DiscussMormonism.com

bcspace queries Brade:

Brade, yes or no, is socialism compatible with LDS doctrine?

Why yes it is!

so·cial·ism
   [soh-shuh-liz-uhm]
noun
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 a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

The UO follows 1 and 2.

utopian socialism
 
noun
( sometimes initial capital letter ) an economic system based on the premise that if capital voluntarily surrendered its ownership of the means of production to the state or the workers, unemployment and poverty would be abolished.

UO follows this as well.

And from wiki: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_socialism)

Religious socialism is a term used to describe forms of socialism that are based on religious values.

UO, check.

And from wiki: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Consecration)

In the Latter Day Saint movement (also known as Mormonism), the term law of consecration was first used in 1831 by Joseph Smith and was a doctrine of covenanted Christian communalism.

The Law of Consecration, as practiced by the Latter Day Saints, was for the support of the poor (Doctrine and Covenants 42:30). Latter Day Saints were asked to voluntarily deed (consecrate) their property to the Church of Christ, and the church then would assign to each member a "stewardship" of property "as much as is sufficient for himself and family" for his "needs, wants, family, and circumstances."[1][2] If consecrated property became more than was sufficient for the assigned steward, the "residue" was "to be consecrated unto the bishop" kept for the benefit of "those who have not, from time to time, that every man who has need may be amply supplied and receive according to his wants."[3]

(Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen!)

Check, check, check, check.

Mormonism advocates socialism. Socialism is part of church doctrine. Socialism is the way of the Lord Commissar, Jesus Christ.

Spurven Ten Sing wrote:bcspace queries Brade:

Brade, yes or no, is socialism compatible with LDS doctrine?

Why yes it is!

I agree 100%.

I know both system. Been there, done that.

Spurven, it is interesting that we came into the same conclusion, started from a very different social environment (as far as I know I think You didn't live in the socialist lager...) .

I agree 100%.

I know both system. Been there, done that.

Spurven, it is interesting that we came into the same conclusion, started from a very different social environment (as far as I know I think You didn't live in the socialist lager...) .

I didn't grow up is what most would consider a hard socialist environment, but Utah and the United States is very strong nonetheless. My experience with socialism is interesting to me. Through much of my education, I considered myself extremely socialist, like just to the left of the Social Worker's party. In graduate school, I had the opportunity to teach undergrads how socialism came to develop in the west from 1700 onwards. It is not complicated to learn the differences between utopian socialism, scientific socialism, and how identities such as class and religion come into play in the two major systems. It is these distinctions that bcspace and Obiwan are utterly unable to grasp. I claim that the United Order had nothing to do with socialism reveals this mind spinning ignorance.

I still feel at heart a socialist, although I have since fully embraced the principles of liberty and self ownership.

PS: yes, Blixa, I know I am blending the two branches together in the OP. I did that to mock bc.

Spurven Ten Sing wrote:
PS: yes, Blixa, I know I am blending the two branches together in the OP. I did that to mock bc.

Hahahahaha!

I can't tell you how much this little postscript delighted me!

Most Mormons will admit that the law of consecration is similar to socialism with one big exception - the LoC is run by God, socialism is run by man. I think that's the big issue. Non-mormons and Exmormons don't see a difference between the two because in both cases a group of men is collecting wealth and redistributing it. Mormons complain about having to hand over taxes to the government to pay for social programs that help the poor, but they willingly hand over money to God so he can help the poor. For Mormons, their leaders are God's representatives. If their leaders asked for 90% of their income they would willingly give it without thinking of the church as a socialist organization.

This morning, the NYTimes has an article on income mobility in the USA vs. the same in Canada and Europe. Heartbreaking. It frankly pisses me off.

From the article:

But many researchers have reached a conclusion that turns conventional wisdom on its head: Americans enjoy less economic mobility than their peers in Canada and much of Western Europe. The mobility gap has been widely discussed in academic circles, but a sour season of mass unemployment and street protests has moved the discussion toward center stage.

And:

One reason for the mobility gap may be the depth of American poverty, which leaves poor children starting especially far behind.


SAUCE

skumpe

I would just like to take a few seconds to thank myself for contributing to the Wiki article on the Law of Consecration as practiced by the LDS peoples. Yes I really did contribute to that article.

UO, check.

No. You have not given a single instance of how the UO is like socialism or how socialism is compatible with LDS doctrine. Official doctrine even shows that the UO is not socialism and expressly says it's not as well as being against doctrine. Quotes from the D&C Institute manual Enrichment section L:

“(2) The United Order is implemented by the voluntary free-will actions of men, evidenced by a consecration of all their property to the Church of God.
“. . . Socialism is implemented by external force, the power of the state.

“(3) . . . The United Order is operated upon the principle of private ownership and individual management.
“Thus in both implementation and ownership and management of property, the United Order preserves to men their God-given agency, while socialism deprives them of it.

The LoC/UO is not an economic system because the control of production and pricing is controlled by the individual and that is part of the reason why the UO can only work in a free market-capitalist economy.

Some other quotes from official doctrine on what the LoC/UO is not:

“They had all things common.” The phrase “they had all things common” ( Acts 4:32 ; see also Acts 2:44 ; 3 Nephi 26:19 ; 4 Nephi 1:3 ) is used to characterize those who lived the law of consecration in ancient times. Some have speculated that the term common suggests a type of communalism or “Christian Communism.” This interpretation is in error. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught the true nature of having all things common: “I preached on the stand about one hour on the 2nd chapter of Acts , designing to show the folly of common stock [holding property in common]. In Nauvoo every one is steward over his own [property].” ( History of the Church, 6:37–38.)

The expressions in the revelations describing the portion or stewardship as “equal” ( D&C 51:3 ; see also D&C 70:14 ) does not mean equality in the sense that all are exactly the same. President J. Reuben Clark Jr. explained: “One of the places in which some of the brethren are going astray is this: There is continuous reference in the revelations to equality among the brethren, but I think you will find only one place where that equality is really described, though it is referred to in other revelations. That revelation ( D. & C. 51:3 ) affirms that every man is to be ‘equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.’ (See also D. & C. 82:17 ; 78:5–6 .) Obviously, this is not a case of ‘dead level’ equality. It is ‘equality’ that will vary as much as the man’s circumstances, his family, his wants and needs may vary.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1942, p. 55.)

So no, Socialism and an entitlement welfare society is completely incompatible with the official doctrine of the LDS Church and therefore the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And since this issue speaks to agency, the foundational principle of the whole plan of salvation and what Satan himself fought to take away, any Socialist/Communist/Marxist Mormon is in a state of extreme apostasy and that includes all Democrats who all fully support Socialism either expressly or implicitly, knowingly or ignorantly (a man cannot be saved in ignorance).

Reread the OP and try again.

(Hint: just because the turch claims the UO isn't socialism, doesn't make it true.)