LOVE THIS!!! " it okay in your eyes to force a gay person to not get married and take his or her free agency away but say that you deserve your free agency in not having to uphold a law (such as health care being mandated)? See, I don’t think that’s right."...SO TRUE! Also free agency gives us the RIGHT to make choices God would NOT agree with. That is why it is FREE agency. we are also COMMANDED to not judge as one book by John Lund says that is the job of our Bishops and leaders we are commanded to love. And if Gay marriage is SOOO wrong, then they will answer for it in heaven. But by not giving them the same benefits we "normal" couples have, we are taking away free angency plain and simple.

Agreed, Sara! Also - if we are commanded to love, yet don't allow free agency in gay marriage and other many important issues - we are enabling FURTHER sin. For example - to not allow ANY sort of union for a gay person means they will forever be sinning in the form of pre-marital sex. Correct? We are ALL sinners. Take being gay out of the equation and think of all the other sins that occur because there is no sort of union allowed. They have no means to ever have sex unless it's outside of marriage. They either do it themselves, lie and do it with a woman they don't love, or don't do it at all and live in lust. Or they are true to themeselves and their free agency and be with someone they love. WHICH IS MORE SINFUL? YOU CAN'T BE THE JUDGE.
Two men who are monogamous, with adopted children who work hard and attend a church (not LDS because they would likely be shunned, ironically), volunteer, etc. And in their eyes they aren't "sinning". So who are we to "make" them sin by forcing NO sort of union upon them. In their eyes they aren't sinning. In their eyes they are being forced to continually have premarital sex.
There are SO many aspects to these sorts of issues. I think only God knows what's truly the right way and wrong way in terms of judgement and free agency. I'm as liberal as possible because we ARE commanded to love and not judge.

Great way to sum it all up. I don't necessarily agree with everything you said but I definitely respect your right to, and your reasoning behind saying it.

I think the world would be happier if we could all just respect one another.
.-= Steph´s last blog ..http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheDailyBlarg/~3/Vze9OTxlDfg/top-5-baby-animals-of-2009.html" rel="nofollow">Top 5 Baby Animals of 2009 =-.

Steph, that's okay if you don't agree. Thanks for not calling me anti-mormon or stupid for not having a Bump-it yet or for when I didn't even know what one was in the first place. Instead you were nice and helped me figure out what a bump it was and why it might enhance my life. So now, I get to go enhance others lives (as I have) and tell them about these glories. ; )

Gabrielle,
I'm noticing a pattern in your responses to others. You acknowledge that the person has disagreed with you, and then totally ignore any of the points they have made or questions they have asked you to answer.

You misreading mine and other arguments to think we are saying that force is always from Satan. Force IS rightful and just as a consequence to certain of our actions. Government is used as an entity to apply force as punishment in an agreed upon way. Our society has agreed that certain crimes are punishable by a FORCED prison sentence. So this force is used as a consequence for certain actions that infringe on others' rights.

Looking at this from the bottom up. We have God given rights, it is the role of proper government to protect these rights. However these rights would exist even if government did not. We have a right to our lives. We have a right to liberty which is the freedom to do with our lives as we please (free agency). We have a right to the product of our lives (what we produce with our time, abilities, and talents), this is our property. THESE are our God given rights. All other true God-given rights are really just other manifestations of these three basic rights of Life, Liberty, and Property. NOT included as real rights would be a right to health care, a right to a home, and right to food, a right to high speed internet, etc.

You keep throwing gay marriage into the equation. Gay marriage is NOT a right. But of course to be consistent Heterosexual marriage is also NOT a right. Our government recognizes marriage for purposes of legal contracts and taxation. In the past society seemed to agree that marriage between a man and a woman also promoted and encouraged strong families and communities. But it isn't a right and it would be quite acceptable if government stopped dealing with marriage at all and left it up to religious organizations where it originated and belongs. The fear of many religions (the LDS church especially it seems) is that the government recognition of gay marriage will quickly turn to government force and regulation against any religion that DOESN'T perform gay marriage or even a religion that internally discriminates against against homosexuals or same-sex couples. These are legitimate concerns and REAL infringements on religious rights by a government. But once again, a better solution would be to completely take the government out of marriage.

