“The Proper Role of Government” is an old talk from Ezra Taft Benson, given in 1968 before he became President of the Church. He knew a few things about the workings of government, having been Secretary of Agriculture under President Eisenhower. He was worried about the incursion of government into all aspects of our lives back then and its tendency to grow like cancer when unrestrained. He’d be amazed to see where we are today as we move from a Republic to a Kleptocracy. This is a critical time for our nation. I suggest the solution is not in choosing between the presidential candidates of Money Party A or Money Party B, but in pressuring our elected officials in Congress to fulfill their duties in resisting the Kleptocracy and stopping the cancerous spread of power in the hands of a few. They have the power to resist and drive real change. One Congressman, one Senator at a time – change is possible if Americans wake up.
As food for thought, here are 3 verses from scripture (Doctrine and Covenants 134) on government:
1 We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.
2 We believe 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, and the protection of life. . . .
7 We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all acitizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy.
The right and control of property in verse 2? That’s anathema to many of our politicians, who have no objection to stripping away your property for all the good causes they come up with (like, say, helping their banker baron friends or handing it to nations that don’t like us). And protection of life? The sheer horror of partial birth abortion, so vigorously supported by some politicians (even a leading candidate) as a “right” when it can be nothing else but callous murder, is a warning sign that those who rule are not just men. If one can be so callous as to allow partial birth abortion – or, unthinkable as it is, would call for killing viable babies who by chance survive an abortion attempt – how can any human being think such a person has any right to represent Americans in the halls of government?
We must urge our elected officials to stand for the fundamentals rights our freedom is based upon – respect for life, respect for property rights, and respect for freedom of conscience. All are at risk, but change is possible.
Amen Brother!
I loved when President Benson waxed political. About a week ago, I posted a short video of him talking about socialism and the slippery slope we’re on headed in its direction
“If one can be so callous as to allow partial birth abortion – or, unthinkable as it is, would call for killing viable babies who by chance survive an abortion attempt – how can any human being think such a person has any right to represent Americans in the halls of government?”
You mean.. Obama isn’t fit to be president *gasp*
“respect for property rights”,
what would this mean for mormonism?
qmch
All are at risk, but change is possible.
That ship sailed long ago. I don’t see any course left but disobedience.
I can’t wait for Romney 2012.
HI Luke,
Do you really think Romney will be any different, or any better than any of the others…just because he’s LDS. His record of committment to the people is just as concerning as McCain’s or Obama’s. We’re just not hearing about it because he didn’t get the nomination.
Catholic Defender
I don’t think that Romney will be any better just because he is LDS. I think that he is better. You cite a potential lack of commitment to the people (a few references would be good here) but I will cite a record of Romney running organizations well.
The proper test criteria for any candidates SHOULD be their support of The Constitution and adherence to principles of liberty as cited by Ezra Taft Benson and many, many others. It’s quite apparent that Mitt Romney has little respect for any of the above.
Some of the following web site is out-dated but a lot of the facts remain apropos:
http://www.knowyourrino.com/Pres08/Romney.htm
Fanatical loyalty to the duopoly of the Republicrat party needs to be strongly reconsidered. There ARE good candidates in the Libertarian Party and especially the Constitution Party.
—
nuez
“respect for property rights”,
“what would this mean for mormonism?”
Simple, it means “respect for property rights”. Even under the law of consecration.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sorry C.D. but you’re flat out wrong about Mitt which is why he lost he was a threat to the expansion of governmental power so all the candidates on both side made it their mission to demean him and try to question his record (which his record is very good if you look at it.
Mitt Romney even on 2012 will not get elected because he is the candidate we need as president and the current powers that be don’t like that fact.
Not all politicians are corrupt some really do want to serve the people and the constitution and Mitt was one of those people.
at QMCH
I assume you’re refereeing to the law of consecration which was coincidentally satopped because people didn’t show respect for private property and tried to use the language of it to justify their acts. Hence it means simply that it means nothing until such time that all men living it would be able to show respect for personal and private property even under a law that seems to go opposite. (hint it doesn’t)
Mitt… was a threat to the expansion of governmental power…
So, when exactly was he a threat to government power? Was it while he was vigorously raising government fees in Massachusetts? Or maybe it was when he raised the gasoline tax by 2 cents per gallon? Was it when he closed the door on businesses trying to get some relief from the tax burden through “loopholes”? Oh, I know! It must have been when he forced all of his State’s residents to buy health insurance coverage.
Hi Again,
RWW hit upon the point I was making. Mr. Romney’s committment to the people, and to the constitution is just as checkered as anyone else’s. Not being mormon, but traveling in mormon circles, I’ve heard a great many of your members backing Mr. Romney just because of his LDS Faith. That’s just as bad as voting for Obama because he’s black, or Clinton because she’s a woman. None of those factors make the person qualified for the job. It really is a committment to the constitution that qualifies our candidates.
Neuz brought up a good point about candidates from other parties. Ralph Nader excluded, there are other party candidates worth considering. Why is it that we don’t get a trully informed choice in our elections? We only ever hear about and from the Dem and the Rep. candidates. Why doesn’t a debate include the other parties, so that it actually is a debate. Some of those guys do have good ideas, some are way off base, but it would be nice in an election to be able to hear from them so we can decide.
Sincerely
Catholic Defender