Pope Francis Takes On Capitalism And Inequality

[halconero]

Matt 25:14-30

Apparently, Jesus got it TOTALLY WRONG!

Here is the corrected story,

14 ¶ For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.

15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; BUT THEN HE TAXED THE ONE WITH FIVE, TAKING THREE, REDISTRIBUTED IT SO THAT ALL HAD TWO, HE KEPT THE REST AS HIS FEE FOR APPLYING SOCIAL JUSTICE, and straightway took his journey.

16 Then he THE FIRST that had received the TWO talents went and traded with the same, and made five talents.

17 And likewise he THE SECOND that had received two, he also gained other two.

18 But he THE LAST that had received TWO went and digged in the earth, and hid ONE AND SQUANDERED THE OTHER ON RIOTOUS LIVING.

19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

20 And so he THE FIRST came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me TWO talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.

21 His lord said unto him, THOU WICKED AND SLOTHFUL servant: thou hast been SELFISH over a few things, I will make thee SUFFER IN HELL FOREVER.

22 THE SECOND came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.

23 His lord said unto him, THOU WICKED AND SLOTHFUL; thou hast been SELFISH over a few things, I will make SUFFER IN HELL FOREVER.

24 Then THE LAST came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:

25 And I was afraid, and went and hid ONE talent in the earth AND SPENT THE OTHER ON WINE AND CAKES: lo, there thou hast that is LEFT.

26 His lord answered and said unto him, WELL DONE, GOOD AND FAITHFUL servant, thou HAST LIVED HAPPILY:

27 Thou oughtest therefore to have SPENT THE OTHER AND LIVED EVEN HAPPIER.

28 Take therefore the talents from him WHO GAINED FIVE AND FROM HIM WHO GAINED TWO, and give it unto him which hath NO talents.

29 For unto every one that hath shall be TAKEN, and he shall have NONE: but from him that hath not shall be GIVEN even that which he hath not.

30 And cast ye the profitable servantS into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

 

I can find the page number for you if you really wish, but I was just reading Jesus the Christ wherein Elder Talmage says that when reading Christ's parables we must be careful to not overextend their meaning. I believe that you have done that here, taking Christ's commentary on being prepared for the Second Coming, and using what God has given us, and applied it to socio-economics.

[Robert F. Smith]

How about this?  http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/even-pope-cool-public-breastfeeding-171000877.html .

[Stone holm]

We don't live in a "democratic" country!We live in a Constitutional Republic. A democracy is nothing more than mob rule. (Like two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner.)

True we do not live in a classic democracy, we live in a representative democracy which is shortened as a republic. Which of course is a matter in this case of semantics and does not address the point in question. Republics can behave like mobs as well.

[The Nehor]

 

In a historicial context was a usury only for loans on money? Or did it inculde more than that? I really don't know so it's an honest question.

 

In terms of Judaism loans without usury were okay. For Christians the same. There was obviously not a profit motive.

 

I ask this question seriously. Would anyone have the right to fail to exercise, overeat, smoke, eat fast food? If everybody is responsible for my health care, am I not obliged to everybody to be healthy? Under Medicare for all, it seems like it would necessarily follow that failure to take care of our "temples" should result in some form of sanctions. Maybe those who choose to abuse alcohol could be exempted from the privilege of being in the otherwise universal health care system? I think that could work. Otherwise, it just makes those with good health pay for those with bad health. Universal healthcare seems okay except when bad health is directly linked to bad habits. The problem is that much if not most of the expense of healthcare comes from bad health habits.

 

I think this would fall under bearing one another's burdens. You should do your utmost to be healthy but everyone has obnoxious faults and we put up with them as part of the cost of living in society.

 

 

Did we? I didn't ever agree to being taxed.

 

Well then disobey the Savior and stop rendering into Caesar. There are a new nations out there where you can dodge taxes entirely. Might cause a hit to your standard of living though. Most could charitably be called hellholes.

 

 

Joseph Smith taught,
D&C 121:36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but WHEN WE UNDERTAKE to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or TO EXERCISE CONTROL OR DOMINION OR COMPULSION UPON THE SOULS OF THE CHILDEREN OF MEN, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

 

That is specifically talking about Priesthood authority. Priesthood authority is not to use compulsion. Earthly governments can and do and must in order to be governments. It is compulsion to stop the thief, stop the unsafe from driving, and prevent the airplane pilot from driving through your house for the sheer fun of it.

 

It is hard to carry on a conversation with you be cause so much of what you "know" just isn't so.

NOWHERE did ANY of the prophet teach that it was good to use the force of government to extort "charity" from the individual.

Here is a clue, if you are FORCED to pay it, THEN it is NOT CHARITY.

The Apostle Paul taught,
I Tim 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

And the Prophet Joseph Smith Jr. taught,
D&C 42:42 Thou shalt not be idle; for he that is idle shall not eat the bread nor wear the garments of the laborer.

So I am going to call CFR on your claims about what Jacob and King Benjamin said.

Edited to add,
Paul also taught,

2 Thess 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.

 

Since we are being snippy you're an ignoramus.

 

No mandate for government charity.....hmmmmm.....okay. I'll play. This is a little more difficult in the Old and New Testament because of course government and religion were heavily intertwined. Going to the Law of Moses (which was political as well as religious) we find that God had the Levites and the Priests supported by the people. It was not a voluntary donation (there were freewill offerings for that) it was a command. You did it or you could be punished. This was charity. It was not exclusively held for them to use in their religious duties. It was to be used for eating and drinking for himself and his family. This is of course debatable as to whether it qualifies as charity. The best is yet to come though.

 

In Deuteronomy 14:28 there is a command that every third year you take a tithe of what you have and deliver it to the Levites, the strangers (foreigners and immigrants, probably refugees), the orphans, and the widows. This was not optional. It was a community project with the force of law behind it. People would try to cheat it but then people always try to cheat on their taxes. There are plenty of other like laws in the Torah. The people were commanded in the Torah to lend money (without interest) to those who ask it even if the year of debt forgiveness is right around the corner. Not suggested, commanded.

 

We turn to the New Testament. We get a slightly more ambiguous but somewhat telling case. The Torah commands you to honor and provide for your aged parents if they slip into poverty. This was a religious duty and a legal one under the Law of Moses. Jesus encountered cases of people trying to dodge the Law by giving their money to the Temple so they could not help their parents. The problem was the religious leaders of the day had set up methods of (with a token payment or sacrifice) getting your money back from the Temple. So people would put their money in the Temple to avoid GOVERNMENT MANDATED charity and then when those needing the money were gone you go get it back. Admittedly the government mandate had expired with the Jewish loss of self-government but this serves as an illustration of what it did mean when in force. Jesus condemned the sneaky accounting used to get around government enforced charity. This is also a tacit endorsement of a portion of a political law that Jesus Himself made as Jehovah. This abuse was also used to dodge charitable giving to people outside of the family.