Edward, I feel ya. I really do. Okay - I feel I've gone outside my comfort box with off the wall scenarios because I have to. Because lots of conservatives won't even agree there is a problem, as I noted in my reply to Sloanie. They instantly say health care simply isn't a right and thus...(they follow "thus" with a lot of "so YOU are wrong and stupid, Gabrielle" type of statements). Instead of acknowledging that people are dying and we DO have a health insurance industry that needs fixing they say "don't tax me to do it. I should be free to be charitable". But then how do you keep that charity fair, Edward? I really am TRYING to understand it. Imagine the lawsuits on a charity system. "Well, they helped her but they wouldn't help me!" And yes, people are feeling WAY too entitled lately. I completely agree with this. But in my opinion a charity system is probably not going to work because those same people who tell me "let US chose if we want to be charitable and don't tax us or force us" aren't going to drop the $50,000 for an emergency surgery someone needs. I certainly can't afford to give that much though I'd love to be able to.
It comes across as heartless, some of the things people say, instead of EVEN agreeing that health care industry COULD be changed and fixed, they call me Anti-Mormon, weird, insane, and even Pro-Slavery when I try to make that point. And I've been talking to people for weeks now about it at church, on facebook, on blogs.
I think what I'm really trying to get to is: There is something wrong, too many people are dying and we are a smart country with resources and money and we even HAVE a health care industry. LET'S MAKE IT BETTER. I've gone through TONS of loopholes and circles and off the wall hypothetical points because so many conservatives I've spoken to can't even agree that WE COULD FIX IT! But we, America, could be BETTER! And my points about other countries having universal health care, some of which are even Socialist countries - well, they DO have it and it's working in SOME SENSE! So let's take that information and do something so more people have a chance of making it! Maybe not because of rights - but maybe because it's the right thing to do when you see someone choking - you call 911. You TRY TO HELP! It's kindness. It's love. It's peace. It is perhaps even charitable to have a health care system which wouldn't charge an arm and leg! Edward, you haven't met me in person, but I've had many people tell me I'm the kindest hearted person they've ever met. I'm not trying to be mean to you or invalidate you so I'm sorry if it came across as rude. Look, I would really like to come away from these discussions having greater knowledge. (Mister Valentine would be SO grateful if I'd feel okay about all this and just be able to move on for crying out loud. And then I made him become a Vegan. Look at me, taking all his rights away, lol!) But I feel I need to speak up. Maybe I don't do it the right way. I'm not perfect. I skipped a lot of school and I didn't learn a lot about the Constitution. I never made it to Ethics class. But you know? I stayed up till 4am reading it last week! I'm trying to figure it out so I can grasp it and feel comfortable as a Mormon Christian person. I'm speaking in terms of ME, Gabrielle Valentine, here, (not as a put down to you) : I cannot, as a Mormon Christian person, be okay with the idea that just because it's NOT a right I shouldn't have to be taxed so another person can get treatment for cancer or alzheimers or what have you. I can't say that and call myself a Christian, and I say that for ME ONLY. I will always support the welfare of society. Someone called it "lazy welfare" in a reply to me. And you know what? They also called me and Mr. Valentine lazy in doing so. We've been on welfare. And you know? We went to our families first. They couldn't help much. We went to the church next. They helped but IT WASN'T ENOUGH. So we lost our house. And our credit. And had I not had health care, I would have lost my life. I've got two kids. It's really personal.
I don't know if it's so personal to you, and many Conservatives who disagree with the points in this comment and this is perhaps why I am so passionate. It's very easy to simply say it's not a right and that government should stay out of health care. But then you've got an entire, inflated, private system which is making huge profits off people's health. Making profits off people dying. And I think that's wrong. I can't grasp how we as humans can't get past "but it was never a right to begin with" or "it's taking my liberties away". Why can't people figure out a solution then? People turn to the Government because there is no other sector that CAN or WILL make a change in this massive industry. People like Michael Moore are trying. But even he and his followers can't do enough. And I fully agree with your last paragraph. I apologize, though, because I DO sound confusing at times. I keep throwing in gay marriage because I'm trying to make similar points or put the health care dilemma into a different scenario. I think you're getting to the big picture here on why gay marriage is such a huge issue, too.

The "law of the land which is constitutional" is that law that supports the "principle of freedom in maintaining the rights and privileges" to all mankind (D&C 98:5) and "to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life" (D&C 134:4). According to your argument, the 'protection of life' may be obtained at the expense of my 'control of property' through coercive taxation. Furthermore, according to your argument, you seek to obey one of Christ's commandments of providing for the poor at the expense of breaking another commandment of stealing and coercion.

The only way you are right is if the people are wicked. Scripturally, wickedness is first identified by the refusal to help the poor, the downtrodden, the sick, the afflicted, and the widow and fatherless. Such a refusal to help the poor is repugnant to the Lord; in fact, Hugh Nibley argues that such a refusal to help the poor was the foundational sin that caused Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction. How, then, has the Lord commanded us to go about fixing such a problem? When social inequality exists, how does scripture tell us to fix the problem?

Alma, as the High Priest to the Church and the Chief Judge to the Nephite people (thus leading both the religious and political organizations), gives us an excellent example when he saw the great social inequality among his people.

"Yea, he saw great inequality among the people, some lifting themselves up with their pride, despising others, turning their backs upon the needy and the naked and those who were hungry, and those who were athirst, and those who were sick and afflicted. Now this was great cause for lamentations among the people, while others were abasing themselves, succoring those who stood in need of their succor, such as imparting their substance to the poor and the needy, feeding the hungry, and suffering all manner of afflictions, for Christ's sake..." (Alma 4:12-3). Does this sound familiar? Are we currently having great 'lamantations' in our own country and among our own people over those in need? Certainly.

