Too Sacred To Share?

[bluebell]

Isn't this about people who would not care or try to undermine the testimony? This shouldn't apply to a sympathetic audience right?

 

It would be impossible for someone to know how sympathetic an audience is, without the Spirit telling them.  Even sacrament meetings can be attended by people who mock what goes on when they aren't in church.

[JKimball]

Sometimes these sacred spiritual experiences only happen after much preparation of some sort, such as prayer, study, fasting, or perhaps other experiences.

 

If we share those experiences with people who are not likewise prepared for them, perhaps we are doing them a disservice.?

[teddyaware]

Sometimes these sacred spiritual experiences only happen after much preparation of some sort, such as prayer, study, fasting, or perhaps other experiences.

 

If we share those experiences with people who are not likewise prepared for them, perhaps we are doing them a disservice.?

That's what the scriptures say. Read the quote from Alma posted 2 posts above yours.

[JKimball]

teddyaware, that scripture establishes a clear precedent for the principle of not sharing all the mysteries, but it doesn't really address the potential disservice we might be doing to others, unless I missed it.  Nevo referenced D&C 63:64 earlier, but left out the last part which refers twice to condemnation:
 

 

 64 Remember that that which cometh from above is ^asacred, and must be ^bspoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit; and in this there is no condemnation, and ye receive the Spirit ^cthrough prayer; wherefore, without this there remaineth condemnation.

I'm thinking the condemnation referred to here is actually on the part of the person who did not speak with care?  Or is it possible that because a person spoke of these things without proper care that it might lead to the condemnation of the person to whom they were speaking?  Or both?

[Garden Girl]

Isn't this about people who would not care or try to undermine the testimony? This shouldn't apply to a sympathetic audience right?

 

No, I believe the counsel is that our patriarchal blessings are very personal and meant for us... a blessing that comes to us specifically and as such should be something we hold close, sympathetic audience or not (as bluebell says, how can we tell who is or will be sympathetic).  Some blessings can be very general... some can be quite detailed.   

My own blessing is, to me, an example because it contains some profound and personal blessings that could elicit various emotions... even envy or Why Her? (I feel strange even mentioning this because I agree we should not mention these things if we aren't going to tell them).  

When I slipped into inactivity when I was about 20, I went for many years and lost some of my blessing... When I reactivated 17 years ago, I prayed that I would receive those portions of my blessing that could be reinstated.  My personal experiences, including callings, through these years attest that this is the case.  And so I hold it even closer... 

 

GG

[Calm]

after hearing this members of the congregation might  think "why bother to bring your powerful or miraculous spiritual experience up in the first place if it's too sacred to share?"

Perhaps they do this in order to explain why they are so certain in their testimony...showing there is a 'rational' basis for it, not just that they are relying on others' testimonies or have blown everyday experiences out of proportion.

Frankly, it might seem to some that a member who makes a such public declaration of the fact that they were the recipient of some "supernatural" experience, but then goes on to say they can't with propriety tell the congregation what it is, may be perceived as boasting of their especial worthiness to receive such an extraordinary experience.

Yes, this could be an unfortunate unintended side effect.  And unfortunately there are likely some who do it for that purpose. Edited January 4, 2014 by calmoriah

[mormonnewb]

Can you tell me about the first time you shared your first experience with your wife? Can you recount all the experiences you had on your honeymoon?

How about telling me, a stranger, about all of your most intimate moments with the divine? Don't leave anything out; tell me everything.

Your answer is same as any sane, rational person's would be, "Frankly, it is none of your business", if one is a bit brusk, or, "Frankly, friend, some things are just not what is easily shared or talked about", is one patient and kind.

I suspect I am like you and don't enjoy the phrase, but I understand the need for keeping some things private. The Savior kept many of his teachings private and limited to just the Apostles and we have no recording of those teachings.

You are merging a lot of ideas and comparing apples and oranges. Many of us can bear testimonies without sharing every last spiritual experience we have had. F&T is not spill your guts day or tell us all of your secrets. F&T is simply for bearing testimony. Some of us need to eliminate trite phrases that serve no purpose and focus on a testimony of Jesus Christ and him crucified, but when we don't, it is no big deal. When we become perfect we can start throwing stones at those that are so imperfect.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that anyone should just "let it all hang out." As you suggested, I would never dream of sharing an intimate experience with my wife, unless, of course, I was trying to convince someone else to marry her. At that point, I may need to "spill the beans" ... so to speak.

Your spiritual experiences are just that -- your own. Keep them as private as you like. I'm simply SUGGESTING that if you are using it as EVIDENCE of your testimony of the Gospel, then "too sacred to share" isn't helpful.

[mormonnewb]

Alma 12:9

 

And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

Thanks for that clear scriptural reference. And how do we square this admonition with the commandment given in 1 Peter 3:15?

15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

[teddyaware]

Thanks for that clear scriptural reference. And how do we square this admonition with the commandment given in 1 Peter 3:15?

15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

This one's easy. Like Alma, Paul also clearly indicates in the following quote from Hebrews that those with a deep knowledge of the mysteries of God must be exceedingly careful not to reveal to another more about the gospel than that person is prepared to receive. A saint can give a man answers as to the reason why He has the hope of God within him without divulging all he knows...

"11 Of whom (Christ) we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.

12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat

13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. (Hebrews 5)

 

That last verse is very important because Paul tells us that one must know how to truly discern good from evil before the mysteries can be revealed. Why? Because a man who is spiritually unprepared may recoil from a given truth because in his unprepared state he may think the revealed mystery is something evil that couldn't possibly be true -- think polygamy for instance.

Edited January 5, 2014 by teddyaware

[Duncan]

This one's easy. Like Alma, Paul also clearly indicates in the following quote from Hebrews that those with a deep knowledge of the mysteries of God must be exceedingly careful not to reveal to another more about the gospel than that person is prepared to receive. A saint can give a man answers as to the reason why He has the hope of God within him without divulging all he knows...

"11 Of whom (Christ) we have many things to say, and hard to be buttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.

12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat

13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. (Hebrews 5)

 

That last verse is very important because Paul tells us that one must know how to truly discern good from evil before the mysteries can be revealed. Why? Because a man who is spiritually unprepared may recoil from a given truth because in his unprepared state he may think the revealed mystery is something evil that couldn't possibly be true -- think polygamy, for instance.

 

 

hard to be buttered? are you reading from the Food Bible?!

[Garden Girl]

This one's easy. Like Alma, Paul also clearly indicates in the following quote from Hebrews that those with a deep knowledge of the mysteries of God must be exceedingly careful not to reveal to another more about the gospel than that person is prepared to receive. A saint can give a man answers as to the reason why He has the hope of God within him without divulging all he knows...

 

 

Exactly... There are numerous things we can share to explain our testimony...

 

GG

[teddyaware]

hard to be buttered? are you reading from the Food Bible?!

I was munching on popcorn.

[mfbukowski]

Your spiritual experiences are just that -- your own. Keep them as private as you like. I'm simply SUGGESTING that if you are using it as EVIDENCE of your testimony of the Gospel, then "too sacred to share" isn't helpful.

But I am not sure anyone ever means it that way.

Warning warning- I am about to get nuanced on you.  I am not disagreeing- I am clarifying perhaps what you meant and putting into hyper-philosophical language, so that I can clarify, for myself, exactly what you mean.  I am cursed with this affliction of getting the words exactly right. 

"Evidence" is a tricky word, especially in a gospel context.  But I cannot see how saying that - let's use the words "Too profound to be expressible" (which I think maybe we agreed was the logical equivalent of "too sacred to share") is actually used as "evidence" of anyone's testimony.

Let's try it out and see if you take it that way.  Suppose someone said:

"I have a testimony that Jesus is the Christ, and my testimony is too profound to be expressible- there just aren't the words to say it."

Does that sound like I want to give you "evidence" of my testimony?  I don't take it that way.

How is that phrase different- in regard to giving "evidence"-  than just plain "I have a testimony that Jesus is the Christ"?

Just saying that one has a testimony is presumably giving someone "evidence" that indeed that person really DOES have a testimony- I am just not sure how adding that it is "too sacred" or "too profound" is supposed to give more "evidence" that the testimony is real.