 

Now we turn to the Book of Mormon. There is not a lot about government and taxation. King Benjamin makes it clear he tries to keep taxation light but never says whether there is or is not government welfare. Nothing there. King Noah and the Lamanites treat their Nephite subjects badly and burden them with excessive taxation. Then we turn to Limhi whose people were in bondage to the Lamanites though they retained some measure of self-government and we find GOVERNMENT WELFARE. They were basically an occupied client state. Limhi allows the people to fight for their freedom a few times (he does not participate himself). Each time they fail and a lot of men die. Towards the end Limhi issues a command that all the people give of their substance to support the widows of those who died in the fighting. This was not a taking care of a military man's family. There was no military. The Nephite groups that fought were not endorsed by the government (Limhi). We have Mormon's word that Limhi was a good man and a good king and nowhere is there a condemnation of Limhi's decision to compel others to charitably give.

 

We could discuss the City of Enoch but of course they involves Consecration so I will pass on it.

 

We turn to modern times. The Church has no political authority. However we can look at how the Church's own charities have operated to determine their stance on government welfare. I think the best example is shortly after World War II the Church approached the government. They wanted to ship food and supplies to war-torn Europe. The problem is they obviously had no ships to carry it so they asked the government to carry it. Taxpayer money went into building, fueling, and crewing those ships. For the most part the military also took care of distribution. The Church was part of a larger effort spearheaded by the United States government to alleviate suffering. The Church directly participated in a government welfare program. This was also not the only one but it was probably the largest.

 

As to your contention that enforced charity is not charity I disrespectfully disagree. In the Torah the taxes I mentioned before involving the government-mandated taxes the Lord still promises to bless the people for adherence to the Law. I also think you miss the point of charity. It is all about you for some reason, not the people you are helping. Brigham Young taught that everything belongs to the Lord and mentioned once that the coat he was wearing belonged to God and could be taken with or without Brigham's permission.

 

All this is to prove that government charity is not forbidden. In times in the past it has been used and even directly authorized by God. This does not mean we have to slavishly support every government assistance program in existence. We are to use judgment, mercy, and charity to decide (with our votes) what programs we think are necessary and which are not. There are some government assistance programs I dislike. There are some that do a good job and efficiency studies even show it is a good economically sound decision as it puts more money back into the economy then it costs. Reasonable people can disagree. There is no religious license to scream that they are all evil and try to win the argument by appealing to made up platitudes about how government charity is evil and pretend they have divine sanction.

 

On to Paul's letter to Timothy. I am not sure what you are trying to say here. It was part of a larger bit on Paul talking to Timothy about care for widows. In many of the societies Timothy and Paul taught it was not unheard of for people to turn unwanted family members out and not feed them or support them. Paul condemns this. So do I and I assume you do as well. This is a condemnation of people shunning their duty to feed their families. I do not take it as a condemnation of someone trying and failing to support his family being as bad as an infidel/unbeliever. If it was the Bishop would not open the storehouse. They would excommunicate the poor.

 

You asked for what Jacob and King Benjamin taught. Note that I made that comment not in the context of government charity but to show that your wealth belongs to God and he wants you to share. I was kind of shocked you made this CFR. I thought it was obvious.

 

But okay, let us turn to Jacob's sermon at the temple in the Book of Jacob. There he stands up to rebuke the people. He has two main gripes. One was about unauthorized plural marriage. The other was about wealth. Jacob talks to the people and tells a bit of history. He notes that some have sought wealth and through their industry acquired it. Then he notes that they began to look down and despise those who did not do this. His advice was to accept that God blessed you with it and that you should use your wealth and share it so that all may be rich. He states that if they do not they will face the wrath of God. God does not respect their property rights. He threatens much worse then the taxman does or can.

 

King Benjamin gave a sermon about giving to the poor. His command was to give if you can (and being unable meant bare subsistence living). He further noted that judging the poor and deciding who to help and who deserved it was a sin. He made it clear that your wealth belonged to God and should be distributed as God sees fit.

 

I am going to put your 2 Thessalonians and Joseph Smith quotes together as both say the same thing. The idler should not eat the bread of the laborer. Now that is sound doctrine. Brigham Young had a lot to say about this. The thing was he focused on condemning the idle rich. The guy living off an inheritance or a trust fund falls under as much condemnation as the lazy poor person who wants a handout. He also applied it to employers who underpaid their laborers (pretty much the perfect example of the idler eating the bread of the laborer). I think the Lord is more likely to look kindly on the poor father with three children working two part-time jobs without insurance and collecting food stamps and Earned Income Credit so he can feed his family then he is to the employer who takes advantage of the man's desperation to pay him less then he is worth and pocket the difference and going off to thank God for his many blessings that come from what a shrewd businessman he is. The Old and New Testaments talk at length about oppressing the hireling.

 

We are increasing our income inequality at alarming levels. If you want a pragmatic reason for you to give to government charity think of it is a "Revolution Prevention" tax. Conservatives encourage us to spend loads of money preventing terrorism. Think of it as a way to prevent the poor from becoming desperate enough to kill you and take your stuff. We are headed in that general direction now.

 

 

Okay, so it's not charity, but at least it's one way to get help for people who don't get enough help from the charity of others.

 

I am one of the 99% who needs some of what the 1% have on this planet.  It's not as if God has said that only the 1% should have all they have as if they can have all they want without any regard for the other 99% on this planet.

 

So if they won't share what they have, charitably, the 99% should do what?  Just let them have it?  Why?   It's not theirs as if God  has given it only to them and not the rest of us on this planet.  They're greedy, self-centered, inconsiderate children who should be sharing what they have taken from all of the rest of us living here.  And it's really pathetic that so many people want to be exactly like them if they can be.

 

Read D&C 38:26-27. One of the most poignant parables ever given. God is not happy.

 

 

It is a pattern that the wicked want to impose heavy (20% or greater) taxes.

 

I think you missed the context and the point of the 20% tax King Noah laid on the people. Nowhere do the scriptures condemn the size of Noah's tax. Instead they condemn what he did with it. Read the verses following it. This was a new tax imposed (on top of old ones?) and they were specifically so he and his government/religious officials could live in laziness and luxury. There are not a lot of complaints about oppression under Noah. Just that he was a gluttonous waste indulging his sexual appetites and desire for luxury.

 

Later after Noah is dead the people of his son Limhi are captured and are taxed half of everything they own and bound to servitude. Is the point of the onerousness of this condition that the tax existed at all or that the people had to pay it and get no benefit in return and were in bondage.

 

Apples and oranges. I would be incensed if the President and Congress were taking a fifth of my income and spending it on whores, gluttony, and luxurious accomodations for themselves and their many wives. This is not the case. Congressional and Presidential pay and benefits do not add up to a fifth of our total tax revenue let alone a fifth of our GDP.

 

 Is a government program charity.

 

Yes. Especially in a government with democratically elected representatives where the people as a whole voted for the people who enacted it. There are not nearly enough people collecting government welfare (unless you count the retired) for them to have seized this benefit against the will of the much larger majority without their consent (at least some of them).

