Page 1 of 2

When Mormons were socialists

Posted: April 20th, 2012, 8:28 pm
by HeirofNumenor
This ought to raise the ire of many on here, from all different perspectives...
When Mormons were socialists
Joseph Smith would be horrified by the religion's present-day materialism -- and uber-capitalist candidate
Sunday, Apr 15, 2012 12:00 PM Mountain Daylight Time
By Troy Williams
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/15/when_mo ... singleton/

“You are cursed because of your riches!”

It was a bummer message that nobody wanted to hear. Samuel the Lamanite stood alone atop the great wall of the city of Zarahemla to warn the inhabitants of their pending destruction.

Now you have probably never heard of this Samuel, nor the capital city that was once the center of the Nephite nation. But Mitt Romney certainly has. In 6 BC, as the story goes, somewhere on the American continent, the inhabitants of this mythic city had grown decadent. There were extreme class divisions. Politicians were corrupt. The government disregarded the sick and poor.

Sound familiar?

God had called Samuel to essentially Occupy Zarahemla, to stand up and speak out against corporate greed and wealth accumulation. For his trouble, he was promptly thrown out the front gates. Undeterred, he bravely scaled the city’s exterior wall, evading a barrage of arrows and stones to stand defiant. He offered Zarahemla a choice: repent or be destroyed by God. Like any of us who have ever witnessed the ranting of a doomsday prophet, the Nephites couldn’t be bothered. Four hundred years later, Samuel’s prophecy would sorely come to pass. After decades of perpetual wars and extreme environmental upheavals, the inhabitants of Zarahemla were wiped completely off the continent and out of history.

They had been warned.

The rise and fall of the Nephite nation is a cautionary tale included in the Book of Mormon. The book purports to be the history of ancient American people, written by prophets who foresaw the present day and knew that calamity was coming. Joseph Smith reportedly translated the record by “the gift and power of God.” The prophetic message of the scripture is sharp; if Americans are obedient to God, we will be blessed with riches. If Americans set our hearts on riches and ignore the poor, we will be destroyed.

It’s an ontological dilemma facing every millionaire Mormon.

One hundred and eighty-two years after its founding, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is certainly prospering. The Church has diversified into commercial enterprises, owning television and radio stations, universities, farms, banks and, most recently, retail. Last month, the Church opened City Creek Mall, a stunning billion-dollar downtown renovation in Salt Lake City featuring the Utah debut of Tiffany Jewelry, Michael Kors and Porches Design. This ambitious temple of high-end commerce sits adjacent to the iconic LDS Temple where sacred rituals are performed daily by the Mormon faithful.

Mitt Romney and City Creek represent the culmination of a great transformation within Mormonism. As an outcast faith, early Mormons experimented with communal living and alternative marriages. This original brand of Mormonism was typified by their rugged frontier prophet and polygamist outsider Brigham Young. In 1848, Young famously declared, “There shall be no private ownership of the streams that come out of the canyons, nor the timber that grows on the hills. These belong to the people: all the people.”

Young’s egalitarian separatism has long been superseded. The living embodiment of the 21st century saint is now the slick, painfully monogamous, politically malleable super-capitalist Romney who shares “humorous” tales of layoffs and factory closures.

Romney perfected the art of “creative destruction” through leveraged buyouts and junk bond financing that enriched his investors at Bain Capital while at times devastating common workers. His critics from the 99 percent, he argues, are driven by envy.

Ironically, while Romney would prefer to discuss wealth inequality in “quiet rooms,” the topic consumed both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young’s sermons and writings. For a short time in the Book of Mormon, the Nephites abandoned their love of riches and established “Zion” — a classless utopia that “had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, but they were all made free.”

The Nephite story provided the template for Smith and Young’s social experiments with communalism. They would both try repeatedly to replicate the mythic Zion. Smith repeatedly told his followers, “if you are not equal in earthly things you cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things.” Young also championed wealth redistribution, “We have plenty here. No person is going to starve, or suffer, if there is an equal distribution of the necessaries of life.”

But like all utopias, the dream is easier than reality.

Facing the existential threat of federal disincorporation, the LDS Church responded by seeking assimilation at any cost. They began to privatize their cooperative business ventures throughout the 1880s and publicly abandoned polygamy in 1890. The course was set. To survive in America, Mormons would transform themselves into patriotic citizens. The quest for Zion would be replaced by the American dream. The rhetoric of communalism exchanged with a reverence for the free market. Romney’s ascendance to the nation’s highest office will affirm to Mormons that their faith is finally authentic – that they are the indisputable Horatio Alger of American religions.

