It Is Official!!

[Robert F. Smith]

Darren 10 said:

IE, "if we just do it better this time it'll work out". Any particular place you'd like to cite where "things worked out"?

Such as Cuba? China? Russia? Romania? North Korea? Why would Poland move away from Communism (not that it has completely but it has in significant ways). Can you cite me anywhere which has achieved this "utopia"?

None of the nation states you cite here ever implemented or practiced communism. They did practice state capitalism and established a new class of nobles (the specially privileged members of their communist parties)* such as had existed in the kingdoms which preceded them: In Russia, Stalin was the new Tsar, in China, Mao was Emperor, etc. Totalitarian dictatorship (the so-called "dictatorship of the proletariat") and oriental despotism is the actual result of these regimes, and terror was the main method of enforcement.

On the other hand, since you ask, there have been a number of successful communist efforts, including the LDS United Order, the Israeli Kibbutz, the Basque Mondragon (only in Basque country in northern Spain is the economy in good shape), in Hutterite communities, etc.

* Read the introductory portion of Milovan Djilas, The New Class.

[Robert F. Smith]

Correction: Law of Consecration = Serving the Lord thy God. That's antithical to how communism has been practiced.

Whatever outcomes do you expect when state is placed in power to take everything away from everybody?

LOL. Wilson was absolutely one of the most biggoted, rascist, and hateful presidents we ever had. He had open and outright disdain for the Constitution. The American flag was created to represnt those who died for a cause that colonies would bind together and create a federal government (which makes the states superior to the federal government) and to do so quite cautiously. President Wilson was a grave violator of the flag's meaning. He did absolutely no justice ot the American flag, sir.

Even so, the pain wrought by Wilson and the United States upon the world is utterly dwarfed by those who have hoisted the hammer and sickle. Stalin and Mao are, by far, two of the greatest mass murderes in history. The Law of Consercration has nothing to do with these horrific men. By the way, the LDS *still* covenant to live the Law of Consercration. It is, as it was in the past, designed to serve God and man. This is done for the glory of God, not man nor government.

Here let's give a hatip to my facebook friend and former bishop (a great man), Nick Rodriguez:

That, sir, is what the Law of Consercration leads man towards.

I never cared for the Communist Party and reading your citation makes me care for them even less.

I would take the US Constition's negative liberties over guaranteed rights by a central government any day of the week. Ironically, the type of stuff you cite from the Communist Party, Woodrow Wilson would extend his 100% support for. FDR was all for this type of "guaranteed" rights / freedooms and he rounded up the Japanese Americans didn't he? He did so while purporting the need for a second bill of rights of sorts "guaranteeing" freedom and rights for all Americans. Our rights and freedoms come from God, not government, sir. Those who "guarantee" our freedoms in legal writings are the greatest violators of those freedoms. Which makes sense. If government is the provider of freedoms and rights than government will take away said freedoms and rights. If God is the one who provides our rights and freedoms than only God may take those away. I'd say that makes a huge difference in the scope of things.

Like I said before, to each his own I guess.

Brigham Young and his counselors said:

"Now we do not care a groat* about your political differences, but we wish to say to you, do not permit trivial matters to influence you in the least, and never, no never, no never drag Priesthood into a political Gentile warfare. Let no religious test be required, or the holy influence and power of the Priesthood be brought to bear in any political question. If the intrinsic merits of all such matters will not furnish arguments sufficient--for all necessary purposes--then let them go, for it is better that the whole political fabric, corrupt as we know it to be, should totter and go to destruction, than for one Saint to be offended."

Letter of First Presidency (Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Willard Richards) to Orson Hyde, in “Brigham Young Manuscript History,” July 20, 1849, p. 105 (LDS Church Archives).

* "a proverbial name for a small sum" Webster's Dictionary, 1828.

Please, gentlemen, let us focus on "the intrinsic merits" of one system or another rather than be offensive toward one another for no good reason, or to pretend that one or another of us has the only valid insight into God's approach to governance.

[Darren10]

On the other hand, since you ask, there have been a number of successful communist efforts, including the LDS United Order, the Israeli Kibbutz, the Basque Mondragon (only in Basque country in northern Spain is the economy in good shape), in Hutterite communities, etc.

* Read the introductory portion of Milovan Djilas, The New Class.

