Occupy Wall Street: Approaching Zion

59

October 7, 2011 by Ron Madson

 

                    “One of the great evils with which our own nation is menaced at the present time is the wonderful growth of wealth in the hands of a comparatively few individuals”

                                    –Proclamation on the Economy 1875 from The First

                                   Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

                                    Resurrected on October 6, 2011


Today I joined the “Occupation.”  I heard their voices, read their signs/handouts, asked questions, listened and took notes.  There were an estimated 500 to 1,000 that marched on the downtown Salt Lake City business district before occupying Pioneer Park.  I was pleasantly surprised in speaking with four of the key organizers of Occupy Wall Street/SLC (Skylar Hawk, Kora Christensen, Ryan Kane, and Gregory Lucero) that there was what I consider a genius to their protest:  What appears on the surface to be a vague, rudderless, impromptu protest without concrete objectives or party affiliation is in fact a strategy that gives this movement its’ strength and even, ironically, its’ clarity.

What this Occupation/Protest is NOT defines it as much as what is IS.

   —It is NOT part of any political party affiliation.  It refuses to be co-opted by either the Democratic or Republican Party, or for that matter any definable political party.  It IS a movement that seeks to affiliate with the entire political spectrum.  Today at the march there were those that were Tea Partiers (the chant during the march was “Shame on the Fed”) that were stride for stride marching with liberals, progressives, and even Marxists.

—It is NOT beholden to any well funded special interest. It IS a movement that is truly operated and funded by those who are offering their last few dollars, spare jacket, and one person even offered me their half eaten meal.  This group owes no allegiance to anything but their own conscience

—It is NOT a movement centered around an icon/personality.  It IS deliberately leaderless. It seeks to be governed by “Common Consent.”  Each night, like a little Swiss Canton, they engage in direct democratic vote from the little decisions such as where they will march the next day to their collectively stated agenda/goals—and they are fluid and subject to change.  Their voice comes from those governed and not from any top down authoritarian straight-jacket.

–It is NOT a  movement that defines itself by who it excludes.  It seeks to include all humanity.  It IS a movement that wants to include everyone—even the “one percent.”  Bill Gates would fit in as well as the homeless. They are only excluding those who do not exist, namely, corporations and those who chose to exclude themselves from the suffering of humanity.

–It is NOT seeking to compel anyone through the force of authority, money or violence.  It IS using the only force that it has—persuasion.

While they are wise in not impressing those that gather with a procrustean formula, after interviewing more than a dozen participants, it is my belief that their general common areas of concern are best captured in an article by Jason Hamlin of “Gold Stock Bull”:

1) End the Collusion Between Government and Large Corporations/Banks, So That Our Elected Leaders Are Actually Representing the Interests of the People (the 99%) and Not Just Their Rich Donors (the 1%).

2) Investigate Wall Street and Hold Senior Executives Accountable for the Destruction in Wealth that has Devastated Millions of People.

3) Return the Power of Coining Money to the U.S. Treasury and Return to Sound Money

4) Limit the Size, Scope and Power of Banks so that None are Ever Again “Too Big to Fail” and in Need of Taxpayer Bailouts

5) Eliminate “Personhood” Legal Status for Corporations

6) Repeal the Patriot Act, End the War on Drugs and Protect Civil Liberties

7) End the Imperial Wars of Aggression, Bring the Troops Home from All Countries, Cut the Military Budget and Limit The Military Role to Protection of the Homeland

Following the example of the Occupation Movement, I cannot nor will I speak for others who are part of the “Mormon Worker” collective, but I can speak for myself in saying that I enthusiastically support these seven general concerns.

So how does my Mormonism inform my support for this “Occupy Wall Street” movement?

At the root of my Mormonism is a belief that Jesus of Nazareth is the way, truth and light for all mankind.  He saw the world from the bottom up.  He gave voice to the least against the political, economic, and social structures of His day.  He spoke for the 99% who were being oppressed by the 1%.  He invited those with the most to give all they had to the poor and then come follow Him.   In the Book of Mormon we learn that God is no respecter of person.  He is a study in inclusiveness.  In His kingdom there are no more “ites” or divisions among His people—they are of one mind and one heart, temporally as well as spiritually.  Those that heard His very words and chose to follow Him “had all things in common” in both the Jerusalem and this New World—two powerful witnesses  of what would naturally flow out of a loving one’s neighbor as oneself.  When those that professed His name began to stray they began to believe that “man prospered according to the management of the flesh” and they built great monuments to their vanity (Rameumptons) while despising those less fortunate then themselves as being rejected of God.   They built temples/ synagogues from the toil of the poor and then excluded them on account of their coarse clothes lest the temple grounds be polluted with their undesirable poverty.  In the words of Isaiah, they would “grind the face of the poor” while lavishing upon themselves luxuries and excusing themselves and those in their combinations of all manner of wickedness.  

Seeking to “be more wise” as counseled by the ancient editor of the Book of Mormon, the Lord has bound His latter-day people in a covenant to  become one:  “That you may be equal in the bonds of heavenly things, yea, and earthly things also, for the obtaining of heavenly things. For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things” (Doctrine & Covenants 78: 5,6).  And to provide for his Saints the Lord counsels us to do His ways: “Behold, this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted , in that the rich are made low.” Such principles, teachings and covenants lie at the heart of pure Mormonism. 

So while driving to Occupy Wall Street/ SLC, I listened to those talk shows whose religion requires that they speak for Wall Street.  They defined those protesters at Occupy Wall Street as filthy hippies, indolent welfare recipients, uneducated, the dregs of society who were determined to covet others’ wealth.  I first met with some of the aforementioned organizers in Salt Lake City and found them to be intelligent, sincere, generous and courageous.    Perhaps they were the exception, so I wandered around and spoke with a long-haired hippie looking young man who from his appearance typified the stereotype that the critics of this movement were portraying.  This young man, unemployed, coarse on the outside but very sensitive on the inside, told me that he had been waiting for such a day as today.  He expressed his love for all humanity, including the 1%,  and his desire that somehow we could find a way to provide work, health insurance, and general basic needs for everyone.  He went further.  He felt he was part of something bigger then himself and that being there was a spiritual experience.  I shared with him my personal faith and then it became for both of us a shared spiritual experience.

