How Do We Stop The Great Food Stamp Binge? A Look At The Mormon Welfare Program

Fox News renewed a fierce debate over how the U.S. Government takes care of its poor and needy citizens when it aired Bret Baier's special report, titled "The Great Food Stamp Binge." You can see the entire documentary below: 

This documentary is very educational. But everyone is focusing on the interview John Roberts did with a willfully unemployed and unmotivated surfer who lives a life of leisure in a very wealthy suburb of San Diego, California called La Jolla. To put La Jolla in perspective, Its the same place where Mitt Romney bought a  house that is worth $12 million.  

This surfer makes people angry for many reasons. He unabashedly admits on television that he chooses not to work despite living in San Diego's richest suburb, La Jolla. He is happy that other people are subsidizing his life style and seems to relish that fact. He is doesn't appear that he really needs the food stamps that he uses. His lifestyle is offensive for two reasons. He's accepting money from people who work hard only to have the government squander it on losers like him and he's taking the money from people that really need the help.

The Fox News documentary was designed to provoke people to debate this issue. We need to have this debate, especially when these entitlement programs are the largest driver of our national debt. This program is also pushes people to wonder if there is different approach that our government could take to help the poor and the needy. 

Actually, the answer just might be found in a Church that has its headquarters in Salt Lake City. Yes, I am talking about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, other wise known as the "Mormons." 

Ronald Reagan was a big fan of the Mormon's Welfare Program. After he taken a tour of the Church's welfare program, he made the following comment to the press: "What I think is that if more people had this idea back when the Great Depression hit, there wouldn't be any government welfare today, or need for it."  He also told his aides after the tour that, "You know, there is a program that comes very close to being the most ideal way dealing with those who are poor and unfortunate; and that is the Mormon Welfare Program."

The reason why the LDS Church has been a model for how to help the poor and the needy is because it runs their welfare program in the exact opposite way that the U.S. government does. There are no freebies. No hand outs. People are required to work or help as a condition for receiving assistance. Here's how the Mormon Welfare Program works:

The system is supported by the generous “fast offering” donations of 13 million Church members throughout the world. Mormons fast, or skip two meals each month, and give the money they would have spent on the food (and often much more) to their local Bishop. The money they give is called a “fast offering.” The bishop then uses those funds to help members of his congregation, and others, who are in need.

But it is not a handout. The bishop gives the needy individual or family assignments to work for the assistance they receive. The work might include cleaning a church building or using skills to help someone else in need.  Fulfilling these assignments helps those receiving assistance to maintain their dignity and self-respect and provides a way for them to give back.

The Church Welfare program helps both members and non-members alike. The person who requests assistance from the LDS Church works with the local Mormon ecclesiastical leader, known as a Bishop, to make sure that their needs are being met. The ecclesiastical leader also makes sure that the person has some work assignment to do as they are receiving the help that they have requested for.  

The goal of the LDS Welfare program is based on the idea of getting people who need help the immediate help they need, but then weaning them off of it and making them productive in society.  The LDS Welfare system works hard in helping as many people as they can. During the 2012 election, Brian Williams did a report about the Mormon Church. Below is a clip where they reported on the Church's Welfare program: 

Despite the massive size and scope of the welfare program, the LDS Church is very efficient and successful in helping people get back onto their feet quickly as possible: 

According to Rick Foster, who oversees a smaller storehouse in Salt Lake City along with the cannery and dairy at Welfare Square (the original site of all the church’s welfare services), people depend on the food at the storehouse for an average of three to six months. (emphasis added)

The LDS Church's Welfare program is so efficient and cost effective because it operates on the singular goal of helping people become self sufficient and reliant as soon as they can. The Church has a system in place to make sure that nothing is wasted, people get what they need and they get it quickly so that they are back on their feet again. 

In fact, the Mormon Welfare program is so efficient that it is usually the first organization on the scene after a major disaster of some kind. See John Stossel explain this below: 

Additionally, the program is also extremely effective because it has mechanisms and incentives in place to prevent people from free loading which ensure that slackers (like the La Jolla surfer) do not drain the welfare system dry. The Church does not allow for situations where food and money are doled out with no accountability.

Thus, the idea of receiving help but also being able to live a leisurely lifestyle is completely unacceptable in the Mormon program. The LDS Church would simply not tolerate nor appreciate the La Jolla surfer's attitude or thinking. You don't get to play while others are helping you. You do what you can to help yourself or pitch in to help others.  

It is clear that entitlement reform is needed in America. The LDS Church provides some good ideas on how to create a program that works on helping people who really need it in a quick, efficient and cost effective manner. The only only problem is this: Will our government actually put these ideas into practice?

For more information on the LDS welfare program: http://www.providentliving.org/

You can also make a donation to the Church's Charity program here: http://www.ldsphilanthropies.org

The Truth About Mitt Romney's Taxes & Tithes

Jason Alexander, who is famous for playing George Costanza on the television show "Seinfeld" believes that Mitt Romney won't release his tax records because he believes there may be evidence that he's cheating the LDS Church out of millions of dollars by not paying his tithing:

Its a similar claim to Harry Reid made in which he accused Mitt Romney of not paying taxes for 10 years: 

Here's the transcript of Harry Reid's astonishing accusation:

He’s refused to release his tax returns, as we know. If a person coming before this body wanted to be a cabinet officer, he couldn’t be if he did the same refusal Mitt Romney does about tax returns. So the word’s out that he hasn’t paid any taxes for ten years. Let him prove that he has paid taxes, because he hasn’t.

Jason Alexander accuses Romney of avoiding paying tithing. Harry Reid says Romney hasn't paid his taxes. 

Both claims are outright lies. 

Today Mitt Romney released a detailed report of his 2011 tax returns and Romney's trustee, whose name is Brad Malt, gives us a summary of the 2011 data:

- In 2011, the Romneys paid $1,935,708 in taxes on $13,696,951 in mostly investment income.

- The Romneys’ effective tax rate for 2011 was 14.1%.

-The Romneys donated $4,020,772 to charity in 2011, amounting to nearly 30% of their income.

-The Romneys claimed a deduction for $2.25 million of those charitable contributions. The Romneys’ generous charitable donations in 2011 would have significantly reduced their tax obligation for the year. The Romneys thus limited their deduction of charitable contributions to conform to the Governor's statement in August, based upon the January estimate of income, that he paid at least 13% in income taxes in each of the last 10 years.

Brad Malt, the trustee of the Romney family, also gives us a breakdown of the taxes paid by the Romney campaign for the last 20 years:

- In each year during the entire 20-year period, the Romneys owed both state and federal income taxes.

-Over the entire 20-year period, the average annual effective federal tax rate was 20.20%.

-Over the entire 20-year period, the lowest annual effective federal personal tax rate was 13.66%.

-Over the entire 20-year period, the Romneys gave to charity an average of 13.45% of their adjusted gross income.

-Over the entire 20-year period, the total federal and state taxes owed plus the total charitable donations deducted represented 38.49% of total AGI.

-During the 20-year period covered by the PWC letter, Gov. and Mrs. Romney paid 100 percent of the taxes that they owed.

Its clear that Harry Reid's claim that Mitt Romney hasn't paid is any taxes is a LIE. Mitt Romney has paid 100% of his taxes for the past 20 years. What's even more important is to keep in mind that if you look at the numbers more closely, Mitt Romney paid 30% in taxes rather than the 13% to 14%.

As far Seinfeld actor Jason Alexander's claim that Mitt Romney hasn't paid tithing, the LDS Church does not publicly release how much tithing any member of the LDS Church has paid. That is a matter between the Bishop and the member. Mitt Romney has said that his tithing records should remain private even though by releasing his tax records, people can figure out how much he's given in tithing. 

"Our church doesn't publish how much people have given," Romney is reportedly quoted as saying in the forthcoming edition of Parade. "This is done entirely privately. One of the downsides of releasing one's financial information is that this is now all public, but we had never intended our contributions to be known. It's a very personal thing between ourselves and our commitment to our God and to our church."

However, records show that Mitt Romney has actually paid more than 10% in tithes to the LDS Church: 

The couple’s donations to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints appear to be almost double the 10 percent tithe faithful members are asked to give to the Salt Lake City-based faith.

In addition to Romney’s direct contributions to the LDS Church, he also gave to the faith through his charity for a total of $3.07 million last year, according to his campaign. The campaign also said Friday that the Romneys have given, on average, 13.45 percent of their income annually to charity, including the LDS Church.

Jason Alexander's claim that Mitt Romney is cheating the Church of tithing funds is also NOT TRUE. Its clear that Mitt Romney has been a faithful tithing payer all along. 

For more information on the LDS practice of tithing, the LDS Newsroom gives a simple explanation on tithing and charitable donations while another official LDS website called Mormon.org explains what the Mormon Church does with these funds and why Mormons pay tithing.

Obama's Potential Strategy To Attack Mitt's Faith Won't Work

The last time there were rumors that President Obama was going to go after Mitt Romney's religion, he got slammed hard by Jon Stewart: 

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Once again, there is new speculation that Obama's surrogates plan to go after Mitt Romney's faith since none of Obama's attacks on Mitt are working:

Anyway, attacking Romney on Bain hasn't proved to be effective in any polls, but there is no reason for Obama to stop.  Again, what else does he have? Newsweek is doing its part this week by calling Romney a wimp, a la 1987. That petty insult didn't work against George H.W. Bush, but again, it shows the left is mentally exhausted. It reveals how trapped and empty it has become.

Obama will figure out a few more promises he can make to lure voters to the dole, but that has become old hat. I really believe there are meetings at the Obama campaign and at the White House (what's the difference?) where the question on the table is, "What can we give away to whom that will get us votes?" As the Obama campaign exhausts itself, having misspent money and failed with its messages too early in the election cycle, it is near the bottom of the barrel. The final 100 days are here and all Obama can do is attack — but he needs some new material.

I look for the "September surprise" to be Mormonism on trial. At first the attacks will come from marginal surrogates, then the reliable half-cocked usual suspects among Democrats in Congress.  (Somebody cue Debbie Wasserman Schultz.)  Next, a member of the left's apologencia from the MSM will write a cerebral, somber piece saying the tenets of Mormonism are fair game, and then we will be off to Slimytown. Romney will be confronted with this or that Mormon practice or theological position, the late-night comics will weigh in and Obama will have a distraction that could linger while he hopes for a break or something external to change the trajectory of the race.

However, going after Mitt Romney's faith is not a winning strategy for Obama: 

A new Pew survey released Thursday found that eight in 10 voters either are either completely “comfortable” with Romney being a Mormon or simply don’t care. White evangelicals are slightly more skeptical, but the poll found that it made no difference in how ardently they support Romney.

Further evidence indicates that attacking Mitt's faith would be a losing strategy for Obama: 

Not only do voters have huge information gaps when it comes to candidates’ religions, but they are not interested in learning more. Another Pew survey released July 24 found that only 16 percent of voters want to know more about Romney’s faith. There are a couple of explanations for that fact; voters may think they already know what candidates believe, or they might not find it particularly relevant to who they plan on voting for.

The latter is certainly the case for a large number of religious voters. Most voters surveyed say the economy is their primary issue, and other evidence suggests that Christians, Jews, and Mormons alike are more likely to vote for a candidate’s policies instead of basing their decision on his or her religion. (The same is true for other groups: immigrants, for example, consistently rate the economy as more important than immigration.) Sectarian political identification may have been alive and well in the JFK era, but it seems to have evaporated since then.

Regardless if the speculation that Obama or his surrogates will go after Mitt is true or not, its not winning strategy for Obama. Obama has unleashed all of his arsenal on Mitt and none of it has stuck. Obama might be desperate enough to try this attack on Mitt's religion just to win another term but the American people will see right through it.

Romney's Speech At Liberty University A Hit With Evangelicals And Atheists

Mitt Romney's speech at Liberty University has been well received by Evangelical leaders:

“I thought it was a really good speech,” said Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, who had backed Mr. Santorum. “He hit on the religious freedom aspect, again recognizing the shared values while acknowledging the theological differences he has with them. I think he made very clear what marriage is, and in the context of his speech, he spoke about the importance of marriage and the family, even giving a hat tip to Senator Santorum.”

“I don’t think I could have improved upon the speech,” he added.

Gary L. Bauer, president of the Christian advocacy group American Values, who had strongly pushed for Mr. Santorum, said this speech would help assuage the concerns of evangelical Christians.

“I thought it was a home run, and I think so will most values voters,” he said. “He also clearly stood for the sanctity of life, clearly stood for the traditional definition of marriage, and I think importantly, encouraged the students to be bold and stand for those kinds of values, too. I think it’s going to be hard for critics to find much in this to criticize.” 

Mitt Romney's speech helped turn those who were lukewarm about his candidacy into strong supporters for him:

His staunch opposition to same-sex marriage, which provided one of the rare political moments in the speech, is helping Romney build a bridge to evangelicals, who hopscotched from one candidate to another in the primaries while shunning the front-runner.  Phil Burress, president of Citizens for Community Values, told the Washington Post recently, “So many people were rather lukewarm toward Governor Romney and were really looking for some more tangible reasons to support him. Then lo and behold, it just fell out of the sky when Obama came out and endorsed same-sex marriage.”

Even those who are associated with Liberty University were impressed with Mitt Romney:

Romney, even as a guest, was initially treated as an outsider at Liberty. The announcement that he would be the commencement speaker prompted an uproar. A graduation Facebook page was overrun with hundreds of posts objecting to the choice.

But on Saturday, the crowd received him warmly and Jerry Falwell Jr., the son of the founder who now heads the school, called Romney “the next president of the United States.” The university presented Romney with a chair, engraved with, “There’s always room for you at our table.”

Romney’s message struck the right chord with Dean Shelton, a 74-year-old retiree who lives in Lynchburg. Common faith is important, Shelton said, but shared values are even more so. “What I liked about it was that he had the right philosophy on life that we share,” he said.  “We’re not electing a minister, we’re electing a president.”  

For Craig and Rene Yoshino, who traveled from Seattle to see their daughter graduate, the candidate’s references to culture and traditional marriage were essential, although neither believes that Mormonism is a segment of Christianity.

 “It’s what matters for salvation, but not for the presidency,” he said. “Between Obama and Romney, Romney fits more closely with us.”

Mitt's speech also surprised many atheists since he included them in his speech and which lead many of them to be supportive of his speech. For many Atheists, having a conservative candidate reach out to them and acknowledge them is something that is "so abnormal to hear in conservative circles that it qualifies as something worth noting."

As a result, Mitt Romney's speech is resonating with alot of people because he's seeking to find common ground with all Americans even if they have different religious, political and social views. Its clear that Romney isn't seeking to be a Pastor in Chief or even to make a name for himself as the first Mormon in the White House. Our nation is a republic in which the government should represent the interests of all the people, rather than just a select few. Mitt speech shows that Romney is the leader America wants in which he will lead our country on the basis of values and beliefs that are common to most people.
Mitt Romney sincerely, genuinely and strongly wants to be a leader for all Americans and help get America back to excellent economic health so that people can have jobs, pay their bills, support their families and make a difference in their communities.

Mitt Romney Gives Commencement Speech At Liberty University

Today, Mitt Romney gave the commencement speech at Liberty University which is the largest Christian educational institution in America. His speech has made headlines in which he defended marriage as being between one man and one woman. 

However, I believe the best and most important part of his speech is how our Judeo-Christian traditions have shaped American culture:

Today, thanks to what you have gained here, you leave Liberty with conviction and confidence as your armor. You know what you believe.  You know who you are.  And you know Whom you will serve.  Not all colleges instill that kind of confidence, but it will be among the most prized qualities from your education here.  Moral certainty, clear standards, and a commitment to spiritual ideals will set you apart in a world that searches for meaning.

That said, your values will not always be the object of public admiration.  In fact, the more you live by your beliefs, the more you will endure the censure of the world. Christianity is not the faith of the complacent, the comfortable or of the timid. It demands and creates heroic souls like Wesley, Wilberforce, Bonhoeffer, John Paul the Second, and Billy Graham. Each showed, in their own way, the relentless and powerful influence of the message of Jesus Christ.  May that be your guide.

You enter a world with civilizations and economies that are far from equal.  Harvard historian David Landes devoted his lifelong study to understanding why some civilizations rise, and why others falter.  His conclusion:  Culture makes all the difference.  Not natural resources, not geography, but what people believe and value. Central to America’s rise to global leadership is our Judeo-Christian tradition, with its vision of the goodness and possibilities of every life.

The American culture promotes personal responsibility, the dignity of work, the value of education, the merit of service, devotion to a purpose greater than self, and, at the foundation, the pre-eminence of the family.

The power of these values is evidenced by a Brookings Institution study that Senator Rick Santorum brought to my attention.  For those who graduate from high school, get a full-time job, and marry before they have their first child, the probability that they will be poor is 2%.  But, if those things are absent, 76% will be poor.  Culture matters.

As fundamental as these principles are, they may become topics of democratic debate.  So it is today with the enduring institution of marriage.  Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman.

The protection of religious freedom has also become a matter of debate.  It strikes me as odd that the free exercise of religious faith is sometimes treated as a problem, something America is stuck with instead of blessed with.  Perhaps religious conscience upsets the designs of those who feel that the highest wisdom and authority comes from government.

