You need to be a Right-Wing Conservative to be a Mormon?

[_GoodK]

The very fact that people like you and Moksha think you can get away with telling intellectually vacuous whoppers such as this literally takes one's breath away.

Coming from you, and frankly considering the poop you find to be intellectual, I find this to be a sincere compliment to my intellect.

You will always be a good measuring stick for me, Coggins.

Socialism denies agency and seeks to coerce human happiness through social architecture, while all things are done by common consent in the Chruch.

You are joking, right? Even by your definition, the church is clearly indicative of Socialism.

The church never denies agency, nor does it seek to coerce human happines by social architecture does it?

The Church teaches true principles, and allows us to govern ourselves.

The Church teaches fairy tales, magic tricks, and pseudoscience. To be fair, the fairy tales generally have a good moral to them (i.e love thy neighbor, work hard, be loving, etc). But the church hardly allows you to govern yourself.

Socialism meddles, controls, and dictates as many aspects of the lives of its subjects as possible.

LOL. Stop agreeing with me. You're supposed to be my measuring stick.

[_Droopy]

Coming from you, and frankly considering the poop you find to be intellectual, I find this to be a sincere compliment to my intellect.

Oh, you don't like Heyek, or Buckley, or Bastiat, or Nibley, or Madsen, or Maxwell, or Mansfield, or Barzun, or Hanson, or Himmelfarb, or Jefferson, or Adams, or Madison, or Confucious, or Lao Tzu, or...

You are joking, right? Even by your definition, the church is clearly indicative of Socialism.

CFR

The church never denies agency, nor does it seek to coerce human happines by social architecture does it?

CFR

The Church teaches fairy tales, magic tricks, and pseudoscience. To be fair, the fairy tales generally have a good moral to them (i.e love thy neighbor, work hard, be loving, etc). But the church hardly allows you to govern yourself.

Intellectual posturing. Just provide some references to back up the above claims, and thy servant will be content.

[_antishock8]

You are joking, right? Even by your definition, the church is clearly indicative of Socialism.

CFR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_consecration

[_Droopy]

You are joking, right? Even by your definition, the church is clearly indicative of Socialism.

CFR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_consecration

Why do I even bother? Numerous Apostles have made crystal clear that the United Order is not socialism, and you might try something other than Wikipedia, which is fast developing a reputation for inaccuracy and battles between posters and hostile deleters.

[_GoodK]

You are joking, right? Even by your definition, the church is clearly indicative of Socialism.

CFR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_consecration

Why do I even bother? Numerous Apostles have made crystal clear that the United Order is not socialism, and you might try something other than Wikipedia, which is fast developing a reputation for inaccuracy and battles between posters and hostile deleters.

Why do we even bother?

Here, since Wikipedia isn't good enough for you:

http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/u/UNITEDORDER.html

The return to a more communal economy is still widely regarded among Latter-day Saints as an essential step in preparing for Christ's return and the principles of the United Order are central to present-day church governance.

[_GoodK]

A precedent in Mormonism that seemed to offer a means of meeting these problems was Joseph Smith's Law of Consecration and Stewardship, which had been practiced in Missouri in 1831-33 as the Latter-day Saints began to settle the area they called "Zion," which was in Jackson County. Under the system, communicants consecrated all their possessions to the church in exchange for a "stewardship" -- a home and the resources needed to practice their chosen trade.

(From the site referenced above)

No, this clearly is not socialism.

[_Droopy]

The return to a more communal economy is still widely regarded among Latter-day Saints as an essential step in preparing for Christ's return and the principles of the United Order are central to present-day church governance.

Yes, but this is not socialism, and the Brethren have made this clear for generations of Latter Day Saints.

Just banging the same drum endlessly will not make your case. You clearly have very little understanding of either secular socialism or the concept of the United Order, otherwise you wouldn't have bothered making this argument in the first place.

[_moksha]

Moksha wrote:
Good point. Folks were into sharing and taking care of one another. Not hoarding capital.

The very fact that people like you and Moksha think you can get away with telling intellectually vacuous whoppers such as this literally takes one's breath away.

Okay, some may have been into hoarding, but that was only due to not being able to suppress their baser nature. We are supposed to rise above the natural man and have a more Christ-like nature.

[_GoodK]

The return to a more communal economy is still widely regarded among Latter-day Saints as an essential step in preparing for Christ's return and the principles of the United Order are central to present-day church governance.

Yes, but this is not socialism, and the Brethren have made this clear for generations of Latter Day Saints.

Besides the fact that I really couldn't give an F about what the brethren have to say, do you think they would really call it Socialism? Are you that dense, or do you just think the rest of us are?

Whether they call it socialism - whether or not Clinton called universal health care socialism - has little to do with the LDS church being a socialist organization.

Just banging the same drum endlessly will not make your case.

Then why do you do that here, daily?

You clearly have very little understanding of either secular socialism or the concept of the United Order, otherwise you wouldn't have bothered making this argument in the first place.

And in no time, Droopy, the great dispenser of wisdom and reason, is resorted to the pathetic ad hominem. Great work.

It must really irk you to be a member of such a socialist club.

[_rcrocket]

Why do I even bother? Numerous Apostles have made crystal clear that the United Order is not socialism, and you might try something other than Wikipedia, which is fast developing a reputation for inaccuracy and battles between posters and hostile deleters.

The United Order was a watered-down version of the law of consecration. The United Order had some elements of private control of property, the law of consecration much less so. Both the United Order and the law of consecration were economic orders controlled in a theocratic manner, i.e., by the priesthood and in the worship of God.

Both systems are considered by economists (notably Arrington, for one) to be "communitarianism." They are a subset of communitarianism -- communitariasm being an economic arrangement which may or may not involve religious elements.

The only real difference between communitariasm and communism (lower case "c") is that the former is purely an economic arrangement, whereas the latter is both economic and political -- coercive government. Communism is a pure democracy, described as the dictatorship of the proletariat. Both communitarism and communism eschew the private ownership or control of property.

Marxism and Stalinism are subsets of communism. Both involved components of significant coercion, including the violent overthrow of the government.

During the 1950s and the 1960s, a few the Brethren sort of mushed Stalinism and communism together, and communitarianism and the United Order/law of consecration together, to make distinguishments which really were real world observations rather than observations about how the economic systems were intended to work. (I.e., the "United Order yields to God" versus "communism is atheistic and godless.)