hotmail.com
Missionary in Texas Forth Worth Mission
Divorced at least once
Wife, one older brother, two older sisters, and mother live in Gilbert
Father - Alan
Mother maiden name - Linda Katchner
Wife - Rachel Ann (nee Jones)
Raised in Northern California
Excommunicated in 2015(?)
May have recently filed for bankruptcy (2:20-bk-03918)
As of 31 AUG 2020, ward is Meadowview Ward, Gilbert AZ Gateway stake
https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCDvjXkTt_8ljOeosNl6Zjvw
Post a Comment