Because he led both organizations, Alma was able to either politically or religiously act. I ask you, what did he do? Did he pass more laws that chained the people down with heavy taxes? No, such is discussed throughout the Book of Mormon as a condition detested by the Lord. Did he pass laws that tried to create more 'equality' among the people? No. Did he do anything politically to extend the arm of government into the affairs of the people to force them to take care of their moral imperative and duty? No. In fact, he completely gave up the judgment seat altogether! What did he then do? He went to preach the word of God!

Before we ridicule this and laugh at such a proposition that preaching the word of God is more influential in changing society than is passing political laws that coerce the individual, first examine WHY he did this.

"And this he did that he himself might go forth among his people, or among the people of Nephi, that he might preach the word of God unto them, to stir them up in remembrance of their duty, and that he might pull down, by the word of God, all the pride and craftiness and all the contentions which were among his people, seeing no way that he might reclaim them save it were in bearing down in pure testimony against them" (Alma 4:19). What was Alma's point? To "stir them up in a remembrance of their duty". How influential was preaching the word of God as opposed to inflicting artificial 'equality' within society through coercion?

"And now, as the preaching of the word had a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just - yea, it had had more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword, or anything else, which had happened unto them -- therefore Alma thought it was expedient that they should try the virtue of the word of God" (Alma 30:5). What lead the people to do that which was just? What awakened and stirred the people's remembrance of their individual duty? Was it positivist law? Was it forced equality? Was it forcing one man into his duty? No, the Lord's way is established -- God will force no man to perform his moral duty.

"Know this, that ev'ry soul is free, to choose his life and what he'll be; For this eternal truth is giv'n: That God will force no man to heav'n. He'll call, persuade, direct aright, And bless with wisdom, love, and light, in nameless ways be good and kind, but never force the human mind. Freedom and reason make us men; Take these away, what are we then? Mere animals, and just as well the beasts may think of heav'n or hell. May we no more our pow'rs abuse, But ways of truth and goodness choose; Our God is pleased when we improve His grace and seek his perfect love." Of a truth, the Lord is pleased when we obey the commandments and take care of those in need; however, he is particular in how we obey such commandments.

Alma's example shows us that the power of a testimony in Christ can convert the soul to do that which is just by its own inner moral duty. Socialism's entire structure denies this real possibility of changing the course of humanity through the gospel of Christ to allow man to be morally responsible without being coerced into such duty. Was this not the fault of the very people who killed the Christ? Did not the Pharisees and Sadducees of Christ's day believe that the 'Messiah' would come to rule in political matters? Yet Christ's real message was for the individual to morally act and take personal accountability and thus throw of their own chains. While the Pharisees and Sadducees look to man's government as their solution, Christ changed people's hearts who then took themselves out of their own bad situations. After all, this is a message continually taught by our own Church leaders: The world takes a man out of the slums, but the gospel of Christ takes the slums out of the man who then takes himself out of his own slums. There are several examples in the Book of Mormon alone that re-illustrate this exact principle. It is beyond contest.

So, here we are. A national dilemma where we have great social inequality. One side is admittedly prideful and doesn't want to be bothered, the other side is admittedly open to thievery to achieve their ideological ends. Tell me, in this system, where is the spirit of God? I contend that both sides are wrong -- I side with the principle of freedom and liberty. Where in all this debacle is the spirit of God that influences by "persuasion, long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned, by kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile" (D&C 121:41-2)? Where are the members of the Church, on the right and left political spectrum, who are out bearing-down testimony and providing for the poor, the sick, the afflicted, and all those in need? What happened to 'ever member a missionary'? As President Benson (the most hated Apostle and Prophet among most liberal members, and even some conservative members) said,

"Now part of the reason why we do not have sufficient priesthood bearers to save the Constitution, let alone to shake the powers of hell, because, I fear, unlike Moroni, our souls do not joy in keeping our country free, and we are not firm in the faith of Christ, nor have we sworn with an oath to defend our rights."

Interesting. We lack the spirit, trust, and testimony necessary to do what Alma did. We lack the ability to stand up like Moroni. All we're left with now is the ability to stand up and use the majority to obtain our moral objective through force! When we have an inner-moral compass, we're capable of acting individually within society to promote the best interests of those in need. Yet, when we are incapable of standing up like our exemplars in the Book of Mormon, what is left us? Elder Christofferson perhaps said it best in October General Conference this year, "We would not accept the yoke of Christ; so now we must tremble at the yoke of Caesar." Sobering words, and certainly not words I want eternally associated to my spirit -- to have been one who openly wanted the 'yoke of Caesar' to supposedly obtain the purposes of God. This is certainly deceit in its most subtle form -- to use Lucifer's tactics to achieve the Lord's purpose. Ironic, isn't it?

