Guest Posted July 21, 2014 Report Share Posted July 21, 2014 Better be ready to talk with Benson on the other side of the veil. What do you expect he would say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzie Posted July 21, 2014 Report Share Posted July 21, 2014 What do you expect he would say? If he is in a good mood, he will probably quote you this: “We call upon all Church members completely to eschew [shun] Communism. The safety of our divinely inspired Constitutional government and the welfare of our Church imperatively demand that Communism shall have no place in America” (signed: Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., David O. McKay, The First Presidency, in Deseret News, 3 July 1936; italics added). If he is in a bad mood, he will probably just kick your behind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 21, 2014 Report Share Posted July 21, 2014 If he is in a good mood, he will probably quote you this: If he is in a bad mood, he will probably just kick your behind. That's because Communism is a perfect tool for evil people to wield against society. But, if it was a perfect society, communism is a good vehicle to govern a society living the law of consecration fully (which is socialist at its core). Of course, the millenium wouldn't be communism. It would probably be more a theocracy with Christ at its head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted July 21, 2014 Report Share Posted July 21, 2014 That's because Communism is a perfect tool for evil people to wield against society. But, if it was a perfect society, communism is a good vehicle to govern a society living the law of consecration fully (which is socialist at its core). Of course, the millenium wouldn't be communism. It would probably be more a theocracy with Christ at its head. Bull-oney. That's like comparing tithing to taxes. It ain't the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 21, 2014 Report Share Posted July 21, 2014 Bull-oney. That's like comparing tithing to taxes. It ain't the same thing. Of course it ain't the same thing. Tithing is to God, taxes is to Caesar. I never claimed Communism to be God's established government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted July 21, 2014 Report Share Posted July 21, 2014 Doesn't pure (theoretical) communism not allow for private ownership of property; whereas the Law of Consecration (at least, as implemented in the United Order) did allow for individual ownership of a "stewardship"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlimac Posted July 21, 2014 Report Share Posted July 21, 2014 Doing a U-turn back onto topic, I honestly can't imagine men being attracted to some of the stuff I noticed at Wal-Mart today. Shirts too high showing muffin tops and pants so low-cut that caboose "cleavage" shows when bending over. ACK!! And shorts so short that just an itty bit of cheek hangs out with every step. Also another gal with shorts so short and a shirt hanging down low enough to cover them completely. I had to hold myself back from taking her aside to tell her she forgot to put on pants before leaving home. C'mon ladies! Grow some self respect! Backroads 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 21, 2014 Report Share Posted July 21, 2014 Doesn't pure (theoretical) communism not allow for private ownership of property; whereas the Law of Consecration (at least, as implemented in the United Order) did allow for individual ownership of a "stewardship"? In Communism, private ownership is determined by the proletariat... that is, you own a piece of the public resource according to your need. All production, therefore, is "consecrated" for the use of the public. There wouldn't be any private excess nor private lack as all excess stays with public ownership and lack is at a societal level. It is very similar to the Law of Consecration in which a farmer will own farm tools, a seamstress, sewing machine, etc. The difference is that in the Law of Consecration, private property are owned by individuals and it's production kept by the individual according to their needs and the excess production revert to public stores. Whereas, in communism, property is public first and invidivuals who work them keep their production according to their needs and the excess go to public stores. The property remains public. But, this only matters if you leave the society. Because, in the Law of Consecration, you may leave the society and keep your property, whereas, in Communism, you leave your property behind when you leave the society. But, if we are talking of a perfect society, we would assume that nobody would want to leave it. So, in effect, it is close to the same. Yes, TFP, we are completely talking about the secular organization, not the spiritual organization of a communist or consecrated society. Communist and Nudist colonies are simply not spiritual topics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenamarie Posted July 21, 2014 Report Share Posted July 21, 2014 Well... certainly wasn't expecting this turn in the conversation. Suzie, applepansy, Just_A_Guy and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted July 21, 2014 Report Share Posted July 21, 2014 Yes, TFP, we are completely talking about the secular organization, not the spiritual organization of a communist or consecrated society. Communist and Nudist colonies are simply not spiritual topics. That's not really my objection. There are other fundamental differences, even secularly, to them. But, really, when you introduce the condition of a perfect people, then capitalism is perfect too. And so is monarchy. It really defeats the whole point of discussing it to throw that variable in. The real discussion needs to be, what works best for an imperfect society, which is what we live in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 21, 2014 Report Share Posted July 21, 2014 Again, back on topic: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yjacket Posted July 22, 2014 Report Share Posted July 22, 2014 In Communism, private ownership is determined by the proletariat... that is, you own a piece of the public resource according to your need. If I may interject on thread-jack. One of the biggest differences between communism and the united order is Force. The UO is voluntary whereas communism is naked raw force. Besides that the fact is that worldwide communism or socialism simply cannot work, the Calculation Problem. It is a mathematical certainty that if it were implemented world-wide it would utterly fail. Sorry for the continuation of the threadjack :-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 22, 2014 Report Share Posted July 22, 2014 That's not really my objection. There are other fundamental differences, even secularly, to them. But, really, when you introduce the condition of a perfect people, then capitalism is perfect too. And so is monarchy. It really defeats the whole point of discussing it to throw that variable in. The real discussion needs to be, what works best for an imperfect society, which is what we live in. Allow me to go on a bit with the thread-jack then I'll completely lay off of it. Yes, societal structure becomes perfect because it's the people that makes it perfect, not the structure. But, the design is what makes it not an ideal one for MY perfect society. Capitalism is designed to promote self whereas socialism/communism is designed to promote community. Two divergent philosophies with communal aggrandizement trumping self aggrandizement in my book. Monarchial is not ideal because birth right is the focus in its design and not talent. And we're not talking about societal structure for imperfect people because that's just not how the thread discussion went. We started off with a light-hearted silly commentary on nudist colonies in a Modesty thread and I commented (light-heartedly with a healthy amount of silliness) that nudist colonies would be just fine in a perfect society (as Adam and Eve were before they feared God) which branched out to communist societies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 22, 2014 Report Share Posted July 22, 2014 If I may interject on thread-jack. One of the biggest differences between communism and the united order is Force. The UO is voluntary whereas communism is naked raw force. Besides that the fact is that worldwide communism or socialism simply cannot work, the Calculation Problem. It is a mathematical certainty that if it were implemented world-wide it would utterly fail. Sorry for the continuation of the threadjack :-). You forget the condition of a perfect society. In a perfect society, communism wouldn't require force. And in a perfect society, the value of a good is not determined by exchange/trade but by need. And, as need is pure in a perfect society (greed is absent), the calculation problem will not exist. And that is the reason why Communism will NEVER work in an imperfect society... because Pride and Greed is present in every society and it only takes one influential greedy and prideful person to upset the balance. Communism can only work in a society where everyone desires to be perfectly selfless (as is taught by Christian principles). Hence, Capitalism becomes a better structure because Capitalism is designed on top of pride and greed such that it uses pride and greed to better a society and at the same time self-corrects pride and greed as it becomes harmful. Therefore, it doesn't require that the society is perfect. Okay, back to modesty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backroads Posted July 22, 2014 Report Share Posted July 22, 2014 Doing a U-turn back onto topic, I honestly can't imagine men being attracted to some of the stuff I noticed at Wal-Mart today. Shirts too high showing muffin tops and pants so low-cut that caboose "cleavage" shows when bending over. ACK!! And shorts so short that just an itty bit of cheek hangs out with every step. Also another gal with shorts so short and a shirt hanging down low enough to cover them completely. I had to hold myself back from taking her aside to tell her she forgot to put on pants before leaving home. C'mon ladies! Grow some self respect! I'm not even at the point of bringing modesty and self-respect into those fashions! Do they have any idea what they look like? Methinks the mental image they have when arranging such outfits does not match the actual image. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 22, 2014 Report Share Posted July 22, 2014 I'm not even at the point of bringing modesty and self-respect into those fashions! Do they have any idea what they look like? Methinks the mental image they have when arranging such outfits does not match the actual image. I think you might have hit the nail on the head there, Backroads! I bet they see Miley Cyrus wearing the "panty shorts", think all these people are applauding it so it must look really amazing, so they put on the same "panty shorts" hoping to get the same attention and not realizing they just look trashy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.