Mormon vs Trump

[JohnsonJones]

32 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This doesn't make sense.

Communism has a specific meaning.  You can't just use it arbitrarily and expect people to understand you.  This has nothing to do with fixation.  In the same way that EAT and CONSUME have different meanings even if it has the same effect of moving food from mouth to stomach.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism

Quote

1a : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

b : a theory advocating elimination of private property

2 capitalized

a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R.

b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production

c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably

d : communist systems collectively

Quote

Communism is one of our top all-time lookups, and user comments suggest that’s because it is often used in opaque ways. In some sources, communism is equated with socialism; in others, it is contrasted with democracy and capitalism. Part of this confusion stems from the fact that the word communism has been applied to varying political systems over time. When it was first used in English prose, communism referred to an economic and political theory that advocated the abolition of private property and the common sharing of all resources among a group of people, and it was often used interchangeably with the word socialism by 19th-century writers.

The bolded is the ideas that Early Church leaders(LDS)* would have utilized and used it in definition of...NOT the one that Karl Marx used and is commonly exercised.  People like Clark would have KNOWN about the usage of it  in the 18th century among those near the Saints rather than what we talk about it today.  To pretend that they did NOT and were proceeding in ignorance and thus only knew about the way Marx had redefined it and it was used in the 20th century is rather ridiculous...to my perspective...but let us continue with definitions.

Dictionary . com communism

Quote

1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. ( often initial capital letter ) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3. ( initial capital letter ) the principles and practices of the Communist Party.

Once again the original definition is the one that takes the top spot...NOT the Marxist version which takes place in the 3rd spot or that which is situated between the two in the second spot.

Religious Communism specifically relates to the first definition in BOTH of those.

This definition is traced back to at least the 17th century at which time the idea was that in such a society any religion was allowed to be practiced but all would be under the communal order.  It was attempted to be practiced by Puritans in the 18th century but this comes more under the understanding of Christian Communism where religion is more at the heart of the matter and all material is under the direction of Deity and Church rather than simply being held in common.

The term that many here are using in relation to Marxism and Leninism would be one that would have actually been unfamiliar to those of the Early Church (LDS)* as it arose during 19th century Europe and would not have been the common term they were familiar with.

Religious Communism is related to the original terminology and is utilized in relation to the Early Church (LDS) and the form of governing themselves in the church (economically) with all property being granted to the church (or as directed under the auspices of Deity).

It shares a common idea of that of a Utopia in regards to all things held in common, and in fact the original book that espoused this type of idea was also called Utopia.  It is from this where you first see the original rise of Christian Communism which precedes Marx by several decades (and Marxism probably by at least a century).

Quote

Christian communism is a form of religious communism based on Christianity. It is a theological and political theory based upon the view that the teachings of Jesus Christ compel Christians to support communism as the ideal social system. Although there is no universal agreement on the exact date when Christian communism was founded, many Christian communists assert that evidence from the Bible suggests that the first Christians, including the Apostles, established their own small communist society in the years following Jesus' death and resurrection. As such, many advocates of Christian communism argue that it was taught by Jesus and practiced by the Apostles themselves.

* = Abbreviation meaning The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Edited December 5, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Religious Communism is related to the original terminology and is utilized in relation to the Early Church (LDS) and the form of governing themselves in the church (economically) with all property being granted to the church (or as directed under the auspices of Deity).

This is where your definition fail.

[JohnsonJones]

10 hours ago, anatess2 said:

This is where your definition fail.

Okaaaay...you brought up the idea of definitions and so I posted some straight from the Dictionary.

In addition, you DO realize that the LDS church is considered one of these early movements in this regards...whether they themselves wish to acknowledge it.  It's based upon statements from Church leaders at that time as well as various things they put into action regarding a Utopian type movement.

But, we have differing views, obviously.  On this one, I probably am going to lean more towards what Scholarly pursuits would list it as rather than those wishing to defy the rest of society and say that their definition of a phrase is wrong. 