For some, or perhaps most Mormons, this protest and the protestors represent the very antithesis of what we have sought to cultivate—a bargain with the corridors of power and what William James called “the bitch goddess success, and a squalid interpretation of success.”    We like to see ourselves as being more of a friend to Wall Street then those who we see on the margins of society.  But I believe there is something deep within our better natures that yearns to join with the oppressed, the hungry, the sick, the afflicted, those on the margins of society. Well-known French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre once declared that “Until you have marched to the barricades with the workers of the world, life has no meaning.”

I find meaning in marching with and supporting these protestors.  Just before I left this afternoon, one young man approached me and said he was a BYU student.  He told me that he really wanted to be there in support of the cause.  He said that he could not get any other fellow Mormons/BYU students to join him—and he asked many.  I told him that I was a practicing Mormon and BYU alumni and that I was with two other alumni so he was not alone, and that it was because of our Mormonism that we were there and not in spite of it.

             “And the Lord called His people Zion, because they were of one heart, and one mind, and there were no poor among them”

Ron Madson   10/6/2011

Proclamation on the Economy, 1875The experience of mankind has shown that the people of communities and nations among whom wealth is the most equally distributed, enjoy the largest degree of liberty, are the least exposed to tyranny and oppression and suffer the least from luxurious habits which beget vice. Under such a system, carefully maintained, there could be no great aggregations of either real or personal property in the hands of a few; especially so while the laws, forbidding the taking of usury or interest for money or property loaned, continued in force.One of the great evils with which our own nation is menaced at the present time is the wonderful growth of wealth in the hands of a comparatively few individuals. The very liberties for which our fathers contended so steadfastly and courageously, and which they bequeathed to us as a priceless legacy, are endangered by the monstrous power which this accumulation of wealth gives to a few individuals and a few powerful corporations. By its seductive influence results are accomplished which, were it equally distributed, would be impossible under our form of government. It threatens to give shape to the legislation, both state and national, of the entire country. If this evil should not be checked, and measures not taken to prevent the continued enormous growth of riches among the class already rich, and the painful increase of destitution and want among the poor, the nation is likely to be overtaken by disaster; for, according to history, such a tendency among nations once powerful was the sure precursor of ruin.Years ago, it was perceived that we Latter-day Saints were open to the same dangers as those which beset the rest of the world. A condition of affairs existed among us, which was favorable to the growth of riches in the hands of a few at the expense of many. A wealthy class was being rapidly formed in our midst whose interests in the course of time, were likely to be diverse from those of the rest of the community. The growth of such a class was dangerous to our union; and, of all people, we stand most in need of union and to have our interests identical. Then it was that the Saints were counseled to enter into co-operation. In the absence of the necessary faith to enter upon a more perfect order revealed by the Lord unto the Church, this was felt to be the best means of drawing us together and making us one.

A union of interests was sought to be attained. At the time cooperation was entered upon, the Latter-day Saints were acting in utter disregard of the principles of self-preservation. They were encouraging the growth of evils in their own midst which they condemned as the worst features of the systems from which they had been gathered. Large profits were being consecrated in comparatively few hands, instead of being generally distributed among the people. As a consequence, the community was being rapidly divided into classes, and the hateful and unhappy distinctions to which the possession and lack of wealth give rise were becoming painfully apparent. When the proposition to organize Zion’s Co-operative Mercantile Institution was broached, it was hoped that the community at large would become stockholders; for if a few individuals were to own its stock, the advantages to the community would be limited. The people, therefore, were urged to take shares, and large numbers responded to the appeal. As we have shown, the business proved to be as successful as its most sanguine friends anticipated. But the distribution of profits among the community was not the only benefit conferred by the organization of cooperation among us.

Cooperation has submitted in silence to a great many attacks. Its friends have been content to let it endure the ordeal. But now it is time to speak. The Latter-day Saints should understand that it is our duty to sustain cooperation and to do all in our power to make it a success. The local cooperative stores should have the cordial support of the Latter-day Saints. Does not all our history impress upon us the great truth that union is strength? Without it, what power would the Latter-day Saints have? But it is in not our doctrines alone that we should be united, but in practice and especially in our business affairs.

Your Brethren,

Brigham Young George A. Smith
Daniel H. Wells John Taylor
Wilford Woodruff Orson Hyde
Orson Pratt Charles C. Rich
Lorenzo Snow Erastus Snow
Frankling D. Richards George Q. Cannon
Brigham Young, Jr. Albert Carrington

Excerpted from the Apostolic Circular of July 1875. The complete text can be found in Edward Jones Allen, The Second United Order Among the Mormons (New York: Columbia University Press, 1936).

59 thoughts on “Occupy Wall Street: Approaching Zion

  1. So far I generally support the aims of this movement as well. “So far,” because I’m not 100% optimistic that it will remain without a spokesman or tendency to be associated with a particular party. I hope it does, but people tend to follow charismatic leaders, which makes this type of movement easy to co-opt in the long run.

    One thing that interested me in this post, though, was the First Presidency statement, particularly: “Under such a system, carefully maintained, there could be no great aggregations of either real or personal property in the hands of a few; especially so while the laws, forbidding the taking of usury or interest for money or property loaned, continued in force.” Were the laws against usury/interest repealed by Christ? I can’t find any basis for thinking so, since in nearly every aspect Christ’s teachings are stricter than the laws previously given to the Israelites. However, I asked that question in a Sunday School class I was teaching once, and was greeted with universal disgust at the fact that I would even bring up the issue. One response was the usual “usury only means excessive interest” to which I responded that the modern legal definition is not the same as the definition which the King James translators used — a synonym for “interest” — and that the Hebrew “nashak” was any sort of “bite” or charge for lending money. Likewise we see that modern Islam still maintains the same understanding that interest is completely forbidden. The ultimate conclusion of the class was that interest couldn’t be wrong because the modern economy is completely dependent on it. Not a satisfactory argument in my mind, but I wasn’t there to argue a point, and I already had everybody pretty flustered. I regret asking the question, because it upset everyone and chased away the spirit, but I have to mention that I didn’t expect (and was completely suprised by) the reaction.