The United Order functioned virtually the same as "state capitalism". The result was the same in the sense of it not working. As far as I know, Israeli community-based economic activity is also based upon serving God and man. Spain's an ecomonic joke. Heavy state regulation has prospered nothing. And why, exactly, would you say that the Bosque region of Spain is in "good shape"?

Here lies the headquarters of Mondragon, reckoned to be the world's largest worker co-operative. The name is the same as the town's, when translated from Basque into Spanish.

The unemployment rate in the Basque Country is 15%, and lower in the province of Guipuzcoa, where Mondragon is based. The rate in Spain as a whole is now 25%.

15% is "in good shape"?

The Mondragon co-operative is a collective of around 250 companies and organisations. They include Mondragon Assembly in Guipuzcoa, which employs some 85 people.

Basque co-operative Mondragon defies Spain slump

Nobody, including myself, oppooses volunteer cooperatives. In fact, the Law of Consecration is purely volunteer. On a national level though, this does not work out. It did not even work out on a state level in Utah. Altogether, the Bosque Madragon emplyos, what, 1,000 people at the max? (You think Walmart can do this and succeed? Things similar to this was also tried with Solyndra). The arguments here are n a national scale. Volentinus showed how people should be guaranteed jobs.

I don't knw anything about the Hutterites and don't care to look into it right now.

do not permit trivial matters to influence you in the least, and never, no never, no never drag Priesthood into a political Gentile warfare. Let no religious test be required, or the holy influence and power of the Priesthood be brought to bear in any political question. If the intrinsic merits of all such matters will not furnish arguments sufficient--for all necessary purposes--then let them go, for it is better that the whole political fabric, corrupt as we know it to be, should totter and go to destruction, than for one Saint to be offended

LOL. Like Volgadon, you're shooting at a friendly target. I did not interject the priesthood int politics, Valentinus did. I've been the ne distinguishing the Law f Consecration from communism.

Valentinus #10:

BTW, Law of Consecration = Communism.

My #12:

Correction: Law of Consecration = Serving the Lord thy God. That's antithical to how communism has been practiced.

The Law of Consercration has nothing to do with these horrific men

the LDS *still* covenant to live the Law of Consercration. It is, as it was in the past, designed to serve God and man. This is done for the glory of God, not man nor government.

That, sir, is what the Law of Consercration leads man towards.

(Jesus changing man, not the world.)

Volgadon's #14:

I'm sorry, but this ignorance of even fundamental facts gets very annoying. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union does not equal communism. They never claimed it did. Their frequent mantra was that they were building communism, IE, were not there yet. If the Law of Consecration is anything, it is communism. Remember, we are talking economic and social theory, not political parties.

My #17:

"Communism" serves the community. I do not consecrate anything to a community except the one which is governed directly by God.

My #25:

Back to the Law of Consecration being communism, I would point out that the Law of Consecration is to "build up the kingdom of God on earth". When has communism advocated any such thing? When did Karl Marx ever come close to preaching God being the final end of communism? In communism, the community is the end game, not God.

In other words, the Law of Consecration and communism are two *very* different things. Yes, there's common ground but the fundamentals and end purposes are far different. I argue that there is no way to compare the two ideas on the fundamentals and end purposes.

[Robert F. Smith]

The United Order functioned virtually the same as "state capitalism". The result was the same in the sense of it not working.

So you believe that the LDS United Order "functioned virtually the same as 'state capitalism'"? And that it failed for that reason? Ever read LDS economic history? Any conception of what the United Order is or was? Obviously not. It was quite successful, and was deliberately destroyed, along with ZCMI and all other forms of communism by the U.S. Government, which was busy disestablishing the LDS Church by whatever means necessary.

As far as I know, Israeli community-based economic activity is also based upon serving God and man.

I spent several years working on an Israeli Kibbutz, and doubt that you have the foggiest idea what that entails.

Spain's an ecomonic joke. Heavy state regulation has prospered nothing. And why, exactly, would you say that the Bosque region of Spain is in "good shape"?

15% is "in good shape"?

Basque co-operative Mondragon defies Spain slump

Nobody, including myself, oppooses volunteer cooperatives. In fact, the Law of Consecration is purely volunteer. On a national level though, this does not work out. It did not even work out on a state level in Utah. Altogether, the Bosque Madragon emplyos, what, 1,000 people at the max? (You think Walmart can do this and succeed?

At least you accept the reality of Mondragon, even as you falsely claim that it couldn't or didn't work in Utah. Next vacation, go to the Pyrenees. Visit Mondragon. Or visit an actual commune of the Hutterite Brethren in the midwestern United States or Canada. You have no concrete idea of the implementation of the Law of Consecration & Stewardship, except that you vaguely realize that it is voluntary.

Things similar to this was also tried with Solyndra). The arguments here are n a national scale. Volentinus showed how people should be guaranteed jobs.

I don't knw anything about the Hutterites and don't care to look into it right now.

It figures.

Your mention of Solyndra indicates just how confused and partisan your position is.

LOL. Like Volgadon, you're shooting at a friendly target. I did not interject the priesthood int politics, Valentinus did. I've been the ne distinguishing the Law f Consecration from communism.

Valentinus #10:

My #12:

(Jesus changing man, not the world.)

Volgadon's #14:

My #17:

My #25:

In other words, the Law of Consecration and communism are two *very* different things. Yes, there's common ground but the fundamentals and end purposes are far different. I argue that there is no way to compare the two ideas on the fundamentals and end purposes.

You clearly have no idea what communism is and therefore are not able to do any meaningful comparative work. All the moreso since you are not familiar with LDS economic history. Nor what the D&C has to say about it.

[volgadon]

. I've been the ne distinguishing the Law f Consecration from communism.

Hence my comment on political parties. If you knew, or cared about the difference, there would be little to distinguish from.

[Darren10]

Hence my comment on political parties. If you knew, or cared about the difference, there would be little to distinguish from.

Volgadon;

No doubt there are similarities between LDS theology and any poltiical party platrform. Of course they overlap. But to say that the Law of Consecration is the same as communism is to say tha Mormonism is the same as Catholicsim. Communism does not serve God. At all. Where has it ever? What divine end did Karl Marx advocate from communal living?

[volgadon]

As far as I know, Israeli community-based economic activity is also based upon serving God and man

I've never personally lived on a kibbutz, but my mother has, and I've gone to kibbutz schools, so I second what Bob said. The kibbutz even espoused ideas very similar to those of Alexandra Kollontai. I also have a copy of of a Hebrew translation of Stalin's interpretation of Marx, printed by a kibbutz press. Dreariest reading imaginable, but an interesting historical curiose. Just to give you an idea, some kibbutz members took Stalin's side during the Doctors' Plot, and held a day of mourning for his death. It would not have been unusual at all for a kibbutz member to have eaten, say, a chicken and cheese sandwich, while out working in the kibbutz fields during Yom Kippur. Passover was the only holiday celebrated, this because of its national character symbolising a deliverance from slavery and oppression. I've been to kibbutz Passovers, God is hardly in the equation. Yet, despite all this, and despite the personal jealousies, they were very successful. They held together through very rough times, finally rising to a relatively high level of living. Things were very similar for the cooperative moshavim, except that the family structure was kept intact and there were no communal dining rooms.

[volgadon]

I am now a proud sponsor and adherent to S.H.A.R.P.

Skin Heads Against Racial Prejudice

My significant other says that I'm a mess of activism...I don't know what that means though!

Tell more. I have heard of S.H.A.R.P., but don't really know much about their activities.

[Darren10]

So you believe that the LDS United Order "functioned virtually the same as 'state capitalism'"? And that it failed for that reason? Ever read LDS economic history? Any conception of what the United Order is or was? Obviously not. It was quite successful, and was deliberately destroyed, along with ZCMI and all other forms of communism by the U.S. Government, which was busy disestablishing the LDS Church by whatever means necessary.

No, it wasn't an economic success, sir. There was one small community which was not affected by by an economic downturn (the name escaptes me) but that's about as far as the success stories go as far as I know. you want ot enlighten me, by all means, please do. But in the end people didn't want the United Order. I'll be glad to review my "This is the Place" history book by Thomas G. Alexander when I get home (and able to find some time).

I spent several years working on an Israeli Kibbutz, and doubt that you have the foggiest idea what that entails.

I was speaking in general. By all means, enlighten me. But no way is Israeli overall economic success due to communism. Here's from the Omniscient wikipediao Israeli Kibbutz:

Kibbutzim began as utopian communities, a combination of socialism and Zionism.

If this is accurate than forgive me if I'm wrong but doesn't Zionism include the idea that it is God's will for the Jews to inhabit the land of Israel? If so, it does seem to me that "Israeli community-based economic activity is also based upon serving God and man"? Well, at least in part? I know that in general the Jewish people have always been communal and this has theological roots and we see communal living more prevelant in israel than we do in the US. But when you or I buy a Motorola product it's hardly the result of communism. It's the reult of investing capital.