However, if problem I keep saying is people say this is NOT a correct definition but FAIL to give a correct definition that is actually something that adheres to our classification system of governing and economics.  We have the US which is a Republic, or more correctly a Democratic Constitutional Republic (currently).  That's a classification and the US fits that definition.  There are some that would claim it is today also partly Socialist, and while we do have many Socialist programs (Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, CHIP, etc) as for our government overall , it fits the idea of the above classification.  The same could apply to how we see Great Britain as being a Constitutional Monarchy. 

So, if one disagree that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did NOT follow the same way of governing and economics as the Early  Christians under the Apostles (which is the defining idea which directs those who wish to try to live a life of Religious Communism) and formulated their OWN thing...then WHAT classification does it fall under?  Preferably NOT a made up term or one that is not actually a Recognized.  I would prefer one use a REAL form of government or economic system.

It is easy to say...that's wrong.  It is a lot more difficult to try to prove one's point against what is currently in use.  There are several ways of doing it (none of which have been shown thus far) but the easiest would be to simply say WHAT form it fits better and why.

As I've stated, Law of Consecration and United Order are NOT recognized forms of this classification.   Thus, people are more than willing to say that the current way of discussing the how the Early Saints governed themselves is not so, but then fail to back it up by stating what it DOES fall under.

If they say it is a theocracy, that does not refute the phrase Religious Communism as Religious Communism more often than not IS a more theocratic government (hence the usage of the word Religious or Christian).  It thus falls to the regard of the other differences and WHAT it falls under.  Thus far, the only individual who has given any other form was a suggestion of Socialism which I can also see.

Joseph Smith though did not like the idea of Socialism himself, and primed more to the ideas that Puritans and Shakers had utilized in the past (which also fall under the idea of Christian Communism) in what he received as revelation, but with changes that made it more amenable to our Doctrine.

Anyways, it's not unusual for American Mormons (though not necessarily Latter-day Saint scholars...ironically, and Mormons is not just for those part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but any who are part of that movement, and American refers to anyone in the North American Continent, not just the US, though those from the US are more particular to object) to want to reject the terminology that is used in classifying what they would call the United Order or the usage of the Law of Consecration in the Early history of their church.

I think it is because they grew up with the idea that the word itself is related to a specific type of Communism and learned it was a BAD word (and thus by association, any usage of it regardless of how accurate or correct it was, is also bad/wicked).

I AM interested though (and those who seem offended never answer this) what classification (recognized, not made up or used in a way not recognized as a normal form) you would use to describe or place it under?

 

Edited December 5, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[Colirio]

12 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

On this one, I probably am going to lean more towards what Scholarly pursuits would list it as rather than those wishing to defy the rest of society and say that their definition of a phrase is wrong. 

 

In case you are wondering, this is the very reason you feel like you are banging your head against a wall. 

 

Nobody else cares how the rest of the world chooses to define the United Order or the Law of Consecration. It seems rather clear from your statements that the world hasn't given a proper definition, so why should we be beholden to their labeling limitations? 

 

Instead, why would we not choose to follow what multiple prophets have stated and that has been repeated many times over in this thread? 

[JohnsonJones]

Some interesting items in regards to the LDS church...

Quote

if you are not equal in earthly things you cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things.

Joseph Smith

Quote

There shall be no private ownership of the streams that come out of the canyons, nor the timber that grows on the hills. These belong to the people: all the people.”

-Brigham Young

Quote

We have plenty here. No person is going to starve, or suffer, if there is an equal distribution of the necessaries of life.

-Brigham Young

What is MORE interesting is that his system regarding the Law of Consecration and the United Order was directly at odds with a form of government that he was promoting at the time of his Presidential run.  In the Mormon areas he regulated that ALL property fell under the Church's jurisdiction and in this light was able to do as he desired.  It was from this idea that stemmed charges of illegal seizure of property and also the illegal destruction of property (for which he never got to trial, he was assassinated by the mob before this could happen for most of them, though it was also a driving wedge between him and some of the other leaders who left the church at the time, including a few of the witnesses).  In the United Order/Law of Consecration he was probably justified and the other justification he utilized probably was correct under his charters.

