Misconception: New World Order to Help Establish ZION?

[creator]

I receieved a message from a friend, which I agree with, and feel that a discussion on this would be great...

There is a misconception among some LDS that the New World order will help establish the Millenial Zion. I believe that this cannot be done. It would be akin to try to partake of the fruit of the Tree of Life from the front porch of your penthouse in the great and spacious building. I would like to have some serious input on this from other members of the forum.

Perhaps we could all discuss:

1. What related misconceptions have you heard?

2. What have the prophets said that we can use to help clear up these misconceptions, and provide the truth to others.

This is also similar to the misconception some have that the United Order / Law of Consecration are similar to Socialism / Communism...

[lundbaek]

I have heard several misconceptions since living 5 weeks now in Utah.

1.) In 1988 the Prophet told us there is a secret combination out to destroy the freedoms of America and all nations. Many LDSs maintain that secret combinations is the Mafia or some such organization.

2.) The Republican Party is the best and only hope for America.

3.) A vote of another party more true to constitutional principles is a vote thrown away.

4.) We will get into the NWO faster with Democrats than with Republicans. I better explain that with Democrats in office, the "conservative watchdogs are way more dilligent than with Republicans in office, when they go back to sleep, thinking all is well in Zion.

5.) We need for the government to administer welfare. Private charities and individuals are incapable of dealing with welfare problems.

6.) We should not try to salvage our Constitution and country until the Church comes out with a specific program.

7.) The Church leadership is quiet on these subjects because they are no longer a threat.

8.) The purpose of the U.N. is to maintain peace in the world.

9.) The JBS is a bunch of whackos.

Somebody else's turn

[cboyack]

I have mixed feelings on this. Hasn't the Lord used wicked men to bring about his purposes? Didn't he allow Satan to tempt Adam and Eve so that they would partake of the fruit and bring about the Fall?

But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things. (2 Ne. 2:24)

Sure, that doesn't mean we let evil men and organizations do what they will. However, I do think that there is a higher purpose in all that is going on. God knows what these people are doing, and is using their fruitless efforts to his benefit.

Life would be better off without these secret combinations, and God's children would enjoy more peace and prosperity, but part of me can't help but wonder if God is using their efforts to ultimately bring about his purposes.

I will not suffer that they shall destroy my work; yea, I will show unto them that my wisdom is greater than the cunning of the devil. (D&C 10:43)

I may be misguided, but I do think that despite the atrocious evils these men and organizations commit, God is still in control and will bring about his righteous purposes despite what they do. We still should, however, fight the good fight and oppose such men, organizations, policies and legislation.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

This is a subject very near and dear to me. I have spent a great deal of time pondering economics and the origin and morality of private property rights. Especially as they relate to the eventual millenial condition.

One big problem here is that what we know as Socialism never matches the perceived ideal that the Utopian proponents desire. I hate to use a movie as an example but it's seen in Dr. Zhivago, the ideal that satan uses as a lure is true equality, but it never comes and the revolution serves only to re-order society and solidify control for the few.

If socialism meant a true and equal reorder of things then it would be somewhat close to the United Order on day one before varied and different inheritances are entrusted to participants.

One difference is the acknowledgment that all is the Lords vs. all belongs to all. Another is the unequal but fair distribution that will vary based on talents and what we are able to do with them. Socialism, even true Socialism never puts any faith in God or man.

This is a must read article on the subject of consecration:
http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_02/refJDvol2-22.html

As to whether the NWO will help pave the way, to express it that way is to say that my addiction to drugs paved the way for my baptism in that it humbled me enough to accept the gospel whereas before I was heady and high minded (no pun intended). While the NWO and opposition to it will solidify an end to all nations, it is not fair to say that it will "help." Any more than Joseph getting hucked in a pit "helped" him buddy up to pharoh.

[creator]

I do think that despite the atrocious evils these men and organizations commit, God is still in control and will bring about his righteous purposes despite what they do. We still should, however, fight the good fight and oppose such men, organizations, policies and legislation.

I think you're right...

I think the Lord allows men agency to choose, this is why there are Secret Combinations, not because the Lord wants it, but because man is prone to such temptations.

Regarding the New World order / socialism / communism, multiple prophets have given talks explaining that those are not like the Zion / United Order / Law of Consecration - in fact the United Order is more of a Capitalist society than communist.

