Online Now 2653

Wells Hall Off Topic Board

This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion

On this Board 203
Record: 3425 (1/27/2013)

Online now 2670
Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)

Boards ▾

MSU Red Cedar Message Board

The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web

The Press Box

The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts

Duffy Daugherty Forum

"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion

Jack Breslin Forum

"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion

Wells Hall Off Topic Board

This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion

Marketplace & Ticket Exchange

The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets

Fantasy Sports Forum

For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion

Test/Feedback Forum

Reply

Mormonism and socialism

  • Since Obama is routinely being attacked by the right for his ties to socialism, it's important to note that there are deep ties to socialism in Mormonism.

    Attached in an article that caused a stir a while back. Most Mormons are conservatives and generally equate socialism with communism (i.e., the forced distribution of wealth in a non-democratic society). Thus, they disagree with this article. But many (including myself) define socialism simply as a system in which resources are distributed (e.g., public education). In this latter definition, it is clear that socialism is a central value in the Book of Mormon and was a practice of the early church. In fact, it is still believed that a form of socialism (Law of Consecration, in which all things are had in common) will be practiced again in the future.

    BTW, I am a Mormon, so I'm not trying to attack Mormonism. Just pointing out that socialist principles are important to our religion. Although most Mormons would not want to call these "socialist" principles.

    Utah Local News - Salt Lake City News, Sports, Archive - The Salt Lake Tribune

    Utah's independent news source since 1871, The Salt Lake Tribune covers news entertainment, sports and weather for Salt Lake City and the state of Utah.

    www.sltrib.com

    John Dewey

  • John Dewey said...

    BTW, I am a Mormon

    Not to be a dick (pretty good indicator that I'm about to be a dick), but that explains a lot of your posts, actually.

    http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay.htm

    iCameron ●

  • iCameron said...

    Not to be a dick (pretty good indicator that I'm about to be a dick), but that explains a lot of your posts, actually.

    Because all Mormons are alike? Not so fast, my friend ...

    Trucha

  • By your definition, capitalism would be socialism too.

    It's cute how you libs make up your own definitions for things. Trapper is the master of this, but apparently the disease is spreading.

    Compound 2

  • Trucha said...

    Because all Mormons are alike? Not so fast, my friend ...

    What I meant was that he seems to generally be of the liberal persuasion, but he's made some posts about social issues (pornography is one example that comes to mind) that are much more conservative. An otherwise sensible guy proposing/supporting a ban on pornography turning out to be a mormon makes sense to me.

    http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay.htm

    iCameron ●

  • Compound 2 said...

    By your definition, capitalism would be socialism too.

    It's cute how you libs make up your own definitions for things. Trapper is the master of this, but apparently the disease is spreading.

    Yeah, the OP conveniently omits the distinction between voluntary and forced methods of redistribution.
    A commenter sums it up pretty well:

    Dear Mr. Williams, the very essence of LDS-style "socialism" as embodied by the United Order, features ownership of private property and entails VOLUNTARY offering of what one considers to be his or her excess--given FREELY of an individual's own accord--to be used commonly and to assist others.

    When you account for this distinction, the entire premise of the OP's argument falls apart. I guess that's why it's always ignored by those advocating socialism.

    "The RCMB on 247 is one of the most awful, alarming, inappropriate, disgusting, and offensive msg boards in the history of the internet."

    JoeSpartyFan ●

  • JoeSpartyFan said...

    Yeah, the OP conveniently omits the distinction between voluntary and forced methods of redistribution. A commenter sums it up pretty well:

    Dear Mr. Williams, the very essence of LDS-style "socialism" as embodied by the United Order, features ownership of private property and entails VOLUNTARY offering of what one considers to be his or her excess--given FREELY of an individual's own accord--to be used commonly and to assist others.

    When you account for this distinction, the entire premise of the OP's argument falls apart. I guess that's why it's always ignored by those advocating socialism.

    Joe is correct in that the crux of the matter hinges on your conceptions of freedom. In Mormon history and the Book of Mormon (and the Bible too by the way), there were periods of time when the people had all things in common. And you had a choice to be a Mormon or of the Church of Christ or whatever. But they you were required to distribute your wealth in order to remain in good standing in the church - or in the case of the Bible, if you held back your wealth, you were struck dead.

    In a communist society (particularly Stalin's Russia), there was no voluntary choice of any sort. Stalin gave the order and you never had a chance to say yes I voluntarily join this society or yes I agree to participate in this system. And there was no out. This is clearly different from the United Order or Law of Consecration as practiced by Mormons.

    Now, consider a democratic society. In such a society there is freedom to vote for different policies, or at least vote for people who you think will establish certain policies. In this sense, the policies are determined largely by the will of the people as opposed to some dictator imposing his will. So let's say the majority of people want a socialist policy like free public education and they elect individuals who establish this policy. This means that some people are now going to be forced to distribute their wealth, because otherwise they wouldn't choose to do so. But has their freedom really been taken away or is it simply the fact that you don't aways get what you want in a democratic society? Maybe there isn't always individual choice, but there is collective choice. Although there is the individual choice (maybe) to stay or leave the society.

    Back to Mormon socialism. Is choice and freedom in this system similar or different from the choice and freedom in a democratic society that chooses socialist policies? Personally, I don't know how it is all that different, but I'm open to ideas.

    John Dewey

  • John Dewey said...

    Joe is correct in that the crux of the matter hinges on your conceptions of freedom. In Mormon history and the Book of Mormon (and the Bible too by the way), there were periods of time when the people had all things in common. And you had a choice to be a Mormon or of the Church of Christ or whatever. But they you were required to distribute your wealth in order to remain in good standing in the church - or in the case of the Bible, if you held back your wealth, you were struck dead.

    In a communist society (particularly Stalin's Russia), there was no voluntary choice of any sort. Stalin gave the order and you never had a chance to say yes I voluntarily join this society or yes I agree to participate in this system. And there was no out. This is clearly different from the United Order or Law of Consecration as practiced by Mormons.

    Now, consider a democratic society. In such a society there is freedom to vote for different policies, or at least vote for people who you think will establish certain policies. In this sense, the policies are determined largely by the will of the people as opposed to some dictator imposing his will. So let's say the majority of people want a socialist policy like free public education and they elect individuals who establish this policy. This means that some people are now going to be forced to distribute their wealth, because otherwise they wouldn't choose to do so. But has their freedom really been taken away or is it simply the fact that you don't aways get what you want in a democratic society? Maybe there isn't always individual choice, but there is collective choice. Although there is the individual choice (maybe) to stay or leave the society.

    Back to Mormon socialism. Is choice and freedom in this system similar or different from the choice and freedom in a democratic society that chooses socialist policies? Personally, I don't know how it is all that different, but I'm open to ideas.

    A democratic society is not as simple as a society where the will of the people gets their way. If the will of the people votes that black people should be slaves is the slave living in a democracy?

    "Democracy" has to be backstopped by a constitution that protects everybody's rights EQUALLY. If I have to work so that my money goes towards my neighbor's health care and his housing and his cash for clunkers, etc, etc then I am not living in a democracy. I am working and spending the limited amount of time I have on this earth to provide for my neighbor. That is tyranny, not democracy.

    Compound 2

  • iCameron said...

    What I meant was that he seems to generally be of the liberal persuasion, but he's made some posts about social issues (pornography is one example that comes to mind) that are much more conservative. An otherwise sensible guy proposing/supporting a ban on pornography turning out to be a mormon makes sense to me.

    "Otherwise sensible" smile_msu Hey now, opposing porn is totally sensible. There are mountains of data showing how destructive porn is. It alters men's perceptions/expectations of women and women's self-perceptions. It fosters all sorts of violence against women and children. Bad stuff.

    John Dewey

  • Compound 2 said...

    That is tyranny, not democracy.

    "Tyranny": Yet another word compound doesn't know the definition of.

    I must be crazy to be in a loony bin like this.

    RP McMurphy ●

  • R.P. McMurphy said...

    "Tyranny": Yet another word compound doesn't know the definition of.

    good post

    Compound 2

  • Compound 2 said...

    A democratic society is not as simple as a society where the will of the people gets their way. If the will of the people votes that black people should be slaves is the slave living in a democracy?

    "Democracy" has to be backstopped by a constitution that protects everybody's rights EQUALLY. If I have to work so that my money goes towards my neighbor's health care and his housing and his cash for clunkers, etc, etc then I am not living in a democracy. I am working and spending the limited amount of time I have on this earth to provide for my neighbor. That is tyranny, not democracy.

    Actually, we did have a democracy that made that choice. But, I think it is fair to say that it was not a democracy for the slaves.

    In the United Order, your wealth did go to these things. There weren't cars of course. But it was the idea of "all things in common." It was the very idea that you SHOULD spend your limited time here providing for your neighbor. If you feel that way, maybe you should fear Romney because of these socialist ties. Maybe do a write in vote for Sarah Palin instead?

    John Dewey

  • John Dewey said...

    Actually, we did have a democracy that made that choice. But, I think it is fair to say that it was not a democracy for the slaves.

    In the United Order, your wealth did go to these things. There weren't cars of course. But it was the idea of "all things in common." It was the very idea that you SHOULD spend your limited time here providing for your neighbor. If you feel that way, maybe you should fear Romney because of these socialist ties. Maybe do a write in vote for Sarah Palin instead?

    ok, then using your logic if we ever have a society that votes for slavery, I don't want to hear you bitching. You can't go against the "democracy" and what the collective votes for. Good logic.

    Compound 2

  • Compound 2 said...

    ok, then using your logic if we ever have a society that votes for slavery, I don't want to hear you bitching. You can't go against the "democracy" and what the collective votes for. Good logic.

    I didn't say that. And I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you saying the will of the people shouldn't have a role? Are you saying the US constitution prohibits socialist policies such as free public education?

    John Dewey

  • John Dewey said...

    I didn't say that. And I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you saying the will of the people shouldn't have a role? Are you saying the US constitution prohibits socialist policies such as free public education?

    What I am saying is there is a difference between "majority rules" and living in a Jeffersonian democracy. Germany in the 1930's could have been considered "democracy" by your definition. To Jews, gays, or the handicapped, they probably didn't feel they were living in a democracy just because "majority rules". What makes the United States different is that the founders created a country that was backstopped by a constitution. A constitution that was designed so that no person could infringe on the rights of another.

    The version of "democracy" as you define it is not democracy as I see it. It is not "Jeffersonian democracy". If the will of the people can determine that I don't have free speech, or that I don't have due process, or that I don't have any number of rights that the constitution used to protect then I am not living in a democracy. You and I have different definitions of democracy and different definitions of freedom.

    The will of the people of course should have a role in a democracy. But that "will" can not violate the constitutionally protected rights of the people. I should not be able to vote that Mormons should be put in camps and then ship you away on a train. That should seem pretty obvious to all of us since we all grew up in the same type of society that values freedom and liberty. However, under your definition of "majority rules", if I can find enough maniacs who agree that Mormons are a danger and need to be "dealt with", then I could violate your rights simply because "majority rules". That is not a free country as far as I am concerned. Democracy has to be backstopped by a constitution that protects people's natural rights (google natural rights Jefferson).

    Compound 2

  • Compound 2 said...

    What I am saying is there is a difference between "majority rules" and living in a Jeffersonian democracy. Germany in the 1930's could have been considered "democracy" by your definition. To Jews, gays, or the handicapped, they probably didn't feel they were living in a democracy just because "majority rules". What makes the United States different is that the founders created a country that was backstopped by a constitution. A constitution that was designed so that no person could infringe on the rights of another.

    The version of "democracy" as you define it is not democracy as I see it. It is not "Jeffersonian democracy". If the will of the people can determine that I don't have free speech, or that I don't have due process, or that I don't have any number of rights that the constitution used to protect then I am not living in a democracy. You and I have different definitions of democracy and different definitions of freedom.

    The will of the people of course should have a role in a democracy. But that "will" can not violate the constitutionally protected rights of the people. I should not be able to vote that Mormons should be put in camps and then ship you away on a train. That should seem pretty obvious to all of us since we all grew up in the same type of society that values freedom and liberty. However, under your definition of "majority rules", if I can find enough maniacs who agree that Mormons are a danger and need to be "dealt with", then I could violate your rights simply because "majority rules". That is not a free country as far as I am concerned. Democracy has to be backstopped by a constitution that protects people's natural rights (google natural rights Jefferson).

    So let's say the majority of the people vote to make gay marriage illegal. Do the courts have the right to overturn such legislation as unconstitutional?

    I actually agree with your point that there are constitutional principles that the will of the people can't override. I just don't see how socialist policies such as free public education violate those principles.

    John Dewey

  • John Dewey said...

    I actually agree with your point that there are constitutional principles that the will of the people can't override. I just don't see how socialist policies such as free public education violate those principles.

    That's because they don't, and his argument makes no sense.

    signature image signature image

    Yo Teach

  • John Dewey said...

    So let's say the majority of the people vote to make gay marriage illegal. Do the courts have the right to overturn such legislation as unconstitutional?

    I actually agree with your point that there are constitutional principles that the will of the people can't override. I just don't see how socialist policies such as free public education violate those principles.

    Gay marriage is a great example actually. And no the federal government has no authority to overturn what the people vote for. As James Madison said, the authority of the federal government is "few and defined". This is an issue that should be decided by the States. And pretty much the only person who advocates for that is Ron Paul.

    Public Education is not the best example of constitutional principles being violated. I'm not saying you can't use that as an example, but just that there are better examples out there. A better example is the income tax. Why should "the rich" at the will of the masses be forced to pay up to 100% of their income towards taxes while others can pay zero? How is that "equality under the law"? Ignoring that you or I may think that's "fair" or that "the masses" may think it's fair, how is that fair to the person who has to go out and actually earn that money every day? How is "the masses" deciding that somebody like Lebron James should pay 99% tax fair to Lebron James?

    Compound 2

  • What does religion have to do with the political and economic system. We defined our system in the constitution. The bigger point is even if we want the govt to distribute money...the truth is we are broke. Let's stop spending what we don't have and that would solve 95% of the problem. We then can argue over whether we want to take more away from people and give it to someone else. First solve the issue of giving away money that no one has.

    This post was edited by lars on 6/2/2012 at 3:09 PM

    lars

  • Compound 2 said...

    Gay marriage is a great example actually. And no the federal government has no authority to overturn what the people vote for. As James Madison said, the authority of the federal government is "few and defined". This is an issue that should be decided by the States. And pretty much the only person who advocates for that is Ron Paul.

    Public Education is not the best example of constitutional principles being violated. I'm not saying you can't use that as an example, but just that there are better examples out there. A better example is the income tax. Why should "the rich" at the will of the masses be forced to pay up to 100% of their income towards taxes while others can pay zero? How is that "equality under the law"? Ignoring that you or I may think that's "fair" or that "the masses" may think it's fair, how is that fair to the person who has to go out and actually earn that money every day? How is "the masses" deciding that somebody like Lebron James should pay 99% tax fair to Lebron James?

    I brought up gay marriage because there have been a number of cases where the people of a state have voted to ban gay marriage but the courts of the state have declared it unconstitutional. In each case, those on the right were outraged that the will of the people was not being heeded. (state vs. fed powers is a related but separate issue from the one I'm trying to address)

    Regarding taxes, what is the magic number at which taxes go from being a necessary part of government to unconstitutional? 30% rate? 50% rate? 70% rate? Are there periods in US were the tax rate should have been considered unconstitutional because it was too high? With the United Order, it was 100% of everything. Does this mean Romney has ties to an unconstitutional, socialist past?

    John Dewey

  • lars said...

    What does religion have to do with the political and economic system.

    Conservatives bend over backward to try to tie Obama to "evil" socialists. The goal seems to be to raise fears that Obama is going to make America communist. The point of the OP was simply to point out that you could make the same ties between Romney and socialism via Mormon history and doctrine. If Romney was a Democrat and most Mormons leaned left, I can guarantee there would be outrage over this from the right. It would be unjustified outrage, but outrage nonetheless: "Romney will try to establish the United Order" "Romney believes that having 'all things in common' is the highest standard of society" and so on.

    John Dewey

  • John Dewey said...

    Conservatives bend over backward to try to tie Obama to "evil" socialists. The goal seems to be to raise fears that Obama is going to make America communist. The point of the OP was simply to point out that you could make the same ties between Romney and socialism via Mormon history and doctrine. If Romney was a Democrat and most Mormons leaned left, I can guarantee there would be outrage over this from the right. It would be unjustified outrage, but outrage nonetheless: "Romney will try to establish the United Order" "Romney believes that having 'all things in common' is the highest standard of society" and so on.

    Again religion is one thing. Obama's policies, views and votes tend to be on the socialist side. Romney has not

    lars

  • lars said...

    Again religion is one thing. Obama's policies, views and votes tend to be on the socialist side. Romney has not

    Christianity says all kinds of things about material possessions. Does that mean a christian in the white house is going make everyone give up material possessions? Obama has put socialism ideas directly into his policy stance. That's what makes him more of a socialist. I don't think Obama is a terrorist because he hung out with bill ayers ..I just think he has incredibly poor judgement in his political friends. Good judgement is a key qualification for president...Obama shows he doesn't have it

    lars

  • John Dewey said...

    I brought up gay marriage because there have been a number of cases where the people of a state have voted to ban gay marriage but the courts of the state have declared it unconstitutional. In each case, those on the right were outraged that the will of the people was not being heeded. (state vs. fed powers is a related but separate issue from the one I'm trying to address)

    Regarding taxes, what is the magic number at which taxes go from being a necessary part of government to unconstitutional? 30% rate? 50% rate? 70% rate? Are there periods in US were the tax rate should have been considered unconstitutional because it was too high? With the United Order, it was 100% of everything. Does this mean Romney has ties to an unconstitutional, socialist past?

    I am a fan of taxes being collected the way the founding fathers intended. They were fans of "indirect taxes", not direct taxes. So you pay taxes when you buy something, a fixed amount based on property you owe, etc, etc. I don't think a "free people" should have to report every minute detail of their lives to the federal government so they can be taxed on things like whether or not they are married, whether or not they installed solar panels on their house, whether or not they own a home or rent, etc, etc, etc. Our tax code is a disaster and it's all so that the federal government can manipulate people's behavior and to give favored groups special tax exemptions.

    The federal government has very few and defined powers. They do not need to tax income in order to execute those powers. At the state level, taxation is another story....

    Compound 2

  • John Dewey said...

    Conservatives bend over backward to try to tie Obama to "evil" socialists.

    You really do not have to bend over backwards to make the case.....

    Is President Obama Truly A Socialist? - Forbes

    As someone who has professionally studied and written about comparative economics, capitalism, and socialism for almost fifty years, the reticence to probe the core beliefs of a political leader seems odd.

    www.forbes.com

    Compound 2

Michigan State
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports