For bcspace: Socialism and Mormonism

[_Runtu]

Reread the OP and try again.

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

What I find fascinating is that, in the last century, church leaders managed to spin the utopian socialism of the United Order into something resembling free-market capitalism. I find it even more remarkable that people buy that spin.

[_bcspace]

Reread the OP and try again.

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

No need. I've already given the appropriate quotes to prove the case.

What I find fascinating is that, in the last century, church leaders managed to spin the utopian socialism of the United Order into something resembling free-market capitalism. I find it even more remarkable that people buy that spin.

I think the Church found out the free market truism trough trial and error. We are even counseled not to look at previous attempts as true models of how the UO works.

However, free market doctrine is evident in the the very first communications of the doctrine as pointed out in some of the quotes I gave. For example, Joseph Smith himself was very adamant that holding property in common stock is folly.

And of course we know from the Bible and other ancient scriptures that God Himself operates on the principles of free-market capitalism. The various doctrinal points on salvation for example.

[_Runtu]

I think the Church found out the free market truism trough trial and error. We are even counseled not to look at previous attempts as true models of how the UO works.

However, free market doctrine is evident in the the very first communications of the doctrine as pointed out in some of the quotes I gave. For example, Joseph Smith himself was very adamant that holding property in common stock is folly.

And of course we know from the Bible and other ancient scriptures that God Himself operates on the principles of free-market capitalism. The various doctrinal points on salvation for example.

It just seems self-evident that, since you couldn't just opt out and keep the property deeded to you, you didn't actually own the property. If you chose to leave the order, you lost what you had. Doesn't sound like a free market to me.

[_bcspace]

It just seems self-evident that, since you couldn't just opt out and keep the property deeded to you, you didn't actually own the property. If you chose to leave the order, you lost what you had. Doesn't sound like a free market to me.

Cost of entry. Notice also the UO does not set price or production controls or what one's career and education is and one can save and invest and capitalize year by year without it being taken.

[_Runtu]

Cost of entry.

So, you agree that they did not actually own property. In that case, it can't possibly be free-market capitalism, which must provide for ownership of property and transfer of property at the owner's discretion.

[_bcspace]

So, you agree that they did not actually own property.

No, I don't agree and Joseph Smith himself would not agree as you can plainly see from the quotes. We essentially live this this principle now. We already consider everything to be the Lord's. In order to make the change to a full UO, almost nothing has to change, it's all in place ready to go.

[_Runtu]

No, I don't agree and Joseph Smith himself would not agree as you can plainly see from the quotes. We essentially live this this principle now. We already consider everything to be the Lord's. In order to make the change to a full UO, almost nothing has to change, it's all in place ready to go.

If you do not have the freedom to sell the property, you do not own it.

[Guest]

No, I don't agree and Joseph Smith himself would not agree as you can plainly see from the quotes. We essentially live this this principle now. We already consider everything to be the Lord's. In order to make the change to a full UO, almost nothing has to change, it's all in place ready to go.

If you do not have the freedom to sell the property, you do not own it.

No, you exhibit a typical and fundamental misunderstanding of the UO. A man's stewardship was his by deed and that deed was given to protect him against, among other things, such a time when he was kicked out of the order. What a man had consecrated to the Church he could never get back (like you can't get tithing back), but a man's stewardship and unconsecrated increase was always his even if kicked out. See D&C 51:4-5. Also from the same source as before:

The stewardship is private, not communal, property . The consecrator, or steward, was to be given a “writing,” or deed, that would “secure unto him his portion [stewardship]” ( D&C 51:4 ). Although it has been acknowledged that all things belong to the Lord, a stewardship represents a sacred entrustment of a portion from God to the individual. The stewardship is given with a deed of ownership so that individuals, through their agency, are fully responsible and accountable for that which is entrusted to them. The deed protects individuals if they are disqualified from participation as stewards (see D&C 51:4 ). For legal purposes, the stewardship was private property, even though the stewards themselves understood that it ultimately belonged to God. President Marion G. Romney explained:

“This procedure [of providing deeds] preserved in every man the right of private ownership and management of his property. Indeed, the fundamental principle of the system was the private ownership of property. Each man owned his portion, or inheritance, or stewardship, with an absolute title, which, at his option, he could alienate [transfer], keep and operate, or otherwise treat as his own. The Church did not own all of the property, and life under the united order was not, and never will be, a communal life, as the Prophet Joseph himself said.

So if over time a man had consecrated thousands of dollars to the "storehouse" for the poor and then left the order, he could not get that back. But all his property, his retirement savings, his capital investment savings to expand his business, etc. was still his. Always.

This is not some new doctrinal interpretation as it's been around for decades and much of the source material since the early days of the Restored Church. Rather I think people have for whatever reason not studied it and a variety of myths have grown up around it. And those myths obviously have lead some to think that the LoC/UO justifies socialism and a welfare entitlement society. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I remember growing up afraid of it (being conservative in politics) and believing some of the same myths about it being a sort of communist/communal life but at some point on my mission, I studied it and found out that the Law of Consecration is actually free market capitalism enshrined by God Himself.

[_Yahoo Bot]

So if over time a man had consecrated thousands of dollars to the "storehouse" for the poor and then left the order, he could not get that back. But all his property, his retirement savings, his capital investment savings to expand his business, etc. was still his. Always.

All your argument was really generated by church commentators during the Red Scare era. The realities are these:

1. Pure communism, as stated in the New Testament, is consecration of everything "in common" with no private property. By definition, that is communism. During the Red Scare conservative church authors tried to redefine the word "communism" to be equivalent to Sovietism.

2. The Church never practiced pure communism. According to Arrington, in the Kirtland era it attempted "communitarianism," a mixture of common ownership and private property.

3. The United Order was a step away from communitarianism towards private property. But it would be highly unlikely that a person would be permitted to enter the United Order, as you suggest, keeping unconsecrated retirement savings, invested capital and the like. Those aren't the type to ever enter the order. I'd like an example of just such a person. Not even Brigham Young entered the United Order.

4. It wasn't as easy as you say to leave the United Order without difficulty. Participants' private property, other than household items and clothing, were really shares in the organization, which were illiquid. Did they even own their own homes? I'll have to look that up in Arrington's Great Basin Kingdom, but I doubt it.

[_Runtu]

No, you exhibit a typical and fundamental misunderstanding of the UO. A man's stewardship was his by deed and that deed was given to protect him against, among other things, such a time when he was kicked out of the order. What a man had consecrated to the Church he could never get back (like you can't get tithing back), but a man's stewardship and unconsecrated increase was always his even if kicked out. See D&C 51:4-5. Also from the same source as before:

I know how it was supposed to work, but it didn't turn out that way at all. I guess you could say the implementation was flawed, but then that's the problem with socialism in general. It sounds really nice on paper, but it doesn't work in practice.

So if over time a man had consecrated thousands of dollars to the "storehouse" for the poor and then left the order, he could not get that back. But all his property, his retirement savings, his capital investment savings to expand his business, etc. was still his. Always.

That's not what the scriptures say:

D&C 104:

67 And again, there shall be another treasury prepared, and a treasurer appointed to keep the treasury, and a seal shall be placed upon it;

68 And all moneys that you receive in your stewardships, by improving upon the properties which I have appointed unto you, in houses, or in lands, or in cattle, or in all things save it be the holy and sacred writings, which I have reserved unto myself for holy and sacred purposes, shall be cast into the treasury as fast as you receive moneys, by hundreds, or by fifties, or by twenties, or by tens, or by fives.

69 Or in other words, if any man among you obtain five dollars let him cast them into the treasury; or if he obtain ten, or twenty, or fifty, or an hundred, let him do likewise;

So, all profits go into the common treasury.

70 And let not any among you say that it is his own; for it shall not be called his, nor any part of it.

So, the profits are held in common, and there is no such thing as "unconsecrated increase," because not turning over profits to the order violates the terms of the covenant.

71 And there shall not any part of it be used, or taken out of the treasury, only by the voice and common consent of the order.

72 And this shall be the voice and common consent of the order—that any man among you say to the treasurer: I have need of this to help me in my stewardship—

73 If it be five dollars, or if it be ten dollars, or twenty, or fifty, or a hundred, the treasurer shall give unto him the sum which he requires to help him in his stewardship—

So, access to capital for improvements is not free but subject to community approval. Again, not particularly capitalist.

74 Until he be found a transgressor, and it is manifest before the council of the order plainly that he is an unfaithful and an unwise steward.

75 But so long as he is in full fellowship, and is faithful and wise in his stewardship, this shall be his token unto the treasurer that the treasurer shall not withhold.

76 But in case of transgression, the treasurer shall be subject unto the council and voice of the order.

77 And in case the treasurer is found an unfaithful and an unwise steward, he shall be subject to the council and voice of the order, and shall be removed out of his place, and another shall be appointed in his stead.

Section 85 makes it clear that transgressors will lose their consecrated inheritance. That seems to have happened with Cowdery and Whitmer at the time of the Salt Sermon.