Is it morally right to accept government benefits?

[creator]

Is it morally right to accept government benefits?

I decided to stem this off from this discussion about Ayn Rand taking government benefits at the end of her life.

I think that most of us, if not all, would agree that all socialistic government welfare programs, social security, medicare/medicaid, etc should be ended. Ezra Taft Benson believed that it could and should be done gradually, and that "the bulk of the transition could be accomplished within a ten-year period and virtually completed within twenty years." Unfortunately, we're not even close to having a righteous enough society/government to even begin the phasing out process.

So what is the morally right thing to do?
- Refuse any government benefits, despite the fact that we have been forced to pay taxes on those programs, and paid specifically into social security, medicare, etc?
- Receive benefits from only those government services that we have specifically been forced to pay into? (i.e. security, unemployment (via our employer) medicare)
- Get whatever handouts we can, while we still can!

What about unemployment benefits? It's received from the government, but was paid by your employer.
What about 'Public School'?
Social Security?

Is there a clear cut line where it might be considering good vs bad? or is it all bad? or all good?

Maybe the deciding question would be, What is principle (or principles) that will lead us to the answer?

[ChelC]

IMO, it's take only what you need to take. You're forced into this system, no sense in punishing yourself. It's dirty money, though.

I also believe we should be actively trying to change the system. That's a topic in and of itself. I don't think we change it with political involvement (used to think so). I think we change it through missionary work and repentance. We build up charities, we help our families, we lead by example.

But when we're forced into a system, we live in it and try not to get dirty.

[Jason]

The actual money itself is dirty via the injection method! I don't see a clear cut line....there's everything from education grants to food stamps. I think you live with your conscience....whatever that means to whomever happens to be looking in the mirror.

But its comical so many people upset about one aspect of the system while taking a handout, aid, stimulus, grant, etc from another aspect. Like ranting about food stamps while you collect a 6 figure salary working for the government or a social economic aid program or getting an education via government....etc etc etc etc.

[fps.sledge]

I have been personally torn with this idea having entered college this past year. Apparently the Universities (atleast UVU said this) are requiring students to file a FAFSA (Federal Application for Financial Student Aid) whether or not you want the money. Meaning, the applicants financial situation (primarily tax info) and their parents (if applicable) must be sent to the government. Once they process the FAFSA application, they will tell you how much grant money you will be given. From there you will have to pay the rest of tuition on your own.

I procrastinated a few months before filing my FAFSA trying to decide what I needed to do. I ultimately believe that is it morally wrong. However, 1 - I am paying into the system (or parents) or I will be paying into it, and 2 - If enough people are willing to pay for my career investment, so be it.

Regardless of the lies and deception that politicians use to keep themselves in office, it is ultimately the responsibility of the people to elect wise people to represent them. Enough people in the country believe in this social system. It may just be necessary to let the system ride out and collapse in due time (which is inevitable, I believe). I am quick to answer neighbors questions who ask "How are you paying for college?". I respond "You are paying for my college. And I'm not quite sure what I want to do so I might just be wasting your money." People need to be made aware of this ridiculous investment.

My father has repeatedly told me "The government has taken so much from myself and our family, you deserve every penny you can get back from them." This is quite conditional as most people havn't been through was he has or my family has, as far as government persecution.

When I came across an individual who I knew stole from me and I found part of my property that I knew to be my own, I had no problem taking it back even without their knowing. I was mine.

When all that said. I will admit, I am not comfortable with the system. I do feel a little dirty taking the money (which is actually directly paid to the university). But the system is set in place. My thoughts are led to a passage I came across recently - Mosiah 4:28 "...whosoever among you borroweth of his neighbor should return the thing that he borroweth, according as he doth agree, or else thou shalt commit sin; and perhaps thou shalt cause thy neighbor to commit sin also."

Perhaps one day I will rise higher than where I currently stand and decide to pay my own way so I am not let to accept the money either.

[creator]

I like Connor Boyack's article on this topic... food for thought:

It’s Not Your Money: The Perpetual Ponzi Scheme of Socialism

[Mahonri]

http://www.ldsliberty.org/the-coming-ap ... ervatives/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Throughout time the Lord has caused Gospel principles to be discontinued when the general body of the Church rejects these teachings. A similar fate may soon occur to the principles of agency and freedom…

Latter-day Saints, in general, appear to be rejecting the principles of agency and freedom. This rejection may slowly be causing a change in the official position of the church – similar to what happened during the time of Samuel in ancient Israel. If this change continues to the point where the Church officially rejects the principles of liberty, those who continue to defend these principles could be at risk of a similar fate as those who continued to defend other principles that are no longer the official position of the Church – complete apostasy and excommunication. While there is still time, we, as LDS liberty-lovers, must continue to labor in advancing the cause of liberty so this day of apostasy never is realized.