However, under state law and the constitution the argument was that he was NOT justified.  This is where the irony of the debate occurs.  For what is seen under the Law of Consecration is that all men will agree to have their property given to the church and then redistributed as the Lord sees fit.  In addition, under the United Order, one was subject to those that the Church appointed, not those that were selected on a nomination basis from below and voted upon.  However, the other idea, that of Theodemocracy* ensured that all men would have the rights as guaranteed under the Constitution meaning that the rights of the Press, Speech, and democratic selection would be supported instead, but at the head thereof would be the Lord.

It's a counter idea which can be seen to conflict, unless one sees the one as a form of government and the other a voluntary form of communal economic redistribution.  In this, the latter is a subset of the former.  Of course the only way this could be done would be in a time when all men thought the same on various matters to the point that voting would become universal (which the USSR and some other dictatorships have claimed has happened, but in what we would consider real democratic nations has never occurred...and is considered a sign that the voting has been tampered.  Of course, WE DO see something similar in our "votes" to confirm callings in the church, but that is normally with only one candidate.  When the church has had more than one candidate [such as the succession crisis] it creates a situation where we have a divided vote that is never unanimous).

So, one could try to claim Theodemocracy, but that would be the form of government but not necessarily the economic form.

*Theodemocracy was the idea that one would retain the Constitution as the form of government (current to Joseph Smith's day not with the amendments of our time) but under the jurisdiction of the Lord.

Edited December 5, 2018 by JohnsonJones
Adding my footnote which I forgot to include on my last post

[JohnsonJones]

21 minutes ago, Colirio said:

 

In case you are wondering, this is the very reason you feel like you are banging your head against a wall. 

 

Nobody else cares how the rest of the world chooses to define the United Order or the Law of Consecration. It seems rather clear from your statements that the world hasn't given a proper definition, so why should we be beholden to their labeling limitations? 

 

Instead, why would we not choose to follow what multiple prophets have stated and that has been repeated many times over in this thread? 

Because the Prophets were speaking against Marxist Communism and not Religious Communism.  .

It's like saying that a couple should NOT be happy in Marriage because the Church does not support Gay Marriage!

It ignores any other definition in favor of ONLY ONE definition and tries to say that this ONE definition is the ONLY usage that can be utilized.  When clarified to say a Traditional Gay Marriage (traditional is the term normally utilized today to mean a marriage between a Man and a Woman) or a Gay Traditional Marriage, one could imagine the outrage...not because of what it actually means (a marriage between a man and a woman who are joyful/happy) but because one has so stigmatized a term that they cannot see that their are other usages and the context in WHICH the statements the Church made referred to.

When referring to Communism, when they talk about atheism or rejection of religion, it is absolutely OBVIOUS that they are not talking about Religious Communism.  Atheism is the exact opposite of Religion, and the two are on opposite ends of the spectrum.  That would be akin to saying all Mormons are Atheists because they do not believe in traditional Christianity (aka...the trinity).  It's a ridiculous claim which I'm positive the Leaders of the Church were NOT making. They are referring to Contemporary Communism which existed in a great degree during the 20th century.  They are referring to the lesser definition of the word.  They are NOT referring to the original or primary meaning of the word. 

One could say the Leaders of our Church did not know what they were talking about, but various OTHER statements of theirs seem to indicate that they knew VERY WELL exactly what they were talking about, and their statements did not incorporate Religious Communism anymore than their words are against those who use the word Gay in the definition of the word that means HAPPY or JOYFUL.  They are using the more narrow and contemporary usage of the word that is commonly utilized in the US today, but this does NOT include the broader and more general usage that it has been applied to in the past, or other usages of it in other application.

They never spoke against the ideas or phraseology or Religious Communism that I know of.  Their statements were specific to the common usage of the US at the time which was centered on Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism.

Would it help if it was referred to as dharmik sanpradayikata or al-shiwaya al-deiniye instead.  Similar words but in a different language so it doesn't offend the specific Language centrality of what you associate it with. 

Edited December 5, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[Guest]

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Because the Prophets were speaking against Marxist Communism and not Religious Communism.  .

First, I want to say that I have read about 60% of what you've written on this thread.  Most of the rest seemed like you were repeating yourself.  Forgive me if you weren't.

Second, I do actually agree that there are multiple definitions of communism.  And the ones you've given are correct.  Plural.  Definitions.  They're good.  I agree with them in their spheres.

Third, you've still missed the point of what others are objecting to.

You have pointed out that many of the statements that the prophets have said against communism are as a reaction to "the Red Scare."  This is only half correct.  They did indeed make those statements in regard to the Red Scare.  But it wasn't that they were changing any definitions. 

• They were addressing that definition that was on everyone's minds at the time.  And that is certainly something that we are all against.
• The alternative definition that you were referring to (what you call Christian Communism) is what could be acceptable to many here.  But you don't realize that even that falls short of the Law of Consecration.
• Even Christian Communism abolishes private property.  It even said so in your definitions.
• The Law of Consecration doesn't "abolish", but "admits" that "Private property rights" are a temporal convention.  And we are supposed to raise ourselves to the understanding that all things belong to God and our sense of "property" is only supposed to be that of stewardship.  The idea that we own property on earth is a convention for us to use in a manner pleasing to God.  And abolishing that convention altogether is not what God wants.  It was never the intent of the Law of Consecration.

Consecrate: To dedicate to a sacred purpose.

How can we dedicate anything that we do not own?
How can we own anything if property rights are abolished?

Abolishing private property rights prevents us from being able to consecrate ANYthing.  Thus we cannot live the Law of Consecration if we have no property to begin with.

FINALLY,

The methods by which the Law of Consecration were handled have varied.  Some resembled Christian Communism pretty closely.  Others followed a more capitalistic model, but still satisfied the goals and ideas of consecrating all things to the Lord.  And that is what separates the LOC from Communism.  It is always about the Lord, rather than property.

I know you and a few others maintain that we do not practice the Law of Consecration.  But I've made a covenant to do so.  And I strive to live that law according to the definition given to me.  Can you tell me that I don't fulfill that definition?

Edited December 5, 2018 by Guest

[anatess2]

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Okaaaay...you brought up the idea of definitions and so I posted some straight from the Dictionary.

Yes.  And NONE of those definitions apply to the Law of Consecration or United Order.  You simply keep on insisting it does.

[JohnsonJones]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

 

• The Law of Consecration doesn't "abolish", but "admits" that "Private property rights" are a temporal convention.  And we are supposed to raise ourselves to the understanding that all things belong to God and our sense of "property" is only supposed to be that of stewardship.  The idea that we own property on earth is a convention for us to use in a manner pleasing to God.  And abolishing that convention altogether is not what God wants.  It was never the intent of the Law of Consecration. 

Consecrate: To dedicate to a sacred purpose.

How can we dedicate anything that we do not own?
How can we own anything if property rights are abolished?

Abolishing private property rights prevents us from being able to consecrate ANYthing.  Thus we cannot live the Law of Consecration if we have no property to begin with.

FINALLY,

The methods by which the Law of Consecration were handled have varied.  Some resembled Christian Communism pretty closely.  Others followed a more capitalistic model, but still satisfied the goals and ideas of consecrating all things to the Lord.  And that is what separates the LOC from Communism.  It is always about the Lord, rather than property.

I know you and a few others maintain that we do not practice the Law of Consecration.  But I've made a covenant to do so.  And I strive to live that law according to the definition given to me.  Can you tell me that I don't fulfill that definition?

The way it was run during the time of the Church did not give people private property.  It was the property of the Church.  Though I disagree that they were the primary problems, there are those that say that the problems in Missouri arose specifically in relation to this.  It is an example some will utilize to demonstrate the problems that arise primarily from a system such as Christian Communism. 

There were people thought they owned the property but were rebuked in that issue.  This included witnesses to the Book of Mormon as well.  They felt they lost everything.  Some felt that they were cheated out of property.  The reason is that you do NOT own any property under the Law of Consecration, it is ALL the Lords as controlled by the church. Therefore, if you leave, it returns to the Church.  This was a principal that many did not understand back then and that many may not understand today.

However, for that, I'll turn to the Church's own site and lessons on this.

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-14-the-law-of-consecration?lang=eng

Quote

Consecrating possessions

Under the law of consecration, Church members voluntarily consecrated their possessions to the Church by legal deed (D&C 42:30).

Receiving a stewardship

After Church members consecrated their possessions, the bishop granted them stewardships, or portions, from all the properties received. The size of the stewardship depended on the circumstances and needs of the family, as determined by the bishop in consultation with the member who received it (D&C 42:32; 51:3). The stewardship was given with a deed of ownership so each member would be fully responsible and accountable for managing it (D&C 51:4; 72:3–4; 104:11–13). The stewardship, then, was treated as private property, not common or communal property, even though all property ultimately belongs to God.

Legally, it is ALL given to the church.  The church then OWNS the deed to that property (thus, if it were your house they would own the deed, if it were a car, they would own a legal deed or the title....etc...etc...etc and then grant you a grant or deed of ownership back).   What you receive back is NOT your property (and this is where it differs from Socialism in many ways, as this is FAR more restrictive than socialism as far as private property goes, but some would say as Communism and Socialism were sometimes used very closely back in Joseph Smith's day, and in theory this could still be seen as a form of it, that it is socialism rather than Communism), but a Stewardship. 

You are then held accountable for managing it.  You treat it as if you own it, just like anyone else would, but this is actually exactly how it was done in other forms of Communism.  Despite trying to say this is different, it actually is just how other forms of Communism worked.  Admittedly, this is actually CLOSER to Marxist ideals than the what had been typical of Communal living prior to this in some religions, but it also followed what we could call the Religious Utopian movement in that time period very closely as well.

Now, in answer to your question of whether one could live the Law of Consecration if they did not have any Property to begin with...ABSOLUTELY.  In fact, at one point, it was a commandment.  One of the reasons  is so that there is no poor among you.  Once they have property, they are expected to work and hopefully have a surplus.

Quote

Surpluses

If members produced a surplus from their stewardships beyond what was necessary for their families, at the end of the year they gave it to the bishop to put in the bishop’s storehouse (D&C 42:33; 51:13). The bishop used the surplus to care for the poor, to build houses of worship, and for other worthy purposes (D&C 42:34–35).

This of course led to difficulties between some members in regards to when they felt they were being cheated or not being cheated under this system.  This is actually more PURE Communism than much of what we see under the Flag or idea of Communism in our modern time. 

In Modern Communism people were also expected to work.  However, Christian Communism as we would see under the Law of Consecration is FAR more extreme.  In many communistic communities, you are correct, it deals PRIMARILY with property.  This is to accomplish the same idea of Religious Communism or what we would call the Law of Consecration...that there are no poor among the people.  It could go farther in that there is no rich or poor, but everyone has what they need.

What it normally does not do is to state that EVERYTHING, including time, talents, and all you can do is ALSO owned by that organization...or as the Law of Consecration would state...consecrated to the Lord.  That means, in theory, not just your property, but your time should be 100% devoted and can be used as desired by the Church.  If it wished you have no freedom to do as you want, but if told, you do as the Leaders of the church tell you to do.

The goals and ways that it works is in many ways IDENTICAL to Contemporary Communism except for WHO the governing authority is.  In Contemporary Communism that would have been a dictatorship that claimed to be run by the People.  In the Church it was also necessary to create an organization to run and govern this.  This is where we get the United Order.

