David Bokovoy Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 President Brigham Young adopted the symbol of the Beehive to represent the inspired co-operative economic efforts fundamental to the restored Gospel. In so doing, was President Young perhaps influenced by Owenite philosophy? From a historical perspective, Latter-day Saint efforts to accomplish economic harmony formed part of a larger spirit of social and economic reforms sweeping across the United States during the 19th century. One of the most influential of these movements was the Working Men Link to comment
David T Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 Just wanted to state that Staker's book is absolutely fantastic, and opened my eyes to many fascinating connections that probably would have taken me much longer to make otherwise. Link to comment
Lightbearer Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 Are you trying to say that Brigham Young was a believer in Socialism? If so you are wrong. I think Brigham got the honey Bee symbol from the Book of Mormon (Ether 2:3)As for socialism there is a statement already made by many Apostles and Prophets that the United Order is not Socialism or Communism, no I am not quoting President Benson,The following is from Elder Marion G. Romney:(Elder Marion G. Romney Of the Council of the Twelve Apostles, April Conference 1966) "What I am going to give you is a statement I have prepared inanswer to the question, "Is Socialism the United Order?" Some of youmay have already heard it. This is the first time I have ever attemptedto give a talk a second time. My excuse is that the Brethren have asked me to give this talk here tonight. I suppose the best way to start a comparison of socialism and the United Order is with a definition of the terms. Webster defines socialism as: "A political and economical theory of social organization based on collective or governmental ownership and democratic management of the essential means for the production and distribution of goods; also, a policy or practice based on this theory." (Webster's New Inter-national Dictionary, 2nd ed. unabridged, 1951.) George Bernard Shaw, the noted Fabian Socialist, said that: "Socialism, reduced to its simplest legal and practical expression, means the complete discarding of the institution of private property by transforming it into public property and the division of the resultant income equally and indiscriminately among the entire population." (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1946 ed., Vol. 20, P. 895.) George Douglas Howard Cole, M.A. noted author and universityleader in economics at Oxford, who treats socialism for the EncyclopediaBritannica, says that because of the shifting sense in which the wordhas been used, "a short and comprehensive definition is impossible. Wecan only say," he concludes, "that Socialism is essentially a doctrine and a movement aiming at the collective organization of the community in the interest of the mass of the people by means of the common owner-ship and collective control of the means of production and exchange." (Ibid., p. 888.) Socialism arose "out of the economic division in society." During the nineteenth century its growth was accelerated as a protest against "the appalling conditions prevailing in the workshops and factories and the unchristian spirit of the spreading industrial system." The "Communist Manifesto" drafted by Karl Mark and FriedrichEngels for the Communist League in 1848 is generally regarded as thestarting point of modern socialism. (Ibid., p. 890.) The distinction between socialism, as represented by the various Socialist and Labor parties of Europe and the New World, andCommunism, as represented by the Russians, is one of tactics andstrategy rather than of objective. Communism is indeed only socialismpursued by revolutionary means and making its revolutionary method acanon of faith. Communists like other socialists, (1) believe in thecollective control and ownership of the vital means of production and (2) seek to achieve through state action the coordinated control of theeconomic forces of society. They (the Communists) differ from othersocialists in believing that this control can be secured, and its use in the interests of the workers ensured, only by revolutionary action leading to the dictatorship of the proletariat and the creation of a new proletarian state as the instrument of change. (Ibid.) German Socialism A major rift between so-called orthodox socialism and communistsocialism occurred in 1875 when the German Social Democratic partyset forth its objective or winning power by taking over control of thebourgeois state, rather than by overthrowing it. In effect, the GermanSocial Democratic party became a parliamentary party, aiming at theassumption of political power by constitutional means. Fabian Society In the 1880's a small group of intellectuals set up in England the Fabian Society, which has had a major influence on the development of modern orthodox socialism. Fabianism stands "for the evolutionaryconception of socialism...endeavoring by progressive reforms and thenationalization of industries, to turn the existing state into a 'welfarestate.'" Somewhat on the order of the German Social Democrats,Fabians aim "at permeating the existing parties with socialistic ideas[rather] that at creating a definitely socialistic party." They appeal "to the electorate not as revolutionaries but as constitutional reformers seeking a peaceful transformation of the system." (Ibid.) The differences in forms and policies of socialism occurprincipally in the manner in which they seek to implement their theories. They all advocate: (1) That private ownership of the vital means of production beabolished and that all such property "pass under some form ofcoordinated public control." (2) That the power of the state be used to achieve their aims. (3) "That with a change in the control of industry will go achange in the motives which operate in the industrial system...." (Ibid.)So much for the definition of socialism. I have given you these statements in the words of socialists and scholars, not my words, so they have had their hearing. 