JohnsonJones

There are two different theories I may be able to guess at what the OP is suggesting? I am unsure if it is either or neither. 1. There was a thought that has been passed around that each of us who attain exaltation will have to become Savior's of their own worlds. That just as the Savior was this world's Savior, we will also have to do the same thing. Once exalted we will have to become mortal again and suffer for the sins of all our (children/grandchildren) and atone for them. In that light it was referenced as Adam/The Son/the Father as Son/Father/Grandfather. Whether I ascribe to this theory or not is probably irrelevant. I like the second one better. They are not incompatible with each other though. 2. The Savior set the example of being our Savior. He took our place as a proxy to do what we could not. In that same way we also become Saviors on Mount Zion when we enter the temple. We are literally performing eternally saving ordinances that others cannot do. We are acting in their place to do the work that they are unable to. In this way we are fulfilling the idea that we follow the Lord's example of being a Savior, by being Saviors to others by performing the work for the Dead.

I am rather...prudish? on what I watch and read (even by Latter-day Saint Standards). I've tried some of Orson Scott Cards books. One was Homeland(?) which was a little more risque than I appreciated. Language also tends to be problematic in some of the works I've tried to read of his. HOWEVER...from what I understand about Xenocide is that it is HEAVILY based/written on Skousen and Skousen's theories. I don't agree with all of Skousen's theories, but I think Card probably had a lot of Skousen in mind when he wrote it. I have met Card in a university setting previously when he talked to some students and such. From what I gather he bases a lot of his books off of Church materials to some degree (the aforementioned Homeland series or whatever it was called was based off of Nephi and Lehi's journey, the Alvin series was based off of Joseph Smith...etc.). I could see the attraction to Card based on this way of writing and basing his writing off of various aspects you may find in the gospel.

Thanks for sourcing the quote.

Nice Quote

I've seen their items. Morderbund quoted an item from Bishop Partridge, without highlighting the rest of the article, nor using the historical context of other areas which happened in relation to it, which I tried to show and address from the historical context but was ignored. I don't see how Mirkwood's item actually contradicts what I said overall. Historically there were some differences, BUT overall that's exactly how it worked originally when they got to Salt Lake. AS LONG as they were members, they retained the property. This is why, when the entire legal ramifications came around later in regards to ownership, many of them got their property (without attender) to be the actual owners outside of the church's prerogative. However, there is also historical records of people losing that property when they left the Church or other things occurred. The lesson (beyond that quote) also had a few other items of interest NOT quoted by Mirkwood. For example, one reason I included the bolded portion at the end of my post was this quote in the lesson. Of interest, the lesson lists some scriptures which point out to a more communistic lifestyle with things held in common than what others have suggested (and perhaps more than even I have suggested) in this thread. These being some of the scriptures listed... Moses 7:18 Acts 4: 32-35 4th Nephi 1: 1-3 And of interest, this portion of Church history which I suspect may apply today if they tried to institute it Church wide as they had before... AS I said previously, a more limited version of the Law of Consecration is actually practiced today by the Church Missionaries. I do not know if the Law of Consecration as we are to practice it would be instituted in a similar fashion to what they live, but it could be interesting to look at the Missionary program and how missionaries live to see how the Law of Consecration is and could be implemented in our day. Edit: getting away from the entire Communism/Socialism discussion, to me, the entire reason for the Law of Consecration is to put the Lord first. That's really what the point of it is. As the Rich man was told to do (but he could not do), we have to be willing to give everything we have and follow the Lord if that is required. It's one thing to think it, it is another to actually do it. The question we each should have is NOT how much we are going to be given stewardship over, or how much we can keep for ourselves, but would we be willing to have NOTHING and give all we have to follow the Lord and do as he would have us do. I feel that is actually the ultimate point of the Law of Consecration (beyond it's physical usefulness in ensuring all have what they need in mortality). I hope that we have that in common, but I wonder at times when people try to point out what they will get out of it and what they get to keep. It probably is also why I get verbose on it myself. My single point I probably am wanting to make (but make it poorly) is ultimately, we cannot expect to keep anything. We should expect to have nothing in return for ourselves. Instead, we need to be willing to give ALL of it up just for the chance to follow what the Lord would have us do. Physical material items mean nothing, only the Lord means anything in this context.

I think the problem with Global Warming is that the opposite sides have made ridiculous and extreme claims. The Climate Change deniers say it doesn't happen...ever. That there is nothing happening. The Climate Change enthusiasts make claims that are ridiculous and do not happen (For example...isn't New York supposed to be underwater right now. I think Al Gore made that argument and even gave dates on when it was going to happen!). Because of how extreme the claims are that some of those who are a little too enthusiastic about Climate Change, it tarnishes the entire science behind it. I think Climate Change is occurring and think the scientists know what they are talking about, but I with all the extreme information about it on both sides, normally from those who know nothing on the science but jump on board of one extreme or another, it can be hard to figure out what exactly is occurring with it at times.