So, what of government? For any person who has taken the time to actually read the Constitutional Convention Notes (or even an abridgment of the notes), they would readily see the lengths the founders went to ensure the individual from ever finding a relationship with the federal government; after all, the original Constitution only allows for 'the people' to vote for their Congressmen -- the Senate, the President, and the Supreme Court were all elected outside the direct scope of the people. The federal government was never intended to coerce and be in relationship with the individual, but to deal with the states directly -- this fact is beyond contest. A Constitution, per our founder's understanding, was not a limit upon the people, but was the people putting a limit on the government. The Constitution granted no rights whatsoever, but was a declaration of completely free and individually sovereign people telling their government exactly what it could (and implicitly could not) do. I say 'implicitly' because of the 9th and 10th Amendments. The government can grant absolutely NO rights whatsoever, because it is an entity and fabrication of the people -- government can have absolutely no power greater than its creator, the people. Our Declaration of Independence openly states that our rights are derived from our Creator. Among all the rights granted by our Creator are the three which government action is to be limited by: life, liberty, and property.

The stated purpose of government -- as per scripture, prophetic utterance, and our own American founders -- is to establish the greatest amount of justice possible within society. In the course of establishing justice within society, there are some issues wherein government cannot rule without imposing inequality and social INjustice. Health-care is one of these. By securing the 'needs' of the few, the rights of the many are infringed -- this necessarily creates injustice. Even Dr. Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln observed that you cannot destroy the freedom of one without destroying the freedom of all. Even Aristotle's theory of social justice observes the obvious problem when the wealthy's property is attacked by claims from the poor man's rights, and that the poor man's rights are attacked by the wealthy's interest in their own property. There is a solution, but forcing 'equality' within society is not just.

Our government was not meant to "force" anyone. The only time 'force' was ever applied was when an individual actively and directly violated the life, liberty, or property of another individual. Coercion is therefore used to incarcerate the individual who actively, intentionally, and directly infringed on his neighbor's life, liberty, and property.

I am truly sorry for your tragic surgery that cost you $50,000 that ruined your credit and made you lose your house for that one month that you did not have health insurance. I too have been in that situation, when my son was born 6 weeks premature and our hospital bills amounted to over $250,000. I am still paying bills on this debt, but this debt is MINE -- not yours. I have never taken a government penny for any of my three children (or anything else for that matter -- and, yes, I mean ANYTHING else), and as a token to my Creator that I would never make "the people" pay for my children I named my first daughter 'Liberty' -- I will not allow her birth or her life to financially enslave the workmanship of another man's hands or property, regardless of what is socially accepted and regularly taken from mine.

You may use your agency to financially enslave the populace to be compelled to pay for your point of view, but that particular view is spoken of in scripture. Remember that in a representative government, the principle of government may be broken down into the relationship of a man/woman and their neighbor. Do I individually have the power to make you pay for my health care, even when I am sick and afflicted? If I were to come to your home at gun-point and extort money from you under threat of incarceration if you did not pay, I would be instantly thrown in jail -- regardless of my condition. However, somehow, magically, when I send my representative (government) to do this job for me, it is suddenly okay? Remember the words of our founders, our prophets, and our Constitution, that the government can only act specifically in the powers the people delegate to it -- and the people, being given all their rights from their Creator, cannot fabricate rights ex nihilo to delegate to government something that they do not have. Before we believe we can delegate all aspects of our life to government to legislate in our behalf, we must remember that government can only justly rule in matters of life, liberty, and property when we are directly and intentionally targeted and infringed upon. The founders called government acting outside these bounds "tyranny" and "usurpation" -- yet, today, we call this "the living document" theory.

Sure, the Constitution is a 'living document'. It was designed this way to constantly move and counteract dangerous trends in society that sought to destroy freedom and liberty. As society grew, and the following generations lost sight of their forefather's sacrifice for the principle of liberty and freedom, we are given the ability of securing our freedom and liberty against encroachments by unprincipled, dishonest, or merely misguided individuals. In fact, as I addressed at the beginning of this post, our own scripture states that a 'law' is only a 'constitutional law of the land' when it supports 'that principle of freedom' (D&C 98:5). You have directly stated that this health-care bill will necessarily violate freedom, but that this is necessary to take care of those in need. Certainly, government will pass positive (human) law that will violate the 'principle of freedom' -- we have seen this in our own Church history. Of these laws that violate the principle of freedom we are told that "as pertaining to the law of man, whatsoever is more or less than [the constitutional law of the land that supports the principle of freedom] is evil... And I give unto you a commandment, that ye shall forsake all evil and cleave unto all good" (D&C 98:5,11). Does this mean anarchy? No. This means that we are only to support those measures that -- in relationship to government -- first maintain the principle of freedom before any other principle; otherwise, whatsoever is more or less than this is evil.