But how would the poor fare under the first Mormon president? By all accounts, not well. Romney has eagerly endorsed Paul Ryan’s budget plan to slash $3.3 trillion from programs that benefit low-income Americans. Furthermore, Romney refuses to consider increased taxes on millionaires or a modest increase on the taxable rates of capital gains. He encourages the wealthy to hoard their riches while the poor continue to struggle. It’s a familiar story he should know. Samuel the Lamanite continues to cry out to Romney in sacred protest, “The day shall come when they shall hide up their treasures, because they have set their hearts upon riches; cursed be they and also their treasures.”

He has been warned.

Troy Williams is the executive producer and co-host of RadioActive on KRCL-FM in Salt Lake City. He was recently featured in the Errol Morris film Tabloid. He blogs at http://www.troydwilliams.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and tweets at @troywilliamsSLC.More Troy Williams

Re: When Mormons were socialists

Posted: April 20th, 2012, 8:37 pm
by Thomas
Why do you need to bother us with this. Please sweep it under the rug and let us continue to be blessed with ever larger homes.

Re: When Mormons were socialists

Posted: April 20th, 2012, 8:44 pm
by HeirofNumenor
Thomas wrote:Why do you need to bother us with this. Please sweep it under the rug and let us continue to be blessed with ever larger homes.

LOL Not trying to bother...just thought it was interesting...and while I don't necessarily agree with the tone of the author, it does raise some interesting points about how times have changed, and how much we have embraced both the American lifestyle, and also the free market (or whatever we have - consumerism/materialism/ corporatism-fascism) - maybe even to a fault...

Re: When Mormons were socialists

Posted: April 20th, 2012, 9:10 pm
by LateOutOfBed
HeirofNumenor wrote:
Thomas wrote:Why do you need to bother us with this. Please sweep it under the rug and let us continue to be blessed with ever larger homes.

LOL Not trying to bother...just thought it was interesting...and while I don't necessarily agree with the tone of the author, it does raise some interesting points about how times have changed, and how much we have embraced both the American lifestyle, and also the free market (or whatever we have - consumerism/materialism/ corporatism-fascism) - maybe even to a fault...
Just one more "title" to add to the list of generalities that we will be labeled with because of iniquity in this nation. So, we'll all be labeled bigots, polygamist, cultists, racists, and now socialists! (Did I miss any?)

I think the media is just getting warmed up.

-- Geoff

Re: When Mormons were socialists

Posted: April 20th, 2012, 10:07 pm
by Thomas
HeirofNumenor wrote:
Thomas wrote:Why do you need to bother us with this. Please sweep it under the rug and let us continue to be blessed with ever larger homes.

LOL Not trying to bother...just thought it was interesting...and while I don't necessarily agree with the tone of the author, it does raise some interesting points about how times have changed, and how much we have embraced both the American lifestyle, and also the free market (or whatever we have - consumerism/materialism/ corporatism-fascism) - maybe even to a fault...
Actually, this is quite a concern for me. It seems like we are drifting away from our roots. I remember as a young boy , it seemed like the saints were poor, humble people that would give the shirt off their back. I know many still are but their is this materialism creeping in. As much as it's seems to be accepted in the mainstream of the church, it goes against what the scriptures teach and as you have pointed out, what Joesph Smith and Brigham Young taught as well. We know the United Order is a requirement for entry in the Celestial Kingdom. All Celestial beings abide in this law, of equality. What has happened? I hope were not turning into Zoramites.

Re: When Mormons were socialists

Posted: April 20th, 2012, 10:21 pm
by HeirofNumenor
I think a basic middle-class lifestyle has been okay, but it's the huge house, multiple fancy cars/trucks, huge TVs and all the tricked out high end electronics (which will be outdated in less than 2 years - okay make that 1 year), fancy & costly apparel, vain & sexualized plastic surgeries...the whole Gold wants you to prosper so you must become materially wealthy before you can help the poor (besides - you deserve it! You're American (i.e. Republican), and you are righteous!). @-) All that stuff which makes you proud and think you are better than others, have better opportunities....and also leads to everyone else wanting to be like you and have it all (so they think)...or covet whatever it is of yours they want...