That doesn't go contrary to what I said...at all. PS: Before reading the entire response, it could be important to read the last note I put in this post if you have not agreed with my statements on Consecration previously. Even under Brigham Young, the property was ultimately the Church's (or his). It could be taken back if the individual left the Church (and, Brigham Young WARNED the Saints what would happen if outsiders and non-members got this property in Utah. One could even say it was a prophecy. It is one that is absolutely being fulfilled today. When I have gone to Utah I see everything Brigham Young predicted would happen if non-members got a hold of the property in Utah, has happened). However, when deeded the land, as long as they stayed faithful in the Church, that land was their stewardship. The property was their stewardship. ONE BIG difference I can see, is they didn't treat it as if they owned it in general. They treated it as if it were STILL the Lord's property and treated it with that same type of respect. Just as we would respect the work that we do for the Lord, all they DID was work for the Lord. Their stewardship was a calling, just as much as being called a Bishop, or otherwise. You still see elements of this idea today, but not as widespread. The idea that your body is a Temple for example. It is the Lord's. You have control of it, but ultimately, it is the Lord's handiwork and you should respect it as the Lord's. Now, the way Taylorsville and other locations (as PER HISTORY...not necessarily what the Conservatives want you to think...but back then...the Saints were actually Liberals and Democrats up until the 40s and 50s, and probably would be politically and economically opposed to the things Conservative Saints support today, though they would still support the more conservative Morality in regards to Chastity) WERE more communistic as things WERE held in common (and were considered more the perfect model of what Brigham Young FELT it should work). I think the problem is that membership has gotten too far into political worship. They think conservative values are the Lord's values...when in truth, historically, the Church was actually very LIBERAL up until the Democrats decided to go against the moral constructs of chastity as found in the Bible in the second half of the 20th century. This conservative worship has made it impossible for many Saints to understand WHERE some of the ideas of the older Saints came from and how it was practiced. I don't think members today would do very well living under the Conditions the Saints lived under up until Joseph F. Smith. The Church was a very different vehicle. Even when I joined, the church was very different in it's feelings and approaches. Ironically, in liberal programs (Church Welfare for example...which had welfare and used Welfare ideas LONG before the United States or most other nations did) the Church was far more successful in them than anyone else has been. If people could SEE how these programs actually worked...it shows the difference between a program run by the Lord vs. that run by men. It shows the drastic difference between what one would consider socialism or communism (and the terms set Conservatives off because most can't understand that there are differences...I'll address that below) when under the perfect system of them vs. that which was created by the adversary as a mockery of those systems. PS: As a comparison between Religious Communism and Marxist Communism. Would you say that every Christian religion is evil? That it is wrong? Or would you say that there is a Christian religion that has the Lord directing it? If you compare the differences between the Religion the Lord leads and other Christian religions, would you say there is a difference? Or would you say all Christianity is wrong and evil? Does it actually help if you deny Christianity and say that our Church is not a part of it? Is our Church Christian? There are certainly those who want to say it is not. Are they correct? When they see us and label us as non-christian...does that actually help? Should we continue to say that we are Christian? What does claiming we are Christian do? I feel that when we see what our Church is focused on and what it is centered about, the very definitions we use to define Christianity must ALSO apply to our Church. By the definition, we ARE Christians. This helps us to understand our relationship to other Christians and to see how our form of Christianity differs from other forms of Christianity. There are those in the World that want to define us differently. They want to say we are not Christians. I think it is this trend that our Prophet is trying to change. He is pointing out that we are Christians...not something different. Comparing things in the same category is useful in seeing the differences between the Lord's way of doing something as opposed to what others do. Admitting that there is One Christian religion that is led by the Lord and then using that as a contrast vs. other Christian religions can help us see the differences between how the LORD does things...and how others do things. The same applies for other programs the Lord has in place. It is the term that offends, but the term fits when using the term Socialism or Communism in relation to how the Saints ran their economics in the early Modern Church. Just as the Definitions apply to us as being Christian, and thus falling in that category because the definitions that define a Christian religion also apply to us...the same holds true for how the church's operations under Brigham Young worked. By UNDERSTANDING how these and it worked, one can see WHY Marxist communism is actually a mockery and poor copycat created by the adversary in relation to the way the Lord ran the system. To me this helps build my testimony on the differences between divine leadership vs. that of men. However, if the term Socialism or communism offends people too much, then perhaps calling it by saying the Lord's economic policies vs. Marxist Policies, Stalinist Policies, Maoist Policies, Modern China Policies, North Korean policies...would be easier and better (though more wordy and you'd have to keep more items in mind then lumping them all together). They each are different from each other (some allowing the ownership of property, even more than the ownership that was held under Brigham Young in some of these communistic ways of doing things) but also all fall under the same umbrella. This expands if we talk about Socialism, because then we have a lot more various policies regarding it. We even have a United States Socialism that is practiced today (and though more stringently based upon the Church's Socialistic programs at it's beginning, now days it's more of a loosely based system that can trace it's lineage back to the Church's programs structures). Socialism and Communism are far more widespread than many think or understand in Conservative circles. One could even say the most successful Socialistic program in use today is not the Church's programs, but the United States Military. One could also say it's successful because it's propped up (HEAVILY) by a non-socialistic form of funding beyond it's own means to support. The Church uses a modified form of Consecration today with it's Missionary program. Missionaries can still have things they own that they buy with their stipends. They are stewards over the places they live and the other things they are given to use. What they actually own is far more limited than what members normally have. Though it was not always so, I also have heard that when their mission ends, any excess funds they may have are to be returned to the mission. If you want an example of HOW modern day Consecration might work...look no further than the missionary program of today. Of course, that is ALSO propped up by those who are not living in that system (much like the military programs of housing, healthcare...etc. are propped up). THAT SAID...I do not know if when the church uses Consecration again or uses it, whether it will be similar to the programs that Joseph Smith ran, or that Brigham Young ran, or will be something different. I will admit, in a program that is ran today, it MAY be what people here feel it will be like. I think that would be a tad unbalanced in relation to the poor nations of the world who would then get FAR less in measure than what Saints in Europe and the US get (and to balance it out, there would have to be a DRASTIC measure of taking stuff from members in the US and Europe to give equal opportunity to those in other nations...but I'm not sure how it would work), but it may be just as some describe it with everyone getting to keep everything they have, just saying they give it to the church in word, but in actuality keeping everything they have with the church deeding it back to them.