Over the years I have heard many times the murmuring comments, “Why don’t the Brethren speak as much about the Constitution as they used to?”, “Why aren’t the Brethren as bold as they once were on the principles of freedom?” or some variety of the same intent. I have always felt that this was basically just whining from people that thought they could deliver the message better than the servant of the Lord and basically nonsense.

This complaint is not new, has been around for at least 43 years, and our Church leaders have dismissed it as a lie from Satan.

“‘We really haven’t received much instruction about freedom,’ the devil says. This is a lie, for we have been warned time and again…” Ezra Taft Benson, General Conference April 1965

We continue to this day to be warned regarding our duty to preserve freedom and the US Constitution. In February of 2006, an Ensign article written by a General Authority of the Church taught us “What a sacred privilege and responsibility is ours to participate with other like-minded people to ensure that basic freedoms are preserved wherever we reside.” Shirley D. Christensen, “‘I, the Lord God, Make You Free’,” Ensign, Feb 2006

The admonition to defend freedom did not stop there as we can see from this video produced in December of 2007 called, “Why is it important for Church members to participate in the political process?” In the video, Elder Ballard says, “The very fundamental principle of freedom is absolutely essential for the Gospel of Jesus Christ to prosper… (T)hat principle of sustaining the Constitution… is a very, very important principle and has been taught since the very beginning in the history of our Church.”

And finally this year (2008), in the October General Conference, President Boyd K Packer teaches us the vital lesson that the Lord “established the Constitution of this land”.

That is three years, three consecutive years of Apostles and General Authorities of the Church speaking boldly regarding the Heavenly nature of the Constitution and our duty to it! President Benson is right; it is a lie from Lucifer himself to say that we have not received much instruction about freedom.

That being said, this author believes if the Elders of Israel do not repent and act now, teaching those statements of the General Authorities above in the future will be tantamount to apostasy. Sound crazy? Let me explain.

In a talk helping members of the Church to gain a greater understanding of Church Welfare services, President Marion G. Romney started out teaching the principle of agency. President Romney stated that, “Agency, (n)ext to life itself, it is man’s most precious inheritance” President Romney then relates the two subjects together and says, “I suggest we consider what has happened to our agency with respect to contributing to the means used by the bureaucracy in administering government welfare services.”

After explaining how the Church welfare program protects agency, he quotes President Clark who explains how the destruction of agency and the family are the end result of Satan’s fraud, “You must remember that back and behind this whole propaganda of ‘pensions’, gratuities, and doles to which we are now being subjected, is the idea of setting up in America, a socialistic or communistic state, in which the family would disappear, religion would be prescribed and controlled by the state, and we should all become mere creatures of the state, ruled over by ambitious and designing men.” (General Conference April 1976)

In a General Conference talk given by then Howard W. Hunter, linking the dangers to our agency to the dole, he said “We are to be free from dependence upon a dole or any program that might endanger our free agency.” (General Conference October 1975)

He gave an explanation of this by saying, “Personal unrighteousness can lead toward a welfare state. What is the real cause of this trend toward the welfare state, toward more socialism? In the last analysis, in my judgment, it is personal unrighteousness. When people do not use their freedoms responsibly and righteously, they will gradually lose these freedoms. If man will not recognize the inequalities around him and voluntarily, through the gospel plan, come to the aid of his brother, he will find that through “a democratic process” he will be forced to come to the aid of his brother. The government will take from the “haves” and give to the “have nots.” Both have lost their freedom. Those who “have,” lost their freedom to give voluntarily of their own free will and in the way they desire. Those who “have not,” lost their freedom because they did not earn what they received. They got “something for nothing,” and they will neither appreciate the gift nor the giver of the gift. Under this climate, people gradually become blind to what has happened and to the vital freedoms which they have lost.” (Howard W. Hunter, The Teachings of Howard W. Hunter, edited by Clyde J. Williams [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997], 169.)

Compulsion and slavery are Satan’s alternative to the Savior’s program of agency and independence and the Brethren have stated that government welfare affects our agency. Just as Satan set up his imitation of agency, the Brethren have also stated Satan set up his imitation for caring for the poor.