You have the ability of using your free-agency to murder, rape, plunder, steal, and do horrible things, but Democrats and Republicans alike should take note that a majority's acceptance of these atrocities does not make it right. It simply means that the punishment for these crimes will be saved for a heavenly court, not a corrupt earthly one. When my very life is made illegal unless I come into compliance with a 'law of man' like it will if the 'mandatory health-insurance' measure is passed (and it IS a 'law of man' because the 'principle of freedom' is violated), then I openly argue that this bill murders freedom, rapes the soul, plunders the property of the individual, and steals the livelihood of hard-working Americans.

In the meantime, however, I will continue to support and donate to the many private organizations that provide free medical care to as many as cannot pay or do not have insurance, such as the LDS Primary Children's Hospital, the Shriner's Hospitals, and to the St. Jude Hospital and Cancer Research Center (located in my hometown of Memphis, TN). I believe in the goodness of people -- I have seen it constantly in my lifetime. I know of hardships of watching a personal family member who suffers from mental disorders become homeless and a transient. Yet I see the blessings of private organizations -- especially those of the Church -- who have taken over in areas where government constantly and completely fails (and will inherently continue to fail, because it is inherently nonviable for government to act in certain matters). I have seen the active hands of those members of the Church who drove hundreds of miles and dedicated thousands of hours to rebuild the homes after Katrina. We yell about the delayed help given to Katrina victims, but we fail to see that this is an inherent problem within government bureaucracy -- problems that do not exist in private help. The Church was on the ground providing water days before FEMA organized -- furthermore, private corporations like Wal-Mart and Home Depot had trucks and supplies loaded up and headed into the area long before the government got its act together. This is not an isolated incidence. this is the rule. Government is best when it is restricted to the limited duty of ruling in matters of the direct violation of life, liberty, and property -- it is wholly inadequate for any other and necessarily creates social injustice.

Hopefully, before we use the fallacy of emotion to promote the unjust and coercive hand of government in matters it was never intended to, we will evaluate and practice our own theocratic teachings that show us how to deal with social inequality and social injustice: preaching the gospel of Christ has more of an effect on the hearts and actions of man to do good than any other means. Man is good and will provide for his neighbor; only the adversary's plan argued otherwise in justifying coercion to provide for moral action. Government ultimately digresses into tyranny and coercion to obtain its objectives, but this was not how our Constitution was intended. Indeed, John Adams was right, our Constitution was made for a religious and a moral people, and it is unsuitable for any other. Why? Because it takes a religious and a moral people to act individually for the betterment of society, and once government is used to obtain, coerce, and force the moral duty of the individual -- social injustice reigns supreme.

Gabby

I appreciate and enjoy your opinion enthusiasm and information. You give me much to ponder. I'm not so iron clad in my opinions as you are but because you are I am taking things more seriously. Thanks
Bri

Gabrielle, you take things really personally. You keep accusing people of calling you stupid, but I don't see it generally, maybe a few here or there. So first of all, calm down a little, and let's discuss things point for point here. The point trying to be made about health care is this: You have a right to your life. Some thug comes along and threatens to rape you, you've had self defence classes and you beat the snot out of him. Were you right to do so? Of course you were. Now to health care, and we'll use your own personal example. You need a surgery that costs $50k and you can't afford it. So you go find some rich dude and beat the snot out of him (or threaten to) until he gives you $50k, are you right in doing so? Don't talk about anything else until you answer THIS question, please.

“The...members of the Church everywhere should know the Book of Mormon better than any other book. Not only should we know what history and faith-promoting stories it contains, but we should understand its teachings. If we really did our homework and approached the Book of Mormon doctrinally, we could expose the errors and find the truths to combat many of the current false theories and philosophies of men, including socialism, humanism, organic evolution, and others.” (Ezra Taft Benson, Jesus Christ—Gifts and Expectations, May 1975.)

“We heard Brother Taylor's exposition of what is called Socialism this morning. What can they do? Live on each other and beg. It is a poor, unwise and very imbecile people who cannot take care of themselves.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 14, p. 15.)

“Many of you may have heard what certain journalists have had to say about Brigham Young being opposed to free schools. I am opposed to free education as much as I am opposed to taking away property from one man and giving it to another who knows not how to take care of it.…in aiding and blessing the poor I do not believe in allowing my charities to go through the hands of a set of robbers who pocket nine-tenths themselves, and give one-tenth to the poor. Therein is the difference between us; I am for the real act of doing and not saying. Would I encourage free schools by taxation? No!” (Brigham Young,

“...the Church has not found it possible to follow along the lines of the present general tendency in the matter of property rights, taxes, the curtailment of rights and liberties of the people, nor in general the economic policies of what is termed the “New Deal”....unless the people of America forsake the sins and the errors, political and otherwise, of which they are now guilty and return to the practice of the great fundamental principles of Christianity, and of Constitutional government, there will be no exaltation for them spiritually, and politically we shall lose our liberty and free institutions....We believe that our real threat comes from within and not from without, and it comes from the underlying spirit common to Naziism, Fascism, and Communism, namely the spirit which would array class against class, which would set up a socialistic state of some sort, which would rob the people of the liberties which we possess under the Constitution, and would set up such a reign of terror as exists now in many parts of Europe....We confess to you that it has not been possible for us to unify our own people even upon the necessity of such a turning about, and therefore we cannot unfortunately, and we say it regretfully, make any practical suggestion to you as to how the nation can be turned about.” (Heber J. Grant, also J. Ruben Clark, Jr. and David O. McKay signed as the First Presidency, written during World War II Letter to the U.S. Treasury, September 30, 1941.)

