Sweet, Sweet Isaiah

or: Why we love Isaiah but we will let you borrow him for a couple of days.

So this is dear sweet Isaiah. Isn't he a cutie. This smile suggests that he could never do anything wrong.

But, it is all just an act. Tuesday after working out I decided that I needed a shower. So, I turned the TV on and put Elijah in charge. Elijah is usually so good about not letting too much trouble occur. He is not a big fan of disorder. After I got out, I noticed that Elijah had turned the TV off and had come upstairs. I went ahead and got dressed. A few minutes later Elijah came in and said, "Mom, you'd better go get your boy, he is into the peanut butter." I knew the peanut butter was on the counter and I assumed that Isaiah had pulled up a chair and was eating peanut butter so I finished getting dressed and then headed downstairs.

This is what I found.

Use your imaginations to guess the amount of the damage. If you look closely you can see gobs of peanut butter on the piano. There was peanut butter on the wood floor, all over the rug, on the leather chair. There was peanut butter on the duck, two horses (with hair) an empty milk jug. It was everywhere. And after I found him I rewarded him with a bath!

We sure do love him!!

Isaiah's Prayers

For past two months Isaiah has been very interested in praying. Every so often we ask him to say the prayer. Generally we get one or two recognizable words and quite a bit that is difficult to understand. After one particularly lenghty prayer, Elijah said, "He prays as long as mom does and some of it's in Chinese."

This past week his prayers have become easier to understand. Last night he did his version of:
"Heavenly Father...somethin', somethin', somethin'. Chips, dog, ball."

Elijah and I decided he was expressing gratitude for chips, dogs and balls...three of his favorite things. He also mentions Elijah in his prayers. (Quite a bit of hero worship going on.)

Perspective on Socialism

In regards to socialism, I found this clip from President Benson which I've heard and read a few times before.

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/ezra-taft-benson-warns-of-socialist-agenda-must-see/977175578/?icid=VIDURVNWS07

It's interesting that difficult economic times often lead to a desire for greater government intervention. Very seldom do such reactions have good long term results, nor are such reactions easy to reverse.

I think of the enactment of Social Security as part of the New Deal. To many, then and now, it seems a wonderful program that ensures security for the aged population. We pay in now and we will be taken care of later. The price is only a percentage of our weekly or monthly paychecks.

In my opinion, the price is something much higher. Three groups are involved in the program. The government as the executor, the working age population as the funders, and the retired population as the consumers of the fund. In this relationship, the government holds all control. As taxpayers, the working population, pays whatever the government directs into the system. Today, there is little hope that the program will even be viable for those now paying into it when they reach retirment age. For those counting on social security for all of or a significant portion of their retirement, they are at the mercy of the government to provide them with what they need. In essence, if they are reliant on the social security, then they are at the mercy of the government to provide them with what they need.

Freedom is so easily given up in the hope that the government will take care of our needs. Social security is especially interesting. We feel like we are paying for our future needs. The problem is that we give up control to the government. They are free to change the amounts of payouts, not to adjust the cost of living allowances. Today's seniors are paranoid, rightfully so, whenever there is talk of change or adjustments. Their lives hang in the balance. Their only avenue for influence is to pay lobbying groups extra money to look after their interests. And, that begs the question, how do lobbyists influence government?

Family Pictures Take II

Rochelle asked me to post a few more family pictures in case some of you were unable to make it past my political diatribes to the last posting. Please enjoy!

More on Socialism and the Law of Consecration

As people have made the link between socialism and the law of consecration, I wanted to share a talk that then Elder Benson made to the students at BYU in 1977. Please follow the link below:

http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6162

Here are a few highlights. Speaking of the law of consecration, Elder Benson said:
"Much has been written about this law and its attempted implementations in the early history of the Church; and much deception has taken root, even among some of our members, because of misinformed opinion or misguided interpretations. Some view it as merely an economic alternative to capitalism or the free enterprise system, others as an outgrowth of early communal experiments in America. Such a view is not only shortsighted but tends to diminish in importance a binding requirement for entrance into the celestial kingdom. The law of consecration is a celestial law, not an economic experiment. "

Later he stated: "It has been erroneously concluded by some that the united order is both communal and communistic in theory and practice because the revelations speak of equality. Equality under the united order is not economic and social leveling as advocated by some today. Equality, as described by the Lord, is "equal[ity] according to [a man's] family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs" (D&C 51:3).
Is the united order a communal system? Emphatically not. It never has been and never will be. It is "intensely individualistic." Does the united order eliminate private ownership of property? No. "The fundamental principle of this system [is] the private ownership of property" (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Conference Report, October 1942, p. 57)."

Regarding the efforts of the adversary, he said: "But whenever the God of heaven establishes by revelation his design, Satan always comes among men to pervert the doctrine, saying, "Believe it not." He often establishes a counterfeit system, designed to deceive the children of men. His aim, as it was before the foundation of this earth was laid, is to thwart the agency of man and to subjugate him. Throughout all ages of mankind, the adversary has used human agents and despotic governments to establish his purpose. Satan is determined to destroy all that is dear, all that will ennoble and exalt man to a celestial kingdom."

