Brigham's Beehive State

[David Bokovoy]

I tried to bump this topic because not many seemed to show much interest the first go round, but in light of recent interest in Staker's wonderful book, I would like to read people's views. 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

[David Bokovoy]

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

[David Bokovoy]

In the true spirit of communalism, I'm going to adopt the following post from one of our best contributors:

Here is, I think, an 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.

[Hamba Tuhan]

[T]he symbol of the beehive state denotes communalism and industrious cooperation. I must admit that I find the fact fascinating that there can be so many Latter-day Saints today who are not only opposed to such concepts, but actually believe that they run contrary to Mormonism itself.

I think you're confused here. Rejecting Socialism is not a rejection in any way, shape, or form of righteous communalism and/or industrious cooperation. Latter-day Saints who embrace the latter but find the former to 'run contrary to Mormonism itself' are actually in rather good company:

-----Pres Marion G Romney in the April 1977 General Conference: 'The united order is nonpolitical. It is therefore totally unlike the various forms of socialism, which are political, both in theory and in practice. They are thus exposed to, and riddled by, the corruption which plagues and finally destroys all political governments which undertake to abridge man

[Mansquatch]

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

[David Bokovoy]

I think you're confused here. Rejecting Socialism is not a rejection in any way, shape, or form of righteous communalism and/or industrious cooperation.

Please note that I have never in this thread or in any other made the claim that Latter-day communalism and economic cooperation efforts are socialism.

[David Bokovoy]

I am interested to see any contact that Brigham or Joseph may have had with Owenites and Owenite-ism.

Note the following commentary provided by Staker on 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."

[Mansquatch]

Note the following commentary provided by Staker on 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."

Very interesting, couple all that with the 2/3 of a verse mentioning what Jaredites brought with them and blam "deseret" is all over Utah.

I could have a very good argument with Owen about how immoral bees are with their class system and their stinging of innocent allergic people. I guess they are just like people in that regard.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Please note that I have never in this thread or in any other made the claim that Latter-day communalism and economic cooperation efforts are socialism.

You merely linked Owen to 'socialist reforms' and then wondered if Brigham Young had been 'perhaps influenced by Owenite philosophy.'

[David Bokovoy]

You merely linked Owen to 'socialist reforms' and then wondered if Brigham Young had been 'perhaps influenced by Owenite philosophy.'

Indeed! And the historical record clearly shows that both Brigham and the Prophet Joseph were heavily influenced by 19th century socialist reforms.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Indeed! And the historical record clearly shows that both Brigham and the Prophet Joseph were heavily influenced by 19th century socialist reforms.

Influence of socialist reforms = good.

Socialism = good.

[Mansquatch]

You merely linked Owen to 'socialist reforms' and then wondered if Brigham Young had been 'perhaps influenced by Owenite philosophy.'

In David's defense the post is about the symbol of the Beehive and the Bees.

In David's possible undefense I will answer that I do not believe that the united order, the law of consecration, industrious behavior or community cooperation have anything to do with socialist reforms or unions or an influence from Owen but rather are inspired revelations.

[David Bokovoy]

In David's defense the post is about the symbol of the Beehive and the Bees.

In David's possible undefense I will answer that I do not believe that the united order, the law of consecration, industrious behavior or community cooperation have anything to do with socialist reforms or unions or an influence from Owen but rather are inspired revelations.

Thank you for the defense. In terms of the "undefense," I'll simply share that I do not believe that revelation occurs in a historical vacuum, independent of any natural, cultural influences. For a scriptural example, I would turn to the creation story that appears in Genesis 1-2:4a, which has been influenced by Babylonian mythology, including Atrahasis. As Speiser once explained:

"Derivation from Mesopotamia in this instance means no more and no less than that on the subject of creation biblical tradition aligned itself with the traditional tenets of Babylonian

[David Bokovoy]

Influence of socialist reforms = good.

Socialism = good.

Socialism, like an other human -ism, including capitalism, contains both good and bad features. To assume that either philosophy is entirely good or entirely evil would constitute a naive perspective.