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 theinequalities among men, is based upon the underlying concept that theearth and all things therein belong to the Lord and that men hold earthlypossessions as stewards accountable to God. On January 2, 1831, the Lord revealed to the Prophet JosephSmith that the Church was under obligation to care for the poor. (SeeD&C 38.) Later he said: "I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth,...and all things therein are mine. And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine. But it must needs be done in mine own way...." (D&C 104:14-16.) On February 9, 1831, the Lord revealed to the Prophet what hisway was. (see D&C 42.) In his way there were two cardinal principles: (1) consecration and (2) stewardship. To enter the United Order, when it was being tried, oneconsecrated all his possessions to the Church by a "covenant and adeed which" could not "be broken." (D&C 42:30.) That is, he completelydivested himself of all of his property by conveying it to the Church. 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.) This procedure preserved in every man the right to privateownership and management of his property. At his own option he couldalienate it or keep and operate it and pass it on to his heirs. The intent was, however, for him to so operate his property as to produce a living for himself and his dependents. So long as he remained in the order, he consecrated to the Church the surplus he produced above the needs and wants of his family. This surplus went into a storehouse from which stewardship's were given to others and fromwhich the needs of the poor were supplied. These divine principles are very simple and easily understood. A comparison of them with the underlying principles of socialism revealsimilarities and basic differences. 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. Now the differences: (1) The cornerstone of the United Order is belief in God andacceptance of him as Lord of the earth and the author of the UnitedOrder. 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 righteous-ness. (2) The United Order is implemented by the voluntary free-willactions of men, evidenced by a consecration of all their property to theChurch of God. One time the Prophet Joseph Smith asked a question by thebrethren about the inventories they were taking. His answer was to theeffect, "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.412-413.) On the other hand, socialism is implemented by external force, the powerof 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 lawsare framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the freeexercise of conscience, the right and control of property" (D&C 134:2),the United Order is operated upon the principle of private ownership andindividual management. Thus in both implementation and ownership and management ofproperty, 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 theprocess both are sanctified. The poor, released from the bondage andhumiliating 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.) No, brethren, socialism is not the United Order. However,notwithstanding my abhorrence of it, I am persuaded that socialism is the wave of the present and of the foreseeable future. It has already taken over or is contending for control in most nations. "At the end of the year [1964] parties affiliated with the [socialist] International were in control of the governments of Great Britain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Israel, and the Malagasy Republic. They had representatives in coalition cabinets in Austria, Belgium, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, and Switzerland, constituted the chief opposition in France, India, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand and West Germany; and were significant political forces in numerous othercountries. Many parties dominant in governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America announced that their aim was a socialist society." (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1965 Book of the Year, p. 736.) We here in the United States, in converting our government into a social welfare state, have ourselves adopted much of socialism. Specifically, we have to an alarming degree adopted the use of thepower of the state in the control and distribution of the fruits of industry. We are on notice according to the words of he President, that we are going much further, for his is quoted as saying: "We're going to take all the money we think is unnecessarily being spent and take it from the 'haves' and give it to the 'have nots.'"