    In any case, this First Presidency statement seems like further evidence that the modern economy is structured in a way contrary to the principles of the gospel…

    • Ron Madson says:

      Jeremiah,
      I agree that it really is a “so far” general support for most of us. How this plays out will be interesting to observe.
      As for the prohibition for usury and such laws, it is noteworthy that in these latter-days we did at times practice a sort of “jubilee” as when President Taylor chose a year to not require even the payments of tithing.
      Tonight I went back to my original post above and added some scriptures from the Doctrine and Covenants in an edited version. It is remarkable how the Lord in the D&C counsels His people to become one literally by bringing low the rich and exalting the poor. Sound almost commie by our standards today. I am not sure what to make of it.

  2. Oh nice, we’ve got a sit-in going on in San Diego today. http://www.10news.com/news/29416326/detail.html

  3. SLK says:

    Glad to see the “Proclamation” making another appearance. I’d like to offer a public-domain link to the full text, which appears in Edward Tullidge’s “History of Salt Lake City” (1886), pp. 728-732:

    http://www.archive.org/stream/historyofsaltlak00tul#page/728/mode/2up

    • Robert Poort says:

      and for those who might be interested: I translated the document in Dutch:

      http://demormoonsearbeider.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/kerkelijke-proclamatie-over-de-economie/

      Who will petition the First Presidency of the Church to add this important document to the Doctrine and Covenants as Official Declaration # 1 ?

      • Ron Madson says:

        Robert, you start it. I might get some traction in Europe, but if I showed the petition to my HP quorum in Utah without showing the source, they would consider it a document forged in the deepest recesses of hell by those seeking to take away their “free agency” aka as their coveted wealth.

      • Gregory VanWagenen says:

        if I showed the petition to my HP quorum in Utah without showing the source, they would consider it a document forged in the deepest recesses of hell by those seeking to take away their “free agency” aka as their coveted wealth.

        It’s very sad that people conflate property ownership with their ability to make moral choice, but it’s another example of commodity fetishism, and is a fault of the entire social system in which we operate, within which the individuals who make this error are also entrapped.

        Jesus and other historical figures always warned against loving money more than caring about the well being of other people. Not only is this a critical view of individuals and their tendency to be controlled by greed, but it is a social critique as well, which calls us to imagine new forms of interactions in which people will become the authors of their lives, and such dreams may lead us into a new society in which people are seen as sovereign individuals, rather than merely income generators for others.

    • Ron Madson says:

      Nice link SLK–thanks

      Robert, your translation is another remarkable contribution. wonderful gift of tongues.

      • Robert Poort says:

        Actually, I have no intention of doing so (petition ) pretty much for the same reason. Unfortunately one has to be realistic enough to know that such a petition would not work.
        But our continued presence with The Mormon Worker on the Internet will hopefully get some traction.
        This month I hope to present a report (in English) on remarkable radical politics by some LDS members in The Netherlands who are fighting the right-wing PVV Party. They even made the evening news on TV ! More to follow.

      • Robert Poort says:

        Does anyone has the time and/or energy to comment on the reaction of Orson Scott Card in the Deseret News on The Proclamation of the Economy?

        http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700259567/Document-does-fine-on-its-own.html?pg=1

      • Joseph says:

        This is a response to the editorial by Orson Scott Card above.

        First off, yes, I feel it was a bit disingenuous for the original posters of this “proclamation” to put it forth with no solid citation and with no ellipsis or anything else to indicate that this was an excerpt and not the entire document. As the title of Card’s editorial states, the document does indeed to fine on its own.

        But that’s just it. The excerpt above does not change the intent of the original document. It is far more disingenuous for Card to imply that something is scandalous when it is not. The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve DID sign the document above. Card stating otherwise is trying to make a case based on a technicality that I do not believe even the most obnoxious lawyer would try to use in court.

        The document in its original setting is far more than a “five-year-report.” It is not just “protectionist” or trying to freeze out non-Mormon competition. It is advocating an economy based on cooperation, as the new title recently given the excerpts from it states. If there is competition advocated, as Card suggests there is, it is a competition between an economy of sharing versus a market driven capitalist society. The principles taught in it are scriptural and eternal, and we don’t get to just toss them to the side claiming we have modern revelation. There is no modern revelation that contradicts the principles in the above document.

        Orson Scott Card claims that we should expect an apology from those who have posted the above proclamation. Based on Card’s logic, we should be expecting an apology from those who compiled the Doctrine Covenants for, among other things, excerpting sections 121 and 122 from Joseph Smith’s letters and including no ellipsis.

        I very much respect many of Orson Scott Card’s works of fiction. It seems, though, that he, like other intelligent artists, has bought into some political ideas that I just don’t get.

  4. SLK says:

    Ron, you’re very welcome. I’ve been enjoying this blog for quite awhile. ~Scott

  5. Dani says:

    This is great, and I’m glad I found your blog. I somehow missed this proclamation in my years in the church, and it’s simultaneously heartening to read it now, and disheartening to see when it was published (given that we’re STILL having the same problems). I’ll be following this blog with interest. 🙂

    • Ron Madson says:

      Dani, welcome aboard. Look forward to your voice/contributions. Someone ought to tape a copy of the Proclamation on the Economy to the Brigham Young statute by temple square–on his outstretched hand to show his solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street/SLC movement.

  6. J. Madson says:

    Blessed are the meek, the poor, and the peacemakers.

  7. That is an interesting picture of Brigham. What does it mean? Thanks.

  8. Robin Bishop says:

    The spontaneous re-creation of the the vision of the United Order should not be confused with a tacitly irreligious, leaderless, mob which universally covets the wealth of others…notwithstanding other virtues of the assembly. If these endless demonstrations have value, let that be defined first with a pooling of re$ource (equally as spontaneous as the gathering) to pay for the daily cleanup, security, court costs and damages.

    For all its passion, even violence, there is no consensus proclamation.

    • Ron Madson says:

      Robin, thanks for commenting. I was at the Occupation Wall Street: SLC again today. A couple of observations. I did find the group very orderly, relatively clean, and calm. It is true that they have pooled their money and resources and share liberally–and deny no one bread/food even the homeless that are there. Kudos for them doing so.

      You judge the movement to be a mob that is irreligious, leaderless, and “universally covets the wealth of others.”