I mean if you told me that you had a testimony that the moon was made of green cheese, I would not care at all how "profound" or certain your testimony was, I would still think you were a nut. 

[mfbukowski]

Thanks for that clear scriptural reference. And how do we square this admonition with the commandment given in 1 Peter 3:15?

15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

The other scripture says essentially "don't teach the mysteries".

 

THIS scripture says: "Give everyone an answer"

 

They are talking about 2 separate things.  We SHOULD give answers, but not the "mysteries" which have been revealed to us personally.  Teach doctrine, not your own experiences.

 

Are you saying you cannot give an answer without teaching mysteries?  Where's the conflict?

[mormonnewb]

The other scripture says essentially "don't teach the mysteries".

THIS scripture says: "Give everyone an answer"

They are talking about 2 separate things. We SHOULD give answers, but not the "mysteries" which have been revealed to us personally. Teach doctrine, not your own experiences.

Are you saying you cannot give an answer without teaching mysteries? Where's the conflict?

I'm not sure that I understand the difference between an answer and the mysteries for many saints. After all, the answer is not just a testimony of your hope but rather the "reason" behind that hope. In other words, WHY do you believe, say, that the LDS church is the restored church?

Since most of us base our belief on some supernatural confirmation, how do we give the reason without lapsing into "too sacred to share"?As a result, for most of us a testimony consists of "I know [truth] because I know." This leaves the hearer with no way to evaluate the plausibility of the belief.

On the other hand, imagine a testimony that goes something like this, "I have a testimony that keeping the covenants leads to many blessings. I was in [specific bad situation] but due to keeping my covenants, [specific good situation] resulted."

The hearer of the latter testimony has SOME way to gauge the plausibility of the conclusion reached therein. Given that it's a matter of faith, no testimony will be definitive PROOF of a Gospel truth. Yet, I think it would be helpful for some of us to be given a reason (any reason) to believe. And "too sacred to share" or "too profound to articulate" are not any better reasons than "because I said so."

[why me]

Thanks all. I actually understand the principle a little better now and I see where it has validity. I would like to point out from the newbie standpoint that I think we over and mis-use the whole pearl before swine admonition, particularly in our testimonies.

 

I think that people need to share their spiritual experiences more and keep those experiences also close to their heart. And we need to remember them. I have now seen many former members mock or downplay their spiritual experiences when they were active members of the lds church. They usually do so by exclaiming that many religious people receive such experiences who belong to other churches. Or they may claim that such experiences or 'feelings' can be had at a baseball game or a circus.

 

It is this downplaying and rationalization of the spiritual experience that I find amazing. At one moment they are giving their testimony because of their experiences and the next moment they are out of the church mocking the experiences. Sad.

 

And I am sure that some of these exmembers stated in testimony meeting that these experiences were too sacred to tell. How can such experiences be forgotten?

Edited January 5, 2014 by why me

[why me]

Sometimes these sacred spiritual experiences only happen after much preparation of some sort, such as prayer, study, fasting, or perhaps other experiences.

 

If we share those experiences with people who are not likewise prepared for them, perhaps we are doing them a disservice.?

Or we may be doing them a disservice by not sharing it with them. However, I think that the probem comes if the spiritual experience is too far off the wall to be believed if given in public.

Edited January 5, 2014 by why me

[teddyaware]

I'm not sure that I understand the difference between an answer and the mysteries for many saints. After all, the answer is not just a testimony of your hope but rather the "reason" behind that hope. In other words, WHY do you believe, say, that the LDS church is the restored church?

Since most of us base our belief on some supernatural confirmation, how do we give the reason without lapsing into "too sacred to share"?As a result, for most of us a testimony consists of "I know [truth] because I know." This leaves the hearer with no way to evaluate the plausibility of the belief.

On the other hand, imagine a testimony that goes something like this, "I have a testimony that keeping the covenants leads to many blessings. I was in [specific bad situation] but due to keeping my covenants, [specific good situation] resulted."

The hearer of the latter testimony has SOME way to gauge the plausibility of the conclusion reached therein. Given that it's a matter of faith, no testimony will be definitive PROOF of a Gospel truth. Yet, I think it would be helpful for some of us to be given a reason (any reason) to believe. And "too sacred to share" or "too profound to articulate" are not any better reasons than "because I said so."