(1964 Congressional Record, p.6124, Remarks for the President to a Group of Leaders of Organizations of Senior Citizens in the Fish Room, March 24, 1964.) Socialism takes: United Order gives That is the spirit of socialism: We're going to take. The spirit of the United Order is: We're going to give. We have also gone a long way on the road to public ownershipand management of the vital means of production. In both of these areas the free agency of Americans have been greatly abridged. Some argue that we have voluntarily surrendered this power to government. Be this as it may, the fact remains that the loss of freedom with the consent of the enslaved, or even at their request, is nonetheless slavery. As to the fruits of socialism, we all have our own opinions. Imyself have watched its growth in our own country and observed it inoperation in many other lands. But I have yet to see or hear of its freeing the hearts of men of selfishness and greed or of its bringing peace, plenty, or freedom. These things it will never bring, nor will it do away with idleness and promote "industry, thrift and self-respect,"for it is founded, in theory and in practice, on force, the principle of the evil one. As to the fruits of the United Order I suggest you read Moses7:16-18 and 4 Nephi 2-3, 15-16. If we had time we could review thehistory, what little we know, of Zion in the days of Enoch and aboutwhat happened among the Nephites under those principles of the UnitedOrder in the first two centuries following the time of the Savior. As I recently reminded my wife of the moratorium on the UnitedOrder, which the Lord placed in 1834 (D&C 105:34), that socialism istaking over in the nations and that its expressed aims will surely fail, she spiritedly put to me the question: "Well, then, what would you suggest, that we just sit on our hands in despair and do nothing?" Perhaps similar questions have occurred to you. The answer is, "No, by no means!" We have much to do, and fortunately for us the Lord has definitely prescribed the course we should follow with respect to socialism and the United Order. He has told us that in preparation for the restoration of the gospel, he himself established the Constitution of the United States, and he has plainly told us why he established it. I hope I can get this point over to you. He said he established the Constitution to preserve to men their free agency, because the whole gospel of Jesus Christ presupposes man's untrammeled exercise of free agency. Man is in the earth to be tested. The issue as to whether he succeeds or fails will be determined by how he uses his agency. His whole future, through all eternity, is at stake. Abridge man's agency, and the whole purpose of his mortality is thwarted. Without it, the Lord says, there is no existence. (See D&C 93:30.) The Lord so valued our agency that he designed and dictated "the laws and constitution" required to guarantee it. This he explained in the revelation in which he instructed the Prophet Joseph Smith to appeal for help. "According to the laws and constitution of the people, which Ihave suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rightsand protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles; "That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment. "And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this verypurpose...." (D&C 101:77-78, 80.) Previously he had said: "And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land,it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them. "And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind and is justifiable before me. "Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of mychurch, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land [the test of its constitutionality in the words of the Lord here is whether it preserves man's agency]; "And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or lessthan this cometh of evil. "I, the Lord God, make you free therefore ye are free indeed; and the law [that is, constitutional law] also maketh you free. "Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn. "Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought fordiligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold;otherwise whatsoever is less cometh of evil." (D&C 98: 4-10 These scriptures declare the Constitution to be a divine document. They tell us that "according to just and holy principles," the Constitution and the law of the land which supports the "Principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before" God; that, "as pertaining to [the] law of man whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil." They remind us that the Lord has made us free and that laws that are constitutional will also make us free. Right at this point, almost as if he were warning us against what is happening today, the Lord said: "Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn." Then, that we might know with certainty what we should do about it", he concluded: "Wherefor, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye shouldobserve to uphold...." In this context this instruction, according to my interpretation, can only mean that we should seek diligently for and support men torepresent us in government who are "wise" enough to understandfreedom -- as provided for in the Constitution and as implemented in theUnited Order -- and who are honest enough and good enough to fight topreserve it. "...if we are to live as a Church, and progress, and have the right to worship as we are worshipping here today, we must have the great guarantees that are set up by our Constitution. There is no other way in which we can secure these guarantees." (Conference Report, October1942, pp. 58-59.) Now, not forgetting our duty to eschew socialism and support thejust and holy principles of the Constitution, as directed by