Europe is in a situation that the United States and Canada are quickly approaching (But the US and Canada don't have as many areas to support the family as Europe at this point when they reach the point Europe is at). It is too expensive to live in Europe. What I mean is housing, food, and other areas can be VERY expensive in many parts of Europe. Young people look at that, see they can barely support themselves, and wonder how in the world they will support a family. The United States is quickly following that path. Housing costs have rapidly outpaced the rise in wages (even though the past few years wages have shot up, the cost of buying a house has gotten higher much more quickly. My own house is worth around double to 2.5X what it was worth 4 years ago. No one's wage goes up that quickly on average). Food costs are rising rapidly. Even before the current generation the US population was only being able to increase due to immigration. More and more young people are looking at the costs of life after college (and I suppose those who choose to go directly to the workforce or choose another path are also faced with this) and realizing that they may never be able to even afford a home, much less afford a family. Our society has gotten too greedy and placed money and riches over that of making a society where families can flourish. Houses should be a place to live...not an investment. That entire...investment schemes that started in the 70s and 80s have poisoned the well (IMO). Capitalism could keep such things in check...IF we had actual Capitalism at work here. The problem is we placed money and riches over that of our economics and well-being. We still have Capitalism in some places, but we also have a Lot of Corporatism and unrestrained Monopolistic economics instead. They can be part of Capitalism, but normally are not seen as a HEALTHY Capitalistic society. We need to promote the Capitalism that older generations promoted, and put boundaries on the Monopolies and Corporatism that seem to have become unrestrained over the past few decades. I don't agree with Trump...at all...but he was right in one aspect if you look at it from a certain point of view. As a Child and young man, I didn't feel the United States had such Corporate involvement in society and politics. It was far more restrained. Even as late as the 90s, Microsoft and other companies that wanted to be Monopolies were aggressively handled by the Federal Government to push them back. Things Microsoft gets away with now (integrated everything in their OS, so powerful THEY dictate to the customer rather than having to change to be what the customer wants, etc) were seen as a collective evil, even a few decades ago. We need a change back to a more healthy economic period for workers and employers when it was Capitalism where small businesses and individuals could flourish rather than having the Googles and Amazon's drive out other competition. Competition is good. I feel the 50s and 60s were a time when, economically, it was good for our families. Capitalism actually worked well then. We need a reset to go back then so that FAMILIES can actually afford a home. When I was a child and young man a single working father without a college degree (or even any degree) could provide a home, food, the decency of life, and other measures on their own salary. Today, many of those graduating from college won't even be able to afford a place to live. It's hard to talk about having a family when faced with the present day situation many of our kids are graduating into.

