Mormon Socialism

[Indy Coug]

Obviously anyone that knows how to read would know that they should take what I wrote with a grain of salt. Surely the "Chew on THAT on, sucka!" comment indicated that I was playing around.

While I responded to your comment, my comment wasn't directed at you. Sorry I wasn't clear.

[Tim]

Do you have as much faith in the righteous administration of the socialist government as you do in those who administer the Law of Consecration.

That's not what we're talking about it. You keep adding opinions to statements that have no opinions attached to them. Are you physically/humanly/generally capable of looking at an issue, analyzing it, determining the options, considering all sides, etc., without looking at things through the lens of your own opinion?

[YOhio]

I'm interested in the history of Mormonism's transition out of socialism.

Mormonisms venture into socialism couldn't survive a new pair of pants.

[byu71]

That's not what we're talking about it. You keep adding opinions to statements that have no opinions attached to them. Are you physically/humanly/generally capable of looking at an issue, analyzing it, determining the options, considering all sides, etc., without looking at things through the lens of your own opinion?

I am physically/humanly/and generally INCAPABLE of handling a subjects like this when pitted against such social engineering genius's as yourself and Finder.

Maybe that is what I really fear. All you brilliant folks will finally succeed in taking over the government and you will have all my and my kids money distributed before I even know it because I couldn't physically/humanly or generally look at the issue.


P.S. It was just an inquiry into your opinion, not a philosophical essay.

[Tim]

I am physically/humanly/and generally INCAPABLE of handling a subjects like this when pitted against such social engineering genius's as yourself and Finder.

Maybe that is what I really fear. All you brilliant folks will finally succeed in taking over the government and you will have all my and my kids money distributed before I even know it because I couldn't physically/humanly or generally look at the issue.


P.S. It was just an inquiry into your opinion, not a philosophical essay.

I hate you so damned much.

[byu71]

I hate you so damned much.

LOL, I can understand why

[beelzebabette]

I think Finderson is essentially right on Socialism. The blowback is just another example of LDS not knowing their own history or doctrine (however you want to classify that). I have no problem with someone who believes that current LDS aren't under obligation to live communal or socialistic lifestyles, but that's due to modern leadership decisions or revelation, not a massaging of the original intent or ideas.

PS - Nibley's Approaching Zion has some interesting things to say on this. And I'm not a Nibley fan, but I like this essay.

It's been 12+ years (and a lot of life experience) since I've read this book so I'll need some help here. I recall he gives several examples of companies and towns that have adopted a communal approach. I don't remember how he related it to a larger group of people.

As for Socialism, I understand it differently.

...therefore, to condescend to particulars, I will tell you that every man must be his own judge how much he should receive, and how much he should suffer to remain in the hands of the Bishop...

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

I refer back to LA Ute & 8BR in stating this doesn't sound like socialism to me. Not just the means of production, but also the means of distribution.

[LA Ute]

Ummm . . . if the government of my country decides to adopt socialism by vote of the people (or capitalism, for that matter), I am pretty much stuck with that decision unless I move to another country. I don't call that voluntary.

If I choose to enter the United Order, that's an individual decision made only by me. I think people could leave the United Order any time simply by saying "I'm out."

I've probably oversimplified, but I can safely say that it simply is not correct to call the law of consecration, as applied in the United Order, socialism. It just ain't.

You can try to find "Building the City of God" here, by the way.

[Colly Wolly]

Do you own a copy of B.H. Roberts' biography of John Taylor? How about Building the City of God by Leonard Arrington?

I wonder how many more of your 78 and counting posts are going to be empty responses to my posts. Do hollow reactionary knee-jerk responses make you a builder or a destroyer?

Sack up boy.

[SoCalCoug]

This issue seems to be topical, and I think it's often given short shrift.

I hear all the time about all the differences between socialism and the law of consecration/United Order, and I can't say I'm satisfied I understand the differences completely, which seem to me to be pretty nuanced.

Granted, the major difference in most LDS people's minds is socialism is run by government people (generally evil people) and the United Order is/would be governed by the prophet/church leaders/God (always righteous people). I think that distinction is always a given, and I don't know that it really is a huge factor in the discussion. For instance, Nephi cut off Laban's head; it's not murder because God instructed him to do it. If I was trying to get something from a guy, and I came across him passed out drunk and cut off his head, that's murder, because God didn't tell me to do it. My actions could be absolutely identical to Nephi's, but because he was instructed by God to do it and I wasn't, that's the prime difference between our actions, and why mine's evil and his was good.