Regarding socialism specifically, he said: "Why is socialism incompatible with man's liberty? Socialism cannot work except through an all-powerful state. The state has to be supreme in everything. When individuals begin to exert their God-given rights, the state has to suppress that freedom. So belief in God must be suppressed, and with that gone freedom of conscience and religion must also go. Those are the first of our liberties mentioned in the Bill of Rights.
There are some among us who would confuse the united order with socialism. That is a serious misunderstanding. It is significant to me that the Prophet Joseph Smith, after attending lectures on socialism in his day, made this official entry in the Church history: "I said I did not believe the doctrine" (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 6:33)."

Anyway, I don't think I can add much to what he said, except to encourage others to read the entire talk. He does an amazing job of quoting the First Presidency in support of his statements. He also makes some wonderful statements regarding the importance of taking care of one another through charity and what actually constitutes charity.

Is Socialism A Good Thing?

Recently I've had a number of conversations, both in and out of the Church, on the topic of socialism. Often a certain line of questioning emerges from those who are partial to the idea of socialism. It goes something like this: Christ taught that we should serve one another. He and his disciples have taught the importance of charity. Isn't socialism just Christianity put into practice by government? How can true Christians have a problem with socialism? Does not Christian theology require its adherents to share their wealth with others?

It's tempting to take the easy path and say that, "Yes, socialism and Christianity are similar." One is only the cheap copy of the other. The consequences of each are completely different. One leads men to a higher plane of existence, encouraging them to work harder for one another based on true love. The other, sadly, leads to men seeking power and authority over one another, which is so easily abetted by the willingness of people to surrender their personal responsibility for their own welfare to others.

President Ezra Taft Benson spoke often about the dangers and evil of communism and its sublte predecessor, socialism. In a conference address he stated: "We must ever keep in mind that collectivized socialism is part of the communistic strategy...What is socialism? It is simply governmental ownership or management of the essential means for the production and distribution of goods...What can priesthood holders do? We should become informed about communism, socialism and about Americanism...We should treat socialistic-communism as the tool of Satan."

Further he stated the following: "A category of government activity which, today, not only requires the closest scrutiny, but which also poses a grave danger to our continued freedom, is the activity NOT within the proper sphere of government. No one has the authority to grant such powers, as welfare programs, schemes for re-distributing the wealth, and activities which coerce people into acting in accordance with a prescribed code of social planning. There is one simple test. Do I as an individual have a right to use force upon my neighbor to accomplish this goal? If I do have such a right, then I may delegate that power to my government to exercise on my behalf. If I do not have that right as an individual, then I cannot delegate it to government, and I cannot ask my government to perform the act for me…In reply to the argument that a little bit of socialism is good so long as it doesn't go too far, it is tempting to say that, in like fashion, just a little bit of theft or a little bit of cancer is all right, too! History proves that the growth of the welfare state is difficult to check before it comes to its full flower of dictatorship. But let us hope that this time around, the trend can be reversed. If not then we will see the inevitability of complete socialism, probably within our lifetime."

The law of consecration stands in juxtaposition to the idea of socialism. The law of consecration is based on agency. Individuals are free to participate in the Lord's plan based on their love for one another as directed by priesthood leadership. True understanding and willing participation in the law of consecration will lead people to perform their best and not seek something for nothing. History has proven that socialism has the opposite effect. Groups in power use it to obtain greater power, wealth and resources from those who are willing to work hard. This decreases the desire of those who are productive to produce. Socialism also leads to people wanting more in return for less. A close look at the history of socialism in practice bears out these statements.

Our current economic crisis, despite claims to the contrary, is the result of a developing welfare/socialistic state in the United States. The housing crisis alone is directly tied to the rise of socialism. Government programs were introduced to push people into mortgages they could not afford...because they had the same right to a house as the wealthy family across town. Based on this ideology, members of government, elected and appointed, pushed lending institutions to lend money to those who were unqualified and unable to afford the loans they received. At the same time, people loyal to those in power were put into positions of authority to push the socialist agenda of everyone deserving the same thing as directed by the government. These people, once in positions of authority, fulfilled their true duty of paying back their benefactors through campaign contributions and other kickbacks.

Those who took the loans were not innocent either. They were willing to take something they hadn't earned and couldn't afford because they considered it their right. They let the greed of "necessity" hold sway over personal responsibility. As housing values tumbled, the house of cards came with it. Suddenly, the reality of their situation hit them. Those responsible, government, lenders and home owners, decided to blame the greed of the capitalists. When in truth, those banks who held to the ideals of captialism, avoided the governmental pressure to make unwise loans based on the gree of "necessity" have remained solvent and are still able to make loans. It was the greed of those who, for their own reasons, pushed home ownership on those who were not ready that are truly responsible. Instead they have sought to blame those who were least responsible. Meanwhile, those of us who were not directly at fault for the problem are now expected to come to the rescue.

Socialism destroys personal responsibility, a tenet central to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Socialism encourages its staunchest adherents to demand others to help them with their problems.

Enough venting for one night. Tomorrow I will write why capitalism, while not the law of consecration, is a much better option than socialism.

Family Pictures 2008

Our family pictures for 2008 are in...A huge thanks to Sarah Rockwood for her excellent photographic skills.