 

 

Interesting your reference to unions.  Had a conversation with my wife over lunch, we were discussing a paper I was working on for local economic development...I mentioned that as I worked on it, I had an epiphany that in our town if you really wanted to get some cash flowing in the community, probably the best thing one could do would be to go out and organize the workers in the nursing homes and those working for the various non-profit rehabilitation service organizations in this Town.  The LNA's get paid below the poverty level.

 

Yep, many of them receive government assistance. I worked for one when I was in college. I made barely above minimum wage. If I was not in school and getting other assistance (mostly from parents) I would have been living on food stamps despite working full-time in a difficult and stressful job.

 

 

The other argument that i really don't want to get in is the fraud and waste that goes on in these programs. That is really what people like me have a problem with. If the program was acutally set up to do what it claims or is there some other purpose for the program? I also would argue that the vast majority of programs really don't make life easier. But again I am not going to get into this now.

 

There is of course some fraud and waste. There is fraud and waste in church welfare. It is not that big of a chunk of welfare and there is no way to eliminate it. I can't see ending welfare until we can figure out perfectly who "deserves" it. King Benjamin told us not to try in our personal giving. The government is actually more efficient then most private charities in terms of economic turnaround. The Church still has the government beat though.

 

 

Yes, and it's really amazing how the 1% does so much, relatively, to help others who are poor, isn't it.  But it's still not enough help.  What we should have on this planet is an equal distribution of all goods and services, or as close to that as possible, so that there are no rich or poor among us.  We should all be what we call "middle" class.  And yet the rich have so much more than the poor will ever have in this state of the world.  And it should not be this way.  It just isn't right.

 

Actually in the Lord's perfect way is everyone is rich. I believe he could lead us to it if we would just be willing to do it. Consecration is hard though. It requires the poor to humble themselves and receive assistance and the rich to esteem their brother as themselves and abase themselves to find joy.

 

 

There is a principle of the Spirit that applies to education. I say it also applies to "charity".

D&C 50:19 And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?
20 If it be some other way it is not of God.
21 Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know, that he that receiveth the word by the Spirit of truth receiveth it as it is preached by the Spirit of truth?
22 Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together.
23 And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness.

So I say that it is equally true with giving "charity"

19 And again, he that receiveth CHARITY, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?
20 If it be some other way it is not of God.
21 Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know, that he that receiveth CHARITY, receiveth it as it is GIVEN by the Spirit of truth?
22 Wherefore, he that GIVETH and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together.
23 And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness.

When you VOLUNTARILY give/help others, both you and they are EDIFIED together.

 

I find changing scriptures to prove points questionable. The two things you switched out are not equivalent. I also find it morally questionable to withhold food from the poor until the giver consents so he can be edified. Can he not take pride in the good his government is doing? Is everything solely measured by how it effects him?

 

 

I seriously doubt that. When you consider that there are 6,000,000,000 (rough estimate) people on this planet and there only 450,000,000 (rough estimate). So, if you above the poverty line (as defined by the US Gov) YOUR ARE IN THE 1%!

BTW, how do you plan to take what you "need" from that 1%? Whether it is by personal force/coercion/extortion or by government force/coercion/extortion, how is it different from plain old THEFT?

 

The problem is defining theft. God did not delegate to earthly governments the right to decide what is theft. The Prophets of the Old Testament came down with harsh words against legalized theft. If the rich man with a surplus of labor to choose from uses this advantage to pay someone less then they deserve for their work is this not theft? You can argue that the employee could go elsewhere but this is not always realistically an option.

 

In a society that allows the wealthy to steal from the poor because the law says it is okay why should the poor feel an obligation to honor the law that allows stealing from them and even encourages the wealthy to oppress them in their search for the stuff of life?

 

 

Really? So, God didn't bless the rich people with their wealth? So where did they get it, if not from God?

So, a farmer who works hard for the harvest doesn't really own that harvest because God didn't give the harvest to him because he obeyed the law of the harvest, but rather God gave the farmers harvest to "ALL of us, collectively"?

Also, how do you square that with the parable of the talents?

 

Brigham Young made it clear that the wealthy do not always deserve their wealth. God did give it to them but he does not rate his children and give the best money and the worst poverty. Yet sometimes the farmer loses his crop due to soil or weather problems. Does that mean God hates him and loves the guy who brought in a good crop?

 

Wealth distribution being unfair is part of God's plan. It's scriptural. In D&C 38:26-27 God tells the parable of 12 sons which I mentioned earlier. Pulled from LDS.org:

 

26 For what man among you having twelve sons, and is no respecter of them, and they serve him obediently, and he saith unto the one: Be thou clothed in robes and sit thou here; and to the other: Be thou clothed in rags and sit thou there—and looketh upon his sons and saith I am just?

 27 Behold, this I have given unto you as a parable, and it is even as I am. I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine.

A man has 12 sons. All serve their father equally well (there is not question of merit). Yet one is clothed in robes and one is clothed in rags. Then the father sits down and says he is just. The implication is no father would do this. Then God makes the startling announcement "it is even as I am" that this is what He does!!!!!!

 

Then he gives the commandment to be one or you are not His. He is saying he created the wealth disparity. It is not an indication of merit or deserving it. He expects us to fix it by becoming one. If we do not then we are not His. I find this scripture somewhat terrifying. I have heard people soft-pedal it by claiming it means spiritually one but that implies God is an idiot and structures his parables to confuse. If he meant spiritually he could have altered the parable to not be about wealth.

 

The parable of the talents fits in just fine with this. There is no reason to believe that God gave the five talent guy five talents because he was better then the two talent guy. The two talent guy may have served God equally well and just got a "clothed in rags" spot.

 

I wrote a novel. I dare someone to quote this.

[Rob Osborn]

In terms of Judaism loans without usury were okay. For Christians the same. There was obviously not a profit motive.

 

 

I think this would fall under bearing one another's burdens. You should do your utmost to be healthy but everyone has obnoxious faults and we put up with them as part of the cost of living in society.

 

 

 

Well then disobey the Savior and stop rendering into Caesar. There are a new nations out there where you can dodge taxes entirely. Might cause a hit to your standard of living though. Most could charitably be called hellholes.

 

 

 

That is specifically talking about Priesthood authority. Priesthood authority is not to use compulsion. Earthly governments can and do and must in order to be governments. It is compulsion to stop the thief, stop the unsafe from driving, and prevent the airplane pilot from driving through your house for the sheer fun of it.

 

 

Since we are being snippy you're an ignoramus.

 

No mandate for government charity.....hmmmmm.....okay. I'll play. This is a little more difficult in the Old and New Testament because of course government and religion were heavily intertwined. Going to the Law of Moses (which was political as well as religious) we find that God had the Levites and the Priests supported by the people. It was not a voluntary donation (there were freewill offerings for that) it was a command. You did it or you could be punished. This was charity. It was not exclusively held for them to use in their religious duties. It was to be used for eating and drinking for himself and his family. This is of course debatable as to whether it qualifies as charity. The best is yet to come though.

