I usually don’t comment much on politics. When I do, it seems that my political posts don’t do so well, but here goes anyway. A few months ago, I got an email from a friend asking me about how the church defines political extremism. She had some relatives that were concerned about government conspiracies for population control, the New World Order, and a few other things.
Then I was talking to my sister a few days ago. She asked me what I thought of the Tea Party movement. In brief, I’m not a big fan. Anyway, I thought it might be time to put together some of my political thoughts, and quotes from former apostle Hugh B. Brown into a post. I considered waiting until closer to the election, but decided to go ahead and put this out now, since I was just talking to my sister about this issue. I have combined a few emails into this post.
My sister’s email quoted a blogger complaining about President Obama. The first question from the blogger was terrible. “If Obama wanted to destroy the United States, what would he be doing differently?”
I don’t for a second think Obama is trying to destroy the United States. People are welcome to disagree with Obama–certainly I do on a fair number of issues. However, when we try to demonize people we disagree with, we have crossed the line into political extremism.
I had an email from a friend asking me about political extremism, and how the church defines it. Well, here are some thing I told her, and I think they apply to this blogger as well.
You may be interested in this letter that was read here in Utah on Mar 22, 2010. See http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/first-presidency-letter-on-utah-precinct-caucus-meetings
“Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in the platforms of various political parties.” (Emphasis mine.)
I usually lean republican, but I do like Jim Matheson (D-Congressman Utah) and Peter Caroon (D-SL County mayor.) I’m not real fond of Harry Reid, but it is cool to have such a high ranking Mormon. Matheson is a Mormon and crusades against wasteful government spending. He was one of the few guys who voted against the Bank Bailout (and caught a lot of heat when the bailout was popular), and voted against Health Care Reform. He’s a real fiscal conservative, opposes abortion, and I really like a lot of his stands. In states like NY, CA, or MA, he’d be a republican (more conservative than Guiliani, McCain, or even Mitt), but Utah is so ultra-conservative that he is really a very conservative democrat.
The following quote comes from Hugh B Brown’s famous speech “Profile of a Prophet.” This is the beginning of the commencement address he gave to BYU students in 1968. The first 3 minutes of the speech, Brown gives a few jokes and advice, and then gets onto Politics, before addressing his main topic of “Profile of a Prophet.”
“You young people are leaving your university at a time in which our nation is engaged in an increasingly abrasive and strident process of electing a president. I wonder if you would permit me as one who has managed to survive a number of these events to pass on to you a few words of counsel.
First, I’d like you to be reassured that the leaders of both major political parties in this land are men of integrity, and unquestioned patriotism. Beware of those who feel obliged to prove their own patriotism by calling into question the loyalty of others. Be skeptical of those who attempt to demonstrate their love of country by demeaning its institutions. Know that men of both major political parties who guide the nation’s executive, legislative, and judicial branches are men of unquestioned loyalty and we should stand by and support them, and this refers not only to one party but to all.
Strive to develop a maturity of mind and emotion and a depth of spirit which will enable you to differ with others on matters of politics without calling into question the integrity of those with whom you differ. Allow within the bounds of your definition of religious orthodoxy variation of political belief. Do not have the temerity to dogmatize on issues where the Lord has seen fit to be silent. I’ve found by long experience that our two-party system is sound. Beware of those who are so lacking in humility, that they cannot come within the framework of one of our two great parties.
Our nation has avoided chaos, like that is gripping France today, because men have been able to temper their own desires sufficiently, seek broad agreement within one of the two major parties, rather than forming splinter groups around their one radical idea.
Our two party system has served us well, and should not be lightly discarded. At a time when radicals of right or left inflame race against race, avoid those who teach evil doctrines of racism. When our Father declared that we, his children, were brothers and sisters, he did not limit this relationship on the basis of race. Strive to develop that true love of country, that realizes that real patriotism must include within it a regard for the people of the rest of the globe. Patriotism has never demanded of good men hatred of another country as proof of one’s love for his own. Require the tolerance and compassion of others and for them. Those with different politics or race or religion will be demanded by the heavenly parentage which we all have in common.
-Hugh B. Brown, Commencement address, Brigham Young University, May 31, 1968
I’m sure he is referring to the Civil Rights, Vietnam, as well as the upcoming presidential election following Lyndon B Johnson’s announcement that he would step down. Of course Nixon won a 3 way race over D-Hubert Humphrey, and I-George Wallace. There were Vietnam demonstrations, and I think it was a much more divisive time than today, though today is a very divisive time. Let’s not forget that Wallace was later shot in 1972, and we all know what happened to Nixon. I didn’t know what happened in France in 1968, so I looked it up on wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1968_in_France Apparently there were some big-time riots, strikes, and protests that almost brought the French government down.
Here’s a different talk by Hugh B. Brown that gives some good advice too. http://unicomm.byu.edu/president/documents/brown.htm
[T]he possibility of coherent community action is diminished today by the deep mutual suspicions and antagonisms among various groups in our national life.
As these antagonisms become more intense, the pathology is much the same. . . . The ingredients are, first, a deep conviction on the part of the group as to its own limitless virtue or the overriding sanctity of its cause; second, grave doubts concerning the moral integrity of all others; third, a chronically aggrieved feeling that power has fallen into the hands of the unworthy (that is, the hands of others). . . .
Political extremism involves two prime ingredients: An excessively simple diagnosis of the world’s ills and a conviction that there are identifiable villains back of it all. . . . Blind belief in one’s cause and a low view of the morality of other Americans–these seem mild failings. But they are the soil in which ranker weeds take root . . . terrorism, and the deep, destructive cleavages that paralyze a society.3
I am a bit wary of the Tea Party Movement, as well as MoveOn.org. I view them both as unhealthy extremes. My opinion is that it is fine to disagree with Democrats or Republicans. But when we turn to decisiveness and refer to President George W Bush or President Barack Obama as “worse than Hitler”, we are guilty of political extremism. As Hugh B Brown said, “the leaders of both major political parties in this land are men of integrity, and unquestioned patriotism.”
What say you?
Mormon Heretic 
BTC:
Re page 4 comment 2: You again fall into the conceptual trap that the elites should be the ones who decide and that the voters have to justify to the elites what the elites should do.
The political philosophy is consent of the governed as the measure of legitamacy. If the governed say “no”, they are not obligated to justify why. Who is actually working for whom is the essence of the argument.
I agree it’s tough to make sense of public attitudes, ESPECIALLY when the politicians have lost touch with the public. There are a number of polls available from a variety of sources that show the tremendous divergence between the attitudes of the “political classes” (generally defined on income + education + connections to government programs or policies — see the individual polls when you google them) and the rest of the population. It is alarming when you more directly measure public trust for the integrity or competence of political institutions.
Tara – I appreciate your opinion.
FT – I don’t understand. My post was that political analysis should be about issues. I never even talked about who should make decisions or anything about elites. The reason I said polls don’t help much is because the polls aren’t trying to guage opinions so much as popularity of people and/or issues.
How do you distinguish between “opinion” and “popularity”?
The political system does not work by philosopher-kings sitting around discussing issues. It works by a VAST, complex network interacting to produce a very finite number of “yes” or “no” decisions at high levels, a lot of technical and political manipulations behind the scenes to produce and implement those decisions through regulations, and then even more low-level bureaucratic manipulation to apply the regs to particular situations.
I once was involved in a nuke power plant project in which a hundred-million dollar design change (in today’s dollars) was required by regulation because our crew doing wind studies near the site was approached by a tenant farmer looking for a lost goat. The “goat” became of regulatory importance through a process of regulatory bickering that involved cows, site fences versus location of actual farms, the possibility that children might drink goat milk on a daily basis, etc.
Consumers would have paid for every penny of the design cosy.
True story.
I understand what your saying. I just don’t understand what it has to do with “Defining Political Extremism.” It’s likely just me – but please help connect the dots for me.
BTC,
Sure you do.
BTC:
Any definition of “extremism” that somehow ends up with the people who ultimately bestow legitimacy on OUR political system as extremist is simply foreign to the system itself.
Tara is entitled to call me WRONG anytime for wearing a beard or drinking ice tea or calling women to priesthood office. She would be entitled to call me an extremist if I did those things as a participating member of the LDS church. But in the Community of Christ, those attitudes are NOT extremist, but mainstream.
Similarly, you or MH can argue that socialism is RIGHT. But (unlike Europe), the American people decided prior to WW2 NOT to grant socialism mainstream status. I repeat my earlier statement: open socialists are less likely to get elected than Mormons, and a lot of the country is still doubtful of granting Mormons “mainstream” status.
Granting oneself mainstream status is what monarchies can do; not republics. In our system, the consent of the governed is the primary basis for the “mandate of heaven”.
The day I was proudest of my country was the day the “governed” told Richard Nixon where he could put his Presidency.
I have read this statement several times. I can’t understand it. Sorry. I assume the “people who ultimately bestow legitimacy on our political system” are the goverened? Are you saying that we can’t call any person extreme?
The way Tara defined Socialism, even she said it was right. She said it involved regulation (which is not in the dictionary defintion at all) and that she favored regulation. The way she defined it, socialism is very mainstream as pretty much every politician and citizen believes the government should be regulating industry.
I never said that any degree of regulation constitutes socialism. In fact, I said that some regulation is necessary. However, excessive regulation can weaken or kill a business or industry.
If government can’t own a business or industry, they can always regulate it to death. You will recall what Obama said about what’s going to happen with coal-powered plants, right? That’s an example of government controlling the fate of business and industry through regulation. The government as good as owns a business when they can regulate it to the degree that they can shut it down.
Ok, I’m finally near a computer where I can discuss Tara’s comment page 3-#48.
In a couple excerpts from some of the quotes you give, one says “saints could choose to consecrate all their possessions. Another stated, “However, in most of these communities a few residents failed to join…”. There didn’t appear to be any consequences for their failure to join according to the rest of the quote.
Well, there were consequences, and lots of them. In my previous post on the documentary called Trouble in Zion, the movie documents the famous “Salt Sermon” by Sidney Rigdon in 1838. I think you remember my post on the Kirtland Bank Crisis. Basically, many Mormons were so upset at Joseph Smith that he had to leave in the middle of the night to escape upset Mormons. Mormons were not only upset with the bank failure, but with consecration as well. Both the bank and the consecration efforts were mismanaged. Quoting from my previous post,
Joseph left Kirtland in the middle of the night, and discovered that many of the saints in Missouri were equally displeased with Consecration. Sidney issued the Salt Sermon (quoting from the Bible scripture, “salt that has lost it’s savor is good for nothing”), comparing this to saints who were upset with Joseph’s leadership and mismanagement of consecrated properties. On June 17, 1838 Sidney Rigdon condemned dissenters, including the Whitmers and Oliver Cowdery, who were later excommunicated. The primary reason for excommunication was their disagreement with consecration, though the official reason is apostasy. Danites told dissenters to leave “or else”. Most of these dissenters moved to Ray County (south of Caldwell.) Many became part of the opposition.
In Utah, people who didn’t want to participate in Consecration or the United Order were excommunicated as well, and the saints were directed not to trade with them. The most notable person was William Godbe. He and other Mormon merchants criticized the economic demands and policies of Brigham Young. Godbe and several others were excommunicated October 25, 1869. So, I wouldn’t call excommunication a light offense, and I don’t think the young man in the pants episode was free to quit living the United Order any time he wanted to quit.
First of all, it sounds as though the kid didn’t buy the pants with his own money, but rather confiscated community property in order to use as an exchange for the pants.
Well, in page 3, comment 24 you discussed the principle of ‘private ownership.’ “(3) . . . The United Order is operated upon the principle of private ownership and individual management.
The wool was declared community property. You can justify it the way you want, but there’s some big contradictions in the story here Tara–that’s my point. Yes, I agree that it was handled properly (and I really think the story is humorous), but you seem to be missing the point about socialism here. I don’t think it is necessary to answer the question about “What would happen if everyone acted that way?” My point in bringing it up was private/Community property. How they handled it is another issue and not related.
“What you seem to be nit-picking is that, once committed to the rules of the order, people were not free to break the rules. But I think the bigger picture of what is trying to be conveyed about the voluntary nature of the order is that people entered into it freely. They were not forced to enter into it. They were free to even live among the community and not practice it, as one quote seems to suggest. “
No Tara, you really need to read the book so you can fully understand it. You’re mis-characterizing the quotes because you haven’t read the book. I really encourage you to read it. As I said before, it was written by LDS Church Historian Leonard Arrington, and it gave me a tremendous appreciation for Brigham Young, and how severely the church was persecuted for polygamy. I’d call it a must read–it’s a wonderful book. I greatly admire Brigham Young for his leadership, but there is not question he was autocratic at times–the same thing you fear from socialism. Now the theocracy was for the good of society, but it could and did squash individual liberties in the process. You seem to have a bit of idealistic notion of Consecration and United Order. There were some big problems–Brigham dealt with those effectively, but he used a heavy hand to do it sometimes. As I said before, he kept people alive by forcing them to ration, but he was not without critics. Those critics, he usually excommunicated, and they became a very vocal opposition that helped call the US army to Utah. So yes, there were people that were asked and volunteered to participate, but there were others that refused and were ostracized–there can be no other conclusion here. If you disagreed, you were soon no longer a member of the church–certainly a drastic action.
They were free to even live among the community and not practice it, as one quote seems to suggest.
That is false. Consecration falls apart if not everyone participates. That’s why dissenters were forced to leave Ray County, and why people were excommunicated. And the Danites were the muscle to enforce the rules.
But the same cannot be said of socialism.
Yes it can.
All who live within a socialist society are required to participate. That’s what I have been saying about United Order and Consecration. It falls apart if not everyone participates.
I honestly hate it when people talk about upper and lower case, as when you referenced “Communism” and “communism”. Let’s go back to Elder Romney’s quote for a moment.”
This quote sets up a dichotomy between godly consecration, and godless socialism, as if there could be no such thing as godly socialism. I don’t like the dichotomy. It’s a common thing for people to demonize the other side by creating this dichotomy. Pretty soon, God can only be associated with Consecration, while atheists (as referenced by Romney above) are evil socialists. Then you start quoting Marxism and the Communist Manifesto to tie those in because of their avowed hostility to religion. Now we tie Obama to Marxism, and soon Obama is an atheist. This is where the whole thing becomes extreme, IMO.
Let’s back up and see if all socialists are Marxist. Is Canada a Marxist State? England, Norway? Are any of these hostile to religion? Is Obama an atheist?
The answer is obviously no to all the questions. Romney’s quote above is applies pretty well to Marxism and Soviet Communism, (oppressive, atheistic states), but doesn’t seem to apply very well to Canada or England does it? That’s why I get so fed up with the Glenn Becks of the world that make these unnecessary leaps, and it is also why Bill O’Reilly doesn’t want to call Obama a socialist, because at least Bill O’Reilly understands that Obama is not a Marxist, which is what socialist means in ultra conservative in America. (Thank heaven O’Reilly is a bit more moderate than Beck.)
Is there anything wrong with applying the good of socialism to our government, while at the same time trying to keep out the bad of socialism? Or is it all a slippery slope into Marxism and Communism? If it is a slippery slope, why hasn’t Canada and England fallen into Marxism and Soviet style Communism?
FT, do you really think that Naziism and Stalinism were not extremes in their respective countries? You think the majority (your definition) supported those viewpoints? Isn’t it more accurate to say they were influenced by fear and merely fell into line. Naziism and Stalinism were both extremist viewpoints by any standard. Anyone can create a narrow enough demographic to support a non-extremist label…but that doesn’t make it so.
Here’s where I disagree. First, “socialism” is not a political issue in this instance. As Tara demonstrated, she doesn’t know the meaning of the word, and I suspect a large number of Americans don’t either. But even if they did – it is factually true that we have moved more socialist under Obama (federal ownership of interests in banks and auto industry). Even under and expanded view of socialism as “bigger government involvment in industry” is true – as the federal govenment responded to an economic crisis. What “socialism” means in this poll you site is a label, nothing more. I’m sure some understand what it means, others don’t, others merely answer based on their watching of Glenn Beck.
Second, and illustrative of the first, polls show that over 1/3 of Americans view socialism as a positive thing (http://www.gallup.com/poll/125645/socialism-viewed-positively-americans.aspx). It could be that more than half of your majority anwering the poll is doing so saying “YES” not no.
You say that leadership is elitist by ignoring this poll – but the poll offers nothing politically substantive. You interpret the poll as being negative toward his policies, but poll of his acutal policies aren’t negative. It’s like this discussion – without a working definition of the subject (socialism, political extremism) it is largely left up to our personal theories.
If that’s the case, then we are and always have been communist. For the government always has the power to regulate a business to a degree it can shut it down.
First of all, were ALL members who chose not to participate in the united order or consecration excommunicated? If so, was their failure to participate the only factor that led to their excommunication, or can a case outside of their failure to participate be made, such as in the case of members speaking out strongly against church leaders? I’m not really looking for a point of contention here, I’d just like to know for my own reference and understanding. It seems that some of the information you shared seemed to suggest that there were people who chose not to participate in the united order and were not forced out of town. Were they excommunicated while continuing to live among the Saints, or were they excommunicated AND forced out of town? You mentioned dissenters who were forced to leave Ray county. Does this mean they were vocal dissenters? Were they forced to leave because they were stirring up trouble in their dissent, or was their expulsion only on the basis of their refusal to live under the requirements of the united order?
Second, I’d like to clear up some possible misunderstanding about agency. It seems that the point about consecration being a choice and socialism not giving a choice is not getting through.
Last month, our stake had a sort of surprise visit from Elder Bednar. He spoke to our entire stake at a Sunday morning meeting, much like a stake conference, but it wasn’t during our regularly scheduled stake conference. Anyway, one of the topics of his talk was free agency and some of the misconceptions people within the church have about the principle. He used the recent events of basketball star, LeBron James, as a way to illustrate his point. (I’m sure you will appreciate this analogy, being the sports fan you are.) At the time, LeBron James was a free agent, and was deciding which team he would sign a contract with. He was a free agent; he was under no obligation to anyone. He was free to do as he chose to, free to go where he wanted to go. But once he decided where he would sign with, he would no longer be a free agent. He would be under contract and obligated to the terms of that contract. If LeBron decided he no longer liked the contract and decided he wanted to disregard the terms of it, there would be consequences, and they would likely be severe.
That is much the way our free agency works. Before we made covenants with the Lord, we were not under obligation to live any of the laws of the Gospel. We were free agents. But once we made covenants, we were obligated to live up to the terms of those covenants. If we decide that we want to disregard the terms of those covenants, we are certainly free to do so, but the consequences will be severe.
This is what I am trying to say with regard to the choice under the Law of Consecration or the United Order. Everyone has the ability to decide whether or not they will live by that law. They are not compelled by force to live the law. But if they have covenanted to live the law, then they are bound by their choice to live up to the terms of that covenant. If they do not, then there are penalties set forth in that covenant which must be carried out in order for the law of that covenant to have any meaning.
Yes, it is a harsh reality when someone was excommunicated for not living the law of consecration. But that does not deny the fact that there is still freedom of choice to act. That person had the freedom to take their belongings and go elsewhere to live unmolested by the church.
On the other hand, socialism and communism compel one, by force of law, to live by its dictates. You cannot escape it. Your property will be taken by force if not given by choice. Or you will be charged with heavy fines or the threat of imprisonment. Additionally, the State has the power to execute more severe punishment for non-compliance if they choose.
Now as for the issue of private property, that is an issue that I’m not sure about. From what information you’ve shared, it seems that there were different levels of consecration within the united order. It seems that the level where there was no private property was most likely considered the highest level. It probably also required the greatest degree of righteousness for it to be successful. I’ve seen it suggested that this was an experiment by Brigham Young. Could it be that the experiment was designed to see what would work best among the Saints? Or was it an experiment to meant to test the Saints and see what they were capable of? Maybe even a combination of the two? Perhaps there are other reasons. I don’t know. But what I said, and maybe it was overlooked, was that perhaps it was through this experiment that it was decided that private property must be a component of the united order in order for it to be successful among the Saints. Perhaps that was the policy that was adopted out of this experiment and was what church leaders since that time have commented on as being characteristic of the Law of Consecration. Does that make sense?
What you are failing to understand about Marxism, communism, and socialism is that they are all the same. They only differ by degrees. It IS a slippery slope, as you have suggested, and to experiment with it, and justify just a little bit of it, is akin to the camel who was allowed to stick his head in the tent, or the frog in the pot. That is what Fabian Socialism is all about: little by little until we are so far in that when we realize our awful situation, it is too late. You should learn about it if you aren’t familiar with it. Here is a quote by Ezra Taft Benson:
“I have talked face to face with the godless communist leaders. It may surprise you to learn that I was host to Mr. Kruschev for a half day when he visited the United States, not that I’m proud of it. I opposed his coming then, and I still feel it was a mistake to welcome this atheistic murderer as a state visitor. But, according to President Eisenhower, Kruschev had expressed a desire to learn something of American Agriculture — and after seeing Russian agriculture I can understand why. As we talked face to face, he indicated that my grandchildren would live under communism. After assuring him that I expected to do all in my power to assure that his and all other grandchildren will live under freedom he arrogantly declaired in substance:
” ‘You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you’ll fall like overripe fruit into our hands.’
“And they’re ahead of schedule in their devilish scheme.” (Ezra Taft Benson “Our Immediate Responsibility.” Devotional Address at Brigham Young University. circa 1968.”)
Canada and England? Give them time. It is estimated that about 70 years is the amount of time a country under socialism will survive. I’m sure there are a number of factors involved in that figure, such as at what point is a country considered socialist. For some, like ours, it has been a gradual process, so where is the starting point for us? Have we even reached it yet? Those are questions I don’t have answers for.
BTC,
I wouldn’t go that far. Government hasn’t always had the power it has now. But we have been on the path for a long time now.
Sorry to be so slow to respond to you, BTC and BR. Computer monitor died yesterday, and we’ve had lightening storms this afternoon that kept me from installing its replacement.
BR first: “You think the majority (your definition) supported those viewpoints? Isn’t it more accurate to say they were influenced by fear and merely fell into line?”
I don’t know that they were a majority (remember, I said the presence of a majority PROVED that a position COULD NOT be extremist; I did not say that a majority was REQUIRED to prove that a position was not extremist.) But the Nazis certainly had enough popularity to elect Hitler to Chancellor, and the German people applauded his early successes at reversing what they felt were the humiliations imposed by France and England after WW1. They were so slow to recognize the monsters to whom they’d willingly given power, that the mechanisms of fear and control were in place before those motivated by legitimate gripes ever realized their danger. Maybe the German people would have had fewer regrets if they had been more paranoid.
Since a substantial fraction of people in the East and Midwest of the US had German ancestry, there was enough support in the US itself for Naziism to have open children’s camps and fraternal organizations that were regarded as no more than ethnic festivals — although they came complete with goose-stepping, seig-heiling mass marches. They could even fill Madison Square Garden with mass gatherings (The Knicks should be so lucky!).
Stalin was a successor within an already successful revolution (as if Himmler took over for Hitler), but a similar process took place in the early stages of the Communist regime’s rise. The revolution was popular because the Czar was unpopular; those who thought they could have the good of socialism and not get the bad were also insufficiently paranoid.
BTC:
Sorry, but there have been Socialists running for President in this country as an organized party since before I was in High School. Is Eugene Debs still in the textbooks?
“polls show that over 1/3 of Americans view socialism as a positive thing.”
Which, of course, means that almost 2/3rds of Americans view socialism as a negative thing? When even 3/5ths of American voters say “no” to something, we call that a landslide. The American people know more about Obama than they did two years ago, and they trust him a lot less the more they know.
Again, you are imposing an “intellectual qualification” on the voter’s rights to say yes or no. They must say yes or no on the bases of reasons YOU find important. What IQ level do you want to set? How many civics credits do they have to have? Who gets to decide who gets top flight education, and who is locked into public schools or colleges? And Most importantly, who gets to teach the classes, and who gets to decide the qualifications for the teaching certificates? Back to intellectual qualification, yet again.
As to your interpretation of the polls, ask me if I want a steak, and I’m likely to say yes. Ask me if I want a steak and tell me its $49.95, and I’ll probably say know. Tell me its cheap, and then hand me a bill for $49.95 later, and I’m probably not ever going to do business with you again.
Re your response to Tara:
It has always been recognized in our political system that “the power to tax is the power to destroy”. Our Constitutional system was designed precisely to limit government so that it could not abuse such power. Government is not supposed to be able to put its enemies out of business through taxation or regulation, and even less has one branch of the Federal government, the Executive, legitimately been authorized to do so.
Tara, you asked a bunch of questions. I think this question is probably the one that sums up your overall question. “If so, was their failure to participate the only factor that led to their excommunication, or can a case outside of their failure to participate be made, such as in the case of members speaking out strongly against church leaders?”
This is where a polemic argument gets made. I don’t think that anyone was excommunicated for any single reason. From the church perspective, speaking out against church leaders is Apostasy. Rather than address the individual concerns of each individual member, they are going to lump everything together into the umbrella term of apostasy and leave it at that.
However, when you really look at the issues that each person had, there is no one single issue. Oliver and the Whitmers most certainly had a big problem with Consecration. The failure of the bank in Kirtland certainly gave them ample reason to question Joseph’s leadership of economic matters.
In the 1838 time period, polygamy was rumored, and Oliver also accused Joseph of adultery for his (polygamous) relationship with Fanny Alger, which he termed “a filthy, nasty affair.” Richard Bushman documents that Joseph’s problem with Oliver was the accusation of adultery. To Joseph, it wasn’t adultery, because he was sealed to Fanny. Oliver didn’t seem to push the issue–it’s unclear how much Oliver knew of polygamy at this time, but he apparently was aware of Fanny.
So, if Oliver didn’t know about polygamy because it was secret, can he really be blamed for “evil speaking”? Certainly secret polygamy would have been tough to swallow, especially if you thought it was adultery and not sanctioned of God. I have a hard time calling Oliver’s actions into question here. If your bank just collapsed and you thought your prophet was having an adulterous affair, how would you react Tara?
I don’t know how much the others, such as the Whitmers knew of polygamy, but I am clear that they had some serious reservations about Consecration, and felt that Joseph was depriving them of their property rights, just as you worry that socialists take away property rights. I know Oliver also had a problem. So, the question is, if Oliver, and the Whitmers were cut off the church, it seems to me that they were made examples to show others to quit speaking ill of the Lord’s anointed. Certainly Mormons had to decide if they wanted to follow the dissenters or Joseph. Following the Salt Sermon, the Danites made it clear that violence would follow for those that didn’t leave. This seems akin to your fear that Marxists will forcibly encourage compliance. In Missouri, they threatened violence and forced those not in compliance to leave. This seems more like coercion than free agency to me, and I don’t think follows the example of Elder Bednar.
As for how things were handled with Brigham Young in Utah, there were non-Mormon communities, such as Corinne (near Brigham City), and mining towns. Brigham taught fiercely against profiteering (aka Capitalism). As I said in the previous post on Consecration, if the Mormons had to trade with the gentiles, they used price gouging and charged the gentiles a much higher price since they weren’t participating in Consecration. You can imagine that this didn’t go so well with the gentiles.
I don’t know if William Godbe was forced to leave the area after excommunication, but of course if he was cut off from the church, he obviously would have had to pay a higher price for trading goods (and it’s doubtful any Mormon would trade with him anyway.) So, if he was going to stay in the area, he was forced into the arms of the gentiles for survival. What other choice does he have? I am sure he wasn’t welcome in Mormon settlements, and therefore ostracized from the community. I can’t imagine that Mormons would simply turn the other cheek in reference to an apostate like William Godbe, can you?
You also mentioned that people joined these order willingly. Well, that may be true for the adults, but does a child that grows up in the community really have a choice? The young man in the pants episode was raised in the order–did he really have free agency to choose whether to participate? Was he free to leave? I don’t think so.
I’ve seen it suggested that this was an experiment by Brigham Young. Could it be that the experiment was designed to see what would work best among the Saints?
Brigham experimented with these different United Orders to see what would work best–that is absolutely correct. What Brigham Young discovered was that certain types worked better in other areas. In small areas, such as Orderville, the saints gave all their property to the church and worked together. It worked very well for them. However, this type of consecration didn’t work as well in bigger cities such as Salt Lake or Logan. In these cities, it seemed to work better in a cooperative arrangement. Each ward was assigned to make a certain product. For example, in Salt Lake City, there were many ward projects. Each ward would manufacture a certain item. Some examples:
Hat factory
Tailor’s shop
Soap manufactory
Boot and shoe shop
Large foundry
Machine shop
Making agricultural tools
Planning mill and woodworking shop
This was more of a division of labor than the smaller cities. Brigham discovered that Consecration works fine with smaller communities, but not so good in larger towns. Hence, that’s why there were so many types of United Orders. As a pragmatist, Brigham wanted to be flexible enough to put together a working system, rather than be tied to only 1 specific method. I think this is a great example of his excellent leadership.
On the other hand, socialism and communism compel one, by force of law, to live by its dictates. You cannot escape it. Your property will be taken by force if not given by choice.
I know you haven’t seen the movie Trouble in Zion, but this is exactly what happened with the Danites in Caldwell County following the Salt Sermon. I don’t think Oliver and the Whitmers were able to take their farms with them.
Or you will be charged with heavy fines or the threat of imprisonment. Additionally, the State has the power to execute more severe punishment for non-compliance if they choose.
Yes, the Danites were willing to execute severe punishment, but thankfully Oliver and company decided to leave before it got to that point.
I enjoyed your story about President Benson and Kruschev.
As we talked face to face, he indicated that my grandchildren would live under communism.
Well, how well did that work out? It seems that Kruschev’s grandchildren are not living under Communist rule anymore, and Benson’s grandchildren are well up in age now. I’d call Kruschev a false prophet on this point.
” ‘You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you’ll fall like overripe fruit into our hands.’
So, after the Soviet Union fell, apparently they have infiltrated our government so well that Obama has hatched communism. But isn’t it ironic that Obama just got rid of 10 Russian spies? All this double-agent stuff is a bit hard for me to follow, but I just don’t think Kruschev’s plan worked nearly as well as he boasted here. His country fell first, and his grandchildren are living in a more capitalistic country than we are in a communist country. I just don’t think our voters will stand for a Marxist state, and if such a thing were to happen, I think Civil War 2 would break out. The US isn’t going to fall like the Soviet Union did.
“And they’re ahead of schedule in their devilish scheme.” (Ezra Taft Benson “Our Immediate Responsibility.” Devotional Address at Brigham Young University. circa 1968.”)
Some 40 years later, I disagree completely with President Benson’s assessment. The opposite thing happened–we won the Cold War. The rest of this Marxist/Communist stuff is pure and simple fear-mongering. But it sure gives Glenn Beck some good ratings.
If it takes 70 years, then when did the clock start ticking for Canada and England to turn into Communist states?
If your bank just collapsed and you thought your prophet was having an adulterous affair, how would you react Tara?
I’m not sure how this is relevant to the discussion. Having already submitted to the Law of Consecration, no case of force or coercion can be made here on the basis of the Saints’ reaction to subsequent events.
Danites made it clear that violence would follow for those that didn’t leave. This seems akin to your fear that Marxists will forcibly encourage compliance. In Missouri, they threatened violence and forced those not in compliance to leave. This seems more like coercion than free agency to me, and I don’t think follows the example of Elder Bednar.
Well, I have little doubt that the Danites acted, at times, without proper authority.
Regardless, if dissenters were stirring up trouble for the church, then I think it is a stretch to say that they were threatened or run out of town strictly on the basis of their refusal to submit to the Law of Consecration. After all, how would you react if there were people among you who were putting the lives of you and your family and friends in danger by their dissent?
I see no real loss of agency here as compared with what history shows with regard to socialism/communism. But if you can show me an example where someone was harmed or had their property taken by force on the basis of their non-compliance with the Law of Consecration alone, then you might have a case.
I don’t know if William Godbe was forced to leave the area after excommunication, but of course if he was cut off from the church….I can’t imagine that Mormons would simply turn the other cheek in reference to an apostate like William Godbe, can you?
This is a lot of speculation. From these statements, you make the assumption that there were no charitable Mormons. That is a sad commentary. Why the pessimism?
You also mentioned that people joined these order willingly. Well, that may be true for the adults, but does a child that grows up in the community really have a choice?
Oh, now, come on. I can say the same about church membership and attendance at church. Do your children currently have a choice to be in the church? The same can be said of a lot of things our children are subjected to, like school, or chores, or eating broccoli.
I know you haven’t seen the movie Trouble in Zion, but this is exactly what happened with the Danites in Caldwell County following the Salt Sermon. I don’t think Oliver and the Whitmers were able to take their farms with them.
You don’t think? Well then, are you saying you don’t exactly know how everything played out?
Whatever happened, did Oliver and the Whitmers enter into the law voluntarily and then decide they weren’t happy with it? I know I said something about there being consequences for breaking covenants.
The real test of coercion would be if Oliver and the Whitmers were forced to remain and live (as opposed to being run off) among the Saints and continue to consecrate their labor and property against their will. That’s what coercion is; forcing someone to behave in an involuntary manner. You are equating the consequences of one’s actions with coercion. That isn’t the same thing. If so, then God is coercing us to keep the commandments, because he certainly attaches consequences for disobedience.
His country fell first, and his grandchildren are living in a more capitalistic country than we are in a communist country.
Well, there are Marxists who disagree with that. Russia’s economy has been dubbed a non-capitalist “predatory/extractive system.” I have no idea what that is. I just know it is a severely distorted form of capitalism, and that the “system promises continuing technological regress, demographic disaster, authoritarian rule, and possible disintegration of the Russian state,” according to David M. Kotz, an academic Marxist. In addition, “After eight years of Putin, it is evident that his main endeavor has been to dismantle all democratic institutions and build an authoritarian system,” says Anders Ã…slund, a former economic adviser to Boris Yeltsin. Yeah, Russia is doing just peachy.
I just don’t think our voters will stand for a Marxist state, and if such a thing were to happen, I think Civil War 2 would break out.
Well, I hope you’re right about that. The only problem with that is that our country doesn’t really understand what socialism is. It’s being cloaked in feel-good language and an entitlement mentality. And those of us who are using the term socialist are being mocked and scorned, so most don’t take any possible threat seriously. If people don’t know what to look for and aren’t on the alert for it, then how will they prevent it from overtaking them? Most people don’t even realize how much liberty has been lost through the undermining of the constitution and original intent. Most don’t realize that our country was founded as a Republic, not a Democracy, nor do they know the difference. The founders abhorred Democracy because it is subject to mob rule and does not recognize individual sovereignty. So now, as far as everyone knows, we are, and were founded as, a Democracy.
If it takes 70 years, then when did the clock start ticking for Canada and England to turn into Communist states?
The US isn’t going to fall like the Soviet Union did.
Just like the Titanic wasn’t going to sink either, right? I guess you aren’t familiar with last days prophecy and the perilous times we will face. Is it possible that communism will play a role in that? I don’t know that it will, but I’m not going to rule that out as a possibility.
If it takes 70 years, then when did the clock start ticking for Canada and England to turn into Communist states?
That’s difficult to say. Neither of them have officially declared they are socialist, so there is no actual date to reference for that purpose.
I know you wouldn’t go that far, because, as I’ve demonstrated, it would undermine your argument, that somehow under Barak Obama, the country is spinning out of control into a new and dangerous place. Of course, it’s not. There’s no evidence of any more regulation or government ownership of industry. It’s all just platitudes.
And I type this on the 20th anniversary of one of the most socialistic pieces of legistlation (according to your definition) the Americans with Disabilities Act – signed by George H.W. Bush – noted socialist.
FireTag :
“polls show that over 1/3 of Americans view socialism as a positive thing.”
Which, of course, means that almost 2/3rds of Americans view socialism as a negative thing? When even 3/5ths of American voters say “no” to something, we call that a landslide.
You make a couple of statements here, but don’t indicate how that affirms or relates to your point. You seemed to be saying that people were saying “no” because half the country thinks Obama is moving us socialist – but if more than half of those respondents thought that was a good thing – then they aren’t saying no. That’s my point. The fact that 2/3rds view socialism as bad is irrelevant, because more than half of those may not feel we are moving towards socialism – certainly at least of third of them don’t – otherwise the poll would have reflected 2/3rds, not half.
My point is, again, that the majority poll you reference tells us nothing about whether the polled feel the movement they perceive is negative.
Obviously. But again – what is your point? His approval ratings are historically high relative to past presidents at this point. Considering the economic condition, this is truly amazing. And relative to the non-socialists (the GOP) his trust levels and approvals are through the roof. But all that said – again, how does this relate to “political extremism?” It seems you are just trying to bash Obama and I don’t see how this relates to the topic at hand.
This isn’t true at all. I don’t see where you get this from my post. I’m just saying that you can’t conclude by looking at the poll that a majority are saying “no.” That’s all.
Again – not sure where you get this from my post. I don’t suggest any of the foregoing and I certainly don’t endorse this opinion.
Exactly my point. A poll asking “do you want steak” is equally as poor as a poll asking “do you think Obama is moving the country more socialist.” There could be any number of reasons and you are unable to draw a conclusion based on the answer.
I agree wholeheartedly. This doesn’t seem to refute my point so again, I must ask – what is yours?
BTC:
You keep saying that obvious interpretations of the polls are wrong, and disputing those interpretations on the basis of statistics that are mathematically illogical on their own terms. A majority of people disapprove of Obama’s performance. A majority of people believe he is socialistic. ONLY 1/3 of the people — by your statistic — think socialism is a positive thing. Connect the dots — because that’s most likely what they’re doing.
Don’t assume that there is some hidden majority of great support for the left wing that the polls are missing — because you are certainly not providing statistical evidence to dispute the obvious interpretations.
BTC, I respect you as someone of personal integrity. I would rather keep you as a friend than win an argument with you. And I know sometimes you think I’m an idiot. But there are times I wish I were a bigger idiot than I actually am.
Even MH’s point about Glenn Beck’s ratings makes my point: who is forcing all of these Americans to watch his show and move books he recommends to the top of the Best Seller lists? Why is Fox News so dominant? Why does relatively no one watch MSNBC? If there is this vast hidden support for moving farther toward the left — where is it?
I know you wouldn’t go that far, because, as I’ve demonstrated, it would undermine your argument, that somehow under Barak Obama, the country is spinning out of control into a new and dangerous place.
Yes, because lies and distortions do tend to undermine the truth.
BTC,
If you can demonstrate that the government has always had the power to regulate a business to death, I’d love to be enlightened.
Tara:
How about this – show me how the government has more power to do so now than ever in the past. The Constitution of the US gives government the power to pass laws. Always has.
FireTag
I’m disputing one interpretation of one poll. The interpretation that a poll showing that a majority believe Obama is a socialist = a majority saying “no” to any particular policy. That’s it. I have challenged that interpretation by showing that more than half of those who believe Obama is a socialist may feel that this is a good thing, based on the fact that 1/3 of the US view socialism as positive. If all of those 1/3 see Obama as a socialist, this is mathematically possible.
I neither assume it, nor do I purport to provide evience to prove it.
I see no evidence of hidden or exposed support. I make no claim that you are an idiot or that Glenn Beck is not popular. I do think that somethings popularity does not mean something is correct (Paris Hilton will be googled far more often than North Korea – but this doesn’t mean we should be focussed on Paris Hilton from a foreign policy standpoint).
You are reading far more into my comments than I am intending to put in. I’m making 1 point – a poll that says a majority thinks Obama is moving the US toward socialism does not mean, necessarily, that the same majority is opposed to that perceived fact. That’s it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Continuing on that point – “approval polls” or single issue polls are decidedly less helpful in this regard – as you pointed out in your steak example. If a majority disapprove of Obama, it could be someone who dissaproves because he’s not liberal enough – so it is presumptuous to say that it shows he should be doing X or Y, as individuals could be dissapproving for opposite reasons.
A better indicator, in my mind, are match up polls. Obama is shown beating in a “who would you vote for now” against all Republican challengers. This certainly doesn’t mean he will win, but when given the option between their perceived socialist, and these self-described capitalists, polls show that Obama is their choice.
FT – I get the impression that you feel I am saying that those who think Obama is a socialist are wrong, or dumb, or extremist or something. I’m not saying that.
BTC,
Now you’re shifting the burden of proof back to me? Again? If I saw that you were willing to do the work to back up your assertions, then I might put forth the effort to answer your question. So far in this discussion, you’ve done nothing but insist that I prove myself to you and you haven’t reciprocated even when I’ve asked you to.
I disagree. And moreover, I did give you my rational. The US Constitution provides government with the ability to pass laws. Laws can regulate businesses. There is nothing preventing these laws from regulating businesses to the point of bankruptcy – 100% tax for example. ‘Twas always thus, and always thus twill be.
Oh, and if you think that the fact that congress has always had the power to pass laws is the answer, you’re wrong. Yes, congress has always had that power, but it hasn’t always had the power to pass laws indiscriminately, particularly when they violate the constitution and individual liberty.
And government now doesn’t have power to pass laws “indiscriminately” and certainly not when they violate the constitution. Do you have evidence that this new power exists or has been exercised? In what way am I wrong?
Just by way of example – there was a time when the government passed laws that discriminated against African Americans, even to the point when they were considered property and used/sold as slaves. Certainly you’ll see this as a violation of individual liberty. You’re saying the government has more power now than it did back then?
Interestingly, and on point, when the government outlawed slavery, it bankrupted many estates in the South. Without the free labor provided by slaves, many plantations could no longer survive.
We need to be a bit careful mushing communism and socialism together.
Communism, in practice, includes a dictatorial structure. Good examples are North Korea (run by a family), China (run by a small group of men) and Cuba (run by two brothers — historically one man).
But, socialism, in practice, can be democratic in nature. Many of the European nations have heavy socialist elements but are still Democracies: Sweden, France, etc.
The first is evil. The second is just another way of organizing society.
I know Elder Benson used to mash them together and some, on the national scene, do so today. But, it is important to remember that some prominent LDS leaders have spoken positively of socialism. The modern examples were N. Eldon Tanner (he was in the Canadian parliament as a member of a socialist party) and Hugh B. Brown (a liberal but he often spoke about democratic socialism as a viable alternative).
The better case against socialism is not that it turns into communism. I can’t think of any major country where that has been the path (most of the communist dictatorships came into being by revolution or conquest).
Rather, it is a system that, in my belief, harms economic prosperity which is critical to the advance of the human condition. Today, we live nearly 40 years longer than our counterparts in the 1930s. Our homes are much larger on average. Our kids have job and educational opportunities undreamed of 50 years ago. We travel unlike any other generation. Obesity today is a bigger challenge than malnutrition.
Our technological advances are important. But, they rarely happen in the societies that discourage individual initiative.
Socialism tends to preserve existing industries and suppress emerging ones. Imagine a world stuck in the 1950s: Car, steel and shipbuilding rather than today’s computer, bio-techs and mobile companies. Socialist countries tend to rely on their more vigorous neighbors to innovate.
Socialism is less desirable but, I think, calling it evil is an overreach.
wow, 200 comments- a record! (i did have a 300+ thread at mormon matters on malay.) thanks everyone.
steve, you eloquently stated what I have been trying to say this whole discussion. I will comment more tonight.
BTC:
“I make no claim that you are an idiot or that Glenn Beck is not popular.”
I guess it was the tin foil comment on Saint’s Herald that confused me. 😀 Perhaps as a peace offering, you can send me a roll of Reynolds foil, and I can send you a box of Lipton tea (neither of us being LDS).
“The US Constitution provides government with the ability to pass laws. Laws can regulate businesses. There is nothing preventing these laws from regulating businesses to the point of bankruptcy – 100% tax for example.”
It also contains a Bill of Rights that begins with “Congress shall pass no laws…” and contains a general provision of “enumerated powers” that reserves all powers not explicitly granted to the Federal government to the States or to the people. Do you really think that a people who had just fought an 8-year devastating war to get rid of one King intended to write a Constitution that would ever put them in the hands of another one?
“…the government passed laws that discriminated against African Americans, even to the point when they were considered property and used/sold as slaves.”
That would be the American colonies under the King of England. The Constitution reduced the power of the slave holders by preventing them from counting 2/5 of their slaves as people when it was convenient for them to boost their census counts for purposes of increasing slave-holder representation in Congress and the electoral college. They got rid of the instituion entirely in the 19th Century. Another example of why people don’t like the idea of Kings.
“A better indicator, in my mind, are match up polls. Obama is shown beating in a “who would you vote for now” against all Republican challengers. This certainly doesn’t mean he will win, but when given the option between their perceived socialist, and these self-described capitalists, polls show that Obama is their choice.”
The last match up poll I saw showed Obama tied or losing in direct match up polls to four Republican candidates. I think the 4 were Huckabee, Romney, Gingrich, and Palin. At this stage, that’s almost an anybody but Obama poll. (You can google it!)
Tara, throughout this conversation, I do believe that Steve has the most similar ideas to mine. As he said on page 4 comment 49, “Socialism is less desirable but, I think, calling it evil is an overreach.” Furthermore, “socialism, in practice, can be democratic in nature. Many of the European nations have heavy socialist elements but are still Democracies: Sweden, France, etc….[Democratic Socialism] is just another way of organizing society.
Now to your points.
Regardless, if dissenters were stirring up trouble for the church, then I think it is a stretch to say that they were threatened or run out of town strictly on the basis of their refusal to submit to the Law of Consecration. After all, how would you react if there were people among you who were putting the lives of you and your family and friends in danger by their dissent?
As I said before, there was no one reason here, so no it is not a simple case of not wanting to live the Law of Consecration. There was also the issue of polygamy. I have been telling you it is not solely on the “basis of their refusal to submit to the Law of Consecration”, but there are other reasons, so I don’t know why you are telling me I am simplifying the issue. It seems to me you are splitting up my comments and quoting me out of context.
So Tara, once again, what would it take for you to lose confidence in your church leaders? Let’s transport ourselves back to 1838 and try to understand things from Oliver’s perspective for a moment. You fully support Joseph. He tells you he wants to build a Zion people, like the people of Enoch. You trust him. You work for him. You go on missions for him. You preach for him. You build a bank and put your life savings in for him so you can become “one.”
The bank fails because it is under-capitalized. You realize that Joseph isn’t a business guru. If the bank had been properly capitalized, it wouldn’t have failed. You see that Joseph’s plan is to purchase real estate, and sell it to new converts for a profit. However, the new converts are so poor, they can’t buy real estate. This is another cause for the collapse. Now Joseph asks you to risk more of your assets (land) into another consecration project. Not only do you question his business acumen, but the Lord in revelation has said that Joseph will not be blessed economically. Yes you made a covenant to consecrate your land, but Joseph also made a promise that the bank would “never fail, and overtake other banks”.
Furthermore, you suspect that he is having an affair with Fanny Alger. He refuses to deny a relationship, but says it is not an affair. You have pretty good evidence, but not quite enough to be 100% sure. You also know that Joseph was involved in treasure digging, because you participated with him in it. Others accused Joseph of being dishonest with his treasure digging. You are beginning to see a pattern of untruthful patterns. You begin to wonder if this whole real-estate, banking thing is a house of cards.
You’ve expressed your reservations several times, but Joseph keeps telling you to have faith. While you accept him as a prophet, and have seen angels, you also see that Joseph really doesn’t know how to run a large financial operation. You can see the accounting, and it’s a house of cards. Do you still keep investing money in a financial organization that you can see is going to fail? At what point do you decide that you have (as Apostle William McLellin said) “no confidence in the presidency of the church.”? Let’s remember that the rank and file church member isn’t privy to the finances like you are. Tara, do you keep pouring money in a hole?
This is a lot of speculation. From these statements, you make the assumption that there were no charitable Mormons. That is a sad commentary. Why the pessimism?
Are you really asking me why the pessimism after you said that dissent was “putting the lives of you and your family and friends in danger by their dissent”? If you’re Brigham Young, you’ve been run out of Kirtland, Jackson County, Far West, and Nauvoo. The 1838 Mormon War left nearly 2 dozen dead at Haun’s Mill, and you’ve had trouble with dissent. You’re being persecuted for polygamy. Why the pessimism? Are you serious?
Oh, now, come on. I can say the same about church membership and attendance at church. Do your children currently have a choice to be in the church? The same can be said of a lot of things our children are subjected to, like school, or chores, or eating broccoli.
A young man of marriageable age buys a pair of pants and goes to a church dance where a young woman rushes up to him and kisses him, and you are comparing this to a child eating broccoli????
You don’t think? Well then, are you saying you don’t exactly know how everything played out?
I guess you didn’t understand my tongue-in-cheek comment. Let me say it again. Oliver left his house and his farm behind. He can’t transport acres of dirt and crops on his horse. His home isn’t in some trailer park that he can just pack up and take with him. He left it behind, and took only what he could. He wasn’t compensated, just as the Mormons weren’t compensated for getting kicked out of Missouri. Surely you find the mob actions against Mormons outrageous, but Oliver and the Whitmers just got what was coming to them apparently. Is that correct? You have no sympathy for Oliver or the Whitmers. Is that correct? They were free agents and were dealt with appropriately. Is that correct?
That’s difficult to say. Neither of them have officially declared they are socialist, so there is no actual date to reference for that purpose.
Well, the US hasn’t officially declared that we are socialist either, so apparently this 70 year clock has yet to begin. Certainly we are much farther behind the socialist curve than France, England, and Canada. Can you give me one other nation that converted to communism from socialism in 70 years? Where did this 70 year number come from?
If I hadn’t already lost all confidence in church leadership, I certainly would have after reading these last couple pages of comments…wow.
Ok, Bishop Rick, let me put my comments in a bit of context. We all (within and without the church) like to paint people with white hats and black hats. Brigham and company are the good guys and Oliver and company are the bad guys. However, when we truly look at the issues, we see that Brigham wasn’t always good, and Oliver wasn’t always bad. That’s my point.
Most of us know Oliver left the church, but few people can articulate reasons WHY he left the church. Once you understand the reasons, it is easier to see that his concerns were valid. He doesn’t belong in the black hat. He never denied his testimony of the Book of Mormon, and neither did the Whitmers. There is something important to say about that.
Likewise, Brigham’s leadership was exactly what the saints needed to survive in the wasteland of Utah. As I said before, he could be autocratic at times, but the theocracy was needed to survive. So he doesn’t get a fully white hat either. I applaud Brigham for using his force of personality to turn the Utah desert to a rose. But there were casualties too.
The same can be said of this socialism/capitalism debate. Capitalism doesn’t get the white hat, and socialism the black hat, despite how people want to paint it. Americans point to the Greek financial crisis, but seemingly forget the Great Recession and Great Depression we have had here in the name of capitalism. The turn toward socialism of the banking industry started under George W Bush, yet only Obama is the socialist? Something is not fair here.
History isn’t black and white. It is fully of gray, and that’s my point. I am appreciative our our church leaders in our history. But they certainly didn’t handle situations perfectly (though far better than I would have done.) Let’s quit painting things in black and white and start looking at things more objectively. That’s my point.
As Steve said, “Socialism is less desirable but, I think, calling it evil is an overreach.”
I’m glad we’re done with the socialist poll issue. I assume from your silence you have finally come around to agree with me on my point. 😉
Not at all. Tara’s point, however, was that government has now seized more or different power than it has in the past and is using this “new” power to regulate businesses into bankruptcy in a way it has not in the past. I was merely pointing out that the Constitution gives the government power to do this, within the limits you point out. None of those “Government shall pass no law,…” provisions restrict the federal government from regulating businesses. To the contrary, among those enumerated powers is the power to regulate commerce among the states and to levy taxes.
Tara is saying that the Obama administration is doing very drastic things. I’m saying they are not and are merely passing laws and doing things he promised to do to the people who elected him – and that these things are typical and in line with what other administrations have done. She has not yet demonstrated why a law regulating health insurance providers is so much more socialistic or outside of its consitutional bounds than the ADA (passed under Bush I) or NCLB (under Bush II) or any number of reforms that regulate industry.
I specifically pointed to Sarbanes Oxley (Bush II) that severly regulated all members of the financial industry and asked why this wasn’t as bad as what Obama was doing. And even if she thinks it is as bad – it still demonstrates that Obama is continuing in the same fashion other administrations have. Passing laws in accordance with their perceived powers – and being checked by the judicial branch if they go too far, like McCain-Feingold (Bush II).
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here, but your facts are a little off. The North didn’t want to count slaves at all in the census (as slaves weren’t people) and the South wanted them fully counted, in order to take full advantage of federal appropriations and get better representation in Congress. The Constitution compromised and provided slaves would be counted as 3/5ths of a person.
But long after this, governments, both state and federal discriminated against African Americans. I made this point to rebut Tara’s contention that somehow the Obama government is weilding some new power to stomp on individual rights and harm businesses that didn’t exist in the past. Obviously, it did.
So you agree that a better indicator is match-up polls?
I googled and couldn’t find what you suggested. Here’s info from pollster.com that collects and consolodates other polls. It provides summer numbers. http://www.pollster.com/blogs/us_2012_pres_ppp_647.php
If you find this poll to which you refer, I’d like to see it.
I see you have abandoned the discussion on the “socialist” poll issue, so I will assume you concede my point. I hope this was a result of my expressing my point more clearly.
Perhaps … but in that comment I was referring to Beck’s constant conspiracy theorizing, generally based on falsehoods. It did not mean to address your intelligence or his popularity.
You’re correct, but this doesn’t refute my point. None of the restrictions in the Bill of rights prevents the federal government from passing laws that regulate businesses and the enumerated powers clause includes both the ability to tax and the ability to regulate commerce. I do not think the Constitution would put them in the hands of a king and I made no such claim. It seems you are once again ascribing statements to me that I didn’t make or even imply.
Tara asked me where the government got the right to regulate business. With respect to the Federal government, the Constitution is my answer. If you disagree that the Constitution allows government to regulate industry, let me know and we can discuss.
FireTag:
BTC:
That would be the American colonies under the King of England. The Constitution reduced the power of the slave holders by preventing them from counting 2/5 of their slaves as people when it was convenient for them to boost their census counts for purposes of increasing slave-holder representation in Congress and the electoral college. They got rid of the instituion entirely in the 19th Century. Another example of why people don’t like the idea of Kings.
I’m not totally clear on what you’re getting at here, but your facts are a little off. The North didn’t want to count slaves as people for representation purposes, and the South did. The compromise in the Constitution was to allow slaves to count as 3/5ths of a person.
Again, Tara is trying to make the point that the Obama administration has some new or extraordinary powers which violate the Constitution and suppress individual rights. My point regarding discrimination was that African Americans were discriminated against by law (both federal and state) centuries ago — so clearly the government has always had extraordinary powers and has used them in extraordinary ways.
My rebuttal to Tara is that all administrations pressed for laws that regulate industry (ADA – Bush I; NCLB, Patriot Act, Sarbanes Oxley – Bush II) and they are all done with the idea that they are within their constitutional authority. If they are not (McCain Feingold – Bush II) then the checks and balances of the judiciary will intervene. Obama’s legislative agenda are neither extreme nor outside the scope of traditional legislative power. I’m waiting for examples to the contrary.
MH:
I’d even go so far as to all it “extreme political rhetoric.”
2012 President
46% Obama, 44% Huckabee
50% Obama, 41% Palin
47% Obama, 39% Gingrich
46% Obama, 36% Paul
45% Obama, 42% Romney
This is from Pollster. If there is another more recent or with different results. I was unable to find it. “Anybody but a republican?”
A brief on the historical expansion of the “commerce clause” to cover just about everything, and how far it differs from 18th Century understandings is a little beyond the scope of this blog, BTC. Progressives think that’s a good thing; conservatives think it’s gone much too far. It’s the old argument of “living document” versus “original construction.”
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/15/ppp-obama-palin-tied-4646-in-2012-polling/
This links to and summarizes the results of a mid-July poll by Public Policy Polling (a Democratic polling firm) of registered voters. This link in turn goes to the PPP release itself if you wish to go further in the data. For years, Obama has done better among all adults than among registered voters, and better among regular voters than among likely voters. That may explain the difference in the results.
And government now doesn’t have power to pass laws “indiscriminately” and certainly not when they violate the constitution. Do you have evidence that this new power exists or has been exercised? In what way am I wrong?
I wasn’t arguing that they did. But when you say that they do have, and always have had, the ability to pass laws, even to the point of passing a 100% tax, then you are saying they have the power to pass laws indiscriminately.
Just by way of example — there was a time when the government passed laws that discriminated against African Americans, even to the point when they were considered property and used/sold as slaves. Certainly you’ll see this as a violation of individual liberty. You’re saying the government has more power now than it did back then?
The constitution states that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Right, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Our founding principles could not forever tolerate slavery within its midst and it did not.
The government does have more power than it did back then. As an example, in 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment changed the way senators were chosen, from being selected by state legislatures–ensuring that the state governments would have a direct and meaningful voice in the operation of the federal government–to direct popular election by the citizens of each state. Enough states ratified an amendment which largely disenfranchised themselves from the federal lawmaking process. Now, the once powerful states have themselves become administrative appendages of the federal government. It is not enough that the federal government exercises powers reserved to the states, but it also blackmails the states to implement its policies by threatening to deny them “their fair share” of federal tax dollars should they object.
The lesson for us is that man is imperfect. Even good men are capable of bad things. The disgrace of slavery is a disgrace of the human condition–as is all tyranny. Man’s institutions, like man himself, are imperfect. The can be used for good or bad. Therefore, diffusing authority among many imperfect men, by enumerating federal power, separating powers within the federal government, and sharing power with the states–isolates and limits tyranny. The more centralized the government becomes, the more easily we become subject to tyranny.
Yeah, the government has always had the power to pass laws, but it wasn’t always been as centralized as it has become. The move to centralize power in the federal government over time is what has increased its power.
Interestingly, and on point, when the government outlawed slavery, it bankrupted many estates in the South. Without the free labor provided by slaves, many plantations could no longer survive.
As I stated, the founding principles of this nation were in contrast to slavery. Slaves had been viewed as property, but once they were no longer considered property, they were entitled to the same rights as other men. At that point the rights of individuals were in direct conflict: the rights of property owners and the rights of slaves to life, liberty, and the pursuit happiness. The scales were obviously tipped in favor of the slaves, as it should have been. But that wasn’t necessarily as a direct result of governmental power. It was as a result of conflicting constitutional principles which had to be resolved. That’s how I see it anyway.