But from the beginning, this nation trusted in God, not man.  Religious liberty is the first freedom in our Constitution.  And whether the cause is justice for the persecuted, compassion for the needy and the sick, or mercy for the child waiting to be born, there is no greater force for good in the nation than Christian conscience in action.

Mitt Romney points out that despite the fact that we are a nation of many faiths, we are bound together as a nation through Christian service

People of different faiths, like yours and mine, sometimes wonder where we can meet in common purpose, when there are so many differences in creed and theology.  Surely the answer is that we can meet in service, in shared moral convictions about our nation stemming from a common worldview. 

Christian service is still alive and well in America but it has been eroded by the growth of government since the 1930s.  I highly recommend two books that deal with the American history of charity prior to the New Deal programs of the 1930s and its decline afterwards. The first book is The Charity Organization Movement in the United States; A Study in America Philanthropy by Frank Dekker Watson. The second book is The Tragedy of American Compassion by Marvin Olasky. 

People complain that our nation is divided because of politics but the solution to that problem is that Americans can form deeper connections with one another in our communities despite that we come from different faiths, economic backgrounds and political beliefs when we freely and willingly without government compulsion to serve one another. 

You can read watch the entire speech here or read the entire transcript of the speech here.  

Were Mormons...Socialists!?

It is no surprise that the intentional misrepresentation and attacks on Mitt Romney's faith continues in the media. One of the more interesting articles to come out about Mitt Romney's faith comes from online magazine Salon in which the author of the article, Troy Williams, claims that the Book of Mormon and Mormon history embraced and supports Socialism.

That claim is flat out not true.

Progressives are intentionally using cherry picked historical facts and scriptures to score political points against Mitt Romney as Lane Williams points out in his op-ed for the Deseret News: 

The first was in the online magazine Salon from Salt Lake blogger Troy Williams about how the Book of Mormon and Mormon history teaches Socialism. The article’s subheadline: “Joseph Smith would be horrified by the religion's present-day materialism — and uber-capitalist candidate.”

In fairness, some of Williams' article was thoughtful and thought-provoking, but exactly why is it Salon’s role to glibly say what would horrify Joseph Smith?

It’s off-putting, to say the least, when someone with an ax to grind cherry-picks elements of the Book of Mormon to bludgeon a political opponent or to score points in a public debate or to even try to further, as it seemed to me, the old trope that Latter-day Saints are hypocrites.

Progressives are attempting to use false and distorted facts to promote socialism getting the uninformed and the far left to believe this lie about the doctrines and history of the LDS Church. They are also attempting to scare voters away from voting for Mitt Romney either because of his faith or because of the strong opposition to socialism by conservatives and Republicans. 

What Is The Law Of Consecration? 

Wikipedia has a nice and simple explanation for those who are not familiar with this religious doctrine:

The Law of Consecration, as practiced by the Latter Day Saints, was for the support of the poor (Doctrine and Covenants 42:30). Latter Day Saints were asked to voluntarily deed (consecrate) their property to the Church of Christ, and the church then would assign to each member a "stewardship" of property "as much as is sufficient for himself and family" for his "needs, wants, family, and circumstances." If consecrated property became more than was sufficient for the assigned steward, the "residue" was "to be consecrated unto the bishop" kept for the benefit of "those who have not, from time to time, that every man who has need may be amply supplied and receive according to his wants."

A more detailed explanation of what the Law of Consecration can be found here.

Is The Law Of Consecration And Socialism The Same?

A simplistic description of the differences between the Law of Consecration and socialism reveals that they are philosophically not the same. In 1942 the First Presidency of the Church issued this strongly worded opposition to socialism and communism and explained why its different from the Law of Consecration:

Communism and all other similar isms bear no relationship whatever to the united order. They are merely the clumsy counterfeits which Satan always devises of the gospel plan. Communism debases the individual and makes him the enslaved tool of the state to whom he must look for sustenance and religion; the united order exalts the individual, leaves him his property, "according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and his needs," (D&C 51:3) and provides a system by which he helps care for his less fortunate brethren; the united order leaves every man free to choose his own religion as his conscience directs. Communism destroys man's God-given free agency; the united order glorifies it. Latter-day Saints cannot be true to heir faith and lend aid, encouragement, or sympathy to any of these false philosophies. They will prove snares to their feet. [Conference Report, April 1942, p. 90]

Not only is the Law of Consecration not the same as Socialism in theory, but the are radically different in practice. An in depth look of the history and application of the Law of Consecration demonstrates how unlike these two systems are. Here's Joseph Smith, the founder of the LDS Church explains how the Law of Consecration works: 

“Concerning the consecration of property:—First, it is not right to condescend to very great particulars in taking inventories. The fact is this, a man is bound by the law of the Church, to consecrate to the Bishop, before he can be considered a legal heir to the kingdom of Zion; and this, too, without constraint; and unless he does this, he cannot be acknowledged before the Lord on the Church Book therefore, to condescend to particulars, I will tell you that every man must be his own judge how much he should receive and how much he should suffer to remain in the hands of the Bishop. I speak of those who consecrate more than they need for the support of themselves and their families.

“The matter of consecration must be done by the mutual consent of both parties; for to give the Bishop power to say how much every man shall have, and he be obliged to comply with the Bishop’s judgment, is giving to the Bishop more power than a king has; and upon the other hand, to let every man say how much he needs, and the Bishop be obliged to comply with his judgment, is to throw Zion into confusion, and make a slave of the Bishop. The fact is, there must be a balance or equilibrium of power, between the Bishop and the people, and thus harmony and good will may be preserved among you.

“Therefore, those persons consecrating property to the Bishop in Zion, and then receiving an inheritance back, must reasonably show to the Bishop that they need as much as they claim. But in case the two parties cannot come to a mutual agreement, the Bishop is to have nothing to do about receiving such consecrations; and the case must be laid before a council of twelve High Priests, the Bishop not being one of the council, but he is to lay the case before them.” ( History of the Church, 1:364–65.)

One of the key differences both in theory and practice is in the distribution and ownership of private property:

The stewardship is private, not communal, property . The consecrator, or steward, was to be given a “writing,” or deed, that would “secure unto him his portion [stewardship]” ( D&C 51:4 ). Although it has been acknowledged that all things belong to the Lord, a stewardship represents a sacred entrustment of a portion from God to the individual. The stewardship is given with a deed of ownership so that individuals, through their agency, are fully responsible and accountable for that which is entrusted to them. The deed protects individuals if they are disqualified from participation as stewards (see D&C 51:4 ). For legal purposes, the stewardship was private property, even though the stewards themselves understood that it ultimately belonged to God. President Marion G. Romney explained:

“This procedure [of providing deeds] preserved in every man the right of private ownership and management of his property. Indeed, the fundamental principle of the system was the private ownership of property. Each man owned his portion, or inheritance, or stewardship, with an absolute title, which, at his option, he could alienate [transfer], keep and operate, or otherwise treat as his own. The Church did not own all of the property, and life under the united order was not, and never will be, a communal life, as the Prophet Joseph himself said.

“The intent was, however, for him to so operate his property as to produce a living for himself and his dependents.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1977, p. 119; or Ensign, May 1977, p. 93 .)

By now, the distinction should be clear: Law of Consecration involves giving whereas socialism involves taking.

The taking is mandatory and is forcefully ripped out of your hands either by taxation, government confiscation or outright theft. If you don't "contribute" to the socialist community, harsh punishment follows which can range from imprisonment to death. The giving is also mandatory. You must rely on the state and no one else for support. Your moral and individual will eventually becomes lethargic, weak, and atrophied in which you no longer can work to support yourself and obtain what you need because everything is provided for you. Once you are completely dependent on the state, you become a slave of the state.

Ironically, the promised equal redistribution of wealth never happens since the takes all the property, gives back a very tiny portion of the redistributed property according to what they think you need in order to take the minimal effort it takes to keep the social order while the leaders keep everything to themselves. That is why you'll see leaders under Communist Russia, China, Cuba,  North Korea and socialist Venezuela living in wealth while the rest of the population lives in poverty.  

Another irony is that the socialism promises a better community in which people are brought together closer by sharing equally what they have with the less fortunate. However, the government actually robs people of the responsibility and need to give charitably since people feel that someone else, typically the state, is responsible for the poor and downtrodden and that individuals will only donate what the government requires them to give. As a result, the community is destroyed

In contrast, the Law of Consecration is a voluntary system in which you give to the Church everything you have, what you think you need is given back to you and you give away the rest of what you don't need so that others can have what they do need. Under this system, the community actually grows stronger, closer and united.

The Law of Consecration is a unique doctrine proposed by the LDS Church. However, even the simple practice of voluntary charity as practiced by various social and religious organizations produces better results for the poor and the community. I highly recommend two books that deal with the American history of charity prior to the New Deal programs of the 1930s and its decline afterwards. The first book is The Charity Organization Movement in the United States; A Study in America Philanthropy by Frank Dekker Watson. The second book is The Tragedy of American Compassion by Marvin Olasky. 

Did The LDS Church Ever Embrace Socialism?

The simple answer: no.

In fact, it was immediately rejected by the Prophet Joseph Smith when the political theory was being spread to people in the United States.. The Prophet Joseph Smith attended a presentation on socialism in September 1843 at Nauvoo. His response was to declare that he “did not believe the doctrine.” ( History of the Church, 6:33). Since Joseph Smith's initial rejection of Socialism, prominent church leaders throughout LDS History have spoken out against socialism. The most well known and fierce rejection of socialism comes from the Prophet Ezra Taft Benson who gave a landmark speech on the LDS Church's rejection of socialism. Another vocal opponent of socialism was Elder Marion G. Romney (no relation to Mitt Romney) who spoke out strongly against it.

Conclusion

The fact is that the LDS Church has never supported socialism in its doctrines, in its practices or from its leadership starting with its founder to is present and current leader. Moreover, the LDS Church has always remained strongly opposed to socialism. 

Troy Williams wants you to believe that Joseph Smith would be disturbed by "the religion's present-day materialism -- and uber-capitalist candidate" Mitt Romney. But Joseph Smith would be more disturbed that Mr. Williams would claim that he and the Book of Mormon supports socialism. 

Jon Stewart: Mormon, Mo' Problems

Lately, my law practice has gotten busier than usual and when things settle down, I'll be back to writing blog articles. Until then, watch Jon Stewart's new hilarious commentary about the media's attacks on Mitt Romney's faith: 

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Obama's New 2012 Re-election Strategy

Mitt Romney & Mormon Underwear

Bob Lonsberry, who is a well known conservative talk show host, has penned an article about the LDS use of temple garments which are known to members outside of the LDS Church as Mormon underwear or "magic underwear" as detractors of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints like to call it. 

Here's a portion of Bob Lonsberry's article below: 

What about Mitt Romney’s magic underwear?

Mitt Romney is a Mormon. That is a Christian religion founded in 1830 in upstate New York. Some Mormons do wear a religious garment under their outer clothes. Presumably, Mitt Romney is one of those Mormons.

What is a religious garment?

Well, it depends on the religion. Several faiths have unique bits of clothing that mostly seem to have the same purpose – to remind believers of who they are and what they have promised to God.

Thus the headwear of the Sikh, and the beads, prayer feathers, medicine pouches and shamanic robes of various Indian tribes.

As well as the yarmulke of some Jewish men and the head coverings of some Jewish women, and the aprons, trailing strings and hats of yet more followers of Judaism.

Or the phylacteries and other garments and devices described in particular detail in the Bible.

In that regard, it’s quite possible that Jesus, following the Old Testament Law of Moses and being an observant Jew, wore religiously prescribed garments.

Roman Catholic religious have worn sacred garments for 1,700 years. Similarly, religious garments – or “habits” – have been worn by Anglicans and religious of the Eastern Orthodox, Coptic and Greek Orthodox churches. Some of these garments are priestly, and just for ceremonial purposes, while others are worn constantly as a declaration of faith.

In the Judeo-Christian tradition, specialized articles of religious clothing, of one type or another, have been worn for at least 4,000 years. Some of these have been visible, as a sign to the world, and some have been worn under other clothes, as a reminder to the wearer.

In Islam, many women wear religiously prescribed head coverings, as they have since the religion’s founding. Some Muslim women also wear a veil.

The notion of a religious head covering and even a veil is a belief also held for centuries by Christians and Jews. The Bible teaches men and women about the propriety of covering or uncovering their heads, particularly during prayer and worship. Some Christian denominations in America today, including some conservative Evangelicals and Mennonites, follow these teachings. Until a couple of generations ago, it was common for women to wear hats or scarves to mainstream American churches, to obey the biblical command to cover their heads.

The “babushkas” of many Eastern European women are worn in obedience to their understanding of their Catholic faith.

The point of all this is that religions around the world have various types of religious garments. If you do the math, most believers on earth belong to a religion that commands its followers or leaders to wear religiously significant clothing.

While some people find it odd or funny that the Mormons consider the temple garment to be sacred underwear, it is, nonetheless, like all other religious clothing, designed to help the believer of that faith remain more committed to their faith. For Mormons, the temple garments are religious clothing designed to help members of the LDS Church follow the teachings of that religion. It helps that person to be more focused on Jesus Christ, to be more diligent in keeping the commandments and covenants and to dress modestly when required.

While the temple garments may odd or strange to you, the idea of clothing being used to demonstrate commitment to one's faith is something everyone understand. Other items such as rings, earrings, pendants and jewelry also help people to be more dedicated to their faith. A well known example is people wearing crosses for necklaces or rings. As a result, the way people of other faiths demonstrate their commitment to their faith might be different from your own, it deserves respect and understanding.

Robert Jeffress Endorses Mitt Romney

I was very critical of Rick Perry's campaign for stubbornly allowing Pastor Robert Jeffress to spew religious bigotry on behalf of their campaign. Other people were quick to condemn Robert Jeffress for his comments about the LDS religion. Robert Jeffress wrote an op-ed defending his religious bigotry and I wrote a blog article dismantling his arguments.

As much as I strongly disagree with Pastor Robert Jeffress' opinions about the LDS Church being a non-Christian cult, he has kept his promise that he would get behind Mitt Romney if he became the Republican nominee. Here's what he said in October of 2011: 

ACOSTA: Wolf is asking me to ask you, are you saying that because of Mitt Romney's faith, that people should not vote for him? That people should not go into the voting booth and flip the switch for Mitt Romney because of his faith? Should that be held against him?

JEFFRESS: Look, I think if it came down to a contest between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, I would hold my nose and hope for Mitt Romney. I would rather have a non-Christian who at least supports biblical principles than a professing-Christian like Barack Obama who embraces unbiblical positions.

True to his word, Robert Jeffress is now getting behind Mitt Romney: 

The Southern Baptist pastor who last October called Mormonism a cult and said Mitt Romney is not a Christian is now endorsing the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

The pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, the Rev. Robert Jeffress, tells The Associated Press that he still doesn't believe Mormons are Christians.

But Jeffress says voters will have to choose between a Christian like President Barack Obama and a Mormon like Romney. He says the difference is that Obama embraces non-biblical principles while Romney embraces biblical principles like the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage.

Given that choice, Jeffress says he believes Christians should support Romney in November "in spite of his Mormon faith."

Jeffress says that there are no perfect candidates - and no perfect pastors either.

Here's the video of the Pastor talking about his support for Mitt Romney: 

My respect for the Pastor has increased because he kept his word on supporting Mitt Romney. I agree with Ed Morrisey's observation about Robert Jeffress' endorsement: 

But hopefully Jeffress has learned a lesson about having to eat one’s words down the line, if not the dangers of indulging in ecumenical combat in the middle of a political campaign.

I hope he's learned his lesson because there is more at stake in Presidential elections than worrying about a candidate's faith or insisting that the Republican nominee be of a particular religion. As a result of Romney becoming the nominee, I don't think he will have to hold his nose in voting for Mitt Romney as he said he would last October and that he will be enthusiastic in voting for him. Moreover, other evangelicals have come out and said that they will vote for Romney in the general election. Even more interesting is that a recent poll taken in Virginia shows that evangelicals in that state would overwhelmingly vote for Romney. This poll that was conducted in Virginia might be true across the country in which evangelicals either don't care about Romney's faith or that they are so strongly opposed to Obama that are willing to vote for Mitt Romney and help the Republican party regain the White House in 2012.

The Media Is Intentionally Misleading Its Viewers On Mitt Romney's Mormon Faith

When it comes to the media covering the Presidential elections, conservatives don't have a lot of trust in these institutions to present all the facts in a straightforward manner. The famous example is "Rathergate" in which Dan Rather attempted to create news about President George W. Bush in which he claimed to have authentic documents about Bush's service in the national guard only to have those documents exposed as forgeries.

The media has learned not to repeat the same mistake again. Rather than manufacture news based on falsified documents, the have shifted to a more subtle form of creating news by selectively editing important key facts. The most recent example of this tactic can be seen in the Treyvon Martin case in which NBC edited the 911 police call to make it look like George Zimmerman said "This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black" when in reality that is not what he said on the 911 police tapes. As a result, NBC is now conducting an internal investigation into a major breach of journalistic practices.

NBC pulled the same trick on Mitt Romney in which Martin Bashir aired an edited audio clip of an audience member asking a question about Romney's faith. Jeffery Meyer, pointed out that NBC distorted what Mitt Romney said because of their bias towards Republicans:

Bashir, who loves to attack Republicans on a daily basis, has decided to deliberately distort Romney and selectively edit his words so as to create a controversy where none exists.  Such journalistic malpractice is unacceptable and MSNBC needs to be held accountable.

The media isn't always subtle in its distortion of the facts. Sometimes it throws journalistic integrity out the window and reports false facts as if they were true. Watch the clip below for a good example of this:

 

CNN should be ashamed because the LDS Church has no position on interracial marriage amd it has never forbidden interracial marriage. Consider the following statements from past Mormon leaders. President Spencer W. Kimball, in a speech given to BYU students in 1965, had this to say about interracial marriage:

"Now, the brethren feel that it is not the wisest thing to cross racial lines in dating and marrying. There is no condemnation. We have had some of our fine young people who have crossed the lines. We hope they will be very happy, but experience of the brethren through a hundred years has proved to us that marriage is a very difficult thing under any circumstances and the difficulty increases in interrace marriages." (Source: Interracial Marriage Discouraged", Church News, June 17, 1978, p. 2.)

Here's another statement from Spencer W. Kimball: 

“When I said you must teach your people to overcome their prejudices and accept the Indians, I did not mean that you would encourage intermarriage. I mean that they should be brothers, to worship together and to work together and to play together; but we must discourage intermarriage, not because it is sin. I would like to make this very emphatic. A couple has not committed sin if an Indian boy and a white girl are married, or vice versa. It isn’t a transgression like the transgressions of which many are guilty. But it is not expedient. Marriage statistics and our general experience convince us that marriage is not easy. It is difficult when all factors are favorable. The divorces increase constantly, even where the spouses have the same general background of race, religion, finances, education, and otherwise. ” (Spencer W. Kimball, “The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball,” p. 302)

Another favorite tactic of the media is not distort the facts but to distort the viewer's perception of the facts as to elicit the desired response or reaction from the viewing audience either by reaffirming their biases or introducing them to it. Watch the clip for textbook application of this tactic below:

What Larry O’Donnell has done is use legitimate polling of people's willingness to vote for a candidate based on their religion as a means of cementing people's unwillingness to vote for a Mormon by distorting the history of the LDS Church. Noah Glyn, writing for National Review Online, summarizes O'Donnell's blatant and false distortion of the beginnings of the LDS religion:

Last night, MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell attacked Mitt Romney, Mormonism, and Joseph Smith. According to O’Donnell, Smith only created Mormonism to justify his lax sexual mores.

In this case, O'Donnell admits his bias towards the LDS religion. As a result, O'Donnell isn't educating the public about the news as a news reporter should, but is preaching his gospel of religious bigotry to anyone who will listen. As a result, those who are already biased towards the LDS faith will have their beliefs reaffirmed and those who haven't had such a bias are now potentially infected with it.

The reason why the media has been dishonest in the way they cover Mitt Romney's faith is because many members of the media are liberal and are hostile to religion. Nancy French explains why the media has been untruthful about Mitt Romney's faith:

Secular leftists are often quite religious in their zeal to attack traditional values, and I’d say that they have Mormons in their crosshairs in large part because they’re quite effective in defending our culture. After all, there’s only 6 million Mormons in America, yet the media Left — from HBO to PBS to Broadway — has spent much of the last two election cycles flailing away at the LDS church.

In other words, the secular Left hates Mormons because they see the LDS church as a part of the same Judeo-Christian tradition we belong to; the same Judeo-Christian tradition they so despise. 

John Schroeder over at Article6 blog explains why the intentional distortion towards Mitt Romney's faith is unacceptable for a religiously diverse country as ours:  

We cannot take this bait.  These kinds of assaults – the “weirdness” of proxy baptism, polygamy as a justification for illicit sex – may have some appeal if you think Mormonism a “false” religion.  But here is the thing.  In a religiously pluralistic society like ours, if it stands against them, something similar will stand against us. 

Last year, it was revealed that Obama planned on attacking Mitt Romney's faith but that idea was immediately ridiculed. Recently, Senator Orrin Hatch asserted that Obama would go after Romney's faith and many Democrats immediately denied Obama would do that. The President knows he can't get 6 million Mormons in the United States to vote for him and that he may not have it in his election strategy to make Romney's faith an issue in the campaign. However, those in the media have already made it an issue in this election in which they will discourage as many Americans as they can to not vote for Romney by intentionally distorting their coverage of his faith.

Mitt Romney Could Win Alabama and Mississippi

There has been alot of talk of the possibility of Mitt Romney winning in both Alabama and Mississippi. Recent polls show that he's  ahead in Alabama and Misssippi. If he wins one or both states, Romney will destroy the myth that he can't win in the South:

If Romney were to win either Mississippi or Alabama -- and the polls show he is competitive in both -- he would kill the idea that he can't win in the South. The region is the rock-solid base of the Republican Party, and so far, the former Massachusetts governor has not shown strength here. Yes, he won Virginia, but Romney and Ron Paul were the only candidates on the ballot. And yes, he won in Florida, but most political analysts don't really consider Florida Southern anymore. And besides, Barack Obama won both states in 2008.

In addition, Romney has already lost contests in South Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee. Adding Alabama and Mississippi to his list of losses would cement the narrative that he can't win in the South.

But winning either one -- squeaker, blowout, it doesn't matter -- would put that narrative to rest. "If he could win one, I think it would say he is a national candidate that people could embrace in the South," says Clemson University political scientist David Woodard, author of The New Southern Politics. "It would show that he has some appeal to Southerners that he didn't have earlier."

There's one demographic that might help Mitt Romney win Mississippi Alabama. Its the Catholic voter. In  Michigan and Ohio, Catholics voted for the Mormon candidate rather support than the Catholic candidate in both. states. But then again, Rick Santorum has always performed lower among Catholics than Protestants. 

Catholics in the South may not want to support Rick Santorum because he criticized J.F.K's famous address that he gave to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a group of Protestant ministers, about the role of his faith will play in his bid to become President. J.F.K was a trail blazer who made it possible and acceptable for other Catholic politicians to run for President and Rick Santorum fails to appreciate given the fact that in the early period of American history, many states passed religiously bigoted laws simply because the majority of Americans at that time believed that Catholics were not Christians. 

Rick Santorum may have recently hurt himself in the South when a Florida pastor named Reverend O'Neal Dozier, who has endorsed Rick Santorum, wanted to ask Mitt Romney "to openly renounce his racist Mormon Religion." The troubling thing about this controversy is that it undermines Rick Santorum's claim that he is a strong defender of religious liberty.

In contrast, Mitt Romney has a very long history of defending religious liberty while working as governor of Massachusetts. For example, in 2005, Romney actually vetoed a bill that would have forced Massachusetts hospitals to offer abortive contraception. He also defended Catholic Charities in Massachusetts who being forced to compromise their religions principles in matters of adoptions by filling a bill to protect religious liberty called the An Act Protecting Religious Freedom. As a result of his defense of religious liberty in Massachusetts,  the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty awarded him its prestigious Canterbury Medal in 2008. In January 2012, Five former U.S. ambassadors to the Vatican endorsed Mitt Romney which is significant since they didn't endorse the Catholic candidate, Rick Santorum.

There are two things that Southerners care about: getting rid of Obama and preserving religious liberty. Mitt Romney is the man who can do both since he's the best candidate to beat Obama in the general election and has been a strong defender of all religious faiths including the Catholic faith.

Reverend O'Neal Dozier To Ask Mitt Romney To Renounce His Faith

Recently, a Florida pastor named Reverend O'Neal Dozier, who has endorsed Rick Santorum, will be holding a press conference to ask Mitt Romney "to openly renounce his racist Mormon Religion."

Mitt Romney is the wrong person to go after with regards to allegations of racism within the LDS Church because his father, George Romney, was a life long advocate of civil rights for blacks in America. During the 1968 Presidential election, he ran on a platform of racial equality. When Nixon became President in 1960, he invited George Romney to become the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and he served in that position from 1969 to 1973. While working in the Nixon Administration, George Romney was the Secretary of HUD and advocated for better living conditions for African-Americans even when Richard Nixon opposed the idea.  

You can view some pictures of George Romney advocating for equality for Blacks below: 

Along with NAACP, Gov. George Romney leads demonstration against housing discrimination in 1963.

President Richard Nixon & George Romney

More than 100 angry white protesters balked at efforts by then-Housing Secretary George Romney, in car, to open their new neighborhoods to blacks.

As for Mitt Romney's faith, the LDS Church is not a racist religion. Its important to understand the history of the Mormon Church and the statements made by early LDS Church leaders with regards to the issue of Blacks and the Priesthood and the Book of Mormon. In 1971, The LDS Church created the Genesis Group which created a place where Black LDS could associate and enjoy one another. Recently, the LDS Church published a press release stating that they do not tolerate racism in any form in the Church:

The Church’s position is clear—we believe all people are God’s children and are equal in His eyes and in the Church. We do not tolerate racism in any form.

For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent.  It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago. Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding.

We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church.

Mitt Romney Wins The Nevada Caucus

Mitt Romney got a strong victory tonight when all the major news outlets declared him the winner despite the fact that only 20% of the results have been reported. Once victory was declared, Romney gave a rousing speech defending economic liberty, religious liberty and the Constitution. 

Tonight's victory is expected to be first in long string of victories as more and more primary states hold their elections. An important ally in helping Mitt Romney win the upcoming primaries might be the people of his own faith:

Now that he has survived, if only barely, the evangelical-dominated contests in Iowa and South Carolina, Romney is poised to benefit as the geography of the GOP race moves west to states such as Nevada, Arizona and Colorado.

There, Romney will be aided by the more robust presence from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whose members tend to vote in high numbers and supported Romney en masse in 2008. That makes the Western-heavy lineup of February primary and caucus states, which also includes Romney’s native state of Michigan, a promising opportunity for Romney to deny his opponents any semblance of political traction.

On top of the sheer numerical bonus of having more Mormon voters at the polls, Republicans say it will help Romney to compete on turf where voters of all stripes — even more conservative Christian Republicans — are more familiar with Mormonism and view it with less suspicion.

“The LDS thing I think is probably less of an issue here … because we’re so familiar with Mormons and the LDS faith,” said former Colorado Rep. Bob Beauprez, a Romney supporter. “I think most people see them as patriotic folks, good neighbors, hard workers, wonderful family values. The mystery, if there’s any of that, just doesn’t exist out here.”

However, Mormons won't be the only group that will help propel Mitt Romney to win the Republican nomination. Exit polls from all the primary states so far that he's winning the support of people from across the board religiously, economically, by age and all along the wide spectrum of libertarian, moderate, and strong conservatives.  The fact that Mitt Romney is doing so well across a variety of voters in the primaries is a preview of the kind of support he will receive in the general elections from Reagan democrats, moderates, independents, libertarians, Tea Partiers and conservatives. Its possible that many liberals will also abandon Obama at the ballot box in November given his poor performance on the economy. 

Nobody can predict the future but all indicators suggest that Mitt Romney will win the Republican nomination. Right now, he's far ahead in the delegate count with 95 delegates, has a major fundraising advantage over his Republican competitors,  has superior campaign organization and an awesome campaign staff. These advantages will surely help Mitt Romney in the general election when he will defeat Obama and become the next president in 2012.