Re: When Mormons were socialists

Posted: April 20th, 2012, 10:43 pm
by Thomas
HeirofNumenor wrote:I think a basic middle-class lifestyle has been okay, but it's the huge house, multiple fancy cars/trucks, huge TVs and all the tricked out high end electronics (which will be outdated in less than 2 years - okay make that 1 year), fancy & costly apparel, vain & sexualized plastic surgeries...the whole Gold wants you to prosper so you must become materially wealthy before you can help the poor (besides - you deserve it! You're American (i.e. Republican), and you are righteous!). @-) All that stuff which makes you proud and think you are better than others, have better opportunities....and also leads to everyone else wanting to be like you and have it all (so they think)...or covet whatever it is of yours they want...

This happening in the christian world, outside of our church as well. Prosperity churchs have had the greatest growth and popularity in this country lately. Preachers like Joel Olsteen, who preach nothing of sin and repentance. Only about what material success God wants you to enjoy. He lives in a ten million dollar house and has a tv show broadcast nationwide.

There are many like him as well. Multimillionaire preachers, who own private jets and limos, preaching materialism. I always thought that was priestcrafts. It's sad to see this element creep into our church but I must admit, I need to step out of Babylon myself. I'm not rich but I still think about the things of this world too much. I am trying to live more simply and take that step away.

On the otherside of this coin, I know some members who have a lot of money and don't flaunt it. You might think they were poor by all appearances. They are humble, hardworking, generous and help others in need.

Re: When Mormons were socialists

Posted: April 20th, 2012, 11:02 pm
by HeirofNumenor
On the otherside of this coin, I know some members who have a lot of money and don't flaunt it. You might think they were poor by all appearances. They are humble, hardworking, generous and help others in need.
That is the kind we should all strive to be like...or at least like Jon Huntsman SENIOR....who is in a prominent position but is giving away all his money (much of it quietly)...

Re: When Mormons were socialists

Posted: April 20th, 2012, 11:07 pm
by shadow
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Journal_o ... _Blessings" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: When Mormons were socialists

Posted: April 20th, 2012, 11:44 pm
by HeirofNumenor

Thank you Shadow! I was wondering how I could get an electronic copy of this talk. Ironically, I read it in the Free Capitalist Primer, put out by Rick Koerber of FrankinSquires, equity-milling infamy.... I supposed he used it to have it look like Brigham Young was endorsing people to become wealthy...when what I gather, President Young was saying God wants us to be productive & good stewards - however that leads you...

Re: When Mormons were socialists

Posted: April 21st, 2012, 10:55 am
by kathyn
The Church is not just American. In fact, more LDS live outside the states, so be careful with that broad brush. Plus, a lot of us LDS have very modest homes and live modestly and do share with others. We have one car...finally had to get a newer model used one but had the old one for many years. We don't have most of the electronic gadgets people think they need. We are always helping others with what means we do have, so please don't be too hasty too generalize all of us.

Re: When Mormons were socialists

Posted: April 21st, 2012, 11:20 am
by Loran Blood
HeirofNumenor wrote:This ought to raise the ire of many on here, from all different perspectives...
When Mormons were socialists
Joseph Smith would be horrified by the religion's present-day materialism -- and uber-capitalist candidate
Sunday, Apr 15, 2012 12:00 PM Mountain Daylight Time
By Troy Williams
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/15/when_mo ... singleton/
This is old, old territory for me. Mr. Williams has no idea whatsoever what he's talking about, and can be safely dismissed as an irrelevancy.

Joseph Smith himself, on at least two occasions, flatly dismissed socialism as false doctrine. When Robert Owen came through the Untied States on lecture tour, Joseph attended one of the lectures, and later remarked when questioned about socialist ideas, that he "did not believe the doctrine." More to the point, when asked by a non-member (I believe it was a reporter, I'll have to look up the source) if the Mormons believed in 'having all things common," replied, "No."

Further, a number of 20th century General Authorities on different occasions have been crystal clear that the United Order is in no sense a socialistic, communistic, economically egalitarian, communal or "communitarian" social order. Probably the best single place for a lengthy discussion of the nature of the UO is Enrichment Section L of the D&C Student Manual.

If this claim raises any ire, its only because its a brazen falsification of both LDS doctrine and history.

Re: When Mormons were socialists

Posted: April 21st, 2012, 11:27 am
by Loran Blood
HeirofNumenor wrote:
Thomas wrote:Why do you need to bother us with this. Please sweep it under the rug and let us continue to be blessed with ever larger homes.

LOL Not trying to bother...just thought it was interesting...and while I don't necessarily agree with the tone of the author, it does raise some interesting points about how times have changed, and how much we have embraced both the American lifestyle, and also the free market (or whatever we have - consumerism/materialism/ corporatism-fascism) - maybe even to a fault...
As we are now wallowing up to our necks in the turgid waters of class envy, I have to ask, are you claiming that free market economics are somehow interchangeable with "consumerism/materialism" and that free market economic relations are identifiable with "corporate fascism" (which is the antithesis of free market economic relations, by the way)?

I have to ask because you appear to be throwing around concepts that I'm not at all sure you understand.

Re: When Mormons were socialists

Posted: April 21st, 2012, 11:42 am
by Loran Blood
HeirofNumenor wrote:
On the otherside of this coin, I know some members who have a lot of money and don't flaunt it. You might think they were poor by all appearances. They are humble, hardworking, generous and help others in need.
That is the kind we should all strive to be like...or at least like Jon Huntsman SENIOR....who is in a prominent position but is giving away all his money (much of it quietly)...
So did Andrew Carnagie.

Re: When Mormons were socialists

Posted: April 21st, 2012, 11:47 am
by Nephi294
Here's a great article.....

http://scriptures.byu.edu/gettalk.php?ID=1476

Remember that Socialism takes away agency and uses force. We all know who's plan it was to use force.

Further more there is nothing wrong with having nice things. However if you have nice things and fail to live the Gospel..."pay tithing" and "fast offerings" then yes there's a problem.

Re: When Mormons were socialists

Posted: April 21st, 2012, 11:53 am
by Loran Blood
Nephi294 wrote:Here's a great article.....

http://scriptures.byu.edu/gettalk.php?ID=1476

Remember that Socialism takes away agency and uses force. We all know who's plan it was to use force.

Further more there is nothing wrong with having nice things. However if you have nice things and fail to live the Gospel..."pay tithing" and "fast offerings" then yes there's a problem.

It also cannot work, economically, to bring about any degree of prosperity such that poverty, in the normative sense, could ever really be alleviated to any substantive degree. All it really does is distribute economic want equally while preventing meaningful wealth creation - the only real answer to poverty in the long run.

Re: When Mormons were socialists

Posted: April 21st, 2012, 9:04 pm
by Thomas
Loran Blood wrote:
HeirofNumenor wrote:This ought to raise the ire of many on here, from all different perspectives...
When Mormons were socialists
Joseph Smith would be horrified by the religion's present-day materialism -- and uber-capitalist candidate
Sunday, Apr 15, 2012 12:00 PM Mountain Daylight Time
By Troy Williams
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/15/when_mo ... singleton/
This is old, old territory for me. Mr. Williams has no idea whatsoever what he's talking about, and can be safely dismissed as an irrelevancy.

Joseph Smith himself, on at least two occasions, flatly dismissed socialism as false doctrine. When Robert Owen came through the Untied States on lecture tour, Joseph attended one of the lectures, and later remarked when questioned about socialist ideas, that he "did not believe the doctrine." More to the point, when asked by a non-member (I believe it was a reporter, I'll have to look up the source) if the Mormons believed in 'having all things common," replied, "No."

Further, a number of 20th century General Authorities on different occasions have been crystal clear that the United Order is in no sense a socialistic, communistic, economically egalitarian, communal or "communitarian" social order. Probably the best single place for a lengthy discussion of the nature of the UO is Enrichment Section L of the D&C Student Manual.

If this claim raises any ire, its only because its a brazen falsification of both LDS doctrine and history.
From the confrence talk, titled Socialism vs United Order, given by Marion G Romney Apirl 1966
The United Order

Now as to the United Order, and here I will give the words of
the Lord and not my words.
The United Order, the Lord's program for eliminating the
inequalities among men, is based upon the underlying concept that the
earth and all things therein belong to the Lord and that men hold earthly
possessions as stewards accountable to God.
The following are similarities: Both (1) deal with production
and distribution of goods; (2) aim to promote the well-being of men
by eliminating their economic inequalities; (3) envision the elimination
of the selfish motives in private capitalistic industrial system.
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.
Seems it is an egalitarian, social order, which by Webster's defintion, makes it socialism. I know people get a little uptight about calling it socialism. The main difference is force vs agency.

