Ezra Taft Benson: We Should All Be Opposed to Socialistic-Communism and Liberalism

[Sunain]

I think a lot of you are being blinded by the perversion of the term "socialism" by American politics, meaning anything with the word social in it is inherently bad. The current church welfare system is social democratic ideal not socialist, liberal, communist or even capitalist. There is a significantly large difference between socialism and a social democracy. Socialism is where the United States is sort of heading with unconditional food stamps and government handouts creating a society of idleness. A social democratic system is what closest matches what the church currently teaches.

Socialism:
- Destructive
- Both are in pursuit of the greatest possible welfare for all: Aims to establish happiness for all
- Wishes all monopolies to be held by the State
- The governed class to become the governing class
- Has faith in a cataclysm
- Wishes to take everything away from everybody
- Wishes to expropriate everybody
- Threatens with despotism
- Desires equality
- Is intolerant
- Wishes to instruct everybody
- Wishes to support everybody
- The land to the State, The mine to the State, The tool to the State, The product to the State

Social Democratic:
- Constructive
- Both are in pursuit of the greatest possible welfare for all: enables each to be happy in one’s own way.
- Wishes the abolition of all monopolies.
- The disappearance of classes.
- Social progress will result from the free play of individual efforts.
- Wishes to leave each in possession of its own.
- Wishes everybody to be a proprietor.
- Promises liberty
- Seeks equity
- Tolerant
- Wishes to enable everybody to instruct one’s self.
- Wishes to enable everybody to support one’s self.
- The land to the cultivator, The mine to the miner, The tool to the laborer, The product to the producer.

https://spfaust.wordpress.com/2011/06/1 ... ifference/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here in Canada, social democratic parties began to form about the same time that the church formalized the welfare system. Many of those parties were formed from the ideals of the Christian left. Those parties eventually combined to form what is now Canada's NDP party, a social-democratic party. The NDP was responsible for bringing in Canada's Universal Health Care system, which many think is a free service provided by the government. It isn't free, it's universal, we pay via taxes and its dependent on income almost identically how the church collects tithing, some pay more than others due to their higher income but we all pay and it benefits everyone.

No one is saying we should get something for nothing, the most evil and perverse nature of socialism. The church has always taught to better ourselves and try to become self-sufficient but current economic conditions and world events make that impossible for some like during the depression, when the whole current church welfare system was formalized, to adequately provide for themselves.

[gclayjr]

sunian,

Wikipedia...

Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote socialism within a democratic framework, and a policy regime involving collective bargaining arrangements, a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions.[1][2][3] Social democracy thus aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian and solidaristic outcomes; and is often associated with the set of socioeconomic policies that became prominent in Northern and Western Europe—particularly the Nordic model in the Nordic countries—during the latter half of the 20th century.[4][5]

Social democracy originated as a political ideology that advocated an evolutionary and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism using established political processes in contrast to the revolutionary approach to transition associated with orthodox Marxism.[6] In the early post-war era in Western Europe, social democratic parties rejected the Stalinist political and economic model then current in the Soviet Union, committing themselves either to an alternate path to socialism or to a compromise between capitalism and socialism.[7] In this period, social democrats embraced a mixed economy based on the predominance of private property, with only a minority of essential utilities and public services under public ownership. As a result, social democracy became associated with Keynesian economics, state interventionism, and the welfare state, while abandoning the prior goal of replacing the capitalist system (factor markets, private property and wage labor)[4] with a qualitatively different socialist economic system.[8][9][10]

Social Democrats try and cover over the fact that it is still essentially socialism with nice sounding words, but it is like putting lipstick on a pig...it's still a pig

It is still the tyranny of the majority!!! How do you get that economic and social intervention without using the power of government to force people to give up and comply? Doesn't happen... it is still using force to take away from the rich to redistribute to the poor.


One of the claims always advanced by Socialists to try and differentiate themselves from Communists is that they allow private property and ownership, they just take the power to tell the owner what he can make, how much he can charge, and who he must hire, and how much he must pay them... but hey, he gets to keep his company... the government just tells him how to run it

Still Satan's plan! Under all the sweet words, it still focuses on a justice determined by coveting the stuff of others, and forcibly redistributing it, rather than maximizing the possibility for each individual to reach as high into the heavens as possible!

Regards,

George Clay

[David13]

sunian,


...

It is still the tyranny of the majority!!!

...


O
Regards,

George Clay

In many cases, it's a tyranny of a minority.
dc

[Kingdom of ZION]

Robin Hood,

When we strip it all down it seems to me that the church welfare system is based on the same principles as socialism - to each according to his need, from each according to his ability.
Am I missing something here?

As one who has been a financial clerk for decades, I can say you are missing several somethings. Socialism tries to "equalize" things. If you are not hungry, and someone else is filthy rich, socialists see an evil to be corrected. This is not the case of Church welfare. Church welfare helps people who are struggling for one reason or another to get on their feet, if possible (There are special cases for those who are aged or otherwise medically unable to provide for themselves). A bishop will often "invent" work so that a person in need can do something for the assistance they are receiving. A large part of a bishop's job is in instructing needy members as to how to adjust their life so that they can live within their means

And I suppose I don't have to repeat the obvious... no force, or taxation is used to extract revenue from anybody.

Is it not the case that the proper role of government should be what the people/voters decide it should be?
Is there an absolute truth or standard when it comes to the role of government, or is it up to the people to decide what role they want their government to play?

