Bullies v the Silent Majority

Tom Sheppard

11/12/2016

As #TrumpTrauma continues to fascinate the nation, the following true story, posted today by a friend of mine shows what is wrong in the US today and why Trump won this election. It is a sad story.

The day after the election my oldest son, Baker, asked my wife if a friend of his, a Muslim girl, would have to be deported now that Trump was elected. Lauren explained to him that we should always stand up and protect others, especially those in the minority, and that she would not be deported.  

Yesterday at an after-school Student Council meeting, while discussing an upcoming social event in December. Baker referred to it as a “Christmas party”. This same girl took offense and asked him not to call it a Christmas party. He apologized. Moments later he slipped up and called it a Christmas party again. In anger, she jumped up and pulled his hair. In pain and embarrassed in front of his classmates, he left and he hid out the rest of the meeting in the bathroom. 

I was touched that Baker had such concern for his friend. Baker is one of the most caring and least bigoted kids I know, much more so than I was at his age.  

I was sad that he got attacked for what really was just an accident. He would never intentionally offend anyone. I was sad that this girl didn’t know that just two days before Baker was concerned that her family might have to leave the country.  

I am also really sad for this young girl. I wondered what she must have been feeling the past few days. Threatened? Afraid? Or what she may have experienced from other classmates that might have set her on edge to lash out.  

Two innocent kids that have been friends that have been set at odds due to the society and happenings all around them that they have nothing to do with. This makes me sad. I hope that we can heal as a Nation soon.

For quite some time now, Christians in the US have been being assaulted by the twin bullies of Islam and Atheism.  They have been fierce, abusive and even violent in their assertions that we should shut up and hide in the bathroom when our views differ from theirs.  They have been demanding that we relinquish our rights because they are offended.

I believe that Trump got elected because he appealed to the silent majority, who were tired of being silent anymore.  He gave them a voice that said, "stop walking on me."

I admire the good Christian values this boy demonstrated.  His parents have taught him well.  I hope they also teach him how to deal with bullies.

By the way, I don't mean punching the girl.  Violence in the face of bullying and oppression is the course of last resort.

First is an appeal to the offender.  Asking reasonably that they apologize for their violence and intolerance and that they demonstrate mutual respect, not just one-way respect.

If that fails, then an appeal to legitimate, formal authority for redress of the wrongs you have suffered.  If the authority fails to redress your wrongs, or joins in the abuse, then there is only one course left.

When the appeal to the better nature of the bully fails and the recognized authority either declines to intervene or joins with the bullies, that is when a violent response is justified.  Not right then, but the next time the bully tries to beat you down.  Then, you are justified to counterpunch and knock him or her down and tell them, "this far and no further." 

God expects us to follow the rules.  He also gives us the right to defend ourselves when those who are set in authority to enforce the rules are unable or unwilling to preserve our rights and keep us safe in our persons and possessions.

For the past several years, and with increasing frequency and furor during the Obama Presidency, the silent majority of Christian Americans (black, white, brown and red) have been being bullied by the Atheists and Muslims.  We are being told we must be silent in our beliefs, while only they are allowed to speak freely.  We are being told that we should not only not be heard, but we should not be seen.

If the Jews remember the rise of Hitler, they should be deeply afraid of this trend.  They were on the receiving end of the National Socialists (NAZIs) push to replace all religion with the worship of the state and its leader.  If the Christians are being actively persecuted and bullied by Muslims and Atheists in this country, can the Jews be far behind?  And what of the Hindus and Buddhists? 

Once the Christian bulwark of tolerance and civility is destroyed in this country, the many religions and races who have sheltered behind it will be swept away and only one religion will be tolerated - the worship of the state, and its leaders.

The election of Donald Trump as President of the United States is the second step of ordinary Americans, the silent majority, dealing with bullies.

First, we appealed to the better nature of these bullies.  As with most bullies, they assumed our peaceful response was a sign of weakness.  That just emboldened them to further outrages upon us.

