Close Topic Options

Lds Collectivist? - Page 2

I think you are right JB - and it is like the Matrix!

However, though I can understand not wanting to deal with certain things (which we all are guilty of!) I find it hard to understand how some (fully active and upstanding) LDS members passionately - or at least somewhat passionately - support some things which are so incongruous with the Gospel.

If I am honest I must say that most of us, in one area or more, believe very little we have been told or just reject it And that affects everyone.

LDS Forever, thank you for the link. It is good to see people responding in all places in the world. You say that people in Cuba live under Communism; now I understand there are different degrees to which it is applied and the harshness with which it is applied - however, I would submit the basic planks or characteristics of communism exist in all governments today (that I know of) and so in that sense we are all living under communism in some form.

Dubhdara.

Collectivist Lds

I have read several statements by various leaders of the Church, indicating that collectivism types of systems are not good. For example, Joseph Smith attended a meeting about socialism, and afterwards declared it a "false doctrine."

I agree completely with those statements, as well as the ideas that all the current government types, political parties, etc, are wrong, to varying degrees. That does make it difficult for people who follow such things to make good choices.

For example, I personally know people within the Church who vote Republican just because they are the "conservative" party. Some people almost view them as the only acceptable party before God. I know other people who are so caught up in the collectivist mindset, that they claim that it is the precursor to the United Order. They claim that the only reason that the USSR, Cuba, China, North Korea, and all the other communist/socialist systems have failed has been because the application was wrong, not the theories behind it. These are members of the Church, who would gladly vote for a communist for President.

But, they are all collectivist in nature. There are some small parties that aren't, such as the Libertarian and Constitution parties, but they also focus on principles that are almost as bad in other ways.

I guess that I am one of those who is almost just along for the ride. I despair of seeing any real changes in any government away from collectivism. I look forward to the day when the Lord will provide the government, and I have started to seriously consider and search out what He wants me to do to work towards that day.

Lds Collectivist? Studies Doctrine Mormon

Thus wrote Nighthawk:

I understand, and think it quite right that we should hope for a better day; however, I think this view can be twisted sometimes. Note these words from Ezra Taft Benson, listing the arguments the devil uses to keep us out of the fight for freedom:

Source: https://www.memresearch.org/documents/ETB0465.html (DO read this whole address - it is one of the best!)

Thus also wrote Nighthawk:

In what ways? Perhaps this could be answered under another thread - I think JB started an "LDS Libertarian" one, though I understand a Party and a philosophy aren't necessarily the same thing

Dubhdara.

Page 2 Collectivist Lds

The Law of Consecration is a collectivism, is it not? The saints were and still are expected to support this. So, I must say, I don't think it is wrong in and of itself. However, The Law of Consecration is admininistered by worthy Priesthood holders, not by someone elected to office by popular vote. I think that makes a big difference.

Now, as to communism, I don't think a member should support such a government as the ideal. If you live in a communist nation, then you should support your government leaders. We have certainly been taught that this is true. However, if you live in a republic or democracy, I don't think you should be supporting the change from such a government to one of communism. It may sound like it comes close to how we would live with the Law of Consecration but because it isn't run by "Godly" people, it doesn't actually work out that way. Another very big reason not to support communism is that they do all they can to discourage religious worship.

I think it is fine to live in a society and be forced to pay taxes to support public schools, and some sort of welfare program. It isn't really being forced in the true sense of the word. We elect people to represent us and they as our representatives enact these laws. So, in a sense we all have agreed to them by voting for those people who actually put them into law. I believe this is very different from communism. I am not sure about socialism.

Collectivist Lds

Well, I think the Law of Consecration enters in the category of communalism. This is an interesting article I found that talks about it:

https://w3.byuh.edu/academics/ace/Speeches/...y/M_Stanton.htm

Edited: LDS_forever on 2nd Oct, 2004 - 9:36pm

Lds Collectivist?

Actually, what Tena brought up about the Law of Consecration had crossed my mind and I was going to bring it up, but the one thing that stopped me was this... unlike other collective regiments that force you to fall in line, the Law of Consecration is based on individual willingness.

Lds Collectivist - Page 2

Tenahef did say (and LDS Forever support):

Well, let's take a look at some words from Church leaders :

"The United Order is not a communal system; it is not one under which all things are held in common..." (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 813; emphasis added).

And why is that? Marion G. Romney explained...

"This procedure [the Law of Consecration and Stewardship] preserved in every man the right to private ownership and management of his property. At his own option he could alienate it or keep and operate it and pass it on to his heirs"¦the United Order is operated upon the principle of private ownership and individual management. Socialism is operated on the principle of collective or governmental ownership and 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"¦" (Marion G. Romney, Socialism and the United Order Compared, BYU, March 1966; emphasis added)

This comes as a great shock to most of us because we do not realise how our preconceived ideas, and cultural influences, affect such doctrines.

President Clark was even more direct:

"In the first place I repeat again, the United Order recognized and was built upon the principle of private ownership of property; all that a man had and lived upon under the United Order, was his own. Quite obviously, the fundamental principle of our system today is the ownership of private property." (J. Reuben Clark, Conference, October 1942)

"The Church never was, and under existing commandments never will be, a communal society, under the directions thus far given by the Lord. The United Order was not communal nor communistic. It was completely and intensely individualistic, with a consecration of unneeded surpluses for the support of the Church and the poor." (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., "The United Order and Law of Consecration As Set Out in the Revelations of the Lord" from a pamphlet of articles reprinted from the Church Section of the Deseret News, 1942, pp. 26-27. As quoted by Marion G. Romney, Conference, April 1977)

The idea that the Law of Consecration and Stewardship is communal is a falsehood promoted by those who are ignorant (we are all ignorant in many things - so I mean no offense) or those who are trying to lead LDS astray. It is individualism that is of the gospel, not collectivism; this goes deeper but would go off topic. It is crucial we understand it though as it strikes right at the heart of the issue which divided us in the pre-existence.

The difference between communism and the United Order is not just about the righteousness of the leaders. Consider:

Indeed, one LDS lawyer (whose book in which these words were contained was favourably mentioned in Conference in the 70s) said that the Law of Consecration and Stewardship might be called a religiously-oriented form of private capitalism.

Is not forced taxation stealing? Is it all right to steal?

But it is elective you say? Can I then empower my representative to vote to do something (enact a law) that I cannot morally do myself? In other words, if I cannot steal from my neighbour, can I delegate that power to my representative to give that power to a government? Clearly, I cannot.

And thus democracy - the idea that a majority (or pretended majority) can do anything - is nothing less than tyranny of the mob or demagogues. Social democracy, socialism and communism are made of the same ingredients, they are identical cakes which some nations decorate a little differently to others.

So, it is not very different from communism - it is identical! Find a copy of the Communist Manifesto and look up the Ten Points or planks - these are the physical characteristics of a communistic government. You will see the US is a communist country as far as the significant characteristics are concerned. There may be differences in degree between different countries, but not in kind.

This is a hard reality and I do not doubt many will challenge me. I wish what I used to believe was true.

Dubhdara.

Offtopic but, OK...what's going on with the quote codes? Message Edited! JB@Trinidad: You left out one of the quote tags, you have to watch carefully to close each one that you open

Edited: JB@Trinidad on 2nd Oct, 2004 - 11:20pm

Lds Collectivist Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 2

Although that is a classic, yet most governments will never admit that they 'steal' anything. The United Order ensures that what goes around comes around based on need with any surplus going to those who have more needs. I can see where in this arrangement that an unwilling participant would only play along by having more prosperity to 'get more'. Then again, would it be worth it? No, so having such an arrangement is a check and balance in itself.