      As to being a “mob” I observed order, civility, and not a speck of aggression from which I would infer a mob. It is true that there are other cities where there are videos/reports of some violence/confrontation, but whether it is provoked by the protestors or the police I can not judge. I do know that they have a strict no drugs, no alcohol/smoking on the premises and even have banned swearing. Not very mob like.

      As to being “irreligious” I would say that I am certain that there is a whole spectrum of those with or without an identifiable faith. I was there and met several practicing mormons. I had the pleasure of visiting with a Lutheran Pastor, and we have several religious discussions with many. I suspect that the spectrum of those that believe or do not probably fit the same spectrum you would find in any gathering.

      As to being “leaderless” you are probably correct in that assumption. They do have key organizers over areas and committees, etc. They each spoke at the meeting and gave instructions. But they intentionally have avoided having a “leader” that would direct them as to the template of their goals/agendas/ etc. They have avoided the top down straight jacket. They do vote democratically as to their agenda/affairs and they have adopted core principles—see my post above.

      As to “universally coveting the wealth of others” you could not be more wrong on this point. Yes, there are a few individuals here and there demanding something or another to be provided but they are by far the exception and not the rule. I am sure that Fox News/Limbaugh and others have their reporters scanning to find those that covet and have such signs. Our LDS scriptures tell us that we should not even covet our own property (see Section 19 DC). This movement is about gaining control over the corporations/special interests that has coveted our wealth –the wealth of our nation and returning it to the control of the governed. They seek to wrest control over resources from the Gadianton Robbers and secret combinations in high places. They see the Madoffs, the September 2008 bailouts, the printing currencies robbing all of us. I had made several signs. One I held said: “Dear America, Thank you for the $, Sorry about your kids, Love, Halliburton.” My point was that it is such entities and the complicity of the government that allows the military industrial complex to suck up the treasures of our nation and reign with blood and horror on this planet.

      No, this movement does not covent Bill Gates, Warren Buffett or any person’s wealth. They seek to regain control over those Robber Barrons that covet, steal the wealth through fraud, duplicity and crony capitalism. that use their money to create an unfair playing field.

      The group is diverse. There were Ron Paul supporters there as well as liberals.

      This movement is more poetry then politics. It is allowing voices to be heard and a force that informs those in power that their deed in darkness are being seen and they must account.

      I would not so quickly and categorically dismiss this movement by easy judgments/labels.

      • Robin Bishop says:

        You have mischaracterized some of my points and totally avoided others. I speak of the movement, not particularly its new low octane SLC version. Need I repeat the obvious? “OWS is not a latter day version of the United Order.” Not in Manhattan, nor SLC.
        So, lets properly characterize what this IS.
        We have a universal loss of confidence in the order that once seemed to exist because the norms of reciprocity have dissolved. That is the preverbial fabric of society is coming apart. That torn fabric which your movement laments is the devastating loss of common wealth only. Those of the world are the same you rubbed shoulders with in your crowds.
        You all identify enemies held in common to your new crowd. American Patriots of old identified their enemies as well. If you recall the mobs of the civil war we now describe as the American Revolution, we then held disdain for the traditional and conservative political philosophy- the predominant ideology of Britain, the Tory across the Atlantic. That was OK and was entertained for a time without violence (see the parallel?). Then we found a Tory in town and lynched him.

        Now we have the vaguery of Wall Street today to trash. The crowd psychology behind those early gatherings at the beginning of our revolution and this one will reach identical ends if confidence is not regained. For certainty, in prosperity your enemies today were those you previously suckled for the profit they provided you.

        After all, Joseph Smith was universally declared to be a false prophet by the mobs after the banks failed then, as well. Crowd psychology is not the road to truth, my friend.
        A bit of intellectual honesty is owed. You write of this thing now as if it were an Amway meeting.

        (A bit of personal history: I am a HP LDS convert and married for 40+ years …voted Obama in the last election. I grew up Republican, born in Manhattan. My father was a broker on Wall Street his entire life with 3 martini lunches). It didn’t rub off on me. However, one thing has a constant for me: my disdain for crowds.

      • If your post was mischaracterized, I suspect it’s only because your point wasn’t made clearly. I read the post and the reply, and the reply seemed to respond to what the post apparently said. I’m not sure your return response is clear either: you seem to be saying that you don’t like crowds. You reason that because crowds have been wrong at times in history, that therefore crowds are always wrong: “Crowd psychology is not the road to truth, my friend.” Overlooking the obvious fallacy in that reasoning, I’ll admit that I dislike crowds as well, but, as you mentioned, major upheavals in society seem to require crowd efforts (e.g. the American Revolution). The results are usually pretty nasty, but occasionally you can get something big done peacefully, as Ghandi showed. The United Order isn’t going to be established until some major change in society takes place — in the meantime the fact that God has left us to fend for ourselves shouldn’t be construed as an instruction not to do anything…

      • Ron Madson says:

        Robin,
        Crowds make me anxious also. That we can and do agree on. The Occupy Wall Street crowds are, of course, not the United Order. Also, the very moment a crowd moves to violence/force then I am no longer with them. Crowds/mobs can engage in the scapegoat mechanism (see writings of Rene Girard and my post on Gabrielle Giffords in this blog). However, groups can gather for all kinds of purposes–good and evil. We are drawn together in church, in sacrament, and at times in His name. Again, the common themes are set forth in the seven areas described above. And this movement has a very strict non-violence/Gandhi type approach. Could it change? Of course. If it does, then many like myself will no longer associate with and in fact denounce it. I did enjoy the spiritual discussions and the sense of sharing, listening and communion.
        It still escapes me how my observations are engaging in intellectual “dishonesty.”? Puzzling. If I am mistaken or mischaracterize how I see this movement then I will consider how and why. I have no agenda. The nature of the internet and no chance for immediate qualifying often allows parties to talk past each other or miss what the other is trying to say. I apologize to the extent that I miss your points and vice a versa due to my inability to express myself clearly.
        I find the Occupy Wall Street a fascinating phenomena and will continue to observe and add my voice to the injustices that I see being perpetuated. Speaking to one another and engaging in discourse–and this movement does a great deal of that—seems to be a healthy exercise.