Re: When Mormons were socialists

Posted: April 22nd, 2012, 3:44 pm
by Loran Blood
Seems it is an egalitarian, social order, which by Webster's defintion, makes it socialism. I know people get a little uptight about calling it socialism. The main difference is force vs agency.
You're very carefully and selectively cherry picking and truncating the words of the modern prophets. This is not intellectually honest and it insults the intelligence those those you are debating. There is nothing "egalitarian" or socialist about the UO. The absence of compulsion is only one aspect. The entire structure is non-socialistic.


http://www.ldsces.org/inst_manuals/d_cI ... 000_57.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: When Mormons were socialists

Posted: April 22nd, 2012, 11:32 pm
by Thomas
Loran Blood wrote:
Seems it is an egalitarian, social order, which by Webster's defintion, makes it socialism. I know people get a little uptight about calling it socialism. The main difference is force vs agency.
You're very carefully and selectively cherry picking and truncating the words of the modern prophets. This is not intellectually honest and it insults the intelligence those those you are debating. There is nothing "egalitarian" or socialist about the UO. The absence of compulsion is only one aspect. The entire structure is non-socialistic.


http://www.ldsces.org/inst_manuals/d_cI ... 000_57.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I think you really don't have an understanding of the United Order. We shouldn't be surprised if those outside of the church call it socialism. Government or force is not a requriement for a social system to be considered socialism. Our leaders have spoken to us on why it is different than scocialism but outsiders are unlikely to perceive the difference, considering the dictionary defines socialism as any social system with shared resources.

If the United Order is the lord's program for eliminating the inequalites among men, how could it not be egalitarinism. Maybe you should reveiw the definition and the United Order.

Marion G romney
Having thus voluntarily divested himself of title to all his
property, the consecrator received from the Church a stewardship by a
like conveyance. This stewardship could be more or less than his
original consecration, the object being to make "every man equal
according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants
and needs." (D&C 51:3.)

Re: When Mormons were socialists

Posted: April 23rd, 2012, 11:02 pm
by vaquero
Thomas wrote, "If the United Order is the lord's program for eliminating the inequalites among men, how could it not be egalitarinism. Maybe you should reveiw the definition and the United Order." And, then quoted Marion G. Romney as support:

Marion G romney
Having thus voluntarily divested himself of title to all his
property, the consecrator received from the Church a stewardship by a
like conveyance. This stewardship could be more or less than his
original consecration, the object being to make "every man equal
according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants
and needs." (D&C 51:3.)
The law of consecration i) is not the Lord's "program for eliminating the inequalities among men" nor is it a system of egalitarianism and ii) it is founded on the principal of private property.

In President Romney's talk, previously quoted in this thread, he stated, "the United Order is operated upon the principle of private ownership and individual management." President J. Reuben Clark and many others have similarly stated. This is precisely why President Romney also stated that if the slide toward socialism continues, "it will have to be displaced, if need be, by the power of God, because the United Order can never function under socialism or "the welfare state," for the good and sufficient reason that the principles upon which socialism and the United Order are conceived and operated are inimical."

There is nothing to consecrate under a system of socialism: only private property may be consecrated to the Lord.

The reference to D&C 51:3 does not support your assertion that the Law of Consecration is about "equality" and egalitarianism." The word "equality" which was emphasized from the passage was not connected in your summary to the rest of the verse which refers to our individual families, circumstances, wants and needs. As we are not equal in any of the foregoing: hence, the "equality" referred to is not a dead level equality--President J. Reuben Clark has emphasized this.

The stewardship referred to in the President Romney quote is the conveyance back to the consecrator, a conveyance that would be owned by him--not a communal arrangement--and could be alienated. The consecrator has management and control of that stewardship. Again, a far cry from a socialist, egalitarian system.

Re: When Mormons were socialists

Posted: April 23rd, 2012, 11:36 pm
by Thomas
vaquero wrote:Thomas wrote, "If the United Order is the lord's program for eliminating the inequalites among men, how could it not be egalitarinism. Maybe you should reveiw the definition and the United Order." And, then quoted Marion G. Romney as support:

Marion G romney
Having thus voluntarily divested himself of title to all his
property, the consecrator received from the Church a stewardship by a
like conveyance. This stewardship could be more or less than his
original consecration, the object being to make "every man equal
according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants
and needs." (D&C 51:3.)

]The law of consecration i) is not the Lord's "program for eliminating the inequalities among men" nor is it a system of egalitarianism and ii) it is founded on the principal of private property
.
This is a direct quote from the talk. Not my words. In fact Romney says they are the Lords words. BTW,egalitarianism means equal.