When they failed to behave in a civil and tolerant manner, being as respectful of our rights as we have been of theirs, we looked for intervention by the legitimate authorities.  What we found at the highest levels of our government was a President and an administration that was hostile toward the rights and beliefs of the silent majority and unwilling to take appropriate measures to protect our rights as well as those of others.

Seeing the unwillingness of our leaders to stand for justice, the silent majority took the next step.  We sought out a candidate who appeared to give voice to our fears and frustrations.  The obvious danger from demagogues at this point should be clear to all students of history.  It remains to be seen if Trump will be a demagogue, or if he will stand in the breach of the wall of Christian tolerance which has been blasted by Atheists and Muslims, and mete out both liberty and justice for all, or not.  That is what the silent majority are hoping for, is liberty and justice for all, not just for the favorites, or the bullies.

But, be warned, the silent, tolerant majority have spoken in this election.  They have said clearly that what has gone on before will not be tolerated anymore.  If the bullies of Islam and Atheism don't behave as civilized people should and exhibit the respect they ask for, and government doesn't protect the rights of the majority as well as it does the minority, the next step, a fist to the nose of the bullies, is a place which has not been seen in this country since the American Revolution.  And it won't be pretty.

I never want to see that day.  It is my hope and prayer that the Atheist and Muslim bullies will be fearful enough of the results of this election that they will correct their behaviors and embrace the norms of civil society where we can disagree without being disagreeable, and where they don't expect their rights to be exercised at the expense of the rights of others.

The silent majority of Americans have spoken.  Will you hear it.  Will you heed it?  Or will you instead respond with violence in another attempt to get what you want by bullying others?  Beware of picking a fight you cannot ever win.  Just because the majority are usually silent and patient, does not mean they will always remain so.

"Beware the fury of a patient man."  

John Dryden

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). 

 The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

(c) Copyright 2016 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

 Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

Islam, Anti-Christ, and Prayer

The other day, I received this in my email.  Please read through it and I will comment at the end.

I know there are some of you that are Democrat and love Obama, but this is for Christians first, politics later.   I do pray that it doesn't offend anybody with the truth of the message, but it has to be sent. If you love your Lord first and your politics later, then you will appreciate this message. If you don't, I'm sorry I judged you wrong. When we get 100,000,000, that's one hundred million willing Christians to BOND together, voice their concerns and vote, we can take back America with God's help.   Become one of the One hundred million... Then let's get 200 million. It can be done just by sending this email to your friends.   Do the math. It only takes a single willing heart and a fed up SOUL. 

God Bless America and Shine your light on Her!   In 1952 President Truman Established one day a year as a "National Day of Prayer."   

In 1988 President Reagan Designated the first Thursday in May of each year as The National Day of Prayer.   

In June 2007 (then) Presidential Candidate BarackObama Declared that the USA "Was no longer a Christian nation.   

In 2009 President Obama Canceled the 21st annual National Day of Prayer ceremony at the White House under the ruse of "not wanting to offend anyone." HOWEVER... On September 25, 2009 From 4 AM until 7 PM, A National Day of Prayer FOR THE MUSLIM RELIGION Was Held on Capitol Hill, inside the White House. There were over 50,000 Muslims In D.C. that day. PRESIDENT OBAMA PRAYS WITH THE MUSLIMS! I guess it doesn't matter if "Christians" were offended by this event - We obviously don't count as "anyone" anymore.   Now President Obama is encouraging schools to teach the Quran for extra credit, while at the same time, they cannot even talk about the Bible, God, pray, or salute the American Flag. The direction this country is headed should strike fear in the heart of every Christian  especially knowing that the Muslim religion believes that if Christians cannot be converted, they should be annihilated.  

Send this to ten people, or even one hundred and ten!   And, send it the person who Sent it to you!. . To let them know that indeed, it was sent out to many more.

