My husband's hard work taxed ridiculously high, my favorite stores raising prices (or going out of business), more people on welfare for longer periods of time ...
My thoughts exactly. I love that after 4 years of dental school, all that debt, 1 year in gpr residency (seeing mainly medicaid patients) and then onto oral surgery (if he gets accepted) another 4 years making next to nothing and never seeing his family..... seeing a huge amount of his earnings and hard work... gone! Makes us excited to specialize and help out those who have no desire for school or hard work:)
Amen? Sigh. Guess we gotta be good and have faith and keep on with the enduring. My hubby even talked about having me not work at all so we didn't get in the "rich" tax bracket under Obama. We'll see what happens. For now, he's gonna buy another gun that our new president wants to ban.
I don't get it... why are people okay with giving their hard earned money away to the government having no say on where it goes. It doesn't make any sense. This is NOT how the law of consecration works people. Hooray for nothing.
Just some thoughts on Jackie's/Bryan's comment...I think that you do actually have a say on where your "hard earned money" goes by voting for your representatives. Unfortunately, you don't always win, but that's just one of the costs of a representative democracy. Besides, I also don't think that you have much of a say on how your money is used under the law of consecration, either. Just one more thought--just because someone has more money than another doesn't mean that you worked any harder for it. I'm not suggesting that's what you implied, but it's a sentiment that you sometimes hear during political/tax debates. I think that the opportunity to go to extensive schooling and earn an enormous income is the result of good fortune (or providence, depending on your perspective), and doesn't mean that you're more entitled to it than someone else who works hard but didn't have the same opportunities or skills. Anyways, that's my $0.02. Thanks, Celeste, for getting us all thinking.
No, no , no...that is not what Jackie (nor I) were implying. We do not think that our husband's worked harder for their $$, but they did work for it. I do not have a problem with "sharing the wealth" among hard working Americans, be it a doctor or a pool guy, but it is the fact that we will be sharing our income with those that have no desire or will to work--that is not the American way. I do see and understand what you are saying, however I do disagree with the comment that we are not entitled to our own earnings, I believe that we are, that's why they are "our earnings." I do not mean to be negative; I hope that I am wrong and that he does do great things for our country. And as a side note, I did not vote for McCain...I just voted against Obama. I did not feel McCain was all that great of a candidate either, but he did however share more of my beliefs than Obama, ex: abortion, marriage rights. Anyway, thanks for your comments.
The idea that people who earn an "enormous earning" are the result of good fortune is completely wrong. That conveys to the poor the pathetic message of "You're not smart enough, you're not good enough or rich enough to get an education. Since it's all our fault we will give you all the money you need. Then you will never have a chance to succeed." Where it should be, "You can succeed. Lots of people have done it before you. Here's how you do it. You focus on education. Save your money so you can get a good education." Studies show that if they don't have a child before they're 20, and don't have sex when they are teenagers and they graduate high school, than they will not be poor. Period. When you give someone money, what motivates them to want to go get an education and a job? It doesn't even give them a chance to be something better than their circumstance.
That's why the liberal philosophy of increasing welfare and growing government "aid" to the needy has only increased the number of poor in this country over the last four decades instead of helping people find their way out.
I would like to kindly request Obama supporters to give an explanation based on fact, and not speculation, of why they voted for him. Please avoid words such as "change."