There is this though:

There were also differences in religion. Kibbutz Artzi and Kibbutz HaMeuhad kibbutzim were secular, even staunchly atheistic, proudly trying to be "monasteries without God". Most mainstream kibbutzim also disdained the Orthodox Judaism of their parents, but they wanted their new communities to have Jewish characteristics nonetheless.

even as you falsely claim that it couldn't or didn't work in Utah

It didn't. If it did why isn't it here today? Will the government destory it again?

And how is 15% unemployment being in "good shape"?

At least you accept the reality of Mondragon, even as you falsely claim that it couldn't or didn't work in Utah. Next vacation, go to the Pyrenees. Visit Mondragon. Or visit an actual commune of the Hutterite Brethren in the midwestern United States or Canada. You have no concrete idea of the implementation of the Law of Consecration & Stewardship, except that you vaguely realize that it is voluntary.

Ah, the Hutterite are Amish-like individuals.

The communal lifestyle of the Hutterites finds its roots in the biblical teachings of Christ and the Apostles.

Hutterian Bretheren

How does that apply to Karl Marx?

Arguing religious based communal living, especialy of a Judeo-Christian origin does nothing to counter my arguments, sir. I think it's clear I support said living and that the Law of Consecration is founded on serving God and man. I don't recall anything of the sort from the Communist Manifesto, sir. Instead of haughty superiority in knowledge, if fact, I'll make this easy for you: you know way more about Communiasm and the Law of Consecration than I do, so enlighten me. What part of the Communist Manifesto brings people to God? Does it mention God? What role does God have in Marx-style Communism?

It figures.

Your mention of Solyndra indicates just how confused and partisan your position is.

LOL. Where's Solyndra today? It got the goods from the government, correct? Under Communism the workplace is the people's place and the governmnet makes sure resources are fairly distributed among the people. So about $500 million of tax-payer funds went to Solyndra, I'm sure it's a roaring success. There the workers collectively decided on vacation, work hours, and I believe on executive salary. If any organization watns to practice this, fine with me. I just don't want ot pay for it. You may liek Solyndra and that's fine. Go out and buy solar panels if you want. There's still lots of them subsidized by my money so, you're welcome in advanced. I dont think it's any secret as to my leanings. In fact, I have no desire to makethem secret. I mentione Solyndra because as far as collective decision making (which the Law of Consecration does not do) it's the epitome of what you say is on par of the Law of Consecration. Karl Marx called for workers of theworld to unite so obviously we're doing our part at Latter-day Saints under the Law of Consecration.

You clearly have no idea what communism is and therefore are not able to do any meaningful comparative work. All the moreso since you are not familiar with LDS economic history. Nor what the D&C has to say about it.

So what's your 2 favorite D&C parts regarding the Law of Consecration? And could you parallel them with Karl Marx? Could you please show how they are equivalent (one and the same according to some arguments here).

[Darren10]

Valentinus, Volgadon, Robert, et al;

It is contrary to the will and commandment of God that those who receive not their inheritance by consecration, agreeable to his law, which he has given, that he may tithe his people, to prepare them against the day of vengeance and burning, should have their names enrolled with the people of God.

D&C 8:3.

Who's in charge here? Did Karl Marx ever invoke the wrath of God?

[Darren10]

I've never personally lived on a kibbutz, but my mother has, and I've gone to kibbutz schools, so I second what Bob said. The kibbutz even espoused ideas very similar to those of Alexandra Kollontai. I also have a copy of of a Hebrew translation of Stalin's interpretation of Marx, printed by a kibbutz press. Dreariest reading imaginable, but an interesting historical curiose. Just to give you an idea, some kibbutz members took Stalin's side during the Doctors' Plot, and held a day of mourning for his death. It would not have been unusual at all for a kibbutz member to have eaten, say, a chicken and cheese sandwich, while out working in the kibbutz fields during Yom Kippur. Passover was the only holiday celebrated, this because of its national character symbolising a deliverance from slavery and oppression. I've been to kibbutz Passovers, God is hardly in the equation. Yet, despite all this, and despite the personal jealousies, they were very successful. They held together through very rough times, finally rising to a relatively high level of living. Things were very similar for the cooperative moshavim, except that the family structure was kept intact and there were no communal dining rooms.