the Lord, I shall conclude these remarks with a few comments concerning what weshould be do about the United Order. The final words of the Lord in suspending the order were: "Andlet those commandments which I have given concerning Zion and herlaw be executed and fulfilled, after her redemption." (D&C 105:34.) Further implementation of the order must therefore await theredemption of Zion. Here Zion means Jackson County, Missouri. WhenZion is redeemed, as it most certainly shall be, it will be redeemed under a government and by a people strictly observing those "just and holy principles" of the Constitution that accord men their God-given right to private property. If, in the meantime, socialism takes over in America, it will have to be displaced, if need by, 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. In the meantime, while we await the redemption of Zion and theearth and the establishment of the United Order, we as bears of thepriesthood should strictly by the principles of the United Order insofar as they are embodied in present church practices, such as the fastoffering, tithing, and the welfare activities. Through these practices we could as individuals, if we were of a mind to do so, implement in our own lives all the basic principles of the United Order. As you will recall, the principles underlying the United Order are consecration and stewardships and then the contribution of surplusesinto the bishop's storehouse. When the law of tithing was instituted four years after the United Order experiment was suspended, the Lordrequired the people to put "all their surplus property...into the hands of the bishop" (D&C 119:4.) This law, still in force, implements to a degree at least the United Order principle of stewardships, for it leaves in the hands of each person the ownership and management of the property from which he produces the needs of himself and family. Furthermore to use again the words of President Clark: "...in lieu of residue and surplus which were accumulated andbuilt up under the United Order, we, today, have our fast offerings, our Welfare donations, and our tithing all of which may be devoted to the care of the poor, as well as for the carrying on of the activities and business of the Church." "What prohibits us from giving as much in fast offerings as wewould have given in surpluses under the United Order? Nothing but ourown limitations. "Furthermore, we had under the United Order a bishop'sstorehouse in which were collected the materials from which to supplythe needs and the wants of the poor. We have a bishop's storehouseunder the Welfare Plan, used for the same purpose.... "We have now under the Welfare Plan all over the Church,...landprojects...farmed for the benefit of the poor.... "Thus...in many of its great essentials, we have, [in] the Welfare Plan...the broad essentials of the United Order. Furthermore, having in mind the assistance which is being given from time to time...to help set people up in business or in farming, we have a plan which is not essentially unlike that which was in the United Order when the poor were given portions from the common fund." It is apparent that when the principles of tithing and the fast are properly observed and the Welfare Plan gets fully developed and wholly into operation, "we shall not be so very far from carrying out the great fundamentals of the United Order." (Conference Report, October 1942, pp. 51-58.) The only limitation on you and me is within ourselves. A Prayer: And now in line with these remarks, for three things I pray: (1) That the Lord will somehow quicken our understanding of thedifference between socialism and the United Order and give us a vividawareness of the awful portent of those differences. (2) The we will develop the understanding, the desire, and thecourage born of the Spirit, to eschew socialism and to support andsustain, in the manner revealed and as interpreted by the Lord, those just and holy principles embodied in the Constitution of the United States for the protection of all flesh, in the exercise of their God-given agency. (3) That through faithful observance of the principles oftithing, the fast, and the welfare program, we will prepare ourselves toredeem Zion and ultimately live the United Order, in the name of JesusChrist. Amen.We live in perilous times, a time in which our liberty hangs in the balance, so while my post may get the thread closed for being too political, there seemed to be some political undertones here (in light of past threads) but this is important that this be on the record. Link to comment
the narrator Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 Are you trying to say that Brigham Young was a believer in Socialism? If so you are wrong. I think Brigham got the honey Bee symbol from the Book of Mormon (Ether 2:3)As for socialism there is a statement already made by many Apostles and Prophets that the United Order is not Socialism or Communism, no I am not quoting President Benson,The following is from Elder Marion G. Romney:We live in perilous times, a time in which our liberty hangs in the balance, so while my post may get the thread closed for being too political, there seemed to be some political undertones here (in light of past threads) but this is important that this be on the record.I suggest you read Staker's book. The beehive was a very popular symbol for worker unions and coops. To ignore this fact is to leave one's head in the sand... err... beehive.To make it easy for you, Amazon has it at 34% off.Heck, to make it even easier for you, PM me your email and I'll send you a pdf of the page. Link to comment
frankenstein Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 socialism is more closely in line with the United Order than capitalism.but for a few things socialism would be the United Order.a system founded wholly upon "me first" (basic premise of capitalism); "I am not going to contribute unless I get exclusive rights" (this is stated by just about every 'creator' or researcher; most particularly with the Human Genome Project, companies cried and cried about not contributing to research unless they could get exclusive rights which is turn means excessive prices, price fixing, or other illegal practices i.e. DeBeers), "a sucker is born every minute" (P. T. Barnum); deceitful or fear based marketing (baby products, h2oconcepts.com , robot attach insurance, activia, or go to a an electronics store and ask an employee to explain if there is difference between HDMI cables - there generally isn't) or "produce something they [the consumer] have to throw away" (this was told to the man who created the shaving razor that was used by the US soldiers in WWI" is no more close to a United Order than socialism or communism. I find it very interesting in a vain attempt to not be a "socialist" or "commie" the US has embraced some of the most selfish and evil aspects of humanity for their economic system. Don't be suprised when you learn the whore of babylon is largely in your own homes, cities, work place, business model.though no system on earth is perfect nor any where near approaching it, the United Order will be or was a mash-up of socialist ideals and private property ownership Link to comment
Mike Reed Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 Owenite? Nah. I'd say he was influenced more directly by Freemasonry in this regard. Link to comment
WalkerW Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 Owenite? Nah. I'd say he was influenced more directly by Freemasonry in this regard.That has been my understanding of it. Then again, I haven't read the book. I hope to once I am able to lay down some money for it. I did read E. Cecil McGavin's Mormonism and Masonry. Link to comment
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 Ugh, not another socialism vs capitalism thread. Link to comment
hagoth7 Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 Owenite? Nah. I'd say he was influenced more directly by Freemasonry in this regard.OK. Why not.But if we're gonna run with that, just for fun, what influenced European freemasonry to adopt that imagery? Link to comment
Senator Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 Ugh, not another socialism vs capitalism thread.Only if you turn it into such.David,Thanks for these chewy little nuggets of cultural/religious anthropology. I thoroughly enjoy them. I now have another book on my list to read. Link to comment
WalkerW Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 Are you trying to say that Brigham Young was a believer in Socialism? I believe he is trying to understand 19th-century Mormonism in its cultural and social context, which Romney's mid 20th-century view has no bearing on. Romney could very well be correct, but this doesn't answer the question as to whether or not Young was influenced by surrounding movements. How about we try putting our political sensitivities aside? (And this is coming from a conservative libertarian) Link to comment
S.Ferreira Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 Owenite? Nah. I'd say he was influenced more directly by Freemasonry in this regard.Staker addressed this question in the footnote to the selection that David Bokovoy quoted. Here from Staker, p. 42, footnote 15: The bee skep later became an important symbol in Latter-day Saint communities in the Rocky Mountains. Although the beehive also resonated with ideas espoused by the Freemasons, early Latter-day Saints had a broader and deeper exposure to the skep as a symbol of industry and harmony through Robert Owen. Tens of thousands of English workers who followed Owen organized themselves under the beehive during the early 1840s as a symbol of their efforts to shape collective labor. Brigham Young and other early LDS who preached of a new social order in English working communities saw this symbol almost everywhere they looked on building, banner, and brochure. These missionaries baptized thousands of converts who knew the symbol well from having organized and worked under it in Britain. When these same missionaries and British converts collectively chose a beehive as an important symbol of their community in early Utah, they did not identify its source. Members may have drawn from Brigham Young's childhood hometown, Freemasonry, or British labor reform for the initial image of a beehive that they then reworked into a symbol for their attempts to build a Christian utopian society; however, it is clear that thousands of British immigrants to Utah and their neighbors who had served missions in the British Isles would have primarily recognized the symbol as a representation of Owenite community building and cooperative effort before reshaping it for their own purposes.I just happened to have read that chapter last night, and so far I agree with nackhadlow's assessment that the book is fantastic.-S.Ferreira Link to comment
