The case for Book of Mormon socialism

[frankenstein]

The Law of Consecration,... accumulating wealth which is not necessarily removed each year, only what is necessary to sustain the poor.

do you have proof of this; proof that you assert was the model?

The Lord, being a freemarket capitalist by doctrinal example, seems to understand that under socialism, no wealth is created and over time, nothing remains to help the poor as everyone becomes poor.

Its is very interesting and telling, that there are no General Conference talks which promote freemarket capitalism as the Lords way.

I read something very funny about the acts of Jesus being the antithesis of freemarket. Two of the examples I remember are him over throwing the tables, and him cursing the fig tree.

Jesus placed no conditions on a person receiving from Christ, The only conditions, I recall Jesus placing on someone is not telling others the miracle just given.

In the example Christ gives of "least of these", the person who gave food, shelter or clothing, also placed no conditions on the person receiving.

Mosiah, places no conditions on the person receiving, rather Mosiah says that to retain a remission of your sins to visit the sick, afflicted and imprisoned.

What I find interesting, is that Mitt Romeny stated concerning his socialist program put into place in Mass. was "everyone needs to contribute" or something to that effect; well that is about as socialist/communist as it gets.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I see little has changed while I've been away.

Agreed. Welcome. I am very glad you stopped by.

[Loran Howard Blood]

Whether one accepts the historical or theological claims of the Book of Mormon, one theme in it is obvious: At their most righteous, the Nephites presented in the book were benevolent socialists; at their most depraved, they were greedy free-market capitalists.

It would have been nice if Mr. Williams had been desirous of observing the same rules of discourse and debate desired of by the originator of this thread, including "no political mudslinging" and calumny of political opponents when he created and published his essay. Use of clear and less conceptually provocative terminology would also have been welcome (the euphemistic term "benevolent socialists" that Williams uses here is fascinating precisely for the cold light it throws on the unhappy lack thereof in actual historical experience).

In the zenith of Nephite culture,

[Loran Howard Blood]

Agreed. Welcome. I am very glad you stopped by.

Good to be back. Droopy has returned, rested, tanned, and ready to kick...

Well, I do want to get off to a good start.

[Loran Howard Blood]

I doubt very much you can substantiate this. He certainly wasn't averse to helping his followers bring in loads of fishes, which was their sustenance.

CFR. I don't recall reading anything like this. Maybe if you are talking about the elite but not necessarily the ordinary citizen.

Again CFR. That is not what that little incident was saying.

What Christ taught was not letting the poor suffer. Please explain who will take care of the poor if no one is concerned about earthly riches?

This kind of ideology runs a very high temperature, and as you know, when temperatures run too high, they can create quite a delirious state of mind.

As fruitless as serious, critical discussion is with people of this mental orientation, I do always hope that people observing the debate, who may be sitting on the fence as to economic/social questions of this kind, will be helped in clarifying and settling their own positions on the matter, and that they would be persuaded to lean toward the truth, and not cleave unto the darkness.

[frankenstein]

Last point: I have no idea what "unregulated capitalism" is, and neither, I strongly suspect, does Mr. Williams.

"who is John Galt" was a phrase seen on many of the "tea party" types. As I understand "atlas shrugged" and rand, rand was against any regulation of the market.

----------------------

good to have you back.

[jadams_4242]

So a former BYU student and academic friend posted this on his facebook profile. As I have had problems in the past engaging him in politics as he tends to become a bit more heated and take things personally in these matters, I did not post against it. Nonetheless, I thought the article, which I think misses the boat on so many points in it's short length, was worthy of discussion.

A couple of rules:

1) Yes, I know this is inherently political. We try to avoid these topics on the board. But this was published in the SL Tribune and is making its rounds, so it definitely affects both doctrine and how certain members in the church plan to interact with the church (and use it) for their perceived ideas of Zion. Thus, it has relevance beyond just the politics.

2) ABSOLUTELY NO POLITICAL MUD-FLINGING WILL BE TOLERATED. This means no ad hominems, no statements such as "liberal and intelligent is an oxymoron" or "capitalist pigs". I will have you blocked from the thread if you try it. This includes absolutely no mud-flinging about Glenn Beck or Al Sharpton or such.

3) The point is to discuss both the article itself from a textual critical standpoint (ie, is it supported or not by the underlying texts and culture referenced), it's portrayal of its opponents in the context of truthful, honest, etc, and also some of the concepts of how they feel the Book of Mormon should be "reclaimed".