I agree with you, Celeste (and I really mean it when I say that I didn't think that's what you were implying!) You can't underestminate the value or importance of hard work. So, there we're on the same page. I just think that the chronically lazy who want to live off the welfare are a minority of those on welfare. I can't find any way to agree with the next comment by "Jackie & Bryan" because it implies that hard work is enough for success. First, I think that there is no such thing as a self-made man/woman. We can all credit our success in life to hard work, but that includes ours and that of those around us. After all, wasn't it sacrifice, hard work, and even some socialism (the state runs public education and subsidizes private education) that created the educational systems that you deem so important to success? Second, you've oversimplified the debate: sure you have a better chance of succeeding if you don't have premarital sex and don't drop out of high school, but you make it sound like success in life is a no-brainer choice. What about kids who have to work their way through high school, not to save up for college, but to support their family? What about kids who are the primary childcare givers to their siblings? What about kids going to school who aren't learning because of violence in schools? What about sick kids who can't afford adequate healthcare? What about kids who are abused in the home? What about kids who are raped? What about kids who have no college-educated role models? Are they all going to succeed in life as long as they work hard and save for college? No. Period. Lots of people make good choices their whole life and, because of an unequal playing field from the beginning, don't have a shot at success. Government welfare is more than just a check in the mail. It's a series of programs designed to help individuals succeed in life (i.e. become educated and hard working contributors to society). This is a safety net that we all benefit from. I don't think it's condescending because I/you wouldn't have succeeded without some of the same advantages that happened organically. So, that's what I have to say. I hope that you read this and imagine me smiling in friendly debate style--sometimes comments on a blog come off the wrong way.
One last question...the church has never "told" us who to vote for, but they have taken a stand on two major issues. How can a members of the mormon church (who understand the church) justify in voting for a president that has supported those issues, issues that the church is against? I ask this as a honest question, is there something I missed? Since you talked about the law of consecration, I assumed you are LDS.
This is causing a lot of caos! Here's the bottom line, By exercising my right to vote, I agreed to support my elected officials, even though I did not choose them--therefore I accept Mr. Obama as the next President of the United States, I hope that all who voted for him will be able to give me a big fat "told you so" in 4 years! :)
Last comment, I promise! For Kara--read this article from a salt lake tribune article with Elder Jensen: "Everyone who is a good Latter-day Saint is going to have to pick and choose a little bit regardless of the party that they're in and that may be required a lot more in the future than it has been in the past. But I think there's room for that and the gospel leaves us lots of latitude." The article explains better than I can. Here's the link: http://ldslivingonline.com/article.php?articleId=79643
I have asked myself the same question about voting for someone who has views that support the two things the church has made a stand on.
I think the article that "the Chard" suggested to you is right. In that you can be a Democrat and be a good Mormon. However, there is a difference between being a Democrat and being one who has extreme liberal views. When a person votes for THE MOST LIBERAL senator for Pres. of The United States I have a hard time believing they do not share those same liberal views.
Here is a quote from Mark E. Peterson that says a lot.
"They would have government-operated and government-controlled business, which is Socialsim. Socialism is a step on the road to Communism. Communism is anti-Christ. Are the Latter-day Saints willing to engage in a program [socialism] that would lead to Communism? Are they willing to aid and abet the anti-Christ in any sense? Are they willing to accept Socialism instead of freedom? Not if they understand their religion." -Mark E. Peterson, Church News, 16 April 1950
Obama has very liberal views. As modern day prophets have stated, liberalism is a step on the path to socialism, and socialism is the greatest Satan-sponsored evil we will face in our day. Period.
Hope this helps you a little. By the way...good point on asking any Obama supporter to use facts not speculation and without using the word 'change' to explain why they voted for him. If anyone responds to that one I'd like to know too.
While the situations you mentioned are out there and are very sad those are the exceptions not the rule. I happen to believe that people and private businesses can help them a lot more than the government can, since I can't think of one government program that is working really well.
first of all...If Obama was white, he would have never made it through the Primaries. Period. (and I have two black children. There's no racism or reverse racism here. It is what it is) and 2. He lost my vote the first time I heard his view on late term abortion. My son would have qualified for late term abortion. If this is how Obama would treat the most helpless of the human race, it is indicative of the way he will treat the rest of humanity. All his other views completely support that theory. We are in for some change, that is for sure. Hope we all survive it.
Wow, I had no idea there was this underground world of political debate among former UCLA peeps. At the risk of making an arse of myself, I'll enter the fray.
No surprises here: I voted for Obama. I'll appreciate the tax cut to help with my house payments and health insurance for my family. That probably means I didn't work as hard as all of you . . .
We're not really talking about welfare here, after all, since Obama wasn't elected on a welfare platform. His plan is to CUT taxes, and the tax increase he supports on the highest tax brackets still doesn't return those rates to as high as they were under Reagan's highly-touted Economic Recovery Act of 1981. Not even close, in fact.
With regards, to marriage rights and abortion, the president-elect has stated his view that marriage is between one man and woman, and he explained his vote vis-a-vis late-term abortion very well in the third debate. He supports banning the procedure, as long as there is a proviso for consideration of the life of the mother, a position perfectly consistent with the Church's official policy.
As for liberalism being the slippery slope to communism, we might as well say that conservatism is the slippery slope to fascism. Saying it doesn't make you fascists, though, any more than my being liberal makes me a godless communist.
Quote all the McCarthy-era general authorities you want, but what do the living prophets have to say about it (liberalism, I mean)? Hardly anything. Times change. It's telling that as soon as he became president of the church, Ezra Taft Benson's John Birch political craziness completely disappeared and he became the rock that we remember and love, warning us of pride and encouraging us to read the Book of Mormon (which, btw, has far more to say about the dangers of getting rich than anything else).
Not taking sides here...let's see if Obama supports traditional marriage or throws his support at encouraging the overturn of prop 8 (like Schwarzenegger). It seems he's trying to have it both ways. He opposed prop 8 yet he supports traditional marriage. Politicians!
Come on, John Alba, I know you’re smarter than that and couldn’t possibly be serious about half the things you said. Unless my eyes deceive me, you said that what previous general authorities say on an issue doesn’t matter since current general authorities haven’t said anything on the same issue.
First, no general authority has contradicted or overturned anything said by Presidents Benson, McKay, Grant, Clark, Romney; Elders McConkie, Peterson, etc. about the dangers of liberalism and socialism, and until they do, I think I’ll stick with their statements. I also know I don’t need to list any of their quotes here, since I’m sure you’re very familiar with their statements of redistribution of wealth being “legalized plunder”, liberalism being the path to socialism, socialism being the biggest evil we’d face in these last days and the secret combination spoken of in Ether 8, and no true latter-day saint being able to support any program that even leads in the direction of socialism or greater government control over businesses or services, since they are “incompatible with the true gospel of Jesus Christ.”
Second, the gospel isn’t about what one person said at one time, it’s about principles. The consistent principle in all the above-mentioned general authorities’ statements is that socialism robs people of their freedoms, and what principle of the gospel is greater than having and preserving our own personal freedom. Again, prophets have said that any programs leading to more government ownership, control, or power are the path to socialism and that is what we as latter-day saints must fight against. I personally don’t care if someone votes Republican or Democrat (especially with the way many Republicans are now), and I don’t even care if someone voted for Obama if they have a good, consistent-with-gospel-principles reason for doing so. But on issues like redistribution of wealth, raising taxes on ANYONE, or growing the scope and power of the government (health care, education, etc.), Obama stands on the opposite side of what our religion stands for. Period.
I also think it’s silly to use the “times change” argument for what general authorities said in the 1950s-80s compared to today. Just because the Soviet Union is no longer in existence (for now) doesn’t mean that socialism is less prevalent today. In fact it is much more prevalent. In 1932, the socialist party in the US ran on a platform of 14 principles they wanted enacted. Obviously they only got 1% of the vote because they were crazy socialists. But today, every one of those 14 principles has passed in the US. Those same general authorities even said that socialism would take root in this country slowly, principle by principle, like boiling a frog to death on a stove. It’s still here, and, as we’ve just witnessed, it’s not going anywhere.
Finally, I can’t buy into the silly notion that conservatism is the path to fascism just as liberalism is to socialism. Just because political scientists like to define socialism as “left-wing” and fascism as “right-wing” doesn’t make them polar opposites. Socialism and fascism are very similar. They both have the same end goal: take power and freedom out of the hands of citizens and put it in the clutches of government, in other words, Satan’s plan. Modern-day conservatism stands for the exact opposite: get power out of the hands of politicians and put them in the hands of our citizens. Exactly what our religion stands for.