Thanks.

[emeliza]

I thought this was in the social hall.....

[Darren10]

Law of Consecration

The Law of Consecration is considered by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be a "celestial law." That is, people who are living lives dedicated to the service of God, such that at judgment they would be assigned to the Celestial Kingdom, should be able and expected to live the Law of Consecration. The Law of Consecration is that, if necessary or requested, a person would give everything he has for the building up of the Kingdom of God on Earth. He would be willing to wholeheartedly give of his time, talents, and resources. Thus, the person is "consecrating" all his personal resources to the Lord.

“The law of consecration,” said Elder Bruce R. McConkie (1915–85) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, “is that we consecrate our time, our talents, and our money and property to the cause of the Church; such are to be available to the extent they are needed to further the Lord’s interests on earth.” ^[1]

Hmmmmmm....

********************************************************************************************************************************

The fundamental principle of this system was the private ownership of property. Each man owned his portion, or inheritance, or stewardship, with an absolute title, which he could alienate, or hypothecate, or otherwise treat as his own. The Church did not own all of the property, and the life under the United Order was not a communal life, as the Prophet Joseph, himself said, (History of the Church, Volume III, p. 28). The United Order is an individualistic system, not a communal system.

I'll let others decide if J Rueben Clark knew what he was talking about.

(I love cherry picking quotes)

http://www.latterdayconservative.com/articles/the-united-order-vs-communism/

*********************************************************************************************************************************************8

Where Locke and Marx seem at first to differ most significantly is on the issue of private property. Locke saw ownership of property as fundamental to a good government and society and believed that all citizens had a right, if they had the means, to acquire and own property. For Marx on the other hand, the abolition of ownership of private property is one of the central aspects to the theories of Marx as expressed in “The Communist Manifesto”.This is not simply meant in terms of owning a home or a piece of land, but more importantly it refers to the means of production.

I'll let others decide if Nicole Smith knows what she's talking about.

http://www.articlemyriad.com/comparison-marx-locke-views-government-property-labor/

[Darren10]

I said in my #34;

No, it wasn't an economic success, sir. There was one small community which was not affected by by an economic downturn (the name escaptes me) but that's about as far as the success stories go as far as I know. you want ot enlighten me, by all means, please do. But in the end people didn't want the United Order. I'll be glad to review my "This is the Place" history book by Thomas G. Alexander when I get home (and able to find some time).

It turns out that it was'nt 'one" community but a few and the one I was thinking of must have been Brigham City.

In Brigham City, under the direction of Elder Lorenzo Snow of the Council of the Twelve, a cooperative developed in a much different direction. Rather than turning properties over to a community corporation as in Orderville, the members were invited to take shares in a cooperative venture that by 1874 included some forty branches covering almost every phase of industry and agriculture in the valley. The Saints in the community were urged to trade locally within the cooperative. Brigham City came to be known as one of the most prosperous, progressive cities in the territory. The cooperative was so successful that the Panic of 1873, which hit the rest of Utah, was virtually unnoticed in the Brigham City area. Eventually, however, for various reasons—including an influx of nonmembers, Brigham Young's death, changing economic conditions, and the extreme pressure brought to bear by the federal government because of polygamy—the united order movement was generally short-lived. In the mid-1880s the First Presidency counseled the few remaining orders to disband.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/59273-it-is-official/page__st__20#entry1209190416

That's how I remember Professor Alexander presenting the United Order in class many years ago. The united Order was not a Utah success but a success confined wuthing specific xcommunities. Those that did actually practice it were successful. But trhen umber of communities that practiced it was *very* limited. Hardly a state-wide success as Robert Smith purportrays it to be. Furthermore, while the pressure of the federal government clearly did force the united Order to change, it was the First Presidency which ended it, not the federal government. Same goes for polygamy.

The Law of Consercration as manifested through the United Order would be a blessed utopia for sure. But it is based on volunterism and serving the Lord our God and man. It does not call for the people to rise and revolt and force change upon all as Karl Marx and his eugenic sidekick Frederick Engels preached.

(From same link above - bold mine)

It is most important that we remember the united order is based on the underlying principle that the earth and all things therein belong to the Lord and that men hold their temporal positions as stewards accountable to the Lord. According to the revelations, each man entered the united order by consecrating to the Church all that he had. This was done, as we have read, "with a covenant and a deed which could not be broken" (D&C 42:30), whereupon the bishop, in consultation and after reaching agreement with the donor, deeded back to the donor sufficient for his and his family's needs. This, then, became his stewardship.