Okay, so that is the email I got.  First, let me say I really hate anything that resembles a chain letter. So, when someone sends me something that says "pass this on," I usually don't, just on principle. If you want to paste it into an email or put it on your blog or Facebook, feel free, but doing so won't prove your love of God or Country and not doing it won't reveal you as a Summer Patriot either. 

Regardless of the "chain-letter" feel, this one called attention to something that I think warrants widespread attention, especially from Christians.  And, since this blog is primarily focused on the collision space between God and Government, then this seemed appropriate.

Although it has consistently been soft-pedaled by the mainstream media, Obama publicly admitted in his books that he will stand with the Muslims.  Add to that a couple of other things in his resume.  
    1) During his first campaign I was watching one of his interviews where he referred to Islam as "my faith." Then he quickly backpedaled, saying "their faith", and the reporter totally let it slide. 
    2) In his own books Obama said he would stand with Islam. 
    2) For more than 20 years he claimed his spiritual guide was the Reverend Jeremiah Wright who takes the framework for his beliefs and preaching from "Liberation  Theology" which, if you didn't know, was created by the KGB as a means to get "Christian" ministers to preach the tenets of communism and anti-Americanism.

So, what we have in our current President of the United States is a Muslim who publicly embraces a theology that has it origins in the Communist Manifesto, which preaches that religion is nothing more or less than a means to control the masses ("... religion is the opiate of the masses.").

Some would be dismissive of all this and say, what does it matter if he is Muslim or not?  Well, to everyone who is not Muslim this is a really, really big deal, because it will ultimately determine if they live or die, when he gets his way.  You may think I am being melodramatic here, but it really is that serious.

Why would I say it is a matter of life and death?  Because, according to the teachings of "the religion of peace" anyone who is not a Muslim, a Christian or a Jew has the choice of either converting to Islam or being killed.  And Christians and Jews, if they want to live, get to pay an annual tax for the privilege of not being killed.  In Islam, there are exactly three categories of people: 1) Muslims 2) Infidels (Jews and Christians) and 3) Pagans.  And the Pagans are to be killed if they won't convert to Islam.  Now, do you understand why Pakistan and Bangladesh had to be carved out of India into separate countries and maintain a pretty hostile relationship with India?  It is because both Pakistan and Bangladesh are predominantly Muslim populations while India is predominantly "pagan."  Having pagans ruling over Muslims would be utterly intolerable, and produced violent results.

Now, one more point is worthy of mention here.  Many don't realize it, but Islam is anti-Christ.

Hold on!  Don't go all wild-eyed on me here.  Do you really know what that term means?

Most Christians get all wrapped up in the Book of the Revelation of Saint John (aka Revelations) and talk about "The Anti-Christ."  But they don't really even know what the phrase anti-Christ means.  They assume it means something like opposite-of-Christ.  You know, like in Star Trek where you have matter and anti-matter.  But, that isn't really what the term means.

What anti-Christ means is someone who says that Jesus of Nazareth was not the the Christ, meaning that they deny that he is the Only Begotten Son of God.

Islam promotes that there are four great prophets: Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed.  What is wrong with this picture is that Jesus was way more that JUST a prophet.  They even claim that Jesus did not ever claim to be the Son of God, even though he did on more than one occasion in the first four books of the New Testament, and of course there was that whole resurrection thing where he appeared to the Apostles, Paul, and upwards of 500 people at one time.  Add to that his appearance as a resurrected being, with the wounds in his hands and feet, to people in the ancient Americas, as recorded in the Book of Mormon and his divinity becomes pretty irrefutable.  Then, cap it off with his appearance in 1820 to a farm boy in upstate New York and later in the 1830s in Kirtland, Ohio to Joseph Smith Junior and Sidney Rigdon and prophet becomes the least of the terms appropriate for referring to Jesus of Nazareth.

So, when Islam says that Jesus is a prophet, folks think that means they are honoring and respecting him.  In fact, they are attempting to diminish him by saying he is NOT divine.  They are being anti-Christ. 

So, why would a closet Muslim lie about his religion and embrace communism wrapped in a mask of 

Christianity?  Well, I cannot know for sure, since he won't come out and tell the truth (the Qur'an [or Koran if you prefer] says it is okay to lie to infidels and pagans, so absolute rules of behavior don't seem to emerge from the Qur'an),  I surmise that he is looking for a scheme that will rationalize the imposition of some form of dictatorship or oligarchy - a totalitarian government which will have, as one of its aims, to make us all equally poor (except for those who are more equal than others, like the oligarchs and high ranking "public servants" who rule over us - they will get fancy houses, armed guards, servants, and chauffeured limousines).

When Obama declared that "the US is not a Christian nation," [see endnote below] he is saying what he wants, not what is.  And, he is well on his way to getting our government and laws divorced from Christ.  Once the divorce is complete, the moral underpinnings of our laws are cut away. that will lead to immoral laws (we've already seen some of those). Eventually, the laws will become so corrupt that people will cry out for a return to morality based rule.  They may even rise up in armed rebellion. What we will then get won't be a return to the Judaeo-Christian basis of laws that apply to all.  Rather, we will get something akin to Sharia Law, which discriminates against those of differing religious beliefs and puts a religious ruler in charge (like the mullahs of Iran) who can declare things to be both illegal and immoral and give their enforcers the confidence that the rewards of heaven are theirs for their zealotry in carrying out every instruction of their politico-religious leaders.

Not a pretty picture, is it?  Before you laugh it all off, consider the source. As a faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka Mormons), I truly believe that we have a living prophet on the earth today.  I don't think he is perfect, but he is a very good man.  And, I believe that when he is acting in his office, he is telling me what God wants me to do.  However, I still fact-check with God himself.  And, I know that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the Christ did what he did so that we would have freedom to choose.  He will not take that away from us and He is the one who inspired the Founding Fathers to write our Constitution.  He supports it.  

But, He will let us throw it away.  And a government that is truly run by God and according to His principles and teachings won't deprive us of choice, or tolerate mistreatment of others because they don't believe the same way as He wants us to. 

Every Christian who believes that the Bible is the word of God knows that in the end, Christ himself will return here to rule the world in person.  That is the only time it will be appropriate to have a theocracy in this land.  Until then, let the President and the Prophet be two different people.  And, let the government and the church not become one.

Endnote:  This is kind of an aside, but when I was looking into this quote I followed one link to FactCheck.org which is supposed to be exactly that - a source of facts instead of opinions.  Instead of telling me what he said, or did not say, the site tries to tell me what he meant.  " Here's what Obama meant to say,...".  Unfortunately, this isn't the first time I have found that FactCheck.org spouts editorial opinions instead of just providing facts.  So, rather than cite a source where the quote is written out, I linked to a YouTube video where you can hear exactly what he says.

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein.

Visit Tom's Amazon.com Author's Page

(c) Copyright 2015 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

 Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

SCOTUS Decision Gives a Green Light to Push for Closet Christians

The recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to establish same-sex marriage as a right, does not, by itself signal a dramatic change in the struggle between Christians and the LGBT community.  The real sign of imminent danger lies in the words of the majority opinion, both in what is said, and what is not said.

"Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons."

Notice first, the words of protection for Christians that are used:  "advocate" and "teach."  What is not said is that they "exercise" those beliefs.

I'm not the only one who noticed this dangerous omission by the majority.  A recent article in The Deseret News notes:

Chief Justice John Roberts said the majority's view offers "no comfort" to people of faith when contemplating the further religious liberty issues bound to arise from the ruling, saying that, "ominously," Kennedy's opinion doesn't discuss free exercise protections for groups or individuals.

What is the importance of 'exercise' versus teaching and advocating?  It means simply that you can still say you don't support same-sex marriage, but you cannot act on those beliefs.  If you make wedding cakes, regardless of how you believe, you won't have a choice in whether or not your edible sculpture, crafted to glorify the union of two lives, is used to glorify hetero-sexual marriage, or not.

The same is true of a lot of other wedding-related business.  Now, the amoral capitalist would just shout for joy at the recent SCOTUS ruling because it means his prospective client base just expanded dramatically.  But, contrary to media stereotypes, capitalism is not a synonym for being amoral.  In fact the vast majority of business owners I have met have very strong moral codes.

Many of these business owners really love their work.  It is their passion that helps power their success.  And, if they are forced to use their work to glorify a behavior they believe is immoral, it will sour them on their work and take their heart out of it.

The SCOTUS majority would have us believe that the media stereotype is reality and that business is divorced from religion and morality.

Christians know that you cannot divorce any part of your life from your religion or morality.  Being a Christian means that you not only believe, but you exercise your beliefs, because God will judge us for ALL our deeds, our words, and even our thoughts, and how those aligned with what we know to be right.  In spite of The Godfather and The Sopranos, you cannot be amoral in your business and still be right with God.

Some will argue with me and say, "So what if SCOTUS opened the door for people to use the force of law to make people support same-sex marriage?  No reasonable LGBT proponent will do that."

Douglas Laycock, a law professor at the University of Virginia who has argued religious freedom cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, said there has been "an appalling lack of tolerance on both sides" of the marriage debate, first among opponents who believed they could outlaw same-sex weddings, and now from those supporting the changes.

He goes on to say, "... the gay-rights side ... are now intent on crushing the rights of dissenters."

To put it another way, now that the 'shoe is on the other foot' extremists in the LGBT community wants to shove Christians into the same closet that they came out of.  The closet where it is not seen or spoken of in the public square.

Anyone who says that members of the LGBT community won't push for this is blind to certain lessons about human behavior evident in human history.

The Puritans, after fleeing state-sponsored religious persecution in Europe promptly established laws which not only established their own rights of worship, but restricted the rights of worship of those who were not in their sect.

In this country, many in the black community want to punish whites for race-based discrimination in the past by allowing a form of race-based discrimination going the other direction.  They have even managed to redefine racism in some textbooks.  They have gone from the dictionary definition of racism (which is color blind) to one that defines racism as discrimination of whites against blacks.

Here is the dictionary definition of racism:

belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others. 
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

In contrast with that definition consider this: 

Only white people can be racist, because only white people have institutional power.

 http://stuffwhitepeopledo.blogspot.com/2009/09/wonder-how-to-define-racism.html

And do you recall that Obama's former Attorney General, Eric Holder  while still in office said, "White people can be victims of racial injustice because they haven't suffered enough."  Meaning that the top law enforcement officer in the country wasn't willing to enforce the laws of the land if he didn't like the color of the plaintiffs, until white folks have been made to suffer a lot of discrimination and racial oppression.  Apparently, he didn't agree with Dr. Martin Luther King when he said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."  So, he thinks white people should be made to suffer the way blacks suffered from racism.  That sounds to me a lot like 'putting the shoe on the other foot.'

A Google search for "punish whites for racism" today yields more than 22 million hits.

In nearly every case of history where an oppressed minority managed to gain the upper hand, the result was the minority oppressing the majority in the exact same manner as they had themselves suffered. That is human nature.

Right now, the LGBT community if feeling that they have been an oppressed minority.  Now that SCOTUS has established their behavior as a right, the probability is almost a certainty that many of them will seek to put their opponents into the closet that they themselves came out of not so long ago.

In fact, some accounts I have recently read show that LGBT leadership is planning exactly that.  We have entered a time when instead of "live and let live", minority groups are not content with winning their rights, they want to exterminate the opposition.  What could breed such relentless antipathy in the hearts of people who claim to be all about love and freedom?  To my view, it can only be the subtle, soul-twisting influence of Lucifer, leading them defense of their own freedoms into attacks on the freedoms of others.

I think this SCOTUS decision marks the beginning of a bloody retreat from the public square by Christians in the US.


Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein.

Visit Tom's Amazon.com Author's Page

(c) Copyright 2015 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

 Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

Christian Socialist Is An Oxymoron

Some of you may not know what the word Oxymoron means, so let me start with that.

Dictionary.com gives this definition...

a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous,seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in “cruel kindness” or “to make haste slowly.”

I will also offer my own definition of Christian here:

A Christian is someone who believes that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Messiah, the Only Begotten Son of God after the flesh.  And who is attempting to follow the teachings of Christ as they are found in the scriptures.

Again, Dictionary.com, when using Christian as a noun (as I am here) says that a Christian is:

A person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity. A person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ

Now, we need to define Socialism.  Again, Dictionary.com is helpful:

1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of asociety to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

George Bernard Shaw, the noted Fabian Socialist, said that:

"Socialism, reduced to its simplest legal and practical expression, means the complete discarding of the institution of private property by transforming it into public property and the division of the resultant income equally and indiscriminately among the entire population." (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1946 ed., Vol. 20, p. 895.)

In short, Socialism drives toward the ultimate end of private ownership of anything and everything.  In practice, it is characterized by using the coercive powers of government to take resources from those who are producing them and redistribute those resources to those who merely consume them.  This coercive redistribution is called taxes.  It is coercive because, if you don't pay your taxes the government can take your money, your business, your home and even your freedom.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't an anti-taxation rant.  Nor am I advocating that we don't pay our taxes.  I am simply making the point unmistakably clear that taxation is not a voluntary program.

Now that we understand the meaning of the words in my title, we can fully understand what I mean to say by stating that "Christian Socialist Is An Oxymoron."  I am saying that you cannot genuinely and totally believe in Jesus Christ AND be trying to follow his teachings AND embrace the political and economic tenets of socialism.

Please note, I am being very exact in my words here.  When I say you "totally believe in Jesus Christ" it means that you don't pick and choose what to believe from among the things he teaches.  You either believe everything he said, or you believe none of it.  Because, either he was the Son of God, or he was a liar.

I believe totally in Jesus Christ.  AND I do my best to follow his teachings.  I am nowhere near perfect in this effort, as those closest to me can attest.  But, I am trying.

I know that there are many folks who will disagree with my bold statement that Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable foes.  But it is true.

First, let me give you some of the ammunition those who disagree will use.  Then, I will show you how they are really firing blanks.

In the New Testament the second chapter of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles appears to describe how the adherents of early Christianity were embracing a form of socialism.

44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

And again in Chapter 4 we read:

32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

 34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 

 35 And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

 And from the Book of Mormon we get this about the Christians who were living in ancient America after the resurrected Jesus appeared to them, let them feel the wounds in his hands and feet and taught them, it appears they embraced socialism:

 19 And they taught, and did minister one to another; and they had all things common among them, every man dealing justly, one with another. 20 And it came to pass that they did do all things even as Jesus had commanded them.

3 Nephi 26

And this:

2 And it came to pass in the thirty and sixth year, the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face of the land, both Nephites and Lamanites, and there were no contentions and disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another. 3 And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift.

4 Nephi 1

In our own times, sometime in 1838 (note that the Communist Manifesto was written in 1848), Joseph Smith, Jr. the first president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints introduced to the Saints something called "The United Order."

For brevity, I will summarize here what happened in The United Order.  Members of the Church who desired to enter this Order handed over all their worldly goods to their Bishop (their religious leader).  The Bishop then put these into a 'storehouse' to be used by the Saints.  Then, the Bishop gave to each member in the Order from the storehouse according to their needs and abilities.  To be clear, he deeded these things back to them for their use.  Then, they were expected to pay a tithe (10%) on the gains they made from what he deeded to them.

According to LDS teachings, this United Order is what was being referred to in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles.  I accept that, and will address this as fact.  I will, from this point forward, refer to the United Order as what Christians practiced in this context.

From all of this, it appears that every devout Christian should be signing away their worldly goods to their church and then living off of what the church gives back to them.  Proponents of Socialism use these evidences to support their stance that Christ was saying we should give up private ownership and give to the poor so that we will have "no poor among [us]."

Before we buy in to this view, let's look a little deeper at the differences between Socialism and the United Order.  And let's start by looking at what happened to one specific man and his wife when they sought to join the United Order while keeping back some of their property for their own discretionary use.

Acts Chapter 5 tells us the cautionary story of Ananias and his wife Saphira.

 1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
 2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
 3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
 4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
 5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
 6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. 7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
 8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
 9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
 10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

The key point I want to make from this is not about how dangerous it is to lie to God.  Rather, I want to emphasize what Peter said, "Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?" The rights of this couple to have private property were not looked down on by Peter, rather they were affirmed by him.  And, their entry into the United Order was voluntary.  No one was being forced to sell their goods and join the Order.  

So, the first essential difference between Christianity and Socialism is that Christianity is entirely voluntary.  And, within the broad ground of Christian practice, providing assistance to the poor is considered a Christian duty.  But the fulfillment of that duty, as every Christian knows, is between the individual and God, and the accounting comes at the Final Judgment.

In contrast, Socialism is a compulsory system from start to finish.  Socialism uses the gun to ensure that everyone within their reach gives up their private property, whether they embrace Socialism or not.  Further, their objective is not to eliminate poverty, rather it is to destroy prosperity.

Now, some of my good LDS friends, and even some family, mistakenly believe that Socialism and the United Order are the same girl, just wearing a more chaste dress.  For them, and everyone else, I offer this link to a talk that was given in a General Conference of the Church, at the express request of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The talk is titled, "Socialism and the United Order Compared."  The talk was given in April 1966 by Marion G Romney, who was at that time a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Allow me to quote a couple of key passages here:

No, brethren, socialism is not the United Order. However, notwithstanding my abhorrence of it, I am persuaded that socialism is the wave of the present and of the foreseeable future. It has already taken over or is contending for control in most nations.

We here in the United States, in converting our government into a social welfare state, have ourselves adopted much of socialism. Specifically, we have to an alarming degree adopted the use of the power of the state in the control and distribution of the fruits of industry. We are on notice, according to the words of the President, that we are going much further, for he is quoted as saying:

"We're going to take all the money we think is unnecessarily being spent and take it from the 'haves' and give it to the 'have nots.'" (1964 Congressional Record, p. 6142, Remarks of the President to a Group of Leaders of Organizations of Senior Citizens in the Fish Room, March 24, 1964.)

Socialism takes: United Order gives

That is the spirit of socialism: We're going to take. The spirit of the United Order is: We're going to give.

The President of the United States (POTUS) that Romney was quoting was Lyndon Baines Johnson, the man who initiated "the war on poverty" and it was the means for waging this war that he was referring to in this quotes.

Please note that President Johnson is saying that un-elected US Government bureaucrats will decide how much money we need by deeming part of our spending unnecessary.  They will then, "take" and "give" according to their judgment, and whatever policies their superiors have put in place dictate that judgment.

To put this in perspective, consider the money you need to go visit your ailing parent, child, sibling or friend.  A government worker can say, "That trip is unnecessary.  Your child/parent/sibling/friend will live or die regardless of your visit.  I am taking the money you saved for that trip away from you.  I will take a portion of the money to pay for my time, and then, I will give the remainder to someone who believes that they deserve this money more than you."

Now, there are some who will say that this is just semantics.  Or that we are arguing over tomato or tomatoe.  That is a glib lie.  And I will illustrate the lie very easily.

Picture this:  You see a man taking money out of his wallet and handing it over to a homeless person.

That seems a lovely picture, doesn't it.  It warms the heart.

Now, let's complete the picture.  There is another man in the picture, he is holding a gun on the first man.

What's the difference? Tomato or tomatoe?

The first picture is what we call charity.  It is a voluntary act of sacrifice by one party to aid another.  We call it being a good Christian, giving back, and being charitable.  We universally consider it a virtue.

The second picture is what we call robbery.  It is the forcible redistribution of property and it is universally considered a crime, unless we give it the imprimatur of government and call it taxes and welfare.

Some might argue that when Marion G Romney decried the differences between the United Order and Socialism, he was going astray from the intentions of Joseph Smith, who was the source of the original revelation on that program.  Let's see what Brother Joseph had to say about property rights.  In 1835 he stated:

 1 We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.
 2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

Doctrine and Covenants, Section 134 

So, Joseph Smith asserted that the right and control of property ranks right up there with protecting freedom of conscience and protection of life as primary duties of governments to their constituents.

Some will read this and still wave their hands in dismissal and say, "The end of the matter is to help the poor as Jesus said we should.  So what does it matter if we do it through governmental or private means, as long as the end objective is met?"

This line of reasoning is that the end will justify the means.  A premise espoused by Nicolo Machiavelli in his book on effective leadership titled, "The Prince."

While the world may buy in to this reasoning, Christians should know better.  You cannot simply make the world be filled with righteous people by killing all the folks you think are sinners.  That is what led to the Spanish Inquisition, a notorious chapter in the history of churches.  It has also led to numerous wars that were initiated with the public objective of ridding the world of the unbelievers.  Even Islam, probably the most successful at spreading religion by force, has suffered the ill effects of using bad means while attempting to gain good ends.

When the armies of Islam swept across North Africa and Eastward across Persia and into India, the story was always the same in every conquered town.  "People of the Book", Christians and Jews or Infidels, were separated from everyone else, who were labeled Pagans.  The Pagans were given the choice, accept Allah as god and Muhammed as his prophet, or be killed on the spot.  Those with the courage of their convictions were killed.  Everyone else joined up, whether or not they actually believed.  The result was a Caliphate that was filled with Muslims, who believed whatever they wanted and did what they wanted, as long as they manifested the outward signs of belief.

Of course the Infidels were given a choice too.  They could accept Allah and Mohammed, or they could be forced to pay for the privilege of remaining alive, every single year.

Forced conversion, whether it be Islam, Christianity, or any other, does not produce converts.  It ends up with a church or religion that is torn apart by sects and division as members go their own ways based on their own ideas of what being a good member means.  In Islam, we see this today in the violence between Sunni and Shi'a.  In Christianity it was seen most clearly in our days in the 'Troubles' of Northern Ireland where Protestants were pitted against Catholics.

The ultimate purpose of religions is to get us to believe and behave in a moral manner because we believe it is in our own long-term (eternal) best interests.  When anyone attempts to enforce moral beliefs on others, the force destroys the morality.  When government, and the coercive power of taxation, are used to achieve moral ends, morality is destroyed, not enshrined, because belief and willing action are both irrelevant and rendered null.

Belief and willing action are the heart and soul of true religion.  They are the heart and soul of what Jesus Christ and his Apostles teach.

Not only is Socialism at odds with Christianity, it is at odds with every religion that embraces the notion that each individual must freely choose to accept or reject God on the grounds established by that religion.

My conclusion in all this matter is this:

1. Christians have a moral obligation to help the poor and needy.
2. Forcing people to give to the poor and needy is immoral and results in very bad ends instead of the good ends that are being sought.
3. Government as the means of administering charity is the same thing as trying to force people to do something good.  It will have very bad outcomes for everyone involved.

Because the use of force to get people to believe and behave in a moral manner is in total conflict with the teachings of Jesus Christ, no one call legitimately call themselves a Christian and say they support Socialism.

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein.

Visit Tom's Amazon.com Author's Page

(c) Copyright 2015 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

 Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.