In addition to the above statements condemning government welfare, Social Security was also specifically condemned by at least one Prophet in General Conference:

“I have had some of the most insulting letters that ever came to me, condemning me for not being in favor of the Townsend Plan (original name of Social Security), and that I must be ignorant of the plan. I am not ignorant of the plan… it is in direct opposition to everything I have quoted from Brigham Young and from the revelations of the Lord.” – Heber J. Grant, General Conference Oct 1936

With the Brethren pointing out the fact that the counterfeit the world has set up to care for the poor and needy is a false alternative that takes away our agency and destroys the family, it is no wonder they have made such statements as these:

“Occasionally, we receive questions as to the propriety of Church members receiving government assistance instead of Church assistance. Let me restate what is a fundamental principle. Individuals, to the extent possible, should provide for their own needs. Where the individual is unable to care for himself, his family should assist. Where the family is not able to provide, the Church should render assistance, not the government.” (Elder Ezra Taft Benson General Conference April 1977)

And finally, this last General Conference (Oct 2008), Bishop Keith B. McMullin quoting President Monson said, “Welfare principles . . . do not change. They will not change. They are revealed truths.”

It seems pretty clear right? It is a principle that government welfare takes away the agency of the giver and the receiver, destroys the family unit, and leads to the government controlling the Church. For that reason we are not to receive welfare assistance from the government, and these welfare principles do not change… or do they?

Speaking to an Area Authority that will remain anonymous, I was made aware that a member of the Twelve Apostles (which I will not name) was in charge of and approved the following text from official manuals of the Church:

“In some instances, individual members may decide to receive assistance from other sources, including government.” -Handbook of Instructions & the booklet, Providing in the Lord’s Way

“Government welfare agencies should be contacted only if the Church is unable to help us in the ways we need help.” -Lesson 12: The Father’s Responsibilities for the Welfare of His Family, Duties and Blessings of the Priesthood: Basic Manual for Priesthood Holders, Part A,

“Members may choose to use services in the community to meet their basic needs. Such services include hospitals, physicians, or other sources of medical care” -Handbook of Instructions & the booklet, Providing in the Lord’s way

My last example, the “Managing Household Finances Wisely” course on the Church’s website, ProvidentLiving.org, encourages the use of the government welfare program/Ponzi scheme called Social Security -http://www.providentliving.org/media/tr ... /main.html

These “changes” sound rather innocuous I admit, but under the direction of this same unnamed Apostle, these statements are to be interpreted by local authorities as a recommendation to tell members to seek government welfare assistance. Additionally, much more bold language in favor of government welfare is used by local authorities all over the world.

So what? Who cares if there has been a “toning down” of what members are being told regarding government welfare? Well, there are a few ramifications that I would like to submit:

1. Either past and current Prophets were wrong in regards to what happens when people use government welfare or our current leaders are telling us do something that will, at the absolute minimum, take away the agency of all involved, destroy the family unit, and lead to the government controlling the Church.

2. If “Latter-day conservatives” promote or share the position of supporting agency, they are in opposition to the official position of the Church as found in its manuals and General Handbook of Instructions.

3. The admonitions of Elder Ballard to “sustain the Constitution” and President John Taylor (among scores of others) to, “Perpetuate… the free agency of man” are now invalid since Federal welfare is a violation of the US Constitution and violates the agency of man and we are now advised to take part in those programs.

I ask you, what happens to members of the Church that advocate other principles of the Gospel that are now against the official position of the Church? Will advocates of agency share the same fate?

I believe and submit to you, without exception (to my knowledge), that all principles of the Gospel revealed since the restoration that have been discontinued is the result of what is commonly referred to as “The Samuel Principle”. In the Old Testament, we read the account of how the majority of God’s chosen people rejected the Lord’s council en mass. For generations they were ruled under a system of judges, not drastically unlike our Constitutional Republic. Then, because it was “too much effort” for them to keep their judges in check, they wanted to replace it with one where they wouldn’t have to do anything in regards to their government. Just like the other nations of the world, they would have a king.

“Then the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, and said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways; now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.’ But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, ‘Give us a king to judge us.’ And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.” (1 Samuel 8:4–7)

Time does not permit me to give sufficient examples of how this applies to the principle of agency and government welfare, so I will limit it to just one more. In October of 2007, Nevada Senator and member of the Church, Harry Reid, had this to say about teachings of the Prophets in regards to agency and government welfare:

“(T)hese people have taken members of the church down the path that is the wrong path.”

With this and the statements recounted above by President Grant, among many other easily available examples, we see that there is a pattern of the people rejecting the revealed word of God on the matter, and as in ancient times, I am concerned that we are rejecting the Lord which means He cannot reign over us.