“Do I not know that a nation like that in which we live, a nation which is blessed with the freest, the most enlightened and magnificent government in the world today, with privileges which would exalt people to heaven if they lived up to them—do I not know that if they do not live up to them, but violate them and trample them under their feet, and discard the sacred principles of liberty by which we ought to be governed—do I not know that their punishment will be commensurate with the enlightenment which they possess? I do. And I know I cannot help but know—that there are a great many more afflictions yet awaiting this nation.” (John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 22, p. 141. July 3, 1881.)

“I voiced a warning against what we then knew as Bolshevism and Socialism, and what we now know as Communism. I thought I saw it coming, and it came.…And there is nothing that we should not do to preserve this country, and its liberties, and its free institutions.
…if [the conspiracy] comes here it will probably come in its full vigor and there will be a lot of vacant places among those who guide and direct, not only this government, but also this Church of ours.” (J. Reuben Clark, Conference Report, p. 80. April 1952.)

“I attended a second lecture on Socialism...I said I did not believe the doctrine.” (Joseph Smith, after attending two lectures on socialism given by Mr. John Finch, a socialist from England, Joseph wrote the above comment, underlining the original. History of the Church, Vol. VI, pp. 32-33. September 1843.

“I was speaking, a while ago, about the people there being divided into three classes. One of them you may call infidel, under the head of Socialism.” (John Taylor)

“During the first half of the 20th century we have traveled far into the soul destroying land of socialism.” (David O. McKay

“Now, keep in mind with all the crowding in of socialistic reform programs that are threatening the very foundation of the Church...I warn you that government subsidies are not the Lord's way.” (President Harold B. Lee

“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.” (David O. McKay, Statements on Communism and the Constitution of the United States, 1964.)

“Unwise legislation, too often prompted by political expediency, is periodically being enacted that seductively undermines man's right of free agency, robs him of his rightful liberties, and makes him but a cog in the crushing wheel of a regimentation which, if persisted in, will end in dictatorship.” (David O. McKay, April 1950.)

“Having been commanded by the Lord to do so, Nephi boldly told the people that they had united themselves to this band of robbers:

Yea wo be unto you because of that great abomination which has come among you; and ye have united yourselves unto it, yea to that secret band which was established by Gadianton! (Helaman 7:25)

“One can only imagine that those righteous Nephites who has been seduced into upholding, supporting, and partaking of the spoils of the Robbers were profoundly shocked when charged with having united with a criminal conspiracy. People in our nation today are ofttimes startled and angered when told that the welfare state practices they favor are the identical political programs proposed by the Communists to bring about socialism….The record is clear that the reason the conspiracy had succeeded in capturing control of the government was that the Nephites had been seduced into partaking of its spoils. (Helaman 6:38–39)” (H. Verlan Andersen, Many are Called But Few are Chosen)

“As important as are all other principles of the gospel, it was the freedom issue which determined whether you received a body. To have been on the wrong side of the freedom issue during the war in heaven meant eternal damnation. How then can Latter-day Saints expect to be on the wrong side in this life and escape the eternal consequences? The war in heaven is raging on earth today. The issues are the same: ‘Shall men be compelled to do what others claim is for their best welfare’ or will they heed the counsel of the prophet and preserve their freedom?” (Ezra Taft Benson, Conference Report, April 1965.)

“It is time, therefore, that every American, and especially every member of the priesthood, became informed about the aims, tactics, and schemes of socialistic-communism. This becomes particularly important when it is realized that communism is turning out to be the earthly image of the plan which Satan presented in the pre-existence. The whole program of socialistic- communism is essentially a war against God and the plan of salvation—the very plan which we fought to uphold during ‘the war in heaven.’” (Ezra Taft Benson, Secret Combinations, Conference Report, October 1961.)

“Secret combinations flourished because, as Helaman tells us, the Gadianton robbers ‘had seduced the more part of the righteous until they had come down to believe in their works and partake of their spoils’ (Helaman 6:38)... even as today.” (Ezra Taft Benson, The Savior’s Visit to America, Ensign, p. 4. May 1987.)

“Those who subscribe to this [totalitarian] philosophy stop at nothing to achieve their ends...force, trickery, lies, broken promises, mayhem, and individual and mass murder.” (Ezra Taft Benson, Conference Report, October 1960.

Sorry I forgot to explain, in your why Im a Mormon Democrat wrintings you say.