Some related articles/quotes are:

. . . Communism and all other similar isms bear no relationship whatever to the United Order. They are merely the clumsy counterfeits which Satan always devises of the gospel plan. . . . Latter-day Saints cannot be true to their faith and lend aid, encouragement, or sympathy to any of these false philosophies. They will prove snares to their feet. (Grant and McKay 273, 343)

Elder Marion G. Romney. General Conference. April 1966. address on Socialism: http://www.latterdayconservative.com/mo ... icleid=109

[79scholar]

Variations of "all is well in Zion" mentality:

1- "We don't have missionaries in every nation yet ... so Christ's Coming is not for 50-100 years"
2- "When Christ comes again, the righteous will just be taken up into heaven (rapture) as only the wicked really suffer anything"
3- "I don't see the moon turning into blood any time soon"
4- "What Armageddon?"
5- "You shouldn't take the book of Revelation literally, it's all symbolic"
6- "Isaiah wrote for his own time. Nephi wrote it because it's so beautiful and poetic."
7- "We shouldn't focus on these negative things. The Lord wants us to think happy thoughts."
8- "The Islamic Fascists are the secret combinations. The Prophet said they were ... just after he said we must root out these terrorists."
9- "President Bush is a highly moral man"

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Anyone care to comment point by point on how Socialism and the United Order differ? I think that in order for a lot of people to understand this point, they will have to understand it and not simply be told it.

Care to elaborate on the differences Brian?

[cboyack]

As I understand it, the difference between socialism and the United Order is the administration of it. Wicked, uninspired men will never be able to pull it off correctly. Only somebody led by God will have the know-how and ability to properly administer this system.

[79scholar]

Anyone care to comment point by point on how Socialism and the United Order differ? I think that in order for a lot of people to understand this point, they will have to understand it and not simply be told it.

Care to elaborate on the differences Brian?

Coercion and corruption for starters. Forced benevolence destroys charity, the foundation of Zion. Corruption brings major inequality, equality being another key to Zion.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Let me play devils advocate for a moment in order to tighten up the arguments. Both of those responses address system corruption and not the system itself. Is the United Order corruption proof? If so how so?

I have read many talks about the differences, but most deal with corrupt versions of socialsim.

The main points that I see are the Godless points. Socialsim is rooted in distrust of man and God. The United Order trusts in man (while at the same time being insulated to the frailties of man in some respects) and is administered through inspiration and thus by God insomuch as those men remain righteous who administer it.

In true socialsim man is not allowed to succeed because the man has A) no incentive, and B) is simply not allowed the extra capital with which to achieve any progress. Under the United Order all have an equal chance to better their private position whilst still not risking the food, water, shelter needs. Thus only one system allows progress individually and collectively.

[John Adams]

Difference between Socialism/Communism vs. United Order.

Choice is the key.

One of my favorite books in College was called Personal Destinies by David Norton.

If I really take the time to understand myself I may find that all I need to be happy is _____ (fill in your own blank).

For me it is friends, family, accounting, baseball, outdoors.

However I may have talents that would allow me to obtain these things and more, or I might have only a few talents that don't allow me to attain all these things.

In the United Order I would choose to use my talents to benefit all and be at peace in understanding myself so I would only consume the things that are unique to me. Hence we are all equally happy even though we wouldn't necessarily have equality in goods received.

I've always felt that the United Order wouldn't be equality in goods received, but equality in choice. Socialism/Communism tries to focus on equality in everything (and tries to force it upon us), and all you'll ever get is a Lowest Common Denominator equality (actually equality in nothing)--except for of course those in power who always seem to end up with everything else (and for some reason, still are never happy or satisfied).

My two cents.


P.S. Biggest misconception I see is "All is Well in Zion"

[79scholar]

Hehehee, in that case I go back to my very first philosophy when I was 16 years old:
"That which controls us helps keep us in control of ourselves."

Or in other words:
"That which limits our freedom helps us exercise more responsibility for the freedom remaining."

To take the philosophy one step further:
"The amount of external control needed is relative to the responsibility level of the individual(s)."


Too much external control = oppresson. Too little = chaos. Therefore, socialism exerts all external control and allows no internal control (responsibility) ... from the outside in, but prohibiting growth. United order requires internal control (responsibility) or else it dissolves into chaos ... from the inside out, requiring growth.

In this way Socialism and the United Order are opposites, and therefore Karl Marx's thinking that Socialism leads to Communism (Marx's definition of Communism is near the United Order, like living in a community with no external controlling) is clearly false. It would be like taking Israel enslaved to Egypt and suddenly expecting them to govern themselves AND take care of themselves.

[jbalm]

The United Order will not be enforced at the point of a gun.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

There are many socialistic organisations today that do not utilize the point of gun enforcement, a monestary is a good example. It too can be entered into by choice.

It cannot ever adapt to the individual however as socialism by nature seeks to eliminate any difference and create sameness. The United Order takes advantage of our unique talents to better the whole through consecration.

Individual talents and personal accountability are two very good and valid points!

It is interesting to reconcile the vine and fig tree for each, paradisical glory, lion and lamb, where none dare make afraid with a system of free enterprise. (I like that term better than Capitalist. Tends to take the focus off of capital and put it on enterprise, plus free is good, and I think capitalism is none too free now!)

[creator]

Anyone care to comment point by point on how Socialism and the United Order differ?

I hope all of you have taken the time to read this ---> Elder Marion G. Romney. General Conference. April 1966. address on Socialism: http://www.latterdayconservative.com/mo ... icleid=109

I think Elder Romney does a good job at explaining the differences and the similarities.

[Shoemaker]

That article by Marion G. Romney is a classic. I gave it to my political science professor at Weber State College (now University) back in the 70's when she (Dr. Jean White) said that Socialism and the Mormon's United Order were basically the same thing.

The next day she repented from her comment and thanked me for the article that set her right.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Yes, I have read it a few times.

"And now in line with these remarks for three things I pray:

(1) That the Lord will somehow quicken our understanding of the differences between socialism and the United Order and give us a vivid awareness of the awful portent of those differences. "

And thus discussion of the nitty gritty details to quantify the differences.

I am not sure that socialism inherently has to be enforced by the state to be socialism. In all practical applications it could not exist without it, but on a small communal scale the argument may not hold entirely true.

One question that I have had with the article is to what degree our inheretances are passed to our children (under the United Order), and does that preclude them from receiving a seperate inheritance of their own? I do not beleive that it does.

[jbalm]

There are many socialistic organisations today that do not utilize the point of gun enforcement, a monestary is a good example. It too can be entered into by choice.

I understand your point about monastaries. Hippie communes are similar. But these micro examples don't necessarily share the same challenges, nor the same degree of challenges, as "normal" communities . I am unaware of any instances of large scale socialism working without the threat of violence somewhere down the line.

I agree with the other distinguishing factors you have pointed out. But free agency seems to be at the heart of the issue.

Maybe I'm just being simplistic.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

I would be shocked to see socialism work at all, it can't. (at least not for long term betterment) That said I do not think that it is a valid argument to say that violence is inherent philosophically in socialism. I am simply playing devils advocate to ensure a fair argument. Remember few would accept any historical examples of successes of the United Order as factual. On the contrary the only fairly recent examples have largely been considered failures (like Orderville.) For many non-LDS and probably many LDS too, it is hard to imagine a full consecration without force or compulsion. Really the same argument can be made for socialism in the short go. In the long run however, socialism of neccesity stagnates whereas the United Order, as Brigham Young loved to point out, will flourish and become wealthy.

[Tribunal]

I do think that despite the atrocious evils these men and organizations commit, God is still in control and will bring about his righteous purposes despite what they do. We still should, however, fight the good fight and oppose such men, organizations, policies and legislation.

I think you're right...

I think the Lord allows men agency to choose, this is why there are Secret Combinations, not because the Lord wants it, but because man is prone to such temptations.

Regarding the New World order / socialism / communism, multiple prophets have given talks explaining that those are not like the Zion / United Order / Law of Consecration - in fact the United Order is more of a Capitalist society than communist.

Some related articles/quotes are:

. . . Communism and all other similar isms bear no relationship whatever to the United Order. They are merely the clumsy counterfeits which Satan always devises of the gospel plan. . . . Latter-day Saints cannot be true to their faith and lend aid, encouragement, or sympathy to any of these false philosophies. They will prove snares to their feet. (Grant and McKay 273, 343)

Elder Marion G. Romney. General Conference. April 1966. address on Socialism: http://www.latterdayconservative.com/mo ... icleid=109

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! Now I have some ammo to use against an LDS professor I know who is an open supporter of socialism.

Again, thank you!

[lundbaek]

Trib, please let us know how you make out with that pinko professor. He could be doing a lot of damage from his position of trust.

[sally]

[quote="cboyack"]I have mixed feelings on this. Hasn't the Lord used wicked men to bring about his purposes? Didn't he allow Satan to tempt Adam and Eve so that they would partake of the fruit and bring about the Fall?

A good example of this is in Isaiah chapter 10. The Lord used the Assyrians to punish Isreal when they were ripe in iniquity. He then punished the Assyrians for their pride and boasting saying, "Shall the axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith?

[Shoemaker]

Socialism is eye candy that's why it is so ubiquitous. It has an up side without the down side mentioned, like drugs. It has appeal; everybody wants it and the government wants to dole it out without mentioning future obligations and consequences. They might be put in the fine print, but nobody reads the fine print. "Let's get a government grant", "let's get ourselves a Pell grant" and "let's get government welfare.”There's free cheese in a mouse trap" Most people regard Socialism as altruistic cheese from a paternalistic government and I look at it as a trap. The government says: “Let’s show our benevolence by giving out the free goods and when underlings are good and hooked and totally dependant on us at some future day then we can slap them around and control them at will”.

I heard either Bro. Skousen or Reid Bankhead refer to “socialism in the home”. Meaning over-indulgence and spoiling the child to the point where he/she rules the household. The child is spoiled, disrespectful and undisciplined and plays never knowing the value of work or the meaning of “we reap what we sow”. The child grows up as an imbecile who cannot take care of himself and manage his affairs. He’s always needy and in the end totally worthless. He is dominated by emotion and passion never experiencing life from a logical and reasoned point of view. This is the context of Socialism as I understand it.

[WYp8riot]

I havent read much about the United Order. I am assuming it would be similiar in nature as establishing Zion?

I can assume we are talking as has been mentioned Free Agency over Force or coercion? The continuation of the War in Heaven.

Additionally I often wonder if many people ever confuse "establishing Zion" with other political uses of the word ZION such as Zionism and Utopion society.

[Anthony]

I have a few thoughts regarding socialism and consecration. Sorry it is so long.

In the eternal scheme of things, what is considered to be the greatest good that could happen to each person? Would not the greatest good be to be able to return to Heaven and live with God? In the pre-mortal council it was never argued that this was not the greatest good. The argument instead was how best to accomplish that event. One plan involved force and the other plan involved free-will. There were many reasons put forth in favor of the plan that involved force not the least of which was that every person was guaranteed to return. Would not that be the greatest good for the greatest amount of people?

However, it was decreed from far earlier than this council that free-will was a preeminent principle that could not be violated.

In our world today there are many “goods” that we can do in society. In trying to accomplish any “good” we simply must ask—does the plan for accomplishing this good involve force or freewill. I am bold enough to suggest that if it was wrong to accomplish the greatest “good” of all by use of force, then it is wrong to accomplish any lesser “good” by use of force outside of protecting life, liberty, and property.

Does socialism use force or free-will to accomplish its aims? Does Joseph Smith’s plan of consecration use force or free-will? How about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or any other government welfare program—do they use forced taxation or free-will offerings to accomplish their goals? What about the LDS Church welfare program—are fast offerings, tithing, and other donations extracted by force or are they free-will offerings? Because the God of the Universe rejected a plan that would have saved everybody, are we going to believe that he was “uncaring, heartless, not Christ-like, etc?” I would say that the LDS Church welfare program is indeed Christ-like, while government run socialist programs are in fact quite the opposite.

I have the responsibility to provide for myself and my family the necessities of life. I have a moral obligation to help my fellow men when I am able. Nobody has the right to force me (via the government or any other intermediary) to provide for others needs. I find part of the Constitution Party Platform to be very relevant. I am including it below for your enjoyment.

Cheers,
Anthony

Welfare
“God, who endows us with life, liberty, property, and the right to pursue happiness, also exhorts individuals to care for the needy, the sick, the homeless, the aged, and those who are otherwise unable to care for themselves.
America's welfare crisis is a government-induced crisis. Government social and cultural policies have undermined the work ethic, even as the government's economic and regulatory policies have undermined the ability of our citizens to obtain work.
Charity, and provision of welfare to those in need, is not a Constitutional responsibility of the federal government. Under no circumstances should the taxpayers of the United States be obligated, under penalty of law through forced taxation, to assume the cost of providing welfare for other citizens. Neither should taxpayers be indentured to subsidize welfare for persons who enter the United States illegally.
The message of Christian charity is fundamentally at odds with the concept of welfare maintenance as a right. In many cases, welfare provisions by the Federal government are not only misdirected, but morally destructive. It is the intended purpose of civil government to safeguard life, liberty and property - not to redistribute wealth. Such redistribution is contrary to the Biblical command against theft.
We encourage individuals, families, churches, civic groups and other private organizations, to fulfill their personal responsibility to help those in need.”