Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Hopefully you'll forgive the disconnected approach to this, but I'm trying to give you an opportunity to respond while still clearing up some points.

In my analogy I've compared socialism to the law of Moses, not capitalism or the constitution. As I've said, I don't believe that capitalism is explicit from the constitution, but that's a point that I hope to expound on in further posts. I think in most instances, capitalism is better than socialism, but that this does not hold true for all instances. For the purpose of these definitions, I consider as socialist any industry in which government either runs or subsidizes all or a large majority of the industry. I would consider the United States socialist in terms of military, police, education, and most infastructure and utilities, including road construction, power and power lines, water and water lines, information infrastructure (cable lines, satellite network, etc.) and sanitation (garbage disposal). I think we'll see a time in the next 50 years or so when we can add healthcare to that list, and perhaps others.

Second, I didn't want to belabor it, but since you said you weren't sure what I meant by it, I'll explain what I mean when I say that agency cannot exist without law. I'm speaking foremost of moral law (see 2 Nephi 2). We understand that critical to our agency are the consequences that are attached to our actions. A government cannot totally circumvent that, even when it imposes immoral law. (Remember Shadrach, Mescach, and Abednego?) In contrast, a government cannot entirely uphold it, even with moral law. Would you agree that there will always be sin that is legal, in any circumstance, country, or legal system? It is critical that, while we strive to support moral leaders who make moral decisions and policy, that we remember that agency given by God cannot be taken away by man.

That's it for now. I'll address the other points, but just wanted to take a second to address these.

Marduk wrote: But first, I just have a question. We are at the same precipice today as we were when he spoke, and the same precipice during Clinton's first years in office. Why, if it is so important to eschew any sort of government aid program, was president Benson the last to speak on it, and even then, predominantly as an apostle, and far less so as president of the church?

I went through a lot of talks from General Authorities dealing with government aid programs and socialism. I selected the ones that were saying the same sort of thing that Ezra Taft Benson used to say. I put these in numerical order, and--as far as the articles I found indicate--you are right, President Benson was the last General Authority to talk publicly about it. At the time of his last article he was the President of the Church. There have been other articles, and there have been reprints of older articles, indicating to me that the Church is still very much behind these eternal principles.

We can only speculate why we haven't heard anything new on it for over 20 years. Perhaps there is nothing new to say. Perhaps what has been said already is sufficient, we just need to be reminded of it and figure it out on our own. My best guess is that the prophets have spoken, and the world rejected it. At this point of time, with socialism and government aid programs entrenched in our government, to speak out against it would be to speak out against our government. It would be very divisive. You may have noticed how incensed some people were when the Church spoke out against same-sex marriage?

President Joseph F. Smith wrote: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds to the doctrine of the separation of church and state; the non-interference of church authority in political matters; and the absolute freedom and independence of the individual in the performance of his political duties. If at any time there has been conduct at variance with this doctrine, it has been in violation of the well-settled principles and policy of the Church.

We declare that from principle and policy, we favor: The absolute separation of church and state; No domination of the state by the church; No church interference with the functions of the state; No state interference with the functions of the church, or with the free exercise of religion; The absolute freedom of the individual from the domination of ecclesiastical authority in political affairs; The equality of all churches before the law.

The Church does not engage in politics; its members belong to the political parties at their own pleasure.

This policy has often been repeated. I think this is what we will see in the future, with the Church only speaking up when the government interferes with the functions of the church or with the free exercise of religion, or when the state attempts to establish a state secular religion in some degree. Ezra Taft Benson, the great-cold war warrior, may have been the last to speak openly. But his words still stand for us to gain wisdom from. I see no change in the doctrine, only times have changed and it is not wisdom in the Lord to oppose the government, or command us in all things. It was wisdom before we went over the precipice. But the Church will continue to give a message of hope and comfort, and urge each member to strive to do the best he or she can to live righteously. Our Constitution requires a righteous people.

So, here is my list of General Authority talks and articles which support what President Ezra Taft Benson was saying.