 

In Deuteronomy 14:28 there is a command that every third year you take a tithe of what you have and deliver it to the Levites, the strangers (foreigners and immigrants, probably refugees), the orphans, and the widows. This was not optional. It was a community project with the force of law behind it. People would try to cheat it but then people always try to cheat on their taxes. There are plenty of other like laws in the Torah. The people were commanded in the Torah to lend money (without interest) to those who ask it even if the year of debt forgiveness is right around the corner. Not suggested, commanded.

 

We turn to the New Testament. We get a slightly more ambiguous but somewhat telling case. The Torah commands you to honor and provide for your aged parents if they slip into poverty. This was a religious duty and a legal one under the Law of Moses. Jesus encountered cases of people trying to dodge the Law by giving their money to the Temple so they could not help their parents. The problem was the religious leaders of the day had set up methods of (with a token payment or sacrifice) getting your money back from the Temple. So people would put their money in the Temple to avoid GOVERNMENT MANDATED charity and then when those needing the money were gone you go get it back. Admittedly the government mandate had expired with the Jewish loss of self-government but this serves as an illustration of what it did mean when in force. Jesus condemned the sneaky accounting used to get around government enforced charity. This is also a tacit endorsement of a portion of a political law that Jesus Himself made as Jehovah. This abuse was also used to dodge charitable giving to people outside of the family.

 

Now we turn to the Book of Mormon. There is not a lot about government and taxation. King Benjamin makes it clear he tries to keep taxation light but never says whether there is or is not government welfare. Nothing there. King Noah and the Lamanites treat their Nephite subjects badly and burden them with excessive taxation. Then we turn to Limhi whose people were in bondage to the Lamanites though they retained some measure of self-government and we find GOVERNMENT WELFARE. They were basically an occupied client state. Limhi allows the people to fight for their freedom a few times (he does not participate himself). Each time they fail and a lot of men die. Towards the end Limhi issues a command that all the people give of their substance to support the widows of those who died in the fighting. This was not a taking care of a military man's family. There was no military. The Nephite groups that fought were not endorsed by the government (Limhi). We have Mormon's word that Limhi was a good man and a good king and nowhere is there a condemnation of Limhi's decision to compel others to charitably give.

 

We could discuss the City of Enoch but of course they involves Consecration so I will pass on it.

 

We turn to modern times. The Church has no political authority. However we can look at how the Church's own charities have operated to determine their stance on government welfare. I think the best example is shortly after World War II the Church approached the government. They wanted to ship food and supplies to war-torn Europe. The problem is they obviously had no ships to carry it so they asked the government to carry it. Taxpayer money went into building, fueling, and crewing those ships. For the most part the military also took care of distribution. The Church was part of a larger effort spearheaded by the United States government to alleviate suffering. The Church directly participated in a government welfare program. This was also not the only one but it was probably the largest.

 

As to your contention that enforced charity is not charity I disrespectfully disagree. In the Torah the taxes I mentioned before involving the government-mandated taxes the Lord still promises to bless the people for adherence to the Law. I also think you miss the point of charity. It is all about you for some reason, not the people you are helping. Brigham Young taught that everything belongs to the Lord and mentioned once that the coat he was wearing belonged to God and could be taken with or without Brigham's permission.

 

All this is to prove that government charity is not forbidden. In times in the past it has been used and even directly authorized by God. This does not mean we have to slavishly support every government assistance program in existence. We are to use judgment, mercy, and charity to decide (with our votes) what programs we think are necessary and which are not. There are some government assistance programs I dislike. There are some that do a good job and efficiency studies even show it is a good economically sound decision as it puts more money back into the economy then it costs. Reasonable people can disagree. There is no religious license to scream that they are all evil and try to win the argument by appealing to made up platitudes about how government charity is evil and pretend they have divine sanction.

 

On to Paul's letter to Timothy. I am not sure what you are trying to say here. It was part of a larger bit on Paul talking to Timothy about care for widows. In many of the societies Timothy and Paul taught it was not unheard of for people to turn unwanted family members out and not feed them or support them. Paul condemns this. So do I and I assume you do as well. This is a condemnation of people shunning their duty to feed their families. I do not take it as a condemnation of someone trying and failing to support his family being as bad as an infidel/unbeliever. If it was the Bishop would not open the storehouse. They would excommunicate the poor.

 

You asked for what Jacob and King Benjamin taught. Note that I made that comment not in the context of government charity but to show that your wealth belongs to God and he wants you to share. I was kind of shocked you made this CFR. I thought it was obvious.

 

But okay, let us turn to Jacob's sermon at the temple in the Book of Jacob. There he stands up to rebuke the people. He has two main gripes. One was about unauthorized plural marriage. The other was about wealth. Jacob talks to the people and tells a bit of history. He notes that some have sought wealth and through their industry acquired it. Then he notes that they began to look down and despise those who did not do this. His advice was to accept that God blessed you with it and that you should use your wealth and share it so that all may be rich. He states that if they do not they will face the wrath of God. God does not respect their property rights. He threatens much worse then the taxman does or can.

 

King Benjamin gave a sermon about giving to the poor. His command was to give if you can (and being unable meant bare subsistence living). He further noted that judging the poor and deciding who to help and who deserved it was a sin. He made it clear that your wealth belonged to God and should be distributed as God sees fit.

 

I am going to put your 2 Thessalonians and Joseph Smith quotes together as both say the same thing. The idler should not eat the bread of the laborer. Now that is sound doctrine. Brigham Young had a lot to say about this. The thing was he focused on condemning the idle rich. The guy living off an inheritance or a trust fund falls under as much condemnation as the lazy poor person who wants a handout. He also applied it to employers who underpaid their laborers (pretty much the perfect example of the idler eating the bread of the laborer). I think the Lord is more likely to look kindly on the poor father with three children working two part-time jobs without insurance and collecting food stamps and Earned Income Credit so he can feed his family then he is to the employer who takes advantage of the man's desperation to pay him less then he is worth and pocket the difference and going off to thank God for his many blessings that come from what a shrewd businessman he is. The Old and New Testaments talk at length about oppressing the hireling.

 

We are increasing our income inequality at alarming levels. If you want a pragmatic reason for you to give to government charity think of it is a "Revolution Prevention" tax. Conservatives encourage us to spend loads of money preventing terrorism. Think of it as a way to prevent the poor from becoming desperate enough to kill you and take your stuff. We are headed in that general direction now.

 

 

 

Read D&C 38:26-27. One of the most poignant parables ever given. God is not happy.

 

 

 

I think you missed the context and the point of the 20% tax King Noah laid on the people. Nowhere do the scriptures condemn the size of Noah's tax. Instead they condemn what he did with it. Read the verses following it. This was a new tax imposed (on top of old ones?) and they were specifically so he and his government/religious officials could live in laziness and luxury. There are not a lot of complaints about oppression under Noah. Just that he was a gluttonous waste indulging his sexual appetites and desire for luxury.

 

Later after Noah is dead the people of his son Limhi are captured and are taxed half of everything they own and bound to servitude. Is the point of the onerousness of this condition that the tax existed at all or that the people had to pay it and get no benefit in return and were in bondage.

 

Apples and oranges. I would be incensed if the President and Congress were taking a fifth of my income and spending it on whores, gluttony, and luxurious accomodations for themselves and their many wives. This is not the case. Congressional and Presidential pay and benefits do not add up to a fifth of our total tax revenue let alone a fifth of our GDP.

 

 

Yes. Especially in a government with democratically elected representatives where the people as a whole voted for the people who enacted it. There are not nearly enough people collecting government welfare (unless you count the retired) for them to have seized this benefit against the will of the much larger majority without their consent (at least some of them).

 

 

 

Yep, many of them receive government assistance. I worked for one when I was in college. I made barely above minimum wage. If I was not in school and getting other assistance (mostly from parents) I would have been living on food stamps despite working full-time in a difficult and stressful job.

 

 

 

There is of course some fraud and waste. There is fraud and waste in church welfare. It is not that big of a chunk of welfare and there is no way to eliminate it. I can't see ending welfare until we can figure out perfectly who "deserves" it. King Benjamin told us not to try in our personal giving. The government is actually more efficient then most private charities in terms of economic turnaround. The Church still has the government beat though.

 

 

 

Actually in the Lord's perfect way is everyone is rich. I believe he could lead us to it if we would just be willing to do it. Consecration is hard though. It requires the poor to humble themselves and receive assistance and the rich to esteem their brother as themselves and abase themselves to find joy.

 

 

 

I find changing scriptures to prove points questionable. The two things you switched out are not equivalent. I also find it morally questionable to withhold food from the poor until the giver consents so he can be edified. Can he not take pride in the good his government is doing? Is everything solely measured by how it effects him?

 

 

 

The problem is defining theft. God did not delegate to earthly governments the right to decide what is theft. The Prophets of the Old Testament came down with harsh words against legalized theft. If the rich man with a surplus of labor to choose from uses this advantage to pay someone less then they deserve for their work is this not theft? You can argue that the employee could go elsewhere but this is not always realistically an option.

 

In a society that allows the wealthy to steal from the poor because the law says it is okay why should the poor feel an obligation to honor the law that allows stealing from them and even encourages the wealthy to oppress them in their search for the stuff of life?

 

 

 

Brigham Young made it clear that the wealthy do not always deserve their wealth. God did give it to them but he does not rate his children and give the best money and the worst poverty. Yet sometimes the farmer loses his crop due to soil or weather problems. Does that mean God hates him and loves the guy who brought in a good crop?

 

Wealth distribution being unfair is part of God's plan. It's scriptural. In D&C 38:26-27 God tells the parable of 12 sons which I mentioned earlier. Pulled from LDS.org:

 

26 For what man among you having twelve sons, and is no respecter of them, and they serve him obediently, and he saith unto the one: Be thou clothed in robes and sit thou here; and to the other: Be thou clothed in rags and sit thou there—and looketh upon his sons and saith I am just?

 27 Behold, this I have given unto you as a parable, and it is even as I am. I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine.

A man has 12 sons. All serve their father equally well (there is not question of merit). Yet one is clothed in robes and one is clothed in rags. Then the father sits down and says he is just. The implication is no father would do this. Then God makes the startling announcement "it is even as I am" that this is what He does!!!!!!

 

Then he gives the commandment to be one or you are not His. He is saying he created the wealth disparity. It is not an indication of merit or deserving it. He expects us to fix it by becoming one. If we do not then we are not His. I find this scripture somewhat terrifying. I have heard people soft-pedal it by claiming it means spiritually one but that implies God is an idiot and structures his parables to confuse. If he meant spiritually he could have altered the parable to not be about wealth.

 

The parable of the talents fits in just fine with this. There is no reason to believe that God gave the five talent guy five talents because he was better then the two talent guy. The two talent guy may have served God equally well and just got a "clothed in rags" spot.

 

I wrote a novel. I dare someone to quote this.

Yeah, I got to page 329 of your post and lost track...

[The Nehor]

Yeah, I got to page 329 of your post and lost track...

 

Just read the last bit then. It was the best part.

[Stone holm]

I did an interesting experiment, googled Buddhist Economics got a clear understanding, googled Catholic Economics got a clear understanding, googled Mormon economics got a history lesson on the original beliefs and then a somewhat muddled statement that we gave up on what was revealed and are going with a softer version of American seek after riches and give charity to the poor and when it doesn't really matter again after the millennium starts we will go back to what was revealed.

[Vance]

Just a simple request for him to help those of whom he has stewardship.

God ALSO gave him stewardship over his potatoes. You don't know that it wasn't the Lord's desire that he make money from those potatoes for another purpose of the Lord, and that the Lord didn't want the second fellow to provide them instead. You are presuming that you know the will of the Lord in this instance, BUT YOU DON'T!!

 

If we can't even do that through our own church how do we think it will ever work through all of society?

Sounds to me like you WERE able to "do that through our own church", just not in the way that YOU thought it should have happened.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Vance

[Ahab]

 

I wrote a novel. I dare someone to quote this.

 

Dude, you should write longer posts more often.  You made a lot of really good points and I accept the correction you offered about what I said.  The problem, though, is that if you tell everyone God wants all of us to be rich then the rich people might get the idea it's okay for them to keep all of their money, instead of spreading it around so everyone can have some of their money, which is why I think it's better to say the rich should live a middle class lifestyle while giving everything in excess of that to other people.  It's even better when the rich freely share everything they have with all other people, but we need to start somewhere to get that ball rolling.

[Vance]

Well then disobey the Savior and stop rendering into Caesar.

What do you do when Caesar is confiscating more than he should?

That is specifically talking about Priesthood authority. Priesthood authority is not to use compulsion.

Which is the pattern SET BY GOD to be followed HERE ON EARTH.

Earthly governments can and do and must in order to be governments.

So, it was ok what the Nazis and the Fascists and the Communists did because they were governments?

Do you even think about what you are spouting?

It is compulsion to stop the thief,

But not when that thief is the government.

stop the unsafe from driving,

Having a drivers license and auto insurance doesn't "stop the unsafe from driving". It just puts more money into the government coffers.

and prevent the airplane pilot from driving through your house for the sheer fun of it.

Government doesn't PREVENT those things from happening. They happen INSPITE of government.

Since we are being snippy you're an ignoramus.

Coming from you, I will consider that a compliment. THANKS!

The other was about wealth. Jacob talks to the people and tells a bit of history. He notes that some have sought wealth and through their industry acquired it.

Which he does NOT condemn.

Then he notes that they began to look down and despise those who did not do this.

So, it wasn't the acquisition of wealth that was the problem, BUT PRIDE. Got it.

His advice was to accept that God blessed you with it and that you should use your wealth and share it so that all may be rich.

Here is a clue for you, it is NOT sharing if the government confiscates it. This is the principle that ignoramuses and leftist fail to understand. Jacob was talking about the giving and sharing OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL, NOT through the force of government.

He states that if they do not they will face the wrath of God.

True.

God does not respect their property rights.

FALSE!!! He allows them to fail. He allows them to KEEP. He does NOT FORCE them to surrender their property.

He threatens much worse then the taxman does or can.

That still doesn't make what the taxman does right or good or just or fair.

[Vance]

King Benjamin gave a sermon about giving to the poor.

Yup. "Giving" requires FREE WILL. Nowhere did he advocate the use of government force to confiscate property to take care of the poor. HE WAS KING, it was within his power to do so, but because he was a righteous king, he bent over backwards TO AVOID SUCH WICKEDNESS. He specifically states, "And even I, myself, have labored with mine own hands that I might serve you, and that ye should not be laden with taxes, and that there should nothing come upon you which was grievous to be borne-". Equating taxes with a burden "grievous to be borne".

His command was to give if you can

Again, "give" means FREE WILL, NOT government force or compulsion.

He also commanded that "ye will not suffer your children that they go hungry, or naked;" placing the responsibility upon the parents, not upon the government.

(and being unable meant bare subsistence living).

What ever that means. But that is NOT what he said or even implied. He allowed each to judge for themselves whether or not they were able to give. He didn't set some standard. He TOTALLY recognized the FREE WILL of all.

He further noted that judging the poor and deciding who to help and who deserved it was a sin.

Really? So, you aren't supposed to use common sense? Ok, so if I come to you begging for money, you are REQUIRED to give your money to me?

Oh, that's right, only the SELF DEFINED poor are excluded from giving, and only the SELF DEFINED poor are entitled to receive.

He recognized that the GIVER had stewardship and the judgment, NOT SOME GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS.

I am going to put your 2 Thessalonians and Joseph Smith quotes together as both say the same thing. The idler should not eat the bread of the laborer.

Yet, under a government controlled system THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS!

Now that is sound doctrine. Brigham Young had a lot to say about this. The thing was he focused on condemning the idle rich.

And the IDLE POOR!!! Don't forget.

The guy living off an inheritance or a trust fund falls under as much condemnation as the lazy poor person who wants a handout.

NOT under the government system.

We are increasing our income inequality at alarming levels.

Which happens EVERY TIME LIBERALS ARE IN CONTROL, and reverses when Conservatives are in control.

If you want a pragmatic reason for you to give to government charity think of it is a "Revolution Prevention" tax.

Another clue for you, high taxes CAUSE revolutions.

[Vance]

Conservatives encourage us to spend loads of money preventing terrorism. Think of it as a way to prevent the poor from becoming desperate enough to kill you and take your stuff.

That is the result of the falsehoods of liberalism. They teach the falsehood that you are ENTITLED to the labors of others. EVERY ONE of the shooting incidents over the last several years were perpetrated by LIBERLS, because they are fed the falsehoods that income inequity is unfair and that they are ENTITLED to satisfy their grievance THROUGH BLOOD SHED. After all, those that disagree with them are so wicked they DESERVE to die.

We are headed in that general direction now.

YUP, the fruits of liberalism is on display.

Read D&C 38:26-27. One of the most poignant parables ever given. God is not happy.

YUP! PARENTS are responsible for their children, NOT THE GOVERNMENT!.

I think you missed the context and the point of the 20% tax King Noah laid on the people.

Really, so King Noah only DEMANDED TWICE what God asks for, and you don't see a problem with that?

Nowhere do the scriptures condemn the size of Noah's tax.

Well, if it wasn't TOO MUCH, WHY was it even mentioned? It was mentioned SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE it was excessive.

Instead they condemn what he did with it.

Which is also happening IN OUR CURRENT government. Oh, right, you are ignorant of the many recent scandals of government officials using tax money to support their RIOTOUS living.

Later after Noah is dead the people of his son Limhi are captured and are taxed half of everything they own and bound to servitude. Is the point of the onerousness of this condition that the tax existed at all or that the people had to pay it and get no benefit in return and were in bondage.

Right, it doesn't matter that it was collected without the consent of the people. It doesn't matter the rate. What makes it bad, is they didn't get any benefit in return? Really? What about the benefit of the Lamanites NOT KILLING THEM? Within the parameters you are advocating, they should NOT have complained at all. It was a TAX and they did get a benefit out of it.hat was

I would be incensed if the President and Congress were taking a fifth of my income and spending it on whores, gluttony, and luxurious accomodations for themselves and their many wives.

So, you are unaware of the opulent vacations and parties and benefits of our government elite. Your ignorance continues to astound me.

This is not the case. Congressional and Presidential pay and benefits do not add up to a fifth of our total tax revenue let alone a fifth of our GDP.

I guarantee that there are many people paying more than 20%. By the time you add all of the taxes that are being paid, both the seen and the unseen, the average in our socialist utopia is most likely above 20%

[thesometimesaint]

True we do not live in a classic democracy, we live in a representative democracy which is shortened as a republic. Which of course is a matter in this case of semantics and does not address the point in question. Republics can behave like mobs as well.

 

So can every other type of government. A country really is no better than the people who live in it.

[Vance]

Yes. Especially in a government with democratically elected representatives where the people as a whole voted for the people who enacted it.

Excluding the voter fraud, of course.

There are not nearly enough people collecting government welfare (unless you count the retired) for them to have seized this benefit against the will of the much larger majority without their consent (at least some of them).

Again, your ignorance is astounding, the lower 50% in this country don't pay income taxes, so they are quite willing to usurp your liberty.

There is of course some fraud and waste. There is fraud and waste in church welfare. It is not that big of a chunk of welfare and there is no way to eliminate it. I can't see ending welfare until we can figure out perfectly who "deserves" it. King Benjamin told us not to try in our personal giving. The government is actually more efficient then most private charities in terms of economic turnaround. The Church still has the government beat though.

I find changing scriptures to prove points questionable.

Really, the prophets and Apostles do it all the time. You should tell them they are in error.

The two things you switched out are not equivalent.

I say they are! What exactly automatically makes you right and me wrong. You have provided nothing to back you up.

I also find it morally questionable to withhold food from the poor until the giver consents so he can be edified.

So, it is ok to steal it from the "giver" (which he no longer would be, BECAUSE IT WAS STOLEN/confiscated from him).

Can he not take pride in the good his government is doing?

Like funding abortions around the world? Studying flatulence of wild horses? Losing Billions of dollars in the solar energy fiasco? Losing 10 Billion in the GM bailout? Just to name a few.

Is everything solely measured by how it effects him?

Apparently not. Apparently God doesn't really want him to have stewardship over what God has blessed him with. Apparently, at least according to you, God wants some nameless, faceless government bureaucrat over a thousand miles away, to have stewardship.

The problem is defining theft. God did not delegate to earthly governments the right to decide what is theft.

So, you are changing positions? You have been arguing that because it was a "legal" tax it wasn't theft. Now you are claiming that the Government can't define what is or is not theft?

[Vance]

The Prophets of the Old Testament came down with harsh words against legalized theft. If the rich man with a surplus of labor to choose from uses this advantage to pay someone less then they deserve for their work is this not theft?