There is no problem with getting rich. Brigham Young and other general authorities, including those in the Book of Mormon, advocate it, so long as it is for the right purpose. If it weren’t for rich church members, Proposition 8 never would have passed in California. However, if marriage goes back on the ballot under an Obama presidency, we probably won’t have enough money this time to defend it.
Nobody is saying you haven’t worked hard for what you’ve achieved. Just because some people have chosen professions that make more money on average doesn’t mean they have worked any harder either. But we should all be entitled to the fruit of our labor, whether that is a little or a lot, and a government that will take something from some of its citizens will take anything from any of its citizens. Plain and simple.
I love you to death, Cutler, but I couldn’t let your comment stand without an appropriate response. :)
Brian, I'm afraid your love of the Lakers has tainted some critical thinking abilities.
Bracketing for the time being the issue of General Authority infallibility, which neither I nor the Church believes is, I didn't say that what past General Authorities said on "an issue" doesn't matter. You'll notice that I first pointed out that the "issue" under question is, in effect, a non-issue. You've been listening to way too much Sean Hannity if you really think that Obama is a socialist. Either that or else you have simplistic and inaccurate definition of what socialism is.
It is, however, patently true that General Authorities speak to the prevailing concerns of their times. If liberalism is really the great evil that you say it is, why are the Brethren so blithely unconcerned about it, especially if socialism is even "more prevalent" today than it was then? Are they secretly testing our faith and spiritual discernment? Then why don't they also test our discernment by not speaking out about all the other important moral issues of our day (marriage, pornography, gambling, substance abuse, etc)? I can only conclude that they just aren't that worried about it (liberalism). Either that, or they WANT a large percentage of us to go to hell.
It's dangerous to mix up your own politics with eternal gospel principles. I don't mind having a reasonable conversation about taxes, but to suggest that raising taxes on ANYONE is the "opposite" of what our religion stands for, or that "getting power out the hands of politicians" is "exactly" what our religion stands for? Why doesn't this ever come up in my temple recommend interviews? Because it's a hyperbole, and surely wrong. You would think, otherwise, that the Articles of Faith would mention it . . . or a prophet . . . or the scriptures. Instead, they're always talking about the natural man, pride, blah blah blah. If only Nephi had realized that TAXES are the real danger!
The gospel of Jesus Christ cannot be reduced to any single nation or political ideology (mine and yours included) and will outlive them all, guaranteed.
Btw, here's a Brigham Young statement for you, since you brought him up:
“The experience of mankind has shown that the people of communities and nations among whom wealth is the most equally distributed, enjoy the largest degree of liberty, are the least exposed to tyranny and oppression and suffer the least from luxurious habits which beget vice…” (July 1879 Proclamation on the Economy)
Socialism: "An economic system in which the basic means of production are primarily owned and controlled collectively, usually by government under some system."
Socialism : "An economic, social and political doctrine which expresses the struggle for the equal distribution of wealth by eliminating private property and the exploitative ruling class."
I agree with a lot of the comments..but, we as Mormons have a degree of socialism with our own church welfare..but I guess that is ok..because we know it only goes to Mormons, our own kind! I for one..do not want my church telling me how to vote..nor do I have the right to tell or judge another on what choices he makes in his life..I think this world would be a kinder and gentler place if we could practice a little more tolerance for those who do not think or believe as we do..there is only one judge and it isnt me..
I stand by every word of my comment. The definition I gave of socialism is the very same definition President Benson has given (but I guess that was a couple decades ago, so what he says is no longer valid). It’s not my political ideology, it’s what the prophets have said, and until what they have said is changed or overturned by another general authority at another time, I think I’ll stick with them on this one.
29 comments:
We'll be taxed more, too, and we couldn't be more thrilled! Seriously, we're happy.