I meant these are in chronological order:

1831, Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 1:146-47
 
183_, Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 3:28
 
184_, Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 6:37-38
 
1852, John Taylor, Chapter 3, “On the Incompetency of the Means Made Use Of by Man to Regenerate the World,” The Government of God.
 
Oct. 1935, J. Reuben Clark, Conference Report
 
Oct. 1936, First Presidency, Conference Report, p.3
 
April 1937, Levi Edgar Young, Conference Report
 
April 1938, J. Reuben Clark, Conference Report, pp. 106-7
 
April 1938, Albert E. Bowen, Conference Report
 
Nov 1938, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., talk, “Constitutional Government Our Birthright Threatened,” (from Just and Holy Principles, edited by Ralph C. Hancock)
 
Oct. 1941, Harold B. Lee, Conference Report, p. 113
 
1942, J. Reuben Clark, “The United Order and Law of Consecration As Set Out in the Revelations of the Lord”
 
Oct. 1942, J. Reuben Clark, Conference Report, p. 55-58
 
1943, J. Reuben Clark (see Romney May 1976 Ensign)
 
1945, J. Reuben Clark, The United Order and the Law of Consecration
 
1946, Albert E. Bowen, Gospel Doctrine course of study, “The Church Welfare Plan”
 
1952, Welfare handbook, p. 2 (quoted by Packer, 1975)
 
April 1957, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Conference, “Our Constitution—Divinely Inspired”
 
May 1957, Marion G. Romney, BYU Speeches, “Your Quest for Truth”
 
Oct 1961, Ezra Taft Benson, Conference, “The American Heritage of Freedom—A Plan of God”
 
Mar. 1966, Marion G. Romney, BYU Speeches, “Socialism and the United Order”
 
April 1966, David O. McKay, Priesthood Session of Conference
 
April 1966, Marion G. Romney, Conference, “Is Socialism the United Order?” (Brethren asked him to repeat his BYU speech)
 
Feb 1971, Neal A. Maxwell, New Era, p. 7
 
Aug 1971, John Taylor, Ensign, “The Government of God”
 
Oct. 1972, Marion G. Romney, Conference Report, p. 115
 
Nov. 1972, Marion G. Romney, BYU Speeches, “Political Thought and Life of J. Reuben Clark, Jr.”
 
Jan. 1973, Ezra Taft Benson, Ensign, “Listen to a Prophet’s Voice”
 
July 1973, Ezra Taft Benson, Ensign, “Watchman, Warn the Wicked”
 
June 1974, Hartman Rector, Jr., BYU Speeches, “The Land Choice Above All”
 
Oct. 1974, Neal A. Maxwell, Ensign, “Eternalism vs. Secularism”
 
Oct. 1974, Marion G. Romney, Welfare Services Meeting (see Packer, 1975)
 
Nov. 1974, Neal A. Maxwell, Ensign, “Why Not Now?”
 
Dec. 1974, Ezra Taft Benson, BYU Speeches, “Jesus Christ—Gifts and Expectations”
 
Feb 1975, Neal A. Maxwell, New Era, “Spiritual Ecology”
 
May 1975, Ezra Taft Benson, New Era, “Jesus Christ—Gifts and Expectations”
 
May 1975, Ezra Taft Benson, Ensign, “The Book of Mormon Is the Word of God”
 
Aug 1975, Boyd K. Packer, Ensign, “Self-Reliance”
 
Nov. 1975, Marion G. Romney, Ensign, “Welfare Services”
 
Nov. 1975, Hartman Rector Jr., Ensign, “The World’s Greatest Need”
 
May 1976, Marion G. Romney, Ensign, “Church Welfare Services’ Basic Principles”
 
Nov. 1976, Marion G. Romney, Ensign, “In Mine Own Way”
 
Nov. 1976, Victor L. Brown, BYU Speeches, “The Law of Consecration”
 
Apr. 1977, Ezra Taft Benson, BYU Speeches, “A Vision and a Hope for the Youth of Zion”
 
Mar. 1977, Boyd K. Packer, Ensign, “The Equal Rights Amendment”
 
May 1977, Ezra Taft Benson, Liahona, “Jesus Christ—Gifts and Expectations”
 
May 1977, Marion G. Romney, Ensign, “The Purpose of Church Welfare Services,”
 
May 1977, Ezra Taft Benson, Ensign, “Ministering to Needs through the Lord’s Storehouse System”
 
Nov. 1977, Spencer W. Kimball, Ensign, “Welfare Services: The Gospel in Action”
 
May 1978, Spencer W. Kimball, Ensign, “Becoming the Pure in Heart”
 
Nov. 1978, David B. Haight, Ensign, “The Stake President’s Role in Welfare Services”
 
May 1979, Marion G. Romney, Ensign, “Fundamental Welfare Services”
 
May 1979, Bruce R. McConkie, Ensign, “Stand Independent above All Other Creatures”
 
Sep. 1979, Robert L. Simpson, BYU Speeches, “Unto All People”
 
Jan. 1980, Marion G. Romney, Liahona, “Living the Principles of the Law of Consecration”
 
May 1980, Marion G. Romney, Ensign, “Church Welfare—Temporal Service in a Spiritual Setting”
 
May 1982, Marion G. Romney, Ensign, “Work and Welfare: A Historical Perspective”
 
Nov. 1982, Marion G. Romney, Ensign, “The Celestial Nature of Self-Reliance”
 
Nov. 1982, James E. Faust, Ensign, “The Blessings We Receive As We Meet the Challenges of Economic Stress”
 
June 1984, Marion G. Romney, Ensign, “The Celestial Nature of Self-Reliance”
 
Aug. 1984, Spencer W. Kimball, Ensign, “And the Lord Called His People Zion”
 
May 1986, Thomas S. Monson, Ensign, “A Provident Plan—A Precious Promise”
 
May 1986, Glenn L. Pace, Ensign, “Principles and Programs”
 
Sep. 1986, Vaughn J. Featherstone, BYU Speeches, “Building Bricks Without Straw”
 
Sep. 1986 Ezra Taft Benson, BYU Speeches, “The Constitution—A Heavenly Banner”
 
Sep. 1986, Thomas S. Monson, Ensign, “Guiding Principles of Personal and Family Welfare”
 
1988, Ezra Taft Benson, “A Witness and a Warning: A Modern-day Prophet Testifies of the Book of Mormon,” Deseret Book Company, p. 6
 
July 1994, Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, “Farewell to a Prophet,” [speaking of Ezra Taft Benson]

2000, Harold B. Lee, Teachings of Presidents of the Church, pp. 166-169

2002, Heber J. Grant, Teachings of Presidents of the Church, pp. 115-117

March 2003, First Presidency, Ensign, Reprint of First Presidency statements from 1933 and 1936

2006, Spencer W. Kimball, Teachings of Presidents of the Church, pp. 118-121
 
March 2009, Marion G. Romney, “The Celestial Nature of Self-Reliance,” reprint of 1984 article

Marduk wrote: For the purpose of these definitions, I consider as socialist any industry in which government either runs or subsidizes all or a large majority of the industry. I would consider the United States socialist in terms of military, police, education, and most infastructure and utilities, including road construction, power and power lines, water and water lines, information infrastructure (cable lines, satellite network, etc.) and sanitation (garbage disposal). I think we'll see a time in the next 50 years or so when we can add healthcare to that list, and perhaps others.

Definitions are important. I do not agree with your definition. A proper definition shows that the things you mention are not socialist at all.

I much prefer the definition of socialism given by Elder Marion G. Romney, given in General Conference, April 1966. His wonderful talk is called "Is Socialism the United Order?"

Elder Marion G. Romney wrote: What I am going to give you is a statement I have prepared in answer to the question, "Is Socialism the United Order?" Some of you may have already heard it. This is the first time I have ever attempted to give a talk a second time. My excuse is that the Brethren have asked me to give this talk here tonight.

I suppose the best way to start a comparison of socialism and the United Order is with a definition of the terms. Webster defines socialism as:

"A political and economical theory of social organization based on collective or governmental ownership and democratic management of the essential means for the production and distribution of goods; also, a policy or practice based on this theory." (Webster's New International Dictionary, 2nd ed. unabridged, 1951.)

George Bernard Shaw, the noted Fabian Socialist, said that:

"Socialism, reduced to its simplest legal and practical expression, means the complete discarding of the institution of private property by transforming it into public property and the division of the resultant income equally and indiscriminately among the entire population." (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1946 ed., Vol. 20, P. 895.)

George Douglas Howard Cole, M.A. noted author and university leader in economics at Oxford, who treats socialism for the Encyclopedia Britannica, says that because of the shifting sense in which the word has been used, "a short and comprehensive definition is impossible. We can only say," he concludes, "that Socialism is essentially a doctrine and a movement aiming at the collective organization of the community in the interest of the mass of the people by means of the common ownership and collective control of the means of production and exchange." (Ibid., p. 888.)

Socialism arose "out of the economic division in society." During the nineteenth century its growth was accelerated as a protest against "the appalling conditions prevailing in the workshops and factories and the unchristian spirit of the spreading industrial system."

The "Communist Manifesto" drafted by Karl Mark and Friedrich Engels for the Communist League in 1848 is generally regarded as the starting point of modern socialism. (Ibid., p. 890.)

The distinction between socialism, as represented by the various Socialist and Labor parties of Europe and the New World, and Communism, as represented by the Russians, is one of tactics and strategy rather than of objective. Communism is indeed only socialism pursued by revolutionary means and making its revolutionary method a canon of faith. Communists like other socialists, (1) believe in the collective control and ownership of the vital means of production and (2) seek to achieve through state action the coordinated control of the economic forces of society. They (the Communists) differ from other socialists in believing that this control can be secured, and its use in the interests of the workers ensured, only by revolutionary action leading to the dictatorship of the proletariat and the creation of a new proletarian state as the instrument of change. (Ibid.)

German Socialism

A major rift between so-called orthodox socialism and communist socialism occurred in 1875 when the German Social Democratic party set forth its objective or winning power by taking over control of the bourgeois state, rather than by overthrowing it. In effect, the German Social Democratic party became a parliamentary party, aiming at the assumption of political power by constitutional means.

Fabian Society

In the 1880's a small group of intellectuals set up in England the Fabian Society, which has had a major influence on the development of modern orthodox socialism. Fabianism stands "for the evolutionary conception of socialism...endeavoring by progressive reforms and the nationalization of industries, to turn the existing state into a 'welfare state.'" Somewhat on the order of the German Social Democrats, Fabians aim "at permeating the existing parties with socialistic ideas [rather] that at creating a definitely socialistic party." They appeal "to the electorate not as revolutionaries but as constitutional reformers seeking a peaceful transformation of the system." (Ibid.)

The differences in forms and policies of socialism occur principally in the manner in which they seek to implement their theories.

They all advocate:
(1) That private ownership of the vital means of production be abolished and that all such property "pass under some form of coordinated public control."
(2) That the power of the state be used to achieve their aims.
(3) "That with a change in the control of industry will go a change in the motives which operate in the industrial system...." (Ibid.)

So much for the definition of socialism. I have given you these statements in the words of socialists and scholars, not my words, so they have had their hearing.

Marduk wrote:Second, I didn't want to belabor it, but since you said you weren't sure what I meant by it, I'll explain what I mean when I say that agency cannot exist without law. I'm speaking foremost of moral law (see 2 Nephi 2). We understand that critical to our agency are the consequences that are attached to our actions. A government cannot totally circumvent that, even when it imposes immoral law. (Remember Shadrach, Mescach, and Abednego?) In contrast, a government cannot entirely uphold it, even with moral law. Would you agree that there will always be sin that is legal, in any circumstance, country, or legal system? It is critical that, while we strive to support moral leaders who make moral decisions and policy, that we remember that agency given by God cannot be taken away by man.