(snip)

This procedure, the bishop deeding back to the individual his stewardship, preserved in every man the right to private ownership and management of property. Private ownership of property was basic to the united order. The intent was that each man would improve his stewardship—that is, use the property to produce a living for himself and his family. Any surplus that he might produce above the wants and needs of his family was consecrated to the Church. This surplus went into a bishops storehouse, from which the needs of the poor, the orphan, and the widow were met; from which stewardships were given to others; and from which the activities of the Church were financed

Joseph Smith, in a letter to Bishop Edward Partridge in 1883, wrote:

The matter of consecration must be done by the mutual consent of both parties; for to give the Bishop power to say how much every man shall have, and he be obliged to comply with the Bishop's judgment, is giving to the Bishop more power than a king has; and upon the other hand, to let every man say how much he needs, and the Bishop be obliged to comply with his judgment, is to throw Zion into confusion and make a slave of the Bishop. The fact is, there must be a balance or equilibrium of power between the Bishop and the people, and thus harmony and good will may be preserved among you. [Documentary History of the Church, 1:364]

Hardly what Karl Marx advocated.

Now, as for my previous #28 statement that, "The United Order functioned virtually the same as "state capitalism". The result was the same in the sense of it not working," by that I meant that as practiced, the United Order was set up along the same lines as we see in state capitalism: a strong cenrtal governmnet planning out the distribution of resources. I remember Professor Alexander laying out the functionality of the United Order and describing the role of government. He even mentioned how local governmnets, which were pretty much the local bishoprics, planned out resource distribution. He then pointed otthe success of Brigham City as a community which fully implamented the United Order (meaning the vast majority of others did not).

[Damien the Leper]

Congrats!

Thank you, sir!

[Damien the Leper]

Sir, what non religious people created a nation to the magnitude of the United States with all its unique freedoms? What non-Christian nation created its own demcracy in our moder-day world? Christianity and freedom go hand in hand. More than any other group of people in the world, Christians know from where freedom comes. And it's not government. Government is nothing more than an institution set up to uphold the natural rights of man. Natural rights exist because man exists as man. God is the author of our freedoms, not government. As James Madisen said (paraphrasing), government is set up to secure man's natural rights since men are not angels and therefore cannot govern himself as he should. But once gvernment is set up we the people must obligate it to govern itself. Empowering gvernment to "guarantee" freedoms and rights is the quickest way to loose said freedoms and rights for whatever man empowers government to do for him gvernment will naturally, in the course of time, seek to do against him. This is why government must be small and this is why the framers of the Constitution designed government to have its power split. It did so on the federal level by dividing power into three branches and then, and perhaps more significantly, it gave the federal government specific powers and left the rest (which is the vast majority of state power) to the states. The state and local governments are where the voice of the people truly lie; not in one strong central government.

The Communist Party, as you cited, is concerned with unemployment and their solution is to guarantee jobs, correct? I'd say that's precisely what FDR and our current president sought and is seeking. In both situations we witness high unemployment and a very prolongued depression / recession. Under President Coolidge, a depression lasted a year and it was over. Coolidge reduced taxes and federal spending. He did not resort to "guaranteeing" unemployment yet under his administration the US experienced a never repeated 2% unemployment. The formula for success is there and the Cmmunist Party stands in stark contrast to that formula.

I certainly do not want a theocracy and to think I purported one, I think, shows ignorance on your part as the nature of the US government. The US Constitution des not mention God and frankly I think God inspired the Founders to write it as such. To become legally theocratic is very volatile and inherently decadent. But while the Constitution is the physical body of the US gvernment its soal is found in the Declaration of Independence:

In this context, God is the source of our freedoms and these freedoms are "unalienable". That means *no matter what* government cannot take away these freedoms from its citizens.

Take the time to read Susan Jacoby's book Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism. That would be a good start.

[Damien the Leper]

Such as Cuba? China? Russia? Romania? North Korea? Why would Poland move away from Communism (not that it has completely but it has in significant ways). Can you cite me anywhere which has achieved this "utopia"?

You are looking at historical examples that have FAILED to establish a truly Communist society. By doing this, you continuously fail to substantiate your argument.