For me, the best way to give answer to someone about the "hope" that is in me is to explain the exceeding beauty and powerful logic of the Restored Gospel, how it all just makes so much sense: Whether informing the inquirer of the concept of the pre-earth life and how we all volunteered to come here with a full awareness of all the trials and extreme difficulties we might have to face; or how Mormonism  proves God truly is a God of perfect love by being sure that all of His children, either on earth or in the spirit world, are given a fullness of opportunity to hear and accept the gospel and salvation of Christ; how just, kind and merciful God of the Latter-day Saints is by providing many degrees of heavenly glory in world to come, each degree of said glory properly suited to the faithfulness, condition and ability to receive of each recipient; or how it is God's design for the ultimate joy of His children to have the opportunity to be eternally married, even marriages patterned after the model of Adam and Eve whose marriage in Eden would have endured forever if not for the fall; or the miraculous and wondrous Book of Mormon and how it was brought forth by a very young man who had almost no education, the Holy Ghost testifying to my spirit that it is verily true; and on and on and on...

 

The witness of the spirit, that imbues the soul with the hope Paul speaks of, doesn't have to be given in some extraordinarily miraculous way. More often than not that witness of the Spirit is given by a still small voice that without fanfare or mighty shaking of the earth quietly speaks to the heart of man, assuring him that the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are true. Even though the still small voice is exceedingly quite, its witness speaks as loudly as the thunders of Sinai.  This alone is far more than enough to minister an unshakable hope, a powerful hope one can more than effectively witness to others.

Edited January 5, 2014 by teddyaware

[Grudunza]

I can appreciate the OP's concern here, that sometimes we can be taught a good principle (e.g., don't cast pearls before swine, be guided by the Spirit as far as what/when to share, etc.) and then over-think or over-apply that, to the point that we don't share anything of value from our experiences.  And by stating "I have had a powerful spiritual experience but it's too sacred to share" we may be teasing others, in essence, who might be sympathetic and appreciative (i.e., not swines) and gain something of value from the story.  Joseph Smith shared his FV and found the danger in that with the reaction by the Methodist minister, and with the subsequent persecution he faced... so he clearly learned the pearls/swine side of that... but he also shared that story several times thereafter (and probably many more times than we have record of) to people who were sympathetic, and in letters and official documents meant to be published more widely.

I shared the specific story about the answer I received when I prayed to know if the church was true to some friends and family soon after it happened, and in retrospect I know I probably should have limited it to something more like "I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true," because I'm sure they thought I was crazy or high.  They had no real context in which to place the specific things I was describing, the way that they powerfully came together for me.  But over the years, I have shared that story with my wife and a few others who could appreciate that in a "Wow!" kind of way.  And one value of sharing things like that now and then, in the right situations, is that it reminds you of that experience.  A friend of mine used to say the same stories over and over in meetings, and one time he acknowledged that, saying you know what, I know I've said this story many times before, but I hope I say it many times again, because that will mean that I'm still here.

I've been struggling lately to find the right time and way to share more widely the story of a song that was inspired three months before my wife's death, which started as being about something else entirely, but ended up being exactly about that (her death, three months later).  I'm a full-time musician, and sharing songs is what I do to some extent, and though this one has a particular deep resonance for me and was a powerful salve for me in the weeks after she died (and still is), I know there may be resonance for others there as well.  The song will always be sacred to me, but the story of how it came together is almost moreso, and that's what I'm struggling with.  I've told my family and some friends about it, but I think there may be value in sharing the story more widely (on Facebook, for example), as an illustration of the God of my understanding having a hand in something in a mysterious way (inspiring a song three months ahead of time so it would be ready to serve a powerful need three months later).  I have several athiest friends, and friends and family of various spiritual/religious persuasions, and I believe I can articulate it in a way that is faith-promoting without being over-the-top about that, sticking to the particulars and letting subtext do more of the work.  I've already written a draft of the story, but haven't felt prompted about the timing of sharing that more widely yet.  But I do feel that, though it is a sacred spiritual experience for me, there will be some value in sharing it to others at the right time and in the right way.  But like anything, that timing and method must be inspired and not come across as a "look at me!" kind of thing.

 

This may be a peripheral topic and might deserve its own thread, but this subject reminds me about the thing that we have been told in recent years about not giving "travelogues" as part of our testimonies in F&T meetings.  Of course, many people do, anyway, but I'm often glad they do, because sometimes it is the story of their recent life experiences that really gives the essence of why their testimony has merit and power and value to share.  Merely hearing "I know the Church is true, I know Joseph Smith was a prophet, etc." over and over (which, paradoxically it seems, we've also recently been told not to have little kids do anymore, or so someone told me),.. to me, that doesn't really have as much value.  Yes, a testimony can be a lot more than that without also being a travelogue of our recent life experiences, but I think many people (myself certainly included) cannot easily articulate testimonial content without giving some personal life experiences that show support for that.  Anyway, I'm curious if anyone else has felt a little odd about that.  I suppose the admonition is good to be stated, regardless, to deter people from *only* giving travelogues, but where travelogues do connect with testimonial faith, I'm in favor of hearing them.

[why me]

You picked a bad example. Joseph Smith did not talk much about the First Vision in the beginning. He shared it with some close friendsrefute.

This is not exactly true. We do have accounts of Joseph sharing the first vision experience with the general congregation.

 

http://scottwoodward.org/firstvision_edwardstevenson.html

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1986/01/confirming-witnesses-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng

 

http://lds-studies.blogspot.fi/2011/07/first-vision-in-formative-years-of.html

 

One thing is certain, the early saints were disclosing their spiritual experiences that they had with Joseph Smith.

[mfbukowski]

I'm not sure that I understand the difference between an answer and the mysteries for many saints. After all, the answer is not just a testimony of your hope but rather the "reason" behind that hope. In other words, WHY do you believe, say, that the LDS church is the restored church?

Since most of us base our belief on some supernatural confirmation, how do we give the reason without lapsing into "too sacred to share"?As a result, for most of us a testimony consists of "I know [truth] because I know." This leaves the hearer with no way to evaluate the plausibility of the belief.

On the other hand, imagine a testimony that goes something like this, "I have a testimony that keeping the covenants leads to many blessings. I was in [specific bad situation] but due to keeping my covenants, [specific good situation] resulted."

The hearer of the latter testimony has SOME way to gauge the plausibility of the conclusion reached therein. Given that it's a matter of faith, no testimony will be definitive PROOF of a Gospel truth. Yet, I think it would be helpful for some of us to be given a reason (any reason) to believe. And "too sacred to share" or "too profound to articulate" are not any better reasons than "because I said so."

OK I get your point now, and I agree, thanks for the clarification.

 

But in a sense, what you are suggesting is that the only way we can know the church is true is because following the commandments leads to a happy life.

 

Of course that's true, but it doesn't have a spiritual backing to it.  An atheist could live the commandments and have a happy life, and in fact I argue in favor of that very point around here a lot.  One can also argue that the commandments evolved socially, that we need a civilized culture to survive, and living the golden rule is the best way to have a civilized culture, so that the golden rule and the commandments just evolved socially because they "work" and actually have survival value.  In fact with God as an exalted human, I think Mormonism is highly compatible with Humanism, because what works for humans, just plain works for humans, God or no God.

 

So your point is well taken. 

 

But that is quite different from saying that "God spoke to me, and told me this course of action was right". 

 

See actually when I found the church, I had already understood Humanism, and how it worked to keep society together, and I was intrigued by the idea of elevating Humanism to a divine level.  I was a humanistic atheist communist type, so the idea of living the rules that society had found to be indispensable creating happiness was not new to me.  It worked on an atheist level as well as on a gospel level.  I mean theoretically that is exactly what communism is- everybody has to follow the rules and everybody is equal and everybody is happy, right? 

 

But when God decided to give me a spiritual wonk over the head with a 2x4 to tell me that the church was ALSO from Him- now THAT is what made the difference in my life and turned me on a dime.   So the idea that keeping agreements and living the rules made life easy was not a biggie, but knowing that God could actually COMMUNICATE with a worm like me, now THAT was a life-changer.

 

So I guess I tend to emphasize the importance that indeed spiritual experience cannot be spoken in language- you have to feel it for yourself, since that experience was so important for me personally.

