Mormons, What are we saying?

Frequently you will get a response from members when you suggest that the government should have a program to do something, "Its wrong to think that the Government can implement something which is an "inspired program" which only the Lord can implement." This is generally followed by a call for inaction, or even an attack on a proposed program. Normally the programs that draw this type of criticism are welfare or entitlement programs. Its alright, and in fact commendable, for the Church to run its commodity based welfare program, but a food stamp program is likely to be condemned (not by the Church, but by the members.)
You see commendation for the United Order, or as it is sometimes referred to as the law of consecration or the Order of Enoch, but anything which remotely can get tagged "socialist or communist" is set up to be attacked vehemently. Of course the millenium syndrome comes charging to aid the predicament of those who really are not interested in making a change. The millenium syndrome is a label which I have applied to the tendency to defer anything which the Church believes in, but would result in a major shift of the socio/economic status quo, to be classified as something that will be put in place during the millenium. In other words, "Well Christ can do it when He comes, but as for me and my family we will oppose any other person or entity suggesting that it could be done before then." Perhaps the most famous example of the millenium syndrome was contained in the earlier editions of the misnamed Mormon Doctrine written by the late Bruce R. McConkie which categorically deferred the extension of the Priesthood to persons of African descent to the millennium.

So what are we really saying when we oppose any attempt to implement a government program which is clearly consistent with what we should already be doing? Most would say that we are simply saying that the government cannot get anything right. I once listen to a talk by Mitt Romney's father George Romney during the economic suffering of the Carter/Reagan recession in which he said not to expect the answer to come from Washington. He was of course absolutely correct, Reagan was just getting warmed up and he certainly was not destined to give us any correct economic answers. But, I doubt that was what he meant -- what he meant was that we should never expect government to get anything right.

So where is it written that we should not support community oriented collaborative efforts towards socio/economic fairness or dignity? Where is it written that although we reject strict Darwinian evolution as to parentage of Adam and Eve, we, nevertheless, fully accept the notions of Spencerian social evolution and extol capitalism and worship Adam Smith's "unseen hand." Where is it written that we are so feeble in our ability to do good and make sure that everyone has a fair chance at life with dignity and access to some basic things like health care, that we have to oppose those things as a group effort by any entity other than the Church? or worse yet any effort whatsoever until Christ comes again?

Is this an attitude which while palatable to the social conservative, nevertheless, drives the social liberal of conscience away from the Church? And exactly how do we square the common antipathy towards environmentalists? Do we approve, for example, the fact that the air pollution is now worse in Happy Valley than in LA? Or that the lack of development standards is so horrible in Salt Lake that the Church has had to resort to buying up land surrounding Temple Square to keep it from complete degradation? Exactly where does that fit in with our beliefs? Or.... more importantly... Christ's. We are a peculiar people, and we are proud of that...but we need to become a peculiarly good people.