Case for Socialism

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Case for Socialism

Post by lundbaek »

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/51 ... s.html.csp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"At their most righteous, the Nephites presented in the book were benevolent socialists; at their most depraved, they were greedy free-market capitalists."

"Redistribution is not an anomaly in Mormon scriptures. Joseph Smith declared that “It is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.” (Doctrine and Covenants 49:20)."

"The Book of Mormon narrative, regardless of its historicity, admonishes contemporary Latter-day Saints to reject riches and to care for the poor and needy. Democratic socialism is the very essence of Mormon theology and scripture. It is our common quest for Zion."

"The Book of Mormon narrative, regardless of its historicity, admonishes contemporary Latter-day Saints to reject riches and to care for the poor and needy. Democratic socialism is the very essence of Mormon theology and scripture. It is our common quest for Zion."

In my years living in various European countries I encountered a few members who seemed to respect the US Constitution and its principles. But I found many more who buy into what Troy Williams is selling. And I've come across more than a few American LDSs who believe this as well. Brother Williams has got some homework to do.

edzachary
captain of 100
Posts: 253
Contact:

Re: Case for Socialism

Post by edzachary »

The is a world of difference between a righteous people living the Order of Enoch and what many call modern socialism.First of all, we have an example of how Zion might work and be successful -- Enoch and his people achieved it. We are yet to find a socialist system authored by man that works.

Like
Member
Posts: 2358

Re: Case for Socialism

Post by Like »

On July 3, 1936, the First Presidency published this warning to Church members. I quote it in part;
. . . Communism is not a political party, nor a political plan under the Constitution; it is a system of government that is the opposite of our Constitutional government. . . .

Since Communism, established, would destroy our American Constitutional government, to support Communism is treasonable to our free institutions, and no patriotic American citizen may become either a Communist or supporter of Communism.

To our Church members we say, Communism is not the United Order, and bears only the most superficial resemblance thereto. Communism is based upon intolerance and force, the United Order upon love and freedom of conscience and action. . . .

Communists cannot establish the United Order, nor will Communism bring it about. . . .

Communism being thus hostile to loyal American citizenship and incompatible with true Church membership, of necessity no loyal American citizen and no faithful Church member can be a Communist.

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

Signed,

President Heber J. Grant

J. Reuben Clark, Jr.

David O. McKay
Also a good talk that goes in more detail is A Vision and a Hope for the Youth of Zionby EZRA TAFT BENSON

Silas
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1564

Re: Case for Socialism

Post by Silas »

I have never met a mormon socialist who could explain to me how I am suppose to be able to give all of my wealth to the church if the government has taken it away from me already. There is a difference between economic equality as divinely guided by the Lord's prophets and Socialism/Communism led by greedy, arrogant, power hungry politicians. What fool would trust a politician to lead us into the United Order? There will only ever be one man who I will trust to lead us into a condition where we are both economically equal and prosperous and right now that is Thomas S Monson. There is no one else right now who God will inspire to bring us into such a condition. So far the best that men have been able to figure out is how to have prosperity or equality. Man doesn't know how to do both at the same time, that is the economy of Heaven. The description of Zion is that there were NO poor among them, not that they were all equally poor. Given the choice between prosperity or equality(see poverty) I think will go with prosperity. Give me the freedom to obtain wealth and after I have provided for my family's needs I will freely choose to use my excess to better mankind. But rob me of my wealth and you will also rob me of my desire to obtain it. When the socialist have stolen the wealth of all the rich, then who will they have left to steal from? Why would anyone produce above sustenance level if they have no hope of improving themselves with it? Socialist may be able to make their plans sound pretty, and they may be able to wrest the scriptures in an attempt to put God's stamp of approval on it, but they can't change human nature. When I work to improve my life and the lives of my wife and our children, then there is no telling the lengths I will go to in order to insure my family's happiness. But if I work for the benefit of everyone, I'm really working for the benefit of no one, not even myself because I won't be able to enjoy the fruits of my labor.

That was much more than I intended to write, but honestly it makes my blood boil to hear God's divine law of Consecration compared to Marx's despicable communism. All with an arrogant sigh, about those silly mormons who just don't understand the scriptures like they do.

Squally
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1296

Re: Case for Socialism

Post by Squally »

Silas wrote:The description of Zion is that there were NO poor among them, not that they were all equally poor. Given the choice between prosperity or equality(see poverty) I think will go with prosperity. Give me the freedom to obtain wealth and after I have provided for my family's needs I will freely choose to use my excess to better mankind.
:ymapplause: thanks! :ymparty:

User avatar
mattctr
captain of 100
Posts: 903

Re: Case for Socialism

Post by mattctr »

Silas wrote:I have never met a mormon socialist who could explain to me how I am suppose to be able to give all of my wealth to the church if the government has taken it away from me already.
:ymapplause:

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: Case for Socialism

Post by lundbaek »

President Marion G. Romney, in the April 1966 General Conference, said: "I pray that we will develop the understanding, the desire, and the courage born of the spirit, to eschew socialism and to support and sustain, in the manner revealed and as interpreted by th eLord, those just and holy principles in the Consttution of the United States for the protection of all flesh, in the exerecise of their God-given agency." Joseph Smith said that he once attended a presentation of socialism and that he did not believe the doctrine. Other Church General Authorities, including President McKay and President Benson, also warned against socialism.

User avatar
Istand4truth
captain of 100
Posts: 499
Contact:

Re: Case for Socialism

Post by Istand4truth »

I posted to the comment section of the article:
"There is a difference between voluntarily taking care of your neighbors and being compelled to take care of your neighbors. The Nephites were a righteous people and voluntarily lived the gospel and served others. The natural outcome of this was a society where everyone was taken care of. The righteousness came first. Socialism does the opposite. It takes wicked people and forces them to be charitable hoping to make everyone righteous. That does not work. This leads to resentment and laziness. The money is then caught up in government administration, corporate welfare and red tape. What little money that is left is doled out to the poor. Socialism is very inefficient. The system that the Nephites lives was the Law of Consecration. Members voluntarily gave of themselves for the good of society. Righteousness cannot be achieved by force. Socialism is government force which is inherently violent. Charity forced at the point of a gun is not an ideal which I would ever seek. I feel it is Satan's earthly substitute for the Law of Consecration. What the Nephites had, which was voluntary and was an outcome of their righteousness I would seek."

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: Case for Socialism

Post by lundbaek »

When a member of the First Presidency admonishes us to eschew socialism and to support and sustain the principles in the Consttution of the United States, and other General Authorities tell Church members the same thing in in different ways, I see absolutely no room for arguement for members of the Church.

It is not only redistribution of wealth that I consider immoral. I note members of the Church supporting tax increases to help pay for facilities like a new stadium and training facility for the Chicago Cubs baseball organization and theatres, which will be patronized by only a small % of citizens forced to contribute towards them.

Silas
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1564

Re: Case for Socialism

Post by Silas »

In my sacrament meeting this morning our Bishop mentioned that the leaders of our government are leading us towards socialism. It wasn't the subject of his talk so he didn't dwell on it, but he mentioned among other evils of our day. A few months back he also asked me to give a talk about freedom and our constitution because he said he was concerned with the growing popularity of socialism in our day. So fortunately I believe the attitudes expressed in that article are held by very few in the church. No doubt the author of the article thinks that it is because we are all more wicked than him.

davedan
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3064
Location: Augusta, GA
Contact:

Re: Case for Socialism

Post by davedan »

Socialism is not equitable. Socialism must be enforced, thus there must be an enforcement class who live be a different set of rules and laws. Therefore, Socialism destroys the rule of law, as well as property rights, as well as equality.

Giving must be voluntary. If helping the poor is forced, it robs the receiver of their dignity and the giver of their charity.

User avatar
iamse7en
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1440

Re: Case for Socialism

Post by iamse7en »

Yeah, King Benjamin went into everyone's tent and took some of their property with the threat of agression so that he could redistribute it to those who he deemed as less fortunate. That is how you build Zion. Enoch was the great "re-distributor." People will not choose to be good on their own, therefore you must force them to do so.

You can bet that the blind, socialist LDS are delighted to see this article and are emailing it around to their friends. What a gross distortion of voluntary charity, freedom, and the gospel.
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Silas
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1564

Re: Case for Socialism

Post by Silas »

davedan wrote:Socialism is not equitable. Socialism must be enforced, thus there must be an enforcement class who live be a different set of rules and laws. Therefore, Socialism destroys the rule of law, as well as property rights, as well as equality.

Giving must be voluntary. If helping the poor is forced, it robs the receiver of their dignity and the giver of their charity.
This is actually a very good point. All equality is only an illusion under socialism.

User avatar
MercynGrace
captain of 100
Posts: 894

Re: Case for Socialism

Post by MercynGrace »

I agree with most of the comments about socialism. One thing I always try to point out is that Satan uses counterfeit doctrine because the better he can imitate the look and feel of God's plan, the more effectively he can draw us in.

The big lie in this counterfeit is in that the absence of agency impedes progress so that rather than all men being lifted up by the system, all men are cast down.

Compelled giving and receiving degrades. It does not allow for true charity which, like the pure love of Christ manifested in Gethsemane and on Golgotha, must arise out of willing selflessness and a desire to exalt others through one's own temporal abasement.

For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich. ~ 2 Corinthians 8:9

Forced redistribution is not an act of grace.

User avatar
gclayjr
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2727
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Case for Socialism

Post by gclayjr »

All,

I think we have been confused by very brief comments in 4rth Nephi, and in the New Testament that use the term "in common" without any explanation as to what “in common” means”. I have pondered over the concept of "in Common" meaning voluntary religious "socialism" where everything is "owned" by the church run "United Order" and nobody owns anything.

Although we still don't have every detail of how this works, Marion G. Romney gave a clear explanation in the Ensign in 1966. He states that within the United Order, the clock is initially "wound" by everybody giving all to the church, in order to have a quantity of it returned; titled as a stewardship which is effectively your "property". It can be inherited, traded, sold, whatever.

After this initial distribution, it is up to the individual to determine what part of his increase is excess that can be returned to the Bishop after taking care of his own needs.

I was lead to doing this research because of my pondering about how Innovation would work in the United Order. I don't believe committees lead to innovation, even committees of good righteous members of the church.

Here on earth, the best ideas and improvements come from people who have good ideas that nobody else believes in and pursue them. Of course this is also coupled with people who have not so good ideas and pursue them to failure (often the same people)

It is my personal belief that even in the Celestial Kingdom, we will grow by struggling to find solutions to problems. Often the best solutions will not be supported by the majority.

An in common; “everything owned by everybody” society would kill innovation, even if was a righteous “socialism”. That was my struggle in believing in an “Ownership by All” United Order.

Also, I wondered who should have a larger “share”. A man with 10 kids to feed, or a man with a small family, but who can and will build the factory to use the man with 10 kids and others to manufacture important goods for the community.

The law of Stewardship, as explained by Marion G. Romney as being the manifestation of the Celestial Law of the United Order nicely resolves all of my concerns.

Regards,

George Clay

User avatar
iamse7en
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1440

Re: Case for Socialism

Post by iamse7en »

The Socialist Lake Tribune gave space for a half-decent response to that ridiculous article. It covers a few of the arguments we have already made in this thread:
In “Making the case for Book of Mormon socialism” (Opinion, Feb. 26), Troy Williams assumed that the scriptures about caring for the poor are a mandate for government programs instead of being a simple directive for individual action.

In the Book of Mormon, the Nephites did not have the governmental apparatus necessary to even begin to operate anything comparable to a modern welfare state. They were a coalition of tribal peoples governed by judges who applied the Mosaic law to individual cases.

Reading these ancient passages as justification for something that contextually did not exist, nor which was explicitly endorsed (bureaucratic redistribution), is a basic error that only obscures otherwise clear directives for personal conduct.

Williams also ignores the basic moral question of how to provide for the poor. Since government redistribution operates by force, it is morally problematic at best. Early Mormon communal experiments were an obligation resulting from a voluntary religious agreement. It is this key distinction that makes socialism and corporatism incompatible with Mormon theology.

Spencer Morgan

Riverton
Nice mention of "corporatism." I suspect he pays attention to Ron Paul.

User avatar
ChelC
The Law
Posts: 5982
Location: Utah

Re: Case for Socialism

Post by ChelC »

Amen Spencer Morgan.

I agree with the comments I've read on the thread, but I'll add a little. I think socialism is a natural consequence of a wicked society. Just as socialism will not create charity, neither will fighting socialism create charity. Promoting free market capitalism does not promote charity. The answer isn't in fighting socialism... Satan can work in either system. The answer is in promoting charity, which can only happen by modeling the Savior.

Sometimes I think we forget the root of our problems. Fighting consequences is futile.

Post Reply