Edited January 6, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Tacenda]

MF, why do you think you got the whack by a 2'4? Were you seeking Him at that time?

[why me]

 

 I mean theoretically that is exactly what communism is- everybody has to follow the rules and everybody is equal and everybody is happy, right? 

I could only disagree with this aspect of your wonderful post. This is not communism. But the rest of the post was very good. It is very difficult to get a good definition of communism these days because most definitions have been tainted by the opposing ideology: capitalism. Your definition of communism above can equally be given to capitalism except we know from personal experience just what kind of human society a certain type of capitalist ideology creates.

 

However, here is the outcome of communist society as described by Bertell Ollman, a Marxist professor:

 

Our reconstruction of communism is now complete, or as complete as Marx's diverse comments permit. As a way of life, communism develops in people extraordinary qualities which are themselves necessary for this way of life to operate. What are these qualities? On the basis of the foregoing account we can say that the citizen of the future is someone who is interested in and skillful in carrying out a variety of tasks, who is highly and consistently cooperative, who conceives of all objects in terms of "ours," who shares with others a masterful control over the forces of nature, who regulates his/her activities without the help of externally imposed rules, and who is indistinguishable from other person when viewed from the perspective of existing social division. She (he) is, in short, a brilliant, highly rational and socialized, humane and successful creator. In a terminology preferred by a younger Marx, this is the accomplished figure who "brings his species powers out of himself" and "grasps the human nature of need," the same who "appropriates his total essence... as a whole man."

 

Each part of this description of people in communism can serve as the full account once its relations with the whole are recognized. An individual could only engage successfully in so many activities if he cooperates with his fellows at every turn, treats all material objects as belonging to the group, enjoys the requisite power over natures, etc. In the same way, he can only exercise communist sociality if he is able to do a variety of tasks with the ease of an expert, treat objects as "ours," and the rest. Just as no aspect of communist life can arise independently, none of the qualities ascribed to communist people can emerge alone. As internally related parts of an organic whole, each assumes and is based on the presence of all. Marx's best known description of communism—that is a classless society, a time when the division of labor has disappeared, and when private property has been abolished, are all to be viewed in this light.¹²⁷ Rather than partial, one-sided alternatives, these descriptions of communism (including each other as necessary conditions and/or results) are equally complete, the only difference being one of focus and emphasis within the totality.

 

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/vision_of_communism.php

 

We need to keep in mind that it is just a goal for human existence based on a new set of social and economic circumstances, hopefully generating a new view and idea of human nature that is different from our current understanding of it within a capitalist system.

Edited January 6, 2014 by why me

[why me]

MF, why do you think you got the whack by a 2'4? Were you seeking Him at that time?

In my case, I wasn't seeking anything. But I felt the presence of the holy ghost when I was with people who were Mormon when I visited their home. And after realizing just what that presence was, I began to seek more answers and that is when the 'whacking' came.

Edited January 6, 2014 by why me

[mfbukowski]

I could only disagree with this aspect of your wonderful post. This is not communism. But the rest of the post was very good. It is very difficult to get a good definition of communism these days because most definitions have been tainted by the opposing ideology: capitalism. Your definition of communism above can equally be given to capitalism except we know from personal experience just what kind of human society a certain type of capitalist ideology creates.

 

However, here is the outcome of communist society as described by Bertell Ollman, a Marxist professor:

 

Our reconstruction of communism is now complete, or as complete as Marx's diverse comments permit. As a way of life, communism develops in people extraordinary qualities which are themselves necessary for this way of life to operate. What are these qualities? On the basis of the foregoing account we can say that the citizen of the future is someone who is interested in and skillful in carrying out a variety of tasks, who is highly and consistently cooperative, who conceives of all objects in terms of "ours," who shares with others a masterful control over the forces of nature, who regulates his/her activities without the help of externally imposed rules, and who is indistinguishable from other person when viewed from the perspective of existing social division. She (he) is, in short, a brilliant, highly rational and socialized, humane and successful creator. In a terminology preferred by a younger Marx, this is the accomplished figure who "brings his species powers out of himself" and "grasps the human nature of need," the same who "appropriates his total essence... as a whole man."

