DiscussMormonism.com

Mosiah 18:27 wrote:And again Alma commanded that the people of the church should impart of their substance, every one according to that which he had; if he have more abundantly he should impart more abundantly; and of him that had but little, but little should be required; and to him that had not should be given.

It's ok when a religious leader commands it. But if people vote for it??! Never!!

ok, so the next verse says:

28 And thus they should impart of their substance of their own free will and good desires towards God, and to those priests that stood in need, yea, and to every needy, naked soul.

But then again, the commandment part of it is reinforced:

29 And this he said unto them, having been commanded of God;

I do have a hard time with the compulsion aspect of it, but the fact that so many LDS fight this idea tooth and nail is still strange to me since it's clearly part of early LDS theology.

Many ideas in the scriptures are high minded, but bringing these ideas to fruition in our lives and society runs into snags. Greed is a very powerful force and can override and dominate many high minded ideals and beliefs.

I think a good question to ask is: What happened to the people if they didn't obey this commandment? Were they excommunicated? Shunned? Jailed? Executed?

This probably makes all the difference.

I would like Mr. Droopy to weigh in on this one. What's the difference between voting for and sustaining a Socialist religious leader and voting for and sustaining a political leader? Force, perhaps?

I'm sure Alma had opposition from the Tea Party element among his people. To them, Alma was a Muslim socialist. More details on the early American tea party are in the sealed portion.

Seems odd how far they departed from the Consecration Principle. It worked so badly there are rumors (haha) that they "Consecrated" the property of non-Mormon neighbors.

"Tithes" are supposed to level the society. Now they finance the corporate structure.