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 Only if you turn it into such.David,Thanks for these chewy little nuggets of cultural/religious anthropology. I thoroughly enjoy them. I now have another book on my list to read.Notice a few posts before mine.socialism is more closely in line with the United Order than capitalism.but for a few things socialism would be the United Order.And Lightbearers post. I didn't do anything of the sort. Link to comment
WalkerW Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 Staker addressed this question in the footnote to the selection that David Bokovoy quoted. Here from Staker, p. 42, footnote 15: I just happened to have read that chapter last night, and so far I agree with nackhadlow's assessment that the book is fantastic.-S.FerreiraVery interesting. It probably resonated in a number of ways. Link to comment
WalkerW Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 but for a few things socialism would be the United OrderA few big things. But as you alluded to, no secular economic system will match the Law of Consecration. Without God at the head and a covenant moral binding, there is no way. Link to comment
David Bokovoy Posted July 8, 2010 Author Share Posted July 8, 2010 I agree with all those who have spoken highly of this book. I guess I've been out of the academic loop because I hadn't heard anything about this publication until I saw it the Kirtland temple bookstore. Alas, I bought it at full price, but was unable to put it down. It' not only very informative, but I found Staker's prose very engaging. I've been very impressed with Kofford Books. Link to comment
JarMan Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 Ugh, not another socialism vs capitalism thread.Nope. Another "Bokovoy Special" thread. There have been a lot lately. Basically the premise of them all is that church doctrine is really rooted in the same ideologies as modern leftist ideology. Yawn. Wake me up when seminary is over. Link to comment
S.Ferreira Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 Here is, I think, and interesting tie between Brigham Young's experience in industrial England among the poor laborers and the notion of industrious bees/Deseret. In a letter to Orson Pratt in 1857 reporting on a trip north and east of Salt Lake City, Brigham wrote:We saw enough to satisfy us, had we hitherto been ignorant of the fact, that the world is not yet overpeopled. And, there are thousands of acres of good arable and pasture land where thousands of honest and industrious poor now immured in factories and other civilized prisons, could sustain themselves and thrive as industrious bees of Deseret's hive, breathing a pure and wholesome air, free to do all the good they can to the human family and to themselves. quoted in L.J.Arrington, Brigham Young: American Moses, p. 175.Notice he wants them to be not just of any hive but "of Deseret's hive," one that had come together to be industrious under covenant with God.I can't discount the Freemasonic influence. And not being a Mason, I don't know the symbolism and language they ascribe to the beehive.Yet I find this relationship with Owen and organized labor interesting too and think it deserves a good looking into. Link to comment
Glenn101 Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 I do not doubt that the LDS beehive symbol could have been (and probably was) influenced by such symbols found with the Owenites or Masons. It certainly was not from the Book of Mormon, but the word "Deseret" is almost certainly from the Book of Mormon.I am not sure if David was also asking if the Owenites could have influenced patterns in the United Order. That order predated Brigham's rise to influence in the Church and was the product of revelation.There have been many socialist endeavors throughout history, but none of them were able to remain purely socialist and remain viable, mainly because of human greed. The United Order was no exception. But while casual similarities can be recognized between the structure and ideals of the United Order and the Owenites, or many other socialist experiments, it is not a given that the United Order setup was influenced by any of those. Of course, if one believes that all the parts and parcels making up the whole of the LDS church have a naturalist origin, then those similarities have to be more than casual.Glenn Link to comment
David Bokovoy Posted July 8, 2010 Author Share Posted July 8, 2010 Here is, I think, and interesting tie between Brigham Young's experience in industrial England among the poor laborers and the notion of industrious bees/Deseret. In a letter to Orson Pratt in 1857 reporting on a trip north and east of Salt Lake City, Brigham wrote: quoted in L.J.Arrington, Brigham Young: American Moses, p. 175.Notice he wants them to be not just of any hive but "of Deseret's hive," one that had come together to be industrious under covenant with God.I can't discount the Freemasonic influence. And not being a Mason, I don't know the symbolism and language they ascribe to the beehive.Yet I find this relationship with Owen and organized labor interesting too and think it deserves a good looking into.Excellent find, thanks so much! Interesting that the Deseret News (Oct. 11, 1881) described the symbol of the beehive in this way: "The hive and honey bees form our communal coat of arms Link to comment
volgadon Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 Excellent thread.I don't see why Brigham would not adopt a symbol associated with goals and ideals similar to the ones he wanted for the new Mormon territory. Especially if it was tied into the BoM.BTW, I'll send you a message, I have an idea on the law of consecration I want to run by you. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.