LDS Church Proposed ObamaCare in 1939

[snoscythe]

One of my favorite lines: "Some persons have peculiar notions about our Government, its activities, services and costs. They look upon the cost of government as a burden upon society. Taxes are considered an evil and something to be avoided (or evaded) if possible. In reality, the expense of government is no more of a burden than the cost of telephone, transportation, or postal service."

Granted, the tax systems, rates, and structures in 1939 (and the national debt) were entirely different, but there was a top marginal rate of 79% on income taxes back then.

Page 109 also defines the socialism that the prophets warn against: "But if we want governmental services, they must be paid for; and in a capitalistic system, where individual initiative and freedom of enterprise is preserved, taxation in one form or another is the only way these expenses can be met." That statement endorses some level of governmental services and the accompanying taxes within a capitalist economy. The following statement defines socialism as a system as an alternative (meaning they left room for governmental service programs in their capitalist economy) "where the government owns and operates all forms of productive wealth."

To be sure, I am certain they would also warn against an economy where the government owns and operates most or a significant share of the the forms of productive wealth, but these chapters pretty flatly refute the idea that the Church is anti-governmental services because they have spoken out against socialism. Instead, it is pretty apparent that they are pro-governmental services of a certain ilk, as well as the taxes supporting those programs.

[jvquarterback]

I'll let you clean up that third paragraph because it isn't clear what you're trying to say.

Taxation is the only way the costs of government "services" can be met. Is that a fair summation of the quote? You'll get no argument from me. I believe president Hinckley said something similar. That's a far cry from endorsing either the service, the cost, or the compulsion to pay the cost of that service.


The difference between Taxation and the cost of any good or service offered in a free market is that you can choose not to pay without facing jail time. It isn't the cost that is the issue, it's the implied threat of noncompliance.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'd need to see a quote that says coercion is justified and in what circumstances. Like I said before that is explicit in the guidelines for war outlined in the Book of Mormon.

[snoscythe]

I'll just let those two chapters stand on their own.

To me, it's pretty clear that the Church in 1939 was supportive of certain levels of socialized services, progressive income tax schemes, etc. to the point where it offered up socialized healthcare as a good idea.

Now to be clear -- I'm not arguing in support of any of that today. These same chapters also warn about what happens when it goes too far. Our government today has become a bureaucratic monolith that is rife with corruption, and I doubt that the same arguments would be made today within our current framework.

The point is that anyone who makes broad claims that the scripture/prophets/Church/LDS principles are diametrically opposed to any and all taxes and/or socialized services is markedly oversimplifying things.

[jvquarterback]

The point is that anyone who makes broad claims that the scripture/prophets/Church/LDS principles are diametrically opposed to any and all taxes and/or socialized services is markedly oversimplifying things.

While that's true, I don't see anywhere that says the church is in support of any of those things either.

We believe in being subject to rulers (not that rulers are just). We believe in obedience to the law (even when those laws are unjust). We bear many unjust burdens, I believe, to further the Kingdom of God, which, to me, is worth any cost.

To me, it's pretty clear that the Church in 1939 was supportive of certain levels of socialized services, progressive income tax schemes, etc. to the point where it offered up socialized healthcare as a good idea.

The book isn't endorsed by the First Presidency (which you would need to show it is the church's position). That's without getting into the text which doesn't ever explicitly endorse any socialized services (I'm sorry "one of the more plausible" isn't an endorsement).

[hawkwing]

“As for me, I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism—but I find no salvation in any of them."
- Dallin H. Oaks

[snoscythe]

To me, it's pretty clear that the Church in 1939 was supportive of certain levels of socialized services, progressive income tax schemes, etc. to the point where it offered up socialized healthcare as a good idea.

The book isn't endorsed by the First Presidency (which you would need to show it is the church's position). That's without getting into the text which doesn't ever explicitly endorse any socialized services (I'm sorry "one of the more plausible" isn't an endorsement).

The official Melchizedek Priesthood Study manual for the Church doesn't reflect the Church's position at the time? Written under the direction of the Quorum of the Twelve, with the copyright held by the President of the Church at the time?

That's a stretch, but you're welcome to make it.

[jvquarterback]

To me, it's pretty clear that the Church in 1939 was supportive of certain levels of socialized services, progressive income tax schemes, etc. to the point where it offered up socialized healthcare as a good idea.

The book isn't endorsed by the First Presidency (which you would need to show it is the church's position). That's without getting into the text which doesn't ever explicitly endorse any socialized services (I'm sorry "one of the more plausible" isn't an endorsement).

The official Melchizedek Priesthood Study manual for the Church doesn't reflect the Church's position at the time? Written under the direction of the Quorum of the Twelve, with the copyright held by the President of the Church at the time?

Two things. The text doesn't endorse what you're saying it does (support of socialism). Nowhere in the text does it say the church supports government education, it only says the church would not set up an education system while the government also has one (short sighted I know because we've lost out on football recruiting because of that stance). The questions at the end of the chapters in question should be enough to illustrate that the socialist programs are not endorsed. They specifically question the morality of these forms of socialism and with no answer given how can anyone say what the church's position is?

This is not a declaration of church doctrine in the first place - it's a study manual. You know what an announcement of a position of the church is and this certainly isn't one. In certain parts of the manual there are quotes from the prophets. There aren't any quotes from any prophets (or apostles) outlining support of any aspect of socialism in either of the chapters in question.

Dr. George Steward, Dr. Dilworth Walker, and E. Cecil McGavin are great guys I'm sure but there are official first presidency statements outlining the church welfare system. That's where to look for official church doctrine though I'd be happy to read what any of the prophets or apostles have said about different aspects of socialism. Unfortunately this manual doesn't present that information.

[snoscythe]

Bro.

I never said they endorsed socialism, in fact, I expressly stated the opposite in this thread. If strawmen is the best you can muster, I'm out.

Im also not seeing you pulling out official statements from the First Presidency that contradict the study manual the Quorum of the 12 promulgated as official study manual and that the President of the Church held the copyright to.

In other words, you're not really taking this conversation anywhere other than an "agree to disagree" resolution.

[SpiffCoug]

I'm actually surprised the Church isn't more involved in education than it currently is (just a few higher education facilities, and a handful of secondary ones outside the USA).