My thoughts exactly. I love that after 4 years of dental school, all that debt, 1 year in gpr residency (seeing mainly medicaid patients) and then onto oral surgery (if he gets accepted) another 4 years making next to nothing and never seeing his family..... seeing a huge amount of his earnings and hard work... gone! Makes us excited to specialize and help out those who have no desire for school or hard work:)
Amen? Sigh. Guess we gotta be good and have faith and keep on with the enduring. My hubby even talked about having me not work at all so we didn't get in the "rich" tax bracket under Obama. We'll see what happens. For now, he's gonna buy another gun that our new president wants to ban.
Hooray is right!
I don't get it... why are people okay with giving their hard earned money away to the government having no say on where it goes. It doesn't make any sense. This is NOT how the law of consecration works people. Hooray for nothing.
Just some thoughts on Jackie's/Bryan's comment...I think that you do actually have a say on where your "hard earned money" goes by voting for your representatives. Unfortunately, you don't always win, but that's just one of the costs of a representative democracy. Besides, I also don't think that you have much of a say on how your money is used under the law of consecration, either. Just one more thought--just because someone has more money than another doesn't mean that you worked any harder for it. I'm not suggesting that's what you implied, but it's a sentiment that you sometimes hear during political/tax debates. I think that the opportunity to go to extensive schooling and earn an enormous income is the result of good fortune (or providence, depending on your perspective), and doesn't mean that you're more entitled to it than someone else who works hard but didn't have the same opportunities or skills. Anyways, that's my $0.02. Thanks, Celeste, for getting us all thinking.
Hooray IS right!
"the 'Chard":
No, no , no...that is not what Jackie (nor I) were implying. We do not think that our husband's worked harder for their $$, but they did work for it. I do not have a problem with "sharing the wealth" among hard working Americans, be it a doctor or a pool guy, but it is the fact that we will be sharing our income with those that have no desire or will to work--that is not the American way. I do see and understand what you are saying, however I do disagree with the comment that we are not entitled to our own earnings, I believe that we are, that's why they are "our earnings."
I do not mean to be negative; I hope that I am wrong and that he does do great things for our country. And as a side note, I did not vote for McCain...I just voted against Obama. I did not feel McCain was all that great of a candidate either, but he did however share more of my beliefs than Obama, ex: abortion, marriage rights.
Anyway, thanks for your comments.
Response to "The Chard"
The idea that people who earn an "enormous earning" are the result of good fortune is completely wrong. That conveys to the poor the pathetic message of "You're not smart enough, you're not good enough or rich enough to get an education. Since it's all our fault we will give you all the money you need. Then you will never have a chance to succeed." Where it should be, "You can succeed. Lots of people have done it before you. Here's how you do it. You focus on education. Save your money so you can get a good education." Studies show that if they don't have a child before they're 20, and don't have sex when they are teenagers and they graduate high school, than they will not be poor. Period. When you give someone money, what motivates them to want to go get an education and a job? It doesn't even give them a chance to be something better than their circumstance.
That's why the liberal philosophy of increasing welfare and growing government "aid" to the needy has only increased the number of poor in this country over the last four decades instead of helping people find their way out.
I would like to kindly request Obama supporters to give an explanation based on fact, and not speculation, of why they voted for him. Please avoid words such as "change."
-K. Leeland
I agree with you, Celeste (and I really mean it when I say that I didn't think that's what you were implying!) You can't underestminate the value or importance of hard work. So, there we're on the same page. I just think that the chronically lazy who want to live off the welfare are a minority of those on welfare. I can't find any way to agree with the next comment by "Jackie & Bryan" because it implies that hard work is enough for success. First, I think that there is no such thing as a self-made man/woman. We can all credit our success in life to hard work, but that includes ours and that of those around us. After all, wasn't it sacrifice, hard work, and even some socialism (the state runs public education and subsidizes private education) that created the educational systems that you deem so important to success? Second, you've oversimplified the debate: sure you have a better chance of succeeding if you don't have premarital sex and don't drop out of high school, but you make it sound like success in life is a no-brainer choice. What about kids who have to work their way through high school, not to save up for college, but to support their family? What about kids who are the primary childcare givers to their siblings? What about kids going to school who aren't learning because of violence in schools? What about sick kids who can't afford adequate healthcare? What about kids who are abused in the home? What about kids who are raped? What about kids who have no college-educated role models? Are they all going to succeed in life as long as they work hard and save for college? No. Period. Lots of people make good choices their whole life and, because of an unequal playing field from the beginning, don't have a shot at success. Government welfare is more than just a check in the mail. It's a series of programs designed to help individuals succeed in life (i.e. become educated and hard working contributors to society). This is a safety net that we all benefit from. I don't think it's condescending because I/you wouldn't have succeeded without some of the same advantages that happened organically. So, that's what I have to say. I hope that you read this and imagine me smiling in friendly debate style--sometimes comments on a blog come off the wrong way.