[Tribunal]

MikeyMike, can you site any examples of any socialist utopias that you have promoted on this board?

[David Bokovoy]

In a recent email exchange with a group of religious educators on this very subject, it was interesting to see a couple turn to the same thought expressed throughout this thread, that forcing citizens to take care of the poor and needy through the redistribution of wealth is wrong. One of my good friends who is a bit older than I am and lived through the Vietnam era made an interesting point that is worth sharing:

I appreciate and respect the rugged individualism and self-determining tenor regarding agency that underlies some of the previous comments; they have caused me to ponder in realms where my learning and understanding are quickly diminished (not too difficult that).

As a wee lad I lived during a period of war and approaching the age of involuntary servitude (the draft), I found myself in the midst of a national discussion over the morality and legality of being forced to potentially offer my life on the battlefield. As many of you know, eventually, there were ways to avoid the draft legally and many did; however, there remained a loud and clear message in my parts (rural Utah) that went something like

[Jeff K.]

Quote

In other words, neither socialists nor capitalists can call upon Christian doctrine to enforce their worldview upon Christians.

The Apostle Paul taught that we own nothing. This Christian doctrine was reiterated on numerous occasions throughout the centuries. For example. St. Augustine taught:

"God does not demand much of you. He asks back what he gave you, and from him you take what is enough for you. The superfluities of the rich are the necessities of the poor. When you possess superfluities, you possess what belongs to others." (Exposition on Psalm 147, 12).

Paul and the disciples didn't set up a national government, but they did form their own social government which has far more in common with Socialism than Capitalism.

"For if the eagerness is there, it is acceptable according to what one has, not according to what one does not have; not that others should have relief while you are burdened, but that as a matter of equality your surplus at the present time should supply their needs, so that their surplus may also supply your needs, that there may be equality. As it is written:

[Vance]

In a recent email exchange with a group of religious educators on this very subject, it was interesting to see a couple turn to the same thought expressed throughout this thread, that forcing citizens to take care of the poor and needy through the redistribution of wealth is wrong. One of my good friends who is a bit older than I am and lived through the Vietnam era made an interesting point that is worth sharing:

Interesting thoughts.

Also interesting is the fact that the military has learned than an all voluntary approach is far more efficient and effective than the non-voluntary approach.

This same lesson can and should be applied to helping the poor. The most efficient and effective approach is the voluntary one, not the coercive/socialist one.

[WalkerW]

I wrote a brief article in the North Texas Daily (UNT's paper) entitled "Economic, Morality Work Together" (not my title...). It was based on my blog post "The Spirit of Giving & the Morality of Markets." I think there is plenty of evidence that markets not only run on virtue, but actually can foster it. Markets also create a collective intelligence of cooperation. I would suggest Nate Oman's unpublished "Property, Contract, and the Market: A Mormon Perspective."

[Vance]

There is no coercion in Socialism, so this really is based on a misunderstanding of what Socialism entails.

And the National Socialists in early 20th century Germany didn't use coercion either, right? Or did they have a misunderstanding of what Socialism entails?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I realize that these thoughts don

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

"Nor ever will be, socialist, capitalist, monarchist, it doesn't matter."

Every Christian on earth wants a monarchy, including the LDS. Jesus the Christ will be our King.

[frankenstein]

These scriptures are wonderful scriptures regarding personal responsibility, not government control. When the government forces you to do good, you cannot do good since you have abrogated your responsibility to government. So your idea that you simply move personal responsibility to that of government responsibility falls on it face and is actually counter to what Christ wants for us. Satan wants to make sure we all have no choice but to do good. But Christ does not.

you ALWAYS have a choice.

You choose not to follow the gov, you go to prison.

You choose not to follow God, you go to prison.

If you have "no choice" with a gov. program, then you have no choice with God's program. Each entity will punish you for not acting in the affirmative to what they say is how things must be.

The compulsion with the gov. or God is the essentially the same, Do what is commanded or be punished.

Also, there is always, that pesky article of faith about being subject and there is that pesky D&C reference about if you are following God you have no need to break the laws of man. And what is even more interesting and pesky about those scripture/doctrine, is that neither doctrine provides "only those laws you determine are moral".

[Nathair/|\]

Terry Goodkind's Faith of the Fallen provides a good demonstration of the consequences of socialism as well as how people are affected when one person takes initiative and starts illegally providing a valuable service for a fair price.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

you ALWAYS have a choice.

You choose not to follow the gov, you go to prison.

You choose not to follow God, you go to prison.