And who gets to decide what "they deserve"? Are they not being paid the agreed amount? Are they being force to work for less than they could earn elsewhere? Are they prohibited from leaving for better pay? Are they prevent from increasing their value to the employer? Are they prevented from starting their own business?

You can argue that the employee could go elsewhere but this is not always realistically an option.

Is that because we don't live in a free country anymore? We are closer to the leftist "utopia" than we have ever been. Why have opportunities decreased as the socialization of our country has increased?

Are you missing the pattern?

In a society that allows the wealthy to steal from the poor because the law says it is okay why should the poor feel an obligation to honor the law that allows stealing from them and even encourages the wealthy to oppress them in their search for the stuff of life?

In a society that allows the poor to steal from the wealthy because the law says it is okay why should the wealthy feel an obligation to honor the law that allows stealing from them and even encourages the poor, through the power of the government, to oppress them in their search for the stuff of life?

Brigham Young made it clear that the wealthy do not always deserve their wealth.

And the poor sometimes DO deserve their poverty. As TSS was lamenting earlier, WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO PAY FOR THE IRRESPONSIBLITY OF OTHERS?

Why was the Lord perfectly happy with the Constitution and the Federal Government BEFORE the progressive era?

If God is so happy with Socialism, why didn't He inspire the founders to START OUT that way?

And yet He has declared in 1833 long before the arrival of socialism in this country,

5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

And also,

77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

• • •

80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

And in 1836,

54 Have mercy, O Lord, upon all the nations of the earth; have mercy upon the rulers of our land; may those principles, which were so honorably and nobly defended, namely, the Constitution of our land, by our fathers, be established forever.

[pmccombs1]

Do those that desire to use the force of government to take/steal from their neighbor live in peace with those same neighbors?

Why is it that those that don't like the government taking their property are the "bad" neighbors and those that like to use the power of government to take from their neighbor are the "good" neighbors?

Isa 5:20 comes to mind.

 

As I mentioned already, social contracts constitute agreements to yield up personal rights. That is what they are. These are alienable rights, such as rights to wealth, or rights to arms, or whatever other means we may have. That's how the contract has power to overcome the state of war, by regulating means. That's the definition of government.

 

There are kinds of people who just don't like to limit their right to unbounded money, so they disagree with the contract. There are others who don't like to limit their right to keep and use weapons, so they disagree with the contract. Others don't like to limit their right to make things in their own way, or to speak in a particular voice, or whatever the means to power may be. They resent the contract for any number of reasons. 

 

But the contract has to be made, and the people have to determine what they think is fair. Whatever they come up with will be poorly received by many. That's perfectly normal, and it's just fine in a representative form of government. It's OK that people should disagree, because it spurs them to discussion. They can persuade each other and come to a better understanding.

 

Except in the case of intractable extremists, that is. There are those who demand that only their particular view and interpretation of things will do, just like very young children who have yet to learn that they aren't the only people who matter. So they resort to hyperbole rather than to reason and persuasion.

 

This all strikes me as very funny, you see, because I'm a scary anarchist! It's very likely that I have a less favorable opinion of government than you do, so why should I have to tell you this stuff? Because even though I'm an anarchist, I don't desire chaos, or to impose my will on others. I think there is a level at which we need to contract with each other, and for me that level is a local one. We ought to have room to develop as human beings, to find our callings, and to govern ourselves. We ought to develop civic virtue and become the sort of people that don't need the heavy hand of tyranny to keep us from walking roughshod all over each other. As with religion, the only kind of politic that matters is the local one. Nevertheless, like Paul of old, I choose to submit to government and to exercise my dissent in a civil manner through argument and through persuasion.  

 

There is a flaw in your argument. Just because Congress passed something doesn't make it legitimate. And just because the majority agree with something doesn't make it right either.

Helaman 5:2 For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted.

 

You have not identified a flaw in my argument, you have merely failed to understand it. My argument does not rely on the correctness of government. Hobbes was pretty clear that the corruptness of the king had no bearing whatsoever on the ultimate fact that you either consent and authorize him, or you live in the state of war against him. Representative government does not seek for correctness and righteousness, but to be representative. You will never have the "right" government so long as you have a representative one.  

 

Like the radical Muslim, you seem to think your scriptures are a proof-text for your particular view of things. Your language is full of lists of sound bites, carefully selected. You have chosen how your scriptures will speak to you, which is fine by me; but apparently you demand that they speak to everyone else in the same way. You seek to shape things in your own image, but reason does not appear to be the method you choose for this.

 

The Christian belongs to no kingdom save one, and it is not of this earth. His directive is to live in the world but not to be of it; "God and country" are two masters, not one. The Christian makes no oaths but to God, and he certainly does not seek to co-opt the world's powers. As Tripp York once wrote, the elect have always been diaspora and exilic. It is precisely this posture that allows the Christian to evangelize the world, even as he works for the peace of the city.

[Stone holm]

Dude, you should write longer posts more often.  You made a lot of really good points and I accept the correction you offered about what I said.  The problem, though, is that if you tell everyone God wants all of us to be rich then the rich people might get the idea it's okay for them to keep all of their money, instead of spreading it around so everyone can have some of their money, which is why I think it's better to say the rich should live a middle class lifestyle while giving everything in excess of that to other people.  It's even better when the rich freely share everything they have with all other people, but we need to start somewhere to get that ball rolling.

 

A progressive tax rate with steep rates at the high income end coupled with charitable deductions allows and encourages the rich to be charitable and gives them a wider range of choices in targeting their charity.  When we drop the high end rates as we have basically been doing for he last 30 years we reduce the incentive to give large charitable donations.  Study after study has come out indicating that those in high income brackets are not as charitable on a pro-rata basis as their poor and middle-class fellow citizens.  That is possibly not true for the Mormon community.  What the government can do, however, is infrastructure spending which is not taking from the rich and giving to the poor, but is taking from the rich and investing in public works projects domestically -- like transportation networks, communication networks, environmental clean-up, education, healh-care infrastructure, etc.  The money thus invested eventually winds back in the hands of the rich, but in the mean time it has to wind its way back up through the hands of the poor and middle-class.  But, we also have to plug the counterproductive deductions and loopholes which primarily benefit the ultra wealthy like offshoring and capital gains treatment of non IPO stock value increases.

[The Nehor]

God ALSO gave him stewardship over his potatoes. You don't know that it wasn't the Lord's desire that he make money from those potatoes for another purpose of the Lord, and that the Lord didn't want the second fellow to provide them instead. You are presuming that you know the will of the Lord in this instance, BUT YOU DON'T!!

Actually I DO!!

The commandments of the Lord in such scenarios are quite clear. You will find many admonitions to give liberally when asked. You will find none about selling at market value to those trying to aid the hungry so you can make a quick buck. I suppose it is theoretically possible that the Lord gave a specific commandment to the man that overrides the general instructions but those are rare and I really doubt it in this case. I could see the Lord telling him not to to give someone else the chance to participate. I cannot see the Lord telling him to try to make money off of this ESPECIALLY since it did not work.

