75 Comments

← Previous Page 2 of 2
  1. Brad,

    Yes, taxes are forced charity when the government takes my tax money to give to other people just because they say they need it. I have no choice in the matter.

    The argument always seems to return to the virtue of a democratic voice, that if the majority of the people vote it, it must be right. Well folks, a democracy does not always choose righteousness. Our prophet President Hinckley once taught:

    We hear much in America these days of consensus. It simply means agreement, a meeting of the minds. The doctrine is abroad that whatever bears the brand of consensus is right and good. There never was a more serious fallacy. Fifty thousand Frenchmen can be wrong, as can 50 million Americans, or 500 million Chinese. I think it was Bertrand Russell who observed that “The curse of America is conformity.”

    Consensus in matters of public and private morality is largely fruitless and often detrimental unless its roots are anchored in eternal, God-given truth. (“Caesar, Circus, or Christ,” BYU Devotional 1965, link)

    And by the way, Brad, I will never “keep quiet.”

  2. Jeremy

    I don’t know who there is left for you to vote for, Bryce. John McCain, Oct. 12, 2000, speaking at Michigan State University: “Look, here’s what I really believe: That when you are, when you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.”

    Am I to assume, then, that you and all of the brethren will be going third-party?

  3. Anonymous

    @Brad Kramer

    Taxes in a democracy are not forced charity. All taxation bills must originate in the House of Representatives, and when the government taxes the citizenry, it is because the citizenry has collectively elected to impose taxes on itself (through majority vote) and distribute that wealth (as it has since the beginning of the republic) how it sees fit.

    The government derives its powers from the people. The people can only delegate to the government powers that they have. Nobody has the right to forcibly take property from one person and give it to another. So the government cannot have the power to do so either. So while the citizenry can collectively impose taxes on itself and then use those funds to provide services to everyone in the population, they cannot justly impose a tax on themselves and then use those funds to provide services to only a portion of the population. Libraries, Fire Departments, Public Parks, etc. are available to all citizens. But when the government starts to use the taxes to give only certain groups of citizens benefits that are not equally available to others, while funding those services using money taken from the excluded others, we have to ask from where its power to do so comes? Does the ends justify the means?

  4. James,

    If you believe Obama’s views are in harmony with God-given truths, then go for it. I for one believe his views are in direct opposition to God-given truths, and I will do my best to voice my opinion about it.

  5. Phillip Garding

    This discussion reminds me of a friend who showed me to G.A. quotes from the early 1900’s about how public schools are bad because we need inspired and righteous teachers. That is all well and good for the members of the church, but what about educating the other 90% of the American children? Voluntary, private charities do great work and we should support them, but they have never and will never have the resources to address the degree of poverty in the world. I have no doubt that the poor in our country are far better off because of controlled government welfare programs than they would be without them.

    Just because an Apostle made a statement does not mean it was inspired. Did ETB ever claim that his opinions were revelation? Apostles have personal opinions, just like everyone else, and they can be wrong, just like everyone else. Unless a prophet says that it was revealed by the Lord, it is (usually) good advice, but obedience to that statement is NOT binding on anyone.

  6. Jeremy

    Bryce,

    Will you be voting for McCain/Palin, then? If so, how do you reconcile the statements you’ve been using from ETB with McCain’s initial opposition to the Bush tax cuts, Alaska’s socialized natural resources, etc. (not to mention the numerous other matters in their private lives and public positions that could arguably fall “in direct opposition to God-given truths” in other areas)?

  7. Brad,

    Charity can’t be forced or it is not charity! What part of that sentence don’t you understand?

    Politicians can advocate and encourage charity till they are blue in the face, and it is all right and good. Prophets and apostles do the same. But as soon as they legislate it it has turned into something completely different than charity, and takes away God-given liberties. Lucifer too wanted forced obedience, but it was by sacrificing agency, and look where it got him. An offering, a donation, an act of charity, can never be forced. As soon as the government socializes economic welfare, we are running into the same trap Lucifer gave in the beginning.

  8. NOYDMB

    I like how the libs from BCC not only ban conservatives from BCC, but they come to their conservative blogs and try to silence them here.

    You’re not a fool Bryce, you see through their misdirection. Keep it up.

  9. Bryce,
    I never argued that forced charity is charity. What thread are you reading. I argued that taxation for social programs is not forced charity. That doesn’t mean it’s authentic charity either. Just good policy in moderation. Definitely not socialism, your absurd (il)logic notwithstanding.

  10. “As soon as the government socializes economic welfare, we are running into the same trap Lucifer gave in the beginning.”

    sigh…
    The reason you can’t convince anyone that you understand what you’re talking about is that you keep talking.

  11. Jeremy

    Bryce,

    Your comment at 1:34 did not explain how you reconciled the positions I mentioned, but simply stated that you had.

    You said at 1:55: “Charity can’t be forced or it is not charity! ”

    Okay, fine. Let’s not call it charity. I don’t have a problem with not calling it charity. Let’s call it “social infrastructure.”

    No one’s saying that should replace charity. Goodness.

  12. James

    “I for one believe his views are in direct opposition to God-given truths”

    I’ll admit that I don’t agree with Obama on all of his policies. In fact I’m directly opposed to a few of them. I just happen to be directly opposed to quite a few more of McCain’s policies than Obama’s.

    I used to vote for both Republicans and Democrats and never ascribed to any platform; I voted for the person, not the platform. That was before W. Because of the extreme, flagrant and abhorrent policies of the Bush administration I’ve been forced to vote against the Republicans simply to get things back to where they were. I would LOVE to be able to vote for a Republican again. But until I see one that isn’t planning to continue the same failed policies of Bush, I’ll be voting against them.

  13. Brad,

    When the government institutes social welfare programs through the tax system, it is forced charity. It is taking money from one person to supposedly give to someone else more needy. The Lord’s mode of caring for the poor and needy is through voluntary, freewill, offerings of charity. That is the Lord’s way. Forcing such charity through government institutions is not the Lord’s way, and is in opposition to it, for it makes all needy. When all become needy, then we will become a full-blown socialist nation whereby the government takes care of us all.

    Why doesn’t the government advocate setting up donation banks where people may voluntarily donate money for the care of the poor and needy? Why hasn’t that crossed their minds? That would be closer to the Lord’s way.

  14. “Why doesn’t the government advocate setting up donation banks where people may voluntarily donate money for the care of the poor and needy? Why hasn’t that crossed their minds? That would be closer to the Lord’s way.”

    Uh, take a look around you. That has crossed their minds. But the notion that the only proper thing a government can spend tax money on is its own administrative costs is a logical impossibility — what would it administer if it could only spend tax revenue on administrative costs? Your ridiculous assertions that social security, medicaid, medicare, public education, government subsidization of student loans, urban infrastructure are all luciferian evils that will end civilization are utterly disconnected from reality (as is your belief that Hugh Nibley was a democrat despite sharing your logically absurd ideas about taxation and social programs). All they illuminate is your own intelligence.

  15. Brad,

    What would it administer? Good grief. The government can do many things excluding handing a check to an individual because they are classed by the government as “poor.” That is socialism, and such practices will cause the fall of our nation. I quote Anonymous above:

    The government derives its powers from the people. The people can only delegate to the government powers that they have. Nobody has the right to forcibly take property from one person and give it to another. So the government cannot have the power to do so either. So while the citizenry can collectively impose taxes on itself and then use those funds to provide services to everyone in the population, they cannot justly impose a tax on themselves and then use those funds to provide services to only a portion of the population. Libraries, Fire Departments, Public Parks, etc. are available to all citizens. But when the government starts to use the taxes to give only certain groups of citizens benefits that are not equally available to others, while funding those services using money taken from the excluded others, we have to ask from where its power to do so comes? Does the ends justify the means?

    We’re done, particularly when comments begin to venture into ad hominem.

  16. A reader emailed me some additional teachings from President Benson, given in a BYU devotional address on September 16, 1986. In the MP3 version of the talk, Pres. Holland (now Elder Holland) said these prefacing remarks:

    President Benson has a very special message prepared for us this morning… it is being directed to the entire membership of the Church in this bi-centennial anniversary year of the U.S. Constitution. We are most pleased, and very flattered, that President Benson would use the BYU platform for such a significant message directed to the entire membership of the LDS Church. I say now for all of us, President Benson, thank you for coming. Thank you for your love for us. In return, we love and sustain you.

    Now for some of President Benson’s counsel:

    By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft, and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute money or property nor to force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will. Government is created by the people. No individual possesses the power to take another’s wealth or to force others to do good, so no government has the right to do such things either. The creature cannot exceed the creator. (“The Constitution – A Heavenly Banner,” BYU Devotional, 16 September 1986.)

  17. I just received some other great quotes from one our readers, Ferreira. Below is a letter from the First Presidency (Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., and David O. McKay) to the U.S. Treasury, dated September 30, 1941, and quoted by Elder H. Verlan Andersen in “The Great and Abominable Church of the Devil”:

    Thus, according to the gospel plan under which the Church is established and operates, the care of the widow, the orphan, and the poor, is a Church function, is a part of the brotherhood of man which underlies our whole social and religious life. As God’s children all, and as brothers and sisters in Christ, we must as a matter of spiritual responsibility and pursuant to positive divine command care for the helpless, the unfortunate, and the needy. Furthermore, it is essentially a neighbor to neighbor obligation. It is not a function of civil government. This is fundamental.

    The primary aim of this program is to provide for the material wants of faithful members of the Church who find themselves now in difficulty, to rebuild them spiritually, and to restore to them the proper concept, pride, and appreciation of American citizenship. No effort has been spared to teach the people to be self reliant, independent, to take a humble, righteous pride in being, individually and as communities, fully self supporting….

    We therefore look with sorrowing eyes at the present use to which a great part of the funds being raised by taxes and by borrowing is being put. We believe that our real threat comes from within and not from without, and it comes from the underlying spirit common to Naziism, Fascism, and Communism, namely, the spirit which would array class against class, which would set up a socialistic state of some sort, which would rob the people of the liberties which we possess under the Constitution, and would set up such a reign of terror as exists now in many parts of Europe. (link)

    Another from President Harold B. Lee:

    Now, keep in mind with all the crowding in of the socialistic reform programs that are threatening the very foundation of the Church, we must never forget what the Lord said, “that the church may stand independent above all other creatures beneath the celestial world” (D&C 78:14). Whenever we allow ourselves to become entangled and have to be subsidized from government sources—and we think that it’s the expedient way to do business in this day—or when we yield to such pressures, I warn you that government subsidies are not the Lord’s way; and if we begin to accept, we are on our way to becoming subsidized politically as well as financially. (Harold B. Lee, The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, [1996], p. 314-115)

    Thanks Ferreira!

  18. Steven Montgomery sent me a link to an article he wrote entitled “The Perfect Law of Liberty,” which is a very well-written commentary on what freedom is, and the relationship of the gospel of Jesus Christ to that freedom. I particularly agree with his comments about how we may use the “measuring rod” of agency to judge the actions of all men.

Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.