    • Robin Bishop says:

      Ron has stated,
      He cannot judge as to who might be the cause of the violence in these demonstrations (suspecting that the police might be instigating it. ) Let me help you out with what I am referring to in a lack of intellectual honesty: I have read that in all of the concerted, planned activities throughout this nation TODAY, Very few permits were requested or granted for the demonstrations you extol today. (Actually I read none were.) You Know This.

      In such unlawful assemblies where thoroughfares are blocked and the demonstrators are on the move willy nilly, the disrespect of order is coming from the crowd alone. Where Ron has stated he would be long gone before violence erupted, I counsel him the time is now. The Nazis have the courtesy to file permits.

      Jer-

      To characterize and draw parallels between the American Revolution and the correctness of these leaderless demonstrations is error. Mobs did not make the American Revolution; Mobs nearly defeated the cause. We democratically elect great leaders by the voice of all the people. In the British colonies that is what we did. Those elected citizens then rationally found common ground. The crowds you defend disrespect all authority. They demand to be accountable to nobody.

  9. Adam says:

    I think you should be careful in your interpretation of the Proclamation on the Economy of 1875. Of worthy historical note, business monopoly’s were a problem leading to anti-competition/anti-free markets, which does lead to oppressed classes of working people through economic control. The Proclamation uses the voluntary community example where competition is fostered and people are given the opportunity to rise and fall together. The Proclamation is in no way suggesting that we should endorse a forced government take over of production and distribution. The nation responded to the threat in 1890 with the monopoly busting Sherman Anti-Trust Act and subsequent legislation fostering competitive free markets.

    The take away message from the Proclamation on the Economy of 1875 is that we should endorse a system of free-market competition. That is one reason why the LDS Church has never endorsed a socialist or communist system of government and in fact has spoken out against such governments and movements vehemently. The danger with Occupy Wall-Street is there are facets of this group who are advocating for the destruction of capitalism and the free market. They are advocating for government control of production and distribution. This is a socialist message and one that should be denounced. I would caution any Occupy Wall Street supporter to make sure they distinguish themselves from the socialist/communist in this movement.

    • J. Madson says:

      Where in the post does it say the govt should control things? In fact many of us oppose the state as the greatest purveyor of violence economically and militarily. You did notice this is an anarchist site no?

    • Ron Madson says:

      Adam,
      I linked the Proclamation on the Economy for open discussion/consideration. There is no need to be anxious in attempting to understand its’ significance. I am not. I use it to illustrate that there are other perspectives–and that it changes from generation to generation. Some of BY’s language during his administration would be considered anathema, for example, to ETB’s politics. It is open to discussion/consideration/interpretation. If something is edifying and brings further light then we have the opportunity to embrace it. I personally do not take this proclamation and suggest that it is in some conclusive authoritative way binding on anyone, including myself, anymore than I would demand allegiance to the Adam God theory taught by Brigham Young nor his racist policies that took decades to finally wake up to and repent of as a people.

      Personally, I do not endorse any “ism”–they all are, imo, short of the Kingdom of God in some facets. But I do find it interesting that there has developed such a dreadful fear of the word “socialism” —or at least how it is narrowly interpreted by many in our faith community—when I see, for example, capitalism equally, if not more, prone to corruption. We have tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of latter day saints that practice democratic socialism and from their prospective it much more approximates the Kingdom of God then laissez faire capitalism. Should we banish them from the church? Tell them that their choice through voting to provide health insurance, education and basic necessities for all in their nation is inspired from hell/Satan? You can, but that is not the policy of our church.

      I consider ETB’s “Proper Role of Government” a statement of his politics/opinion. I also find it ideologically immature and internally illogical in parts. That is my opinion–check out my post called “A Modest Proposal to end Socialism” in this blog.

      I am open to discussion/debate so have it. But merely citing authority is fine, but not conclusive in that one can find conflicting “authorities” whether it be Hugh B. Brown v. ETB debates or Orson Pratt v. Brigham debates or even presidents of the church from one generation to another.

      How do I judge? I try to read/consider the words of Christ during His ministry and filter all isms and policies and politics through that prism—as best as I can. I trust everyone else in our faith community attempts in good faith to do the same.

  10. You cannot be LDS and a Communist. You cannot go to the Temple if you are Communist watch Ezra Taft Benson’s warnings against Communism. Read Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkey It explains that communism is Lucifer’s Counterfeit version to the law of Consecration. It is a division of the argument of the adversary. You can be excommunicated for being a communist. STOP THIS CHILDISH FOOLISHNESS OF MAKING BRIGHAM YOUNG A MARXIST!!!

    • J. Madson says:

      Actually you can be a member, can go to the temple, and won’t be excommunicated. I am not one but know a number of them. And yes I know of Ezra Taft’s warmed over Bastiat that he thinks deconstruct communism. Not impressed.

      As for Che Brigham, I guess it had the desired effect. As all good street art does in forcing you to think outside the box and in your case pissing some people off. Instead of worrying about your notion of communism why don’t you actually address the post and the proclamation.

      And don’t forget to warn all those European socialist mormons who are in danger of hellfire.

      • mikey says:

        what gives you the right to suggest that anyone is in danger of hell fire?,,,whats not to say that you are not in danger of hell fire, unless…… you are God?

    • Jordan Cook says:

      Publius your ignorance has shown through within five words of your post. Our church holds no standard of government as ordained of god specifically, and TODAY there are MANY SOCIALIST COUNTRIES with active and practicing members. My father is in the fifth quorum of the seventy and has met many other area authorities that are socialist some which are VERY LEFT LEANING SOCIALIST AND COMMUNISTS! Do not blather your ignorance by citing Mormon Doctrine, the book that was taken back for its false preachings by the first presidency. It was the opinions of one of the senior brethren written with a justified stance of personal authority based on the feelings of the author. It was never, and will never be, endorsed by the church. Get out of the sixties bircher movement! Benson never said anything of that nature once he became prophet, it was only before that, WHEN HE WAS INVOLVED IN POLITICS. There were plenty of VERY left leaning apostles and seventies over the years, many of them prominent. They were smart enough to keep there mouth shut, but I can give you examples. Dont pretend to be smarter than 99% (HA HA how fitting) of our apostles and prophets were understood the gospel enough to not condemn their brethren simply on the base of political belief. What you are doing is dangerous to the church to a far greater extent than any communists or socialists, because you spread a false doctrine of intolerance into a very tolerant religion. I believe there is probably some truth to be found in studying government systems in the search for truth. And all truth can be circumscribed into one great hole, remember?

    • I assure you there are members of LDS Church who belong to the various oriented communist parties through out Europe. . Ron , It is good to read your original post. My only concern is that Occupy SLC is a fringe movement and will not develop any momentum to become a mass protest simliar to the civil rights movement. Demands are too vague. What is would like to see is urging of public owned banks and development of worker cooperatives .

  11. I am warning them. I am a believer in the Law Of Consecration the true Celestial Utopian society. It has been said by almost every single Prophet of this dispensation that Communism is the Counterfeit to the law of Consecration. I am a Capitalist as long as we don’t practice this Celestial Law. I am Anti-Corporatist I do not believe that there should be a such thing as “Special Interest” I am Anti-Nazi which guess what besides CPUSA the Communist Party Of America endorsing and FUNDING the Occupy Rallies the Nazis have also endorsed the Occupy Rallies. I am anti-Federal Reserve AND GUESS WHAT SO IS GLENN BECK. I am PRO-Constitution IT IS AN INSPIRED DOCUMENT OF GOD!! I HAVE STUDIED THE RISE OF COMMUNISM THIS IS IT!! THEY WANT REVOLUTION!!!! THE PEOPLE AT OCCUPY WANT REVALUATION!! In order to create a communist world you would have to destroy the Constitution and man’s freedom. AS for being the 99% the people funding Occupy are CODE PINK, SEIU, THE OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE (George Soros the 12th RICHEST MAN IN THE WORLD) CPUSA, SP-USA, The Anarchist Party, The Nazi Party, AFLCIO, Anonymous, The Tides Foundation, and Van Jones. Don’t believe me GO TO THEIR WEBSITES!!!! and Yes you can’t go to the Temple if you are communist because one of the questions asked is “DO YOU or ANY MEMBER OF YOUR FAMILY BELONG TO SUPPORT OR AFFILIATE WITH ANY ORGANIZATION THAT IS CONTRARY TO THE TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH” If you say you are a Communist that NO YOU CAN’T GO READ MORMON DOCTRINE BY BRUCE R. McCONKIE Read the Manuscripts that Joseph Smith wrote about how he went to a Socialist meeting and afterward said “I did not agree with them” READ David O. Mckay Read Cleon Sckosen Watch Glenn Beck LISTEN to all of Ezra Taft Benson’s warnings against Socialism and Communism!! It’s different for members in places like China where you have to be Communist but in places like america it is TREASON against the Constitution, Mans Freedom, and it’s Lucifer’s Counterfeit to the Law Of Consecration!

    • Bitherwack says:

      Last time I checked Publius, neither Skousen nor Beck were in a position to determine standards for temple worthiness and can in no way be considered church authorities. (Your use of the word ‘treason’– a ‘crime’ that hasn’t been seen in the courts since the 18th century, just sets all those red flags in peoples minds flying. Please try to control the nuttier of your comments.)

      Politics has never, and will never be held up for judgement for temple worthiness.

      In the end of a temple recommend interview, the interviewer asks the member if he/she thinks he/she is worthy. That judgement is left to the member.

      Whatever twisted logic you use, it doesn’t change the fact that bishops and stake presidents are not allowed to vary from the temple recommend script, and are not allowed to make interpretations. Reading your post, I have no doubt that you are neither a bishop, nor bishopric material.

      • Ron Madson says:

        Publius,
        Thank you for sharing these clips. I was really into all of ETB’s writings/speeches as a sophomore in high school. Consistent with his inspired denunciation of all forms of socialism, I dedicated an entire post proposing that we embrace the full logic of his political advice and stamp out all forms of socialism. Here is my previous post which you have permission to share: https://themormonworker.wordpress.com/2009/09/09/a-modest-proposal-to-end-socialism/

        Unfortunately as you will read in Quinn’s book “Mormon Hierarchy: Extension of Power” there were many socialist general authorities, including President Hugh B. Brown that did not share ETB’s political opinions. May God forgive them their ignorance even if we can’t.

    • tariq says:

      I wish you were right about this being the rise of communism. Anyway, I think you will find that the name Glenn Beck carries much less intellectual and spiritual authority around this bunch than it does around your right wing friends (I don’t know why. Beck is such an intellectual giant and such a nice person! ha ha!). Also, the book Mormon Doctrine is far from perfect, it is certainly not scripture, and McConkie never claimed it was without flaws. He took full responsibility for it, specifically stating that it speaks for him, and not for the Church as a whole. As for your understanding of socialism, I simply want to point out that socialism is a big umbrella, there is a vast diversity of ideas under that umbrella. The overwhelming majority of OWS folks are not advocating for any kind of Stalinist or Maoist dictatorship, and most, as far as I have seen, are not even doctrinaire marxist-leninists at all. The fact that OWS is employing consensus decision making techniques and a decentralized, loose organizing model, kind of contradicts any of your claims that this is the road to communist dictatorship. Your fears belong back in the cold war era. There is, perhaps, more room in the Church for independent thinking and social/political diversity than you think. Lastly, I don’t understand why so many on the far right feel inclined to overuse capital letters and exclamation points. I’m just sayin’, it seems like a thing.

  12. PapaTony says:

    Rod, I like where you (and this site) are coming from. I have been an active LDS for almost 40 years but lately have lost some confidence. This site is therapeutic for me, i.e. to see others with similar worldviews trying to mesh their perspectives on war & peace, social justice, equality, corporatism and consumerism together with a deep belief in the gospel. Keep up the good work. Thanks!

    • Ron Madson says:

      PapaTony,
      thanks for visiting and commenting on this site. It is also therapeutic for me write. Look forward to your voice/contribution in the future.

  13. The proclamation starts with a statement of a general principle: concentration of wealth tends to limit the liberty of the people.

    [Of course the minority enjoying the concentration of wealth do not feel any restriction on their liberty.]

    It goes on to say that church members have repeatedly rejected the Lord’s solution, so they propose loyalty to ZCMI, a cooperative endorsed by the church, as a partial amelioration of the problem.

    It seems to me that the general principle that concentrated wealth tends to undemocratic concentrations of power is simply a tautology:
    If the political power of a group is proportional to its wealth, then it is not proportional to the number of people in the group (i.e. not democratic) while wealth (hence power) is concentrated in a fraction of the population, no matter the excuse for the concentration. If the excuse is communism, socialism, capitalism, or any other ism, it’s still a bad excuse for undemocratic concentrations of power.

    We’re all familiar with the undemocratic concentrations of power behind the iron and bamboo curtains; our capitalist cheer leaders have made sure of that. And if you have ever played the Parker Brothers game of Monopoly, you know how the dynamics of capitalism inexorably lead to extreme concentrations of wealth (hence power) even with symmetrical initial conditions and impartial rules of play.

    Captain Moroni said that rather than seek for power, he sought to pull it down. It seems to me that he was justified in his actions, and I believe that people all over the earth are getting sick and tired of undemocratic concentrations of power. That’s the driving force of these demonstrations.
    The Lord revealed his solution to Joseph Smith, and President Young continued efforts to implement the Lord’s solution, but this proclamation is an admission of defeat, similar to Moses smashing the tablets with the higher law and giving the people a lesser law, the “Law of Moses.”

  14. Ron Madson says:

    Wow. Forrest, I learn something new every time you post. We play Monopoly as a family and it is so obvious when you point it out. It will give me something to share with my grandkids as they are crying as I squeeze out their last dollar and evict them from the game.

  15. J. Madson says:

    Robert

    Saw your link to Orson Scott Card’s essay. It’s tempting to put something up in response as I have in the past to his stuff but Im not sure what to respond to other than saying sure it was edited and maybe the title isnt what it originally was but I’m more interested in its diagnoses of massive wealth inequality as evil. I actually want to congratulate him for giving us the full text. Its even better and more on point so far as the diagnosis of the problem goes. Like this gem endorsing the year of jubilee or as Jesus called it when he began his ministry in Luke 4 citing Isaiah the “acceptable” year of the Lord:

    “Among the chosen people of the Lord, to prevent the too rapid growth of wealth and its accumulation in a few hands, he ordained that in every seventh year the debtors were to be released from their debts, and, where a man had sold himself to his brother, he was in that year to be released from slavery and to go free; even the land itself which might pass out of the possession of its owner by his sale of it, whether through his improvidence, mismanagement, or misfortune, could only be alienated until the year of jubilee. At the expiration of every forty-nine years the land reverted, without cost, to the man or family whose inheritance originally it was, except in the case of a dwelling house in a walled city, for the redemption of which, one year only was allowed, after which, if not redeemed, it became the property, without change at the year of jubilee, of the purchaser. Under such a system, carefully maintained, there could be no great aggregations of either real or personal property in the hands of a few; especially so while the laws, forbidding the taking of usury or interest for money or property loaned, continued in force.”

    The article, for those of you who dont want to read it, essentially states the following. The document sounds like a fraud. I researched it, it is real but people edited it and put a title on it that they shouldnt have. The title bothers him because its an obvious parody of the procl. on the family and he’s worried someone, not him, might take it too serious and believe it. You see such writings, OSC, are not concerned as much about the text and what it says but more so about those reading it. We wouldn’t want those in our community to actually start questioning the foundations of our economy. As he said, this was written in the past and we have leaders/prophets now who can tell us our proper role in the economy.

  16. Brigitta says:

    I am thrilled to know I am not alone…I followed a search on Occupy movement and it led me here. It is good to know that there are other Mormons who believe in the same things I do..Thank you!

  17. Ron Madson says:

    Welcome Brigitta,
    Look forward to your input….I thought we were just a few, but I am finding that we are legion.

  18. Forest Simmons says:

    The Book of Mormon equivalent of Occupy Wall Street is told in chapters 4 and 5 of 3 Nephi. The Robbers (Wall Street) had gotten so powerful the rest of the people had to unite together to take back their country.
    They quit supporting the Robbers, and left them to their own devices:
    3 Nephi 5:3 And the robbers could not exist save it were in the wilderness, for the want of food; for the Nephites had left their lands desolate, and had gathered their flocks and their herds and all their substance, and they were in one body.
    4 Therefore, there was no chance for the robbers to plunder and to obtain food, save it were to come up in open battle against the Nephites; and the Nephites being in one body, and having so great a number…
    If we continue the impetus towards gathering “in one body,” then the “great number” (99 percent) will have a chance to starve out the modern robbers. It may take a general strike. The point is the one percent cannot live without us, just as the robbers of old could not live without preying on the honest people.

  19. Ronald Diaz says:

    I do not agree that Brigham Young and the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve had the banking system and increase of wealth among the current billionaires and millionaires in mind when they wrote their thoughts on the economy of 1875: they lived at a time of the rise of the railroad and oil barons — monopolies and oligarchies — who had vastly more resources and money than the individuals on Wall Street (Why did we start Zion’s National Bank?). This was before there were antitrust and anti-monopoly laws, before the Federal Reserve, before the massive global trade network of today, before the SEC, before instant communications/social media and the media, before a much more educated and middle class workforce, before the numerous technologies that have improved the lives of all mankind. The oil and railroad barons could literally CONTROL the economy because they could control the transportation of goods and services and peoples.
    Did not all the commentators here take any economic or US History classes?
    Any thoughts on this?
    Banks generate wealth by using it’s depositors’ money to invest in projects such as small businesses and corporations, infrastructure, militaries, countries, that generate more profit by what is called interest. Banks are beholden to not just a few individuals but many: shareholders, other banks, Federal Reserve, government regulators, investors, members.
    The reason the rich are getting richer has more to do with interest-generating wealth than anything else. Many of them have learned the secret to wealth: live within means, save, create wealth off of interest to build more physical structures and businesses to generate more wealth, etc.
    The more real issue of the decline of the middle class to me has more to do with international competition: we cannot compete with other countries that can do the same work cheaper (dollar to other currencies exchange rates, other countries can purchase the same item at a much cheaper price within their own boundaries, etc), so companies are outsourcing jobs to other countries. In the hulabalou of rhetoric on the rise of the rich at the expense of the poor, there seems to be little mention on how many companies who have moved work to other much more poorer countries have raised the masses out of abject poverty.

    Still, there are numerous scriptures on the misuse and correct use of wealth, coveting, selfishness, worshiping the works of our own hands, idleness or idolatry (a major sin of the Occupy Wall Street folks), robbing, being unjust stewards,not being content with wages, unjust wages, seeking for power/wealth/praise of the world, appearances versus substance,holy sepulchres, the love of money, money to do evil versus money to do good, “… buy[ing] anything with money,” greediness, honest day’s work for honest day’s pay, gospel of work, temporal salvation, self-mastery, self-improvement, self-reliance,service, building up the kingdom of God, strengthening Zion, providing for one’s wife and children, unprofitableness.

    Occupy Wall Street is not Zion; they do not support righteousness in behavior, thought, and deed; they are not pure in heart. On that same token, so are many in Wall Street. Both worship their own false gods.

    All that being said, I take the Lord’s word in scripture as revealed to Joseph Smith as the most authoritative: “”For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things. For if you will that I give you a place in the celestial world, you must prepare yourselves” (D&C 78:6-7). “And you are to be equal, . . . to have equal claims, . . . every man according to his wants and his needs, . . . every man seeking the interest of his neighbor, and doing all things with an eye single to the glory of God” (D&C 82:17, 19) These scriptures are for members of the church.

    The law of consecration means building up the Kingdom of God and that takes a lot of money for temples, meetinghouses, missionaries, publishing (for the creation of holy places), families, etc.

    • Joseph says:

      Yes, I’ve taken economics courses, and I’m familiar with US History. Your convoluted sophistry doesn’t make Brigham Young’s statements any less applicable to Wall Street in our time.

      And wage slavery in other countries does not lift the masses out of poverty.

      Exploiting others through interest is not real work, nor does it have any real value, so the individuals making a living that way should be the ones losing their jobs and homes, rather than the workers who have been adding real value to are society. Wearing a tie and manipulating the fruits of others’ labors does not make a person righteous or “thrifty” or somehow more “worthy” of wealth.

      I could go on, but I’m tired of the shallow ideas and lies used to justify unjust conditions.

      • Joseph says:

        *are should be our

      • Ronald Diaz says:

        You are making statements without putting them into historical context. What does the Lord ehink about Capitalism?

      • Ronald Diaz says:

        Waht do you mean sophistry? You have failed to expand or denounce or agree with the numerous points I included in the scriptures and in the economy and in the organizations that were created. There was a very small middle class in 1875. Capitalism in the United States created a large middle class and we are now approximately four times more wealthy than our grandparent’s generation in the 30’s and 40’s. American was where Zion or the Church was allowed to blossom and flourish and reach out to the rest of the world to create the Zion society of those who have no poor among themselves.

        You are right but you are also wrong. Tht is why I spent a lot of time making my points.

      • Ronald Diaz says:

        Grammar errors: 30s, 40s, America.

  20. Ronald Diaz says:

    I forgot to mention a scripture that is the theme of Occupy Wall Street that you almost never hear quoted by the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, but is in our canonical scriptures. I will include it in context because the other verses are important commentary on our society today, but verses 19 and 21 imply that the Lord agrees with the OWS folks that it is a sin for a man to be extremely rich and do nothing to help others around him that are struggling in poverty:

    “Wherefore, I give unto you a commandment that ye go among this people, and say unto them, like unto mine apostle of old, whose name was Peter:

    12 Believe on the name of the Lord Jesus, who was on the earth, and is to come, the beginning and the end;

    13 Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, according to the holy commandment, for the remission of sins;

    14 And whoso doeth this shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, by the laying on of the hands of the elders of the church.

    15 And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.

    16 Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation;

    17 And that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made.

    18 And whoso forbiddeth to babstain from cmeats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God;

    19 For, behold, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of the earth, is ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance.

    20 But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.

    21 And wo be unto man that sheddeth blood or that wasteth flesh and hath no need.”

  21. Ronald Diaz says:

    I meant verses 19 and 20.

    D&C Chapter 49 verse 20 is an indictment of the results of Capitalism in the hands of wicked men. Capitalism purports and creates wealth discrepancies even though there is an abundance or enough for all (Capitalism is always mentioning how there is a scarcity of goods so the strongest and the brightest and the best at managing get more of the goods).

    However, one could also argue that Capitalism has made many people who were poor partake of the abundance of the good things of the earth.

    THE WORLD lies in sin because some men possess more than others; material and wage discrepencies really are sins as long as they allow others to not partake in abundance (as long as they are not idolators or idlers). Capitalism is based on the invisible hand concept that my selfish pursuit of self-interested production of goods and services will benefit everyone overall, but the scripture given at the time (1831) was during the time of slavery and when the Industrial Revolution was in full swing with it’s child labor, dependence of workers on the company (just another form of indentured servitude), and lack of a liveable wage. Capitalism then generated a sinful panoply of selfishness and today still causes the whole world to lie in sin with large areas circumscribed with abject poverty at the expense of the consumer-selfish-hedonistic-rich:

    “…that which cometh of the earth is ordained for the use of man…and that he might have in abundance. But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.”

    • Ronald Diaz says:

      Joseph, are you going to comment on these last two posts? Also, what would the Lord do to rectify this situation? Are the answers already in the scriptures? I am assuming you were assuming I did not know about that little secret scripture about how the Lord feels about those who are not partaking of the abundance of the earth in D&C 49:20?

    • Ron Madson says:

      Ronald, thanks for showing up here at the Mormon Worker and adding your thoughts/insights. The scripture you cited “..but it is not given that one man should possess that which above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin” would make a great Occupy sign. I have a few that I used last year and I think I will make one with that scripture. It hits the mark. I attended the Economics conference sponsored by the Mormon Studies department at Claremont this past week where Josh Madson and Daymon Smith in particular gave, imo, outstanding presentations that I will attempt to summarize in a post with the Mormon Worker later this week. Please check back and comment. I think I will be able to link their addresses that will be live streamed. Thank you participating in our web site. All we write is open to being challenged. The debate/dialogue contributes hopefully to greater clarity in what we are doing here

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 246 other followers

Categories

Archives

%d bloggers like this: