Law of Consecration vs. Socialism

[Prodigal_Son]

I'd love to discuss the differences, and why one is ordained of God, while the other is spawned of Satan. Is this neutral enough to NOT get closed?

[rameumptom]

I'm thinking you wish to compare Consecration and Communism. Socialism is an extreme totalitarian government designed to force people into living communistic ideals until they become innate and natural to the individuals. Then it is supposed to magically disappear into Communism.

The two key differences are these:

First, Consecration is made voluntarily by covenant; Communism is initially imposed on individuals as Socialism by government.

Second, Consecration is based upon absolute faith and love of Christ. Communism is based on a society with no religion (opiate of the masses), but is atheistic towards anything other than devotion to the state.

When people are filled with the love of Christ and have consecrated themselves, they desire the best for those around them for purposes greater than themselves. And they choose to do so voluntarily. This encourages the consecrated to work diligently to produce good works and share them with those around them.

Socialism has shown that the individual does not have a desire to benefit anyone or thing, but himself. Productivity greatly reduces and so no one ends up benefitting. Example: Ukraine used to export grain, then was socialized and was no longer able to produce enough for themselves, let alone anyone else. Now that they are a capitalist market again, they are producing enough to export again. Capitalism is better than Socialism/Communism only in that people will do for themselves what they will not do (even when "forced") for others.

The end result is communism and consecration are similar, but worship different entities (state vs Christ). Communism is a coercive program, whereas all must volunteer to enter into consecration of their own accord.

[funkymonkey]

Communism is a corrupt form of Socialism,

Socialism is a corrupt form of the law of consecration

[rameumptom]

Communism is a corrupt form of Socialism,

Socialism is a corrupt form of the law of consecration

I think you have those backwards. Socialism was designed by Marx to be an interim point to work toward the perfection (communism). Marx believed that Socialism was better than capitalism, and the next step upward for humankind on its way to the perfect society (once again, communism).

All forms of economic/political governance are corrupt forms of consecration, including capitalism.

[threepercent]

in 1966, Elder Marion G. Romney of the Council of the Twelve Apostles, was asked to repeat a talk he had previously given to the students at BYU by the Presidency of the Church. This talk was given durring the General Priesthood Session.

Socialism vs. United Order

to quote a few key parts:

equating communism and socialism:

The distinction between socialism, as represented by the

various Socialist and Labor parties of Europe and the New World, and

Communism, as represented by the Russians, is one of tactics and

strategy rather than of objective. Communism is indeed only socialism

pursued by revolutionary means and making its revolutionary method a

canon of faith. Communists like other socialists, (1) believe in the

collective control and ownership of the vital means of production and

(2) seek to achieve through state action the coordinated control of the

economic forces of society. They (the Communists) differ from other

socialists in believing that this control can be secured, and its use

in the interests of the workers ensured, only by revolutionary action

leading to the dictatorship of the proletariat and the creation of a

new proletarian state as the instrument of change.

on Constutional government:

"...if we are to live as a Church, and progress, and have the

right to worship as we are worshipping here today, we must have the

great guarantees that are set up by our Constitution. There is no other

way in which we can secure these guarantees." (Conference Report, October

1942, pp. 58-59.)

and what we should do with socialism:

Now, not forgetting our duty to eschew socialism and support the

just and holy principles of the Constitution, as directed by the Lord,

I shall conclude these remarks with a few comments concerning what we

should be do about the United Order.

the United order is about faith, not fear.

[threepercent]

I think you have those backwards. Socialism was designed by Marx to be an interim point to work toward the perfection (communism). Marx believed that Socialism was better than capitalism, and the next step upward for humankind on its way to the perfect society (once again, communism).

All forms of economic/political governance are corrupt forms of consecration, including capitalism.

Dont forget that democracy is the first step.

[a-train]

Information is the currency of democracy. - Thomas Jefferson

[a-train]

Now, not forgetting our duty to eschew socialism and support the just and holy principles of the Constitution, as directed by the Lord...

How many of us live up to that duty? How many of us expect more from our government? Do we really ESCHEW socialism? Do we all pay social security in hopes of getting the benefits some day? Social Security IS voluntary you know, and so is Medicare and Medicaid.

-a-train

[Connie]

How many of us live up to that duty? How many of us expect more from our government? Do we really ESCHEW socialism? Do we all pay social security in hopes of getting the benefits some day? Social Security IS voluntary you know, and so is Medicare and Medicaid.

-a-train

So how do you go about opting out??

[Prodigal_Son]

So how do you go about opting out??

By running a small business, you get none of this crap. Yea for me.

[Moksha]

Here is a brief key to know the difference:

• If we do it, it is good and holy
• If they do it, it is bad and corrupt

Hope that helps.

[Still_Small_Voice]

How many of us live up to that duty? How many of us expect more from our government? Do we really ESCHEW socialism? Do we all pay social security in hopes of getting the benefits some day? Social Security IS voluntary you know, and so is Medicare and Medicaid.

-a-train

I would love to quit paying into Social Security. I think the whole system will implode as there are more withdrawals than deposits from a corrupt Congress and the citizens. Either it will implode or they will jack up the taxes of Social Security sky high to keep the socialist program going.

[Prodigal_Son]

...or they will jack up the taxes of Social Security sky high to keep the socialist program going.

Ding Ding Ding!!!!!! We have a winner!

The Federal Gov't is a perpetual machine. It will only grow and grow and grow... unless we can affect a political upheaval that shares some libertarian perspective on how much gov't there should be.

[Connie]

[richlittell]

. . . Either it will implode or they will jack up the taxes of Social Security sky high to keep the socialist program going.

You speak with fork-ed tongue my young whipper-snapper.

If social security is voluntary is can't be socialism---a bad program, bad investment or whatever other thing you'd' like to call it, but not socialism. By that reasoning, an annuity program offered by an insurance company would be considered socialism. I would say, in this particular case, that it's bad because governments do not know how to manage anything.

Edited September 9, 2008 by richlittell

[Prodigal_Son]

...it's bad because governments do not know how to manage anything.

So they MANAGE to screw everything up? Haha.

[a-train]

Social Security is technically socialism and is technically mandatory, to some at least. If your parents put you into the Social Security System, then you are legally obligated for life. Like myself, I was issued a Social Security card at birth and was never allowed to choose whether or not I would be involved. That is socialism, or maybe it is slavery. I was given the obligation while yet an infant, albiet the obligation was agreed to by my parents.

Also, employment opportunities in this country are greatly limited when one has no Social Security card. A company that discriminates against a certain race while hiring could incur serious penalties, but discrimination against those without Social Security numbers is completely legal. Having said that, I would not encourage any law preventing a company from hiring on the basis of Social Security involvement.

Our credit and banking system also relies heavily on social security numbers. It will be difficult to get such services without one.

The whole thing really treads a fine line between mandatory and optional. Parents are influenced greatly to enroll their new infant because of tax breaks extended to the parents only if the newborn is so enrolled.

If the parents decide not to enroll the child and pay the higher taxes, the child will face difficulties when making attempts to earn a living. However, it will not be impossible.

If you would like a real lesson on all of this, go to your nearest Amish community. A gentleman that bought a pickup from a co-worker of mine had a state issued 'self insured' auto insurance card, a driver's license with NO PHOTO, and he and his entire family live completely outside the social security program. They paid cash for the $25K truck.

Imagine if Mormon families operated their own little united order, if you will. This is how those Amish people live. They have a family nest-egg that the whole family contributes to. And when a new piece of property or a vehicle is needed, it is paid for with cash by the nest-egg. As a seller of cars, I see many come in and buy this way. Asian and Indian families especially operate that way.

If such a program was utilized properly, family members would have no use for social security.

The modern American trend is to send our kids out after graduation and allow each of them to pay mountains of interest well into their old age while sending their kids to do the same. Our kids are instructed to get the nicest car their creditors will allow. They finance a gas-saver and get a pat on the back for thinking prudently while spending thousands in interest on a quickly depreciating liability. Then, not only do they have to work to earn all of that interest, but they must earn even more to pay the taxes on the income needed to pay the interest.

Families that help one another by contributing to a family fund and avoiding interest are taking advantage of the blessings of a united order. There is nothing but our own selfishness preventing us from doing that.

-a-train

[DigitalShadow]

Communism didn't/doesn't work because the majority of people are greedy and self centered. Capitalism thrives off of greed though, which is why it sadly works better. I wouldn't call communism or socialism evil as a concept. In theory it sounds nice with everyone working for the whole and contributing what they can to society rather than watching the rich get richer while contributing nothing to society and the poor dying in the streets.

Unfortunately the implementation of communism has been horrendous and few people seem capable of separating the idea from the actions done in its name. I don't blame Christianity for the inquisition, and I don't blame communism for the attrocities done in its name. In both cases, I blame the people who corrupted the idea for their own purposes. Not all socialist ideas are inherently evil because one person took the idea to an extreme and committed attrocities, just as Christianity is not evil because some people commit attrocities in its name.

In short, yes communism doesn't work, but I'm also incredibly tired of hearing conservatives yell 'socialism' at anything they don't like and act like it is inherently evil to care about your fellow man and not let yourself be completely consumed by greed and capitalism.

[a-train]

Communism didn't/doesn't work because the majority of people are greedy and self centered.

Communism didn't/doesn't work because it is a worldly system without God. It is Satan's plan of compulsion. Romney and other Church leaders have warned against it in no uncertain terms from the beginning.

-a-train

[DigitalShadow]

Communism didn't/doesn't work because it is a worldly system without God. It is Satan's plan of compulsion. Romney and other Church leaders have warned against it in no uncertain terms from the beginning.