I cannot say I know how an office works for Private Practice for a surgeon or for a doctor, but I know a tiny bit about how a Law Office might go and make parallels. In Private Practice, when you own your own business, couldn't you either pair with another doctor (or several doctors), hire a Physician's assistant, or hire a Nurse-Practitioner? In the instance where you take a vacation (or...go to a conference for work or other work related item), you would then have others that could fill the gaps while you are away, handle emergencies that pop up, and keep the office running while you are away. You may or may not make money (Depending on how you run the office, or how you situate it to run), or you may have no loss of income in that situation. I'm certain Surgeons (or doctors in general) have offices where it is only themselves that are working, but it seems that there would or should be ways to mitigate any losses when you take time off if you organize the office in order to mitigate such circumstances. PS: On an F16 you are part of the military and I would imagine you go where you are ordered, and if you drop ordinance without the proper authorization you would be in a HEAP of trouble. You go where you are told to go, and do as you are told to do. At least a passenger in First Class can get up and walk around when the pilot puts on the light. A Private Pilot (sort of like a Private Practice) on the otherhand can make their own plans about where they will fly, make their own determination when and where. If they are in business for themselves (have their commercial license) they can do as others in a private business and decide when they are working, what jobs to take...etc...etc...etc. I've done a bit of flying and I would say in that parallel, I'd much rather be the private pilot than the military pilot. The commercial pilot for the airlines on the otherhand...some of them have quite nice hourly pay (though, it doesn't cover their entire workday. From what I understand they get up and do their flight plans, weather watch, notams, etc all without pay. They are actually working a bit without pay, it's only when they are actually flying they get paid. That pay in the air seems nice though.

And yet, the United States still has more freedom of Speech than most nations in Europe (including Great Britain) have. On the otherhand, Atkinson is not wrong. He is trying to defend Freedom of Speech and what could endanger it even further where he is from (or at least where I think he is from).

So, I think we should love all our neighbors and relatives. That doesn't mean we support behavior we do not feel is appropriate, but we should love them as they are, whether they choose to do the things we would agree with or not. Sort of on topic, and sort of off. This is from someone who was NOT a member of our church, but some consider a rather religious individual. Mr Rogers I like you as you are and a second video that may be more accessible... It's you I like Edit: And one last one...because I think this is something that the Lord would want us each to know, that each of us is Loved individually by him, each of us is important to him...not matter who we are and what we choose, we are STILL loved. Mr Rogers sings you are special

My impression of James Bond media is that James Bond is everything that a good member of the Church should not be. He is extremely immoral. One could say this is hearsay on my part (and yes, it is based upon what I've heard and seen others say and talk about), but from what I've heard, he is a despicable character in every sense of the word. What makes it even more over the top is Flemming's connection to Playboy (the magazine). It seems Flemming and Playboy dealt with each other on numerous occasions to publish or preview his James Bond works (if that says anything about what the content of James Bond would involve). I am not a particular fan of James Bond, so I can see why one would dislike the character. I'm not terribly familiar with Jason Bourne either. It is a character from Robert Ludlum (I believe). If he is more chaste than Bond, then he is already on a higher footing than Bond in my opinion. I was not aware he was an assassin for hire (I thought he was a programmed government agent or something to that degree, who escapes the program and later teaches in the Caribbean or something along those lines). An assassin for hire is probably not something to look up to, but the story I thought was his background doesn't necessarily make him a villain.

I'm a big fan of PTO. Of course, it's questionable on how much Time off I actually get or not. In just a few days I am going to take my summer research trip. In theory I suppose I could continue to research at the university, teach summer classes or even take the summer off! Instead I generally do research abroad if I can do it and then prepare for research at home and other projects. I'm on Salary so there's that item. I generally get to decide my own schedule in working and what is considered time off or not (with University approval...of course). I'm lucky as many who started later on the Professor track do not have these privileges. I've noticed the U.S. is particularly hostile (or more hostile) to the idea of worker's rights and in that line, time off for the workers. It seems detrimental to mental health in many ways. Guaranteeing woman can have children and have time off to bear and bond with a child seems to be more beneficial to society than giving her a maximum of two weeks off to have the baby and recover...or at times...no time off. It seems more beneficial to give your workers time off to go to the doctors and maintain their health rather than requiring them to schedule time off to do such things. By letting them see medical personal to keep up their health it probably helps avoiding health problems in the future. It seems more beneficial to have workers have more time off or mandated time off where they can do what they desire and recover mentally than making them have fewer PTO or sick days as the US does. NOW...if you DO what you love (for example, you love history and somehow manage to get paid to research and teach it...)...then PTO may not be as big of a factor. In fact, you may end up doing the same thing you do at work on your own if you were doing something in that manner. I think the young people today work harder than many give them credit. People tend to think they worked harder than they actually did when they were young. I see young people doing much more work for far less money than what I've seen over the past few decades. To me, this upcoming generation is more cognizant of the world around them and what probably is more fair (what they see other countries doing outside of the US) in regards to work-life balance than what prior generations did. In addition, there is NO employer loyalty anymore. Employer's don't seem as loyal to their workforces as they used to be. Only a few institutions still have employer loyalty (for example, some universities still do...but even then...tenure is a slowly fading idea at some of them, and gaining tenure is harder today then it has ever been in the past). This young generation sees this. If an employer is NOT loyal to their employees, firing at a drop of a pin, laying off at the slightest sign of wage increase, etc...then why should an employee have any loyalty to their employer. This idea is what the younger generation is coming up with. There are no pensions, no upward mobility (it is seen sometimes that changing to a different company will net you a better increase in salary and position than sticking with a company...because the company doesn't promote from within), no desire from many US employers today to help out their workers and thus help themselves. I don't see it as the new generation being less hardworking, but more being connected with what the world is doing today and more educated on what rights should inherently be granted to them and their relationship with those who wish to employ them.