Quote

United order

In March 1832, the Lord revealed that there must be an organization to regulate and administer the law of consecration among His people (D&C 78:3). He called this organization the “united order” (D&C 92:1). In subsequent revelations the Lord gave further instructions concerning the united order (see, for example, D&C 104).

In almost every way Communism is looked at the Law of Consecration fulfills the definition.  There is NO private property under the Law of Consecration.  Just like other Communistic society (though admittedly far more similar to those that came in the 20th century than those prior) the property people got under this form of economics was treated as their own, even if ultimately it was owned by the state (though this could be considered far more Communistic in how the Law of consecration handles it than...for example...Communist china where if one owns a car, it is actually typically their car, or where business men can utilize their money to send their kids to the US for school and other more capitalistic tendencies in China today).

This should be no surprise, HOWEVER, we need to see it for what it is.  Christian Communism is NOT new.  The wording is new because of how we classify such systems in our modern ideas.  Such systems are called communist, but should NOT be confused with the specific types of Communism which has been used in regards to that used in the USSR, China, and other locations in the 20th century.  What it is, is the same practice as that practiced by the Saints under the Apostles in Peters time.  Hence, as their practice is typically what DEFINES how one sees Christian Communism, it should not be a surprise that if an organization is actually doing the same thing as they did it would ALSO be classified as such.  IN fact, if one believes in revelation, if anything, this should bolster one's testimony that the same organization that the Lord organized in their time has also been organized in ours.

The question then, is if we practiced Communism by all the definitions of it, why did General Authorities speak so strongly AGAINST it in the mid 20th century?

This is where the primary contention people have in this thread comes from, and of which I understand.  This is why they so strongly say that the Law of Consecration is NOT communism despite it meeting EVERY extension of that idea utilized in regards to it in the 19th century.  We go no further than Ezra Taft Benson whom I quoted above to find strongly worded ideas against Communism.

Quote

We believe in a moral code. Communism denies innate right or wrong. As W. Cleon Skousen has said in his timely book, The Naked Communist: The communist ‘has convinced himself that nothing is evil which answers the call of expediency.' This is a most damnable doctrine. People who truly accept such a philosophy have neither conscience nor honor. Force, trickery, lies, broken promises are wholly justified.”

- Prophet Ezra Taft Benson, Conference Report, April 1960, p. 9

 

 

The important thing to understand is CONTEXT.  What are they talking about here.  Are they condemning what we classify as Religious Communism?  Are they condemning the Law of Consecration?  To one who understands the phraseology, absolutely NOT.  It is not condemning those who dedicate, give, or consecrate all their property to the Lord (which is what is done under Religious Communism) and who believe strongly in Good and Evil, right and wrong, and choose to follow the Lord (Christian Communism).  In fact, what they are talkinga bout has nothing to do with those ideas.

Are they con

On the otherhand, they deal directly with that OTHER definition of Communism which is under the Marxist umbrella.  In this you have an atheistic ideal pushing anti-religion and being the exact opposite of what the original ideas operated under by those who are seen as the original Christian Communists (those from the Early Church in Peter's time).  It is antithetical to Christian Communism (and in fact that of Religious Communism) and is FAR more then enemy of those who practice such things than even those who were under the Capitalistic society of the US.  Where as they simply wanted to override the ideas and take over the US, they actually wanted to KILL, stamp out, and DESTROY those who would be under the confluence of Religious Communism (much less Christian Communism).

Today, there are several groups out there that try to practice the same type of economic and lifestyle governing that the Early Church under Peter and the Apostles did.  These are also considered classified under Religious Communism.  The one that most in Utah (and some Mormons) would be familiar with (and they would ALSO vehemently fight against the classification, if it is of any interest) are the Fundamentalist Mormons (Which includes the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints).

In regards to your last portion

Quote

I know you and a few others maintain that we do not practice the Law of Consecration.  But I've made a covenant to do so.  And I strive to live that law according to the definition given to me.  Can you tell me that I don't fulfill that definition?