In President Romney's talk, previously quoted in this thread, he stated, "the United Order is operated upon the principle of private ownership and individual management." President J. Reuben Clark and many others have similarly stated. This is precisely why President Romney also stated that if the slide toward socialism continues, "it will have to be displaced, if need be, by the power of God, because the United Order can never function under socialism or "the welfare state," for the good and sufficient reason that the principles upon which socialism and the United Order are conceived and operated are inimical."

There is nothing to consecrate under a system of socialism: only private property may be consecrated to the Lord.
Do you know what consecrate means? The porperty will belong to the church. Please read the part again about willingly giving up title to the church. It will no longer be owned by those who have stewardship.
The reference to D&C 51:3 does not support your assertion that the Law of Consecration is about "equality" and egalitarianism." The word "equality" which was emphasized from the passage was not connected in your summary to the rest of the verse which refers to our individual families, circumstances, wants and needs. As we are not equal in any of the foregoing: hence, the "equality" referred to is not a dead level equality--President J. Reuben Clark has emphasized this.
I have stated previously it was roughly equal. Do you think communism is dead level equal? Please read my post again. It certainly does say according to wants and needs.

The stewardship referred to in the President Romney quote is the conveyance back to the consecrator, a conveyance that would be owned by him--not a communal arrangement--and could be alienated. The consecrator has management and control of that stewardship. Again, a far cry from a socialist, egalitarian system.[/quote]
Wrong again. The church will hold title to all property

Re: When Mormons were socialists

Posted: April 23rd, 2012, 11:45 pm
by Thomas
Taken from the conference talk by Marion G Romney. Not my words. Romney says God's words
The United Order

Now as to the United Order, and here I will give the words of
the Lord and not my words.
The United Order, the Lord's program for eliminating the
inequalities among men,
is based upon the underlying concept that the
earth and all things therein belong to the Lord and that men hold earthly
possessions as stewards accountable toGod

Re: When Mormons were socialists

Posted: April 24th, 2012, 4:46 am
by AussieOi
Thomas wrote:Why do you need to bother us with this. Please sweep it under the rug and let us continue to be blessed with ever larger homes.
agree thomas

i dont know why people bother like this

after all, all is well in zion, and zion prospers

if it weren't righteous it wouldn't be blessed and all blessings come from the lord

Re: When Mormons were socialists

Posted: April 24th, 2012, 7:17 am
by vaquero
Thomas,

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "stewardship."

Let's revisit President Romney's quote. Following a conveyance to the Church, "the consecrator received from the Church a stewardship by a like conveyance. This stewardship could be more or less than his
original consecration...."

Just what do you think the foregoing means? Why do you think, as I previously noted, that President Romney said the Law of Consecration "is operated upon the principle of private ownership and individual management?" He said this because the "stewardship by a like conveyance" to the consecrator is his private property. It is not owned by the Church nor is it managed thereby.

You may wish to do a little research on what others have said about the Law of Consecration including J. Reuben Clark. They are at variance with you and your contentions that the Church remains the owner of all, that it is all about egalitarianism, and that private property has nothing to do with the Law of Consecration.

Re: When Mormons were socialists

Posted: April 24th, 2012, 8:59 am
by Thomas
guereo
vaquero wrote:Thomas,

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "stewardship."

Let's revisit President Romney's quote. Following a conveyance to the Church, "the consecrator received from the Church a stewardship by a like conveyance. This stewardship could be more or less than his
original consecration...."

Just what do you think the foregoing means? Why do you think, as I previously noted, that President Romney said the Law of Consecration "is operated upon the principle of private ownership and individual management?" He said this because the "stewardship by a like conveyance" to the consecrator is his private property. It is not owned by the Church nor is it managed thereby.

You may wish to do a little research on what others have said about the Law of Consecration including J. Reuben Clark. They are at variance with you and your contentions that the Church remains the owner of all, that it is all about egalitarianism, and that private property has nothing to do with the Law of Consecration.
Your picking at nits here Vaquero. How could this not be egalitarianism when the lord said it is an equalization. You are saying it is not an equalization because it is not 100 percent equal. What it is, in no uncertain terms, is a redistribution of the wealth, on a voluntary basis. It is very much an egalitarian social order.

In this order God owns everything, we are stewards only. It is true you have the right to do what you want with your stewardship and transfer it or pass it on ect. In that resepect private property rights are preserved. The United Order is based on the concept that God owns everything.

Think about the endowment. Even your intellectual property belongs to the Lord.