The term Virgin can both mean a young woman or girl, or as in Mary's case, one undefiled or pure in matters of chastity...aka...never having known man. This is utilized by Biblical professors at times to argue that Mary was not actually a "virgin" in the way we see it...which of course does away with part of the miracle of our lord's birth. It is used in both manners in the Bible. In general it refers to one who is a young individual...normally a girl or woman. The strongest argument I have backing up the idea that Mary was herself, a pure woman who had not had certain types of relations before marriage is the Book of Mormon. At that time the word virgin meant more along the lines that we use it today (though it was also still utilized to mean a young individual). Joseph Smith and others would have understood it's context very well. In that light, the Book of Mormon referring to Mary as such shows us the miraculous birth of our Lord. She had no relations with any Mortal man on this earth in the manner which married individuals had. This is just one of a multitude of ideas that can confuse Biblical scholars today where the Book of Mormon, as another Testament clears the understanding and helps us understand the scriptures more clearly. HOWEVER...as I said previously, the term has several meanings and I do not feel it is relating to the idea of chastity (nor that it really bears relevance) to the parable that was given in this instance. In the context of the story of the Topic, I believe the term is referring to young women, rather than a view upon their status in chastity.

I don't like repeating it over and over, but I'll post the quote (still shown above) from Fair Mormon once again... Already, we have seen that the author has distorted the source. The real estate in the valley's is the Church's—the members do not "own" it. This is not to say that non-members cannot (and do not) own property elsewhere. But, since the property owners deeded their goods to the Church, the Church is the legal owner. Not my words...it's a quote. I merely bolded the part so you can see who actually was the LEGAL owner at the time. YES...there were deeds given out. The deeds were not considered legal in the eyes of the government as to those people having claim over the church's claim at that time. This actually caused a GREAT DEAL of problems in the 1870s and a lot of trouble occurred over this. Those who were still with the Church still had these deeds recognized by the Church at the time. Those who had not stayed faithful...well...their stories varied. Most of these are from hard sources rather than internet sources (and even if they were on internet sources, as many of these who LOST their lands are those who left the church...their accounts are not normally seen as favorable and thus not something I would want to post on a forum that should be pro-LDS rather than against the church). However, there IS enough on the internet from sources that are postive towards the Church or Neutral that basically say the same thing (at least from what I see if you put it all together) that at this point I think one is being obtruse on it if they say they can't see it. Anyways, this discussion is beginning to go in circles and that is never fun.

Isn't the Commitment pattern something like this. 1. Hey George...we're having a Bar-B-Que this Saturday. I make some mean Bar-B-que ribs. You should taste some. I think you'd love 'em. 2. So George...You seem interested. It will be great to have you there. The Bar-B-Que is going to be at 3PM this Saturday. Will you be there? 3. Great! So remember...3PM...I'll see you there. It's going to be GREAT! I think that's the basic way it goes...isn't it? It doesn't have to be so formal as some like to put it. If this is what it is, I use it all the time! It's a great way to point people in the directly you'd like them to go and confirm with them to do things. It also is a great way to get them to commit to go or do something with you. Sure, it may be based on business principles...but those principles are there because they work.

This won't go the way Bud Light or Target went in their 'boycotts.' Chik-fil-a is much more centered in Christian groups and has far more favorable onlookings than either of the other two. In addition, this position and person has been with the company since at least 2021 from what I understand. It's not a recent development. I don't think this is going anywhere. I feel it is ONLY being pushed by a few on the left BECAUSE THEY want to make it into some sort of sensation so they can point the finger and say..."hey...look...the right can't even know what companies are friendly to them and which ones are not!" In addition, the comments being pointed out from the Company do not seem to focus on the normal targets the enrage the far right who have protested (normally something specifically focused on LGBTQ+, with Transgendered individuals or items creating the focus for the boycott in general). It's a few of the extreme far right who have some impact (but not to the degree to control the entire boycott movement that boycotted Budlight and Target) that have made a comment or two...but it is a far cry from becoming a movement thus far (from what I've seen). The more ironic is that those who are on the far left cannot tell the difference between a criticism from the minority of the extreme far right from a more popoular movement to boycott by the majority of the far right (note, not just the extreme far right). If it becomes a major boycott I'll eat my words, but right now, I don't see that happening. Of course, I'm more in the middle (neither far left nor far right, at least how I view myself), but I don't think it's the sensational thing that some on the left are trying to make it out to be.