What I'm getting from a lot of conservative LDS is that there are other, non-God reasons why socialism is different from the United Order. If there aren't, then great - that's how it is. But I'm assured there are other differences, and that's what I want to explore a little bit.

Here are the two main ones that seem to keep coming up.

1. United Order is voluntary; socialism is not.

I think people automatically think of communist countries like China and USSR and their restrictions on liberty. But there are other socialist countries or countries that espouse substantially socialist principles. For example, Portugal, India, Guyana, and Tanzania are all self-proclaimed socialist republics. Sweden and Norway are also considered by many to be socialist, at least in large part. These are countries that (I believe) citizens are free to come and go, if they want.

Many say that if the United Order is instituted in the church, and you didn't want to live it, you wouldn't have to. Of course, you would not be able to be part of the community - so you'd have to go somewhere else to live, but you are free to do so. How is that different from someone in Portugal or Sweden? If they don't want to participate in socialism, they could move out of the country, couldn't they? And in fact, you have the additional religious pressure in the United Order - sure, it's voluntary, but if the church leaders (i.e. God) wanted you to participate, but you didn't want to, your eternal salvation is at risk. That's not a pressure that Portuguese people seem to have.

If I'm wrong, I'd like to know where I'm wrong - in a reasonable, logical argument, of course.

2. Socialism is government-sponsored redistribution of wealth; government-sponsored redistribution of wealth is bad (LDS conservative position).

As I understand the principles of the United Order, you are able to keep your property and increase in order to meet your needs, and then your surplus is given to those in the community who have need.

It seems a very fine distinction to me to not call this a system of redistribution of wealth. How is this different from the principles of socialism? Is it in the ownership of property? Who determines what is your surplus? Who controls where the surplus goes? If your answer is "God" - well, then I guess that ends any real discussion, and it goes back to my first point. How can you really argue logically with that.

But if there are real substantive distinctions, I'm ignorant. Please educate me.

I'm sure there are other differences that have been discussed. What other significant differences are there?

And yes, to me, this all goes to the question of why socialism is inherently evil, or wrong, yet the United Order (City of Enoch, etc.) is held out as the highest level of social order among LDS.

[frank ryan]

http://themormonworker.net/past-issu...mormon-church/


Not the most academic article but full of interesting tidbits all the same.

[clackamascoug]

This issue seems to be topical, and I think it's often given short shrift.

I hear all the time about all the differences between socialism and the law of consecration/United Order, and I can't say I'm satisfied I understand the differences completely, which seem to me to be pretty nuanced.


And yes, to me, this all goes to the question of why socialism is inherently evil, or wrong, yet the United Order (City of Enoch, etc.) is held out as the highest level of social order among LDS.

Look at it this way... The LOC is administered by the MPriesthood. In it's fullest capacity, The MPriesthood is the ability to control the elements on a molecular level. (Heleman 10:9) Being able to control the elements effectively makes you a "billionaire" as far as providing for you and yours. When everyone in the Celestial Kingdom is a virtual billionaire, the mindset becomes equality, with wants the nuance between you and me. So, in other words, the ultimate form of the LOC is equality of power, not the ability to possess things.

[CardiacCoug]

But if there are real substantive distinctions, I'm ignorant. Please educate me.

I'm sure there are other differences that have been discussed. What other significant differences are there?

And yes, to me, this all goes to the question of why socialism is inherently evil, or wrong, yet the United Order (City of Enoch, etc.) is held out as the highest level of social order among LDS.

Agreed that there isn't too much of a difference between socialism and religious communalism. This is a little off point, but I think the reason socialism doesn't work is because of greed and laziness.

It's probably true that if you have a community of perfect people in the United Order where greed and laziness don 't exist then that could be an ideal community.

But since the reality is that to some extent EVERY person is greedy and lazy, large-scale socialism can't work except to produce a sustainable standard of living that is commensurate with a below average work ethic and level of ambition. In other words, almost everybody ends up kind of poor -- that's what I saw on the mission in the former USSR.

[LA Ute]

Aren't these the fundamental differences?

• voluntary versus involuntary
• focused on God and Christ versus focused on the state (atheistic, if the discussion includes communism)
• private ownership = fundamental, versus private ownership = secondary to collective interests

[wuapinmon]

I just think we should remember that socialism is not the same thing as communism. Socialism rewards individual effort.