Mitt Romney & Mormons Can’t Shake Collectivist Nature
After my recent post about Mitt Romney’s rhetoric vs. his Mormonism, I received ample comment about how I have totally misconceived the notion of Mormon Consecration versus “the evils of communism.” Nice appeal to fear, red herring, and multiple other logical fallacies put to use for sure. Though I wasn’t in any way suggesting that the history of Mormonism, the United Order, and the Law of Consecration implied that Mormons should be advocating for a form of global communism, that’s exactly the sum of the rebuttals I received, mainly from Mormon readers.
Shocking… apparently they are very sensitive about their collectivist history. I was merely suggesting that the United Order and the Law of Consecration should give Mormons, and Mormon candidates such as Mitt Romney pause before condemning statements that reflect a positive position related to a collective mentality.
In response, my Mormon readers suggested that forcing the world to live the Law of Consecration or the United Order would be in blatant violation of free agency… that in fact we all know the Devil wanted all of us to act in good will by force, and therefore my plan was synonymous with the Devil’s plan, and thus so is Barack Obama’s plan to force everyone to buy health insurance! Oh wait, Romney did that too!
I have something to say about this, so that not only current generations will judge rightfully so, but so that my posterity will be free of judgment from these Pharisees among my own Mormon faith. If you think forcing collectivism is equivalent to Satan’s plan, what do you think about forcing me to pay taxes to fund fraudulent wars around the world for Capitalist gain? Beyond that, what about my free agency when it comes to paying any taxes for any reason what so ever? Is the Mormon Church against all forms of taxation because they force me to contribute to the betterment of the collective whole, regardless of the purpose?
That can’t be right! The Constitution, after all, was inspired by God! God forbid it give Congress the right to levy taxes!
Statements by the brethren in the 1950s against communism, drawing stark contrast between communism and the United Order are clearly understandable considering the times, and the effort to bring Mormonism into the mainstream. Even Mitt Romney’s 1st cousin once removed spoke about this as an Apostle of the Church. Let’s not kid ourselves that Marion G. Romney was actually suggesting taxes were a violation of free agency.
The suggestion that forcing members of our democratic society to pay more taxes to provide for the needy among us is equivalent to “communism” is laughable. That is to suggest taxation itself is a form of communism. That is to suggest that Mitt Romney’s own health care law passed in Massachusetts is itself inspired by Satan. Let’s get real and stop propagating conservative ideology as religious dogma! It is absurd and ridiculous, and it is holding out an entire religion as a political ideology untrue to its own foundations. Amen.
|
Justin is the publisher The Nevada View, which has earned the recognition in the Washington Post’s “Best State-Based Political Blogs,” as well as being awarded the “Most Valuable Blogger Award” by the local CBS affiliate in 2011. Justin is also an associate at the Ramirez Group in Las Vegas. Follow him on Twitter @McAffee |
14 Responses to Mitt Romney & Mormons Can’t Shake Collectivist Nature
Leave a Reply
We’re Also Here!
So Willard Mitt Romney tells us that he is a success, its easy when you start with Dad’s money and dad’s contacts (kinda like Trump) and did not do it on your own, but ok, success.
Willard Mitt Romney tells us that Bain was his first success, a company without a product (unlike Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison among others who created jobs by the success of their products). What’s even funnier Bain owns “Clear Channel” who has under contract both “Rush Limbaugh” and “Glen Beck”, how do you think they will do after the election. Bain preyed on weak companies and even if these companies went into bankruptcy Bain made money (Willard still gets a check from Bain) not to mention the jobs that were outsourced or their dealings with RED CHINA, but ok maybe Willard did not know that Bain was in to that, sure, why not, right?
Willard Mitt Romney then tells us that his second success is 2002 Winter Olympics. All 2002 Winter Olympics financials have been destroyed, but ok lets take his word, success.
This is Willard Mitt Romney calling card that what our country needs now is someone like him a supposed successful business man.
So given all of Willard Mitt Romney, supposed success, don’t you expect to see an extraordinary success in his position as governor of Massachusetts, his one and only public sector job? If you look at the majority of his statements as to why he should be governor of Massachusetts, they almost mirror his current ones, mainly “I am a successful business man”. But when we look at Massachusetts, it was an ordinary mediocrity, to the point that he could only survive one term, that how good this guy was, but ok according to him he was a success.
Now he wants the top public sector job, hmmm, no not on my watch!
So wait, Mormons are secretly socialisticals, parlor-pink Bolsheviks, fellow travelors? Cool! That is ever so much more persuasive than the nervous white boys who occasional stop by!
Justin, I am an active LDS, have historically voted Democrat because I was raised to believe we have an obligation to care for the poor among us ” deserving ” or not. Here I am thinking of King Benjamin’s counsel! Also Jesus Christ’s. I have no problem with Pres. Obama’s health plan, I feel it is a good thing.
Thanks for sharing. A good friend of mine suggested to me the other day that the Book of Mormon’s message is catered to our times, obviously, and that the whole thing is a warning to members of the church about greed and possessions, having more than one needs, fine twined linens and such. Not sure how one squares the message in the Book of Mormon with an everyone for themselves society Republicans want.
I think your problem is how you classify Republicans. I don’t think it is an everybody for themselves world view. It is about individuals helping others and not the government. There is a reason why studies show Republican donations are greater than Democrats. We do believe in charity. We just don’t believe the government is very effective at charity work. In fact, they suck. Private charities, on the other hand, are usually much more capable of helping and lifting others.
As for the Law of Consecration, I think you are missing a key point. The guide to the scriptures teaches us this about the LoC: The law of consecration is a divine principle whereby men and women voluntarily dedicate their time, talents, and material wealth to the establishment and building up of God’s kingdom.
The important part is voluntary. There is nothing voluntary in taxes. I’m not saying we can’t have them or even that they are wholly bad. I’m just saying they aren’t voluntary. They are not an act of charity or compassion. I try daily to help and serve others. I donate money to worthy causes that I have researched and believe will be wise stewards of my donations. I bring meals to families in need and babysit their children. I also pay taxes. All of these things are charity except taxes.
Finally, what I really think is the biggest problem with what you are saying is that you are trying to make a big divide where there isn’t one. Most people are good. Most people are generous. Little acts of charity can be found everywhere. You try to suggest in your article and comments that only those who support government “charity” are good or compassionate. This is wrong and you are adding to the problem. There can be no middle ground if the only valuable view is your own.
I am also a Mormon, Justin, active and dedicated. I also agree with your implied assertion that Mormonism has more socialism in it than most capitalists would be comfortable with. I think the most serious problem we have in this country right now is the national debt and I support both raising taxes and cutting government spending to get it under control as soon as possible. Because I am socially conservative, however, I will vote for Mitt Romney.
Thanks for the comment. Your position is understandable. Even from the Mormon perspective, I think you can make the argument that the Constitution was inspired by God, and protects the inidivual rights of people to be treated equally under the law. Therefore same-sex marriage is the equivolent of interracial marriage, in that both should be protected rights. On abortions, there are the rights of the woman to be considered, and in any event, I don’t think you should let one issue dominate who you will vote for.
Besides, I hope you take Mitt Romney’s integrity into account. This latest ad is one of the most dishonest political attacks I’ve seen ever. Mitt tries to argue that Obama cut Medicare, which will hurt seniors. TRUTH: He cut wasteful susidies from the program that were going to providers, while preserving patient benefits at their current level. This is just so dishonest of Mitt, I am totally disgusted right now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=l4gPvToKTWU
Almost forgot. Mitt Romney was pro abortion 10 years ago when he ran for governor of Massachusets, and said he would do more for gay rights than Ted Kennedy. Any thoughts on that?
Pingback: 14 August 2012 | MormonVoices
Obama did echo Lucifer’s plan when he said in 2008 words to the effect that we will all be saved together or damned together.
Romney never said anything about Mormonism and collectivism. Furthermore, the term “collectivism” is generally not applied to voluntary relationships. For example, marriage is not normally called collectivist.
Collectivism has nothing to do with marriage… it refers to a body of people who put the collective good above the individual. That is certainly a Mormon trait, and true of consecration and the United Order. Has nothing to do with voluntary or involuntary systems. But by virtue of your citizenship (which is voluntary) you pay taxes. We use those taxes to help the needy, among other things. If you don’t like it, take a hike and go to that one country with the libertarian utopia… oh yeah that doesn’t exist!
Didn’t the Law of Consecration fail? And why?
Then we need to ask, why do we think it will be successful now?
As I see it, it’s not the raising of taxes or lowering of taxes that is wrong… it is the corrupt way that it is spent!
Mormons still covenant to live the Law of Consecration. But yes, living the United Order hasn’t been successful. However, nobody is suggesting we live the United Order here, as I expressly stated in my post. I only bring it up because one would think that the principle still applies… that we should strive as a people to give assistance to those less fortunate. Mitt Romney says he’s “not worried about the poor.”
Andrew, I would love to have a solid discussion about how we spend our tax dollars and corruption. I wish we would. Instead, Republicans are advancing an ideology of less government and more individualism. We’ve tried that, and it has never worked (see Great Depression).