I hope I am not opening up a deadly can of worms here...
There is a lot of talk lately about Barack Obama being a socialist, and McCain accuses him of wanting to "spread the wealth around" with his tax plan. I am not for socialism in its radical form, and I do not believe Obama to be radical. My thought is, many members of the church are Republican, and buy in to this thought that "spreading the wealth around" is outrageous, and infringes on their rights and privilidges. My question then, is, if you believe that to be true, what are your thoughts on the Law of Consecration? Is it such a terrible and outrageous ideal, if the Lord Himself asks this very same principle of us one day? That his children be on more equal ground? That the wealthy give more because they have more? I am not referring to any other aspect of this campaign, then to what I have stated. I welcome your thoughts...
24 comments:
(sorry I had to delete the first one, I had a major typo in it)
Callie, you are great and I love that you think so much about all of this. Wish I was more like that!
But to answer your question... it is one thing for Barack Obama to ask me to share what I have but entirely a WHOLE DIFFERENT STORY if the Lord asked me to support the Law of Consecration. The Lord is perfect and knows exactly what He is doing and He can test my faith. But I just don't trust any politician (republican, democrat or independant, etc.) to ask the same. They aren't perfect and I am sure their ideas aren't the same as the Lord. They don't know what the outcome will be. The motives just aren't the same. I don't think the idea is really the same at all. Just my thoughts!
Deadly can of worms, indeed!
Interesting that you should bring this up. It has been on my mind all day and just this morning I sent an email to a friend who had sent me a forwarded email on the topic. Here is an excerpt of my email. He responded in a blog post, but it didn't answer my question very well.
--------
Regardless of which party takes office, wealth redistribution will happen. Always has, always will. With the democrats, it's just turned up a notch, or a few notches.
This is one of those areas I was talking about when I said the Democratic party exemplifies Christlike attributes as much as the Republican party. Help the poor? Feed the hungry? Visit the sick and afflicted? Be your brother's keeper? Seems to apply here. If anyone you know has gotten a student loan, been on WIC, Medicaid, and so on, then shouldn't we be grateful that that was made available to them? I'm not saying I think the system is perfect. Obviously, it's the government and it's deeply flawed. I look forward to the Law of Consecration when in a more perfect society such a plan of wealth redistribution will be organized and implemented by a theocratic form of government. But I don't think it's fair to say that poor people or disadvantaged people are that way because they are lazy/don't work as hard. Opportunity is HUGE in making money, and honestly, not everybody has it. Also, is there anyone who works harder than a single mom Denny's waitress?
This is one area that puzzles me why more Mormons don't embrace it. We voluntarily do it with our fast offerings. Please share your thoughts because I really want to understand.
PS -- This also is directly tied to an issue I am very passionate about: balance the national budget!!! We need to pay off our debts and WE are the source of income for the government. THEN we can spend less, I am all about that!
There are some very, very big differences. 1) Socialism is compelled, consecration is voluntary, (Satan wanted to compel obedience, and the Savior gave us agency) 2) Socialism is administered by government which inherently means bureaucracy and corruption. Consecration is administered by the Lord. 3) Socialism promoted reliance on others and laziness. It also causes feelings of resentment for others. Consecration fosters a love for others and promotes a desire to assist others.
Refer to the following 2 links.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGAaOATLLrg
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=f8fe1f26d596b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
Thanks for your thoughts so far...I agree with Shanna and anonymous that obviously the Law of Consecration is not exactly the same thing. I am not saying it is, I am only comparing it figuratively. I too, look forward to the day where things are perfect and managed perfectly...I just wanted to point out, that taxing the rich to help out with the poor is a Christ-like attribute, regardless of who is sharing that wealth (the government). I too, agree with Emily that not every family that is poor is lazy. We shouldn't assume that our taxes are merely lightening the burden on the lazy... What of the families that have gone bankrupt because they can't pay off their medical bills? What of the families who have lost jobs due to the economy, or sickness? Without the government providing aid in these instances, there would be no hope for families like this. Who pays for those programs? We do. All I am saying is I believe it is Christlike to share the wealth, regardless of if it is by paying taxes, or through the Law of Consecration. The country is where it is because of capitalism, and greed. We need to even out the playing field here, and like Emily said, the government can't do it alone, we as a country have to be willing to step up, regardless of how "uncomfortable" it may for the wealthy.
