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?
I don't see it that way. Certain Church leaders or prominent authors affiliated with the John Birch society tried to dress up past church practices into something they weren't. But that wasn't Church doctrine and there was substantial internal dissent among the Brethren with these views.
But, today, folks who live around Lehi and Cedar City have made getting out of the United Nations their Gospel Hobby.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
bcspace wrote: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.
Not really. Joseph Smith was addressing Owenism, not Marxism. Completely different matters. Your Church John Birchers then used his scattered comments about Owenism as a basis to make Church socialistic experiments into models of Capitalism. No real scholar would find that acceptable.
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 don't appear to be familiar with the doctrine on the United Order. What part of the doctrine prevents retirement or capital savings being considered to be a valid want or need?
You're just spouting Church conservatism dressed up with John Bircher philosophy.
If your position is correct, then you'd have proof.
Am not a John Bircher but as I pointed out, you don't know what that society stands for.
bcspace wrote: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.
That's because the "standard anti Communist principles" were cherrypicked during the Red Scare. For them to be compelling, they would have to be representative of the nature and purpose of the United Order, except they aren't. I could say I'm not from California all I want, but it wouldn't be true. And people can say all they want that the United Order has nothing to do with early 19th-century utopian socialism, but that would also be untrue.
Yahoo Bot wrote:I don't see it that way. Certain Church leaders or prominent authors affiliated with the John Birch society tried to dress up past church practices into something they weren't. But that wasn't Church doctrine and there was substantial internal dissent among the Brethren with these views.
But, today, folks who live around Lehi and Cedar City have made getting out of the United Nations their Gospel Hobby.
What I mean is that, because there was such a push to distance the United Order from Communism, that pro-capitalist spin has been absorbed into church publications, making it de facto doctrine.
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.
That's because the "standard anti Communist principles" were cherrypicked during the Red Scare.
What else did Joseph Smith say that you think is missing from the doctrine on the LoC/UO? Of course you are going to make this argument because you don't believe the Church is led by God anyway. But besides it's flaws, you have no evidence that the Church cherry-picked the doctrine or was informed by the Red Scare.
For them to be compelling, they would have to be representative of the nature and purpose of the United Order, except they aren't.
Since they were shut down/failed, they don't seem to be very good or even a valid representation at all.
bcspace wrote: You don't appear to be familiar with the doctrine on the United Order. What part of the doctrine prevents retirement or capital savings being considered to be a valid want or need?
We already know it was not implemented correctly. Not a valid argument.
Message me when either of you find evidence that the Church cherry picked doctrine on the LoC/UO. Wouldn't change my mind because doctrine is doctrine and Joseph Smith already established the anti Socialism/Communism principles well beforehand but it would be interesting.
And Yahoo, when you come up with doctrine that precludes retirement or capital savings from one's stewardship (which is deeded as private property to be done with as one pleases), message me.