Rules of the United Order


Traveler
 Share

Recommended Posts

I thought it may be fun for readers to see how they currently conform the United Order.  Below is a copy of rules made from my family's archives:

Quote

RULES

THAN SHOULD BE OBSERVED BY MEMBERS OF THE

UNITED ORDER

 

RULE 1.  We will not take the name of the Deity in vain, nor speak lightly of his character or of sacred things.

RULE 2.  We will pray with our families morning and evening, and also attend to secret Prayer.

RULE 3.  We will observe and keep the Word of Wisdom according to the Spirit and meaning thereof.

RULE 4.  We will treat our families with due kindness and affection, and set before then an example worthy of imitation ; in our families and intercourse with all persons, we will refrain from being contentious or quarrelsome, and we will cease to speak evil of each other, and will cultivate a spirit of charity towards all.  We consider it our duty to keep from acting selfishly or from covetous motives, and will seek the interest of each other and the salvation of all mankind.

RULE 5.  We will observe personal cleanliness, and preserve ourselves in all chastity by refraining from adultery, whoredom and lust.  We will also discountenance and refrain from all vulgar and obscene language or conduct.

RULE 6.  We will observe the Sabbath day to keep it holy, in accordance with the revelations.

RULE 7.  That which is not committed to our care we will not appropriate to our own use.

RULE 8.  That which we borrow we will return according to promise, and that which we find we will not appropriate to our own use, but seek to return it to its proper owner.

RULE 9.  We will, as soon as possible, cancel all individual indebtedness contracted prior to our uniting with the Order, and when once fully identified with said Order, will contract no debts contrary to the wishers of the Board of Directors.

RULE 10.  We will patronize our brethren who are in the Order.

RULE 11.  In our apparel and deportment we will not pattern after nor encourage foolish and extravagant fashions, and cease to import or buy from abroad any article which can be reasonably dispensed with, or which can be produced by combination of home labor.  We will foster and encourage the producing and manufacturing of all articles needful for our consumption as fast as our circumstances will permit.

RULE 12.  We will  be simple in our dress and manner of living, using proper economy and prudence in the management of all entrusted to our care.

RULE 13.  We will combine our labor for the mutual benefit, sustain with our faith, prayers and works, those whom we have elected to take the management of the different departments of the Order, and be subject to them in their official capacity, refraining from a spirit of fault-finding.

RULE 14.  We will honestly and diligently labor, and devote ourselves and all we have to the Order and the building up of the Kingdom of G-d.

 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little history for those interested.  The executive secretary of the Birgham United Order was Jonathan Andersen - a printed copy of the rules hung in his office.  The executive secretary would be the CEO of the company of the United Order and head of the board of directors.  The company manufactured woolen goods.  It was a successful operation and survived the confiscation of holdings (that was never returned) by the US government in the late 1800's because of polygamy and the leaders forced into hiding.  Jonathan was a polygamist by order of Brigham Young but never had offspring through his second wife (this is a whole other story).  The woolen mills was eventually sold and has became the Barron Woolen Mills which is still in operation today.  Anyone can purchase a a woolen item from the Barron Woolen Mills today.

The United Order wollen operation included the operation and employment of many in the Box Elder County area not just in the mill's operation but also others that herded and maintained sheep and also herders that were contracted for wool throughout the Church settlements.  When it was determined that the Church would sell all holding in the United Orders Jonathan walked away with little property beyond the framed copy of the Rules of the United Order that hung in his office.  Jonathan died a relative prosperous citizen of Brigham City despite all personal losses - largely because he never acquired any personal debt and always lived within his means.  My brother has that original copy - it is the best preserved historical copy known currently to exist.  Both the Brigham Young University archives and the Historical Museum of the Church have made copies of this manuscript that are on display for the public.  The original copy is still in the original frame with the original glass - which was cracked when my brother retrieved it.