"Prophets receive new revelation and we follow it. And yet, we stick to this ONE mention of Socialism in the 50’s by a speaker during a conference that vaguely mentioned Socialism (as it related to the USSR at that time) and take it WAY out of context and now – whoa – Socialism is all SUPER bad and evil, too. It’s blind ignorance. I wish people would research a little more and really get to the bottom of where and how these things even got started. Most Mormons believe Socialism is VERY BAD."

Sooooo I decided to give you a few more quotes on the subject, most from Prophets and several if not most were given outside the "50's" like you suggest. You should take your own advise and do a little research before posting something like that. We are not at liberty to assume just because something doesnt get mentioned as much by our leaders that it no longer applies. Have you EVER heard anything from the pulpit that condones socialism? The reason we dont hear it talked about anymore is because all the things our leaders were trying to warn us about ALREADY HAPPENED!

Whew girl, you are awesome for having this debate. Everytime I wax political on my blog, I get scared and run away.

I heart your manifesto. I got stuck in an argument with some of my husband's friends about healthcare and I just started quoting what I could remember. I was tired and had a headache so I don't think I represented it well, but I'm with ya. We need reform.
.-= Natalie´s last blog ..http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/thebobbypin/LWCo/~3/cCAzvgTNXeI/best-modest-dresses-of-decade.html" rel="nofollow">The Best Modest Dresses of the Decade =-.

S. Logan, your post has moved me to tears. It is full of truth and facts that make everything sound so simple. I have never heard this argument more beautifully made before. Thank you.

I have read it and I believe it and live by it myself, HOWEVER my points are to those who A) say that health care and gay marriage would infringe upon their rights and enslave them then B) vote against gay people and health insurance C) then validate the concept of free agency and speak righteously of how they believe in freedom and liberties. THAT'S BEING HYPOCRITICAL.

Perhaps you should read this before thinking it's so simple. It's really NOT that simple in our day and age of 2010:
http://www.theinmomniac.com/blog/open-letter-to-those-who-make-martrys-of-themselves-then-call-me-names-judge-me-or-offer-no-real-life-solutions-that-would-work-in-2010/

@Gabrielle:

This may have been addressed already, and if so, please forgive the repetition. One I issue I don't believe has been addressed with you, however, is in response to the need you see in reforming the health care system. I completely agree, however, the reforms that need to take place must address the actual causes for the ever increasing costs of health care products and services in this country. So I ask you, what are those causes? Why is health care so expensive? Quite simply, due to a long series of government interventions into the health care market. Let's start with the gov't granted monopoly held by the AMA on billing codes, to the state medical licensure boards that work in collusion with the AMA to artificially depress the supply of doctors, as well as dictate what constitutes the legal practice of medicine. Then there is the fact that health insurance isn't really insurance anymore, it's pre-paid health care (kind of like using your auto insurance to pay for an oil change). Also, the current system separates the consumer (the patient) from the provider (the doctor), and yet another layer is added when employers are given special tax incentives that individuals do NOT get in order to provide a health insurance plan to their employees. Let's see, what else? Oh yeah, Medicare and Medicaid, themselves hugely responsible for driving up costs via basic economic law of supply and demand, i.e. you increase the demand by making the products free (for some), you increase the price. Then there is the fact that state insurance regulations require that certain procedures/services be covered, whether the individual consumer wants it or not (think maternity coverage mandated in all plans, even those purchased by an elderly widower. Think I'm kidding? Look into it!) Those same state regulations prohibit consumers from purchasing insurance from out-of-state providers, something that anyone can do with any other type of insurance! We also need to break the monopolistic stranglehold of the large pharmaceutical companies, who lobby to prevent you and I from being able to buy cheap drugs from other countries, and the corrupt and inefficient FDA.

Bottom line: gov't interference into the health care market is what has made it cost so dang much, which as I pointed out, includes fascistic gov't/corporate collusion. Get rid of this accumulation of garbage, you solve the problem. Obamacare only ADDS to the problem.

I am using this argument from economics because it seems frankly obvious to me that the argument from morality is getting nowhere with you. I'm not sure this approach will be any more successful, but it was worth a try, eh?

Ditto, brandon. What I tried to do above and what others have tried to do is point out the moral folly of universal health care. We hope (or at least I do) that once this solution is seen for the immoral atrocity it is that we can finally drop it and start talking about REAL solutions, like what you say. But if we have to put the horse before the cart then so be it.
.-= vontrapp´s last blog ..http://von.fugal.net/blog/show/Dual_Boot_Magic/79" rel="nofollow">Dual Boot Magic =-.

Brandon and Vontrapp:
"The reforms that need to take place must address the actual causes for the ever increasing costs of health care products and services in this country."
Agreed! However, when I've made this point in other conversations (both on this blog and on others) I get told time and again we shouldn't even have a health care system and that I'm bad, wrong, stupid, going to hell - attacking my very character, let alone my political views and then told time and time again that health care should ONLY be given via charity or that government should just stay out of it. (did you read my latest post in response to what would happen if governments just stayed out of it?)
What I'm saying is, it comes across as judgemental hypocrisy.
So it's no wonder I, and many liberals who share my beliefs, feel this way. I, like you, hope for a solution, a real solution. But because I have an opinion doesn't mean it's wrong to express it. At least I'm open to speak of it, with many. Notice, while I disagreed with some on specific points, I largely allowed very negative, very rude comments to remain on my blog without picking them apart point by point. Some may see this as my being "dense" because I simply chose not to respond. However, it's actually my respecting another person's opinion and not ripping it to shreds, attacking character. Also notice I am willing to bend, agree and acknowledge others, though I still might disagree a bit. Please, take a second to put yourself in my shoes....I wonder if the roles were reversed, whether you were right or wrong, how YOU both would feel to be told, by supposedly kind, non-judgemental Christians no less, that you were going to hell for wanting a better health care system. Not once, but via e mail and blog comments several times. In person, as well. How would you feel? Perhaps as if no one was listening. As if you were not allowed to have an opinion. As if you were the only sane one in a sea of closed mindedness. That's how I feel.

@Gabrielle:

I agree that there is a big problem in this country with our seeming inability to carry on civil discussions/debates without resorting to name calling. I think the biggest reasons for this is often a feeling (on all sides) that goes something like this "If you believe ____, you must be either stupid or evil." Even if such a statement is not made explicitly, the feelings are there. This causes a person to approach his/her interlocutor from an unnecessarily hostile point of view. I try my best to presume the best motives of folks, especially non-politicians. (With politicians I tend to assume the worst until proven otherwise, and even then I'm always wary.)

That being said, I note that while you agree with the general sentiment I expressed regarding the need to properly diagnose before prescribing solutions, you did not comment at all on any of the substance of the rest of my post, re the particulars of my diagnosis. Now, I have no idea why you chose not to comment on these points, perhaps you are simply unfamiliar with them, and prefer to research them further before replying, which is admirable. Unfortunately, by not addressing them at all, even to explain that you need time to study them further, you give the impression of not truly being willing to engage in a substantive discussion.

As for the argument from morality made by others in response to your original thesis, I must admit that I agree with it wholeheartedly, that is, that as George Washington said "Government is not reason, it is not eloquent; it is force, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." Political philosophy is essentially a debate, then, on the proper use of force in human relations. What the others have been saying, in my attempt to summarize, is that despite problems that may exist, it is inappropriate to utilize force to attempt to solve those problems, unless those problems exist because of the inappropriate use of force in the first place (to which I refer you to my initial post). To put it simply, as the old saying goes "Two wrongs don't make a right." Does that mean that obvious problems should not be discussed in a search for solutions? Of course not! But it will ofttimes lead people to reject certain types of "solutions" out of principle.

I am definitely willing to engage and respond. However, it's New Years Eve. And, I hope you are with loved ones, enjoying it!!! Happy 2010!!! =)

I just wanted to say that I just found your blog today, and while we may have ideological differences (being an ex-Mo, I'm almost certain we do), that I completely agree with this post. Everything I've read so far has consisted of very, very good points, and I'm looking forward to reading more.

~Danielle
.-= Danielle´s last blog ..http://sw-fangirl.livejournal.com/373225.html" rel="nofollow"> =-.

> And if any one of us were/are of a different race
> we’d have only 3/5th of the rights of a white man.
> In hindsight, we can look back and say that
> slavery and discrimination are not “of God”. They
> are of man. Pray tell how a loving, just God would
> approve of a man of a different race being only
> 3/5th of a man or “inspire” that?

Your ignorance shows. But that's excusable because most people don't know the facts about that 3/5ths clause in the Constitution and have only learned the public-school version of history. It was an anti-slavery compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. A primary purpose of that clause was to limit the political power of states with high slave populations.

The 3/5ths rule applied to slaves -- not blacks. (Read it. It's in the Constitution.) Yes, it's true most slaves were black and most blacks were slaves. But the 3/5ths rule is about slaves -- not blacks.

No Southern State allowed slaves to vote, so the 3/5ths rule had nothing to do with slaves voting -- they couldn't vote anyway due to State law. Free blacks (some of whom were slave owners) did, however, have the right to vote and the 3/5ths rule did not apply to them.

The Constitution mandates a census every 10 years. The results of that census determine the number of Representatives each State sends to Congress. The Southern States wanted to count all the slaves in in this enumeration, yet did not allow them to vote for those Representatives. Anti-slavery delegates to the Constitutional Convention were concerned about the disproportionate power this would give pro-slavery congressmen. The 3/5ths rule was adopted to limit the congressional seats given to pro-slavery Representatives.

So, you see, the 3/5ths rule was anti-slavery (I think that's a good thing)!

crazy LOL!!!!!!!!!!!