There are other sources online that go into more detail on how the Church retained the land (that's why I originally posted the first article where you didn't see how it was granted out...it was to point out that the land the Church owned was NOT actually given, it was deeded for use, but it was CHURCH owned still. That did NOT mean it was left fallow and undeveloped though. It is why I highlighted that it was STILL ALL Church owned. Other sources online though don't seem as church friendly and so I am not posting them. There was land beyond what the church owned that was privately owned. This isn't what we are discussing though as that wasn't included in the Law of Consecration or United Orders we were discussing. The United Orders created under Brigham Young are a fascinating item. If you want me to source all the material though, it would be easier for me to simply say...go research them yourself as I don't feel like writing books upon books of material with the resulting sources. The writing of all of it would make my posts much longer than they are usually (and they already tend to be long). For a short summary though... They varied drastically from each other. Some were more like a co-op similar to what you would see with government public utilities and such today. There would be communal items shared and set apart for each as they needed. Think like how public utilities are handled in the United States, but without really paying for them...they are meted out in how much each would need or want. The labor and other things are done communally, or with each individual who was part of the order (it wasn't seen as involuntary...and so in THEORY was voluntary...but...and speaking from a more non-religious viewpoint of the history...if you wanted certain things like say....water...well...volunteering to be part of the order probably was in your best interest) in producing them. Another good example is similar to what we can see today, though less participation with more who are NOT participating that are benefiting from the results. Each week we have members clean the Ward Buildings. This is something done by members of the church for the benefit of the Ward and the Ward community. In theory, we all should participate in this (and under the United Order we all WOULD participate in this) when we are asked to do so. HOW much it affected DRASTICALLY changed from community to community. You had places in Saint George where people would pledge to the Order and do certain things, but it probably was not something that was overly intrusive, to places like Taylorsville where every aspect of your life was controlled by the Order (Taylorsville I believe was also commented on by Brigham Young as being the ideal to which all other societies should try to become). In Taylorsville everything was owned by the United Order and things were given out by the Order as to what you would NEED. You were told where to work and when to work and what to do. They had communal meals where all ate together and ate the same food. No one had clothes any richer or poorer than anyone else as they all had the same design of clothes to wear. In fact, there really was no rich or poor in that community. They all had what was needed. They all had the same stuff together. [According to some sources this eventually turned out problematic as young people are...young people. They didn't want to wear the same things as their peers and everyone else for starters. They wanted to be fashionable...etc...etc...etc. and this led to discontent among many of them. This discontent could be seen to be the eventual downfall of this United Order and the change to a more business like function where slowly less was communal and more capitalism snuck in). I am only an Amateur Historian on this though. My focus of History is in another category but some of the best libraries to research this stuff if you live in the area are the Brigham Young University Library and the Utah University Library (I think Utah State University may also have a bunch of resources as well). If you have access to a University Library that shares loan applicability you may also be able to get some of this material (some of it is under lock and key and only available for local research) to read on your own. The journals and primary sources are the best resources out there. OFF TOPIC and NOT REALLY PERTINENT TO THE ITEMS DISCUSSED... I actually admit I found more fascination with some of the handcart stories (there was one with personal accounts of the Willie and Martin handcarts which related regarding how severe conditions were and how some actually survived...which are probably a little too explicit in violence and gore for these forums) then in the United Order. I find it interesting though how far RIGHT much of the church membership n the United States (more of a US problem than what I see internationally, and even more so centered on the Arizona, Utah and Idaho areas, though there are plenty outside those states as well) has gotten to the point that they cannot actually believe what older Saints were taught or what the thought processes were relating to more socialistic policies in the early Church. If we want to have open minds in humility, I think many in the Church lack that and thus lack the ability to learn about some of these facets of the earlier church. They can't believe what actually happened! The shame is that by learning about this they can realize exactly WHY Marxist Communism is so evil. The differences are extremely stark, even though in many ways there are strong simliarities (as I stated above, Ezra Taft Benson remarked how Communism was merely a copycat and mockery of the true Order the Lord would do things), only ONE is truly run by the Lord and his servants. By trying to ignore it I feel (so more of a personal feeling) that they lessen just how stark the difference is between a system when it is led by the Lord vs. when it is led by men. It is if you have two vehicles that run on very similar principles (we'll say a Ford Ranger and a Toyota 4runner), but one is driven by a man and another driven by the Lord...and the one by the Lord never has to refuel, never breaks down no matter how many miles, and never even needs maintenance...you'd be able to notice a massive difference between them. They both have the same idea on how they run (ICE), but there are things with the one the Lord drives that just cannot be replicated by those that men drive. Some may try to say it is the system, and there may be some of that, but to the degree that one would exceed the other could only be attributed to the divine. Instead, they'd rather say that the Lord is in a Boat rather than a car and thus they are totally different and separate vehicles...which I think reduces the impact of seeing just how much a difference a program run by the Lord is in relation to that run by men.