I have wondered and pondered if there will come a time when the members of the Church must maintain their own economy to survive events during the closing of the last days.  This thought thread has remained running through family members (thought it now seems to be diminished in the latest upcoming generations.)  Another family that I am acquainted with in the Church purchased a cattle operation of the United Order in Arizona and has grown it into a family corporation that included quite an array of operations.  They believe that someday the Church will take repossession of their operations and that it will remain through the mullanium.

It is my personal belief that if such events should come about that included with all the spiritual requirements; that before someone could become a participant; that RULE 9 would become a filtering requirement.  Regardless, I believe it is as important to become debt free in our time as it was to build and enter the Ark in the days of Noah.

 

RULES 11 and 12 are somewhat interesting as it applies to things we may acquire by other means other than by our own industry.  Specifically through the means provided mostly by the industry of others that we consider in our employ or worse by such things as gambling, lottery or even by stock holdings or interest payments.  I was taught that in any business I own or with any one that I heir - I should be willing to work side by side with them in their labor and that I should never think of myself better or exempt from doing labor to be left exclusive to others.  And that I should not trust any one in business that considers any labor in their business beneath them personally and therefore to be left to others.  It is interesting to me how much our ancestors have contributed into our individual evolution of values and morals.  I also believe that family history is being emphasized - not just for temple ordinance but that we all can shair and pass on to our postaritary (and other saints) our family history legacy. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Traveler said:

RULES 11 and 12 are somewhat interesting as it applies to things we may acquire by other means other than by our own industry.  Specifically through the means provided mostly by the industry of others that we consider in our employ or worse by such things as gambling, lottery or even by stock holdings or interest payments.  I was taught that in any business I own or with any one that I heir - I should be willing to work side by side with them in their labor and that I should never think of myself better or exempt from doing labor to be left exclusive to others.  And that I should not trust any one in business that considers any labor in their business beneath them personally and therefore to be left to others.  It is interesting to me how much our ancestors have contributed into our individual evolution of values and morals.  I also believe that family history is being emphasized - not just for temple ordinance but that we all can shair and pass on to our postaritary (and other saints) our family history legacy. 

These rules were particularly interesting to me -- and I'm not sure how they'd really work. The idea that the sick weakling who's a genius inventor should labor in the fields alongside the strong-as-an-ox-but-dumb-as-one-too farmer doesn't really make sense. The idea that one isn't better than another doesn't mean one is suited for the same as the other. It makes a great deal more sense for the genius inventor to invent the tools that make the farmer's job easier, and to trade that skill for the food generated by the labor of the farmer.

It's also particularly interesting to me to consider the idea of "no trade" relative to economy and growth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

These rules were particularly interesting to me -- and I'm not sure how they'd really work. The idea that the sick weakling who's a genius inventor should labor in the fields alongside the strong-as-an-ox-but-dumb-as-one-too farmer doesn't really make sense. The idea that one isn't better than another doesn't mean one is suited for the same as the other. It makes a great deal more sense for the genius inventor to invent the tools that make the farmer's job easier, and to trade that skill for the food generated by the labor of the farmer.

It's also particularly interesting to me to consider the idea of "no trade" relative to economy and growth.

I agree with your first paragraph.  But the second paragraph is not an accurate characterization of what the rule says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

These rules were particularly interesting to me -- and I'm not sure how they'd really work. The idea that the sick weakling who's a genius inventor should labor in the fields alongside the strong-as-an-ox-but-dumb-as-one-too farmer doesn't really make sense. The idea that one isn't better than another doesn't mean one is suited for the same as the other. It makes a great deal more sense for the genius inventor to invent the tools that make the farmer's job easier, and to trade that skill for the food generated by the labor of the farmer.

It's also particularly interesting to me to consider the idea of "no trade" relative to economy and growth.

Perhaps I did not express myself well - the idea is that we should not oversee any labor that we are not willing to perform ourselves.  I believe there is a lot to be learned, as an expert in automation and robotics when I have gone into a manufacturing facility and worked for an hour or two performing things that I have later designed for robots or defined for those operating the facility. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Mores said:

I agree with your first paragraph.  But the second paragraph is not an accurate characterization of what the rule says.

Since you didn't parse my exaggeration correctly I'll restate:

It's also particularly interesting to me to consider the idea of ceasing to "import or buy from abroad any article which can be reasonably dispensed with, or which can be produced by combination of home labor" relative to economy and growth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Perhaps I did not express myself well - the idea is that we should not oversee any labor that we are not willing to perform ourselves.

I know what you meant. But it seems to imply a disabled person should never supervise the able-bodied. It seems to imply that anyone who hires someone to clean their toilets because they don't want to do it themselves, being committed to other work, is in the wrong. It implies that my wife shouldn't ask me to kill spiders because she doesn't want to. I'm not sure that I agree. If I hire someone to clean my toilets because I can afford it, and because I don't particularly care for the work, and because I'm engaged in some other labor, I'm helping someone who may not qualify for other labor earn a living. It doesn't mean I consider myself "better". It simply means that some people have advanced skill sets and some people don't, and some people don't mind work that others do.

In a communal property setting like the United Order this idea become even more important. Skilled laborers ought to be engaged in the skilled labor. If you want to make shovels instead of dig ditches then you'd better learn to make shovels.

Now I will grant, being entirely unwilling to do some things is a problem. So if that's all you mean then, sure. But I'm not sure it's important that no one finds displeasure in any particularly type of labor more or less so than anyone else. My wife, for example, loves to cross-stitch. I wouldn't enjoy that long term. She could perform similar type labor and find great pleasure in it. I would be, decidedly, unhappy in it. But I could sure set up an online shop, manage time and effort, handle the money, and take on the other "management" type activities for a shop the produced "sewing" type projects, and hire people who enjoyed that type of work to produce the products. If I had those skills, and invested the time and the money, then I'm not convinced my position in overseeing the company/organization would be a no-no just because the grunt labor wasn't in my wheelhouse.

46 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I believe there is a lot to be learned, as an expert in automation and robotics when I have gone into a manufacturing facility and worked for an hour or two performing things that I have later designed for robots or defined for those operating the facility. 

Sure. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's "wrong" for someone who's skilled at management to manage employees who are skilled at things that the management is not. In point of fact, I've had managers who knew a bit about programming and managers who knew nothing about it manage me as a programmer, and I tend to prefer the latter. The one's who know just enough to think they understand tend to cause more trouble than not, and tend to micromanage in ways they shouldn't. The best managers know how to manage people, and leave the skilled work to the skilled worker.

Anyhow, I'm not trying to argue the point. I'm just considering how this might actually work -- particularly in today's world and economy.

I'm not sure the application of things in the agrarian based culture of yesteryear applies to today's world in many ways. It's very interesting to consider though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I know what you meant. But it seems to imply a disabled person should never supervise the able-bodied. It seems to imply that anyone who hires someone to clean their toilets because they don't want to do it themselves, being committed to other work, is in the wrong. It implies that my wife shouldn't ask me to kill spiders because she doesn't want to. I'm not sure that I agree. If I hire someone to clean my toilets because I can afford it, and because I don't particularly care for the work, and because I'm engaged in some other labor, I'm helping someone who may not qualify for other labor earn a living. It doesn't mean I consider myself "better". It simply means that some people have advanced skill sets and some people don't, and some people don't mind work that others do.

In a communal property setting like the United Order this idea become even more important. Skilled laborers ought to be engaged in the skilled labor. If you want to make shovels instead of dig ditches then you'd better learn to make shovels.

Now I will grant, being entirely unwilling to do some things is a problem. So if that's all you mean then, sure. But I'm not sure it's important that no one finds displeasure in any particularly type of labor more or less so than anyone else. My wife, for example, loves to cross-stitch. I wouldn't enjoy that long term. She could perform similar type labor and find great pleasure in it. I would be, decidedly, unhappy in it. But I could sure set up an online shop, manage time and effort, handle the money, and take on the other "management" type activities for a shop the produced "sewing" type projects, and hire people who enjoyed that type of work to produce the products. If I had those skills, and invested the time and the money, then I'm not convinced my position in overseeing the company/organization would be a no-no just because the grunt labor wasn't in my wheelhouse.

Sure. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's "wrong" for someone who's skilled at management to manage employees who are skilled at things that the management is not. In point of fact, I've had managers who knew a bit about programming and managers who knew nothing about it manage me as a programmer, and I tend to prefer the latter. The one's who know just enough to think they understand tend to cause more trouble than not, and tend to micromanage in ways they shouldn't. The best managers know how to manage people, and leave the skilled work to the skilled worker.

Anyhow, I'm not trying to argue the point. I'm just considering how this might actually work -- particularly in today's world and economy.

I'm not sure the application of things in the agrarian based culture of yesteryear applies to today's world in many ways. It's very interesting to consider though.

I understand that there may be reasons that a person cannot perform a function.  Perhaps if I presented the idea in a slightly different manner.  If Jesus ask for a volunteer as a personal favor - would you be happy to volunteer?  How about a general authority, stake president, bishop or quorum leader?  It is interesting to me that I was taught by my father then when we went to a welfare farm that I should be willing to do those jobs that others would not or if they did would prefer for someone else.  But my father would say it is not enough to do such jobs but that we must find joy and honor in so offering our labor.  

As a side note - I have worked with two individuals that are obviously handicapped that hated to be thought of as handicapped insomuch that they would go through great efforts to accomplish tasks that appeared to be impossible or overly difficult for them.  They found great joy in such accomplishment.  Perhaps this applies but some may not think so but this last Sunday in Elder's Quorum a item was read from a Navy Seal that stated that for anyone wanting to change the world for the better - they should start each day by making their bed.  I find this statement interesting because I was taught that even when on vacation at a motel - I should never leave my room with an unmade bed - even if someone else was paid specifically to perform that service.

I also know people that do not get dressed in the morning but remain in their sleeping attire unless otherwise required.  Sometime when I travel there are individuals that appear to be still in their sleeping attire.   This appears to be someone that would have difficulty with RULE 11 and 12.  In the past you and I have enjoyed differences of opinion.  Often such differences are interesting to me - not the difference as much as why.  I believe that the gift of agency requires discipline - That the choice to be undisciplined is a choice to end one's agency.  Discipline to me is not just choosing to do the right or best - but to cherish the choice and love (love) doing or performing the option.  Therefore someone would be glad to clean toilets in the temple and be happy performing such labor - even if Jesus did not ask believing that if Jesus was there - he would gladly do it himself as a service to those he loves even if there was someone that did not care that he would do such a thing for them.

In short our labor should be acts of service and sacrifice even above capability and skill.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Do you recognize that our capability and skill directly relates do our ability to serve and sacrifice?

Not really - I believe we receive callings and G-d directs us regardless and despite our capabilities and skills.  That through faith in him are all things possible - our weaknesses become strengths.  I would agree concerning those that lack faith and rely on the arm of the flesh.  But service and sacrifice superseed skills and capabilities for a Saint of G-d - that is the exact point I hoped to make.  I hope you are not offended that I used you with the very intent to emphasize that point.  

Thank you

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

Not really - I believe we receive callings and G-d directs us regardless and despite our capabilities and skills.  That through faith in him are all things possible - our weaknesses become strengths.  I would agree concerning those that lack faith and rely on the arm of the flesh.  But service and sacrifice superseed skills and capabilities for a Saint of G-d - that is the exact point I hoped to make.  I hope you are not offended that I used you with the very intent to emphasize that point.  

This idea seems to reject the principle of using our own wisdom in going about doing good. I reject your rejection of that principle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

This idea seems to reject the principle of using our own wisdom in going about doing good. I reject your rejection of that principle.

ICor 3:19

Quote

19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

Isaiah 55:8-9

Quote

8 ¶ For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Traveler said:

[scriptures quoted that logically don't apply]

D&C 58:26

Quote

For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is acompelled in all things, the same is a bslothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

D&C 88:40

Quote

bwisdom receiveth wisdom; 

Mosiah 4:27

Quote

And see that all these things are done in wisdom and aorder; 

D&C 82:3 (and Luke 12:48)

Quote

For of him unto whom amuch is bgiven much is crequired; 

D&C 46:11

Quote

For all have not every agift given unto them; for there are many gifts, and to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God.

Mosiah 4:27

Quote

And see that all these things are done in wisdom and aorder; for it is not requisite that a man should run bfaster than he has strength. And again, it is expedient that he should be diligent, that thereby he might win the prize; therefore, all things must be done in order.

 

 

However....for the sake of fairness, and to your point, and so that you or others don't believe I think what you're saying has no merit at all:

D&C 82:18

Quote

And all this for the benefit of the church of the living God, that every man may aimprove upon his btalent, that every man may cgain other dtalents, yea, even an hundred fold, to be cast into the Lord’s estorehouse, to become the common fpropertyof the whole church

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

D&C 58:26

D&C 88:40

Mosiah 4:27

D&C 82:3 (and Luke 12:48)

D&C 46:11

Mosiah 4:27

 

However....for the sake of fairness, and to your point, and so that you or others don't believe I think what you're saying has no merit at all:

D&C 82:18

 

Thank you for your response.  Do you recognize the wisdom of G-d being something different than the wisdom of man?  Likewise the talents that come by and through the spirit different from the talents that a particular human may physically possess?

The point I have tried to make is that a Saint of G-d ought to be willing especially by sacrifice and service to do whatever G-d asks of them - regardless of their perceived abilities - to act in faith especially when they lack the necessary talent.  You seem to oppose that concept and intend to inject that a person ought to tell (show or demonstrate to) G-d what they are best or more capable of providing (even as sacrifice or service) for him.  I am not convince by all your arguments that it is not an issue of pride for someone to think they have unused or untapped talent when performing seemingly mundane services.  In short the greatest talent, wisdom or effort is love and humility - a willingness to submit as a child.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Do you recognize the wisdom of G-d being something different than the wisdom of man?

I recognize that this is irrelevant to the conversation and a big ol' misdirect on your part because you're implying that I'm suggesting "the wisdom of man" should take precedence over real wisdom, and you're entirely ignoring one of the ideas I'm presenting, that God expects us to work many a thing out on our own.

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Likewise the talents that come by and through the spirit different from the talents that a particular human may physically possess?

 What I recognize is that all "talents" come from God, and the scriptures that speak of us using our talents wisely apply to all talents we've been given.

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

The point I have tried to make is that a Saint of G-d ought to be willing especially by sacrifice and service to do whatever G-d asks of them - regardless of their perceived abilities - to act in faith especially when they lack the necessary talent.

A point with which I have not disagreed.

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

You seem to oppose that concept

No I don't.

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

and intend to inject that a person ought to tell (show or demonstrate to) G-d what they are best or more capable of providing (even as sacrifice or service) for him.

I've said nothing of the sort.

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I am not convince by all your arguments that it is not an issue of pride for someone to think they have unused or untapped talent when performing seemingly mundane services.

That's because you're translating what I'm presenting into a "personal desire" point, instead of treating it like a broad economical point related to a societal order as intended.

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

In short the greatest talent, wisdom or effort is love and humility - a willingness to submit as a child.

With which point I also do not disagree.

You're attacking me and my ideas here -- not the other way around.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share