Book of Mormon Socialism

[Daniel Peterson]

I see that I missed an entire thread on the question of the Book of Mormon's support for socialism.

I don't care to get into a discussion of this matter, and don't really have time anyway over the next while, but did want to register my opinion: I see no support whatever for socialism in the Book of Mormon.

For which I am grateful. Socialism has reduced enough people to unnecessary poverty, and killed more than enough scores of millions. It should go the way of phrenology, liver-divination, leechcraft, witch-burnings, and astrology, which have done far less damage.

[TAO]

DP, I think the BoM doesn't support socialism.

It does support the economy of giving though, which is similar, but different. =)

[Joseph Antley]

I see that I missed an entire thread on the question of the Book of Mormon's support for socialism.

I don't care to get into a discussion of this matter, and don't really have time anyway over the next while, but did want to register my opinion: I see no support whatever for socialism in the Book of Mormon.

For which I am grateful. Socialism has reduced enough people to unnecessary poverty, and killed more than enough scores of millions. It should go the way of phrenology, liver-divination, leechcraft, witch-burnings, and astrology, which have done far less damage.

What would you rather? Libertarianism?

[Sky]

I see that I missed an entire thread on the question of the Book of Mormon's support for socialism.

I don't care to get into a discussion of this matter, and don't really have time anyway over the next while, but did want to register my opinion: I see no support whatever for socialism in the Book of Mormon.

For which I am grateful. Socialism has reduced enough people to unnecessary poverty, and killed more than enough scores of millions. It should go the way of phrenology, liver-divination, leechcraft, witch-burnings, and astrology, which have done far less damage.

I'm sorry if this is too political, but I don't see any way around it...

Daniel, I always respect and appreciate what you have to say, but I guess I don

[Loran Howard Blood]

I see that I missed an entire thread on the question of the Book of Mormon's support for socialism.

I don't care to get into a discussion of this matter, and don't really have time anyway over the next while, but did want to register my opinion: I see no support whatever for socialism in the Book of Mormon.

For which I am grateful. Socialism has reduced enough people to unnecessary poverty, and killed more than enough scores of millions. It should go the way of phrenology, liver-divination, leechcraft, witch-burnings, and astrology, which have done far less damage.

I would also like to add to this excellent list of the inexorable consequences of taking socialist theory seriously and driving it to actual governance, 8 track tape, which was a terrible idea from the very beginning.

[Libs]

I would like to see the original thread. Is it still around? That will definitely give me a good reason to look at the Book of Mormon again.

Socialism with a facist leader was a horrible idea and should definitely go the way of the Dodo bird. But, there is nothing wrong with (and a lot right about) Democratic Socialism, if that's what the people want and what they vote for. (My opinion)

[Cherubbish]

It seems to me that some people are misguided into equating the Law of Consecration with socialism. I'm sure there are many differences, but the big difference for me is that the Law of Consecration is a willful adherence to that law which is spawned by the love of God dwelling in the hearts of men. Socialism enacted by a government body if forced upon the masses, and from what I can tell, tends to push everyone into subjective poverty (except for the elite ruling class) instead of making everyone's lives better. I fear some our government leaders think they are doing God's work by promoting a socialistic agenda.

[Loran Howard Blood]

but I guess I don

[Loran Howard Blood]

I would like to see the original thread. Is it still around? That will definitely give me a good reason to look at the Book of Mormon again.

Socialism with a facist leader was a horrible idea and should definitely go the way of the Dodo bird. But, there is nothing wrong with (and a lot right about) Democratic Socialism, if that's what the people want and what they vote for. (My opinion)

So called "Democratic" socialism is just as intrinsically hostile to liberty, human dignity, and sound economic dynamics as is socialism's totalitarian manifestations. The problem, to be brief, is that democratic socialism is grounded in the same fundamental premises and philosophical assumptions as the totalitarian systems that represent, ultimately, democratic socialism's mature form. Totalitarianism is always an embryonic property in any socialist system in both theory and especially in practice, and given time, will emerge in more mature form if socialism's own internal tendencies and and requirements are to be fully pursued.

That people want and vote for such a system is hardly relevant to a critique of its fundamental nature and effects.

[David Bokovoy]

On a related note, in a very recent trip to the Church History museum, I was pleased to see some of the early consecration deeds on display documenting how the faithful Saints in the beginning of this dispensation surrendered all rights, privileges, and ownership of their property to the Church of Jesus Christ.

Viewing these documents with my own eyes, I felt deeply touched by their commitment to eradicate poverty by building a Zion community like that depicted in 4 Nephi.

But though certainly socialistic in many respects, clearly neither this system nor the order implemented by the Nephites was "socialism." The economic order of Zion is not any man-made "ism."

[The Nehor]

I would like to see the original thread. Is it still around? That will definitely give me a good reason to look at the Book of Mormon again.

Socialism with a facist leader was a horrible idea and should definitely go the way of the Dodo bird. But, there is nothing wrong with (and a lot right about) Democratic Socialism, if that's what the people want and what they vote for. (My opinion)

I think the problem is that unless we can work it into a 'direct democracy' we are ruled by an elected oligarchy whose power should be limited as much as possible.

Consecration is the economic order of heaven and only those trying to be heavenly should attempt it and only those who are dedicated to it can succeed. Trying to introduce anything like it without that foundation is setting yourself up for failure.

On a side note it's weird seeing such a civil discussion. I suppose getting banned from the 'board that must not be named' has it's upsides.

[frankenstein]

if socialism kills, then guns also kill. there are bad things in almost all things man has to offer to his fellow man. Bastiat put forth aspects which are incompatible with a representative government, and incompatible with the gospel.

While there will be stewards in the LOC, there is no reason to even suggest that carpet baggers, peddlers of excess, peddlers of fear, robber-barrons, conspiring CEOs, and much of the other ills of same evil in a different way economic system that exist for the US today and much of the world today.

The LDS Church has never stated that the LoC is capitalism and Bcspace you can keep you misapplied quote "more like capitalism" does not mean "is capitalism". We only know that the leaders of the Church have spoken against things other than capitalism, but not having lived in that era, I tend to think part of the finger-waging is about Nationalistic hysteria.

Would a non-LDS person understand the term "Law of Consecration", No, they most likely wouldn't, I dare say, the vast majority of members do not understand the term either. So if two people were discussing the life in the Book of Mormon and they discussed that there were no poor among them, or that they had all things in common, as a point of reference one good rightly and reasonably say socialism or communism or even Utopia.

I find it as no surprise that the a common statement from the generation before me is "no support whatever for socialism in the Book of Mormon", why because that generation grew up in a time of Nationalistic hysteria, where mudslinging another countries way of living was a patriotic act.

communal society have and do exist without the command or ordination of the Melchizedek Priesthood

[mapman]

Another big difference between the United Order and socialism is that bishops are not equivalent to the government.

I think that it is silly for people to try to support socialism or capitalism or any other economic system with the scriptures. The scriptures don't talk about economic systems, but rather how each member of Zion needs to be willing to give up everything they have stewardship over, to be willing to give to those in need, and to recognize that the things that they have stewardship over are actually the Lord's.

[USU78]

It's a fair area of inquiry, it seems to me, to look to the bishops' behavior as trustees of the Ward United Effort Plan Trusts during the United Order days . . . and to compare that behavior with that of the commisars.

If you want to call socialism a dangerous weapon in the hands of the wrong guys, then looking at a similar but far from identical weapon in the hands of [mostly] righteous men is in order. Just how did the bishops do?

No Kulak genocides.

No Pol Pots.

No private cabins for big shots in the woods outside Moscow.

But, yes, the occasional allegation of preferential treatment for bishops' [even not-yet-President-Snow's] daughters with store-bought dresses unavailable to the hoi poloi. Such stories are relatively rare, however, and it was certainly not an endemic thing.

Yeah, I'll take the righteous bishop as trustee every time over the commisar backed up by the Vth Army Nuclear Strike Force.

I'd even take it over those avaricious, tyrannical types down in Short Creek with their faux UEP.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

The economic system in Book of Mormon, that certain people are trying to tie the Socialism, can only come about when people's hearts are changed and they voluntarily give of their substance to lift the poor and needy, and then they in turn do likewise. It has to be a change within the people, a government mandated system will never work.

[thesometimesaint]

The best form of government is a benevolent king, the worst is getting rid of one that is not.

[Brant Gardner]

A significant problem with these discussions is that they impose a set of modern concepts on a very different economic world. How do concepts developed in a monetary economy related to the needs and practices of a barter economy which is heavily agrarian? King Benjamin certainly wanted to stop the creation of a division between those who thought themselves better and those who were considered inferior, but that was a social process manifest through an economic display. It wasn't inherently economic.