Hmm, I thought it covered the original issuance of Land and the United Order of Enoch, but apparently it didn't cover it as in depth. Not an LDS source Establishing land in Utah Of note, these parcels...they weren't sold off from the Church for many years. IT DID cause problems when Brigham Young died (which would make for an extremely LONG post). To organize these lands measured off for him, they were issued a deed. These lands did NOT lie fallow, they did NOT remain undeveloped. They WERE seen, eventually, as legal deeds for people, some of whom kept the lands and perhaps some of their ancestors actually OWN the land today. This, of course, after they were surveyed, and normally after Brighams Death. This type of idea also continued under the United Order of Enoch (but was FAR more strict in the communal aspect of everything). In this, people were still given deeds for lands, but EVERYTHING (well, not everything, but a LOT of it) was given for community use to be spread among the community. At least in the areas where the land was not taken back or settled in common. In the strictest areas I believe they still issued deed (but I'm not certain), but work schedules may be ordered where you were told where and when you were working day to day. With short searches on it, here is an actual CHURCH source on this. United Orders These are considered Religious Communism by many, though I know that term is probably not to many people's liking here. PS: United Order of Enoch and/or the United Order is not to be confused with the United Order created earlier under Partridge. Though similar, there were distinct things that were very different between the two.

It may or it may not. There are a lot of inactives and there a lot of others who claim to be LDS do not practice the beliefs taught in the Church itself. I think a minority of the membership would be left if only the active were spared. Overall, I do not know. It could be though, that in the last days there will be a war against the Saints. The Saints will be terribly outnumbered. It is possible that there will be many Saints slain during this...and that could be from the active Saints who go to Church regularly. If the Book of Mormon is anything to rely on (and I feel it is) then there will be war made on the Saints. Even apostles might be killed (such as the one that Nephi raised). From the sounds of it, the persecution that Nephi and the Saints endured were quite extensive, even from the brief mentions that indicate it in 3rd Nephi. I do not know how things will happen. I feel that the Book of Mormon is a guide for US in these days and is a direct type and shadow of what will happen before, during, and after the second coming.

Church History accounts for it. I don't know of links on the internet itself...but the sources are prior to the internet. Edit: I had thought to paint and write a long section on this pertaining to Joseph's Smith's time and some examples (and actually did write it out, but erasing it as it's length probably would dissuade quite a number from actually reading it...even though it was an extremely abridged source of what books could be written of, I thought that it would be better with a different approach), but as most are offline, I figured many would not want to have those types of things or sources or items written. In addition, the following information pertaining to Brigham Young's handling of it is probably a LOT clearer on how it was implemented AND there are sources online AND even sources which are closer to Church sources than many of those relating to Nauvoo and Missouri. So instead, I'll shorten it a little to just have the Brigham Young examples. A better picture of what I stated may actually be seen under Brigham Young in Utah. Jumping forwards to Brigham Young, we have a better picture of the Religious Socialism that existed and exists as it was intended. Accounts vary, but some sources claim as I have, that the land was all owned by the Church. Those who were non-members or left the Church were driven out. The land was seen as the church's, not the individuals...at least near where the Church was headquartered. It was given out in deed for them to farm (and even as an inheritance, as long as the Church deemed at least). On the otherhand, that land which was NOT claimed by the Church could be claimed by others (and it was). Those who claimed land and became members or were members were encouraged (but not forced) to voluntarily donate that land once it was cultivated and organized. It was then the church's. It could be deeded back, but that deed was unique in that the Land REMAINED the church's, but the individual had it to own and farm as well as an inheritance...but ultimately it could be taken away. An internet reference is easy enough to find on this part and portion, though it depends on how reliable you think FairLDS is. It is not that hard to find sources pertaining to this, but this seems to be one of the sources with a closer relationship to the Church and thus maybe more acceptable to you and others. Gentiles have no right to property Dealing more with the idea that non-members could not own property in Utah (as stated above, they could), it nevertheless also touches upon this idea of all the Church owned property remaining owned BY the Church (at least at first, under Brigham Young). Already, we have seen that the author has distorted the source. The real estate in the valley's is the Church's—the members do not "own" it. This is not to say that non-members cannot (and do not) own property elsewhere. But, since the property owners deeded their goods to the Church, the Church is the legal owner. We also get a glimpse into how this could work (though as noted, the FairLDS doesn't exactly trust the source entirely, these statements are actually not derogatory towards the church. On a note from this, and I think I've said this before...in regards to how inline this is with other items Brigham Young stated. Brigham Young once said something to the effect that as long as the Saints kept their birthright and did not sell their inheritances to those who were not part of the Church, the Church would thrive in Utah. Seeing how many non-members there are now in Utah it is obvious this was not followed. I wonder, though, if the Saints had truly kept Brigham Young's thought in mind and never sold to anyone who was not part of the Church how different Utah may be today. PS: I will also note, whether you consider it Religious Communism or Religious Socialism, for the short period it existed in Utah, it is probably one of the MOST successful cases of Communism or Socialism to ever exist on the Earth. The REASON I attribute it personally (not acceptable scholastically) is that it was because the LORD was ultimately the one leading it. In all other systems they are led by men, but in Utah it was the LORD who was in charge ultimately.

