Jump to content

United Order vs. Communism


Sevenbak

Recommended Posts

Define communism. I do suspect that you are refering the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and its kindred spirits, but guess what, didn't claim to be communists, but said they were building communism. Communism itself was an ideal which they never reached. The United Order is indeed a form of communism, communism the ECONOMIC system. I highly recommend Arrington's Building the City of God.

Link to comment

Define communism. I do suspect that you are refering the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and its kindred spirits, but guess what, didn't claim to be communists, but said they were building communism. Communism itself was an ideal which they never reached. The United Order is indeed a form of communism, communism the ECONOMIC system. I highly recommend Arrington's Building the City of God.

I would highly recommend Elder Romney's definition in the link provided.

Link to comment

I have a hard copy of the whole thing. IIRC, he was talking about the political system of the USSR, in which case it and the UO have little in common. That still does not change the fact that the UO is a form of communism (the economic system), much like our church is a religion.

Link to comment

I have a hard copy of the whole thing. IIRC, he was talking about the political system of the USSR, in which case it and the UO have little in common. That still does not change the fact that the UO is a form of communism (the economic system), much like our church is a religion.

The link is there, you really need to read it again.

Here's some of the main differences. I quote:

(1) The cornerstone of the United Order is belief in God and acceptance of him as Lord of the earth and the author of the United Order.

Socialism, wholly materialistic, is founded in the wisdom of men and not of God. Although all socialists may not be atheists, none of them in theory or practice seek the Lord to establish his righteousness.

(2) The United Order is implemented by the voluntary free-will actions of men, evidenced by a consecration of all their property to the Church of God.

One time the Prophet Joseph Smith asked a question by the brethren about the inventories they were taking. His answer was to the effect, "You don't need to be concerned about the inventories. Unless a man is willing to consecrate everything he has, he doesn't come into the United Order." (Documentary History of the Church, Vol. 7, pp. 412-13.) On the other hand, socialism is implemented by external force, the power of the state.

(3) In harmony with church belief, as set forth in the Doctrine and Covenants, "that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property" (D&C 134:2), the United Order is operated upon the principle of private ownership and individual management.

God-given agency preserved in United Order

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.

(4) The United Order is non-political.

Socialism is political, both in theory and practice. It is thus exposed to, and riddled by, the corruption that plagues and finally destroys all political governments that undertake to abridge man's agency.

(5) A righteous people is a prerequisite to the United Order.

Socialism argues that it as a system will eliminate the evils of the profit motive.

The United Order exalts the poor and humbles the rich. In the process both are sanctified. The poor, released from the bondage and humiliating limitations of poverty, are enabled as free men to rise to their full potential, both temporally and spiritually. The rich, by consecration and by imparting of their surplus for the benefit of the poor, not by constraint but willingly as an act of free will, evidence that charity for their fellowmen characterized by Mormon as "the pure love of Christ." (Moro. 7:47.)

Link to comment

Yup, talking primarily about the Soviet Union. Most forms of communism do not require atheism, on the contrary, most forms of communism have been religious. Communism has tended to be a free-will system. Both elder Romney and you are confusing it with the communist party, whose goal was communism, but never made it there.

Your other points all apply to communism too.

Link to comment

Yup, talking primarily about the Soviet Union. Most forms of communism do not require atheism, on the contrary, most forms of communism have been religious. Communism has tended to be a free-will system. Both elder Romney and you are confusing it with the communist party, whose goal was communism, but never made it there.

Your other points all apply to communism too.

I second this. :P

Link to comment

Define communism. I do suspect that you are refering the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and its kindred spirits, but guess what, didn't claim to be communists, but said they were building communism. Communism itself was an ideal which they never reached. The United Order is indeed a form of communism, communism the ECONOMIC system. I highly recommend Arrington's Building the City of God.

lol! I was about to buy this book today... but not enough money :P

Link to comment

I live in a country with a sosialistic majority, more than often anyway. I see that taxation is good in the respect that we all get very cheep helatcare and school. I see this as a step thowards the United Order, but as there are so many different religions the UO would never make it. Yet I believe that LDS is like a (hevenly) kingdom inside an earthly kingdom meaning that we WANT to take care of our neibours. We give freely to help others (or should at least). The problem in my country is that the governement takes care of the primary stuff so we dont NEED to give or help. Many think that IF someone does not get help it is the persons foult NOT to search for help. But the byrocraty here has grown so enourmous that help is hard to fine, takes years to get, and is a full time jobb to search for or keep.

Many may think LDS are righthand people, but we really should be for UO, which in this world is much of taking care of ourselves which is righthand. We are seemengly righthand as we go for the Church to take care of those in need and the church is US every member, not just the mainoffice! So our socialism bases on free will good heart adn a wish that we all would have it equally good while worlds socialism bases on force by forcing taxes on people in this way hindering them the joy of giving and feeling of helping. On an other hand in each case it is really agitating to always be on the receivers side.

Link to comment

Dang it! I left the other thread to take care of some other matters and spank me it got locked!acute.gif

Crazy Glove- I believe the LDS church is conservative by nature, but is also socialistic by nature. It does promote helping the needy not only in it's members but outside to non-members. All without asking for anything from non-members in return but members get taxed in a sense through tithe and fast offerings. The churches policy is almost communist in some areas as well. Such as a member who receives food assistance well in turn help with cleaning the chapel without pay, etc.... Actually more anarchist by nature as it's a barter system in action. By conservative right-wing definition this would be considered more left and un-American.

However since the church is traditional marriage (heterosexual only) and male only priesthood it would be considered far right by the leftists. That's my point in the other thread what you seemed to miss. It's all in the position you take based on that persons point of view. My ideology, and yours, and others is going to vary to some extent in a certain direction. Right and left views on any subjects are delusional to oneself.

Link to comment

"socialism"

  • Significant government intervention and control over personal decisions. For example, purchase health insurance, or go to jail.
    Redistribution of wealth. Government takes over the role of nonprofit organizations and voluntary contributions. For example, putting a cap on charitable contributions through tax laws.
    By-passing the legislative process through presidential decrees and government agency rules and policies.

I could give additional examples, but this would turn this into a political thread.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...