(WARNING - REALLY LONG POSTS)
OK, so I finally read that article from Pres. Romney. Couple of things stand out to me (my comments in the quoted text I'll try to highlight by a >):
1. The website I retrieved it from is the following:http://www.latterdayconservative.com/marion-g-romney/is-socialism-the-united-order-marion-g-romney.htmlWhich is somewhat suspect in that they definitely have an agenda. It also says:by Elder Marion G. Romney. General Conference. April 1966. Address on Socialism.
>The title of the address is "Is Socialism the United Order?" Which would make it seem like it was a talk on socialism AND the United Order, in a comparison/contrasting way... If one were to only focus on the socialism addressed in the talk it would perhaps seem very different. But again, that's to be expected of this website and their agenda. President Romney also refers to "tonight" so it must have been at a priesthood session of conference, otherwise it would have been this morning or afternoon. I can't find the talk online (the LDS.org website only goes back to 1971...) but I am willing to accept that this is a reputable copy of the talk, if you are. Since this is the first time I have read it you'll have to tell me if there's a better source or if you think it's accurate. I don't have any reason to think that these folks are purposefully trying to mislead me or anyone. There are also breaks inserted into the text which most likely were not a part of the original. This can also promote a certain agenda...
2. Pres. Romney points out:(Socialist forms and policies) 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. . . ."
>How can Pres. Romney possibly know what all socialist forms and policies advocate? I am sure that there are as many interpretations and permutations of socialism as there are of Christianity...The definition he quotes previously is from a 1951 Webster's. In 1951, cigarette smoking was being heavily promoted by authoritative and reputable sources, and asbestos was going to revolutionalize the building industry. Now we know that tobacco companies systematically covered the truth about smoking and paid off scientists and doctors to promote their agenda. My grandfather also is experiencing continual health problems due to his exposure to asbestos, which we now know to be a Class-A carcinogen... My point is that as our frame of reference evolves, and as our understanding of how things work or don't work changes, so should we. Asbestos is not for sale, and cigarettes carry warnings about how they cause health problems.
3. Pres. Romney defines the United Order as: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.
>I have no problem with that definition, especially that part about eliminating inequalities.4. He points out 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. And then some 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.
> I don't know that this must be the case. Certainly it has been the case in most socialist/communist areas. But the kibbutz model in Israel seemed to combine these ideas fairly well. I don't like the generalization that socialism is "wholly materialistic" - aren't all economic systems, including capitalism and the United Order focused on the disposition of material goods?
He says later on that: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.
> So which is it? Is it wholly materialistic, or is it somewhat materialistic and somewhat political? I would submit that it is both - a system of beliefs that dictates how we should treat each other as a society. This would seem to involve not only politics but economics as well. In fact, the only real criticism that I get out of Pres. Romney's talk is that socialism does not address religion. But maybe that's because freedom of religion is being allowed under socialism... Certainly Marx said that religion is the opiate of the masses and thus paved the way for many of the ideas that came later. But he was speaking from a frame of reference that is almost non-existant in our world. Religion is only very rarely supported by the state, whereas when Marx wrote it was almost inseperable. Further, the exchange of ideas and beliefs that has come about since the communication revolution has not rendered us all incapable of belief - just the opposite. Now I can have meaningful discussions on religious topics almost instantly with people all over the world. And that serves to strengthen my faith, not destroy it... Marx was wrong about religion (and a lot of other things, too). I would say that the United Order is also materialistic (since it determines how we control material things), political (since it is rooted in agency, freedom, and law), and religious (since all things are motivated from a love for God and our fellowmen) - all of which point to the superiority of the United Order.
(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.)
> No problems with this, either. But this doesn't seem to be an opposing point. It seems rather to go with the similarities (2) and (3) listed above. (Please note that I am editing a little for brevity. Anything I skip over probably means I concur or think the point is made elsewhere).
OK, so I finally read that article from Pres. Romney. Couple of things stand out to me (my comments in the quoted text I'll try to highlight by a >):
1. The website I retrieved it from is the following:http://www.latterdayconservative.com/marion-g-romney/is-socialism-the-united-order-marion-g-romney.htmlWhich is somewhat suspect in that they definitely have an agenda. It also says:by Elder Marion G. Romney. General Conference. April 1966. Address on Socialism.
>The title of the address is "Is Socialism the United Order?" Which would make it seem like it was a talk on socialism AND the United Order, in a comparison/contrasting way... If one were to only focus on the socialism addressed in the talk it would perhaps seem very different. But again, that's to be expected of this website and their agenda. President Romney also refers to "tonight" so it must have been at a priesthood session of conference, otherwise it would have been this morning or afternoon. I can't find the talk online (the LDS.org website only goes back to 1971...) but I am willing to accept that this is a reputable copy of the talk, if you are. Since this is the first time I have read it you'll have to tell me if there's a better source or if you think it's accurate. I don't have any reason to think that these folks are purposefully trying to mislead me or anyone. There are also breaks inserted into the text which most likely were not a part of the original. This can also promote a certain agenda...
2. Pres. Romney points out:(Socialist forms and policies) 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. . . ."
>How can Pres. Romney possibly know what all socialist forms and policies advocate? I am sure that there are as many interpretations and permutations of socialism as there are of Christianity...The definition he quotes previously is from a 1951 Webster's. In 1951, cigarette smoking was being heavily promoted by authoritative and reputable sources, and asbestos was going to revolutionalize the building industry. Now we know that tobacco companies systematically covered the truth about smoking and paid off scientists and doctors to promote their agenda. My grandfather also is experiencing continual health problems due to his exposure to asbestos, which we now know to be a Class-A carcinogen... My point is that as our frame of reference evolves, and as our understanding of how things work or don't work changes, so should we. Asbestos is not for sale, and cigarettes carry warnings about how they cause health problems.
3. Pres. Romney defines the United Order as: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.
>I have no problem with that definition, especially that part about eliminating inequalities.4. He points out 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. And then some 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.
> I don't know that this must be the case. Certainly it has been the case in most socialist/communist areas. But the kibbutz model in Israel seemed to combine these ideas fairly well. I don't like the generalization that socialism is "wholly materialistic" - aren't all economic systems, including capitalism and the United Order focused on the disposition of material goods?
He says later on that: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.
> So which is it? Is it wholly materialistic, or is it somewhat materialistic and somewhat political? I would submit that it is both - a system of beliefs that dictates how we should treat each other as a society. This would seem to involve not only politics but economics as well. In fact, the only real criticism that I get out of Pres. Romney's talk is that socialism does not address religion. But maybe that's because freedom of religion is being allowed under socialism... Certainly Marx said that religion is the opiate of the masses and thus paved the way for many of the ideas that came later. But he was speaking from a frame of reference that is almost non-existant in our world. Religion is only very rarely supported by the state, whereas when Marx wrote it was almost inseperable. Further, the exchange of ideas and beliefs that has come about since the communication revolution has not rendered us all incapable of belief - just the opposite. Now I can have meaningful discussions on religious topics almost instantly with people all over the world. And that serves to strengthen my faith, not destroy it... Marx was wrong about religion (and a lot of other things, too). I would say that the United Order is also materialistic (since it determines how we control material things), political (since it is rooted in agency, freedom, and law), and religious (since all things are motivated from a love for God and our fellowmen) - all of which point to the superiority of the United Order.
(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.)
> No problems with this, either. But this doesn't seem to be an opposing point. It seems rather to go with the similarities (2) and (3) listed above. (Please note that I am editing a little for brevity. Anything I skip over probably means I concur or think the point is made elsewhere).
Comments
One question, and don't be offended, ok? You know my curiosities. Is your stance based on the recent Obama stimulus package? Is that what brought up the discussion?
Ok, the magic password this time is, ironically, lessnesc. Lessness?? Hmmm . . . How did they know? Clearly a conspiracy in the works.