[Damien the Leper]

Val, you have said some doozies on the board before, but this one beats them all. Communism and utopia used in the same sentence with a straight face? Please tell me that you are rolling on the floor in laughter. There is a better chace of ripping Jesus out of all that we know and then provide a weak shadow of a tiny portion of what he taught and declare we have found the way to heaven.

It is as ridiculous as placing the Law of Consecration and utopia in the same sentence.

[Damien the Leper]

Tell more. I have heard of S.H.A.R.P., but don't really know much about their activities.

The first interaction that I had with S.H.A.R.P. was when SB1070 was being established in Arizona. Several members marched directly onto the state capitol grounds as an act of civil disobedience to fight apartheid.

I attended a punk rock concert about a year ago where members of S.H.A.R.P. donated the proceeds of tickets and merchandise sold to 1) the Armenian genocide survivors and families 2) NAACP 3) Rock for Choice.

Their activities are not exclusively directed at racial prejudice but the fight for pure pluralism and egalitarianism. It is progressive in action and philosophy. Some members I have met are Jews, Christians, Muslims, and many atheists.

[Damien the Leper]

Valentinus, Volgadon, Robert, et al;

D&C 8:3.

Who's in charge here? Did Karl Marx ever invoke the wrath of God?

You should probably leave my name out when you cite the D&C. I'm not a believer and so your argument isn't holding water.

[Damien the Leper]

I thought this was in the social hall.....

Shhhh! If no one raises a fuss then maybe the mods won't notice the thread.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

You are looking at historical examples that have FAILED to establish a truly Communist society. By doing this, you continuously fail to substantiate your argument.

Forget governments or economics, I believe the point his is making is that under the symbol of the "Hammer and Sickle" have come the greatest lose of life, dwarfing the Holocost.

[Darren10]

Shhhh! If no one raises a fuss then maybe the mods won't notice the thread.

Funny.

You should probably leave my name out when you cite the D&C. I'm not a believer and so your argument isn't holding water.

The only thing I wonder is that if you're not a believer than why did you cite the Law of Consecration as if you knew what it was? As for my question to you, ity makes no difference if you're a believer or not. You cited the Law of Consecration as something that's equal to communism. Pointing out that God is in charge of the Law of Consecration whereas Karl Marx makes no arguments in reference to God points to a fundamental difference between belief systems.

I also cited the success of Brigham City which was unaffected by an ecomonic recession that affected the rest of the state of Utah. There's your utopian living but it wasn't "communism".

The first interaction that I had with S.H.A.R.P. was when SB1070 was being established in Arizona. Several members marched directly onto the state capitol grounds as an act of civil disobedience to fight apartheid.

And perhaps in another thread (at another place) I'd point out the utter crap that is. SB1070 is a far cry from apartheid. But I'll leave it at that.

I think you're a man of good qualities and so unless you care otherwise I think I'll end this dialogue with you here.

Take care and God bless. I'm sure we'll chat again on another thread.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Forget governments or economics, I believe the point his is making is that under the symbol of the "Hammer and Sickle" have come the greatest lose of life, dwarfing the Holocost.

Dwarfing the Holocaust is absolutely correct.

[Damien the Leper]

Funny.

I thought some might like that.

The only thing I wonder is that if you're not a believer than why did you cite the Law of Consecration as if you knew what it was? As for my question to you, ity makes no difference if you're a believer or not. You cited the Law of Consecration as something that's equal to communism. Pointing out that God is in charge of the Law of Consecration whereas Karl Marx makes no arguments in reference to God points to a fundamental difference between belief systems.

I also cited the success of Brigham City which was unaffected by an ecomonic recession that affected the rest of the state of Utah. There's your utopian living but it wasn't "communism".

I cited the Law of Consecration because it is an example of a theocratically governed form of Communism. I used to be a member and a believer. This is not the first go-round I've had on the subject.

And perhaps in another thread (at another place) I'd point out the utter crap that is. SB1070 is a far cry from apartheid. But I'll leave it at that.

If you were better familiar with the now undisclosed meetings and hearings and discussions leading up to the introduction of possibly implementing SB1070, you may disagree. Unfortunately, that information has been removed from the public eye. Some will argue via Jan Brewer and Joe Arpaio.

I think you're a man of good qualities and so unless you care otherwise I think I'll end this dialogue with you here.

Take care and God bless. I'm sure we'll chat again on another thread.

I think you're a good guy as well. A little misguided but good nonetheless. Shalom.