Socialized Medicine

[Just_A_Guy]

11 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

How do you justify the United Order or Law of Consecration if one is absolutely against anything that even smells like Socialism?

Because Bernie ain't no Jesus.  And even if he were morally trustworthy, his universal influence would still come from the point of a gun.  Whereas Jesus' universal influence comes from the universal knowledge of His atoning sacrifice on behalf of all humankind.  Consecration comes from love and gratitude; socialism, from fear and suspicion.

I would also note that when we talk of societies where there were "no poor"--right up through the turn of the 20th century, "poverty" meant something very different than it does today.   I agree that the Law of Consecration ultimately banishes starvation and want and provides an equality of opportunity; but I'm not convinced that it requires all individuals to have identical net worths through all eternity.  In fact, if it did; then that would pretty much nullify the idea of varying "kingdoms of glory", the parable of the talents, etc.

Also - can you provide a source for the assertion that the Law of Consecration or the United Order denied members the prerogative to choose their own vocation?

 

Edited May 24, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

1 hour ago, zil said:

So, if you keep pet rats, you should get the runt of the litter and keep him on a strict diet and exercise routine so that if he gets cancer it can be cured more easily?

You know, I was considering changing my wording because I was afraid someone would interpret it that way.  I'm glad no one actually did.

[Guest]

13 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

How do you justify the United Order or Law of Consecration if one is absolutely against anything that even smells like Socialism?

First take a look at the following:

1 hour ago, NightSG said:

Venezuela's leaders spent the oil money on hookers and blow, while Bolivia's saved and invested theirs.

With wisdom and integrity in the leadership, any economic system can succeed.  However, strong control systems are at a much higher risk of failure as soon as corruption takes hold.  Since we're still waiting for the Incorruptible Guy to step up and take over, don't be surprised if a lot of other socialist countries go the way of Venezuela (or worse, Germany) as soon as they elect a charismatic, corrupt dictator.

The problem with socialism is that it depends on the virtue of man.  Are politicians usually more virtuous or less virtuous?  If you happen to luck out and have a virtuous person investing public funds wisely, be very grateful.  But most of the time you don't.  And no matter how well it may be administered, it will devolve into tyrannical powers because the very premise of socialism states "We can steal from some people and still be virtuous."  You can't go on being virtuous when your entire system is based on justifying theft.

The Law of Consecration doesn't "smell like socialism" because it is not based on theft.  It is based on humility and recognizing that the Lord owns everything to begin with.  This is an entirely different premise.

While both systems depend on the overall virtue of the participants, the Law of Consecration doesn't entrust the economy to the idea that theft is acceptable.  It entrusts the economy to the idea that the Lord knows what He's doing.  Such a people will be more prone to virtuous behavior than those who believe theft is acceptable.

You've got to ask yourself just one question,"How can I justify theft and not expect people to become thieves themselves?"

[Sunday21]

@anatess2. I am sure that you guys will come up with a good health care plan in time!

[JohnsonJones]

The only difference I hear then, is the difference between Socialism in the world as it is seen, and that practiced when led by the Lord (and some outside the LDS church would call the Law of Consecration in practice straight up Communism with a theological slant) is that one is led by the Lord, while the other is fallible because of the corruption of men.

In both instances, you are taking from those who have more, and giving it to those who have less.   The idea that you are stealing from one and giving it to another still stands, if one says that applies to socialism.  If you call it theft, it is JUST AS MUCH THEFT when a government led by man does it, as when a government led by the Lord does it.  It doesn't matter who does the taking, it is still someone taking something from you and giving it to another.  It is fallacious to try to claim that one is theft while the other is not.  If one is theft, so is the other.  If one is not theft, the other is not either.

In fact, it is this idea of THEFT that caused great problems among the saints in Missouri when they tried to live the law of consecration.  Instead of seeing it as a system where all men are created equal and are treated as such, those who had more felt it was theft and in some cases even lodged complaints about it against Jospeh (as well with that as in conjunction with the Kirtland banking disaster).  Those who consider it theft in socialism, are not suddenly going to have a change of heart if the Lord comes down and institutes it.  They will STILL CONSIDER IT THEFT no matter WHO is doing the taking and giving out.

The idea that everything does NOT belong to us (the core of selfishness) and instead belongs to the LORD (the core of consecration) is what we should realize.  In the hands of a righteous people, Socialism can work.

In the hands of an evil or corrupt people, Socialism is probably an ill worse than any other form of government (and in that light, is why Communism is so terrible, because it is typically led by the minds of evil and conspiring men instead of enlightened and inspired men).

In fact, a Socialistic idea (and Joseph Smith is considered one of the Early Socialists by many historians, at least Non-LDS ones) may be the BEST form of government when led by Inspired and enlightened men led by the Lord.

I am grateful we don't have to live that law right now, as I have a lot of stuff that probably would be taken from me and given to others, and I am inherently selfish, but I think that Socialism in and of itself is not actually an evil form of government, and in fact may be one of the most inspired ones.  There shouldn't be this class divide between the rich and the poor that we have, and in regards to medicine, it shouldn't be decided that those who have more money are the ones who live, while those who are poor are the ones who die.