I guess this is understandable from someone who has never lived under a Constitution. It is often said that Democratic Socialists believe in democracy, in that everybody has the right to vote...once.. but after the freedom has been tricked...errr voted out, then the people must live for all time with the foolishness of their vote....I'm sure that the Socialists in Britain, did not think that you all should have had the opportunity to vote for the Breixit, as this is a rare exception to this rule....not all Europeans will be given such an opportunity.

Back to a Constitution. It was understood, that fads could lead evil to be popular. A constitution is an agreed upon limit to what could ever happen, even if popular. Just because it might be popular, should it be legal to kill anybody wearing green tights and trespassing on the Kings forest, even if he is stealing game, to give to the poor?

We agree, in advance that, whether popular or not, there are things we agree that the government cannot do, particularly in the area of taking freedoms from individuals who are not popular with the majority. Our declaration of Independence (from Britain...if you remember).. states that there are Inalienable rights given to us by GOD, and that no matter how popular the government, it cannot take away rights given to us by God.

Regards,

George Clay

Not getting a temple recommend because you don't pay tithing, or keep the Word of Wisdom. Is that force?

It is called Priestcraft!

[rewcox]

Probably a better terminology is Agency, instead of Free Agency.

God gave us our agency. In fact, there was a war in Heaven about agency. Lucifer wanted to force us, God wanted us to choose.

2N2:27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

We are free to choose. What should we choose?

Jacob 2:17 Think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free with your substance, that they may be rich like unto you. 18 But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God.

What is the difference between the pure constitution, and socialism?

The pure constitution allows for minimal government, and people to make their own choices. You might try to persuade people, like Jacob did, but you allow people to make their own choice.

Socialism trys to force equality.

What happens if the pure constitution doesn't work?

That is what we have today. Those that have (let's call them elites) don't share with those that don't. This has led people accepting socialist attitudes.

What about the church and tithing?

We are free to decide (agency), yet choices have consequences. You don't have to pay tithing, but the consequence is you will not have a temple recommend.

We are free to choose liberty and eternal life, or we can choose captivity and death. Different consequences for different choices.

[Hogmeister]

"But they don’t want you to realize that the path they are pursuing is socialistic..."

That was true when he said it, but it's not true today. Today, they happily tell you they are socialists, they feel virtuous about it. They voted for Bernie, who bills himself a socialist. They voted for Obama, an avowed Marxist. And then they voted for the criminal Hillary, which leaves me without words. And when I say "they", I'm referring to the LDS people I know.

Sadly, most of the people in my ward voted for Hillary on Tuesday, and as of Wednesday morning, we have a ward-wide depression going on. @-)

Excellent, and true, quote though. Thank you for posting it.

Just a thought. Perhaps the ominous upon my house shall it begin applies to those Saints who disregard the constitutional mandate they have been given and openly accept false ideologies that bring about bondage and enslavement. Communist and socialist systems eventually crumble and bring in a strong man to rule over the people. Rights then are dictated by that strong man and the pain begins. You reap what you sow..

What about groping, where does that fit in? Speech by a strong man (Trump) has certainly started the pain. There are consequences from elections, as Obama said when he was elected. Isn't it amazing that the Electoral College was set up, is that constitutional? Popular vote would have given us Al Gore and Hillary Clinton.

I'm happy for Hillary, she can take hikes now.

As far as I understand the original intent was that the states should have a lot more legislative power than the federal Level. The union was a voluntary collaboration of the states (who had the right to leave the union except Lincoln started war over it). If you want to change the life of everyday citizens it would have to be done by the popular vote on the state Level (the federal Level should have little power to affect everyday lives of citizens).

[David13]

...


What about groping, where does that fit in? Speech by a strong man (Trump) has certainly started the pain. There are consequences from elections, as Obama said when he was elected. Isn't it amazing that the Electoral College was set up, is that constitutional? Popular vote would have given us Al Gore and Hillary Clinton.

I'm happy for Hillary, she can take hikes now.

Groping fits in just under the John Fitzgerald Kennedy and William Jefferson Clinton "legacy".

Trump has started no pain whatsoever. The "pain" or crybaby syndrome has started due to the lack of schooling and parenting so prevalent in society today.

You might take a look at the 2016 final tally of popular vote. Apparently you don't know what the final tally is.

I don't know everything about Hellary the Hella Beast, but I have strong doubt about her taking any hike anywhere.
dc

[rewcox]

...


What about groping, where does that fit in? Speech by a strong man (Trump) has certainly started the pain. There are consequences from elections, as Obama said when he was elected. Isn't it amazing that the Electoral College was set up, is that constitutional? Popular vote would have given us Al Gore and Hillary Clinton.

I'm happy for Hillary, she can take hikes now.

Groping fits in just under the John Fitzgerald Kennedy and William Jefferson Clinton "legacy".

Trump has started no pain whatsoever. The "pain" or crybaby syndrome has started due to the lack of schooling and parenting so prevalent in society today.

You might take a look at the 2016 final tally of popular vote. Apparently you don't know what the final tally is.

I don't know everything about Hellary the Hella Beast, but I have strong doubt about her taking any hike anywhere.
dc

What is the final vote tally? Last I saw Hillary won the popular.

[gclayjr]

rewcox,

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president

Trump: 60,834,398
Clinton: 61:781,982

Regards,

George Clay

PS: I'm sure there are some absentee ballots to count and this count may change slightly, but not significantly.

[David13]

rewcox,

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president

Trump: 60,834,398
Clinton: 61:781,982

Regards,

George Clay

PS: I'm sure there are some absentee ballots to count and this count may change slightly, but not significantly.

They say Google was showing inaccurate results. I don't know when they will have a final final tally.
dc