I'll need to do some more research on this guy.

The latests warnings I've heard on this at least sound a little more plausible. They have new chips that can have the brain tell them how to do things. They are using it right now for various items and it is going through testing with various companies (one of the most famous is with Elon Musks companies). Some have remarked that if it becomes a universal thing (sort of like the smart phones, or microwave ovens of our time) that it literally could be in the forehead or hand and if used like phones are, you'd use it for banking, checking, and everything financial. Not sure if that would follow, but I'd say probably a little more believeable as the mark than the nametag on someone's vest. PS: To be clear, I AM NOT saying the above is the mark either, just noting it matches more closely if we are looking for a physical sign than a nametag which is neither on the head nor the hand.

In answer to your question, in the areas of study for worldly education (rather than spiritual or religious), the early saints practiced a form of Socialism or Communism which is termed...Religious Communism or Religious Socialism (depending on which you feel most like using). It's just a categorization (like Lions being Mammals, Frogs being Amphibians, etc). I would think that if we were using worldly classifications, we would use the system that was utilized either under Joseph Smith or Brigham Young. This would probably be classified the same under Religious Socialism. Many here have very weird ideas of how it would work (they get to keep everything they have...that's not how it worked under Brigham Young OR Joseph Smith...normally quite the opposite unless you were already very poor...which many of the Saints were...most posting here are NOT in that state of poverty). It would be HARD to institute at first. In the end, if it could be pulled off and the Saints stayed productive, I think it could work. Ezra Taft Benson was particularly strong on this point. Communism (as based on Marx and furthered by others) is a copycat from the adversary. It is based on the the way the Lord would work (which some would call Religious Communism as classified by what is described in the Acts in the New Testament...though the Saints have another name for it under the Law of Consecration and the United Order), but instead of the LORD and his servants being in charge...it is corruptible men. It is a mockery of the Lord's way of doing things on top of that...made to make men miserable rather than happy. It was created as a mockery to make people unhappy rather than to build them up and make them joyful.

Not his, but in scholarly work it would probably be closest to either Religious Communism or Religious Socialism. I love the terms because it puts Religious Capitalists and Feudalists instantly on their toes because they hate the terms and want to ignore these things. Many dislike the idea that the Lord's ideas as described in the scriptures, for many scholars, actually fall correctly into the fields of socialism or even communism. It drives them nutty. Thing is, Feudalism could actually also exist in a Religious Socialistic society IF one sees that ONLY GOD is King and is THE KING. To start, Karl Marx saw religion and what religion had done, but changed the ideas of it from the Lord to the State. Thus, differing Marxism or Marxist Communism (which many in the West now call Communism, but do not realize that it is Marx they are referring to, without seeing the rest of what would be seen as communistic or communist in all of society and all it's branches) from Religious Communism (who, though there are different religoius entities that have started the idea, in Christianity it roots back to the Lord, Peter, and the early Church and how they did things as described in Acts). He stated This reliance on state defines his new ideas taken from religion, but it is only a mere copy of the true thing. The state cannot replicate God and is an untrustworthy keeper of such things. Only the LORD is trustworthy and uncorrupt enough to truly do these things. Which brings us to the idea of Religious Communism. In Religious Communism the idea would be that EVERYTHING is created and made by the Lord. This means he ALSO owns everything. In that light, you can be given what you need, but it is STILL the Lords stuff at the end of the day. This is especially pertinent to land, where the land is owned by the Lord and so no one can truly own their land. (this can also be seen in Joseph Smith's time where he would grant land to some members, but when they apostatized it was seen as still being owned by the church and taken and given to another). Religious Socialism may be more apt though, as it varies greatly from group to group (and I'd group the early Saints in Utah under the banner probably, and perhaps the ONLY example of a HIGHLY socialistic society being HIGHLY successful). It can vary from being almost Communist (and in fact, some of the Christian Socialist chose the term Socialist rather than Communist because of the bad connotations Communism has held) to being closer to an almost capitalistic/feudalistic type society. In this I'd expect that everything is owned by God and he gives out to us as we need things. However, as we are his heirs, we also can expect to inherit all he has. The differences of course will be with the Kingdoms of Heaven. In the Telestial I expect it will be greatly different than the Celestial. In the Telestial it may be more of a thing where we are given that which will make us joyful and happy, but not burdened down with more than that. Though ultimately owned by the Lord, we will be able to have and possess things as we need them to make us happy and joyful (or so I think...nothing stronger than that...not even belief...just thoughts on the matter). In the Celestial I imagine we have the ability to CREATE more things which we then can call our own, and hence we are making MORE rather than taking possession of that which already is. Just a thought on it. edit: TLDR - Communism and Socialism run by the state as we see today are creations of the Adversary as imitations and mockeries of the REAL thing that was created by the Lord, where you have something almost exactly the same, BUT it is run by the LORD and his counsel instead of the State.