If you have "no choice" with a gov. program, then you have no choice with God's program. Each entity will punish you for not acting in the affirmative to what they say is how things must be.

The compulsion with the gov. or God is the essentially the same, Do what is commanded or be punished.

Also, there is always, that pesky article of faith about being subject and there is that pesky D&C reference about if you are following God you have no need to break the laws of man. And what is even more interesting and pesky about those scripture/doctrine, is that neither doctrine provides "only those laws you determine are moral".

First off, to everyone, thank you for keeping the conversation clean and keeping it mostly to a scriptural debate about the article and topic. It's good to keep a topic open and on track!

Frankenstein,

The major difference is who is in control. If a perfect being is in control, great. But no one here on earth is. Further, in any socialist government, it includes a method of compulsion led by one or a small group of people. Those people may initially be very wonderful and benevolent. The problem is that the system is then in place for those with evil intent to take power and abuse people. It's why George Orwell, once a staunch socialist who fought for Russian Socialism, became very anti-socialist when he saw those who were already clawing for power and using the system. He realized there was no way to stop it from happening, and fought against it the rest of his life.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K.:

"Nor ever will be, socialist, capitalist, monarchist, it doesn't matter."

Every Christian on earth wants a monarchy, including the LDS. Jesus the Christ will be our King.

I agree, my faith waits for the king, and not a king of this world. My socialism resides only in his will and not the will of any nation.

[Jeff K.]

you ALWAYS have a choice.

You choose not to follow the gov, you go to prison.

You choose not to follow God, you go to prison.

If you have "no choice" with a gov. program, then you have no choice with God's program. Each entity will punish you for not acting in the affirmative to what they say is how things must be.

The compulsion with the gov. or God is the essentially the same, Do what is commanded or be punished.

Also, there is always, that pesky article of faith about being subject and there is that pesky D&C reference about if you are following God you have no need to break the laws of man. And what is even more interesting and pesky about those scripture/doctrine, is that neither doctrine provides "only those laws you determine are moral".

No, government takes away the choice to give and decides for itself who to give to. You lose the ability to make that choice and to do good because you have abrogated your choice to a government which does not, by its existence under our Constitution believe in virtue beyond its own definition of it.

One can indeed be subject to kings and socialists (who are oligarchs and still kings). Nothing pesky about it. It doesn't mean we have to support the idea of monarchy, and its modern form of socialism in which the bureacracy exists (L'etat c'est sommes).

The compulsion of God versus the compulsion of the state are entirely different unless of course you believe the state is perfect or you believe God is imperfect. It is silly to presume the state to be perfect, except under God, in which the good of all is paramount from an infinitely wise source. If one believes the state is infinitely wise, that it seeks our best interest (versus the bureacracy's own best interest), then I can only surmise one's last brain cell has left the building.

There is an incredible and infinite difference between something run by God and something run by the state. I have little faith in the state looking out for my eternal interest. I have a great deal of faith in God doing so.

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

I know of no other world where Christ is to be Lord and King.

[BCSpace]

If you have "no choice" with a gov. program, then you have no choice with God's program. Each entity will punish you for not acting in the affirmative to what they say is how things must be.

God's compulsion is always righteous. Man's not necessarily so. God has already given doctrine and scripture for how to act in this area and it has been demonstrated that socialism is contrary to these. It's not just economic, socialism leads to compulsion in other areas. Religion is the enemy of socialism, for example. Religious beliefs are invariably connected to economic performance and loyalty to the government under socialism and therefore, thought control will be attempted. It's happening even now as we become more socialist and it's going on in every socialist country. Socialism is the antithesis of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in every way.

[semlogo]

And the National Socialists in early 20th century Germany didn't use coercion either, right? Or did the have a misunderstanding of what Socialism entails?

Godwin'd

[semlogo]

you ALWAYS have a choice.

You choose not to follow the gov, you go to prison.

You choose not to follow God, you go to prison.

If you have "no choice" with a gov. program, then you have no choice with God's program. Each entity will punish you for not acting in the affirmative to what they say is how things must be.

The compulsion with the gov. or God is the essentially the same, Do what is commanded or be punished.

Also, there is always, that pesky article of faith about being subject and there is that pesky D&C reference about if you are following God you have no need to break the laws of man. And what is even more interesting and pesky about those scripture/doctrine, is that neither doctrine provides "only those laws you determine are moral".

Excellent point. Thanks for dismantling that old double standard.

[thesometimesaint]

Vance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism