LDS Church Official Position on Issues

Reasons why the LDS Church has no official position on so many issues:

1) Contrary to popular belief, we are supposed to do a lot of thinking for ourselves. It is a slothful and not a wise servant that must be commanded in all things. The leaders of the Church do not have the time to weigh in on every single issue. The leaders give us general principles that affect multiple issues at once, and we are supposed to coolly reflect on these and the effects of government action on our lives and others and decide for ourselves. That is why we still have such disagreements between well-intentioned LDS who strive to do what is right.

2) Tax exempt status. The Church is on solid ground when it takes an official position on purely moral issues that are fairly unambiguous. When it starts to take official positions on specific acts of government in foreign affairs, welfare, taxation, etc. they are in danger of running into legal issues.

3) Better obedience comes from guidance rather than command. If they give us guiding principles which most members tend to agree with (that’s why we’re members) and we draw our own conclusions from these, it is easier to accept and obey than if they tell us something outright. Some items are ambiguous and we are supposed to be guided by the Spirit for those “close calls”.

Obama Leading the Rally toward a Socialist Nation

1. Obama pledged massive foreign aid.
2. Foreign aid is socialism - taxing one group of people to benefit another.
3. Socialism and foreign aid are not authorized in the Constitution.
4. Ergo, President Obama was pledging to do something that the Constitution does not authorize him to do.

The fact that other Presidents have done the same does not minimize the issue. Each President has taken the oath, and each is responsible for his actions in relation thereto.
Redistribution of wealth is not a guarantee of the Constitution. Compulsory charity is not part of the Constitution.
Obama is going to make it mandatory (not that it isn’t already) to take care of people, instead of being charitable, it is not compulsory. Taxes were not set up to pay for other nations, taxes are for the sole purpose of this country (and even then for specific purposes).
He made a pledge to uphold, and defend it, he broke it by pledging our support (the taxpayer) for foreign nations, social programs, etc that are not part of the Constitution.

1. It’s socialism.
2. It requires force.
3. It destroys liberty
4. It’s not in the Constitution
5. Modern day prophets have spoken out repeatedly against it.

There is one and only one legitimate goal of United Stats foreign policy. It is a narrow goal, a nationalistic goal: the preservation of our national independence. Nothing in the Constitution grants that the president shall have the privilege of offering himself as a world leader. He is our executive; he is on our payroll; he is supposed to put our best interests in front of those of other nations. Nothing in the Constitution nor in logic grants to the president of the United States or Congress the power to influence the political life of other countries, to ‘uplift’ their cultures, to bolster their economies, to feed their people, or even defend them against their enemies. (Ezra Taft Benson)

The government has no authority to boost other nations and help their people; that responsibility lies with us as individuals. Prophets have encouraged the same, for charity requires agency—something that government destroys when it becomes required.

White House website foreign policy agenda states:
“Obama and Biden will embrace the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty and hunger around the world in half by 2015, and they will double our foreign assistance to achieve that goal. This will help the world’s weakest states build healthy and educated communities, reduce poverty, develop markets, and generate wealth.”

This sounds great until you get to thinking a far more efficient delivery system would be to let Americans choose where their money goes instead of it being coerced in taxes and eventually spent with all the losses and inefficiencies of the bureaucracy. What can we do? For example, one could (by choice) donate to the humanitarian fund of your church or support micro-loans through organizations such as Kiva or any number of charities. I believe this is a far more efficient means of delivery than government programs.

“Now I tell you it is time the people of the United States were waking up with the understanding that if they don’t save the Constitution from the dangers that threaten it, we will have a change in government.” Joseph Fielding Smith CR Apr. 1950.

Barack Obama’s Inaugural Implosion

Not five minutes into his new presidency, and after having so recently sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution, President Barack Obama pledged to break it by declaring:

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds.

Now, we all know that Democrats favor socialism (as do their Republican counterparts, but the Democrats are usually more vocal about it). But to promise to defy the Constitution mere minutes after swearing to support it is a mind-blowing exercise in dictatorial arrogance that leaves me with little hope of this administration’s roadmap for “recovery and reinvestment” (in all its forms). One might wonder if Obama created a Presidential paradox by declaring he would defend the Constitution from foreign and domestic enemies and then laying out an agenda to include himself in one of those categories.

Many have concluded that the inaugural speech itself was an inspirational success, but all the pomp and circumstance (to the tune of $170 million) only serves to woo people with words in order to pacify them when it comes to scrutinizing actions and policies. People can be quite forgiving and apologetic when the person in charge is an eloquent, commanding demigod-type. Just look at Steve Jobs.

Christ taught his disciples to beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing. These wolves looked and acted like their potential prey, maintaining a convincing outward appearance realistically rivaling any of the sheep around them. But the reality was far different, a pernicious prelude to what would soon be evident: ravenous wolves striking at the right time and in the right conditions, subjecting all sheep to their personal whims.

By their fruit shall ye know them. Despite the rhetoric, the fluff, and the eloquence, few Americans truly know what Barack Obama will do. If he is willing within five minutes to promise to break his oath, every citizen should fear what he will do within five weeks or months, to say nothing of the next four years. Wolves show their true colors when the situation is right—so too do opportunistic politicians.

Time will tell who America has elected.