[Ahab]

A progressive tax rate with steep rates at the high income end coupled with charitable deductions allows and encourages the rich to be charitable and gives them a wider range of choices in targeting their charity.  When we drop the high end rates as we have basically been doing for he last 30 years we reduce the incentive to give large charitable donations.  Study after study has come out indicating that those in high income brackets are not as charitable on a pro-rata basis as their poor and middle-class fellow citizens.  That is possibly not true for the Mormon community.  What the government can do, however, is infrastructure spending which is not taking from the rich and giving to the poor, but is taking from the rich and investing in public works projects domestically -- like transportation networks, communication networks, environmental clean-up, education, healh-care infrastructure, etc.  The money thus invested eventually winds back in the hands of the rich, but in the mean time it has to wind its way back up through the hands of the poor and middle-class.  But, we also have to plug the counterproductive deductions and loopholes which primarily benefit the ultra wealthy like offshoring and capital gains treatment of non IPO stock value increases.

Saying it "winds its way down" sounds an awful lot like "trickling down" and poor workers deserve a lot more than a trickle.

 

I say just give enough help to someone who is poor and does some kind of good work, enough so the poor person isn't poor anymore, and at that point is then middle class.  And yes, a middle class person can give to the poor too, just not as much as a r

rich person can give, because the middle class person doesn't have as much to give as a rich person.

 

Spending is what helps an economy, and poor people would spend more money than rich people who already have everything they need to buy, so we just need some way to get more money in the hands of poor people who will use it to improve their lifestyle.

[Stone holm]

Excluding the voter fraud, of course.

Again, your ignorance is astounding, the lower 50% in this country don't pay income taxes, so they are quite willing to usurp your liberty.

There is of course some fraud and waste. There is fraud and waste in church welfare. It is not that big of a chunk of welfare and there is no way to eliminate it. I can't see ending welfare until we can figure out perfectly who "deserves" it. King Benjamin told us not to try in our personal giving. The government is actually more efficient then most private charities in terms of economic turnaround. The Church still has the government beat though.

Really, the prophets and Apostles do it all the time. You should tell them they are in error.

I say they are! What exactly automatically makes you right and me wrong. You have provided nothing to back you up.

So, it is ok to steal it from the "giver" (which he no longer would be, BECAUSE IT WAS STOLEN/confiscated from him).

Like funding abortions around the world? Studying flatulence of wild horses? Losing Billions of dollars in the solar energy fiasco? Losing 10 Billion in the GM bailout? Just to name a few.

Apparently not. Apparently God doesn't really want him to have stewardship over what God has blessed him with. Apparently, at least according to you, God wants some nameless, faceless government bureaucrat over a thousand miles away, to have stewardship.

So, you are changing positions? You have been arguing that because it was a "legal" tax it wasn't theft. Now you are claiming that the Government can't define what is or is not theft?

 

Voter fraud allegations have been pretty well documented to be bogus.  Let's be frank about that subject, all the voter fraud restrictions were actually put in place in order to disenfranchise citizens.  I don't think anyone is suggesting replacing Christian charity with a governmental dole -- this is more about the citizens of a nation recognizing they are all in the same boat together and are interdependent and understanding that Ayn Rand was not Christian and her teaching were counter to the teachings of Christ.

[thesometimesaint]

Vance:

 

When our government taxes more than what we(as citizens) feel is right. We through our elected representatives lower that tax rate. If we feel it is not enough we through our elected representative raise the rate. There always are those that no tax rate is too low.  Whose desire it is to reduce the size of the government to that which can be drowned in a bathtub. That by definition is an anarchist. There are those that no tax rate is too high. That by definition is a totalitarian. In this country there are functional limits at both extremes.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

Yes. Especially in a government with democratically elected representatives where the people as a whole voted for the people who enacted it. There are not nearly enough people collecting government welfare (unless you count the retired) for them to have seized this benefit against the will of the much larger majority without their consent (at least some of them).

 

 

 

 

That is were the break down is. You view a government program as charity. I do not. You also run into a massive problem. You might wonder why blue states are less charitable than red states. It might be, just might be because liberals view government programs as charity. So why should a wealthy liberial donate to their church or charity (Like Joe Biden) when they have ineffiecent  "charity" programs already set up to take care of the poor.

 

You also made a comment that you basically feel that the reason the rich are rich is because they stole it from the poor. Let me tell you that that position is the most illogical position I have ever heard. The poor have no money to take. That is why they are poor. The owner of my company who is quite wealthy didn't steal the money from some bum on the street. She got it from providing a service that many people can use it at a very affordable rate and her over head is low. No theft here.

 

I guess in the end we will just have to agree to disagree.  I just don't understand, the scriptures are replete with numerous examples that everything starts on a personal level and we take personal responsibility for our selves and others. I just don't understand how you guys walk away from all that and think that some how we should have the government (esp when there is so much corruption) do it all or most of it. Just makes no sense to me.  I guess if you guys think it is some grand idea you will reap what you sow. There is also another issue of cost of these programs. Oh well. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Exactly. That is a claim of subsidiarity, too: That there is such a thing as too much government. People ought to be able to do things for themselves. So you see, Catholic distributist economics is not a form of socialism.  But neither is it a form of capitalism bent on maximizing profits.

You know, we might just agree on a great deal many things, more so than we disagree.

[Vance]

Except in the case of intractable extremists, that is. There are those who demand that only their particular view and interpretation of things will do, just like very young children who have yet to learn that they aren't the only people who matter. So they resort to hyperbole rather than to reason and persuasion.

You have perfectly defined the leftist/progressive/socialist types. They want to impose their vision of "utopia" upon the rest of us.

 

This all strikes me as very funny, you see, because I'm a scary anarchist! It's very likely that I have a less favorable opinion of government than you do, so why should I have to tell you this stuff? Because even though I'm an anarchist, I don't desire chaos, or to impose my will on others.

I am not an anarchist, And, like you, I am not trying to impose my will on others. BUT I do NOT like them imposing their will upon me. Because I know that their agenda WILL result in chaos and violence. 

Like the radical Muslim, you seem to think your scriptures are a proof-text for your particular view of things. Your language is full of lists of sound bites, carefully selected. You have chosen how your scriptures will speak to you, which is fine by me; but apparently you demand that they speak to everyone else in the same way.

Not so, I am attempting to help others see our scriptures from a different point of view from their own.

You seek to shape things in your own image, but reason does not appear to be the method you choose for this.

Seriously? By comparison, I would say that I have provided FAR more reason than my (political) opponents here.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Do those that desire to use the force of government to take/steal from their neighbor live in peace with those same neighbors?

Why is it that those that don't like the government taking their property are the "bad" neighbors and those that like to use the power of government to take from their neighbor are the "good" neighbors?

Isa 5:20 comes to mind.

I think an anology might help with this.

Person A has 100 bucks. Person B has none. Person C comes along and takes the money through complusoury means from person A and gives part of it to person B so he can buy food. Is it theft that person C took it from person A? How is that different from our current set up?

 

The funny part is that in our system money is taken out of my check before I even get it. I don't even have a choice in the matter. If I don't pay it I am fined and I could go to jail.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram