“In Mine Own Way”
President Marion G. Romney
Second Counselor in the First Presidency
Marion G. Romney, "“In Mine Own Way”", Ensign, Nov. 1976, 123
Brothers and sisters, I seek your faith and prayers as I attempt to direct your thoughts a little while to the fundamentals of the welfare program. I want to congratulate the Brethren and Sister Smith on the fine presentations they’ve made here this morning.
Brother Featherstone’s account of the talking wall brought to my mind an incident that I was told about. Not long ago two of our security men were working high up on the temple, inspecting it or something, in the night, when it was dark. Down in front of the temple, two or three inebriated men were hanging on the gate looking up at the temple, and one of them said, “Oh Moroni, speak to me.” And one of our men said, “Yes, what is it you want?”
I won’t tell you anything new this morning. I’ll give you some remarks that I’ve given many, many times—not verbatim, but the substance of what I’ve been teaching about the fundamentals of the Church welfare program throughout the Church in the last thirty-five years. I have entitled these remarks, “In Mine Own Way.”
As our modern societies follow the course which led to the fall of Rome and other civilizations which succumbed to the deceptive lure of the welfare state and socialism, I think it not inappropriate for me to emphasize again the Lord’s plan for the temporal salvation of His mortal children.
To emphasize the contrast between the Lord’s plan and some of the absurd practices of our day, I shall read a clipping or two from my miscellaneous file.
The first concerns a hippie couple who were walking down the street. They both had long hair and were dressed in typical hippie attire, complete with beads, sandals, and headbands. The fellow said to the girl: “I’m going over and pick up my unemployment check. Then I’ll drop in at the university to see what’s holding up my check for my federal education grant. After that I’ll pick up our food stamps. Meanwhile, you go over to the free clinic and check your tests, pick up my new glasses at the city health center, then go to the welfare department and apply for another increase on our eligibility limit.
“Then I’ll meet you at five o’clock at the federal building for the mass demonstration against this rotten establishment.”
I clipped the following from the Reader’s Digest some time ago.
“In our friendly neighbor city of St. Augustine great flocks of sea gulls are starving amid plenty. Fishing is still good, but the gulls don’t know how to fish. For generations they have depended on the shrimp fleet to toss them scraps from the nets. Now the fleet has moved. …
“The shrimpers had created a Welfare State for the … sea gulls. The big birds never bothered to learn how to fish for themselves and they never taught their children to fish. Instead they led their little ones to the shrimp nets.
“Now the sea gulls, the fine free birds that almost symbolize liberty itself, are starving to death because they gave in to the ‘something for nothing’ lure! They sacrificed their independence for a hand-out.
“A lot of people are like that, too. They see nothing wrong in picking delectable scraps from the tax nets of the U.S. Government’s ‘shrimp fleet.’ But what will happen when the Government runs out of goods? What about our children of generations to come?
“Let’s not be gullible gulls. We … must preserve our talents of self-sufficiency, our genius for creating things for ourselves, our sense of thrift and our true love of independence.” (Reader’s Digest, Oct. 1950, p. 32.)
Now a contrasting clipping entitled, “It’s a Good Thing There Wasn’t Anybody Around to Help the Pilgrims”:
“They landed in a forbidding wilderness. No Federal Housing, so they went to work and built their own. No Free Stamp Program, so they raised what food they ate, and when they didn’t raise enough, went without.
“No Free Schools, so mothers taught their children. No Recreational Programs—they were too busy working. No anti-draft riots—everyone was expected to share in the protection of his country. No Social Security—no security at all, except what each provided for himself.
“But there were compensations. No rioters demanding something for nothing. No unwashed ‘students’ telling their mothers what to teach. No wasteful bureaucrats paying themselves out of the workers’ production.
“Nothing, really, for the Pilgrims but hard work and a lot of it.
“Did it pay off?
“Our standard of living proves it.” (Christian Economics, Nov. 1972, p. 25.)
Now to the Lord’s plan.
“I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth,” He said, “… and all things therein are mine.
“And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.
“But it must needs be done in mine own way; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.
“For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves.” (D&C 104:14–17.)
The underlying principles of God’s economy for the temporal salvation of His saints are clearly revealed in this scripture. Proclaiming Himself the creator of the earth and all things therein, He speaks of Himself as supreme landlord. He announces that it is His purpose to provide for His saints, at the same time declaring, “The earth is full, and there is enough and to spare.” He warns, however, that providing for His saints “must needs be done in mine own way.”
“And … this,” He continues, “is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.”
Following His way is indispensable to a well-ordered society.
We Latter-day Saints know that all men are brothers and sisters—“begotten sons and daughters unto God” (D&C 76:24)—that we are responsible for the welfare of one another. These concepts are inherent in all the doctrines of the gospel.
We know that the ills of this troubled world have come about because men have failed to do what the Lord has commanded them. This applies to economic problems as well as to all other ills. We know also that the only cure for them is to do all things whatsoever the Lord our God commands us.
We know that the day will come when “every man” shall share equally in the good things of earth, “according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.” (D&C 51:3.) We also know that attaining such equality must await the time when all men willingly work to sustain themselves and, motivated by love for their fellowmen, liberally “impart” of their substance unto the poor and the needy, “according to the law of [the] gospel.” (D&C 104:18.)
It is the responsibility of every Latter-day Saint to work and so impart of his substance, regardless of the shifting standards of this world. We must uphold these principles and oppose every derogation of them. We must be careful not to adopt the commonly accepted practice of expecting the government or anyone other than ourselves to supply us with the necessities of life.
The practice of coveting and receiving unearned benefits has now become so fixed in our society that even men of great wealth, and possessing the means to produce more wealth, are expecting the government to guarantee them a profit. Elections often turn on what the candidates promise to do for voters from government funds. This practice, if universally accepted and implemented in any society, will make slaves of its citizens.
We cannot afford to become wards of the government, even though we have a legal right to do so. It requires too great a sacrifice in self-respect and in political, temporal, and spiritual independence.
Let us work for what we need. Let us be self-reliant and independent. Salvation can be obtained on no other principle. Salvation is an individual matter, and we must work out our own salvation, in temporal as well as in spiritual things.
Paul’s statement, “By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:8–9), has been misunderstood. Some have interpreted it to mean that works are not necessary. This is an erroneous conclusion.
The truth is that we are saved by grace only after all we ourselves can do. (See 2 Ne. 25:23.) There will be no government dole which can get us through the pearly gates. Nor will anybody go into the celestial kingdom who wants to go there on the works of someone else. Every man must go through on his own merits. We might just as well learn this here and now.
The first principle of action in the Lord’s plan for our temporal salvation is, therefore, to take care of ourselves. This principle is so important that the Lord said to Adam, as he was about to leave the Garden of Eden, “Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the fruit of the tree of which I commanded thee, saying—Thou shalt not eat of it, cursed shall be the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.” (Moses 4:23.)
Note that the curse was not placed upon Adam, but upon the ground for Adam’s sake. Rather than a curse upon Adam, it was a blessing to him. It launched him and his posterity upon the only course by which they can eventually reach that perfection enjoined by the Master. The fact that when the Lord cursed the ground to bring forth “thorns” and “thistles,” thereby requiring men to labor in order to derive a living from it, it was for their “sake”—meaning “good,” “advantage,” or “well-being?” This cannot be overemphasized.
Since that eventful day in Eden, the Lord has frequently reemphasized the fact that individual effort is the basic principle in His economy—both spiritual and temporal. Let us never forget that the Lord’s way to provide for His saints is “that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.” (D&C 104:16.)
The poor can be exalted when and only when they are enabled to obtain independence and self-respect through their own industry and thrift. Our duty is to enable them to do this.
“The rich are made low” when they evidence their obedience to the second great commandment—“Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Matt. 22:39)—by imparting of their substance “according to the law of [the] gospel, unto the poor and the needy.” (D&C 104:18.)
In addition to maintaining our independence and self-respect by means of our own industry, and seeing to it that those to whom we extend Church welfare assistance do likewise to the full extent of their ability, we must never forget to honor our fathers and mothers. Since our obligation to so honor them is often observed in the breach and since the rewards for honoring them are so great and the penalty for failing to do so is so severe, I shall explain our obligation as I did in the October 1974 Welfare Services meeting, in the words of President Clark:
“This principle,” said he, “runs back to Mount Sinai.” It was there as you will remember that Moses received the “ten commandments, and one of them was ‘Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.’ (Ex. 20:12.) … I call your attention [first] to the command and then to the promise: ‘Honor thy father and thy mother’—the command. The promise: ‘That thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.’ …
“Israel departed from this command, and in the time of the Savior the Jews had gotten so far away from it that the Lord took occasion to explain it to them and told them what it meant. You remember that on one occasion the Jews—[that is] the Scribes and Pharisees—came up from Jerusalem, trying to trick the Savior as usual, so they asked him why his disciples ate with unwashen hands, contrary to the teachings of the traditions of the fathers. The Savior did with them what he so frequently did with those who tried to entrap him, he answered their question by asking another, and the question which he asked of them was:
“‘Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
“‘For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: …
“‘But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
“‘And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.’ (Matt. 15:3–6 [italics added].)
“That is the account in Matthew. The account is virtually the same in Mark:
“‘For Moses said, [and Mark quotes] Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
“‘But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
“‘And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother.’ (Mark 7:10–12 [italics added].)
“This means [explains President Clark] that in place of observing the responsibility imposed by the Lord upon children to care for their parents, Israel had gone so astray that whenever a son or a daughter wanted to rid himself or herself of the obligation of caring for father and mother, he proceeded to say to father or mother, ‘From this time on, … I repudiate my obligation, and whatever I give to you is a gift (Corban), and not given under the commandment of the Lord.’”
Today the temptation, and too often the practice, is to turn father and mother over to public welfare and let the state take care of them. But to return to President Clark’s treatment of the subject:
“After calling their attention to this, the Savior said unto them, as recorded by Matthew:
“‘Ye hypocrites [that was the Savior’s statement about those who taught that we needn’t take care of our parents], well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
“‘This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
“‘But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.’ (Matt. 15:7–9 [italics added].)
“Now I repeat to you, brethren, that command is without restriction. It runs to Israel, in my view, wherever Israel may be, and its promise as well as its command follows Israel in whatever land they may reside.
“‘Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.’ (Ex. 20:12 [italics added].)
“This land of ours is a chosen land to Joseph. I believe the promise applies here. In the Book of Mormon we are told what will happen to those who dwell on this land if they do not keep the commandments of God, if they do not worship Jesus the Christ who is the God of this land. He tells what will come to us when we are full of iniquity, and if we disobey that commandment of the Lord we are thus far under the condemnation which the Lord decreed, and we are thus far forward on the road to being full of iniquity.”
President Clark concluded this particular discussion with this reminder:
“I have given you what the Lord has said. We may use our agency as to whether we shall obey or disobey; and if we disobey we must abide the penalty.” (“Fundamentals of the Church Welfare Program,” October 6, 1944, pp. 3–5.)
That the Lord will give us the wisdom and the courage to understand and live by this principle, I humbly pray, in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
The Book of Mormon is the Word of God...
Our homes are not as strong unless we are using it to bring our children to Christ. Our families may be corrupted by worldly trends and teachings unless we know how to use the book to expose and combat the falsehoods in socialism, organic evolution, rationalism, humanism, etc. ~President Ezra Taft Benson
HERE...
HERE...
Is Socialism the United Order?
Elder Marion G. Romney Of the Council of the Twelve Apostles
General Conference, April 1966
What I am going to give you now 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:
Socialism defined
"A political and economic 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 reader 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."
Communism, starting point
The "Communist Manifesto" drafted by Karl Marx 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 Labour 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 of 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] than 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.)
Forms and policies of socialism
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 now 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.
The United Order
Now as to the United Order, and here I will give the words of the Lord and not my words. The United Order the Lord's program for eliminating the inequalities among men, is based upon the underlying concept that the earth and all things therein belong to the Lord and that men hold earthly possessions as stewards accountable to God.
On January 2, 1831, the Lord revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith that the Church was under obligation to care for the poor. (See D&C 38.) Later he said:
"I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth, . . .and all things therein are mine.
"And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.
"But it must needs be done in mine own way. . . ." (D&C 104:14-16.)
Consecration and stewardship
On February 9, 1831, the Lord revealed to the Prophet what his way was. (See D&C 42.) In his way there were two cardinal principles: (1) consecration and (2) stewardship.
To enter the United Order, when it was being tried, one consecrated all his possessions to the Church by a "covenant and a deed which" could not "be broken." (D&C 42:30.) That is, he completely divested himself of all of his property by conveying it to the Church.
Having thus voluntarily divested himself of title to all his property, the consecrator received from the Church a stewardship by a like conveyance. This stewardship could be more or less than his original consecration, the object being to make "every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs." (D&C 51:3.)
This procedure preserved in every man the right to private ownership and management of his property. At his own option he could alienate it or keep and operate it and pass it on to his heirs.
The intent was, however, for him to so operate his property as to produce a living for himself and his dependents. So long as he remained in the order, he consecrated to the Church the surplus he produced above the needs and wants of his family. This surplus went into a storehouse from which stewardships were given to others and from which the needs of the poor were supplied.
These divine principles are very simple and easily understood. A comparison of them with the underlying principles of socialism reveal similarities and basic differences.
Comparisons and contrasts: Similarities
The following are similarities: Both (1) deal with production and distribution of goods; (2) aim to promote the well-being of men by eliminating their economic inequalities; (3) envision the elimination of the selfish motives in our private capitalistic industrial system.
Differences
Now the differences:
(1) The cornerstone of the United Order is belief in God and acceptance of him as Lord of the earth and the author of the United Order. Socialism, wholly materialistic, is founded in the wisdom of men and not of God. Although all socialists may not be atheists, none of them in theory or practice seek the Lord to establish his righteousness.
(2) The United Order is implemented by the voluntary free-will actions of men, evidenced by a consecration of all their property to the Church of God. One time the Prophet Joseph Smith asked a question by the brethren about the inventories they were taking. His answer was to the effect, "You don't need to be concerned about the inventories. Unless a man is willing to consecrate everything he has, he doesn't come into the United Order." (Documentary History of the Church, Vol. 7, pp. 412-13.) On the other hand, socialism is implemented by external force, the power of the state.
(3) In harmony with church belief, as set forth in the Doctrine and Covenants, "that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property" (D&C 134:2), the United Order is operated upon the principle of private ownership and individual management.
God-given agency preserved in United Order
Thus in both implementation and ownership and management of property, the United Order preserves to men their God-given agency, while socialism deprives them of it.
(4) The United Order is non-political. Socialism is political, both in theory and practice. It is thus exposed to, and riddled by, the corruption that plagues and finally destroys all political governments that undertake to abridge man's agency.
(5) A righteous people is a prerequisite to the United Order. Socialism argues that it as a system will eliminate the evils of the profit motive.
The United Order exalts the poor and humbles the rich. In the process both are sanctified. The poor, released from the bondage and humiliating limitations of poverty, are enabled as free men to rise to their full potential, both temporally and spiritually. The rich, by consecration and by imparting of their surplus for the benefit of the poor, not by constraint but willingly as an act of free will, evidence that charity for their fellowmen characterized by Mormon as "the pure love of Christ." (Moro. 7:47.)
Socialism not United Order
No, brethren, socialism is not the United Order. However, notwithstanding my abhorrence of it, I am persuaded that socialism is the wave of the present and of the foreseeable future. It has already taken over or is contending for control in most nations.
"At the end of the year [1964] parties affiliated with the [Socialist] International were in control of the governments of Great Britain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Israel, and the Malagasy Republic. They had representatives in coalition cabinets in Austria, Belgium, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, and Switzerland, constituted the chief opposition in France, India, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand and West Germany; and were significant political forces in numerous other countries. Many parties dominant in governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America announced that their aim was a socialist society." (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1965 Book of the Year, p. 736.)
United States has adopted much socialism
We here in the United States, in converting our government into a social welfare state, have ourselves adopted much of socialism. Specifically, we have to an alarming degree adopted the use of the power of the state in the control and distribution of the fruits of industry. We are on notice according to the words of the President, that we are going much further, for he is quoted as saying:
"We're going to take all the money we think is unnecessarily being spent and take it from the `haves' and give it to the `have nots.'" (1964 Congressional Record, p. 6142, Remarks of the President to a Group of Leaders of Organizations of Senior Citizens in the Fish Room, March 24, 1964.)
Socialism takes: United Order gives
That is the spirit of socialism: We're going to take. The spirit of the United Order is: We're going to give.
We have also gone a long way on the road to public ownership and management of the vital means of production. In both of these areas the free agency of Americans has been greatly
abridged. Some argue that we have voluntarily surrendered this power to government. Be this as it may, the fact remains that the loss of freedom with the consent of the enslaved, or even at their request, is nonetheless slavery.
As to the fruits of socialism, we all have our own opinions. I myself have watched its growth in our own country and observed it in operation in many other lands. But I have yet to see or hear of its freeing the hearts of men of selfishness and greed or of its bringing peace, plenty, or freedom. These things it will never bring, nor will it do away with idleness and promote "industry, thrift and self-respect," for it is founded, in theory and in practice, on force, the principle of the evil one.
As to the fruits of the United Order I suggest you read Moses 7:16-18 and 4 Nephi 2-3, 15-16. If we had time we could review the history, what little we know, of Zion in the days of Enoch and about what happened among the Nephites under those principles of the United Order in the first two centuries following the time of the Savior.
What can we do?
Now what can we do about it?
As I recently reminded my wife of the moratorium on the United Order, which the Lord placed in 1834 (D&C 105:34), that socialism is taking over in the nations and that its expressed aims will surely fail, she spiritedly put to me the question: "Well, then, what would you suggest, that we just sit on our hands in despair and do nothing?" Perhaps similar questions have occurred to you. The answer is, "No, by no means!" We have much to do, and fortunately for us the Lord has definitely prescribed the course we should follow with respect to socialism and the United Order.
Constitution God-inspired
He has told us that in preparation for the restoration of the gospel, he himself established the Constitution of the United States, and he has plainly told us why he established it. I hope I can get this point over to you. He said he established the Constitution to preserve to men their free agency, because the whole gospel of Jesus Christ presupposes man's untrammeled exercise of free agency. Man is in the earth to be tested. The issue as to whether he succeeds or fails will be determined by how he uses his agency. His whole future, through all eternity, is at stake. Abridge man's agency, and the whole purpose of his mortality is thwarted. Without it, the Lord says, there is no existence. (See D&C 93:30.) The Lord so valued our agency that he designed and dictated "the laws and constitution" required to guarantee it. This he explained in the revelation in which he instructed the Prophet Joseph Smith to appeal for help,
Just and holy principles
"According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;
"That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.
"And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose. . . ." (D&C 101:77-78, 80.)
Sustain Constitutional law
Previously he had said:
"And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.
"And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind and is justifiable before me.
"Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land [the test of its constitutionality in the words of the Lord here is whether it preserves man's agency];
"And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this cometh of evil.
"I, the Lord God, make you free therefore ye are free indeed; and the law [that is, constitutional law] also maketh you free.
"Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.
"Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil." (D&C 98:4-10.)
These scriptures declare the Constitution to be a divine document. They tell us that "according to just and holy principles," the Constitution and the law of the land which supports the "principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before" God; that, "as pertaining to [the] law of man whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil." They remind us that the Lord has made us free and that laws that are constitutional will also make us free.
"When the wicked rule, the people mourn"
Right at this point, almost as if he were warning us against what is happening today, the Lord said: "Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn." Then, that we might know with certainty what we should do about it, he concluded: "Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold. . . ."
In its context this instruction, according to my interpretation, can only mean that we should seek diligently for and support men to represent us in government who are "wise" enough to understand freedom—as provided for in the Constitution and as implemented in the United Order—and who are honest enough and good enough to fight to preserve it.
". . . under no other government in the world could the Church have been established," said President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., and he continued:
". . . if we are to live as a Church, and progress, and have the right to worship as we are worshipping here today, we must have the great guarantees that are set up by our Constitution. There is no other way in which we can secure these guarantees." (Conference Report, October 1942, pp. 58-59.)
Now, not forgetting our duty to eschew socialism and support the just and holy principles of the Constitution, as directed by the Lord, I shall conclude these remarks with a few comments concerning what we should do about the United Order.
What to do about United Order
The final words of the Lord in suspending the order were: "And let those commandments which I have given concerning Zion and her law be executed and fulfilled, after her redemption." (D&C 105:34.)
Further implementation of the order must therefore await the redemption of Zion. Here Zion means Jackson County, Missouri. When Zion is redeemed, as it most certainly shall be, it will be redeemed under a government and by a people strictly observing those "just and holy principles" of the Constitution that accord to men their God-given moral agency, including the right to private property. If, in the meantime, socialism takes over in America, it will have to be displaced, if need be, by the power of God, because the United Order can never function under socialism or "the welfare state," for the good and sufficient reason that the principles upon which socialism and the United Order are conceived and operated are inimical.
In the meantime, while we await the redemption of Zion and the earth and the establishment of the United Order, we as bearers of the priesthood should live strictly by the principles of the United Order insofar as they are embodied in present church practices, such as the fast offering, tithing, and the welfare activities. Through these practices we could as individuals, if we were of a mind to do so, implement in our own lives all the basic principles of the United Order.
As you will recall, the principles underlying the United Order are consecration and stewardships and then the contribution of surpluses into the bishop's storehouse. When the law of tithing was instituted four years after the United Order experiment was suspended, the Lord required the people to put "all their surplus property . . . into the hands of the bishop" (D&C 119:1); thereafter they were to "pay one-tenth of all their interest annually. . . ." (D&C 119:4.) This law, still in force, implements to a degree at least the United Order principle of stewardships, for it leaves in the hands of each person the ownership and management of the property from which he produces the needs of himself and family. Furthermore to use again the words of President Clark:
". . . in lieu of residues and surpluses which were accumulated and built up under the United Order, we, today, have our fast offerings, our Welfare donations, and our tithing all of which may be devoted to the care of the poor, as well as for the carrying on of the activities and business of the Church."
What prohibits us from giving as much in fast offerings as we would have given in surpluses under the United Order? Nothing but our own limitations.
Furthermore, we had under the United Order a bishop's storehouse in which were collected the materials from which to supply the needs and the wants of the poor. We have a bishop's storehouse under the Welfare Plan, used for the same purpose. . . .
"We have now under the Welfare Plan all over the Church, . . . land projects . . . farmed for the benefit of the poor. . . .
"Thus . . . in many of its great essentials, we have, [in] the Welfare Plan . . . the broad essentials of the United Order. Furthermore, having in mind the assistance which is being given from time to time . . . to help set people up in business or in farming, we have a plan which is not essentially unlike that which was in the United Order when the poor were given portions from the common fund."
It is thus apparent that when the principles of tithing and the fast are properly observed and the Welfare Plan gets fully developed and wholly into operation, "we shall not be so very far from carrying out the great fundamentals of the United Order." (Conference Report, October 1942, pp. 51-58.)
The only limitation on you and me is within ourselves.
A Prayer:
And now in line with these remarks for three things I pray:
(1) That the Lord will somehow quicken our understanding of the differences between socialism and the United Order and give us a vivid awareness of the awful portent of those differences. (2) That we will develop the understanding, the desire, and the courage born of the Spirit, to eschew socialism and to support and sustain, in the manner revealed and as interpreted by the Lord, those just and holy principles embodied in the Constitution of the United States for the protection of all flesh, in the exercise of their God-given agency. (3) That through faithful observance of the principles of tithing, the fast, and the welfare program, we will prepare ourselves to redeem Zion and ultimately live the United Order, in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
General Conference, April 1966
What I am going to give you now 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:
Socialism defined
"A political and economic 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 reader 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."
Communism, starting point
The "Communist Manifesto" drafted by Karl Marx 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 Labour 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 of 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] than 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.)
Forms and policies of socialism
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 now 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.
The United Order
Now as to the United Order, and here I will give the words of the Lord and not my words. The United Order the Lord's program for eliminating the inequalities among men, is based upon the underlying concept that the earth and all things therein belong to the Lord and that men hold earthly possessions as stewards accountable to God.
On January 2, 1831, the Lord revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith that the Church was under obligation to care for the poor. (See D&C 38.) Later he said:
"I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth, . . .and all things therein are mine.
"And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.
"But it must needs be done in mine own way. . . ." (D&C 104:14-16.)
Consecration and stewardship
On February 9, 1831, the Lord revealed to the Prophet what his way was. (See D&C 42.) In his way there were two cardinal principles: (1) consecration and (2) stewardship.
To enter the United Order, when it was being tried, one consecrated all his possessions to the Church by a "covenant and a deed which" could not "be broken." (D&C 42:30.) That is, he completely divested himself of all of his property by conveying it to the Church.
Having thus voluntarily divested himself of title to all his property, the consecrator received from the Church a stewardship by a like conveyance. This stewardship could be more or less than his original consecration, the object being to make "every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs." (D&C 51:3.)
This procedure preserved in every man the right to private ownership and management of his property. At his own option he could alienate it or keep and operate it and pass it on to his heirs.
The intent was, however, for him to so operate his property as to produce a living for himself and his dependents. So long as he remained in the order, he consecrated to the Church the surplus he produced above the needs and wants of his family. This surplus went into a storehouse from which stewardships were given to others and from which the needs of the poor were supplied.
These divine principles are very simple and easily understood. A comparison of them with the underlying principles of socialism reveal similarities and basic differences.
Comparisons and contrasts: Similarities
The following are similarities: Both (1) deal with production and distribution of goods; (2) aim to promote the well-being of men by eliminating their economic inequalities; (3) envision the elimination of the selfish motives in our private capitalistic industrial system.
Differences
Now the differences:
(1) The cornerstone of the United Order is belief in God and acceptance of him as Lord of the earth and the author of the United Order. Socialism, wholly materialistic, is founded in the wisdom of men and not of God. Although all socialists may not be atheists, none of them in theory or practice seek the Lord to establish his righteousness.
(2) The United Order is implemented by the voluntary free-will actions of men, evidenced by a consecration of all their property to the Church of God. One time the Prophet Joseph Smith asked a question by the brethren about the inventories they were taking. His answer was to the effect, "You don't need to be concerned about the inventories. Unless a man is willing to consecrate everything he has, he doesn't come into the United Order." (Documentary History of the Church, Vol. 7, pp. 412-13.) On the other hand, socialism is implemented by external force, the power of the state.
(3) In harmony with church belief, as set forth in the Doctrine and Covenants, "that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property" (D&C 134:2), the United Order is operated upon the principle of private ownership and individual management.
God-given agency preserved in United Order
Thus in both implementation and ownership and management of property, the United Order preserves to men their God-given agency, while socialism deprives them of it.
(4) The United Order is non-political. Socialism is political, both in theory and practice. It is thus exposed to, and riddled by, the corruption that plagues and finally destroys all political governments that undertake to abridge man's agency.
(5) A righteous people is a prerequisite to the United Order. Socialism argues that it as a system will eliminate the evils of the profit motive.
The United Order exalts the poor and humbles the rich. In the process both are sanctified. The poor, released from the bondage and humiliating limitations of poverty, are enabled as free men to rise to their full potential, both temporally and spiritually. The rich, by consecration and by imparting of their surplus for the benefit of the poor, not by constraint but willingly as an act of free will, evidence that charity for their fellowmen characterized by Mormon as "the pure love of Christ." (Moro. 7:47.)
Socialism not United Order
No, brethren, socialism is not the United Order. However, notwithstanding my abhorrence of it, I am persuaded that socialism is the wave of the present and of the foreseeable future. It has already taken over or is contending for control in most nations.
"At the end of the year [1964] parties affiliated with the [Socialist] International were in control of the governments of Great Britain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Israel, and the Malagasy Republic. They had representatives in coalition cabinets in Austria, Belgium, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, and Switzerland, constituted the chief opposition in France, India, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand and West Germany; and were significant political forces in numerous other countries. Many parties dominant in governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America announced that their aim was a socialist society." (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1965 Book of the Year, p. 736.)
United States has adopted much socialism
We here in the United States, in converting our government into a social welfare state, have ourselves adopted much of socialism. Specifically, we have to an alarming degree adopted the use of the power of the state in the control and distribution of the fruits of industry. We are on notice according to the words of the President, that we are going much further, for he is quoted as saying:
"We're going to take all the money we think is unnecessarily being spent and take it from the `haves' and give it to the `have nots.'" (1964 Congressional Record, p. 6142, Remarks of the President to a Group of Leaders of Organizations of Senior Citizens in the Fish Room, March 24, 1964.)
Socialism takes: United Order gives
That is the spirit of socialism: We're going to take. The spirit of the United Order is: We're going to give.
We have also gone a long way on the road to public ownership and management of the vital means of production. In both of these areas the free agency of Americans has been greatly
abridged. Some argue that we have voluntarily surrendered this power to government. Be this as it may, the fact remains that the loss of freedom with the consent of the enslaved, or even at their request, is nonetheless slavery.
As to the fruits of socialism, we all have our own opinions. I myself have watched its growth in our own country and observed it in operation in many other lands. But I have yet to see or hear of its freeing the hearts of men of selfishness and greed or of its bringing peace, plenty, or freedom. These things it will never bring, nor will it do away with idleness and promote "industry, thrift and self-respect," for it is founded, in theory and in practice, on force, the principle of the evil one.
As to the fruits of the United Order I suggest you read Moses 7:16-18 and 4 Nephi 2-3, 15-16. If we had time we could review the history, what little we know, of Zion in the days of Enoch and about what happened among the Nephites under those principles of the United Order in the first two centuries following the time of the Savior.
What can we do?
Now what can we do about it?
As I recently reminded my wife of the moratorium on the United Order, which the Lord placed in 1834 (D&C 105:34), that socialism is taking over in the nations and that its expressed aims will surely fail, she spiritedly put to me the question: "Well, then, what would you suggest, that we just sit on our hands in despair and do nothing?" Perhaps similar questions have occurred to you. The answer is, "No, by no means!" We have much to do, and fortunately for us the Lord has definitely prescribed the course we should follow with respect to socialism and the United Order.
Constitution God-inspired
He has told us that in preparation for the restoration of the gospel, he himself established the Constitution of the United States, and he has plainly told us why he established it. I hope I can get this point over to you. He said he established the Constitution to preserve to men their free agency, because the whole gospel of Jesus Christ presupposes man's untrammeled exercise of free agency. Man is in the earth to be tested. The issue as to whether he succeeds or fails will be determined by how he uses his agency. His whole future, through all eternity, is at stake. Abridge man's agency, and the whole purpose of his mortality is thwarted. Without it, the Lord says, there is no existence. (See D&C 93:30.) The Lord so valued our agency that he designed and dictated "the laws and constitution" required to guarantee it. This he explained in the revelation in which he instructed the Prophet Joseph Smith to appeal for help,
Just and holy principles
"According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;
"That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.
"And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose. . . ." (D&C 101:77-78, 80.)
Sustain Constitutional law
Previously he had said:
"And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.
"And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind and is justifiable before me.
"Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land [the test of its constitutionality in the words of the Lord here is whether it preserves man's agency];
"And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this cometh of evil.
"I, the Lord God, make you free therefore ye are free indeed; and the law [that is, constitutional law] also maketh you free.
"Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.
"Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil." (D&C 98:4-10.)
These scriptures declare the Constitution to be a divine document. They tell us that "according to just and holy principles," the Constitution and the law of the land which supports the "principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before" God; that, "as pertaining to [the] law of man whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil." They remind us that the Lord has made us free and that laws that are constitutional will also make us free.
"When the wicked rule, the people mourn"
Right at this point, almost as if he were warning us against what is happening today, the Lord said: "Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn." Then, that we might know with certainty what we should do about it, he concluded: "Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold. . . ."
In its context this instruction, according to my interpretation, can only mean that we should seek diligently for and support men to represent us in government who are "wise" enough to understand freedom—as provided for in the Constitution and as implemented in the United Order—and who are honest enough and good enough to fight to preserve it.
". . . under no other government in the world could the Church have been established," said President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., and he continued:
". . . if we are to live as a Church, and progress, and have the right to worship as we are worshipping here today, we must have the great guarantees that are set up by our Constitution. There is no other way in which we can secure these guarantees." (Conference Report, October 1942, pp. 58-59.)
Now, not forgetting our duty to eschew socialism and support the just and holy principles of the Constitution, as directed by the Lord, I shall conclude these remarks with a few comments concerning what we should do about the United Order.
What to do about United Order
The final words of the Lord in suspending the order were: "And let those commandments which I have given concerning Zion and her law be executed and fulfilled, after her redemption." (D&C 105:34.)
Further implementation of the order must therefore await the redemption of Zion. Here Zion means Jackson County, Missouri. When Zion is redeemed, as it most certainly shall be, it will be redeemed under a government and by a people strictly observing those "just and holy principles" of the Constitution that accord to men their God-given moral agency, including the right to private property. If, in the meantime, socialism takes over in America, it will have to be displaced, if need be, by the power of God, because the United Order can never function under socialism or "the welfare state," for the good and sufficient reason that the principles upon which socialism and the United Order are conceived and operated are inimical.
In the meantime, while we await the redemption of Zion and the earth and the establishment of the United Order, we as bearers of the priesthood should live strictly by the principles of the United Order insofar as they are embodied in present church practices, such as the fast offering, tithing, and the welfare activities. Through these practices we could as individuals, if we were of a mind to do so, implement in our own lives all the basic principles of the United Order.
As you will recall, the principles underlying the United Order are consecration and stewardships and then the contribution of surpluses into the bishop's storehouse. When the law of tithing was instituted four years after the United Order experiment was suspended, the Lord required the people to put "all their surplus property . . . into the hands of the bishop" (D&C 119:1); thereafter they were to "pay one-tenth of all their interest annually. . . ." (D&C 119:4.) This law, still in force, implements to a degree at least the United Order principle of stewardships, for it leaves in the hands of each person the ownership and management of the property from which he produces the needs of himself and family. Furthermore to use again the words of President Clark:
". . . in lieu of residues and surpluses which were accumulated and built up under the United Order, we, today, have our fast offerings, our Welfare donations, and our tithing all of which may be devoted to the care of the poor, as well as for the carrying on of the activities and business of the Church."
What prohibits us from giving as much in fast offerings as we would have given in surpluses under the United Order? Nothing but our own limitations.
Furthermore, we had under the United Order a bishop's storehouse in which were collected the materials from which to supply the needs and the wants of the poor. We have a bishop's storehouse under the Welfare Plan, used for the same purpose. . . .
"We have now under the Welfare Plan all over the Church, . . . land projects . . . farmed for the benefit of the poor. . . .
"Thus . . . in many of its great essentials, we have, [in] the Welfare Plan . . . the broad essentials of the United Order. Furthermore, having in mind the assistance which is being given from time to time . . . to help set people up in business or in farming, we have a plan which is not essentially unlike that which was in the United Order when the poor were given portions from the common fund."
It is thus apparent that when the principles of tithing and the fast are properly observed and the Welfare Plan gets fully developed and wholly into operation, "we shall not be so very far from carrying out the great fundamentals of the United Order." (Conference Report, October 1942, pp. 51-58.)
The only limitation on you and me is within ourselves.
A Prayer:
And now in line with these remarks for three things I pray:
(1) That the Lord will somehow quicken our understanding of the differences between socialism and the United Order and give us a vivid awareness of the awful portent of those differences. (2) That we will develop the understanding, the desire, and the courage born of the Spirit, to eschew socialism and to support and sustain, in the manner revealed and as interpreted by the Lord, those just and holy principles embodied in the Constitution of the United States for the protection of all flesh, in the exercise of their God-given agency. (3) That through faithful observance of the principles of tithing, the fast, and the welfare program, we will prepare ourselves to redeem Zion and ultimately live the United Order, in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
The United Order Vs. Communism
by President J. Reuben Clark Jr., First Counselor in the First Presidency. The United Order Vs. Communism. General Conference Report October 1942, 2nd Session.
Brethren:
I have been trying for a week to relieve you of this experience, but Brother McKay, so kind, so sweet, and so merciful, has been perfectly adamant. So I stand before you here, not to preach, but to counsel with you.
There is a great deal of misapprehension among our people regarding the United Order.
I have not been able to believe that the United Order meant what some people have thought it meant, so within the last months I have spent quite a little time reading the revelations thereon, also reading our history, and at the same time giving some consideration to a dissertation which has been written regarding the Order.
There is a growing-I fear it is growing-sentiment that communism and the United Order are virtually the same thing, communism being merely the forerunner, so to speak, of a reestablishment of the United Order. I am informed that ex-bishops, and indeed, bishops, who belong to communistic organizations, are preaching this doctrine. So I thought that perhaps if I said just a few words to you tonight regarding the way I interpret the revelations that are printed about this in the D&C (if there are other revelations about the Order, I do not know of them), I thought if I said something about it, it might be helpful. I recommend that you, my brethren, read a few of the Sections of the D&C which cover this matter, beginning with Sections 42 and 51. ( See also Sections 70, 78, 82, 83, 85, 90, 92, 96, and 104.) If you will go over these sections, I feel sure that you will find that my explanation of the United Order will be substantially accurate.
Early Deviations
I may say to begin with, that in practice the brethren in Missouri got away, in their attempts to set up the United Order, from the principles set out in the revelations. This is also true of the organizations set up here in Utah after the Saints came to the Valleys. So far as I have seen there has been preserved only one document that purports to be a legal instrument used in connection with the setting up of the United Order, and that document is without date. It is said to have been found among the papers of Bishop Partridge. It was a “lease-lend” document. You may have heard that phrase before. Under this instrument the Church leased to Titus Billings a certain amount of real estate and loaned him a certain amount of personal property.
This instrument is not in accordance with the principle laid down in the revelations touching upon the United Order.
The basic principle of all the revelations on the United Order is that everything we have belongs to the Lord; therefore, the Lord may call upon us for any and all of the property which we have, because it belongs to Him. This, I repeat, is the basic principle. (D. &. C. 104: 14-17, 54-57)
One of the places in which some of the brethren are going astray is this: There is continuous reference in the revelations to equality among the brethren, but I think you will find only one place where that equality is really described, though it is referred to in other revelations. That revelation (D. & C. 51:3) affirms that every man is to be “equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.” ( See also D. & C. 82 17; 78: 5-6. ) Obviously, this is not a case of “dead level” equality. It is “equality” that will vary as much as the man’s circumstances, his family, his wants and needs, may vary.
Consecration
In the next place, under the United Order every man was called to consecrate to the Church all of the property which he had; the real estate was to be conveyed to the Church, as I understand the revelations, by what we would call a deed in fee simple. Thus the man’s property became absolutely the property of the Church. (D. & C. 42:30; 72:15) Then the bishop deeded back to the donor by the same kind of deed, that is, in fee simple, and also transferred to him by an equivalent instrument, so far as personal property was concerned, that amount of real and personal property, which, the two being taken together, would be required by the individual for the support of himself and his family “according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.” This the man held as his own property. (D. & C. 42:32; 51:4-6; 83:3
In other words, basic to the United Order was the private ownership of property, every man had his own property from which he might secure that which was necessary for the support of himself and his family. There is nothing in the revelations that would indicate that this property was not freely alienable at the will of the owner. It was not contemplated that the Church should own everything or that we should become in the Church, with reference to our property and otherwise, the same kind of automaton, manikin, that communism makes out of the individual, with the State standing at the head in place of the Church.
Now, that part of a man’s property which was not turned back to him, if he had more than was needed under this rule of “equality” already stated, became the common property of the Church, and that common property was used for the support of the poor of the Church. It is spoken of in the revelations as the “residue” of property. ( D. & C. 42:34-36)
Land Portions
Furthermore, it was intended, though apparently it did not work out very well, that the poor coming into Zion, and by Zion I mean, here, Missouri-the poor coming into Zion were to have given to them a “portion” of land, which land was to be either purchased from the Government (and it was planned to purchase large areas from the Government), or purchased from individuals, or received as consecrations from members of the Church. The amount of this “portion” was to be such as would make him equal to others according to his circumstances, his family, his wants and needs.
The land which you received from the bishop by deed, whether it was part of the land which you, yourself, had deeded to the Church, or whether it came as an out-right gift from the Church as just indicated, and the personal property which you received, were all together sometimes called a “portion” (D. & C. 51:4-6), sometimes a “stewardship” ( D. & C. 104:11-12), and sometimes an “inheritance.” ( D. & C. 83 3 )
As just indicated, there were other kinds of inheritances and stewardships than land or mere personal property; for example, the Prophet and others had a stewardship given to them which consisted of the revelations and commandments (D. & C. 70:1-4 ); others had given to them a stewardship involving the printing house (D. & C. 104:29-30); another stewardship was a mercantile establishment. (D. & C. 104:39-42)
Surplus
I repeat that whatever a steward realized from the portion allotted to him over and above that which was necessary in order to keep his family under the standard provided, as already stated above, was turned over by the steward to the bishop, and this amount of surplus, plus the residues to which I have already referred, went into a bishop’s storehouse (D. & C. 51 13 and citations above), and the materials of the storehouse were to be used in creating portions, as above indicated, for caring for the poor (D. & C. 78:3), the widows and orphans ( D. & C. 83 6), and for the elders of the Church engaged in the ministry, who were to pay for what they received if they could, but if not, their faithful labors should answer their debt to the bishop. (D. & C. 72:11 ff)
Other Institutions
Now, as time went on and the system developed, the Lord created two other institutions besides the storehouse: one was known as the Sacred Treasury, into which was put “the avails of the sacred things in the treasury, for sacred and holy purposes.” While it is not clear, it would seem that into this treasury were to be put the surpluses which were derived from the publication of the revelations, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and other similar things, the stewardship of which had been given to Joseph and others. (D. & C. 104:60-66) The Lord also provided for the creation of “Another Treasury,” and into that other treasury went the general revenues which came to the Church, such as gifts of money and those revenues derived from the improvement of stewardships as distinguished from the residues of the original consecrations and the surpluses which came from the operation of their stewardships. (D. & C. 72:11 ff)
The foregoing is the general outline as it is gathered from the revelations of the law of the United Order which the Lord spoke of as “my law.” (D. & C. 44:6; 51:15) There are passages in the revelations which, taken from their context and without having in mind the whole system, might be considered as inconsistent with some of the things which I have set out, but all such passages fall into line if the whole program is looked at as contained in all of the revelations.
Private Ownership Fundamental
The fundamental principle of this system was the private ownership of property. Each man owned his portion, or inheritance, or stewardship, with an absolute title, which he could alienate, or hypothecate, or otherwise treat as his own. The Church did not own all of the property, and the life under the United Order was not a communal life, as the Prophet Joseph, himself said, (History of the Church, Volume III, p. 28). The United Order is an individualistic system, not a communal system.
The Welfare Plan and the United Order
We have all said that the Welfare Plan is not the United Order and was not intended to be. However, I should like to suggest to you that perhaps, after all, when the Welfare Plan gets thoroughly into operation-it is not so yet-we shall not be so very far from carrying out the great fundamentals of the United Order.
In the first place I repeat again, the United Order recognized and was built upon the principle of private ownership of property; all that a man had and lived upon under the United Order, was his own. Quite obviously, the fundamental principle of our system today is the ownership of private property.
In the next place, in lieu of residues and surpluses which were accumulated and built up under the, United Order, we, today, have our fast offerings, our Welfare donations, and our tithing, all of which may be devoted to the care of the poor, as well as for the carrying on of the activities and business of the Church. After all, the United Order was primarily designed to build up a system under which there should be no abjectly poor, and this is the purpose, also, of the Welfare Plan.
In this connection it should be observed that it is clear from these earlier revelations, as well as from our history, that the Lord had very early to tell the people about the wickedness of idleness, and the wickedness of greed, because the brethren who had were not giving properly, and those who had not were evidently intending to live without work on the things which were to be received from those who had property. (D. & C. 56:16-20)
Storehouses and Projects
Furthermore, we had under the United Order a bishop’s storehouse in which were collected the materials from which to supply the needs and the wants of the poor. We have a bishop’s storehouse under the Welfare Plan, used for the same purpose.
As I have already indicated, the surplus properties which came to the Church under the Law of Consecration, under the United Order, became the “common property” of the Church (D. & C. 82 18 ) and were handled under the United Order for the benefit of the poor. We have now under the Welfare Plan all over the Church, ward land projects. In some cases the lands are owned by the wards, in others they are leased by the wards or lent to them by private individuals. This land is being farmed for the benefit of the poor, by the poor where you can get the poor to work it.
We have in place of the two treasuries, the “Sacred Treasury” and “Another Treasury,” the general funds of the Church.
Thus you will see, brethren, that in many of its great essentials, we have, as the Welfare Plan has now developed, the broad essentials of the United Order. Furthermore, having in mind the assistance which is being given from time to time and in various wards to help set people up in business or in farming, we have a plan which is not essentially unlike that which was in the United Order when the poor were given portions from the common fund.
Now, brethren, the Church has made tremendous advances in the Welfare Plan. We shall have to make still greater advances. As the Message of the First Presidency said this morning, we are being told by Government officials that we face what we used to call “hard times.” If the Welfare Plan is fully operative, we shall be able to care for every destitute Latter-day Saint wherever he may be.
The Constitution
Now, I would like to say something else, brethren, again by way of counsel I shall be accused, when I do, of talking politics, and perhaps on this point I may say I do not read anonymous letters. When they come in I just throw them into the wastebasket. I only read enough of the signed scurrilous letters that are sent to know that they are scurrilous, and then they follow along. So it is useless for anyone to try to take out any personal feeling in that way.
You and I have heard all our lives that the time may come when the Constitution may hang by a thread. I do not know whether it is a thread, or a small rope by which it now hangs, but I do know that whether it shall live or die is now in the balance.
I have said to you before, brethren, that to me the Constitution is a part of my religion. In its place it is just as much a part of my religion as any other part. It is a part of my religion because it is one of those institutions which God has set up for His own purposes, and, as one of the brethren said today, set up so that this Church might be established, because under no other government in the world could the Church have been established as it has been established under this Government.
I think I would be sale in saying that my fellowship with you in the Church depends upon whether or not I accept the revelations and the principles which God has revealed. If I am not willing to do that, then I am not entitled to fellowship. Anyone else who fails to accept the revelations and the principles which God has revealed stands in precisely the same situation.
In the 101st Section of the D&C, which contains a revelation received by the Prophet in 1833, when the persecution in Missouri was at its highest, the Lord told the brethren that they should appeal for help. Then He added these verses, which I want to read to you:
According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the fights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;
That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.
Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.
And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood. (D. & C. 101:77-80)
Influence in the Americas
I suppose you brethren will all know, but I will recall it to your attention, that the Constitution of the United States is the basic law for all of the Americas, or Zion, as it has been defined by the Lord.
You brethren from Canada know that, your great British North America Act, in its fundamental principles, is based upon our Constitution, and you know that in the courts of Canada, the reports of our Supreme Court, and our Federal courts generally, are just as persuasive as the decisions of the courts of England, and even more so, where questions of constitutional law and constitutional interpretation are involved.
You brethren also know that from the Rio Grande down to the Horn there is no constitutional government except those that are rounded primarily upon our own Constitution. In Mexico the revolutionary party which more than a century and a quarter ago rebelled against the king of Spain and established a republic, copied almost verbatim, and practically overnight, our Constitution, and made it their own. Neither Mexico nor the others to the South interpret their Constitutions as we interpret ours. They have different standards and different canons of interpretation, for their fundamental system is the civil law, while ours is the common law. But the great essentials of that document, the Constitution of the United States, which God Himself inspired, is the law of Zion, the Americas.
The Law of Zion
So, brethren, I wish you to understand that when we begin to tamper with the Constitution we begin to tamper with the law of Zion which God Himself set up, and no one may trifle with the word of God with impunity.
Now, I am not caring today, for myself, anything at all about a political party tag. So far as I am concerned, I want to know what the man stands for. I want to know if he believes in the Constitution; if he believes in its free institutions; if he believes in its liberties, its freedom. I want to know if he believes in the Bill of Rights. I want to know if he believes in the separation of sovereign power into the three great divisions: the Legislative, the Judicial, the Executive. I want to know if he believes in the mutual independence of these, the one from the other. When I find out these things, then I know who it is who should receive my support, and I care not what his party tag is, because, brethren, if we are to live as a Church, and progress, and have the right to worship as we are worshipping here today, we must have the great guarantees that are set up by our Constitution. There is no other way in which we can secure these guarantees. You may look at the systems all over the world where the princiles of our Constitution are not controlling and in force, and you will find there dictatorship, tyranny, oppression, and, in the last analysts, slavery.
Allegiance
I have said enough. I believe you understand what I have said. Today, our duty transcends party allegiance; our duty today is allegiance to the Constitution as it was given to us by the Lord. Every federal officer takes an oath to support that Constitution so given. The difference between us and some of those to the South of us is this: down there, their fealty runs to individuals; here, our fealty and our allegiance run to the Constitution and to the principles which it embodies, and not to individuals.
God give us wisdom and enable us in these times of trouble and strife clearly to see our way, that we may be instrumental in sustaining the Constitution, in upholding our free institutions, our civil rights, our freedom of speech, of press, of religion, and of conscience. If we shall stand together we shall save the Constitution, just as has been foreseen, and if we do not stand together, we cannot perform this great task.
God grant that we may be true, I pray, in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Brethren:
I have been trying for a week to relieve you of this experience, but Brother McKay, so kind, so sweet, and so merciful, has been perfectly adamant. So I stand before you here, not to preach, but to counsel with you.
There is a great deal of misapprehension among our people regarding the United Order.
I have not been able to believe that the United Order meant what some people have thought it meant, so within the last months I have spent quite a little time reading the revelations thereon, also reading our history, and at the same time giving some consideration to a dissertation which has been written regarding the Order.
There is a growing-I fear it is growing-sentiment that communism and the United Order are virtually the same thing, communism being merely the forerunner, so to speak, of a reestablishment of the United Order. I am informed that ex-bishops, and indeed, bishops, who belong to communistic organizations, are preaching this doctrine. So I thought that perhaps if I said just a few words to you tonight regarding the way I interpret the revelations that are printed about this in the D&C (if there are other revelations about the Order, I do not know of them), I thought if I said something about it, it might be helpful. I recommend that you, my brethren, read a few of the Sections of the D&C which cover this matter, beginning with Sections 42 and 51. ( See also Sections 70, 78, 82, 83, 85, 90, 92, 96, and 104.) If you will go over these sections, I feel sure that you will find that my explanation of the United Order will be substantially accurate.
Early Deviations
I may say to begin with, that in practice the brethren in Missouri got away, in their attempts to set up the United Order, from the principles set out in the revelations. This is also true of the organizations set up here in Utah after the Saints came to the Valleys. So far as I have seen there has been preserved only one document that purports to be a legal instrument used in connection with the setting up of the United Order, and that document is without date. It is said to have been found among the papers of Bishop Partridge. It was a “lease-lend” document. You may have heard that phrase before. Under this instrument the Church leased to Titus Billings a certain amount of real estate and loaned him a certain amount of personal property.
This instrument is not in accordance with the principle laid down in the revelations touching upon the United Order.
The basic principle of all the revelations on the United Order is that everything we have belongs to the Lord; therefore, the Lord may call upon us for any and all of the property which we have, because it belongs to Him. This, I repeat, is the basic principle. (D. &. C. 104: 14-17, 54-57)
One of the places in which some of the brethren are going astray is this: There is continuous reference in the revelations to equality among the brethren, but I think you will find only one place where that equality is really described, though it is referred to in other revelations. That revelation (D. & C. 51:3) affirms that every man is to be “equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.” ( See also D. & C. 82 17; 78: 5-6. ) Obviously, this is not a case of “dead level” equality. It is “equality” that will vary as much as the man’s circumstances, his family, his wants and needs, may vary.
Consecration
In the next place, under the United Order every man was called to consecrate to the Church all of the property which he had; the real estate was to be conveyed to the Church, as I understand the revelations, by what we would call a deed in fee simple. Thus the man’s property became absolutely the property of the Church. (D. & C. 42:30; 72:15) Then the bishop deeded back to the donor by the same kind of deed, that is, in fee simple, and also transferred to him by an equivalent instrument, so far as personal property was concerned, that amount of real and personal property, which, the two being taken together, would be required by the individual for the support of himself and his family “according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.” This the man held as his own property. (D. & C. 42:32; 51:4-6; 83:3
In other words, basic to the United Order was the private ownership of property, every man had his own property from which he might secure that which was necessary for the support of himself and his family. There is nothing in the revelations that would indicate that this property was not freely alienable at the will of the owner. It was not contemplated that the Church should own everything or that we should become in the Church, with reference to our property and otherwise, the same kind of automaton, manikin, that communism makes out of the individual, with the State standing at the head in place of the Church.
Now, that part of a man’s property which was not turned back to him, if he had more than was needed under this rule of “equality” already stated, became the common property of the Church, and that common property was used for the support of the poor of the Church. It is spoken of in the revelations as the “residue” of property. ( D. & C. 42:34-36)
Land Portions
Furthermore, it was intended, though apparently it did not work out very well, that the poor coming into Zion, and by Zion I mean, here, Missouri-the poor coming into Zion were to have given to them a “portion” of land, which land was to be either purchased from the Government (and it was planned to purchase large areas from the Government), or purchased from individuals, or received as consecrations from members of the Church. The amount of this “portion” was to be such as would make him equal to others according to his circumstances, his family, his wants and needs.
The land which you received from the bishop by deed, whether it was part of the land which you, yourself, had deeded to the Church, or whether it came as an out-right gift from the Church as just indicated, and the personal property which you received, were all together sometimes called a “portion” (D. & C. 51:4-6), sometimes a “stewardship” ( D. & C. 104:11-12), and sometimes an “inheritance.” ( D. & C. 83 3 )
As just indicated, there were other kinds of inheritances and stewardships than land or mere personal property; for example, the Prophet and others had a stewardship given to them which consisted of the revelations and commandments (D. & C. 70:1-4 ); others had given to them a stewardship involving the printing house (D. & C. 104:29-30); another stewardship was a mercantile establishment. (D. & C. 104:39-42)
Surplus
I repeat that whatever a steward realized from the portion allotted to him over and above that which was necessary in order to keep his family under the standard provided, as already stated above, was turned over by the steward to the bishop, and this amount of surplus, plus the residues to which I have already referred, went into a bishop’s storehouse (D. & C. 51 13 and citations above), and the materials of the storehouse were to be used in creating portions, as above indicated, for caring for the poor (D. & C. 78:3), the widows and orphans ( D. & C. 83 6), and for the elders of the Church engaged in the ministry, who were to pay for what they received if they could, but if not, their faithful labors should answer their debt to the bishop. (D. & C. 72:11 ff)
Other Institutions
Now, as time went on and the system developed, the Lord created two other institutions besides the storehouse: one was known as the Sacred Treasury, into which was put “the avails of the sacred things in the treasury, for sacred and holy purposes.” While it is not clear, it would seem that into this treasury were to be put the surpluses which were derived from the publication of the revelations, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and other similar things, the stewardship of which had been given to Joseph and others. (D. & C. 104:60-66) The Lord also provided for the creation of “Another Treasury,” and into that other treasury went the general revenues which came to the Church, such as gifts of money and those revenues derived from the improvement of stewardships as distinguished from the residues of the original consecrations and the surpluses which came from the operation of their stewardships. (D. & C. 72:11 ff)
The foregoing is the general outline as it is gathered from the revelations of the law of the United Order which the Lord spoke of as “my law.” (D. & C. 44:6; 51:15) There are passages in the revelations which, taken from their context and without having in mind the whole system, might be considered as inconsistent with some of the things which I have set out, but all such passages fall into line if the whole program is looked at as contained in all of the revelations.
Private Ownership Fundamental
The fundamental principle of this system was the private ownership of property. Each man owned his portion, or inheritance, or stewardship, with an absolute title, which he could alienate, or hypothecate, or otherwise treat as his own. The Church did not own all of the property, and the life under the United Order was not a communal life, as the Prophet Joseph, himself said, (History of the Church, Volume III, p. 28). The United Order is an individualistic system, not a communal system.
The Welfare Plan and the United Order
We have all said that the Welfare Plan is not the United Order and was not intended to be. However, I should like to suggest to you that perhaps, after all, when the Welfare Plan gets thoroughly into operation-it is not so yet-we shall not be so very far from carrying out the great fundamentals of the United Order.
In the first place I repeat again, the United Order recognized and was built upon the principle of private ownership of property; all that a man had and lived upon under the United Order, was his own. Quite obviously, the fundamental principle of our system today is the ownership of private property.
In the next place, in lieu of residues and surpluses which were accumulated and built up under the, United Order, we, today, have our fast offerings, our Welfare donations, and our tithing, all of which may be devoted to the care of the poor, as well as for the carrying on of the activities and business of the Church. After all, the United Order was primarily designed to build up a system under which there should be no abjectly poor, and this is the purpose, also, of the Welfare Plan.
In this connection it should be observed that it is clear from these earlier revelations, as well as from our history, that the Lord had very early to tell the people about the wickedness of idleness, and the wickedness of greed, because the brethren who had were not giving properly, and those who had not were evidently intending to live without work on the things which were to be received from those who had property. (D. & C. 56:16-20)
Storehouses and Projects
Furthermore, we had under the United Order a bishop’s storehouse in which were collected the materials from which to supply the needs and the wants of the poor. We have a bishop’s storehouse under the Welfare Plan, used for the same purpose.
As I have already indicated, the surplus properties which came to the Church under the Law of Consecration, under the United Order, became the “common property” of the Church (D. & C. 82 18 ) and were handled under the United Order for the benefit of the poor. We have now under the Welfare Plan all over the Church, ward land projects. In some cases the lands are owned by the wards, in others they are leased by the wards or lent to them by private individuals. This land is being farmed for the benefit of the poor, by the poor where you can get the poor to work it.
We have in place of the two treasuries, the “Sacred Treasury” and “Another Treasury,” the general funds of the Church.
Thus you will see, brethren, that in many of its great essentials, we have, as the Welfare Plan has now developed, the broad essentials of the United Order. Furthermore, having in mind the assistance which is being given from time to time and in various wards to help set people up in business or in farming, we have a plan which is not essentially unlike that which was in the United Order when the poor were given portions from the common fund.
Now, brethren, the Church has made tremendous advances in the Welfare Plan. We shall have to make still greater advances. As the Message of the First Presidency said this morning, we are being told by Government officials that we face what we used to call “hard times.” If the Welfare Plan is fully operative, we shall be able to care for every destitute Latter-day Saint wherever he may be.
The Constitution
Now, I would like to say something else, brethren, again by way of counsel I shall be accused, when I do, of talking politics, and perhaps on this point I may say I do not read anonymous letters. When they come in I just throw them into the wastebasket. I only read enough of the signed scurrilous letters that are sent to know that they are scurrilous, and then they follow along. So it is useless for anyone to try to take out any personal feeling in that way.
You and I have heard all our lives that the time may come when the Constitution may hang by a thread. I do not know whether it is a thread, or a small rope by which it now hangs, but I do know that whether it shall live or die is now in the balance.
I have said to you before, brethren, that to me the Constitution is a part of my religion. In its place it is just as much a part of my religion as any other part. It is a part of my religion because it is one of those institutions which God has set up for His own purposes, and, as one of the brethren said today, set up so that this Church might be established, because under no other government in the world could the Church have been established as it has been established under this Government.
I think I would be sale in saying that my fellowship with you in the Church depends upon whether or not I accept the revelations and the principles which God has revealed. If I am not willing to do that, then I am not entitled to fellowship. Anyone else who fails to accept the revelations and the principles which God has revealed stands in precisely the same situation.
In the 101st Section of the D&C, which contains a revelation received by the Prophet in 1833, when the persecution in Missouri was at its highest, the Lord told the brethren that they should appeal for help. Then He added these verses, which I want to read to you:
According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the fights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;
That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.
Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.
And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood. (D. & C. 101:77-80)
Influence in the Americas
I suppose you brethren will all know, but I will recall it to your attention, that the Constitution of the United States is the basic law for all of the Americas, or Zion, as it has been defined by the Lord.
You brethren from Canada know that, your great British North America Act, in its fundamental principles, is based upon our Constitution, and you know that in the courts of Canada, the reports of our Supreme Court, and our Federal courts generally, are just as persuasive as the decisions of the courts of England, and even more so, where questions of constitutional law and constitutional interpretation are involved.
You brethren also know that from the Rio Grande down to the Horn there is no constitutional government except those that are rounded primarily upon our own Constitution. In Mexico the revolutionary party which more than a century and a quarter ago rebelled against the king of Spain and established a republic, copied almost verbatim, and practically overnight, our Constitution, and made it their own. Neither Mexico nor the others to the South interpret their Constitutions as we interpret ours. They have different standards and different canons of interpretation, for their fundamental system is the civil law, while ours is the common law. But the great essentials of that document, the Constitution of the United States, which God Himself inspired, is the law of Zion, the Americas.
The Law of Zion
So, brethren, I wish you to understand that when we begin to tamper with the Constitution we begin to tamper with the law of Zion which God Himself set up, and no one may trifle with the word of God with impunity.
Now, I am not caring today, for myself, anything at all about a political party tag. So far as I am concerned, I want to know what the man stands for. I want to know if he believes in the Constitution; if he believes in its free institutions; if he believes in its liberties, its freedom. I want to know if he believes in the Bill of Rights. I want to know if he believes in the separation of sovereign power into the three great divisions: the Legislative, the Judicial, the Executive. I want to know if he believes in the mutual independence of these, the one from the other. When I find out these things, then I know who it is who should receive my support, and I care not what his party tag is, because, brethren, if we are to live as a Church, and progress, and have the right to worship as we are worshipping here today, we must have the great guarantees that are set up by our Constitution. There is no other way in which we can secure these guarantees. You may look at the systems all over the world where the princiles of our Constitution are not controlling and in force, and you will find there dictatorship, tyranny, oppression, and, in the last analysts, slavery.
Allegiance
I have said enough. I believe you understand what I have said. Today, our duty transcends party allegiance; our duty today is allegiance to the Constitution as it was given to us by the Lord. Every federal officer takes an oath to support that Constitution so given. The difference between us and some of those to the South of us is this: down there, their fealty runs to individuals; here, our fealty and our allegiance run to the Constitution and to the principles which it embodies, and not to individuals.
God give us wisdom and enable us in these times of trouble and strife clearly to see our way, that we may be instrumental in sustaining the Constitution, in upholding our free institutions, our civil rights, our freedom of speech, of press, of religion, and of conscience. If we shall stand together we shall save the Constitution, just as has been foreseen, and if we do not stand together, we cannot perform this great task.
God grant that we may be true, I pray, in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
10 Things You Need to Know About High Gas Prices and Obama’s Oil Policy
Read more HERE...
The Obama Administration Has Been Held in Contempt of Court: Federal District Court Judge Martin Feldman held the Obama Interior Department in contempt of court on February 2, 2011, for dismissively ignoring his ruling to cease the drilling moratorium which the judge had previously struck down as “arbitrary and capricious.” Judge Feldman has since given the Administration 30 days to act on permits it has needlessly and purposefully delayed saying inaction was “not a lawful option.”
The Obama Administration Has Been Held in Contempt of Court: Federal District Court Judge Martin Feldman held the Obama Interior Department in contempt of court on February 2, 2011, for dismissively ignoring his ruling to cease the drilling moratorium which the judge had previously struck down as “arbitrary and capricious.” Judge Feldman has since given the Administration 30 days to act on permits it has needlessly and purposefully delayed saying inaction was “not a lawful option.”
Monday, February 14, 2011
Global Food Prices...
An interesting article in Time:
Less clear is what's actually behind the spike in food prices. Bad weather plays a major role — a devastating heat wave in Russia last summer ruined grain harvests and prompted that country to suspend exports, jolting global markets. Excessive heat in the Midwest stunted the corn crop, leading to a 5% drop in production last year. Rising demand for food — especially meat, whose production requires lots of grain and water — in the richer parts of the developing world is straining supplies. And then there's ethanol, the production of which sucks up grain and cropland that could be used for food. In America, 40% of the corn crop is currently diverted to make fuel for cars. "Ethanol uses 4.9 billion bushels of corn in the U.S.," says Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, an environmental think tank. "That's enough grain to feed 350 million people." (Read "Food Prices: Up, Up and Away.")Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2048885,00.html#ixzz1Dx7doAuE
Less clear is what's actually behind the spike in food prices. Bad weather plays a major role — a devastating heat wave in Russia last summer ruined grain harvests and prompted that country to suspend exports, jolting global markets. Excessive heat in the Midwest stunted the corn crop, leading to a 5% drop in production last year. Rising demand for food — especially meat, whose production requires lots of grain and water — in the richer parts of the developing world is straining supplies. And then there's ethanol, the production of which sucks up grain and cropland that could be used for food. In America, 40% of the corn crop is currently diverted to make fuel for cars. "Ethanol uses 4.9 billion bushels of corn in the U.S.," says Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, an environmental think tank. "That's enough grain to feed 350 million people." (Read "Food Prices: Up, Up and Away.")Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2048885,00.html#ixzz1Dx7doAuE
Gay Marriages to be allowed in Church...
The Telegraph...
Gay 'marriages' to be allowed in church
Ministers are proposing to change the law to allow homosexual couples to "marry" in traditional religious ceremonies – including in church.
Read full test HERE
Gay 'marriages' to be allowed in church
Ministers are proposing to change the law to allow homosexual couples to "marry" in traditional religious ceremonies – including in church.
Read full test HERE
Transcript of Elder Dallin H. Oaks talk at Chapman
"I speak for what Cardinal Francis George described in his address at Brigham Young University just a year ago. His title was “Catholics and Latter-day Saints: Partners in the Defense of Religious Freedom." He proposed
“that Catholics and Mormons stand with one another and with other defenders of conscience, and that we can and should stand as one in the defense of religious liberty. In the coming years, interreligious coalitions formed to defend the rights of conscience for individuals and for religious institutions should become a vital bulwark against the tide of forces at work in our government and society to reduce religion to a purely private reality. At stake is whether or not the religious voice will maintain its right to be heard in the public square."63
We join in that call for religious coalitions to protect religious freedom. In doing so we recall the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin. At another critical time in our nation‘s history, he declared:
“We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."64
In conclusion, as an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ I affirm His love for all people on this earth, and I affirm the importance His followers must attach to religious freedom for all people—whatever their beliefs. I pray for the blessings of God upon our cooperative efforts to preserve that freedom."
Read the full transcript HERE...
“that Catholics and Mormons stand with one another and with other defenders of conscience, and that we can and should stand as one in the defense of religious liberty. In the coming years, interreligious coalitions formed to defend the rights of conscience for individuals and for religious institutions should become a vital bulwark against the tide of forces at work in our government and society to reduce religion to a purely private reality. At stake is whether or not the religious voice will maintain its right to be heard in the public square."63
We join in that call for religious coalitions to protect religious freedom. In doing so we recall the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin. At another critical time in our nation‘s history, he declared:
“We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."64
In conclusion, as an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ I affirm His love for all people on this earth, and I affirm the importance His followers must attach to religious freedom for all people—whatever their beliefs. I pray for the blessings of God upon our cooperative efforts to preserve that freedom."
Read the full transcript HERE...
Monday, January 31, 2011
Utah Homemakers for America Lincoln's Lesson: The Value of Work
Theoretically, after President Clinton and Newt Gingrich’s Republican congress reformed welfare, one could only receive benefits for 5 years. This made a big difference for people and for the economy. The reforms were a good thing. However, in the interest of compassion, there are exceptions/loopholes meant to make sure that we help the truly needy. Unfortunately, they are abused. How?
"It depends on how committed one is to staying on welfare. The first wave is to have kids and be poor. In theory, you have 5 years of the dole for that. If you can get a physician to give you a phantom illness diagnosis, you can get disability payments forever (mental disorders are harder for the government to disprove...as are back injuries). Another tact is to do a terrible job raising your kids, so that they appear to have severe Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder...and apply for them to get disability. That can go on until the youngest one is 18." (Annon., Licensed Clinical Social Worker...and eyewitness.)
Recently an article appeared in the UK Daily Mail with some truly stunning claims. "269,000 homes are occupied by adults who do nothing and have never done anything to support themselves, the ONS said. The figure is just under double the 136,000 homes where the occupants had never worked recorded in Tony Blair’s election victory year of 1997."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350726/UK-unemployment-500k-adults-worked-jobless-homes-double-Labour.html#ixzz1CcvXZdas
Another article in the Mail makes this claim, "...almost 1.8million children, one in seven of all under 16s, growing up in households entirely dependent on state handouts."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-469369/Six-million-Britons-living-households-works.html#ixzz1CcxpecDM
I wasn’t able to find statistics about how many children in the U.S. live in homes where parents have never held a job. There are many statistics about how many poor there are, but none that I could find about efforts put forward by the victims of poverty. The long cherished American standard of fairness has become an entitlement mentality. Watch a short, but fascinating debate here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GklCBvS-eI
Why do so many choose this life? I’m not sure. But, I know that our current welfare policies reward failure and when one does just a little bit better, one is punished. Even our tax policies are structured in a way that punishes achievement. 47% of American families effectively pay no federal tax. Those who make below a certain amount can qualify for Earned Income Tax Credit, (a program where the government taxes the poor and then gives them their money back.. which costs the actual tax payers millions a kind of monetary attrition where the original dollar is worth much less than the dollar in the end process. Government does not have the ability to add value.)
EITC is a program where you get money back from the government for simply being among the group the government has deemed "the working poor". But, if you make above a certain amount that EITC quickly disappears. And, you are actually paying taxes. The more you succeed, the higher percentage of the government’s bill you are expected to pay. If you happen to be one of the lucky few who succeeds into the top 1% of income earners in the United States, you will be paying nearly 40% of the government’s bill.
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
Utah Homemakers Believes: Each member of the human race possesses an intrinsic dignity with a right to freedom and self-determination. We uphold the principles of work, education, and industry as crucial elements of self-determination and the preservation of human dignity. Therefore, we encourage welfare services that promote the development of self-reliance. We support humanitarian efforts of compassion to provide for the basic needs of citizens in times of hardship and persuade all social institutions to support individuals in their quest for self-determination and employment opportunities.
What is the answer to caring for the poor and those who are unemployed? A flat tax? Maybe. But, whatever the answer is, it is something that promotes the dignity of work and self reliance. I was interested to see how one of our most beloved presidents handled this problem in his own family.
A Letter From Lincoln To His Brother-In-Law
Dear Johnston:
--Your request for eighty dollars, I do not think it best to comply with now. At the various times when I have helped you a little, you have said to me, "We can get along very well now," but in a very short time I find you in the same difficulty again. Now this can only happen by some defect in your conduct. What that defect is, I think I know. You are not _lazy_, and still you _are_ an _idler_. I doubt whether since I saw you, you have done a good whole day's work, in any one day. You do not very much dislike to work, and still you do not work much, merely because it does not seem to you that you could get much for it. This habit of uselessly wasting time, is the whole difficulty; and it is vastly important to you, and still more so to your children, that you should break this habit. It is more important to them, because they have longer to live, and can keep out of an idle habit before they are in it easier than they can get out after they are in.
You are now in need of some ready money; and what I propose is, that you shall go to work, "tooth and nail," for somebody who will give you money for it. Let father and your boys take charge of things at home--prepare for a crop, and make the crop; and you go to work for the best money wages, or in discharge of any debt you owe, that you can get. And to secure you a fair reward for your labor, I now promise you that for every dollar you will, between this and the first of next May, get for your own labor either in money or in your own indebtedness, I will then give you one other dollar. By this, if you hire yourself at ten dollars a month, from me you will get ten more, making twenty dollars a month for your work. In this, I do not mean you shall go off to St. Louis, or the lead mines, or the gold mines, in California, but I mean for you to go at it for the best wages you can get close to home, in Coles County. Now if you will do this, you will soon be out of debt, and what is better, you will have a habit that will keep you from getting in debt again. But if I should now clear you out, next year you will be just as deep in as ever. You say you would almost give your place in Heaven for $70 or $80. Then you value your place in Heaven very cheaply, for I am sure you can with the offer I make you get the seventy or eighty dollars for four or five months' work. You say if I furnish you the money you will deed me the land, and if you don't pay the money back, you will deliver possession--Nonsense! If you can't now live _with_ the land, how will you then live without it? You have always been kind to me, and I do not now mean to be unkind to you. On the contrary, if you will but follow my advice, you will find it worth more than eight times eighty dollars to you.
Affectionately your brother,
A. LINCOLN.
Governments must create policies that promote achievement and self reliance rather than societal destruction. Maybe we could listen to President Lincoln’s wisdom once more.
"It depends on how committed one is to staying on welfare. The first wave is to have kids and be poor. In theory, you have 5 years of the dole for that. If you can get a physician to give you a phantom illness diagnosis, you can get disability payments forever (mental disorders are harder for the government to disprove...as are back injuries). Another tact is to do a terrible job raising your kids, so that they appear to have severe Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder...and apply for them to get disability. That can go on until the youngest one is 18." (Annon., Licensed Clinical Social Worker...and eyewitness.)
Recently an article appeared in the UK Daily Mail with some truly stunning claims. "269,000 homes are occupied by adults who do nothing and have never done anything to support themselves, the ONS said. The figure is just under double the 136,000 homes where the occupants had never worked recorded in Tony Blair’s election victory year of 1997."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350726/UK-unemployment-500k-adults-worked-jobless-homes-double-Labour.html#ixzz1CcvXZdas
Another article in the Mail makes this claim, "...almost 1.8million children, one in seven of all under 16s, growing up in households entirely dependent on state handouts."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-469369/Six-million-Britons-living-households-works.html#ixzz1CcxpecDM
I wasn’t able to find statistics about how many children in the U.S. live in homes where parents have never held a job. There are many statistics about how many poor there are, but none that I could find about efforts put forward by the victims of poverty. The long cherished American standard of fairness has become an entitlement mentality. Watch a short, but fascinating debate here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GklCBvS-eI
Why do so many choose this life? I’m not sure. But, I know that our current welfare policies reward failure and when one does just a little bit better, one is punished. Even our tax policies are structured in a way that punishes achievement. 47% of American families effectively pay no federal tax. Those who make below a certain amount can qualify for Earned Income Tax Credit, (a program where the government taxes the poor and then gives them their money back.. which costs the actual tax payers millions a kind of monetary attrition where the original dollar is worth much less than the dollar in the end process. Government does not have the ability to add value.)
EITC is a program where you get money back from the government for simply being among the group the government has deemed "the working poor". But, if you make above a certain amount that EITC quickly disappears. And, you are actually paying taxes. The more you succeed, the higher percentage of the government’s bill you are expected to pay. If you happen to be one of the lucky few who succeeds into the top 1% of income earners in the United States, you will be paying nearly 40% of the government’s bill.
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
Utah Homemakers Believes: Each member of the human race possesses an intrinsic dignity with a right to freedom and self-determination. We uphold the principles of work, education, and industry as crucial elements of self-determination and the preservation of human dignity. Therefore, we encourage welfare services that promote the development of self-reliance. We support humanitarian efforts of compassion to provide for the basic needs of citizens in times of hardship and persuade all social institutions to support individuals in their quest for self-determination and employment opportunities.
What is the answer to caring for the poor and those who are unemployed? A flat tax? Maybe. But, whatever the answer is, it is something that promotes the dignity of work and self reliance. I was interested to see how one of our most beloved presidents handled this problem in his own family.
A Letter From Lincoln To His Brother-In-Law
Dear Johnston:
--Your request for eighty dollars, I do not think it best to comply with now. At the various times when I have helped you a little, you have said to me, "We can get along very well now," but in a very short time I find you in the same difficulty again. Now this can only happen by some defect in your conduct. What that defect is, I think I know. You are not _lazy_, and still you _are_ an _idler_. I doubt whether since I saw you, you have done a good whole day's work, in any one day. You do not very much dislike to work, and still you do not work much, merely because it does not seem to you that you could get much for it. This habit of uselessly wasting time, is the whole difficulty; and it is vastly important to you, and still more so to your children, that you should break this habit. It is more important to them, because they have longer to live, and can keep out of an idle habit before they are in it easier than they can get out after they are in.
You are now in need of some ready money; and what I propose is, that you shall go to work, "tooth and nail," for somebody who will give you money for it. Let father and your boys take charge of things at home--prepare for a crop, and make the crop; and you go to work for the best money wages, or in discharge of any debt you owe, that you can get. And to secure you a fair reward for your labor, I now promise you that for every dollar you will, between this and the first of next May, get for your own labor either in money or in your own indebtedness, I will then give you one other dollar. By this, if you hire yourself at ten dollars a month, from me you will get ten more, making twenty dollars a month for your work. In this, I do not mean you shall go off to St. Louis, or the lead mines, or the gold mines, in California, but I mean for you to go at it for the best wages you can get close to home, in Coles County. Now if you will do this, you will soon be out of debt, and what is better, you will have a habit that will keep you from getting in debt again. But if I should now clear you out, next year you will be just as deep in as ever. You say you would almost give your place in Heaven for $70 or $80. Then you value your place in Heaven very cheaply, for I am sure you can with the offer I make you get the seventy or eighty dollars for four or five months' work. You say if I furnish you the money you will deed me the land, and if you don't pay the money back, you will deliver possession--Nonsense! If you can't now live _with_ the land, how will you then live without it? You have always been kind to me, and I do not now mean to be unkind to you. On the contrary, if you will but follow my advice, you will find it worth more than eight times eighty dollars to you.
Affectionately your brother,
A. LINCOLN.
Governments must create policies that promote achievement and self reliance rather than societal destruction. Maybe we could listen to President Lincoln’s wisdom once more.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Mormon Women...
Have always been encouraged to use their talents to raise good children, to create a healthy and beautiful home and to contribute to the world.
Read on the comments of a Salon Post... By Elsy11
I love this and thought I'd share...
1867: The Saints in Utah amended their constitution, removing the “Free, White, Male” requirement in order to vote. This cleared the way for both black citizens and women to vote. The U.S. Constitution would not guarantee these rights for blacks until 1870 and for women until 1920.
1868: In the October general conference, Brigham Young announced he would be sending Utah women to eastern universities to train as physicians. Many of the men in the medical schools were outraged and did anything they could to stop the women.
1872: The first woman to be deputized as a sheriff in the United States was an LDS woman named Ellen B. Ferguson.
1896: Martha Hughes Cannon ran for Utah State Senate on the Democratic ticket, and defeated her own husband who was running for the same seat as a Republican. She became the first woman in American history to serve as a state senator.
1953: Ivy Baker Priest, an LDS woman from Coalville, Utah, became the first woman to ever serve as U.S. Treasurer. Her signature appeared on U.S. currency from 1953 to 1961.
1972: Jean Westwood, an LDS woman from Price, Utah, became the first woman in history to serve as chairperson of the National Democratic Committee.
1981: Paula Hawkins, who was LDS, became the first woman elected to the United States Senate to accompany her husband to Washington, D.C. As a result, the long standing “Senate Wives Club” was forced to change its name to the “Senate Spouse Club.”
Read on the comments of a Salon Post... By Elsy11
I love this and thought I'd share...
1867: The Saints in Utah amended their constitution, removing the “Free, White, Male” requirement in order to vote. This cleared the way for both black citizens and women to vote. The U.S. Constitution would not guarantee these rights for blacks until 1870 and for women until 1920.
1868: In the October general conference, Brigham Young announced he would be sending Utah women to eastern universities to train as physicians. Many of the men in the medical schools were outraged and did anything they could to stop the women.
1872: The first woman to be deputized as a sheriff in the United States was an LDS woman named Ellen B. Ferguson.
1896: Martha Hughes Cannon ran for Utah State Senate on the Democratic ticket, and defeated her own husband who was running for the same seat as a Republican. She became the first woman in American history to serve as a state senator.
1953: Ivy Baker Priest, an LDS woman from Coalville, Utah, became the first woman to ever serve as U.S. Treasurer. Her signature appeared on U.S. currency from 1953 to 1961.
1972: Jean Westwood, an LDS woman from Price, Utah, became the first woman in history to serve as chairperson of the National Democratic Committee.
1981: Paula Hawkins, who was LDS, became the first woman elected to the United States Senate to accompany her husband to Washington, D.C. As a result, the long standing “Senate Wives Club” was forced to change its name to the “Senate Spouse Club.”
Friday, December 3, 2010
What's so bad about big government???
Great Article...
"“Big” isn’t usually a pejorative. There is nothing wrong with big airplanes, which can carry more people more safely and economically than can small airplanes. There is nothing wrong with a big serve in tennis, although I don’t like to see one coming at me. But there is no “right” size for airplanes or “right” speed for tennis serves, so we have no grounds for calling them “too big.” There is, however, a “right” size for government. The right size relates not to its budget or number of employees, but rather to its functions."
A must read!
"“Big” isn’t usually a pejorative. There is nothing wrong with big airplanes, which can carry more people more safely and economically than can small airplanes. There is nothing wrong with a big serve in tennis, although I don’t like to see one coming at me. But there is no “right” size for airplanes or “right” speed for tennis serves, so we have no grounds for calling them “too big.” There is, however, a “right” size for government. The right size relates not to its budget or number of employees, but rather to its functions."
A must read!
What happened to the Thanksgiving Protest that never was??
"The TSA backed down on the day before Thanksgiving by roping off most of the scanners and ceasing the pat-downs in order to thwart the passenger backlog that National Opt-Out Day would have caused. TSA denied it of course, but passengers noticed the scanners were out of commission, and long lines never materialized because passengers had nothing to opt out of."
More here...
More here...
Is flying a right?
"Scanner proponents of all persuasions claim that "there is no right to fly" and sniff, "if you don't like it, don't fly." This argument self-collapses. If flying is not a right, then there is no derivative right to security-vetted airline travel. An appeal to principle--the argument that there is an obligation to save every life regardless of practical considerations--puts them on opponents' ground. The principle of individual rights should not be abrogated by any consideration of consequences, and national security does not justify the sexual violation of citizens, even if it were effective.
In order to exercise your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you must be free to act on your own judgment in accordance with your own values. The right to pursue happiness necessarily includes the right to pursue personal or professional goals. These goals may require you to travel to another location to obtain them. Flying may be your only economically feasible means to do so.
The right to liberty includes your right to physically move about in the world in pursuit of your goals. In order to live, you must work. For many people, work requires travel by means of flying. The rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness therefore include the right to be free of interference with flying.
It is not the case that the enhanced measures do interfere with the freedom to fly. Thoughts and values belong to the individual and cannot be imposed or changed by the fiat of society. Forcibly laying a breach between one set of a person's values and another is preventing that person from pursuing his goals, because it is preventing the person from acting on the entirety of his values and judgment. You cannot reach your flight destination if you are sitting in jail or prevented from flying, and being offered an alternative that you cannot accept because it goes against your values is not a "choice," but coercion."
On the first page of this article, the author demostrates the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack in the air... Take your chances of being struck by lightening and divide them in half.
More here...
In order to exercise your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you must be free to act on your own judgment in accordance with your own values. The right to pursue happiness necessarily includes the right to pursue personal or professional goals. These goals may require you to travel to another location to obtain them. Flying may be your only economically feasible means to do so.
The right to liberty includes your right to physically move about in the world in pursuit of your goals. In order to live, you must work. For many people, work requires travel by means of flying. The rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness therefore include the right to be free of interference with flying.
It is not the case that the enhanced measures do interfere with the freedom to fly. Thoughts and values belong to the individual and cannot be imposed or changed by the fiat of society. Forcibly laying a breach between one set of a person's values and another is preventing that person from pursuing his goals, because it is preventing the person from acting on the entirety of his values and judgment. You cannot reach your flight destination if you are sitting in jail or prevented from flying, and being offered an alternative that you cannot accept because it goes against your values is not a "choice," but coercion."
On the first page of this article, the author demostrates the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack in the air... Take your chances of being struck by lightening and divide them in half.
More here...
Monday, August 30, 2010
Climate-Change Group needs REFORM???
Never was a newspaper headline so understated as this one from the WSJ today. Are we English now or something?
Here are some of the main points...
The IPCC also should establish an executive committee that includes people outside the climate-science community, and it should limit the term of its chairman to one term, the report said. The current limit of two six-year terms for the chairman "is too long," the press release about the report said.
Seems sound enough.
Then,
The reforms would aid in seeing that "due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views," according to a news release about the report issued Monday morning.
Ha! When Islamic Extremists stop blowing up stuff, when Mormons drink beef and when Jews take to ordering ham sandwiches.. In other words.. that would be renouncing their religion. It's not going to happen.
The earth is a religion to these Environmentalists who want humanity to give up the modern world and live in caves to "save the Earth" from mankind. Then, they will be able to control trillions in funds taxed away by fear mongering.
The 2007 IPCC report called climate change "unequivocal" and "very likely" caused by human activity. The IPCC shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore Jr. for its efforts on promulgating information about climate change.
Not to mention that NASA was getting its climate information from the IPCC. The critical points of Gore's film have been debunked. But, where is the apology? Where is the prize and the prize money? It should have been returned or demanded back. It's too late for the IPCC where I'm concerned. They have lost complete credibility. The IPCC doesn't need reform, it needs to be defunded and those responsible for lying to the public should be tried and prosecuted.
Here are some of the main points...
The IPCC also should establish an executive committee that includes people outside the climate-science community, and it should limit the term of its chairman to one term, the report said. The current limit of two six-year terms for the chairman "is too long," the press release about the report said.
Seems sound enough.
Then,
The reforms would aid in seeing that "due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views," according to a news release about the report issued Monday morning.
Ha! When Islamic Extremists stop blowing up stuff, when Mormons drink beef and when Jews take to ordering ham sandwiches.. In other words.. that would be renouncing their religion. It's not going to happen.
The earth is a religion to these Environmentalists who want humanity to give up the modern world and live in caves to "save the Earth" from mankind. Then, they will be able to control trillions in funds taxed away by fear mongering.
The 2007 IPCC report called climate change "unequivocal" and "very likely" caused by human activity. The IPCC shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore Jr. for its efforts on promulgating information about climate change.
Not to mention that NASA was getting its climate information from the IPCC. The critical points of Gore's film have been debunked. But, where is the apology? Where is the prize and the prize money? It should have been returned or demanded back. It's too late for the IPCC where I'm concerned. They have lost complete credibility. The IPCC doesn't need reform, it needs to be defunded and those responsible for lying to the public should be tried and prosecuted.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Amazing Grace & The War Against Organized Religion Part 1&2
Have you ever seen the movie Amazing Grace? If you haven’t, you ought. It is part of the life story of an exceptional man, William Wilberforce. For those of you who might not know his story, let me fill you in just a little. Wilberforce was an Englishman. He was a gentleman. He had money and had it maybe a bit too young. He made some of the mistakes a young man with money might make. He neglected his studies and stayed up late with friend playing cards. He was brilliant and talented and made friends easily. He became very close friends with William Pitt, the United Kingdom’s youngest Prime Minister at the age of 24. He was poised to have wealth and power and he was interested in both and in self-promotion. In 1785 (just 9 years after the signing of The Declaration of Independence), Wilberforce had some experiences that changed his life and helped him to dedicate himself to the service of God. He became an Evangelical Christian.
Through his study, he attained greater enlightenment, he came to have a broken heart and a contrite spirit. He wrote, "This [led] me to prayer and self-abasement – to penitential sorrow– to humble but earnest supplication for the promised aides of the Holy Spirit, for the sake of that Saviour who died upon the Cross to atone for our transgressions, in order to soften, to animate, to warm my dull heart." (Kevin Belmonte, Hero for Humanity: A Biography of William Wilberforce pg. 84).
This led him to overcome his fear of losing social status, power and influence by reclaiming a childhood friendship with John Newton, former slave trader turned preacher and author of the beloved hymn Amazing Grace. John Newton advised and encouraged Wilberforce to remain in Parliament assuring him that he could serve God there.
Wilberforce followed that advice. Over a period of 26 years and at great personal cost, he fought for the abolition of the Slave Trade. He was attacked and mocked. He was belittled and his relationships were strained. His patriotism was questioned. He said, "If to be feelingly alive to the sufferings of my fellow-creatures is to be a fanatic, I am one of the most incurable fanatics ever permitted to be at large." In the end without war and further bloodshed, Wilberforce won. Right won. Liberty won. God won. The Slave Trade Act was passed in 1807.
At his death a friend paid tribute to his memory, "he was great among the good and good among the great.... His disinterested, self-denying, laborious [and unceasing] efforts in [the] cause of justice and humanity... will call down the blessing of millions; and ages yet to come will glory in his memory" (Kevin Belmonte, Hero for Humanity: A Biography of William Wilberforce pg. 327).
The story of William Wilberforce as depicted in the film Amazing Grace is almost singular in our time. How rarely we see the good that religion does in civic life portrayed in film. How rarely we see in film, theater or television, the influence of God, of faith, of religion acting in the life of a man or woman to the good of others. And yet, those stories are all around us.
Like William Wilberforce, Mother Theresa changed the world in a big way. But, how many people of faith do you know that quietly change their small part of the world every day? I know a great number of these anonymous servants of God. Many of their lives would make great films and yet when I turn on the television, I don’t see these people or their likeness.
Instead, I see characters like Bart Simpson whose prayer goes like this, "Dear God, we pay for all this stuff ourselves, so thanks for nothing." I see women without chastity or modesty, men who behave like boys without character or integrity and who copulate like dogs with anyone that breathes. These are the examples our media puts in front of our children. Do they see a good marriage, a happy family, an honorable father, a sweet and tender mother? Rarely.
In his famous and important speech, Popular Culture and the War Against Standards, given at Hillsdale College in 1991, Michael Medved said, "One of the symptoms of the corruption and collapse of our national culture is the insistence that we examine only the surface of any work of art. The politically correct, properly liberal notion is that we should never dig deeper—to consider whether a given work is true, or good, or spiritually nourishing—or to evaluate its impact on society at large. Contemporary culture is obsessed with superficial skill and slick salesmanship while ignoring the more important issues of soul and substance. This is one of the consequences of the war on standards—a war that is currently being waged on three fronts: the glorification of ugliness, the assault on the family, and the attempt to undermine organized religion." http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=1991&month=02
To undermine organized religion in America is to undermine our collective conscience and our collective soul. It is the duty of organized religion to watch public policy and encourage its followers to take corrective action when public policy is at odds with God’s law. This was the intention of the builders of our nation. John Adams said, "Religion and Virtue are the only Foundations, not only of Republicanism and of all free Government, but of social felicity under all Governments and in all combinations of human Society." (John Adams to Benjamin Rush, August 28, 1811. Old Family Letters, 354.) And yet, the culture war on organized religion has achieved far too much success. That is something we must change.
End Part 1
Amazing Grace and the War Against Religion Part 2
Critics of organized religion are quick to point out instances in history like the Catholic inquisition, the bloody Protestant Reformation, the Salem Witch Trials, The Crusades and the like. The Founding Fathers were also well aware of these periods of great intolerance. However, any student of history knows that much terror and bloodshed has been committed by the intolerant and Godless. Intolerance from any singular vision can be dangerous. In his book, Knowledge & Decisions, author Thomas Sowell explains, "An ideological vision is more than belief in a principle. It is a belief that that principle is crucial or overriding, so that other principles or even empirical facts must give way when in conflict with it. The inquisition had to reject Galileo’s astronomical finding in the interests of a higher vision, as the Nazis had to reject Einstein in spite of any evidence about his theories or his individual abilities." (Thomas Sowell, Knowledge & Decisions pg.353).
Sowell explains how the Jacobins took an ideology and came to rule absolutely, "The brief rule of Jacobin intellectuals was not only despotic and bloody, but totalitarian in its pervasiveness. The very names of months and years were changed to correspond with their ideology, as were the names of streets, people, and even playing cards. Their regulations extended to friendship and marriage: each adult male had to publicly declare who his friends were, and any married couple who did not either have or adopt children within a specified time were to have their marriage dissolved and be separated by the government." (Thomas Sowell Knowledge & Decisions pg 351).
The Jacobins in their ideological tyranny murdered some 17,000 people just about two years after our Founders adopted The Bill of Rights. The First Amendment of the ten protects religion, religious diversity and diversity of ideological thought. It reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There are many that assert that this amendment is a protection for the people from religion. It is not. The founders were brilliant men of diverse religious practice and thought. They knew that religion and religious societies made for a strong nation, but that creating a state church meant factions and war. So, they protected the people not from religion, but gave us freedom OF Religion. They did not "separate church and state," but they protected the religious freedom of all Americans. Congress could not dictate what faith would be practiced by the country. In addition, the state could not dictate how religion would be practiced. The citizens were granted freedom of speech, freedom of press and freedom of assembly so that they could speak and write and assemble to worship. If they felt these rights were impeded, they were given the right to sue to reclaim those rights. Whatever, rights the First Amendment granted, it granted that Americans could worship after the dictates of their own conscious and not be stifled in their worship or belief by the majority or by some ideological tyranny.
However, in our time, those that would spread ideological tyranny have found a way around The First Amendment. Culture. Through art, literature, television and film, they have created a constant barrage of negativity towards organized religion and people of faith.
In 1992, Elder M. Russell Ballard of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints warned, "I believe he [George Washington] would have been troubled to see a time when citizens are forbidden to pray in public meetings; when people claim that "you can’t legislate morality," as if any law ever passed did not have at is heart some notion of right and wrong; when churches are called intruders when they speak out against public policy that is contrary to the laws of God; when many people reject the correcting influence of churches if it infringes on daily living ; when religion is accepted as a social organization but not as an integral part of national culture; when people bristle if churches speak in any forum except from the pulpit.
Indeed, some people now claim that the founding fathers’ worst fear in connection with religion has been realized; that we have in fact, a state-sponsored religion in America today. This new religion, adopted by many, does not have an identifiable name, but it operates just like a church. It exists in the form of doctrines and beliefs, where morality is whatever a person wants it to be, and where freedom is derived from the ideas of man and not from the laws of God. Many people adhere to this concept of morality with religious zeal and fervor, and courts and legislatures tend to support it" (Elder M. Russell Ballard, Religion in a Free Society address given 5 July 1992).
In the recent battle over Proposition 8 in California, Catholics, Mormons and other people of faith voted together twice in order to protect the traditional definition of marriage. Many, many said that the faithful had no right to speak, that organized religion has no business in the public forum. In fact, in his decision to overturn the vote of the people, Judge Walker said, "Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that... same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples..." If Judge Walker is right, then nothing can be considered immoral, everything must be morally subjective. If everything is morally subjective, how can any law stand at all?
Even if one takes extraordinary measures, it is impossible to fully protect ones family from the destructive filth in the prevailing culture. Our children must go to school, they may go with children whose parents are less careful about what their kids watch and listen to. Children are sure to hear foul language and be subjected to pornographic images and so their education at home must be more influential than their education outside the home. Those who know and love God must stand for morality and character and challenge, kindly, but challenge those who would make organized religion mute and everything morally subjective. As religious people, we need to be more active in our faith and our private charity. William Wilberforce once said, "Can you tell a plain man the road to Heaven? Certainly, turn once at once to the right and go straight forward." America has been heaven on earth, a place where we have had relative peace and great prosperity and greatest of all liberty to pursue our own happiness. Where will be if religion is banned from reminding us of the commandments and our obligations, impelling the citizens toward the greater good in society. Our Founders felt that we would only survive as a nation if we kept God’s laws. If that is so, our liberty is on the line.
Through his study, he attained greater enlightenment, he came to have a broken heart and a contrite spirit. He wrote, "This [led] me to prayer and self-abasement – to penitential sorrow– to humble but earnest supplication for the promised aides of the Holy Spirit, for the sake of that Saviour who died upon the Cross to atone for our transgressions, in order to soften, to animate, to warm my dull heart." (Kevin Belmonte, Hero for Humanity: A Biography of William Wilberforce pg. 84).
This led him to overcome his fear of losing social status, power and influence by reclaiming a childhood friendship with John Newton, former slave trader turned preacher and author of the beloved hymn Amazing Grace. John Newton advised and encouraged Wilberforce to remain in Parliament assuring him that he could serve God there.
Wilberforce followed that advice. Over a period of 26 years and at great personal cost, he fought for the abolition of the Slave Trade. He was attacked and mocked. He was belittled and his relationships were strained. His patriotism was questioned. He said, "If to be feelingly alive to the sufferings of my fellow-creatures is to be a fanatic, I am one of the most incurable fanatics ever permitted to be at large." In the end without war and further bloodshed, Wilberforce won. Right won. Liberty won. God won. The Slave Trade Act was passed in 1807.
At his death a friend paid tribute to his memory, "he was great among the good and good among the great.... His disinterested, self-denying, laborious [and unceasing] efforts in [the] cause of justice and humanity... will call down the blessing of millions; and ages yet to come will glory in his memory" (Kevin Belmonte, Hero for Humanity: A Biography of William Wilberforce pg. 327).
The story of William Wilberforce as depicted in the film Amazing Grace is almost singular in our time. How rarely we see the good that religion does in civic life portrayed in film. How rarely we see in film, theater or television, the influence of God, of faith, of religion acting in the life of a man or woman to the good of others. And yet, those stories are all around us.
Like William Wilberforce, Mother Theresa changed the world in a big way. But, how many people of faith do you know that quietly change their small part of the world every day? I know a great number of these anonymous servants of God. Many of their lives would make great films and yet when I turn on the television, I don’t see these people or their likeness.
Instead, I see characters like Bart Simpson whose prayer goes like this, "Dear God, we pay for all this stuff ourselves, so thanks for nothing." I see women without chastity or modesty, men who behave like boys without character or integrity and who copulate like dogs with anyone that breathes. These are the examples our media puts in front of our children. Do they see a good marriage, a happy family, an honorable father, a sweet and tender mother? Rarely.
In his famous and important speech, Popular Culture and the War Against Standards, given at Hillsdale College in 1991, Michael Medved said, "One of the symptoms of the corruption and collapse of our national culture is the insistence that we examine only the surface of any work of art. The politically correct, properly liberal notion is that we should never dig deeper—to consider whether a given work is true, or good, or spiritually nourishing—or to evaluate its impact on society at large. Contemporary culture is obsessed with superficial skill and slick salesmanship while ignoring the more important issues of soul and substance. This is one of the consequences of the war on standards—a war that is currently being waged on three fronts: the glorification of ugliness, the assault on the family, and the attempt to undermine organized religion." http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=1991&month=02
To undermine organized religion in America is to undermine our collective conscience and our collective soul. It is the duty of organized religion to watch public policy and encourage its followers to take corrective action when public policy is at odds with God’s law. This was the intention of the builders of our nation. John Adams said, "Religion and Virtue are the only Foundations, not only of Republicanism and of all free Government, but of social felicity under all Governments and in all combinations of human Society." (John Adams to Benjamin Rush, August 28, 1811. Old Family Letters, 354.) And yet, the culture war on organized religion has achieved far too much success. That is something we must change.
End Part 1
Amazing Grace and the War Against Religion Part 2
Critics of organized religion are quick to point out instances in history like the Catholic inquisition, the bloody Protestant Reformation, the Salem Witch Trials, The Crusades and the like. The Founding Fathers were also well aware of these periods of great intolerance. However, any student of history knows that much terror and bloodshed has been committed by the intolerant and Godless. Intolerance from any singular vision can be dangerous. In his book, Knowledge & Decisions, author Thomas Sowell explains, "An ideological vision is more than belief in a principle. It is a belief that that principle is crucial or overriding, so that other principles or even empirical facts must give way when in conflict with it. The inquisition had to reject Galileo’s astronomical finding in the interests of a higher vision, as the Nazis had to reject Einstein in spite of any evidence about his theories or his individual abilities." (Thomas Sowell, Knowledge & Decisions pg.353).
Sowell explains how the Jacobins took an ideology and came to rule absolutely, "The brief rule of Jacobin intellectuals was not only despotic and bloody, but totalitarian in its pervasiveness. The very names of months and years were changed to correspond with their ideology, as were the names of streets, people, and even playing cards. Their regulations extended to friendship and marriage: each adult male had to publicly declare who his friends were, and any married couple who did not either have or adopt children within a specified time were to have their marriage dissolved and be separated by the government." (Thomas Sowell Knowledge & Decisions pg 351).
The Jacobins in their ideological tyranny murdered some 17,000 people just about two years after our Founders adopted The Bill of Rights. The First Amendment of the ten protects religion, religious diversity and diversity of ideological thought. It reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There are many that assert that this amendment is a protection for the people from religion. It is not. The founders were brilliant men of diverse religious practice and thought. They knew that religion and religious societies made for a strong nation, but that creating a state church meant factions and war. So, they protected the people not from religion, but gave us freedom OF Religion. They did not "separate church and state," but they protected the religious freedom of all Americans. Congress could not dictate what faith would be practiced by the country. In addition, the state could not dictate how religion would be practiced. The citizens were granted freedom of speech, freedom of press and freedom of assembly so that they could speak and write and assemble to worship. If they felt these rights were impeded, they were given the right to sue to reclaim those rights. Whatever, rights the First Amendment granted, it granted that Americans could worship after the dictates of their own conscious and not be stifled in their worship or belief by the majority or by some ideological tyranny.
However, in our time, those that would spread ideological tyranny have found a way around The First Amendment. Culture. Through art, literature, television and film, they have created a constant barrage of negativity towards organized religion and people of faith.
In 1992, Elder M. Russell Ballard of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints warned, "I believe he [George Washington] would have been troubled to see a time when citizens are forbidden to pray in public meetings; when people claim that "you can’t legislate morality," as if any law ever passed did not have at is heart some notion of right and wrong; when churches are called intruders when they speak out against public policy that is contrary to the laws of God; when many people reject the correcting influence of churches if it infringes on daily living ; when religion is accepted as a social organization but not as an integral part of national culture; when people bristle if churches speak in any forum except from the pulpit.
Indeed, some people now claim that the founding fathers’ worst fear in connection with religion has been realized; that we have in fact, a state-sponsored religion in America today. This new religion, adopted by many, does not have an identifiable name, but it operates just like a church. It exists in the form of doctrines and beliefs, where morality is whatever a person wants it to be, and where freedom is derived from the ideas of man and not from the laws of God. Many people adhere to this concept of morality with religious zeal and fervor, and courts and legislatures tend to support it" (Elder M. Russell Ballard, Religion in a Free Society address given 5 July 1992).
In the recent battle over Proposition 8 in California, Catholics, Mormons and other people of faith voted together twice in order to protect the traditional definition of marriage. Many, many said that the faithful had no right to speak, that organized religion has no business in the public forum. In fact, in his decision to overturn the vote of the people, Judge Walker said, "Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that... same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples..." If Judge Walker is right, then nothing can be considered immoral, everything must be morally subjective. If everything is morally subjective, how can any law stand at all?
Even if one takes extraordinary measures, it is impossible to fully protect ones family from the destructive filth in the prevailing culture. Our children must go to school, they may go with children whose parents are less careful about what their kids watch and listen to. Children are sure to hear foul language and be subjected to pornographic images and so their education at home must be more influential than their education outside the home. Those who know and love God must stand for morality and character and challenge, kindly, but challenge those who would make organized religion mute and everything morally subjective. As religious people, we need to be more active in our faith and our private charity. William Wilberforce once said, "Can you tell a plain man the road to Heaven? Certainly, turn once at once to the right and go straight forward." America has been heaven on earth, a place where we have had relative peace and great prosperity and greatest of all liberty to pursue our own happiness. Where will be if religion is banned from reminding us of the commandments and our obligations, impelling the citizens toward the greater good in society. Our Founders felt that we would only survive as a nation if we kept God’s laws. If that is so, our liberty is on the line.
Monday, July 5, 2010
To Legalize or Not...
The debate over whether or not to legalize drugs is very personal to me. My husband and I owned a condo in Salt Lake City just north of the L.D.S. Temple there. It had a big balcony and a view of the sunset. In 1995 we paid $72,000 for a fixer upper and put a lot of money and sweat equity into making it very nice inside. It was our first home.
We lived there very peacefully for about 18 months until after one Christmas I noticed that the traffic of Christmas visitors seemed to still be there, the parking lot was always full. This was different. Then, a few weeks later, my husband who was serving as a member of the condo association was called into a meeting where a state official from the Drug Enforcement Agency notified my husband that we had a major drug ring operating in our building.
I was away at a family function that evening and returned to find the building evacuated, two fire engines, and many police cars. There had been a fire, the first of what would be three serious fires. Several people were arrested on possession of drug paraphernalia and some other things. I thought that would be the end of it, but it wasn’t. That night began a battle that over several years was like a part time job that cost rather than paid almost $100,000. Eight years later, we are still paying for it.
How did living in a drug house affect my life? In every way you can imagine. During the worst of it, I didn’t really live there. My husband escorted me out of the building with my new baby in the morning and I returned when he came home. He did the laundry when I couldn’t take it to my mothers to wash there because there was only one way out of the laundry room. Going to the grocery store was frightening, but during the worst of it, when 4 units of the building were being used to cook methamphetamine, the building was full of criminals and prostitutes dangerous and armed. When arrested, the guns they had were not the kind that put a bullet in a person and if they happened to miss or hit you just right you might survive, they were the kinds of guns that would blow away a brick wall. All of the guns they had were stolen property. None of them had a permit to carry.
These people were well aware that we were watching their every move and calling the police and had hired an attorney to remove them from our building and our lives. Some would say that right there was my problem, if I wasn’t trying to put them out of their homes and separate them from their drugs all would have been well.
Not so. How is a legal burnout any better than an illegal burnout? There is no difference. Both are a drain on society. Both pose a danger to their neighbors. My daughter was 6 months old when our battle with Meth began. She was almost 4 when it ended. During the worst year, we slept in our sweats with our sneakers to either side of the bed and our daughter in between so that we could leave quickly when the next fire happened. We inhaled toxic fumes that burned in our throats and our lungs. When Methamphetamine is being cooked, it smells like an old unchanged cat’s litter box. Our building smelled like that for three years. We were never safe from fire or violence, ever.
Why weren’t these criminals simply arrested? Well, we all pay a price for liberty. And, we’ve paid some too. We can’t just say to the police, "Look the place smells like a litter box and we have scary looking people living in these 4 apartments in the building." You must have evidence and lots of it. When we were sure meth was being made, we called the police, when we saw drugs changing hands we called the police, when there were fires, we called the fire department. We organized a neighborhood watch. We hired an attorney. We went to court. Sometimes there would be arrests, but most of the time the system puts drug offenders back on the streets pretty quickly even though police literally risk their lives to make these arrests. (I would love to see a three strikes law.)
We tried to keep the flower beds and lawn nice in order to clean the place up. As soon as I planted the flowers, they would drive their trucks through the flower beds. I was threatened by prostitutes I could barely understand they were so high and so angry. My baby and I were cornered by an angry, poorly fed and wild German Shepherd that belonged to one of them because they had kick in the glass all around our mail room making it accessible to outside. It was terrifying. They broke locks constantly so that doors would remain open and when they couldn’t break the locks, they broke the doors. There was graffiti and other damage sometimes to the tune of a thousand dollars a day. Most of these criminals collected welfare and or unemployment.
They had children with them too. It was heartbreaking. A girl about two with what would have been curly golden locks were matted by cradle cap and filth always dressed in a only a diaper that was never changed. And a boy about 9, already using. I called the state, but was told that the child had to have an actual address for a social worker visit. Not that it was safe for a social worker to visit because it wasn’t. They told me that a cop could give what they called a "wild child" assessment, but the adults and the children were very good at avoiding the police, that was part of the problem.
One of the users came to our door and tried to get my husband to come to his apartment to "talk". We took it as a threat. One neighbor heard two men say outside her door that they were going to cut her body into a thousand pieces and she would be found in a black trash bag. Another single woman received threatening calls.
We became friends with some of the police officers and firefighters. They were good men and we cared about them and we saw them in very dangerous situations. We almost saw a drug dealer/user shot. It was like living in a war zone.
I am well aware than my story is not unique. In fact, it’s pretty tame compared to what people deal with in many neighborhoods, but it was and still is a personal and financial tragedy to my family. We live in a wonderful neighborhood now, in a comfortable home and I am more than grateful that we were able to clean up the building and sell our apartment with our integrity intact. I have great compassion for those who live in the shadow of drug abuse. However, my life would be a little easier if I were $100,000 richer with interest. I will never recover that money or the time stolen from us, or the happiness. We were robbed.
It is easy to say that drugs are a problem confronted by other people, by other races. But in my situation. I did not see one Hispanic and not a single Black. Most of the people we saw were White males. Some I knew to be former members of the L.D.S. Church. In another neighborhood, the racial makeup could be different I know, but I’m just telling you what I saw.
Some want to make drugs legal, claiming the war on drugs is too expensive and ineffective. Maybe there things that will make it more effective. But, I know one thing for certain, when a person uses or makes or distributes drugs, they are doing more than hurting themselves. My husband said the other night, "Peace, prosperity and wealth are just the natural consequences of honesty, integrity and industry." When we do harm to ourselves, we harm our peace our industry and our honesty greatly and we can’t help but harm our neighbors. We need to recognize the damage drugs does to our society, take them seriously and teach our children to "just say NO!"
We lived there very peacefully for about 18 months until after one Christmas I noticed that the traffic of Christmas visitors seemed to still be there, the parking lot was always full. This was different. Then, a few weeks later, my husband who was serving as a member of the condo association was called into a meeting where a state official from the Drug Enforcement Agency notified my husband that we had a major drug ring operating in our building.
I was away at a family function that evening and returned to find the building evacuated, two fire engines, and many police cars. There had been a fire, the first of what would be three serious fires. Several people were arrested on possession of drug paraphernalia and some other things. I thought that would be the end of it, but it wasn’t. That night began a battle that over several years was like a part time job that cost rather than paid almost $100,000. Eight years later, we are still paying for it.
How did living in a drug house affect my life? In every way you can imagine. During the worst of it, I didn’t really live there. My husband escorted me out of the building with my new baby in the morning and I returned when he came home. He did the laundry when I couldn’t take it to my mothers to wash there because there was only one way out of the laundry room. Going to the grocery store was frightening, but during the worst of it, when 4 units of the building were being used to cook methamphetamine, the building was full of criminals and prostitutes dangerous and armed. When arrested, the guns they had were not the kind that put a bullet in a person and if they happened to miss or hit you just right you might survive, they were the kinds of guns that would blow away a brick wall. All of the guns they had were stolen property. None of them had a permit to carry.
These people were well aware that we were watching their every move and calling the police and had hired an attorney to remove them from our building and our lives. Some would say that right there was my problem, if I wasn’t trying to put them out of their homes and separate them from their drugs all would have been well.
Not so. How is a legal burnout any better than an illegal burnout? There is no difference. Both are a drain on society. Both pose a danger to their neighbors. My daughter was 6 months old when our battle with Meth began. She was almost 4 when it ended. During the worst year, we slept in our sweats with our sneakers to either side of the bed and our daughter in between so that we could leave quickly when the next fire happened. We inhaled toxic fumes that burned in our throats and our lungs. When Methamphetamine is being cooked, it smells like an old unchanged cat’s litter box. Our building smelled like that for three years. We were never safe from fire or violence, ever.
Why weren’t these criminals simply arrested? Well, we all pay a price for liberty. And, we’ve paid some too. We can’t just say to the police, "Look the place smells like a litter box and we have scary looking people living in these 4 apartments in the building." You must have evidence and lots of it. When we were sure meth was being made, we called the police, when we saw drugs changing hands we called the police, when there were fires, we called the fire department. We organized a neighborhood watch. We hired an attorney. We went to court. Sometimes there would be arrests, but most of the time the system puts drug offenders back on the streets pretty quickly even though police literally risk their lives to make these arrests. (I would love to see a three strikes law.)
We tried to keep the flower beds and lawn nice in order to clean the place up. As soon as I planted the flowers, they would drive their trucks through the flower beds. I was threatened by prostitutes I could barely understand they were so high and so angry. My baby and I were cornered by an angry, poorly fed and wild German Shepherd that belonged to one of them because they had kick in the glass all around our mail room making it accessible to outside. It was terrifying. They broke locks constantly so that doors would remain open and when they couldn’t break the locks, they broke the doors. There was graffiti and other damage sometimes to the tune of a thousand dollars a day. Most of these criminals collected welfare and or unemployment.
They had children with them too. It was heartbreaking. A girl about two with what would have been curly golden locks were matted by cradle cap and filth always dressed in a only a diaper that was never changed. And a boy about 9, already using. I called the state, but was told that the child had to have an actual address for a social worker visit. Not that it was safe for a social worker to visit because it wasn’t. They told me that a cop could give what they called a "wild child" assessment, but the adults and the children were very good at avoiding the police, that was part of the problem.
One of the users came to our door and tried to get my husband to come to his apartment to "talk". We took it as a threat. One neighbor heard two men say outside her door that they were going to cut her body into a thousand pieces and she would be found in a black trash bag. Another single woman received threatening calls.
We became friends with some of the police officers and firefighters. They were good men and we cared about them and we saw them in very dangerous situations. We almost saw a drug dealer/user shot. It was like living in a war zone.
I am well aware than my story is not unique. In fact, it’s pretty tame compared to what people deal with in many neighborhoods, but it was and still is a personal and financial tragedy to my family. We live in a wonderful neighborhood now, in a comfortable home and I am more than grateful that we were able to clean up the building and sell our apartment with our integrity intact. I have great compassion for those who live in the shadow of drug abuse. However, my life would be a little easier if I were $100,000 richer with interest. I will never recover that money or the time stolen from us, or the happiness. We were robbed.
It is easy to say that drugs are a problem confronted by other people, by other races. But in my situation. I did not see one Hispanic and not a single Black. Most of the people we saw were White males. Some I knew to be former members of the L.D.S. Church. In another neighborhood, the racial makeup could be different I know, but I’m just telling you what I saw.
Some want to make drugs legal, claiming the war on drugs is too expensive and ineffective. Maybe there things that will make it more effective. But, I know one thing for certain, when a person uses or makes or distributes drugs, they are doing more than hurting themselves. My husband said the other night, "Peace, prosperity and wealth are just the natural consequences of honesty, integrity and industry." When we do harm to ourselves, we harm our peace our industry and our honesty greatly and we can’t help but harm our neighbors. We need to recognize the damage drugs does to our society, take them seriously and teach our children to "just say NO!"
Monday, May 24, 2010
The New Deal Repeated...
The New Deal Repeated...
My grandfather told me of a time when an agency of the federal government came into his small northern Utah town and slaughtered all the yearlings in order to prop up the price of beef cattle. He said, "some of my friends hadn’t had meat in over a year." The yearlings were not only slaughtered, but they were wasted when people were hungry. The idea that The New Deal was a good deal has gone on too long.
When we are facing trouble, we are afraid and anxious for someone to do something. But that isn’t always the best thing. G.K. Chesterton once wrote, "We are perpetually being told that what is wanted is a strong man who will do things. What is really wanted is a strong man who will undo things; and that will be the real test of strength."
Several scholars in three different articles in the Wall Street Journal school us on the real facts of the New Deal. For starters here is one point, "Roosevelt did famously well by one measure, the political poll. He flunked by two other meters that we today know are critically important: the unemployment rate and the Dow Jones Industrial Average. In his first inaugural address, Roosevelt spoke of a primary goal: "to put people to work." Unemployment stood at 20% in 1937, five years into the New Deal. As for the Dow, it did not come back to its 1929 level until the 1950s. International factors and monetary errors cannot entirely account for these abysmal showings." http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010281 The Great Depression is said to have lasted about 10 years, but the poor affects to the markets did not correct until the 1950's. That is a high price to pay for experimentation.
We are now 2-3 years into a deep recession and repeating bad history. Really, I believe that is the love affair with socialism that almost every generation wants to try like an experimental drug. And yet, like drugs, the outcome is a foregone conclusion.
In Roosevelt’s time, people felt that private industry was incapable of getting power to people in out of the way places, and so the government must do it. But, government does not have the ability to add value to the economy. It cannot give anything that it first does not take from the people. And so, nationalizing industry has always been a disaster.
Today there is an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. BP is having a heck of a time stopping the leak since they are required by law to drill so far from shore that the leak, almost a mile under water, is pretty difficult to stop. So, whose fault is it that the spill continues? Banks were required by government to lend to those whose credit was less than stellar. Whose fault is it that the housing market went bust? President Obama and the current congress propose more government involvement and more government solutions. They will, as they did in the 1930's further and deepen the disaster.
We have people in power who reverence The New Deal. And now, as we look at the fixes for this recession that started with President Bush and have been accelerated by President Obama, we can see that history is being repeated. Unemployment has not been reduced at all, but has risen. There are those that say unemployment numbers are much higher than being reported. Unemployment numbers don’t take into account those who have severance, those who have used up unemployment benefits, those who are under employed, or those who have given up looking.
And during this time of hardship, those who reverence The New Deal seek to expand government programs. Health care is a human right. Welfare recipients who already receive land lines via government assistance now are eligible for cell phones in 20 states. If you want to update your car, your furnace, your kitchen appliances, you just apply to a government program and the Government will fix you up.
While these programs have never been so all encompassing, they have always failed and so on a bigger scale, we know they will fail on an unprecedented scale. More importantly, they are morally wrong. " the argument of markets has its own powerful morality. It is immoral to cause unemployment by pretending that a big government policy is morally necessary. When Andrew Mellon and Calvin Coolidge put through their tax cuts in the 1920s, they made the efficiency argument that supply-siders make today: lower rates could yield, they posited, higher revenues. But they also had a moral argument: high taxes were wrong, confiscatory and illiberal, in the classical sense." http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010281
What happened after Roosevelt died having literally being elected four terms, "President for life"? "Roosevelt died before the war ended and before he could implement his New Deal revival. His successor, Harry Truman, in a 16,000 word message on Sept. 6, 1945, urged Congress to enact FDR's ideas as the best way to achieve full employment after the war. Congress—both chambers with Democratic majorities—responded by just saying "no." No to the whole New Deal revival: no federal program for health care, no full-employment act, only limited federal housing, and no increase in minimum wage or Social Security benefits. Instead, Congress reduced taxes. Income tax rates were cut across the board." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304024604575173632046893848.html
In addition to all that, a constitutional amendment (the 22nd) was ratified in 1951 that states, "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice..." To me that says that FDR was not so revered by those who knew him best.
"The main lesson we have learned from the New Deal is that wholesale government intervention can -- and does -- deliver the most unintended of consequences. This was true in the 1930s, when artificially high wages and prices kept us depressed for more than a decade, it was true in the 1970s when price controls were used to combat inflation but just produced shortages. It is true today, when poorly designed regulation produced a banking system that took on too much risk."http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123353276749137485.html
I hope our countrymen will very soon decide that The New Deal was a bad deal and leave off it’s destructive policies and ideas once and for all.
My grandfather told me of a time when an agency of the federal government came into his small northern Utah town and slaughtered all the yearlings in order to prop up the price of beef cattle. He said, "some of my friends hadn’t had meat in over a year." The yearlings were not only slaughtered, but they were wasted when people were hungry. The idea that The New Deal was a good deal has gone on too long.
When we are facing trouble, we are afraid and anxious for someone to do something. But that isn’t always the best thing. G.K. Chesterton once wrote, "We are perpetually being told that what is wanted is a strong man who will do things. What is really wanted is a strong man who will undo things; and that will be the real test of strength."
Several scholars in three different articles in the Wall Street Journal school us on the real facts of the New Deal. For starters here is one point, "Roosevelt did famously well by one measure, the political poll. He flunked by two other meters that we today know are critically important: the unemployment rate and the Dow Jones Industrial Average. In his first inaugural address, Roosevelt spoke of a primary goal: "to put people to work." Unemployment stood at 20% in 1937, five years into the New Deal. As for the Dow, it did not come back to its 1929 level until the 1950s. International factors and monetary errors cannot entirely account for these abysmal showings." http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010281 The Great Depression is said to have lasted about 10 years, but the poor affects to the markets did not correct until the 1950's. That is a high price to pay for experimentation.
We are now 2-3 years into a deep recession and repeating bad history. Really, I believe that is the love affair with socialism that almost every generation wants to try like an experimental drug. And yet, like drugs, the outcome is a foregone conclusion.
In Roosevelt’s time, people felt that private industry was incapable of getting power to people in out of the way places, and so the government must do it. But, government does not have the ability to add value to the economy. It cannot give anything that it first does not take from the people. And so, nationalizing industry has always been a disaster.
Today there is an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. BP is having a heck of a time stopping the leak since they are required by law to drill so far from shore that the leak, almost a mile under water, is pretty difficult to stop. So, whose fault is it that the spill continues? Banks were required by government to lend to those whose credit was less than stellar. Whose fault is it that the housing market went bust? President Obama and the current congress propose more government involvement and more government solutions. They will, as they did in the 1930's further and deepen the disaster.
We have people in power who reverence The New Deal. And now, as we look at the fixes for this recession that started with President Bush and have been accelerated by President Obama, we can see that history is being repeated. Unemployment has not been reduced at all, but has risen. There are those that say unemployment numbers are much higher than being reported. Unemployment numbers don’t take into account those who have severance, those who have used up unemployment benefits, those who are under employed, or those who have given up looking.
And during this time of hardship, those who reverence The New Deal seek to expand government programs. Health care is a human right. Welfare recipients who already receive land lines via government assistance now are eligible for cell phones in 20 states. If you want to update your car, your furnace, your kitchen appliances, you just apply to a government program and the Government will fix you up.
While these programs have never been so all encompassing, they have always failed and so on a bigger scale, we know they will fail on an unprecedented scale. More importantly, they are morally wrong. " the argument of markets has its own powerful morality. It is immoral to cause unemployment by pretending that a big government policy is morally necessary. When Andrew Mellon and Calvin Coolidge put through their tax cuts in the 1920s, they made the efficiency argument that supply-siders make today: lower rates could yield, they posited, higher revenues. But they also had a moral argument: high taxes were wrong, confiscatory and illiberal, in the classical sense." http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010281
What happened after Roosevelt died having literally being elected four terms, "President for life"? "Roosevelt died before the war ended and before he could implement his New Deal revival. His successor, Harry Truman, in a 16,000 word message on Sept. 6, 1945, urged Congress to enact FDR's ideas as the best way to achieve full employment after the war. Congress—both chambers with Democratic majorities—responded by just saying "no." No to the whole New Deal revival: no federal program for health care, no full-employment act, only limited federal housing, and no increase in minimum wage or Social Security benefits. Instead, Congress reduced taxes. Income tax rates were cut across the board." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304024604575173632046893848.html
In addition to all that, a constitutional amendment (the 22nd) was ratified in 1951 that states, "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice..." To me that says that FDR was not so revered by those who knew him best.
"The main lesson we have learned from the New Deal is that wholesale government intervention can -- and does -- deliver the most unintended of consequences. This was true in the 1930s, when artificially high wages and prices kept us depressed for more than a decade, it was true in the 1970s when price controls were used to combat inflation but just produced shortages. It is true today, when poorly designed regulation produced a banking system that took on too much risk."http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123353276749137485.html
I hope our countrymen will very soon decide that The New Deal was a bad deal and leave off it’s destructive policies and ideas once and for all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