In the case of distributing to the poor, it was sharing versus selfishness, not capitalism versus socialism.

As far as the "all things in common" response after Christ's appearance, we have very little information as to what that actually meant or how it was implemented. Speculation on that phrase is just than--speculation. It becomes a way to discuss modern political systems that really don't relate to the Book of Mormon, save that the phrase became the tangent on which they take off.

[Deborah]

Unregulated capitalism and greed....

Why on earth is capitalism always associated with greed by those who support socialist views. Many capitalists, such as Larry Miller, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, and Oprah Winfrey are very generous givers of their own time and money. Whereas, socialists always want to give away someone else's money.

[semlogo]

Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.

There's no getting around it - that describes to a "T" not only the Nephites at their most righteous, but also the early Christians in the New Testament and the early Mormons as well. You may disagree with how socialism has worked out in secular societies, but there can be no honest disagreement that the arrangement described in 4 Nephi and elsewhere meets the definition of socialism.

[semlogo]

Why on earth is capitalism always associated with greed by those who support socialist views. Many capitalists, such as Larry Miller, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, and Oprah Winfrey are very generous givers of their own time and money. Whereas, socialists always want to give away someone else's money.

Read The Wealth of Nations - greed is essential to capitalism - it can't function without it. That's capitalism's genius - the recognition of real-world motivators of real people.

[thesometimesaint]

Deborah:

Socialists don't want your guns, your religion, or your money.

[LeSellers]

I would like to see the original thread. Is it still around?

Try this.

Socialism with a facist leader was a horrible idea and should definitely go the way of the Dodo bird. But, there is nothing wrong with (and a lot right about) Democratic Socialism, if that's what the people want and what they vote for. (My opinion)

The issue I have with this concept is that "democracy" is Greek for "mob rule" (yes, I know, this is not an exact translation). It takes only 50% of those who cast votes + 1 vote to impose the will of the "majority" on the minority. Since there will always be more people who want others to support them than there are of those who are willing to support themselves and who are, by the democratic definition, "the rich", eventually democracy always ends up as socialism, with the producers of wealth enslaved by the consumers of their wealth.

Democracy is an evil form of government. Less evil than some, but evil is evil. The ideal form is "libertarianism", where, in the words of the Bible, "every man [doth] that which was right in his own eyes" (Judges 17:6; 21:25), under judges who assure that there is no fraud or violence initiated by one person or group against another person or group. That was before Israel fell into political apostasy and insisted, against prophetic counsel, that they have a king.

Any voluntary organization (like a church or fraternal club) formed to help others would be permissible, but any group formed to take one person's property, even (or perhaps especially) to do "good" would be forbidden. An evil man taking your freedom may eventually be stopped by his conscience to stop his predation, but a good man taking your freedom so he can do good (or for your own good) will never stop because he is motivated by his conscience. Of the two, I'd rather have the evil man robbing me.

Lehi

[Deborah]

As I see it, a God-like consecrated society can only occur when all are of one mind and heart. This can only take place when all are united under faith in Jesus Christ and adherence to God-like principles. We are a long way from that even within the church.

To try to enforce principles of sharing without this God-like love and unity of faith is very dangerous. You will always have those who want to opt out and those who join will want to begin to force those who are outside to participate so that they can grab on to what they have. It is an incentive killing system which soon topples under its own weight.

I agree with others that no current economic system is perfect, but the one that offers the most freedom for people to create and produce is the most desirable. People who produce need a market for their products, which means they have to produce what people want. Everyone benefits in such a system as those who produce provide services and goods and jobs and those who consume get what they want and need, and if competition is allowed to flourish they get it for a cheaper price.

[Nomad]

There's no getting around it - that describes to a "T" not only the Nephites at their most righteous, but also the early Christians in the New Testament and the early Mormons as well. You may disagree with how socialism has worked out in secular societies, but there can be no honest disagreement that the arrangement described in 4 Nephi and elsewhere meets the definition of socialism.

See Brant Gardner's post above.

I believe your conclusion is greatly influenced by how you see our world, rather than being logically compelled by the description of life among the Nephites after the visit of Christ.

[Deborah]

greed is essential to capitalism

Actually most entrepreneurs do what they do because they love doing it. How many people have started out working in their garages and expanded because they offered a product someone else wanted. In such cases everyone benefits.