I think here to we need a good definition of “agency.” Elder D. Todd Christofferson gave an interesting address at BYU on January 31, 2006. This was later printed in the June 2009 Ensign.

Elder Christofferson wrote: First, there must be alternatives among which to choose. Lehi spoke of opposites, or “opposition”—righteousness and its opposite, wickedness; holiness versus misery; good versus bad. Without opposites, Lehi said, “All things must needs be a compound in one; … no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility” (2 Nephi 2:11).

He further explained that for these opposites or alternatives to exist, there must be law. Law provides us the options. It is by the operation of laws that things happen. By using or obeying a law, one can bring about a particular result—and by disobedience, the opposite result. Without law there could be no God, for He would be powerless to cause anything to happen (see 2 Nephi 2:13). Without law, neither He nor we would be able to predict or choose a particular outcome by a given action. Our existence and the creation around us are convincing evidence that God, the Creator, exists and that our mortal world consists of “both things to act and things to be acted upon” (2 Nephi 2:14)—or, in other words, choices.

Second, for us to have agency, we must not only have alternatives, but we must also know what they are. If we are unaware of the choices available, the existence of those choices is meaningless to us. Lehi called this being “enticed by the one or the other” (2 Nephi 2:16). He recalled the situation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden when they were presented with a choice, “even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter” (2 Nephi 2:15). Adam and Eve’s choice, of course, brought about the Fall, which brought with it a knowledge of good and evil, opening to their understanding a multitude of new choices. Had they remained in Eden, “they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin” (2 Nephi 2:23). But with the Fall, both they and we gain sufficient knowledge and understanding to be enticed by good and evil—we attain a state of accountability and can recognize the alternatives before us.

The beauty of the gospel of Jesus Christ is that it pours knowledge into our souls and shows things in their true light. With that enhanced perspective, we can discern more clearly the choices before us and their consequences. We can, therefore, make more intelligent use of our agency. Many of God’s children fall into unanticipated traps and unhappiness because they either lack or ignore gospel light. They are unaware of their options or are confused about the outcomes of their choices. Ignorance effectively limits their agency.

Third is the next element of agency: the freedom to make choices (see 2 Nephi 10:23). This freedom to act for ourselves in choosing among alternatives is often referred to in the scriptures as agency itself. For this freedom we are indebted to God. It is His gift to us (see Moses 4:3).

In the case of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego the government could not circumvent their agency because these men had previously attained a state of accountability to be enticed by good and evil, and they could clearly recognize the alternatives before them. They were not ignorant. Government has the power to prevent people from learning these things, and can therefore prevent or take away agency. In other words, taking away a knowledge of the law from among the people effectively takes away agency. Remember all the elements of moral agency must be present before there is true moral agency.

Daniel Ludlow gave a devotional address at BYU on 2 July 1974 where he outlined four essential elements of moral free agency.

Daniel Ludlow wrote: But Lucifer is trying to run up as high a score as he can, and he does this by trying to keep us individually from achieving the great divine purposes for which we came here upon this earth, including the exercise of our free agency. He can do it by denying us any one of the four essential qualities of moral free agency. He can do it by denying us the opportunity of choice, and he tries to do this through certain types of governments, dictatorships, through the lack of governments (anarchy), and so on. He tries to do this by destroying, in our minds at least, the idea that there is a necessity of opposition, and therefore he tries to teach us "There is no sin. It mattereth not what a man does; whatsoever a man doeth is not sin. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die." Thus he destroys the role of opposition in our lives, or at least he attempts to do so.

He can also do it by destroying our freedom of choice, and he does this by enticing us to give up our right of free agency to other persons or to other institutions and allow them to make our choices for us, resulting in the evil that Presidents of the Church have talked about in communism and socialism and other orders of this type.