All are children of our Father, and all deserve to be treated with respect and dignity.

[zil]

5 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

In both instances, you are taking from those who have more, and giving it to those who have less.

No, you are not.  In the Lord's way, I willingly give my all and receive what the Lord chooses to place into my stewardship, and I am responsible for what I do with it from there, including whether I increase it (did you notice that in the parable of the talents the one who did more with his stewardship was given yet more, as opposed to having more taken from him?).

In the world's way, someone with a gun (aka the government) takes from those who have "more", wastes or abuses most of it, and gives a tiny smidgen to "approved" people who have less.  (Unapproved people are put in jail or killed.)

You seem to be missing that in the Lord's plan, I choose whether to participate or whether to go it on my own.  It the world's plan, I go along or I go to jail, there is no other way.

One way is the Lord's way.  The other was Satan's plan.

8 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Those who consider it theft in socialism, are not suddenly going to have a change of heart if the Lord comes down and institutes it.

Nonsense.  I consider worldly socialism and communism evil (especially after living in Moscow Russia for 3 years).  And yet I would love for the Lord to come and institute a full, community-cooperation version of the Law of Consecration like many of us imagine will happen in the millennium.  (NOTE: we will not be any more under the Law of Consecration then than we are now, but many of us anticipate a different functional implementation of it on a larger scale.)

11 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I am grateful we don't have to live that law right now

What law?  If you mean the Law of Consecration, if you are endowed, see above parenthetical note.

[mirkwood]

The Law of Consecration is voluntary.  Socialism and communism are compulsory.  Just like Satan's plan in the pre-existence.  Pres. Benson informed us that both socialism and communism were a continuation of the War in Heaven being waged on earth.  Neither socialism or communism has anything to do with the Law of Consecration.

[The Folk Prophet]

12 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

The Law of Consecration is voluntary.  Socialism and communism are compulsory.  Just like Satan's plan in the pre-existence.  Pres. Benson informed us that both socialism and communism were a continuation of the War in Heaven being waged on earth.  Neither socialism or communism has anything to do with the Law of Consecration.

About as much as my giving money to a beggar is related to that same beggar mugging me. It's the same money gone. But it's very, very different.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

re taking from those who have more, and giving it to those who have less.   The idea that you are stealing from one and giving it to another still stands, if one says that applies to socialism.  If you call it theft, it is JUST AS MUCH THEFT when a government led by man does it, as when a government led by the Lord does it. 

Where was the "force" or lack of cooperation with the United Order?  You can't call it theft when there is cooperation.

And I am having difficulty with the idea that you're looking at it from a non-LDS perspective.  You know that the Lord was supporting it.  Therefore, you KNOW there was no theft.  It is impossible for the Lord to steal because everything belongs to him anyway.  Why is that such a difficult concept for you?

Edited May 25, 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

In fact, a Socialistic idea (and Joseph Smith is considered one of the Early Socialists by many historians, at least Non-LDS ones) may be the BEST form of government when led by Inspired and enlightened men led by the Lord.

Quote

7 But he said unto them: Behold, it is not expedient that we should have a king; for thus saith the Lord: Ye shall ^anot esteem one flesh above another, or one man shall not think himself above another; therefore I say unto you it is not expedient that ye should have a king.

8 Nevertheless, if it ^awere possible that ye could always have just men to be your ^bkings it would be well for you to have a king.

9 But remember the ^ainiquity of king Noah and his ^bpriests; and I myself was ^ccaught in a snare, and did many things which were abominable in the sight of the Lord, which caused me sore ^drepentance;

Mosiah 23: 7-9

When have you ever known any government in any country to be filled with just men who do things based on altruism and virtue rather than self-interest and political political interest?  Why then would you want to have such a group of men control something that DEPENDS on the virtue of the leaders in charge?  Joseph Smith was an exception because he was a Prophet of God.

Quote

It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it.

--Thomas Sowell

Do you not see the hypocrisy and the contradiction in your motivations?

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

The only difference I hear then, is the difference between Socialism in the world as it is seen, and that practiced when led by the Lord (and some outside the LDS church would call the Law of Consecration in practice straight up Communism with a theological slant) is that one is led by the Lord, while the other is fallible because of the corruption of men.

In both instances, you are taking from those who have more, and giving it to those who have less.   The idea that you are stealing from one and giving it to another still stands, if one says that applies to socialism.  If you call it theft, it is JUST AS MUCH THEFT when a government led by man does it, as when a government led by the Lord does it.  It doesn't matter who does the taking, it is still someone taking something from you and giving it to another.  It is fallacious to try to claim that one is theft while the other is not.  If one is theft, so is the other.  If one is not theft, the other is not either.

In fact, it is this idea of THEFT that caused great problems among the saints in Missouri when they tried to live the law of consecration.  Instead of seeing it as a system where all men are created equal and are treated as such, those who had more felt it was theft and in some cases even lodged complaints about it against Jospeh (as well with that as in conjunction with the Kirtland banking disaster).  Those who consider it theft in socialism, are not suddenly going to have a change of heart if the Lord comes down and institutes it.  They will STILL CONSIDER IT THEFT no matter WHO is doing the taking and giving out.

The idea that everything does NOT belong to us (the core of selfishness) and instead belongs to the LORD (the core of consecration) is what we should realize.  In the hands of a righteous people, Socialism can work.

In the hands of an evil or corrupt people, Socialism is probably an ill worse than any other form of government (and in that light, is why Communism is so terrible, because it is typically led by the minds of evil and conspiring men instead of enlightened and inspired men).

In fact, a Socialistic idea (and Joseph Smith is considered one of the Early Socialists by many historians, at least Non-LDS ones) may be the BEST form of government when led by Inspired and enlightened men led by the Lord.

I am grateful we don't have to live that law right now, as I have a lot of stuff that probably would be taken from me and given to others, and I am inherently selfish, but I think that Socialism in and of itself is not actually an evil form of government, and in fact may be one of the most inspired ones.  There shouldn't be this class divide between the rich and the poor that we have, and in regards to medicine, it shouldn't be decided that those who have more money are the ones who live, while those who are poor are the ones who die.

All are children of our Father, and all deserve to be treated with respect and dignity.

I know @Carborendum already said as much, but this is so much nonsense I can hardly believe it. Do you know what makes theft theft? Do you consider it theft when you pay your tithing? No? Why? Because it isn't forced by gunpoint. Socialism IS. Period. It is the government forcing you to give up what belongs to you at gunpoint. Duh. It's theft because it's by force. Can you really not understand the difference?

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Where was the "force" or lack of cooperation with the United Order?  You can't call it theft when there is cooperation.

And I am having difficulty with the idea that you're looking at it from a non-LDS perspective.  You know that the Lord was supporting it.  Therefore, you KNOW there was no theft.  It is impossible for the Lord to steal because everything belongs to him anyway.  Why is that such a difficult concept for you?

People felt stolen from due to the Kirtland banking disaster, and combined with Missouri, there were some that started talking against these items and were excommunicated including at times, rather prominent church leaders.  In Brigham Young's time, if you were in certain areas and refused to live the United Order or do as "commanded" you could be excommunicated.  Even in Peter's time, in the New Testament, we have a story of a couple that held back and were severely punished by the Lord.

Now days you are merely fined and possibly tossed in jail.  In those times it could equal loss of salvation as declared by men, or even death as dealt with by the Lord.

Which do you find more severe?

In regards to your final question, it isn't that I find the concept difficult at all.  I think a LOT of this idea of THEFT is driven by people's selfish desires.  I haven't said I'm in favor of socialism, but I think those who consider it theft when done by a legal governmental entity supported by the LDS church in those nations where the church and those entities exist, would also consider it theft if administered by the LDS church itself.

There is very little difference in the entire matter.  It is one thing to say one would be faithful to an idea, while castigating it in action via other means.  It is quite another to see if they would actually do so, or do the same as they have always done towards others in that action.  I normally lean more towards old habits die hard, and if they consider it theft from one legal entity, they would consider it theft from another...divine or not.

[JohnsonJones]

2 hours ago, mirkwood said:

The Law of Consecration is voluntary.  Socialism and communism are compulsory.  Just like Satan's plan in the pre-existence.  Pres. Benson informed us that both socialism and communism were a continuation of the War in Heaven being waged on earth.  Neither socialism or communism has anything to do with the Law of Consecration.

As I pointed above, NEVER has the Law of Consecration been voluntary AFTER one has entered into that covenant (and there are those who may not be practicing it, but have entered into that covenant already...something to think about for many of us here).  The punishments in Peter's time were VERY severe (including loss of salvation and death) which are FAR more punishing than ANY thing we have here.  If you consider fines and jailtime compulsory, excommunication and death are FAR more compulsory than those.

Joseph Smiths (and later Brigham Young's) Law of Consecration when it was practiced is understood in history as a type of Socialism (or, for the more extremes, even a form of Communism, but not the type practiced in the USSR as it was not a completely Marxist idea and was not atheistic in nature).

People are thinking that the big difference is between it being voluntary or not.  In nations that practice socialism, it is easier to avoid by simply moving.  In the LDS church, it is NOT that easy. 

In Joseph Smith's time in Missouri, Copely thought it was this easy as well, and "voluntarily" tried to leave the law of consecration, and did not want this "tax" on his land.  He wanted his land, and the LDS church excommunicated him.  This led to many other hardships and difficulties in regards to leadership and the administration of the plan.

Now, there are several problems I see in regards to those who consider Socialism as theft.

1.  Those who consider it theft...why is it theft.  If one truly feels everything is the Lord's, then what is it that you feel is YOURS instead?  Afterall, it must be yours in order for it to be stolen in the first place.  Why is it YOURS instead of the Lord's, and if it is the LORDs why do you deserve MORE than your brothers or sisters and why is it just that you get more of the LORDS love and wealth than your brothers and sisters?

2.  Do you consider taxes theft?  IF not, why do you consider Socialism theft and taxes are not theft?  If you feel taxes are theft, then  what do you feel tithing is?  You say it is voluntary, but you cannot go to the temple if you do not pay tithing.  There are many less active members and some of those that have left the church that have explained that they have serious problems with tithing when I have asked if they are full tithe payers.  Their excuses come very close to many here in which they also consider tithing theft, as well as compulsory for salvation, because you must be a full tithe payer to receive the blessings of the temple. 

If your concerns are towards this in a little punishment towards taxes (fines and possible jail time), why are their concerns not valid (no ability for exaltation/salvation)?

3.  The LDS church is not against Socialism.  It does not preach against those nations whose governments are more socialistic than ours.  I have not seen anything from the LDS church condemning the government in Germany or Sweden.  In fact, it is quite contrary to what they do.  They actually encourage the membership to support the government and the laws thereof.  Which lead me to what I would say...

This idea that Socialism is evil, or is composed of theft is NOT an LDS doctrine or teaching.  It is a cultural thing unique to those in Utah (so those Utah Mormons), southern Idaho, and at times other parts of the United states.  It has NOTHING to do with the actual LDS church, and EVERYTHING to do with one's political views and ideologies. 

In regards to the ONLY areas we see Socialism involved in the LDS religion, it is in regards to the Law of Consecration...

Hence, I would also say, as the Law of Consecration is absolutely a type of Socialism (as seen by history and what socialism actually is), Socialism itself is apparently the epitome of government.  However, as with many things given by the Lord, it is good while administered by good and righteous men, it can be twisted into something worse and lower than any form of government when administered by those who are evil and corrupt.

That does not mean I lean towards socialism politically.  I simply find the excuse that this is theft rather lacking as a solid reasoning, as it can be applied to any arena that is voluntary or not (and taxes ARE just as voluntary as tithing, for which is worse, the punishment of a little jail time or fines, or the punishment of being excluded from exaltation?).  Taxes are taxes, whether for the aid of others who are less well off, or to pay for that street that you drive on, or the public plumbing that brings water to your house, or any number of other things paid for by the top 1% of our nation and normally not even covered by half by what we are taxed on (which means, if one considers socialism theft, 99% of the US is stealing form the 1% so they can have roads, police, firemen, etc).

Personally, in the US, I find taxes are too high already, but it has NOTHING to do with socialism, and more to do with how I see our founding fathers (who threw a tea party over a tax far less than what we deal with today) and their views regarding taxation and what it is utilized for in general.

 

PS: In answers to #1 and #2 on my part...I do not consider taxes theft, and I realize I am selfish which is why I want more than others in my own right.

On number 2 - I do not consider the taxes as theft in regards to how many are framing it here, and consider those who say such, and this lies doubly towards tithing, as nonsense.  Hence, I would discount both views as theft, but I would say that taxing people without proper recourse on those individuals part, or excessive taxes are problematic.

Edited May 25, 2017 by JohnsonJones
Clarifications

[The Folk Prophet]

45 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

As I pointed above, NEVER has the Law of Consecration been voluntary AFTER one has entered into that covenant

A. Wrong.

B. Even if true, the "covenant" part is the agreement/choice part that makes it so it isn't theft. 

Edited May 25, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[JohnsonJones]

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

A. Wrong.

B. Even if true, the "covenant" part is the agreement/choice part that makes it so it isn't theft. 

A. Name one point where it was actually voluntary after they entered it.  It was NOT in Peter's time (couple killed by the Lord, that's not exactly voluntary).  It was not in Missouri (excommunication, loss of property, and exclusion if you decided to leave it typically).  It was NOT when Brigham Young ordered you to follow it in Utah (then it wasn't even choosing to enter it the first time, you basically did as you were asked regardless of any covenant).  If you did not, you could be executed (as per Utah regulations at the time) if it was considered you caused enough harm, though more likely it was excommunication, and/or exclusion to the point of being forced to leave the territory.

It is only MODERN day ideas and Mormons who think it is going to be voluntary on the group or groups that are called upon to practice it.  Once started, it needs all those who have committed to stay committed, or, as was seen in Missouri when you had many who decided it was voluntary and decided to leave...it all starts falling apart.

B.  You make a covenant with the government by being a citizen.  If you do NOT wish to abide by that law, you always have the choice to do away with your citizenship.  Many Americans have done so, it is YOUR choice in that matter.  In that, unlike LDS covenants, you are MORE free, as you have the option to back out of that agreement in being a citizen (though for many, they were born into it rather than choosing it, another key difference between being a citizen and an LDS member) while you do not really have the option to back out of covenants you make in the LDS church per se.  You may be able to have them revoked for a time on what you are doing, but they are still there (hence the restoration of blessings should one decide to come back instead of doing it all over again), but you cannot simply revoke or back out of covenants you have made.  In that light, you are MORE free with the two sided agreement of citizenship than you are with covenants in the church.

[yjacket]

JJ,

Big difference between religious requirement and covenant vs. governmental requirement. With religion, I make a choice, I can opt in (i.e. make a covenant) and then I need to fulfill my obligations.  By your reasoning, tithing is theft b/c one is obligated to pay tithing in order to obtain a Temple Recommend.  We are told that to obtain exaltation we need to be Temple worthy and part of being temple worthy is paying tithing.

We do not absolutely in no way make a covenant with the government.  Simply because I was born in this country does not a covenant make.  There is no "social contract" that I signed, no oath of allegiance I made.

You are really, really confusing the issues.  More free by being under governments thumb???  Right, b/c you can back out of an agreement in being a citizen??

What are you smoking?

It is very, very simple.  I don't pay my taxes to Fed Gov. and I go to jail. Period.  That is theft, i.e. someone sticks a metaphorical gun in your face and says do what I say or you lose you ability to do anything.  When I take a job, I don't enter into a contract with the government, it's between me and the person who wants to hire me and nobody else.

UO not voluntary?  Read wiki:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Order

Membership in the United Order was voluntary, . . .Also read up on what happened, it pretty much every instance it failed within a couple of years.

Personally, for me the United Order is one of the very few things where I'm not sure exactly what God wanted JS to do. It doesn't give me heartburn, it's just that I've studied basics of economic action quite in depth (not economics per say but the underlying root driving of economics-i.e. the interactions between individuals) and the UO is something I can't make much sense of. Maybe it was revealed to demonstrate how things would be run in the Celestial Kingdom but not in this fallen state.  

I do know that in our current fallen state anything that tries to implement anything remotely like Socialism or the UO is doomed to fail.  Pretty much every single instance of the UO failed within 2-3 years.  The real story of Thanksgiving is the story of a failed Socialist experiment.  The Pilgrims implemented a communal/socialists society and they ended up starving themselves to death b/c of it.  This idea that the Indians saved the Pilgrims is utter rubbish.  The had a communal food storage that everyone was to donate their food to and everyone could take from.  It was a requirement as part of living in their society.  And they starved b/c of it-it was only after they ripped up that covenant and allowed everyone to keep what they worked for and planted that the next harvest was bountiful . . . and thus Thanksgiving. 

Every single instance in human history where Socialism has been tried has failed and failed miserably.

We have a much more complex society today-so the level of socialism it can handle is greater than just simply farming.  This isn't hard, it's actually a very well known phenomena https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons.  It boils down the the simple fact that if you don't personally own something, you don't take care of it as well as if you personally owned it. It's why people throw trash on the side of the road and I guarantee those 500 dollar fines do jack-really when was the last time you heard of someone being fined for throwing trash on the road?

So at a fundamental level, as a society we can handle more deadweight b/c we have more base productivity-if 1000 people are working and 10 are living off the 1000, well society can still handle it.  If 500 people are working and 500 are slackers, society might be able to handle it.  Eventually, if the level of socialism becomes great enough then you have 300 working and 700 slacking and society ends up in a death spiral. Now if those 300 are producing enough for 2000 people and the 300 can still get ahead enough things might be okay.

But fundamentally at some point . . .and it always happens with socialism, the 300 hard workers say screw this, why work so hard and let everyone else have my labor? Socialism at a fundamental level is pure absolute evil-it robs people of their dignity, their self-worth, their integrity, and ultimately it robs them of one of the most important things-the human spirit.

That's why I don't know why the UO, maybe it is a cautionary tale for us, maybe God is trying to warn us that even one of His Prophets who was called to set up a communal type society couldn't make it work given our fallen nature.  Maybe it's a warning against all types of socialism, maybe it's a type of things that are to be in the Celestial Kingdom or in the Millennium.  IMO the only way that the UO can ever work is for each individual to completely give up their ego, any type of coveting, to be unwilling to mooch off of others-except in times of emergency, to not think ill of one's neighbor because you see him working less. There are a lot of natural human emotions and reactions that each and ever individual must fully give up for any UO to have any hope of success.

Truly, the UO can only work in a 100% God-like people.

[Sunday21]

6 hours ago, mirkwood said:

The Law of Consecration is voluntary.  Socialism and communism are compulsory.  Just like Satan's plan in the pre-existence.  Pres. Benson informed us that both socialism and communism were a continuation of the War in Heaven being waged on earth.  Neither socialism or communism has anything to do with the Law of Consecration.

Umm. My knowledge of scriptures is weak but I have a foggy recollection of a couple being killed in the New Testament because they held back some $ from the sale of land. Does this not sound familiar? 

[zil]

22 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

Umm. My knowledge of scriptures is weak but I have a foggy recollection of a couple being killed in the New Testament because they held back some $ from the sale of land. Does this not sound familiar? 

Go re-read it - it wasn't the money, it was the lying.  Sigh, gonna have to go find it.  Acts, chapter 5. From the heading:

Quote

Ananias and Sapphira lie to the Lord and lose their lives

Verses 3 & 4, making it clear they could have safely kept back the money:

Quote

3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

They could have just kept it and walked away.  They didn't.  They pretended to give all without giving all - they lied, thus invalidating their offering from the start.

Edited May 26, 2017 by zil

[Vort]

13 minutes ago, zil said:

34 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

Umm. My knowledge of scriptures is weak but I have a foggy recollection of a couple being killed in the New Testament because they held back some $ from the sale of land. Does this not sound familiar? 

Go re-read it - it wasn't the money, it was the lying.  Sigh, gonna have to go find it.  Acts, chapter 5. From the heading:

Yep, that's it. I have also often heard non-LDS Christians claim that Peter "executed" them, which is a staggeringly ignorant thing to say. From a modern LDS point of view, the whole thing is clear and obvious: Ananias and Sapphira entered into a covenant of consecration similar to the united order. After doing so, they intentionally broke their own covenants, then lied to Peter's face about the matter. The Lord held them to the terms of their covenant. I can only hope that, in losing their lives, they saved their souls.

[Guest]

People have already addressed other points.  So I'll take these.

14 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

1.  Those who consider it theft...why is it theft.  If one truly feels everything is the Lord's, then what is it that you feel is YOURS instead?  

2.  Do you consider taxes theft?  

3.  The LDS church is not against Socialism.  It does not preach against those nations whose governments are more socialistic than ours.  

1. Can a man rob God?  Yet ye have robbed me. -- When God has given something to us as a matter of stewardship, and you take that away from me and declare it to be your stewardship, that is robbing God.  It is no different than a young men's president telling a priest that he should let a deacon bless the sacrament today.  The deacon doesn't have the authority and the YM pres doesn't hold the keys to make such a decision.  That is exactly what government is doing when they take our stewardship from us.

2. It depends on what it is used for.  Tax money is supposed to fund public goods.  Non-public goods are not in the purview of government.  When taxes are used for public goods, it is NOT theft.  When they are used for non-public goods, it is theft.  Taking from one individual at gun point for the sole benefit of another who hasn't earned it is theft.

3. Yes it is.  How often have you heard any GAs talk about the torture, tyranny, oppression, etc. of tyrannical governments doing ANYthing.  I believe I've heard a few mentions, but none come to mind right now.  And we have heard in decades past (Grant, Benson, and others) talk about the evils of socialism & communism.  But the membership like you simply didn't listen.  Members in Canada didn't listen.  Members in Britain didn't listen.  Now, much of the US isn't listening.  Enter the Samuel principle.  They stopped talking about it.

Quote

 Communism and all other similar isms bear no relationship whatever to the United Order. They are merely the clumsy counterfeits which Satan always devises of the gospel plan… Latter-day Saints cannot be true to their faith and lend aid, encouragement, or sympathy to any of these false philosophies. They will prove snares to their feet.” (Grant & McKay; Conference message by J Reuben Clark 6 April 1942.)

Quote

“I attended a second lecture on Socialism, by Mr. Finch; and after he got through, I made a few remarks… I said I did not believe the doctrine.” (Joseph Smith: History of the Church 6:33)

Quote

“We believe that our real threat comes from within and not from without, and it comes from that underlying spirit common to Nazism, Fascism, and Communism, namely, the spirit which would array class against class, which would set up a socialistic state of some sort, which would rob the people of the liberties which we possess under the Constitution…

“As we see it, there is no way in which we can, to use your own words, “preserve and perpetuate our freedom—freedom to govern ourselves, freedom of speech, and freedom to worship God according to our own light,” except we shall turn away from our present course and resume the normal course along which this great country traveled to its present high eminence of prosperity, of culture, of universal education, and of the peace and contentment which we enjoyed prior to the inauguration of the “New Deal”. (1932-3)

--First Presidency 1941

 

Edited May 26, 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

Is Socialism the United Order?  No it is not.

http://scriptures.byu.edu/gettalk.php?ID=1476

Quote

No, brethren, socialism is not the United Order. However, notwithstanding my abhorrence of it, I am persuaded that socialism is the wave of the present and of the foreseeable future. It has already taken over or is contending for control in most nations.

They've been railing against it since Joseph Smith.  But because it is now the "way things are" they stopped talking about it.  It doesn't make it any more right than saying that all politicians lie makes lying ok.  They'v simply stopped talking about to avoid deeper condemnation of people like you who are blissfully ignorant.

Quote

Similarities:

The following are similarities: Both (1) deal with production and distribution of goods; (2) aim to promote the well-being of men by eliminating their economic inequalities; (3) envision the elimination of the selfish motives in our private capitalistic industrial system.

Differences:

(1) The cornerstone of the United Order is belief in God and acceptance of him as Lord of the earth and the author of the United Order.

Socialism, wholly materialistic, is founded in the wisdom of men and not of God. Although all socialists may not be atheists, none of them in theory or practice seek the Lord to establish his righteousness (D&C 1:16).

(2) The United Order is implemented by the voluntary free-will actions of men, evidenced by a consecration of all their property to the Church of God.

One time the Prophet Joseph Smith asked a question by the brethren about the inventories they were taking. His answer was to the effect, "You don't need to be concerned about the inventories. Unless a man is willing to consecrate everything he has, he doesn't come into the United Order." (Documentary History of the Church, Vol. 7, pp. 412-13.) On the other hand, socialism is implemented by external force, the power of the state.

(3) In harmony with church belief, as set forth in the Doctrine and Covenants, "that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property" (D&C 134:2), the United Order is operated upon the principle of private ownership and individual management.

God-given agency preserved in United Order

Thus in both implementation and ownership and management of property, the United Order preserves to men their God-given agency, while socialism deprives them of it.

(4) The United Order is non-political.

Socialism is political, both in theory and practice. It is thus exposed to, and riddled by, the corruption that plagues and finally destroys all political governments that undertake to abridge man's agency.

(5) A righteous people is a prerequisite to the United Order.

Socialism argues that it as a system will eliminate the evils of the profit motive.

The United Order exalts the poor and humbles the rich (D&C 104:16). In the process both are sanctified. The poor, released from the bondage and humiliating limitations of poverty, are enabled as free men to rise to their full potential, both temporally and spiritually. The rich, by consecration and by imparting of their surplus for the benefit of the poor, not by constraint but willingly (1 Pet. 5:2) as an act of free will, evidence that charity for their fellowmen characterized by Mormon as "the pure love of Christ" (Moro. 7:47).

Almost EVERY prophet from Joseph Smith to Gordon B. Hinckley has warned us of the dangers of communism and socialism (which in practical application are essentially the same).  But because Monson hasn't spoken about it, well, now it must be ok, right?

[Just_A_Guy]

A few thoughts in response to @JohnsonJones:

1.  I think you misapprehend the way the United Order functioned.  Through the Kirtland-Missouri period, the way it worked was that there was an initial consecration of excess property (including land).  One's "stewardship" was then returned to the individual by legal deed--if you left the Church, you still had legal title to the property without restraint on re-conveyance and with no responsibility to turn future income over to the Church.  

During the Territorial period collectivist communities were the exception, not the rule.  Contra your assertion, such enterprises were not backed by Territorial statute or enforced on pain of incarceration or death; and members of such communities were legally free to relocate.

Oh, and the Kirtland Safety Society has little to do with the United Order directly.  It was not intended as a redistributive enterprise. It was intended to be an economic boon to a cash-poor society; and its depositors expected from the get-go that they would be able to retrieve their deposits more-or-less on demand.  Procedurally, the United Order guaranteed you access to that portion of your property that hadn't been consecrated; and that's why so many people were miffed when the institution failed.

2.  You badly mischaracterize Copley's situation.  Copley invited immigrating saints from Colesville onto his undeveloped property, with the assurance that it would be given to the Church and thence to the individual saints by the mechanism outlined above.  Copley then went on a mission to the Shakers, where he was rejected.  A former Shaker himself, Copley lost his testimony and evicted the Colesville saints from their plots; pocketing for himself the value of the improvements they had made to the land in the meantime.  He was, thereafter, excommunicated--not because he was unwilling to consecrate future income to the Church; but because he had reneged on a deal, cheating over a hundred people and leaving them as utterly destitute refugees.  

Attributing Copley's excommunication to his desire to leave the United Order is, therefore, more than a little disingenuous.

3.  As pointed out above by @zil, you also misread the key lesson in the scriptural story of Ananias and Sapphira.  We know that not everyone was consecrating perfectly--Paul was forever asking for donations for the impoverished saints in Jerusalem--and yet Christians weren't dropping dead left and right all over the Roman empire.  Peter even tells Ananias that he had been free to keep his property--see Acts 5:4.  The real blasphemy was that Ananias and Sapphira flat-out lied to Peter about the nature of their donation; for the sake of looking good.  It was the deception and hypocrisy, not the individualism, that earned them their death sentence.

4.  In one sense, I agree with you that the spectre of lost spiritual blessings may provide an incentive to live the United Order.  But the paradox is that if you do something right for the sake of avoiding punishment (or in order to get a specific reward), you're ultimately doing it for the wrong reason and it turns to your condemnation rather than your blessing (see, e.g., Moroni 7:6-8).  It is our testimonies of Christ, our love for Him, that ultimately allow us to keep the commandments and overcome by faith and make us celestial (D&C 76:51-53).  So from a soteriological standpoint, vis a vis the United Order/Law of Consecration--once you want out, you are out; even if you're still giving your money to the institutional church.  At that point the only deterrent to walking away from the whole works is social, rather than theological or legal.  

One can never completely neutralize social pressures, of course.  But temporally speaking, you can pull out of the Law of Consecration/United Order and retain your natural rights to life, liberty, and property (though perhaps not a guarantee to the promise of happiness or a sense of belonging).  You cannot pull out of socialism and retain any of those rights.  You talk of the right to move away, but socialist countries have developed an annoying habit of a) not letting people move out (see, e.g., East Germany, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, the rest of the former communist bloc) and/or b) trying to export their theories for application on a global basis (is there anywhere in the world where you would be willing to say "yeah, that country shouldn't have universal health care.  They should remain as a refuge for those who want to live in a free market"?)

Not too long ago, on this forum, we discussed the tragic case of an English boy with mitochondrial disease.  It wasn't enough for Britain's NHS to deem the boy "untreatable".  No, no, no--when the boy's family set up a GoFundMe account and made plans to go to America for treatment, NHS refused to let the boy make the trip.  They kept him locked up in the hospital where, at last report, he remains; because the NHS would rather he die than be embarrassed by a market-based system accomplishing what their collectivist system said was impossible.  And this is England--land of the Magna Carta and common law, the ideological grandfathers to our own Bill of Rights.

All of which harks back to something else you suggested implicitly:  That merely by virtue of being a citizen, individuals are duty-bound to submit to whatever burdens government imposes upon them; because in socialism it is the responsibility and function of the individual to serve the collective.  The result of this thinking is that in socialism there is no theoretical basis stating why a man should be able to raise his own children; why a woman shouldn't be shanghaied to work in a state-run brothel; why gladiatorial contests for the entertainment of the masses (a la ancient Rome) would be an act of barbarity.  All of those scenarios are justifiable so long as there is some arguable nexus to the "greater good".  Whereas in the United Order, members remained free individuals under God with naturally-endowed rights; and because of that understanding, a broad range of abusive collectivist actions were off the table from the get-go.  Socialism presumes that men belong to other men.  The Law of Consecration flatly denies this; arguing that we belong only to God.

And, in this vein, let me go back to the Kirtland Safety Society again.  If I read you correctly, you imply that had Church members been living the United Order correctly they would have taken the failure of the Kirtland Safety Society in stride, because they would have understood losses weren't really "theirs" to begin with.  That might be a good point--if the lost funds had actually gone to help the poor.  But they didn't, really; they simply lined the pockets of a few speculators or else evaporated completely.  And here, again, is a difference between socialism and the United Order.  In the face of setback and failure, socialism breezily says "well, your contribution of time/money/labor wasn't really yours anyway; so, no harm no foul.  Next!"  Whereas the United Order says "Gee, this is terrible.  We just hurt a lot of people.  Let's figure out what went wrong, and fix it."  Why the difference?  Because in the United Order, the collective also bears accountability to the individual; whereas in socialism--it doesn't. 

5.  I think we need to be very, very careful in trying to draw conclusions about what forms of government or economic system the Church does or doesn't condemn.  The Church didn't exactly take a firm stand against Naziism, either.  There are far more apostolic condemnations against secular collectivist enterprises (communism, socialism) then there ever were against Naziism.  

6.  Responding to your statement "in regards to medicine, it shouldn't be decided that those who have more money are the ones who live, while those who are poor are the ones who die."--well, then, how should we decide who lives and who dies?  

Should these decisions be made by humans who are by turns loving, selfish, passionate, prejudiced, considerate, capricious, egotistical, and vindictive?  Or are we safer in a system where no single consciousness except for God is the final arbiter of who lives and who dies?

Edited May 26, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[zil]

39 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

soteriological

JAG wins the "Big Word of the Day" award! 

39 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

vis a vis

And the "I know Latin and You Don't" award!

And other than that, I'm speechless.  Amazing post, JAG!

[yjacket]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

"in regards to medicine, it shouldn't be decided that those who have more money are the ones who live, while those who are poor are the ones who die."--well, then, how should we decide who lives and who dies?  

This hearkens to a lesson that is a must-learn if an individual wants any measure of happiness in life.  "Life isn't fair".  It's never going to be fair and any attempts to make life "fair" will simply result in more misery as someone will be inconvenienced in the attempt to make life fair for another individual.

Yeah, it's certainly not fair that those with money have better access to health care than those who don't.  It's not fair that some are born in more "priveleged" places than others, be it country, race, family etc.  Life just quite simple isn't fair and the sooner one understands that concept, the easier life will be.

The beautiful thing about the Gospel is that it teaches us that life isn't fair and that that is okay.  The Prodigal Son, or even the vineyard workers who showed up to work in the evening and only worked 2 hours and got paid the same amount as those who worked the entire day. The beauty of the Gospel is that in the end, God will make it right and no one will claim "that's not fair".

 

[Guest MormonGator]

15 minutes ago, yjacket said:

  It's never going to be fair and any attempts to make life "fair"

You are right, it isn't fair. If you look at society today we have more advantages and luxuries than anyone else in the history of the world did (not hyperbole, fact). You are right, it isn't fair. We are spoiled rotten.