One last question...the church has never "told" us who to vote for, but they have taken a stand on two major issues. How can a members of the mormon church (who understand the church) justify in voting for a president that has supported those issues, issues that the church is against? I ask this as a honest question, is there something I missed? Since you talked about the law of consecration, I assumed you are LDS.
Kara Leeland
This is causing a lot of caos! Here's the bottom line, By exercising my right to vote, I agreed to support my elected officials, even though I did not choose them--therefore I accept Mr. Obama as the next President of the United States, I hope that all who voted for him will be able to give me a big fat "told you so" in 4 years! :)
Last comment, I promise! For Kara--read this article from a salt lake tribune article with Elder Jensen:
"Everyone who is a good Latter-day Saint is going to have to pick and choose a little bit regardless of the party that they're in and that may be required a lot more in the future than it has been in the past. But I think there's room for that and the gospel leaves us lots of latitude." The article explains better than I can. Here's the link: http://ldslivingonline.com/article.php?articleId=79643
Wow, this has become the great debate! I have to agree with the Houlbergs on this one. His economic plan makes me furious.
This is for Kara.
I have asked myself the same question about voting for someone who has views that support the two things the church has made a stand on.
I think the article that "the Chard" suggested to you is right. In that you can be a Democrat and be a good Mormon. However, there is a difference between being a Democrat and being one who has extreme liberal views. When a person votes for THE MOST LIBERAL senator for Pres. of The United States I have a hard time believing they do not share those same liberal views.
Here is a quote from Mark E. Peterson that says a lot.
"They would have government-operated and government-controlled business, which is Socialsim. Socialism is a step on the road to Communism. Communism is anti-Christ. Are the Latter-day Saints willing to engage in a program [socialism] that would lead to Communism? Are they willing to aid and abet the anti-Christ in any sense? Are they willing to accept Socialism instead of freedom? Not if they understand their religion."
-Mark E. Peterson, Church News, 16 April 1950
Obama has very liberal views. As modern day prophets have stated, liberalism is a step on the path to socialism, and socialism is the greatest Satan-sponsored evil we will face in our day. Period.
Hope this helps you a little. By the way...good point on asking any Obama supporter to use facts not speculation and without using the word 'change' to explain why they voted for him. If anyone responds to that one I'd like to know too.
One more for "the Chard"
While the situations you mentioned are out there and are very sad those are the exceptions not the rule. I happen to believe that people and private businesses can help them a lot more than the government can, since I can't think of one government program that is working really well.
That is all. I'm finally done!
first of all...If Obama was white, he would have never made it through the Primaries. Period. (and I have two black children. There's no racism or reverse racism here. It is what it is) and 2. He lost my vote the first time I heard his view on late term abortion. My son would have qualified for late term abortion. If this is how Obama would treat the most helpless of the human race, it is indicative of the way he will treat the rest of humanity. All his other views completely support that theory.
We are in for some change, that is for sure. Hope we all survive it.
Wow, I had no idea there was this underground world of political debate among former UCLA peeps. At the risk of making an arse of myself, I'll enter the fray.
No surprises here: I voted for Obama. I'll appreciate the tax cut to help with my house payments and health insurance for my family. That probably means I didn't work as hard as all of you . . .
We're not really talking about welfare here, after all, since Obama wasn't elected on a welfare platform. His plan is to CUT taxes, and the tax increase he supports on the highest tax brackets still doesn't return those rates to as high as they were under Reagan's highly-touted Economic Recovery Act of 1981. Not even close, in fact.
With regards, to marriage rights and abortion, the president-elect has stated his view that marriage is between one man and woman, and he explained his vote vis-a-vis late-term abortion very well in the third debate. He supports banning the procedure, as long as there is a proviso for consideration of the life of the mother, a position perfectly consistent with the Church's official policy.
As for liberalism being the slippery slope to communism, we might as well say that conservatism is the slippery slope to fascism. Saying it doesn't make you fascists, though, any more than my being liberal makes me a godless communist.
Quote all the McCarthy-era general authorities you want, but what do the living prophets have to say about it (liberalism, I mean)? Hardly anything. Times change. It's telling that as soon as he became president of the church, Ezra Taft Benson's John Birch political craziness completely disappeared and he became the rock that we remember and love, warning us of pride and encouraging us to read the Book of Mormon (which, btw, has far more to say about the dangers of getting rich than anything else).
I talk way too much.
Not taking sides here...let's see if Obama supports traditional marriage or throws his support at encouraging the overturn of prop 8 (like Schwarzenegger). It seems he's trying to have it both ways. He opposed prop 8 yet he supports traditional marriage. Politicians!
Come on, John Alba, I know you’re smarter than that and couldn’t possibly be serious about half the things you said. Unless my eyes deceive me, you said that what previous general authorities say on an issue doesn’t matter since current general authorities haven’t said anything on the same issue.
First, no general authority has contradicted or overturned anything said by Presidents Benson, McKay, Grant, Clark, Romney; Elders McConkie, Peterson, etc. about the dangers of liberalism and socialism, and until they do, I think I’ll stick with their statements. I also know I don’t need to list any of their quotes here, since I’m sure you’re very familiar with their statements of redistribution of wealth being “legalized plunder”, liberalism being the path to socialism, socialism being the biggest evil we’d face in these last days and the secret combination spoken of in Ether 8, and no true latter-day saint being able to support any program that even leads in the direction of socialism or greater government control over businesses or services, since they are “incompatible with the true gospel of Jesus Christ.”
Second, the gospel isn’t about what one person said at one time, it’s about principles. The consistent principle in all the above-mentioned general authorities’ statements is that socialism robs people of their freedoms, and what principle of the gospel is greater than having and preserving our own personal freedom. Again, prophets have said that any programs leading to more government ownership, control, or power are the path to socialism and that is what we as latter-day saints must fight against. I personally don’t care if someone votes Republican or Democrat (especially with the way many Republicans are now), and I don’t even care if someone voted for Obama if they have a good, consistent-with-gospel-principles reason for doing so. But on issues like redistribution of wealth, raising taxes on ANYONE, or growing the scope and power of the government (health care, education, etc.), Obama stands on the opposite side of what our religion stands for. Period.
I also think it’s silly to use the “times change” argument for what general authorities said in the 1950s-80s compared to today. Just because the Soviet Union is no longer in existence (for now) doesn’t mean that socialism is less prevalent today. In fact it is much more prevalent. In 1932, the socialist party in the US ran on a platform of 14 principles they wanted enacted. Obviously they only got 1% of the vote because they were crazy socialists. But today, every one of those 14 principles has passed in the US. Those same general authorities even said that socialism would take root in this country slowly, principle by principle, like boiling a frog to death on a stove. It’s still here, and, as we’ve just witnessed, it’s not going anywhere.
Finally, I can’t buy into the silly notion that conservatism is the path to fascism just as liberalism is to socialism. Just because political scientists like to define socialism as “left-wing” and fascism as “right-wing” doesn’t make them polar opposites. Socialism and fascism are very similar. They both have the same end goal: take power and freedom out of the hands of citizens and put it in the clutches of government, in other words, Satan’s plan. Modern-day conservatism stands for the exact opposite: get power out of the hands of politicians and put them in the hands of our citizens. Exactly what our religion stands for.
There is no problem with getting rich. Brigham Young and other general authorities, including those in the Book of Mormon, advocate it, so long as it is for the right purpose. If it weren’t for rich church members, Proposition 8 never would have passed in California. However, if marriage goes back on the ballot under an Obama presidency, we probably won’t have enough money this time to defend it.
Nobody is saying you haven’t worked hard for what you’ve achieved. Just because some people have chosen professions that make more money on average doesn’t mean they have worked any harder either. But we should all be entitled to the fruit of our labor, whether that is a little or a lot, and a government that will take something from some of its citizens will take anything from any of its citizens. Plain and simple.
I love you to death, Cutler, but I couldn’t let your comment stand without an appropriate response. :)
Brian, I'm afraid your love of the Lakers has tainted some critical thinking abilities.
Bracketing for the time being the issue of General Authority infallibility, which neither I nor the Church believes is, I didn't say that what past General Authorities said on "an issue" doesn't matter. You'll notice that I first pointed out that the "issue" under question is, in effect, a non-issue. You've been listening to way too much Sean Hannity if you really think that Obama is a socialist. Either that or else you have simplistic and inaccurate definition of what socialism is.
It is, however, patently true that General Authorities speak to the prevailing concerns of their times. If liberalism is really the great evil that you say it is, why are the Brethren so blithely unconcerned about it, especially if socialism is even "more prevalent" today than it was then? Are they secretly testing our faith and spiritual discernment? Then why don't they also test our discernment by not speaking out about all the other important moral issues of our day (marriage, pornography, gambling, substance abuse, etc)? I can only conclude that they just aren't that worried about it (liberalism). Either that, or they WANT a large percentage of us to go to hell.
It's dangerous to mix up your own politics with eternal gospel principles. I don't mind having a reasonable conversation about taxes, but to suggest that raising taxes on ANYONE is the "opposite" of what our religion stands for, or that "getting power out the hands of politicians" is "exactly" what our religion stands for? Why doesn't this ever come up in my temple recommend interviews? Because it's a hyperbole, and surely wrong. You would think, otherwise, that the Articles of Faith would mention it . . . or a prophet . . . or the scriptures. Instead, they're always talking about the natural man, pride, blah blah blah. If only Nephi had realized that TAXES are the real danger!
The gospel of Jesus Christ cannot be reduced to any single nation or political ideology (mine and yours included) and will outlive them all, guaranteed.
Btw, here's a Brigham Young statement for you, since you brought him up:
“The experience of mankind has shown that the people of communities and nations among whom wealth is the most equally distributed, enjoy the largest degree of liberty, are the least exposed to tyranny and oppression and suffer the least from luxurious habits which beget vice…” (July 1879 Proclamation on the Economy)
FYI Mr. Alba...
Socialism: "An economic system in which the basic means of production are primarily owned and controlled collectively, usually by government under some system."
Socialism : "An economic, social and political doctrine which expresses the struggle for the equal distribution of wealth by eliminating private property and the exploitative ruling class."
AKA: Mr. Obama's plan
I agree with a lot of the comments..but, we as Mormons have a degree of socialism with our own church welfare..but I guess that is ok..because we know it only goes to Mormons, our own kind! I for one..do not want my church telling me how to vote..nor do I have the right to tell or judge another on what choices he makes in his life..I think this world would be a kinder and gentler place if we could practice a little more tolerance for those who do not think or believe as we do..there is only one judge and it isnt me..
I agee,
"...this world would be a kinder and gentler place if we could practice a little more tolerance for those who do not think or believe as we do..."
But thanks for the interesting debate! :)
I stand by every word of my comment. The definition I gave of socialism is the very same definition President Benson has given (but I guess that was a couple decades ago, so what he says is no longer valid). It’s not my political ideology, it’s what the prophets have said, and until what they have said is changed or overturned by another general authority at another time, I think I’ll stick with them on this one.
Post a Comment