Saturday, October 18, 2008


It never ceases to amaze me how many members of the Church embrace whole-heartedly socialist programs. They always cite quotes by Christ, King Benjamin, and prophets of the Church who call for more equality and generosity. They also cite the United Order and consecration as examples in which the Church advocates redistribution of wealth. There are two problems with drawing a comparison between socialism in its Marxist form and consecration: agency and stewardship.

From the very beginning, there has been a battle between the followers of Christ and the followers of Satan. Christ's plan all along was to allow people to choose whether or not they would follow Him. Satan's plan was to force everyone to do what is right. God knew that there was nothing exalting in being forced to do good, and that no one would learn and grow through coercion. Socialism is just that, though. It is good to give to those who are in need. It is just as damning, however, to be forced to give to the poor as it is to retain your excess. It is also unjustifiable to take from one individual to give to another individual without the consent of that person. Consecration, on the other hand, is based on agency. People have the choice to give freely and receive the blessings or to retain their wealth and not receive the Spirit.

There is also the matter of stewardship. In consecration and the United Order, every person gave all of there substance to the Bishop's storehouse, and then they were given what they needed for themselves and their families. Most of the time, they received much of their own possessions back (including home and land) in the form of a stewardship. They were responsible and accountable for the use of these things. Under socialism, however, there is no such accountability or stewardship. Indeed, under its most extreme form (communism) everything is owned "commonly," meaning the government oligarchy owns everything, and there is no accountability or sense of responsibility on the part of any of the people. Under common forms of socialism, stewardships are given out (usually in the form of money) with no commitment or accountability expected. It's not hard to see how this is contrary to the way of the gospel. Indeed, many general authorities over the years have condemned the idea of a dole welfare system (giving out money).

For those who earn more than they need, it is good for them to give to the poor. For those who need help, they should do all they can on their own, then approach their families, then their church, and last of all their government. Socialist governments try to flip that on its head and get people to depend on it rather than help themselves or each other. There is nothing exalting in having all of your needs automatically provided for without having to learn and grow, and there is nothing exalting about not helping your neighbor or family member directly. Government socialism takes the choice and the charity out of it.

1 comment:

  1. Isn't it wonderful to think of all of the people who are under the impression that socialism will some how make anything better. This is only the case of government and other corrupt men have absolutely nothing to do with it. Will this happen? With those who are proponents of this program, there is a resounding NOOOO. If the power to redistribute was given to truly just men, who have no ulterior motives, then it could greatly benefit mankind. There is only one man on the face of this Earth who I could trust to do that, and it is guaranteed that he will not be used for that purpose, so these programs will ultimately fail, and our country will be left in ruins, just as Eastern Europe was decimated by the greed of unjust men.