For bcspace: Socialism and Mormonism

[_Runtu]

All your argument was really generated by church commentators during the Red Scare era.

That's exactly right. Should it scare me that I've agreed with you twice in the same day? :-)

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.

That's my understanding, despite the spin some conservatives have put on the United Order.

[_bcspace]

All your argument was really generated by church commentators during the Red Scare era

You obviously haven't read the quotes some of which come from the time of Joseph Smith himself. And of course it's obvious you don;t believe the doctrine.

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.

Wrong:

“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.)

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.

A lesson of what doesn't work, yes.

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.

As per my last post, you exhibit a common misunderstanding of the UO. Since it's not a communal order, every man is expected to pull his own weight. It was not an economic system and it certainly wasn't set up to generate more welfare cases as you imply. Retirement and capital savings are eligible as wants and needs. The system fails if people don't generate wealth in the sense of providing for retirement or the expansion of business to keep people employed. This is why a UO canot work without free market capitalism.

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.

None of that matters. It wouldn't be doctrine and as I noted before, we are discouraged to look upon previous practice previous practice (which failed) as the way it should have been practiced.

[_bcspace]

That's exactly right. Should it scare me that I've agreed with you twice in the same day? :-)

That's my understanding, despite the spin some conservatives have put on the United Order.

It's only because you disagree with the official doctrine that I have presented. Joseph Smith himself denied it was a communal life and yet Yahoo Bot is trying to make the case that it should have been based on the erroneous practice of the Saints.

[_Runtu]

It's only because you disagree with the official doctrine that I have presented.

Official or not, it's obvious spin.

Joseph Smith himself denied it was a communal life and yet Yahoo Bot is trying to make the case that it should have been.

I think it's pretty clear from its origins that it was a utopian/religious socialist experiment. Communalism and socialism are not the same thing.

[_bcspace]

Official or not, it's obvious spin.

I don't see how. The establishment of private property as a fundamental principle, the express rejection of Socialism and the notion of a Christian Communism or Communalism, and the fact that leaving the order does not mean you leave all your property comes through Joseph Smith himself.

I think it's pretty clear from its origins that it was a utopian/religious socialist experiment.

Doesn't appear to be. Perhaps the reason it failed is someone tried to make it that way.

Communalism and socialism are not the same thing.

Sure they are. One is merely a subset of the other.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Wrong:

“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.)

Your argument works if you are willing to redefine terms to your satisfaction. "Common stock" is not the same thing as the New Testament model of "all things in common" although, admittedly, who knows what that really was since hardly anything is said about it.

But, the word "communism" was defined long before the Church came into existence and means, no private property with no aspect of capitalism. I don't advocate it; I merely report on common usage.

As per my last post, you exhibit a common misunderstanding of the UO. Since it's not a communal order, every man is expected to pull his own weight. It was not an economic system and it certainly wasn't set up to generate more welfare cases as you imply. Retirement and capital savings are eligible as wants and needs. The system fails if people don't generate wealth in the sense of providing for retirement or the expansion of business to keep people employed. This is why a UO canot work without free market capitalism.

I was an Honors Student under Arrington and took his courses on the economics of the Latter-day Saint experience and wrote papers on the specific subject in his classes, and got a degree in the general area, and had a professorship in the general subject matter, if that helps. Arrington is the expert.

Again, things work as you say if you are willing to accept revisionist history the way conservative John Birchers in the church wrote about things from the 1960s to the 1980s.

I come back to the singular challenge of asking you to point me to a single example of a United Order participant who was able to enter the Order and keep back substantial wealth. Much has been written on the subject of the various communities; surely there would be one to support your theory. One?

You are of many in the Church. There is God, Jesus, the Holy Ghost and Capitalism, the philosophy of greed and corruption.

[_bcspace]

Your argument works if you are willing to redefine terms to your satisfaction. "Common stock" is not the same thing as the New Testament model of "all things in common" although, admittedly, who knows what that really was since hardly anything is said about it.

The Church has defined it. I merely quoted it.

But, the word "communism" was defined long before the Church came into existence and means, no private property with no aspect of capitalism. I don't advocate it; I merely report on common usage.

Doesn't matter. The Church, beginning with Joseph Smith, has enshrined principles which put Communism and Socialism in complete opposition to the Gospel. Joseph Smith did address Socialism specifically.

I was an Honors Student under Arrington and took his courses on the economics of the Latter-day Saint experience and wrote papers on the specific subject in his classes, and got a degree in the general area, and had a professorship in the general subject matter, if that helps. Arrington is the expert.

Completely irrelevant unless you can find something from him published by the Church on the matter.

Again, things work as you say if you are willing to accept revisionist history the way conservative John Birchers in the church wrote about things from the 1960s to the 1980s.

Not possible as I've already shown the fundamental principles originate with Joseph Smith. I'll bet you don't know at this very moment (because you're now going to look it up) what the "John Birch Society" stands for or why you might be opposed to it.

I come back to the singular challenge of asking you to point me to a single example of a United Order participant who was able to enter the Order and keep back substantial wealth. Much has been written on the subject of the various communities; surely there would be one to support your theory. One?

No need. All I have to do is point out that there is nothing in the doctrine of the LoC/UO preventing one from keeping his stewardship on leaving and there is also scripture on the matter as well which I referenced. Like I said, there are good reasons why the various UO's did not work (and why some did, being able to trade with the free market) and ultimately were shut down and it has a lot to do with not following the doctrine or adding to it.

You are of many in the Church. There is God, Jesus, the Holy Ghost and Capitalism.

Yes, God is a free market capitalist judging from His doctrine and practice.

[_Runtu]

Completely irrelevant unless you can find something from him published by the Church on the matter.

That's the crux of the matter, isn't it? As Bob mentioned, church leaders went to great lengths during the Red Scare to spin the United Order as compatible with capitalism. Therefore, this view became current doctrine, no matter what the reality of the practice was. This is nothing more than revisionism enshrined as doctrine.

If a church manual prints tomorrow that the sky is pink, what color will the sky be?

[Guest]

No need. All I have to do is point out that there is nothing in the doctrine of the LoC/UO preventing one from keeping his stewardship on leaving and there is also scripture on the matter as well which I referenced.

Surely you can see the weakness in your argument.

You say that a United Order participant could come and go with substantial held-back wealth, and yet you can't cite a single example?

You're just spouting Church conservatism dressed up with John Bircher philosophy.

If your position is correct, then you'd have proof.

Let me state unequivocally, the model economic order is the law of consecration. That means consecrating all and receiving a stewardship in return. The "stewardship" is not private property, and can be revoked if the steward fails to perform. The essential definition of stewardship means that you are acting for somebody else; in this case, the Church.

Folks who have a problem with giving up their property, or who think that Capitalism is the fourth member of the Godhead, try to redfine Gospel terms to make them what they are not.

[_bcspace]

As Bob mentioned, church leaders went to great lengths during the Red Scare to spin the United Order as compatible with capitalism.

They don't appear to have. As I recently quoted in this thread, all your standard anti Communist principles in the Loc/UO originated with Joseph Smith. Of course neither of you is willing to address this which is why I've had to repeat this fact several times in this thread.