Thus in one way or another he tries to entice us to become like him and to become subject to the misery and unhappiness that he now participates in. To achieve his devilish aims, Lucifer can and does work through many means: business combines, governments on all levels, military forces, educational institutions, secret combinations of all kinds, and even families, teachers, and churches. Wherever and whenever you find a person or an institution that seeks to destroy the free agency of man, there you will find the influence of Lucifer.

On the other hand, Elder Dallin H. Oaks in a BYU fireside in 11 October 1987 used different definitions of agency. He said “In view of this confusion, I need to define the terms I will use. When I say free agency I refer to what scripture calls agency, which means an exercise of the will, the power to choose. (In view of the current prominence of this term on the sports pages, I must add that this "free agency" does not refer to the contract status of professional athletes.) When I say freedom, I mean the power and privilege to carry out our choices. This includes everything from thoughts, such as hate, to actions, such as running.”

With his definition of “free agency” Elder Oaks goes on to say that “First, because free agency is a God-given precondition to the purpose of mortal life, no person or organization can take away our free agency in mortality. Second, what can be taken away or reduced by the conditions of mortality is our freedom, the power to act upon our choices. Free agency is absolute, but in the circumstances of mortality freedom is always qualified.”

The problem I have with Elder Oaks's definitions, and your statement “that agency given by God cannot be taken away by man” is that it runs counter to what the First Presidency and other General Authorities have said on numerous occasions. In a message from the First Presidency to the Church on April 1942 it was said

First Presidency wrote: We again warn our people in America of the constantly increasing threat against our inspired Constitution and our free institutions set up under it. The same political tenets and philosophies that have brought war and terror in other parts of the world are at work amongst us in America. The proponents thereof are seeking to undermine our own form of government and to set up instead one of the forms of dictatorships now flourishing in other lands. These revolutionists are using a technique that is as old as the human race—a fervid but false solicitude for the unfortunate over whom they thus gain mastery and then enslave them.

They suit their approaches to the particular group they seek to deceive. Among the Latter-day Saints they speak of their philosophy and their plans under it as an ushering in of the United Order. Communism and all other similar isms bear no relationship whatever to the United Order. They are merely the clumsy counterfeits which Satan always devises of the gospel plan. Communism debases the individual and makes him the enslaved tool of the state to whom he must look for sustenance and religion; the United Order exalts the individual, leaves him his property, "according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs," (D&C 51:3) and provides a system by which he helps care for his less fortunate brethren; the United Order leaves every man free to choose his own religion as his conscience directs. Communism destroys man's God-given free agency; the United Order glorifies it. Latter-day Saints can not be true to their faith and lend aid, encouragement, or sympathy to any of these false philosophies. They will prove snares to their feet.

Seemingly this First Presidency message runs counter to what Elder Oaks said. How can communism destroy something and at the same time “no person or organization can take away our free agency in mortality.” Well, they are using different definitions of “free agency.”

A similar First Presidency message was given years later by President David O. McKay. (April 6, 1966, made at the general priesthood session)

President David O. Mckay wrote:Church members are at perfect liberty to act according to their own consciences in the matter of safeguarding our way of life. They are, of course, encouraged to honor the highest standards of the gospel and to work to preserve their own freedoms. They are free to participate in nonchurch meetings that are held to warn people of the threat of Communism or any other theory or principle that will deprive us of our free agency or individual liberties vouchsafed by the Constitution of the United States.
…

Communism debases the individual and makes him the enslaved tool of the state, to which he must look for sustenance and religion. Communism destroys man's God-given free agency.

The same terminology was used by Marion G. Romney (“America's Fate and Ultimate Destiny,” BYU address in May 1976, and other occasions), President Henry D. Moyle (Conference Report, October 1947), and many times by President Ezra T. Benson (for example BYU devotional held Tuesday, 16 September 1986, and the BYU address “The Proper Role of Government”)

So, in light of the fact that the prophets say that agency given by God CAN be taken away by man, I've going to have to disagree with you again.