Whoa. hold on a second. you said "The country is where it is because of capitalism, and greed." I agree with the greed part but lets not just cave into what others are saying and throw capitalism under the bus. This country is the most economically sucessful country on earth, and we have a economic system based on...capitalism. We have the lowest poverty rates. Our poorest people are wealthy compared to many places in the world. I make a meager income yet I can afford to feed myself and have a place to live. We are where we are because of the "Spread the wealth" mentality. (Opposite of capitalism). The housiing crisis in particular was brought about because the Clinton administration forced lenders to give loans to people who could not afford them. i.e. spread the wealth.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/Articles-i-2008-10-09-185828.112113_Would_the_Last_Honest_Reporter_Please_Turn_On_the_Lights.html
There is nothing Christlike about "taxing the rich to help out with the poor." You will find no reference in the scriptures where the Savior forced people to evenly spread their wealth. He constaly encouraged individuals to "Feed the hungry, clothe the naked.." But this was never done by compulsion...the Lord gave us our agency and allows us to be stewards. Compulsion (whether that is in taxes or anything else) is the oposite of agency. That was Satan's plan, remember?
I highly recommend you read the talk and watch the Youtube video of President Benson, that was posted earlier.
You also state "Without the government providing aid in these instances, there would be no hope for families..." How did the world and society survive for so many milenia without "government welfare"? People were responsible for themselves and it worked out. Now times have changed and hardships do come, jobs are lost and medical bills can pile up unexpectedly as you mention. However why is this the governments responsibility? What about churches where members make voluntary contributions. What about non-profit organizations set up specifically to help those in need, whose source of funds come from donations. Think of the United Way, the Red Cross, the LDS Humanitarian funds, etc. the first 2 accept government funds but that is only a small part of their revenue.
Wow, that was alot. Anyway Callie, I respect you because you are thinking and that is something that so few of us do.
First, let me correct myself. I chose my words neglegently when I stated that taxing the rich to feed the poor, etc was a Christ like attribute. What I meant to relay, was that giving of our wealth is Christ-like, and we don't have to look at paying taxes as such a burden if we look at it in that light.
I am not undermining non-profit programs, by saying the government provides aid. It is just a fact. Non-profit organizations are wonderful, because they understand the need to sacrifice to help others, and to help a greater cause. I wish there were more of them, but I am also grateful to a government who provides outlets as well. Without our tax dollars to fund such programs, many would be affected.
I don't question the greatness of America, but I question the direction it is headed. Define success, because being trillions of dollars in debt, ranking 9th among industrialized nations in education, and not much furthur in health care does not scream success. My question is simply, is it so terrible for the wealthy to pay a bit more in taxes to help stabilize the economy? After all, they are not the ones deciding if diapers and a tank of gas fit in to the budget this week. And if taxes aren't raised at all, how do we as a nation get ourselves out of this mess...realistically?
If Christ was the one RUNNING our government I would do it in a SECOND! Which I can't wait for may I add. Won't that be nice!! Even when Joseph Smith tried to apply it didn't work. It is a perfect plan but can't work unless there is a perfect leader and a perfectly obedient people. Also the Law of Consecration demands that all people give everything. Obamas plan is take from some people and give to some people. What are those who are already receiving this welfare being asked to give? The law of consecration only works when every one involved does so voluntarily. Obama will force his will on us. Anyone that wishes to help the poor will do so on their own.
..which we do in the church and that's why the CHURCH WELFARE plan IS SO effective!! BUt those receiving church welfare are ONLY able to if they abide by certain rules and obligations. IF they contribute in some way. Also the church gives 100% of the money which we know the govt. does NOT do. What makes the government qualified to help the poor? They can't deal with simple issues let alone taking care of every citizen. Oh and the more you make the more you DO pay in taxes...that is why there are different tax brackets-different percentages. Ok so maybe you did open up a can of worms:) hehe...i do hear where you're coming from but again can't wait for the day when Christ is our ruler and we CAN live that law. ..but our world is SO FAR from that! Thanks Callie for being so brave in bringing up this issue.
Callie,
Didi told me about your site and link! Controversial indeed! Hope you don't mind if I post a few thoughts as it caused me to think!
Thanks Anonymous and all the others for their comments! I especially enjoyed the link Ezra Taft Benson and socialism! Wow, amazing how in 1977 he could explain some of our current candidate(s) fundamental claims. Maybe I shouldn't sound so amazed as he was a Prophet with direct inspiration from God!
I agree that the true law of consecration, Obama seems to know little if anything about from all the u-tube videos he and others have posted combined with all the available data one can gather in a few months!
I definitely am not for any more forced business ethics, forced health care, forced types of marriage, forced taxes that drain rather than promote growth! I just can’t see how Obamas’ plan will do any good for businesses remaining here!
You know, regarding taxing, $250K sounds like a lot of money to me and those who make a moderate salary I am certain. But for a small business that is a small amount when considering how much taxes to pay and still have to fund all that is required for maintenance in our so called "world" economy. Higher taxes will make it harder to compete sending more jobs and production out of the country than we have already lost.
OK, maybe leveling the playing field is a hard one to figure out with all the dynamics of promoting growth in other areas of the world less fortunate! Maybe China will price themselves out of the market like we did and the production will move to ?? Africa?? Then everything we buy can say made in Africa or some other country.
Something in the whole “spread the wealth” sounds similar to the events surrounding the Boston Tea Party and country formation, taxation without agreed to representation! Maybe I am not well enough educated to determine though?! My thoughts run on….
Callie
Excellent topic of conversation...I know you already have some quotes from President Benson, but here are some more along with the link to the article.
http://www.zionsbest.com/proper_role.html
From President Benson: "A category of government activity which, today, not only requires the closest scrutiny, but which also poses a grave danger to our continued freedom, is the activity NOT within the proper sphere of government. No one has the authority to grant such powers, as welfare programs, schemes for re-distributing the wealth, and activities which coerce people into acting in accordance with a prescribed code of social planning. There is one simple test. Do I as an individual have a right to use force upon my neighbor to accomplish this goal? If I do have such a right, then I may delegate that power to my government to exercise on my behalf. If I do not have that right as an individual, then I cannot delegate it to government, and I cannot ask my government to perform the act for me…
In reply to the argument that a little bit of socialism is good so long as it doesn't go too far, it is tempting to say that, in like fashion, just a little bit of theft or a little bit of cancer is all right, too! History proves that the growth of the welfare state is difficult to check before it comes to its full flower of dictatorship. But let us hope that this time around, the trend can be reversed. If not then we will see the inevitability of complete socialism, probably within our lifetime."
Socialism does not equal the law of consecration. It sounds attractive, but it's a cheap impersonation of a sacred law.
Jarad
Thanks everyone again, you have certainly given me some more food for thought, and I always appreciate those who have done their homework.:)
Well, I did post a comment but I guess it didn't get through because it's not there, but that is okay because every time I get my complete thought together I come on and someone has already said it. :) (nice run-on sentence there) Anyway, I had agreed with everything that "anonymous" said and then I was going to post a similar thought that Jared said about how it sounds appealing because ultimately we would like to have a more even distribution and help those that are in need. We chose the Lord's plan of free-agency though so unfortunately there are going to be bad choices mixed in with the good. That ultimately helps us though doesn't it? :) Satan has perfected the art of "oh just this once, it's for a good cause" and "it's what the people want, so it must be right" as he slowly and subtly leads you away from the Lord's path. Anyway, it sure will be wonderful when the law of consecration is fully implemented! Thanks for making us think Callie! I enjoyed researching the topic.
The article published by President Benson in 1968 represents his very conservative political views, and not the position of the church. He was not the prophet when it was published.
When Joseph Smith ran for president, his platform was quite progressive: free the slaves and liberate the prisoners! He was in the business of saving souls.
It is frustrating to me that the implication is if you are Mormon and are voting for Democrats, then you are somehow not following the teachings of the church. I absolutely reject that notion! (Can you tell that I am frustrated?!) Honestly, how is it bad if more people in this world have access to health care? There is a human cost.
A few months ago in Utah the legislature was about to vote on a restrictive immigration measure and Elder Jensen of the First Quorum of the Seventy asked the legislators to be careful in their decision, as the passage of that law would have a real human cost. It passed anyway, overwhelmingly. In this instance, the representative from the church was hoping for a much more politically moderate solution. I'm just trying to illustrate that the Republican party is not necessarily God's party, contrary to some assumptions. I need to do more research, but I'm pretty sure the Republican party was formed in direct opposition to the Mormon Church in Missouri.
We already have a system of redistribution of wealth. I've already said this, but student loans, WIC, Medicaid? We all know people who have needed these services. Also, what about the possibility that reducing poverty would likely directly reduce the number of abortions in this country?
Callie, sorry to go off. I need to work on having more patience, I think.
Emily
Correct. President Benson was not the president of the church at the time he made his comments. That does not automatically mean he was wrong in his statements. He was still a prophet, seer and revelator.
Joseph Smith was quite liberal for his time. He was for liberating people from the control of the government. Slavery was institutionalized in the Constitution. He wanted less government control on the lives of people. Prisoners are also under the control of the government. So, he wanted to reduce government control over their lives. He was especially interested in reforming the concept behind debtors' prisons. Once locked up they were unable to work to pay off their debt.
As to your next point, I do not think that members of the church who vote for Democrats are in opposition to church doctrine. I think that they have a different opinion of how they tie their religious beliefs into their political beliefs. There are several Democrats who I would vote for because their political beliefs are close to mine. There are also many Republicans that I would not vote for. In fact, I think it's important to note that President Faust was a democratic state legislature for the State of Utah. A pretty good guy all around. I just always hope that anyone who votes is making the best choice with all the available information.
As far as your history of political parties goes, kind of a dangerous area to go into as political parties change. The Democratic party traditionally was opposed to equal rights based on race. JFK largely was opposed by his party when he tried to end the Jim Crow laws. A democratic president entere the US into the following wars without being attacked: Woodrow Wilson and WWI, FDR against Germany in WWII, Truman in the Korean War, and JFK in Vietnam.
When it comes to the immigration issue, I think both parties are wrong. It's an issue which must be approached humanely and with common sense. Neither party is willing to do that.
You are correct. Redistribution of wealth does exist in the US. Many good people have been the recipients of these programs. Unfortunately, these systems, as they stand allow far more people to abdicate their personal responsiblity. For every person who used WIC to take care of their family for a short time until they were able to stand on their own, there are many more who rely on the system and have no desire to lift themselves to something better. The best example of a good welfare system is the one run by the church. You will be taken care of but you are expected to contribute and work for what you receive.
Reducing poverty most likey would reduce the number of abortions. But, I disagree with the idea that government programs are the best method for reducing poverty. Welfare tends to feed into itself, exacerbating the problem. Many think, why should I lift myself higher if I can get enough to get by while doing nothing.
My last point is that I dislike the implication that becuase I may support a Republican candidate that I am narrow-minded and cold hearted. I don't assume that members of the church who support Democrats are acting in opposition to the church or lack an understanding of church doctrine. I assume that we have a simple difference of opinion of how our testimony of the gospel relates to our mortal existence. I think it is wonderful that we have the opportunity to share our ideas and try to come to a better understanding of the world in which we live. I think we can challenge each others ideas without making it personal and assigning negative motives to those with different opinions.
Jarad
Alright, I'm getting Callie's hints that she's ready to end the discussion. I just want to say two quick things:
1 -- It's awesome to study the political views of leaders of the church/former U.S. Secretaries/people you look up to to learn from their points of view (e.g. President Benson), but to link to an expression of his political views in a discussion like this and juxtapose it with a reference to his role as (later) prophet, seer and revelator suggests that the former is a result of the latter. Which in turn suggests that Mormon Democrats are heretics for not agreeing completely. Which isn't the case, as you've acknowledged graciously.
2 -- I think you said it well that we can have similar religious beliefs and personally reconcile them to differing political beliefs. And both be right.
2 Nephi 9:28
28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not.
Is the only thing that comes to my mind as I read the last comment.
Whoa.
Emily
When President Benson made his comments he was an Apostle, an active member of the Quorum of the Twelve. So, at the time he made the statements, he was a prophet, seer and revelator. He was not yet, as you point out, the President of the Church.
Some of the comments President Benson made were in General Conference as an Apostle and others were made in his role as Secretary of Agriculture. The ones referencing the role of the priesthood and what we as members of the church should consider are, I think, important for us to take into account when making political judgements. Does that mean he is completely right in all of his statements connected with socialism and politics? I don't know. I think he is. Does that mean that those who don't interpret the same as me are heretics? I've never made that judgement. Each individual has to make the best decision they can based on what they know. I trust that you and other members of the Church who may lean Democratic more often than me are doing it for good reasons. I do think that you are wrong in several aspects of your political belief system. But, so what, you probably think I'm wrong. I'm not losing sleep over it. You shouldn't either.
And to anonymous:
Judge not that ye be not judged.
Callie
Thank you for opening "a can of worms." I love to talk about politics and I apologize if my excitement came through too strongly in my comments.
Jarad
I value all the comments made...I know all of you- except for "anonymous" (do I know you?), and I know you are all intelligent, thoughtful, and active members of the church. We all vote for, and support a particular candidate for various reasons, dependant on our own personal experiences. I will not let another's comments on my political beliefs belittle my testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I know what I know. That's what is important. I believe there are good men in both political parties. It is not evil against good here. With that said, I think everyone has made valid points. Regardless of who our next political leader is, I am grateful for the most important President in our lives, President Monson. As my good husband reminded me, we have the tools to weather any presidency...we are a self sufficient church, an intelligent people, and I trust we all make our decisions through careful thought and study.
Judgment appears to be swift in all directions, whether candidate or personal!
There are at least 2 anonymous here. I am the first one who made the first 2 anonymous commnets. I just don't want my comments to be linked with those of any other anonymous posters.
I like much of what on the flip side has to say and find it refreshing to hear someone who is careful with words despite the extremely varied opinions!
I am registered independent voting republican this year even if attacked for it and I have been by so many! Regardless I am certain there will be those who try with every word they have to sway me to their opinion but nothing will win for the following reasons, (there are more but won't list all as not sufficient time)
The reasons are simple, McCain and Palin have both publicly stood for marriage between a man and woman.
Obama sympathizes and votes to the contrary from his own site, news sites etc and all I can gather. I don't really need any moe than that.
Must admit Ezra was just the icing on the cake! Prophet or not at the time, truth is truth and my heart feels right when I listened to him speak as an Apostle and as a prophet whether it relates to the candidates or not.
I have found that so many have linked there personal understanding of a topic they have been concerned with and linked them to one candidate or another.
Neither candidate truly represents the Lord as a true Prophet would in relation to Gods' economy so it matters not in the scheme of things who it is if it nots the best! The Lord knows the end from the begining and He will win in the end.
Ok, chose the lesser of two evils?!
Thanks Callie for the blog and assistance in confirming what I already knew in my heart!
Post a Comment