When you were a TBM what were your thoughts on it compared to now? For me even when I was a TBM I was worried about it having to share everything (yes polygamy made me cringe too).
I live in Scandinavia and vote Green Party and Socialist. That law has always sounded pretty cool to me, particularly when small groups need to build up a community quickly. I remember having some cognitive dissonance when I learned about it as a child though, because communism was NOT the first political philosopy that came to my mind when I observed the lock-step capitalists that surrounded me when I was growing up.
Simply put, religious based communism (though it was not called that) predates actual communism. Marx was nothing but a plagiarist in that regard. Religious communism is in fact a form of Christian Utopianism that has failed miserably for millennium. Guys like Marx then came along, and decided they were going to create a Christian Utopia without all the Jesus BS, because in their minds, it was all this mythology that had kept the system from working. It also failed. Now that isn't to say that there are not some elements that might not work with certain groups in certain parts of the world, where they are culturally conditioned to accept it, but you can create a Utopian economic system through the either the elimination of competition or the creation of a central control.
Human nature is such, that those in control will always manipulate the system in order to give themselves more, at the expense of others, and they will always find a way to justify doing so.
Thank you, I had no clue that JS was such a copy cat till about a year ago when I read that he was a free mason. I will read up on Anabaptists and religious communism. Very interesting.
A TBM who was employed by the church told me that the law of consecration would be re-established before the second coming of Christ, implying that it would be during my lifetime. NUTTY!!!!
My TBM SIL just posted a thing on FB ranting about all the poor on welfare. I haven't commented yet but I don't get the disconnect Mormons have between being ok with their own communist religious policies and yet have such contempt for govt social welfare? The only argument I've hear is that the religious one is voluntary and govt is not. I find that arg unconvincing because what could be more coercive and mandatory when your very soul is on the line? If they don't agree to the covenants, they don't achieve celestial glory. I mean I feel the only difference is the timing - you don't pay taxes, you pay fines or go to jail in this life. But if you don't agree to hand over your property to the church, you suffer the consequences in the next life.
Doesn't sound voluntary to me.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/24/2013 05:44PM by goldenrule.
Yes, goldenrule, it's not voluntary. And in the days of Young, if you didn't practice his form of United Order, he would damn your economic and social future.
But I thought that MoInc. was proud of the fact that the US Guv copied "their" holy welfare system? They sure boasted about this enough over the last many decades.
There was a couple in our ward that dropped in to visit me one day. The conversation came around to this topic. I couldn't believe what I was hearing.
She told me one of the reasons they came over is because they wanted to see what my house was like on the inside. They'd decided that they liked my house best and planned on living in it when we packed up and went to Missouri. I was speechless.
It was then that I broke her heart. I told her if I were ever forced to move to MIssouri that I would burn my house to the ground with everything in it before I left. But not to worry, I was never, ever going to be going to Missouri. Not even for a visit.
Ive heard this.... the difference is that historically speaking, communism doesnt work..... members tend to think that it didnt work in the church because we as people are not righteous enough yet. The BOM says it worked when the people had all things in common..... my hubby takes that to mean all things, as in beliefs, goals, purposes, not just substance. Thats why he is still for a more strict welfare program. .
I worked with a woman who was just plain loveable. Everybody loved her, she was without guile and would have given you the shirt off her back. The problem was she was incompetent at her job and she didn't have a shirt to take off her back. In order to keep the office running smoothly, I had to do my job and half of hers. I remember thinking that is how the law of consecration would work. The lazy and the loveable would be in la la land and the rest of us would be working our heinies off. BTY she is still my friend and I love her dearly, but I always say I'll drive and I tell her to be ready twenty minutes before I need to pick her up.
A lot of the TBM's I know, including family members who I love but disagree with virulently on many, many things believe that poor people are somehow inherently bad.
I'm not saying every person on welfare is deserving, of course, there are some lazy folks who con the system, you get that in any group of humans. As one who has worked in the inner city with many of those welfare recipients, there are all sorts of people and the reasons they are on welfare are quite varied.
However, many of those TBM's I know believe all those who are on welfare simply lack a work ethic and are basically lazy by choice. There is absolutely no understanding or compassion for those who are in this sad state because of a lack of education, jobs, transportation; bankruptcy due to medical bills and various other concrete and very real reasons (not excuses).
Trying to discuss the situation with them is frustrating to no end because they simply are not willing to even look at facts, research or anything that doesn't go along with their preconceived views. This carries over to just about everything else as well.
Forced sharing, whether by religious manipulation or by political might, simply doesn't work. The Plymouth Brethren ("Pilgrims") tried it in 1620-21 in Massachusetts by farming the land in common. (Hence, Massachusetts is a "Commonwealth"). they failed to produced enough for their beleagured community. The following year, Gov. Bradford apportioned private plots for each household and there was an overall surplus. This allowed men to develop the fishing industry, and the colony began to thrive comercially.
By 1925, the Bolsheviks had centralized their hold on Russia, but the people were starving. Lenin introduced the "New Economic Plan," which was similar to Bradford's plan: allow the peasants to farm their own plots, even if they were theoretically part of a collective. Production increased. Lenin died as the program was being implemented, but Stalin reaped the benefits until he returned to forced collectivism. (Starving the Ukrainians to death didn't help, for that matter.)
The New Testament communal sharing was strictly voluntary, and not coerced upon pain of either damnation or disfellowshiping. Annanias and Saphira died (Acts 4) not because they would not participate in the sharing of land and goods, but because they held back part of what they had owned and lied to the Holy Spirit. That is, they were masquerading as believers but had not committed themselves.
Both the Old and New Testaments uphold the inviolability of property ownership. Don't tar Christianity with the brush of Mormon false theocracy.
caffiend wrote " Don't tar Christianity with the brush of Mormon false theocracy." Sorry but that makes no sense. Christianity is also a farce.
Religion/Government when they take their piece and divide there rest, there is never enough left over. Let each man and women provide for themselves and there is more than enough to spare.
Obamacare is a perfect example of dividing the pie until there will not be enough left over. The US has enough money to provide health care for all without Obamacare Taxes. There is not enough money for free Healthcare and also to SPY on everyone.
themaster Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > caffiend wrote " Don't tar Christianity with the > brush of Mormon false theocracy." Sorry but that > makes no sense. Christianity is also a farce.
I realize that many on this board are hard atheists, and I respect (but disagree) with your premise that all religion is fiction. But I think we can agree that there are some definite distinctions between the two. Here, there is the requirement of tithing* with the Mormons, upon pain of loss of both temporal and eternal well-being. Biblical Christianity has the principle of tithing and offering based upon gratitude to God and love for the brethren. It is voluntary and confidential ("When giving alms, don't let your left hand know what the right is doing.") In my church, what I put in the collection plate is unknown to the Pastor and others, and is tallied by a confidential committee who will provide me a receipt for tax purposes.
I try not to slight others with sweeping statements and dismissive positions. So please don't just dismiss us Christians and our positons as "also a farse." Here, friend, it is rather extraneous and personally offensive.
On a side matter, I agree with you completely on the costs and perils of Obamacare.
*Not to mention the oppressive theocracy of BY's reign as "prophet."
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/24/2013 10:14PM by caffiend.