[Mansquatch]

Thank you for the defense. In terms of the "undefense," I'll simply share that I do not believe that revelation occurs in a historical vacuum, independent of any natural, cultural influences. For a scriptural example, I would turn to the creation story that appears in Genesis 1-2:4a, which has been influenced by Babylonian mythology, including Atrahasis. As Speiser once explained:

"Derivation from Mesopotamia in this instance means no more and no less than that on the subject of creation biblical tradition aligned itself with the traditional tenets of Babylonian

[WalkerW]

Social psychologist and hobby beekeeper Michael O'Malley recently wrote a book entitled The Wisdom of Bees: What the Hive Can Teach Business About Leadership, Efficiency, and Growth (Portfolio, 2010). While directed at businesses, it is an overview of organizational behavior and structures that lead to growth and long term success. I know this doesn't have anything to do with the historical connections to the Owenites, but O'Malley's analysis could be quite helpful to understanding what a "beehive economy/organization" is like. I'll list some key lessons O'Malley draws from the bees. Many of them are interrelated:

Protect the Future - anticipate and act for long-term success.

Let Merit Be Your Guide - Everything is performance based. Everyone is expected to contribute.

Promote Community, Sanction Self-Interest - Self-interest that is opportunistic and exploits the group for the sake of one's personal gain is to be shunned. The welfare of the community is a priority, but individual wants and needs are attended to within this context.

Distribute Authority - Decentralization and delegation of authority and responsibility.

Order and Innovate Through Fuzzy Constants - Standards, rules, and regulations are necessary for reference purposes, but they are minimal in order to allow for innovation and creativity.

There are many more. The insights are quite interesting and would be good for anyone interested in what adopting "beehive" principles entail.

[WalkerW]

Socialism, like an other human -ism, including capitalism, contains both good and bad features. To assume that either philosophy is entirely good or entirely evil would constitute a naive perspective.

Exactly. The lack of moral binding on the people via covenant and divine knowledge via God makes all -ism's fall short.

[WalkerW]

Thank you for the defense. In terms of the "undefense," I'll simply share that I do not believe that revelation occurs in a historical vacuum, independent of any natural, cultural influences. For a scriptural example, I would turn to the creation story that appears in Genesis 1-2:4a, which has been influenced by Babylonian mythology, including Atrahasis. As Speiser once explained:

"Derivation from Mesopotamia in this instance means no more and no less than that on the subject of creation biblical tradition aligned itself with the traditional tenets of Babylonian

[Droopy]

I tried to bump this topic because not many seemed to show much interest the first go round, but in light of recent interest in Staker's wonderful book, I would like to read people's views. 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

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Socialism, like an other human -ism, including capitalism, contains both good and bad features. To assume that either philosophy is entirely good or entirely evil would constitute a naive perspective.

Of course. I would never seriously argue as such. However I will point out that the free markets don't have an -ism in there.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Socialism, like an other human -ism, including capitalism, contains both good and bad features. To assume that either philosophy is entirely good or entirely evil would constitute a naive perspective.

Of course. I would never seriously argue as such. However I will point out that the free markets don't have an -ism in there.

[Droopy]

Socialism, like an other human -ism, including capitalism, contains both good and bad features. To assume that either philosophy is entirely good or entirely evil would constitute a naive perspective.

Utter nonsense. Its about high time to pull back the curtain on the Wizard. Socialism contains no good whatsoever for the simple reason that all of its core, fundamental premises and concepts are fallacious, and there is no possibility of good fruit coming from a corrupt root. Socialism's central propositions regarding human nature and the laws of economics are gross fallacies that have long been exploded, but nonetheless keep coming back, like Freddy Kruger, so long as there are starry eyed utopians with enough gullibility and hubris to breath new life into them for new generations.

As to Robert Owen, why would the Church have based the LofC on a failed utopian social experiment such as his? The entire Owenite system failed both economically and socially, cankering the hearts and potential of everyone who participated in it, and creating dissension and social fragmentation due to its collectivist economic model. Owen himself became ever more heavy handed and dictatorial as time went on as the problems of such communities grew in magnitude.

Virtually every other communitarian experiment in America during the 19th century ended in similar failure and for the same fundamental reasons.

[Droopy]

Indeed! And the historical record clearly shows that both Brigham and the Prophet Joseph were heavily influenced by 19th century socialist reforms.

It shows nothing of the sort, the entire thesis here being strictly hypothetical and the evidence adduced for it, thus far, inferentially questionable.

Joseph Smith himself on at least two recorded occasions dismissed socialist or "communitarianism" of any kind as having anything to do with the gospel. Nearly two centuries later, the consuming fires of equality have overtaken the supreme importance of free agency and the ocerarching place of the individual and the use of the "talents" God has given him to work with during mortality.

Moral bees?

I stare with horror that any serious Latter Day Saint would concieve of either his fellow human beings in this manner, or of a gospel centered community.

[Droopy]

Of course. I would never seriously argue as such. However I will point out that the free markets don't have an -ism in there.

This is exactly correct and demonstrates what I've long suspected, which is that David has not the slightest idea what he's talking about regarding either economics, political economy, or the history of the ideas he is attempting to critique.

Let me be a clear as I can possibly be, just one more time on this critical matter of definitions and understanding. Capitalism is the philosophical creation of Marxist/socialist theory. It is not in any sense an ideology or a grand unified theory of social organization as are the other "isms" mentioned.

"Capitalism" while it can be expressed in a coherent theoretical form, is not, in itself, a theory about how society is to be structured, organized, and controlled. It is nothing more than economic liberty.

Anyone who claims that there is an "ism" called "capitalism" that forms a structured, governing template for the manner in which free market, contract based, representative democratic societies function has already swallowed leftist ideological theory regarding it whole and is approaching the subject from that philosophical perspective. That philosophical perspective, however, despite its pretensions, never has and never will define what a free market economic order actually is.

"Capitalism" is liberty, or free agency, in the economic sphere, and "it" is nothing more than that. All the theoretical, historical, and empirical defenses of "capitalism" are supportive and secondary. There is no theoretical system determining how society should be organized, who shall have what and in what quantities and for what reason, who shall prosper and who shall not, or tell us anything regarding the value of any good or service.

The market does all of these things, and the market is nothing more than the free, individual choices of millions of unique individuals deterining for themselves and their families, hour by hour, day by day, what they value more and what they value less in a marketplace of many options.

It is this that determines wages and salaries, what businesses succeed and which do not, what is produced and what goes unproduced, and who can afford a big house and who has to rent an apartment.

As I've said many times before, reduce this to its core elements and what you have, in the case of David Bokovoy and others who share his views is a problem with a phantom ideology - capitalism - that does not even exist. What then, is their real criticism? What really bothers people like Bro. Bokovoy is freedom temporal matters; it is the liberty of countless individuals to determine their own economic choices for themselves based upon their own unique, individual self interest.

Capitalism's long historical success in lifting countless masses of human beings out of poverty doesn't matter to him because the wealth that those masses created for themselves through hard work, thrift and industry was independently arrived at. David is not going to be happy with the eradication of poverty unless it is eradicated through redistribution of wealth. Even if it could be eradicated purely through the creation of wealth, this would not be morally acceptable to him.

Like so many other leftists in the secular world, David's measure of the success of a welfare system is how many people depend upon it, not how many people exist independently of it.

A wider gulf there could not be.

[Pahoran]

It shows nothing of the sort, the entire thesis here being strictly hypothetical and the evidence adduced for it, thus far, inferentially questionable.

Joseph Smith himself on at least two recorded occasions dismissed socialist or "communitarianism" of any kind as having anything to do with the gospel.

But even that means that he was influenced by them. They influenced him enough to get him to think about them, perhaps seek revelation about them, reject them, and proclaim something better than them. In my view, I see a parallel between this case and the Word of Wisdom having famously been influenced by Emma getting tired of cleaning up the spittoons after Priesthood meetings.

There is more than one kind of influence, and being sucked into the maw of something is not the only kind.

Now I'd like to ask for some charity for David's views here. There seems to me that, within a Gospel framework, there is room for a whole range of opinions on many subjects. It is true -- and I'll be the first to say it -- that socialism has failed everywhere and every time it has been tried; but people keep right on trying it, usually after a bit of tinkering. Why? Perhaps because there is a sense that a few people accumulating far more wealth than they and their families could ever reasonably -- or even luxuriously -- use, while so many others struggle to provide the barest of necessities for their families, does not exactly resemble the ideal provision an impartially loving Father would seek for his children; what do you think?

Do you think the present economic mess looks like the result we should expect from living the way our prophets have counselled us? Do you really think the Law of Consecration was intended to produce a few gazillionaires lording it over a vast population of subsistence farmers and hardscrabble labourers?

Just so you know: I am by no means an advocate for socialism. But let's just all admit that the free market is a telestial system in which "every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength." Are we really that enamoured of this view?

Regards,

Pahoran