So what do we do? To escape the promised consequences of rejecting the Lord, we must repent. We must stop receiving government welfare, we must stop demanding government welfare, we must increase our fast offerings, and we must educate others and encourage them to take the same action. We must recognize as Howard W Hunter said that, “When people do not use their freedoms responsibly and righteously, they will gradually lose these freedoms. If man will not recognize the inequalities around him and voluntarily, through the gospel plan, come to the aid of his brother, he will find that through “a democratic process” he will be forced to come to the aid of his brother… (and) (b)oth have lost their freedom.” (Howard W. Hunter, The Teachings of Howard W. Hunter, edited by Clyde J. Williams [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997], 169.) We must do as President Hinckley said, “If we are to build that Zion of which the prophets have spoken and of which the Lord has given mighty promise, we must set aside our consuming selfishness. We must rise above our love for comfort and ease, and in the very process of effort and struggle, even in our extremity, we shall become better acquainted with our God.” (General Conference, Oct. 1991).

[creator]

...Apparently the Universities (at least UVU said this) are requiring students to file a FAFSA (Federal Application for Financial Student Aid) whether or not you want the money...

I highly doubt that. Do you have any proof of it being a requirement?

[ChelC]

I think the most important thing you said, Mohonri, is that we need to increase our fast offerings. I believe the welfare agenda has exploited the needy and caused more of them to exist, but we'd be less likely to be under this condemnation if we'd taken greater care to support our neighbors.

[gkearney]

This is a kind of silly thing really let's carry it out to it logical conciliation shall we?

No use of any form of public education.
No use of public transportation.
No use of the streets, road or your American interstate highway system.
No use of airlines (who pays for the building of airports, who runs the air traffic control sytem.)
No use of public parks, local state or national.
No use of public water and sewer systems. (if you think your water fees has paid for all that infrastructure think again.)
No use of land planning (yes this means that someone could put a strip joint next the the temple!)
No one will come and plow your street in the winter, fix to pot hole in the road, pick up the trash, or put out fires.
No public heath services, decease just runs rampant.
No public libraries.
No port facilities, no Coast Guard, aids to navigation, lighthouses, etc.
No environmental protection, your neighbour can dump whatever he like into air, water and soil.
No public infrastructure of any kind, sidewalks, streetlights, stoplights, EMTs.
No weather service, tropical storms will just arrive with little or no notice.

I think you can see where this is going.

[Mahonri]

as usual kearney, you set up straw men you can tare down, while ignoring the words of the Prophets. good luck with that

[Mahonri]

This is a kind of silly thing really let's carry it out to it logical conciliation shall we?

No use of any form of public education. good, as it should be
No use of public transportation. good, as it should be
No use of the streets, road or your American interstate highway system. straw man
No use of airlines (who pays for the building of airports, who runs the air traffic control sytem.)straw man
No use of public parks, local state or national. good, those shouldn't even exist
No use of public water and sewer systems. (if you think your water fees has paid for all that infrastructure think again.)mixture of a straw man along with the fact that they shouldn't exist
No use of land planning (yes this means that someone could put a strip joint next the the temple!)good, as it should be
No one will come and plow your street in the winter, fix to pot hole in the road, pick up the trash, or put out fires.straw man
No public heath services, decease just runs rampant.good, as it should be/straw man
No public libraries.good, as it should be
No port facilities, no Coast Guard, aids to navigation, lighthouses, etc.straw man
No environmental protection, your neighbour can dump whatever he like into air, water and soil.good, as it should be/straw man
No public infrastructure of any kind, sidewalks, streetlights, stoplights, EMTs.straw man
No weather service, tropical storms will just arrive with little or no notice.straw man

I think you can see where this is going.

[gooseguy11]

While I do it with much consternation I feel it is okay to accept government handouts, as the need arises. However I feel it is beholden upon the individual to govern themselves, and not rely on the public dole. We all agree there are some public services that are required for a civil society. Where that line is ultimately depends upon the people itself. I do have to put the caveat that I feel they should only be provided if the majority of the public supports them, and that they are fully funded. I think it is criminal to use debit budget to finance it.

[gkearney]

Dismissing arguments as "straw man" is in fact a straw man is it not? You need to explain why they are straw men and not just thrown the term out in a feeble attempt to shut down the discussion.

So you have no issue with your neighbour dumping whatever he like into the air you breath and the water you drink?

My wife is blind. Are you ready to stand before her and tell her that she must be isolated in her home unable to travel about independently just so greedy little you does not have to support a public transit system? What would Jesus do? How would he respond to your view that the poor, the disabled, the elderly should just be cast aside as so much human waste? Are we really all just islands with no responsibility for the public good? Your nothing more than a social Darwinist who believe in survival of the fittest. A wolf in sheep's clothing who is willing to see the least among us cast into a pit of hopelessness and despair so you can keep some of you filthy lucre.

Show me where any prophet has said there should be no libraries, no public health system, no parks, no public infrastructure of any kind. From the very first day the saints arrived in the Salt Lake Valley they set about building and supporting public infrastructure. Built for and supported by the public both members an non-members. Every conference the saints are reminded to use the public transit system to come and go to conference so as to avoid traffic. I have NEVER heard the Prophet or any other church leader EVER tell the members they should not use public transpiration. I dare you to produce such a statement that members of the church should not use public transportation.

You want to live in some sort of libertarian fairy land where no one has any collective responsibility for the betterment of the whole. Further more your willing to twist the word of the Prophets to meet your own twisted agenda a distorted place where the strong rule over the weak, where human decency is cast aside and where civilisation is reduced to the jungle.

When Christ commanded to feed to poor and look after the widow and orphans he did not exempt civil society for that charge. Nor will I.

I know these word are hard and will likely get me banned from these forums but someone has to say them.

[Mahonri]

already did.

also, read all of H Verlan Andersons books that give substantial background on all of this from the words of the Prophets. read ETB "The Proper Role of Government" and all of the talks in the quotes in the article above.

the stuff you refer to when the Pioneers first got here was under the auspices of the Kingdom of God, under religious covenant, not force and satanic government coercion.

Roads are in the Constitution, all the other stuff you mention has been condemed

[Jason]

I have been personally torn with this idea having entered college this past year. Apparently the Universities (atleast UVU said this) are requiring students to file a FAFSA (Federal Application for Financial Student Aid) whether or not you want the money. Meaning, the applicants financial situation (primarily tax info) and their parents (if applicable) must be sent to the government. Once they process the FAFSA application, they will tell you how much grant money you will be given. From there you will have to pay the rest of tuition on your own.

I procrastinated a few months before filing my FAFSA trying to decide what I needed to do. I ultimately believe that is it morally wrong. However, 1 - I am paying into the system (or parents) or I will be paying into it, and 2 - If enough people are willing to pay for my career investment, so be it.

Regardless of the lies and deception that politicians use to keep themselves in office, it is ultimately the responsibility of the people to elect wise people to represent them. Enough people in the country believe in this social system. It may just be necessary to let the system ride out and collapse in due time (which is inevitable, I believe). I am quick to answer neighbors questions who ask "How are you paying for college?". I respond "You are paying for my college. And I'm not quite sure what I want to do so I might just be wasting your money." People need to be made aware of this ridiculous investment.

My father has repeatedly told me "The government has taken so much from myself and our family, you deserve every penny you can get back from them." This is quite conditional as most people havn't been through was he has or my family has, as far as government persecution.

When I came across an individual who I knew stole from me and I found part of my property that I knew to be my own, I had no problem taking it back even without their knowing. I was mine.

When all that said. I will admit, I am not comfortable with the system. I do feel a little dirty taking the money (which is actually directly paid to the university). But the system is set in place. My thoughts are led to a passage I came across recently - Mosiah 4:28 "...whosoever among you borroweth of his neighbor should return the thing that he borroweth, according as he doth agree, or else thou shalt commit sin; and perhaps thou shalt cause thy neighbor to commit sin also."

Perhaps one day I will rise higher than where I currently stand and decide to pay my own way so I am not let to accept the money either.

At this point in the game everyone is on the dole in one form or another.....in fact many that preach here and get on the soapbox about it would race off in a heartbeat to take a job that doubles or triples their income with taxpayer dollars. Its the reality of the system we currently play in.

Even if you turned down the financial aid....a portion of your education cost is still borne by the government through handouts directly to the school. You could go to a private school like University of Phoenix and pay a fortune for your schooling only to find out they are on the dole also. These chains have been forged over a century.

12 April 1945: Roosevelt dies in office. Elder Joseph Fielding Smith writes, “there are some of us who have felt that it is really an act of providence.” President J. Reuben Clark Jr. quips, “The Lord gave the people of the United States four elections in order to get rid of him, that they failed to do so in these four elections, so He held an election of His own and cast one vote, and then took him away.”

(After FDR was elected on a platform that included the repeal of Prohibition), George Albert Smith scoffs, “The attitudes of the President of the United States and his wife toward the use of liquor has acted like an invitation to many heretofore temperate people to become guzzlers.”

Church President Heber J. Grant was vocal in his disapproval of the policies of the thirty-second President, especially after the death of his pro-Roosevelt first counselor, Anthony B. Ivins, in September 1934. He would often become upset when discussing FDR, and in one heated discussions slammed his cane on the desk of Franklin J. Murdock, shattering the glass desktop in his anti-Roosevelt fury. It comes as no surprise, then, that in the election of 1936, President Grant openly endorsed the Republican candidate for President, Alf Landon. However, he pointed out that he was speaking for himself and not for the Church…As the 1936 election drew near, an unsigned, front-page editorial in the Church-owned Deseret News accused FDR of knowingly promoting unconstitutional laws and advocating Communism…Former First Presidency member Marion G. Romney, a staunch Democrat committed to vote for Roosevelt, was deeply torn…After fasting and three hours of prayer Marion concluded that the editorial was inspired and given through the Lord’s prophet. He then reversed his political loyalties and labored to dissuade his friends from voting for Roosevelt.”

In 1940, the General Authorities once again drafted a joint anti-Roosevelt statement. Yet despite all of the anti-Roosevelt sentiment against FDR, he carried Utah all four times he ran, increasing his total each election, a result that left President Grant “dumbfounded.” President Grant regarded the support for FDR as “one of the most serious conditions that has confronted me since I became President of the Church.”

It is worth pointing out that several Church leaders, including Ivins, Stephen L. Richards, B.H. Roberts and Presiding Bishop Sylvester Q. Cannon generally supported FDR.

Given the concern about political neutrality in the Church these days, I found this historical information fascinating. Can you imagine the uproar if President Hinckley openly opposed a presidential candidate in the 2008 election? Leave aside the IRS issues, just imagine the controversy among Church members.

http://www.millennialstar.org/heber-j-grant-and-fdr/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Utah farmers voted with their pocket books. Reality is it isn't right....but it is what it is for better or worse.

I'm not recommending one choice over another.....you do what you have to do to live with the man in the mirror. That said, don't let anyone put any guilt trips on you because truth be known....they've voted with their pocket books a time or two themselves.

[wolfman]

You'll make your own head spin trying to understand our tax system. I just wrote a check today to the Utah State Tax Commission for $1,317. That was above and beyond what was already withheld through payroll deduction.

Utah loves to claim they are conservative yet we are in the top 10 states for highest taxes. "Liberal" Washington has NO state income tax whatsoever.

Last year I got all of my federal witholdings back plus some. According to the church it is my moral responsibility to file my income taxes, and in so doing money gets taken from person X and given to person Y.

The whole system is screwed up I just play the game: I personally hope 1/2 of my tax money went towards anti-tobacco ads, and the other 1/2 went towards subsidizing tobacco farms

[Jason]

You'll make your own head spin trying to understand our tax system. I just wrote a check today to the Utah State Tax Commission for $1,317. That was above and beyond what was already withheld through payroll deduction.

Utah loves to claim they are conservative yet we are in the top 10 states for highest taxes. "Liberal" Washington has NO state income tax whatsoever.

Last year I got all of my federal witholdings back plus some. According to the church it is my moral responsibility to file my income taxes, and in so doing money gets taken from person X and given to person Y.

The whole system is screwed up I just play the game: I personally hope 1/2 of my tax money went towards anti-tobacco ads, and the other 1/2 went towards subsidizing tobacco farms

Wrote a check today for $438 and change for law enforcement. Sales tax revenue is down so now they just add another tax....last year they said it was a one time shot. This year they said it would stay in place until sales tax revenue came back. Since we've passed the debt saturation point....that will never happen!

Enjoy the ride....its going to get a little bumpy!

[Mahonri]

.you do what you have to do to live with the man in the mirror.

[patriotsaint]

So you have no issue with your neighbour dumping whatever he like into the air you breath and the water you drink?

This is entirely a different matter than public benefits. If someone causes harm or damage, then reparation should be made. This is a strawman because it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion of government benefits.

My wife is blind. Are you ready to stand before her and tell her that she must be isolated in her home unable to travel about independently just so greedy little you does not have to support a public transit system? What would Jesus do? How would he respond to your view that the poor, the disabled, the elderly should just be cast aside as so much human waste? Are we really all just islands with no responsibility for the public good? Your nothing more than a social Darwinist who believe in survival of the fittest. A wolf in sheep's clothing who is willing to see the least among us cast into a pit of hopelessness and despair so you can keep some of you filthy lucre.

Mahonri has never said that the poor, disabled and elderly should be cast aside as waste. The principle of agency dictates that these individuals are to be taken care of VOLUNTARILY through private donations and charity. We have a responsibility to care for others, the scriptures make that clear. However, your wife's needs do not give you the right to rob me of the fruits of my labor in the name of making the world a better place. Forcing someone to pay for the charitable benefits of another through taxation is a usurpation of agency and a terrible evil. Robbery when carried out by a collective is still robbery. You ask what would Jesus do? He would teach correct principles and encourage people to do the right thing, never force them.

You want to live in some sort of libertarian fairy land where no one has any collective responsibility for the betterment of the whole. Further more your willing to twist the word of the Prophets to meet your own twisted agenda a distorted place where the strong rule over the weak, where human decency is cast aside and where civilisation is reduced to the jungle.

No, we want to have responsibility for the betterment of the whole, but through voluntary means, not force. Let me ask you this, before all these public services existed, how did people survive? How did they get health care? How were the poor fed? It was all done through private charity and the system worked just fine. As far as infrastructure goes, fees should be charged to those who use the services so that they are not supported through taxation

When Christ commanded to feed to poor and look after the widow and orphans he did not exempt civil society for that charge. Nor will I.

Christ commands each of us INDIVIDUALLY to feed the poor and look after the widows and orphans. Your command from the Savior does not give you the right to take my property through the force of government to fulfill the commandment. You are free to give as much as you want in keeping with that commandment, but please allow the rest of us the exercise of our own agency within our own stewardships.

[creator]

I'm shocked at how many people voted "Yes"

[Mahonri]

I'm shocked at how many people voted "Yes, it's okay to be on any gov program - welfare, food stamps, WIC, medicaid"

I can somewhat understand those who justify unemployment, and getting social security since they paid so much into with the expectation of getting something later... but so many people saying ALL government welfare/benefits are okay is surprising!

http://www.ldsliberty.org/have-you-lost ... riesthood/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why would I ask such a question? Why would it even be in question? What does it have to do with freedom? To understand these questions, we have to understand the following questions as well as their answers: What is agency? What happens when we support the government’s attempt to take it away from others? What is compulsion? What happens to us when we support the government’s attempt to use it on others?

Moses Chapter 4 states that because Satan “sought to destroy the agency of man”, he was cast out of Heaven. What did Satan want to force us to do? The scriptures say Satan wanted to force us back to Heaven. This brings up the question, “What is wrong with going back to Heaven?” Nothing. The Book of Moses teaches that our exaltation is our Father in Heaven’s entire purpose. (Moses 1:39) Clearly it is the “how” not the “what” that really matters.

Satan and his followers were cast out of the Father’s presence for attempting to compel us to do his will. In Doctrine and Covenants 121:37 we learn what our consequence is for following the same path:

(W)hen we undertake to… exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men… behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

These scriptures instruct us that when we try to compel anyone to do something, when they themselves have not violated the rights of others, we are literally following Satan’s plan, are rejecting the law of God, and the sacrifice of those that came before us and most importantly, we lose our priesthood.

The scriptures are clear that whenever we venture to compel another to do something, we must be sure that we are acting in righteousness, and not (in a metaphorical way) forcing our brothers and sisters back to Heaven.

This applies to every aspect of our lives, from parenting, to martial relationships, Church callings, and even to our actions in relation to government; any aspect that we can use our position of authority to compel another.

Doctrine and Covenants 134:1 states that the Father,

“holds [us] accountable for [our] acts in relation to [government], both in making laws and administering them”

Verse 2 teaches that to remain in peace, we must ensure that our agent, the government, protects (notice it does not say provide) the life, conscience and property of all within its area of jurisdiction. Not only must it protect our right to our property, but it says it must protect our right to control our property.

To protect those basic God given rights, we learn from scripture that- “all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld.” (D&C134:3). Therefore, if I am not violating your life, your conscience, or your property, how can you feel justified in violating mine? Obedience to this basic principle is a necessity for peaceful government. God says he will hold us accountable for such actions.

Regarding government, the Lord Himself said He gave us the US Constitution,

“That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.” (D&C 101:78)


He gave us the Constitution as a tool that He will hold us accountable towards in regards to its heavenly appointed purpose of protecting the agency of our fellow man. And according to Doctrine and Covenants 98:7, to use the Constitution in any other way is evil. When we use government to compel others to “do good”, no matter how “good” it is, we are putting our Priesthood authority at risk.

Some take this to mean that to obey this principle is to neglect our holy mandate to provide for the poor and needy. Nothing is further from the truth. While it is true that we all have an obligation to be a good neighbor, to take good care of the stewardship the Lord has given us, to care for others, etc., if I am compelled to do those things, that portion of my existence is a waste. I did not have the opportunity to act, but was acted upon and therefore cannot be accountable for those sins of neglecting my neighbor or blessed for that “good” that was done on their behalf. Those that seek to compel others to do good actually follow a plan they rejected before they were born.

Another way we put our Priesthood at risk is through government education. Education is essential to our progression, and has always been a commandment from our Father in Heaven. However, we have been warned about the elements of compulsion used in its implementation. President Brigham Young said,

“I am opposed to free education as much as I am opposed to taking away property from one man and giving it to another… Would I encourage free schools by taxation? No!” –General Conference 1877

John Taylor was even clearer on the matter when he said this about sending our children to government schools,

“I very much question men and women’s getting into the Celestial kingdom of God who have no more knowledge about principles of life and salvation than to go and tamper with the sacred offspring, the principle of life which God entrusted to your care.” –General Conference 1878

Remember, it was Lucifer that wanted us all to return to our Father in Heaven (clearly a good goal, in line with the will of the Father). However, he wanted to use compulsion to do it. Would God be a just god if our consequence was any different than Lucifer’s for the same action here on earth?

As Howard W. Hunter said,

“If you deprive a man of his right to fail in the righteous use of his property, you also deprive him of his right to succeed. If you remove from a man his right to ‘go to hell,’ you likewise remove his free agency to go to heaven.” Howard W. Hunter, BYU, 8 March, 1966

So how do we “get” people to do what is right? What about lazy parents that won’t ensure their children are educated or greedy people that will not help those in need?

In Doctrine and Covenants Section 121, after learning some of the ways in how to lose our Priesthood authority, we learn the Lord’s way to help each other do what is right; the Lord said we are to do it,

“(O)nly by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile…” (D&C 121:41–42)

When we use compulsion or direct our agents, the government, to use compulsion and unrighteous dominion, we put our Priesthood authority at risk. With all of the earthly laws and statutes that use this principle of the evil one, there are clearly those amongst us that have put this authority at risk, and have possibly lost it because of their actions in these areas. Do you support laws that compel your neighbors in an unrighteous way? If so, it would be beneficial to ask yourself, “Have I lost my Priesthood?”, and if so, “What can I do to get it back?”

For a more in-depth explanation of these principles, I highly recommend reading H. Verlan Andersen’s classic “Many Are Called But Few Are Chosen”, which was recommended in the April 1972 General Conference for all members to read by then Elder Ezra Taft Benson.

[wolfman]

I'm shocked at how many people voted "Yes, it's okay to be on any gov program - welfare, food stamps, WIC, medicaid"

I can somewhat understand those who justify unemployment, and getting social security since they paid so much into with the expectation of getting something later... but so many people saying ALL government welfare/benefits are okay is surprising!

I voted yes because the corruption of the whole system has now made it morally acceptable. The government is offering handouts to people who aren't even asking for one. At least the Church ASKS for the fast offering I give them.

[gkearney]

My wife asks not for charity but for equality. My wife is fully employed and fully capable but under this plan you condemn her and those like her to living off the charity of others rather than being self-sufficiat. You would make her and others like her dependent on others all for the sake of not having to pay a few dollars in taxes.

If the Prophet wanted us to do as you suggest they would stand up and say so. Never use your public library, do not send your children to public schools. So big man are you really ready to do what you suggest! Are you ready to put into action your smug words? I fully expect that you will never again frequent the public library, That should a flu pandemic arise you, of course will have no part in the mass inoculations. Should you or your family fall ill or injured you will refused the assistance of ambulance and fire department. Word are cheep buddy let's see you put them into action. I suspect you neither can or will your just a hypocrite that talks the talk but does not walk the walk.

Shame on you, take a good hard look at what your saying. It is an parody of the Christian life of Christian values a cheap ugly version of the Gospel of Christ. You draw near him with your lips...

[wolfman]

boy this thread really got me thinking!

Is it morally right for a bum to accept 5 dollars I shove in his pocket? Because at this point the government is walking a fine line between taking from one and giving to another; and just printing monopoly money, so they aren't managing the money like any real business would. Is it morally right to purchase health insurance and is that any different than buying a lottery ticket? By buying health insurance you are taking a chance that you may gain something at somebody elses voluntary loss. Is the stock market a game of chance? or just a pyramid scheme?

I personally would rather just live the law of consecration.

[wolfman]

BTW I take 475 a month in VA benefits. The governement told me I have a service connected disability from PTSD after they sent me to Iraq and I don't feel a bit guilty for taking their fake monopoly money