-a-train

You can take out the atheistic part of communism and it still wouldn't work. Nothing about the principles are inherently Godless, the leaders who implemented it just happened to be atheists and think it is the best way. A Christian communist regime would fair just as poorly.

[a-train]

A Christian communist regime would fair just as poorly.

Certainly, just like a group of 'Christian' robbers. They could praise Jesus all they wanted, but their thieving would still be iniquity.

Just as Marion G. Romney quoted:

"Socialism, reduced to its simplest legal and practical expression, means the complete discarding of the institution of private property by transforming it into public property and the division of the resultant income equally and indiscriminately among the entire population." (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1946 ed., Vol. 20, P. 895.)

Socialism and Communism deny any right of stewardship. The notion that each man has received the unalienable right to property from his Creator, cannot be reconciled with socialism unless we are setting out to openly abdicate that right. So far, the socialists have attempted to deny that men have been so endowed by any Creator, but even if the notion were admitted by the socialists and they acted openly to remove God's gifts from a man, they would remain quite godless in their rebelliousness.

-a-train

Edited September 9, 2008 by a-train

[threepercent]

In short, yes communism doesn't work, but I'm also incredibly tired of hearing conservatives yell 'socialism' at anything they don't like and act like it is inherently evil to care about your fellow man and not let yourself be completely consumed by greed and capitalism.

first, I agree a christian communist dosn't work either, see Jamestown, Plymouth.

but for the quote. I am not sure thats fair, at least I am tired of being accused of saying its inherently evil to care about your fellow man.

both sides I think care for their fellow man. its not what they want to accomplish its how.

socialist = none slip through the crack at the expense of liberty

conservative = liberty at the expense that some will slip through the cracks.

I wonder at those who have the gospel and have been shown that LIBERTY must be preserved and because of this some will not make it home, would get here on this side of the veil and suddenly think thats stupid and heartless.

its setting at naught the council of God.

the need for a redeemer is proof that liberty or agency must be preserved at any cost.

it is to save us from the natural effects of granting us liberty that the savior came down to take upon Himself the mantle of Christ and redeem us. so in other words, Christ felt that granting us LIBERTY was worth that price. and he Knew some would be lost.

kinda puts the principle of agency in perspective don't you think.

why would anyone reverse that and think they are wise?

Edited September 9, 2008 by threepercent
add last question

[DigitalShadow]

Certainly, just like a group of 'Christian' robbers. They could praise Jesus all they wanted, but their thieving would still be iniquity.

Just as Marion G. Romney quoted:

Socialism and Communism deny any right of stewardship. The notion that each man has received the unalienable right to property from his Creator, cannot be reconciled with socialism unless we are setting out to openly abdicate that right. So far, the socialists have attempted to deny that men have been so endowed by any Creator, but even if the notion were admitted by the socialists and they acted openly to remove God's gifts from a man, they would remain quite godless.

-a-train

If 'true' Christianity cannot exist without the belief that a creator gave us an unalienable right to property (I don't know that all Christians believe that), then yes, you cannot have 'true' Christian communists. I would however like to point out that simply being unchristian does not make a person 'godless'. There are many other religions in the world that incorporate a sense of God but may not believe in an inalienable right to property. Communism may be inherently unchristian by your definitions, but that doesn't mean it is inherently atheist.

I do agree that one of the main reasons communism doesn't work is that it seperates us from the long held concept of property. I don't think that has anything to do with God though.

[DigitalShadow]

first, I agree a christian communist dosn't work either, see Jamestown, Plymouth.

but for the quote. I am not sure thats fair, at least I am tired of being accused of saying its inherently evil to care about your fellow man.

both sides I think care for their fellow man. its not what they want to accomplish its how.

socialist = none slip through the crack at the expense of liberty

conservative = liberty at the expense that some will slip through the cracks.

I wonder at those who have the gospel and have been shown that LIBERTY must be preserved and because of this some will not make it home, would get here on this side of the veil and suddenly think thats stupid and heartless.

its setting at naught the council of God.

the need for a redeemer is proof that liberty or agency must be preserved at any cost.

it is to save us from the natural effects of granting us liberty that the savior came down to take upon Himself the mantle of Christ and redeem us. so in other words, Christ felt that granting us LIBERTY was worth that price. and he Knew some would be lost.

kinda puts the principle of agency in perspective don't you think.

why would anyone reverse that and think they are wise?

I have no problem defending liberty and free agency, but I do have a problem when some conservatives use socialist as a term to encompass anything they don't like and try to color it as evil because of the past of communism.

If that is not what you are doing, then you are not who that quote was directed at.

[Moksha]

I do agree that one of the main reasons communism doesn't work is that it seperates us from the long held concept of property. I don't think that has anything to do with God though.

I think what the advocates are pointing out, is that those Christians should abandon any concept of doing good for their fellow beings, and embrace this new reality that for the natural man, embracing greed and looking out for only themselves and their family is paramount. Making social compacts to look after the general welfare of all is contrary to the hopes and desires of the natural man.