Why would I tell you such a thing in this conversation.  However, there are those that are actually called to live under a form of the Law of Consecration today.  They are typically the higher echelons of the General Authorities (or so how I understand it) as well as Missionaries in the Missionary field.  The way that it was exercised in the Early Church, however, I think (I'd have to look it up (was done away with in 1840), however to a degree they live it to it's fullest today.

We, on the otherhand, as per the LDS Lesson on it, do not, but we must be prepared to do so if called upon.

Quote

3. We can consecrate our lives to the Lord now.

As Saints of God, we must be prepared and willing to live the law of consecration in its fulness. But we do not need to wait for a future day to consecrate our lives to the Lord. As we do all we can to live the law of consecration today, we will be better prepared to live the fulness of the law when the Lord asks us to do so.

Did not intend to write such a long item on this.  As I said, most of the objection I find is because people do not understand what Christian Communism is, what defines it (the order under which Peter and the Apostles organized the early church and their economic way of devotion), and that if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints practices the same way that actually is another reinforcement that we actually DO have a prophet, that Joseph Smith was a prophet and received the same commandments and orders that Peter did for the Saints of the Early church.

This objection is further created because they do not understand that the type of Communism spoken against by the General Authorities in the mid 20th century is ethically, spiritually, and morally on the exact opposite end of the spectrum of Christian Communism, even more so than to the US during that time period and it's form of government.  They do not understand the CONTEXT...and it is CONTEXT which is VERY important to understand.

And in that light, I'll post one final quote from Ezra Taft Benson where if you understand the context, you can understand why he was right, but if you do NOT...well...what we've talked about is small change compared to the outrage those complaining against the term Religious Communism should have.  AS this quote deals directly with what many feel is moral and ethical today, unless you understand the CONTEXT, you will think it says something more than it does, or at least DIFFERENT than what the intent was.

Quote

The so-called civil rights movement as it exists today is used as a Communist program for revolution in America.

Ezra Taft Benson

 

Edited December 5, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

And with that long post, I think I'll post another quote which is probably far MORE relavant to the original topic...

Why?

Because he and his father are some of my favorites to read or find out about.

Quote

Satan has control now. No matter where you look, he is in control, even in our own land. He is guiding the governments as far as the Lord will permit him. That is why there is so much strife, turmoil, and confusion all over the earth. One master mind is governing the nations. It is not the president of the United States; it is not Hitler; it is not Mussolini; it is not the king or government of England or any other land; it is Satan himself.

Joseph Fielding Smith

 

[DennisTate]

On 11/14/2018 at 11:28 AM, Tyme said:

I’d like to see a Mormon Republican run against Trump in the primary. The only one who stands a chance is Romney. It could get ugly. I think Trump would attack the church.

would you like to see that? Do you think Romney has a chance?

A gifted Christian predicted that Mr. Mitt Romney had some sort of "Mantle of Darius".... whatever that means?!  Her name was Ms. Edie Reno and she made the prediction back in 2012. Just do a search for the words "Romney, Darius, Edie Reno" and it should pop right up.  I posted it to ChristianForums and several other places.  (So if the first search doesn't work just add DennisTate.... and you will certainly find it.  

https://www.facebook.com/groups/116616272938/permalink/10151114008777939/

Prophetic Company

"Back in August I heard in the Spirit taht Romney wasDarius. I reseached Darius a Persian king who worsipped smothered God yet funded the rebuilding of the temple o tHE living God of the Jews and maqde decrees in theiir favor...see Ezra
Also in Daniel, it is Darius the mede whose decree at first sent Daniel th lion's den. Yet he prayed all night thatDaniel live and not die.
When Danieal was delivered he thru the satraps, who'd tricked Darius into the decree.....ytheir children and wives into the den. 
I am wkorking o. A crafted prayer from the decree Darius wrote upon Daniels deliverance..will post tomorrow." (Edie Reno, October 16, 2012)

 

Edited December 27, 2018 by DennisTate
add quotation tags....