 

Each part of this description of people in communism can serve as the full account once its relations with the whole are recognized. An individual could only engage successfully in so many activities if he cooperates with his fellows at every turn, treats all material objects as belonging to the group, enjoys the requisite power over natures, etc. In the same way, he can only exercise communist sociality if he is able to do a variety of tasks with the ease of an expert, treat objects as "ours," and the rest. Just as no aspect of communist life can arise independently, none of the qualities ascribed to communist people can emerge alone. As internally related parts of an organic whole, each assumes and is based on the presence of all. Marx's best known description of communism—that is a classless society, a time when the division of labor has disappeared, and when private property has been abolished, are all to be viewed in this light.¹²⁷ Rather than partial, one-sided alternatives, these descriptions of communism (including each other as necessary conditions and/or results) are equally complete, the only difference being one of focus and emphasis within the totality.

 

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/vision_of_communism.php

 

We need to keep in mind that it is just a goal for human existence based on a new set of social and economic circumstances, hopefully generating a new view and idea of human nature that is different from our current understanding of it within a capitalist system.

Well as a former Marxian myself and a student of Angela Davis (I was part of a group who lobbied to get her hired at UCLA) I am pretty familiar with these issues.

 

Yes, that glowing understanding of communism is exactly what I was talking about- the problem is that communism simply does not work, period, end of story.

 

But if you notice that description of the socialist ideal, it is in fact what the objective of the church is as well.

 

That is actually why I am here.

 

That is the central insight that I saw in Mormonism and suddenly my disillusionment with communism- when I realized that communism could never bring about the ideal it espoused.

 

But if you notice what is being said there- it makes mankind into gods!  Indeed I have no problem with that concept, and indeed what Mormonism is about is also about turning mankind into Gods- with a capital "G", this time!

 

The problem with socialism is that to make it work, it requires a perfect definition of what a person should be, and it requires that people be trained by perfect people to become perfect people.

 

If Marx was perfect, if Stalin was perfect, if Lenin was perfect, if Mao was perfect, if Castro was perfect, etc etc it might have worked.

 

Guess what?  They were far from perfect.  They had no idea how to make perfect people, they only knew their own highly flawed ideology which never had a prayer of working (literally) from the beginning, specifically because it excluded the one source of perfection there IS in this lousy world.

 

Who IS perfect?  God.  What IS HIS plan?  The gospel of Jesus Christ.  And yes, that is why I am a Mormon- because it is the only church who seeks to turn men into Gods, just as communism does- in the totally wrong way.

 

Edit:  The reason it doesn't work is because centralized planning does not work.  We are about to find out all about that big time in this country- but unforseen consequences always happen in states which are centrally planned.  You would have to be perfect to have the perfect plan.

 

The only thing which does work is, unfortunately, teaching people correct principles and letting them govern themselves.  So flawed as capitalism is- that indeed is the central perspective of capitalism- let people govern themselves economically.  It works- simple as that.  Yes it is flawed but your site shows that Marx himself knew that HE could not define the perfect socialist state because he himself was not a socialist man.  He knew he was imperfect himself.   So if the theorist himself is imperfect, who is to generate the perfect central plan?

 

That is the flaw- the system is self-contradictory.

 

Marx's communist society is in the anomalous position of being, at one and the same time, the most famous of utopias and among the least known. And, while no one disputes the importance of Marx's vision of communism to Marxism, the vision itself remains clouded and unclear. Responsibility for this state of affairs lies, in the first instance, with Marx himself who never offers a systematic account of the communist society. Furthermore, he frequently criticizes those socialist writers who do as foolish, ineffective, and even reactionary. There are also remarks which suggest that one cannot describe communism because it is forever in the process of becoming: "Communism is for us not a stable state which reality will have to adjust itself. We can call Communism the real movement which abolished the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from premises now in existence."⁴

 

THAT is the statement of the communist professor.

 

Tear down the status quo- capitalism- for what?  There is no substitute, the substitute is supposedly what society will become after capitalism!

 

But that is unknowable!   The consequences of that are unknowable- yet that is what is advocated.

 

We have to "pass the law to find out what's in it".   What idiocy!

Edited January 6, 2014 by mfbukowski