Ward Preacher Podcast Ep 151 - Being a Good Citizen While Fleeing Babylon

This week our Come Follow Me curriculum brings us to D&C 133-134.  We discuss the appendix, the role of governments, and the responsibility of citizens.  Study with me!

Anchor.fm:

Soundcloud:

https://soundcloud.com/user-961318159/ward-preacher-podcast-ep-151-being-a-good-citizen-while-fleeing-babylon?si=09d96f4c81704c37b7b100c6ccd4f697

Youtube:

Ward Preacher Podcast Ep 141 - How much to endure

This week our Come Follow Me curriculum brings us to D&C 98-101.  We talk about enduring persecution and being good citizens in corrupt governments.  Study with me!

Anchor.fm:

Soundcloud:

https://soundcloud.com/user-961318159/ward-preacher-podcast-ep-141-how-much-to-endure

Youtube:

Ward Preacher Podcast Ep 74 - Salvation isn't for everyone

This week, our Come Follow Me curriculum brings us to Mosiah 29 - Alma 4.  We discuss the shift in Nephite government and politics, as well as the lie of universal salvation.  Study with me!

Anchor.fm:

Soundcloud:
https://soundcloud.com/user-961318159/ward-preacher-podcast-ep-74-salvation-isnt-for-everyone

Youtube:

How I discovered that socialism might not be evil

One of the lines in Star Wars: Return of the Jedi that bothered me was the excuse that Obi-Wan gave to Luke after the relationship between Luke and Darth Vader was revealed:

"Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

The idea that something is true or untrue depends on our perspective has been reprehensible to me.  As a Christian conservative, I love the idea of universal general truths, and I abhor concepts such as moral relativism.  The constants of gravity does not change based on current societal trends.  The immorality of murder cannot be removed by popular vote.  Jumping into a volcano is a bad idea.  Water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen.  The United States declared independence from England in 1776.  USC beat Texas in a double-overtime football game at the Coliseum 27-24 in 2017.

These facts do not require a particular perspective, or that the observer have certain feelings.  They are objectively true.

In my youth, as I studied religion, politics, history, and science, I became more convinced of the importance of these universal truths.  One of the natural applications of this was the evil of socialism.

The idea that the government should be able to take property, without any due process, from some citizens, and give it to other citizens, is legalized theft.  I have always been opposed to the concept that any person is entitled to the property of others.  The old Marx saying from each according to his ability, to each according to his need may seem appealing in terms of helping the poor, but attributing an entitlement to unearned goods and services without providing incentives to work, produce, and earn is hazardous at best, and at worst, a major contributor to the murder, imprisonment, and tyranny seen in communist nations in the 20th century.

In the past couple years, socialism has seen a resurgence in American politics, only this time, accompanied by the ultimately meaningless adjective "democratic."  Democratic socialism is marketed with the same promises that leftist politicians have made for decades including health care and education, and with the indication that these things can be made affordable by taxing "the rich" (a group that is rarely defined specifically, and when defined, could not produce enough revenue to purchase all the promised services, even if taxed at a rate of 100%).

In the past couple years, I have struggled to understand how so many young people could get so excited about such a bad, old idea.

Of course, I saw the simplistic memes that described everything government did as "socialism."  Memes with clever captions told me that I drove on socialized roads or that I was protected by socialized fire departments and police departments, but universal health care and universal education was something else entirely.  Of course, conservative meme producers were quick to point out how disingenuous promises of "free stuff" are.  They could point to times before any income tax and demonstrate that society managed to function relatively well without socialized services.  The libertarian sentiment"taxation is theft" has become a memorable slogan, even though it is also simplistic.

People on the left have frequently pointed to corrupt corporate interests (some of which, to their credit, were legitimately bad).  Some of their pundits have suggested that capitalism itself was the culprit... that in all cases, it promoted greed... an unfair generalization.

People on the right hosted discussions where they described socialism as evil... not just an unsustainable idea, but actually evil, and in every case.  

While in the past, the universal absolute statement would have immediately appealed to me, now something seems off about the assessment.  Thinking about the concept led me to realize that the issue was more complicated than I had initially thought.  Perhaps my perspective was giving me a simplistic view of these socialist ideas, and that I could benefit from the counsel of Obi-Wan.

This sort of introspection is rarely easy.  No one likes being wrong, and questioning the philosophies that have shaped perspective could lead to uncomfortable places.  Societies have taxed their citizens by force, and have used the generated revenue to do various things (including those that I believe are necessary).  How could it be acceptable to compel participation for public good in some cases and not others?  Was it possible that I had already unconsciously given my approval for socialism?  How could this compulsion be balanced with the idea that humans have basic freedoms?

In the end, Obi-Wan was right.  The anti-socialist philosophy to which I had clung for most of my life depended greatly on my own point of view.

There is a different point of view... a context... in which socialism works.  I do not mean just some universal services that require common funding such as the military, but an actual case in which people who produce little or nothing should be entitled to the income of others who produce and earn based on their individual production.

This context is called family.  Most particularly, a family with children.

A parent, particularly a father, is obligated to work to produce not only for themselves, but for children who produce little or nothing.  A newborn baby, for example, will incur numerous expenses, and in return will produce large quantities of dirty diapers and sleep deprivation.  Toddlers are experts at turning clean clothing into dirty laundry, clean dishes into dirty dishes, and small disappointments into crises worthy of glass-shattering screeching, but of course, none of these skills are particularly marketable.  Older children may be able to help more, but certainly not enough to offset the costs of larger meals and bigger clothing sizes for their growing bodies.  Regardless of the inability of children to provide in meaningful ways, a parent who does not impart of their substance to provide food, clothing, and other tangible necessities (in addition to the emotional necessities) is criminally negligent, and in the worst case, should be compelled to provide these things.

While children do not have the capacity to fully support the financial costs of the family, they do have an obligation to help assist in basic tasks of which they are capable.  It is appropriate for parents to require their children to do chores, to tidy up after themselves, and to help one another, all without any additional compensation.  In the context of a household, the idea from each according to his ability, to each according to his need is actually a good concept.  Everyone pitches in, developing selfless motivations, to assist one another to be successful.

The goal of this implementation of socialism is to help children to become capable of production, so that when they are old enough to be free and independent, they will have received the necessary preparation.

That means that, in order for socialism to function in this context, the following things are necessary:

• The non-producers consent to the producers presiding over them
• The producers train the non-producers to become productive (as apprentices)
• The producers have close ties to the non-producers for whom they are obligated to provide
• The non-producers have natural incentives to become producers

This also means that in larger contexts, such as the context of the United States federal government, this model cannot work:

• There is too much grey area regarding who is or is not producing and who should preside
• Apprenticeship is not practical without cooperation to that end between the non-producer and the producer
• There are no natural ties to relate non-producers to producers, which means bureaucracies are needed to assess tiers of production, bind individuals in different tiers to one another, facilitate transfers of goods and services, and to enforce compliance
• There is not any significant incentive for any tier to produce more or to improve

The other important factor that helps socialistic practices work in a family setting is love.  Mothers and fathers have natural tendencies to care for their children.  This means that, even in cases when a child cannot become a producer (e.g. children with mental and physical disabilities), there is still a motivation in parents to care for their children.  While there may be exceptions, most people would not characterize interactions with bureaucracy as "loving."  

Elder Dale G. Renlund shared that "the greater the distance between the giver and the receiver, the more the receiver develops a sense of entitlement." (April 2016 General Conference).  This idea highlights the most significant aspect of determining the success of socialistic practices: scale.

On a family scale, individuals are obligated to cooperate in love and respect for the benefit of all.  On a neighborhood scale, families should have a desire to help and serve one another, but not necessarily provide for every need.  On a city scale, resources such as police, fire departments, or sanitation should be shared.  On the state scale, highways, prisons, and other resources should be pooled.  On a national scale, the scope decreases to things that cannot be individually applied such as treaties with other nations, currency management, and defense.  On a global scale, nothing is obligated.

This is not to say that individuals or private foundations cannot voluntarily take up causes on a larger scale... it is to say that these contributions must remain voluntary.  A person who would rather contribute to the Prevent Cancer Foundation than MSF or the Red Cross should be able to do so.

Efforts to compel participation in socialism on large scales tend to have success with one of two properties:

1. The socialistic practices have limited success in some areas while they can still be propped up by the wealth generation of capitalism (which is seen with some Nordic nations)
2. The socialistic practices have limited success when the government kills and/or imprisons anyone who dissents (which could be seen in Venezuela, North Korea, the USSR, and Nazi Germany)

In either case, the consolidation of power necessary to compel participation is prone to corruption and mismanagement.  I do not like the idea of Congressional Leader Nancy Pelosi making health care decisions any more than I imagine the American left loves the thought of President Donald Trump making their health care decisions.  Additionally, the successes of these systems are unsustainable as capitalistic wealth creation is drained away.

Many proponents of socialism have their sights set on alleviating poverty on grand scales, but ultimately, individuals ought to do what they are able to make life better in their immediate vicinity.    As noble as it may be to help everyone in the world, it might be smarter to look from a closer point of view.  Take care of yourself and your family first.  As you are able, help your neighbors.  Remember the counsel of Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf, and "Lift where you stand."  

The more people give to help their own families, the better off everyone will be.

Taxing churches is wrong... and Christians should try harder to keep it that way.

Tithing is not a new idea.  Abraham gave of his increase to the High Priest Melchizedek. (Genesis 14:20)  Malachi described the refusal to pay tithing as robbing God.  (Malachi 3:8-12)  The law of Moses directed the priests to eat from the offerings of the congregation. (Leviticus 6:26)

In the New Testament, members of the church laid the proceeds from their possessions at the feet of the Apostles.  (Acts 4:34-37)  The practice was important enough that when it was not adhered to in honesty, divine consequences.  (Acts 5:1-11)  Frequently, missionaries and other traveling authorities were asked to travel without "purse or scrip." (Mark 6:8)  In later reports, Christ's Apostles confirmed that they had lacked for nothing in these conditions.  (Luke 22:35)  This could only have been possible because of the contributions of members who desired to help the Kingdom of God according to their faith.

There are numerous examples of people who have been blessed tremendously when they have given of their substance to support the temporal needs of God's priests, prophets, and servants.  The widow of Zarephath who gave to Elijah was blessed with enough food to endure the drought in Israel.  (1 Kings 17)  The Nephites who lived in the Christian utopia after his arrival in America completely alleviated poverty because they gave of themselves.  (4 Nephi 1:1-3)

Unfortunately, Christians (and many who masquerade as Christians) have in many cases abused this time-honored tradition.  

These abuses have not gone unnoticed by secularists.  In a spectacular stunt, John Oliver of HBO's Last Week Tonight created his own church called "Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption." (http://www.ourladyofperpetualexemption.com)  In doing so, he demonstrated the ease with which he could obtain donations from supporters, and be free from taxation because these donations were made to a "church."

While the idea was ridiculous, it was sadly not far from the schemes of some "televangelists" who promise their supporters blessings for making contributions to their "churches," when they are actually spending the money on luxurious lifestyles.  Because these contributions are made to churches, they are protected from taxation under the first amendment.

These practices have inspired many secularists to call for the taxation of churches.  The reasoning is that any institution that collects money and operates like a business should be subject to taxing power of the government like any other business.

On the surface, this argument may seem reasonable.  It appeals to the natural sense of fairness that most people embrace by suggesting that all organizations be treated the same.

Of course, the flaw in this thinking is that not all organizations are the same.  This is true even if at times they do similar activities.

A security company that provides armed guards for clients may perform similar activities as a military unit providing security for individuals of national concern, but a security company should not be treated the same as a military unit.  There are special characteristics of a national military force that necessitate treating these organizations differently.  Many of these characteristics are defined by the Constitution and federal law.

Similarly, religion is not the same as opinion.

The Constitution explicitly protects the rights of an individual to practice their religion... and prohibits the government from making laws that would prohibit the free exercise thereof.  (Amendment I)

The right of an individual to support a particular faith, to practice a faith, or to abstain from associations or practices based on their deeply held religious beliefs, is not just a preference... it is protected.  The right of an assembly of individuals is similarly protected.

If a person contributes of their own property to exercise religion, any law that would exact a portion of that contribution diminishes the freedom of that individual to full exercise their faith.  Imagine a tax collector taking one of the widows two mites that she wanted to give to God. (Luke 21:1-4)  Would she then have been giving all she had to God?  No... because of taxation.

Additionally, being a part of an organization does not mean that these liberties dissolve.  A person is not free to exercise their religion unless they are at work, or unless they are in a church, or unless they are in a group.  These rights persist unless there is a compelling case of direct harm.

A society that, using taxes or regulations, takes the contributions of individuals to religious organizations or for religious purposes cannot pretend they guarantee freedom of religion.

That is not to say that religious individuals and organizations do not have a responsibility to society.  The importance of religious liberty is strengthened when religious persons "promote the general welfare" and act to "secure the blessings of liberty" for themselves and their families... which are the declared purposes of the Constitution of the United States.

This may mean ensuring that funds associated with your faith are audited.  It may mean having the good judgment to know that a tear-out page in a magazine that sells prayers for you to get a new car may not be the best way to exercise your faith.  It may mean volunteering to be a part of service activities, so that more than just money is contributed.

It always means following God according to your conscience.

Society (including the secular portions of society) benefits when people regularly persuade one another to do good, and to become better.  Religious liberty (including financial religious liberty) promotes this outcome more effectively than any other freedom.

Government shutdowns and doing the church's job

Social media has been talking about the government shutdown for several days.  More conservative posts will vilify Senate Majority Leader Reid and President Obama.  More liberal posts will vilify Senator Cruz, Senator Paul, and Senator Lee.  The majority of posts in the middle will blame all of congress, and blame their apparent lack of ability to compromise.

Of course, the truth is that congress actually represents the views of the people in the United States.  The liberals were specifically elected to enact social government programs and expand the role of government in providing goods and services to individuals in lower income brackets.  Conservatives in congress were specifically elected to stop the expansion of government that has happened under both Republicans and Democrats since the 1930s.  If either side of the aisle agrees to a compromise, they will essentially be breaking the promises made to their constituents.

It is easy to say that congress is filled with people that will not compromise, but the harder truth is that the United States of America is filled with people that are polarized beyond the point of compromise.  Ideals of more government and less government are mutually exclusive.  Blaming a government of representatives returns the blame to the people who are being represented.

The real question is how did the United States get to the point where we could not agree on government?  I suggest that the root of the issue is that the government has progressively taken on more tasks that have been in the domain of religion.  Well-meaning liberals want the government to aid the poor using income from the rich.  Certainly there are tremendous gaps in the income between the wealthiest 1% and the 99% of the population below as the "occupy" movements point out.  It is not difficult to see why people feel that this is unfair, and that those who are struggling might benefit from the resources of those who are not struggling.  In the past, it was the role of churches to persuade the population that compassion for their fellow men was as critical to their well-being as it was to the well-being of those in need.  In modern times, the government passes laws to try to take more and more of the money of those in high income brackets to fund programs intended to benefit those in lower income brackets.  In other words, the state has become like a mandatory church.

Liberals have argued that if the government did not compel the wealthy to contribute to the poor, then they would not do it.  Certainly, that is possible.  A person granted freedom does not always use their freedom to make responsible decisions.  In spite of this, there exist a large number of foundations, charities, and churches that rely exclusively on the donations of generous individuals that seem to be doing fairly well.  Certainly many of the liberals who campaign enjoy fundraisers with Hollywood celebrities and benefit from voluntary donations from wealthy individuals in amounts that could help millions of struggling families.  Perhaps liberals are too quick to judge the motives of those in a position to help.

If additional motivation is an issue, government ought to ensure that religions are as free as possible to persuade people to make positive moral choices.  Throwing religion out of every aspect of government has given atheist activists great pleasure, but there are few calls from these activists to throw the government out of religion.

I suggest that not only can a more religious society better unite and provide for its citizens, it already has.

The prophet Mormon wrote of the time after Christ came to the people of ancient America and united them with religion using the following words:

"And it came to pass in the thirty and sixth year, the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face of the land, both Nephites and Lamanites, and there were no contentions and disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another. And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift... And there were no envyings, nor strifes, nor tumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor any manner of lasciviousness; and surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God. There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God."  (4 Nephi 1:2-3,16-17)

In other words, almost every problem that is currently expected to be solved by the government was solved by people leading religious lives.  Poverty was eliminated because people were generous and compassionate toward one another voluntarily.  Crime was eliminated because people were religious enough that no one desired to commit crime.

The problems that eventually made their way into this society occurred when people began to leave religion.  In the absence of motivation to make moral choices from recognizing religious authority, the people stopped making moral choices, and every vice enumerated in the passage above returned.

In the end, the solution to stalemates and arguments in government or in other aspects of life is the same as it has always been: Christianity.  If each individual could themselves be more generous, more kind, more honest, more humble, more chaste, more virtuous, and more religious... the disagreements that divide us would be less important than the moral strength that binds us.

I believe that this Utopian society is not only achievable, but inevitable.  Jesus Christ will personally reign on the earth and usher in a glorious age of peace and happiness throughout the entire world.  Of course, it is not necessary to wait for his coming before adopting the principles that make bad men good and good men better...  I invite all who come here not to postpone heeding the call of Jesus Christ:

"Yea, verily I say unto you, if ye will come unto me ye shall have eternal life. Behold, mine arm of mercy is extended towards you, and whosoever will come, him will I receive; and blessed are those who come unto me." (3 Nephi 9:14)

Wait, I thought you believed in separation of church and state...

Zack Kopplin has received attention in the past year for his efforts against creationism or intelligent design being taught in schools.  This is not all that uncommon an effort among atheist activists.  The thing that sets him apart is his attack of private schools that teach such concepts.

He has been among those that investigate the curriculum of private schools that accept government vouchers, particularly in Louisiana.  For those unfamiliar with the basic premise behind vouchers, the basic system is that any given state will spend a certain amount of money on each student.  The voucher system allows parents to take those funds and apply them toward education that meets their needs.  The goal is that even those in low-income situations will have access to choice in education instead of being forced to use public education, which is arguably less efficient in providing education.

Part of Zack's efforts are based in the claim that because these schools receive government funding in the form of vouchers, they should not be permitted to use curriculum that includes creationism or intelligent design.  Like many atheists, he argues that such teachings constitute a violation of the wall of separation between church and state, or an infringement on the beliefs of those that reject such theories.

Of course, being the ward preacher, you might guess that I have different views... and of course, you would be right.

Saying that a school which accepts vouchers is taking public funding is like saying a person who has had a tax refund has accepted public funding.  To a degree, they have.  The current progressive tax system sees to it that some people pay taxes and others receive checks in place of such taxes.  People in lower income brackets that cash refund checks or approve refund deposits have accepted public funding.  If the public interest in removing religion from sources with public funding is so important, perhaps the government should examine what they are teaching their kids in such homes to see if it is compatible with the current politically correct understanding.

To extend the analogy, a person that receives food stamps also has accepted public funding.  Perhaps a condition of accepting this funding should include that the recipient should be disallowed to affiliate themselves with a religious organization just to ensure that no public funding can possibly aid a church.  What a crime it would be if we found that food stamp recipients ever entertained (gasp) missionaries in their home... and what a greater crime it would be if said missionaries (gasp) ate a meal that such individuals had prepared.

Please do not misunderstand me, or assume that I am advocating for a state religion.  While I believe firmly that I have found a church that is led by Jesus Christ himself, I do not believe that the United States should dictate to its citizens that they should become members of it, or that the government should institute fines or other penal measures against those who are not members of it. 

Atheist activist efforts typically revolve around a liberal interpretation of "establishment of religion" in the first amendment.  Conveniently, most activists pretend that the free exercise clause does not exist, but regardless, the pair of these clauses form a metaphorical wall of separation between church and state.  (See Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists - http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html)

Having a wall of separation implies a distinct separation between the two entities.  Of course, atheist activists are anxious to ensure that Christmas, Easter, or monuments to the Ten Commandments are physically separated from government property.  Such steps are completely one-sided, and do not ensure the existence of a wall of separation, but instead a valve of separation where the state trumps the church in all cases.

Establishing a wall of separation means pulling the government out of roles that ought to be reserved for churches.  The more obvious roles include welfare and charity.  A less obvious role is education.

While the state may have an interest in having its citizens educated, it is no greater than its interest in having citizens that are charitable and benevolent.  This does not make the government the appropriate source of education any more than it makes it an effective charity or rehabilitative system.

In the same sense, the church has an interest in being protected against people that want to kill them, rob them, or otherwise prevent them from accomplishing their purposes, but that does not make churches an appropriate body for defense or law enforcement.

Particularly in a society where the government consists of the public and the public cannot come to a consensus on what curriculum should be, it makes sense to allow people to pursue curriculum that is consistent with what they believe to be important on an individual basis. 

A person that has no desire to study medicine should not be compelled to.  A person that wishes to study a completely unmarketable skill in the humanities should be free to.  Similarly, a person that wants to investigate evolutionary biology should be able to, and a person that wishes to have a biblical perspective on philosophy and life should also be able to.  The government has no business telling people what they need to learn.  Of course, the government can encourage people to develop specific skills that are appropriate for government applications such as law and agriculture, the same way that businesses encourage the development of specific skills such as accounting and computer science.

Even when examining only the most effective teachers and administrators in public education systems (under some of whom I have studied), there remain concerns from religious individuals on how sex is taught, and concerns from anti-religious individuals on literature that includes biblical or religious references.  These concerns would not exist if education were emancipated from the restraints of the state.

Additionally, ethical questions are a natural part of education, and since ethical questions require understanding religious perspectives (http://wardpreacher.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-ethical-dilemmas-of-godlessness.html), it is a disservice to students to remove the option of exploring religious perspectives.  While there may be students and parents that do not wish to use such an option, should people not be able to freely decide how to study without having to invest in a public system?

If anti-religious zealots like Zack Kopplin were truly interested in maintaining a wall of separation between church and state, they would not be fighting about what to include in a public curriculum in efforts to try and remove the church from the state; they would be fighting just as hard to remove the state from the church.