Russia-Ukraine conflict

[JohnsonJones]

12 hours ago, mordorbund said:

You mentioned this in another thread and I replied with links to various land deeded to individual saints that would have been legally binding. Many others on this site also provided references from the scriptures to show that what you’re describing is not the way the Lord directed it. Again, I’ll ask for citations. Do you have any references I can look up that shows the Church reclaiming land that was already deeded to a saint under consecration?

Church History accounts for it.  I don't know of links on the internet itself...but the sources are prior to the internet.

Edit:  I had thought to paint and write a long section on this pertaining to Joseph's Smith's time and some examples (and actually did write it out, but erasing it as it's length probably would dissuade quite a number from actually reading it...even though it was an extremely abridged source of what books could be written of, I thought that it would be better with a different approach), but as most are offline, I figured many would not want to have those types of things or sources or items written.  In addition, the following information pertaining to Brigham Young's handling of it is probably a LOT clearer on how it was implemented AND there are sources online AND even sources which are closer to Church sources than many of those relating to Nauvoo and Missouri. 

So instead, I'll shorten it a little to just have the Brigham Young examples.

A better picture of what I stated may actually be seen under Brigham Young in Utah.

Jumping forwards to Brigham Young, we have a better picture of the Religious Socialism that existed and exists as it was intended.  Accounts vary, but some sources claim as I have, that the land was all owned by the Church.  Those who were non-members or left the Church were driven out.  The land was seen as the church's, not the individuals...at least near where the Church was headquartered.  It was given out in deed for them to farm (and even as an inheritance, as long as the Church deemed at least). 

On the otherhand, that land which was NOT claimed by the Church could be claimed by others (and it was).  Those who claimed land and became members or were members were encouraged (but not forced) to voluntarily donate that land once it was cultivated and organized.  It was then the church's.  It could be deeded back, but that deed was unique in that the Land REMAINED the church's, but the individual had it to own and farm as well as an inheritance...but ultimately it could be taken away.

An internet reference is easy enough to find on this part and portion, though it depends on how reliable you think FairLDS is.  It is not that hard to find sources pertaining to this, but this seems to be one of the sources with a closer relationship to the Church and thus maybe more acceptable to you and others.

Gentiles have no right to property

Dealing more with the idea that non-members could not own property in Utah (as stated above, they could), it nevertheless also touches upon this idea of all the Church owned property remaining owned BY the Church (at least at first, under Brigham Young).

Quote

The author's final source is a nineteenth century work which describes a visit to Salt Lake City by a Jewish author. That author writes:

I may say all the real estate in the valley is the property of the church, for proprietors have only an interest in property so long as they are members of the Mormon Church, and reside in the valley. The moment they leave or apostatize, they are obliged to abandon their property, and are precluded from selling it, or if they do give the bill of sale it is not valid—it is not tenable by the purchaser. This arrangement was proposed by the governor and council, at the conference which took place during my residence among them in 1854, and thousands of property holders subsequently deeded their houses and lands to the church, in perpetuity.

Under the operation of this law, nobody but Mormons can hold property in Great Salt Lake City.^[3]

Already, we have seen that the author has distorted the source. The real estate in the valley's is the Church's—the members do not "own" it. This is not to say that non-members cannot (and do not) own property elsewhere. But, since the property owners deeded their goods to the Church, the Church is the legal owner.

We also get a glimpse into how this could work (though as noted, the FairLDS doesn't exactly trust the source entirely, these statements are actually not derogatory towards the church.

Quote

There are numbers of citizens who are not Mormons, who rent properties; but there is no property for sale—a most politic course on the part of the Mormons—for in case of a railroad being established between the two oceans, Great Salt Lake City must be the half way stopping place, and the city will be kept purified from taverns and grog shops at every corner of the street. Another city will have to be built some distance from them, for they have determined to keep themselves distinct from the vices of civilization. During a residence of ten weeks in Great Salt Lake City, and my observations in all their various settlements, amongst a homogeneous population of over seventy-five thousand inhabitants, it is worthy of record, that I never heard any obscene or improper language; never saw a man drunk; never had my attention called to the exhibition of vice of any sort. There are no gambling houses, grog shops, or buildings of ill fame, in all their settlements. They preach morality in their churches and from their stands, and what is as strange as it is true, the people practise it, and religiously believe their salvation depends on fulfilling the behests of the religion they have adopted....

[Of new immigrants] each and all of them are comfortably provided with land and tenements. The first year they, of course, suffer privations, until they build their houses and reap their crops, yet all their necessities in the meantime are provided for by the church, and in a social point of view, they are much happier than they could ever hope to have been at their native homes. From being tenants at will of an imperious and exacting landlord, they suddenly become land holders, in their own right-free men, living on free soil, under a free and enlightened government.^[4]

On a note from this, and I think I've said this before...in regards to how inline this is with other items Brigham Young stated.

Brigham Young once said something to the effect that as long as the Saints kept their birthright and did not sell their inheritances to those who were not part of the Church, the Church would thrive in Utah.  Seeing how many non-members there are now in Utah it is obvious this was not followed.  I wonder, though, if the Saints had truly kept Brigham Young's thought in mind and never sold to anyone who was not part of the Church how different Utah may be today.

 

PS:  I will also note, whether you consider it Religious Communism or Religious Socialism, for the short period it existed in Utah, it is probably one of the MOST successful cases of Communism or Socialism to ever exist on the Earth.  The REASON I attribute it personally (not acceptable scholastically) is that it was because the LORD was ultimately the one leading it.  In all other systems they are led by men, but in Utah it was the LORD who was in charge ultimately.

Edited June 1, 2023 by JohnsonJones

[mordorbund]

6 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Church History accounts for it.  I don't know of links on the internet itself...but the sources are prior to the internet.

Okay, then print sources please. You've written 16 paragraphs with only one citation. If one of your students turned this in how would you grade it?

The citation you did include had the following (emphasis original):

Quote

the Prophet informed Bishop Partridge, in a letter dated May 2, 1833, that although stewards had no claim over their initial consecration, their inheritances beclonged to them; it was their property. "Concerning inheritances," he explained, "you are bound by the law of the Lord to give a deed, securing to him who receives inheritances...." He further taught that if an individual transgressed and left the Church, the inheritance still belonged to him

This is the crux of the matter!! Members consecrated their property to the Church, the Church then gave them a stewardship. This stewardship was a deed, which means if they left the Church they still owned the stewardship land.

As for the Brigham Young period, your own source points out that the properties in question were not deeded to any particular saint and so was not a case of the Church reclaiming land deeded to a saint under consecration. The best you can claim is Brigham found a loophole by not handing out stewardships. I think if you look at other Utah settlements you'll see that the Salt Lake City practice was not the norm.

For all you've written you still haven't made a compelling case that the Church reclaimed land deeded to saints as a consecrated stewardship.

[JohnsonJones]

26 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Okay, then print sources please. You've written 16 paragraphs with only one citation. If one of your students turned this in how would you grade it?

The citation you did include had the following (emphasis original):

This is the crux of the matter!! Members consecrated their property to the Church, the Church then gave them a stewardship. This stewardship was a deed, which means if they left the Church they still owned the stewardship land.

As for the Brigham Young period, your own source points out that the properties in question were not deeded to any particular saint and so was not a case of the Church reclaiming land deeded to a saint under consecration. The best you can claim is Brigham found a loophole by not handing out stewardships. I think if you look at other Utah settlements you'll see that the Salt Lake City practice was not the norm.

For all you've written you still haven't made a compelling case that the Church reclaimed land deeded to saints as a consecrated stewardship.

Hmm, I thought it covered the original issuance of Land and the United Order of Enoch, but apparently it didn't cover it as in depth.

Not an LDS source

Establishing land in Utah

 

Quote

In order that the land might be properly surveyed and organized and in fairness to the numerous pioneers who were expected in Salt Lake Valley by the autumn of 1848, Brigham Young declared on July 25,1847, that "no man should buy any land . . . but every man should [have] his land measured off to him for city and farming purposes, what he could till. He might till it as he pleased, but he should be industrious and take care of it." It was subsequently announced that wood, timber, and water would be regarded as community property, disallowing any private ownership of these necessary resources. Since there appeared to be a scarcity of timber, only dead wood was to be used as fuel.

Brigham Young's purpose was quite clear. If this colonization attempt in the arid West was to be successful, the settlers necessarily needed an opportunity to acquire suitable acreage for their sustenance. To have allowed land speculation on the part of a few would almost certainly have meant the creation of unnecessary antagonism and possibly even the failure of this society. Moreover, by this date the actual amount of water available for irrigation and other uses had not been ascertained, but it was apparent the number of acres that could be placed under cultivation in the foreseeable future would be restricted.

Of note, these parcels...they weren't sold off from the Church for many years.  IT DID cause problems when Brigham Young died (which would make for an extremely LONG post).  To organize these lands measured off for him, they were issued a deed.  These lands did NOT lie fallow, they did NOT remain undeveloped.  They WERE seen, eventually, as legal deeds for people, some of whom kept the lands and perhaps some of their ancestors actually OWN the land today.  This, of course, after they were surveyed, and normally after Brighams Death.

This type of idea also continued under the United Order of Enoch (but was FAR more strict in the communal aspect of everything).  In this, people were still given deeds for lands, but EVERYTHING (well, not everything, but a LOT of it) was given for community use to be spread among the community.  At least in the areas where the land was not taken back or settled in common.  In the strictest areas I believe they still issued deed (but I'm not certain), but work schedules may be ordered where  you were told where and when you were working day to day.

With short searches on it, here is an actual CHURCH source on this.

United Orders

These are considered Religious Communism by many, though I know that term is probably not to many people's liking here. 

 

PS: United Order of Enoch and/or the United Order is not to be confused with the United Order created earlier under Partridge.  Though similar, there were distinct things that were very different between the two. 

Edited June 1, 2023 by JohnsonJones
changed by Partridge to under Partridge as it was the Lord who organized it through Joseph Smith. Partridge was just put in charge of some of it to organize it.

[mordorbund]

6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Of note, these parcels...they weren't sold off from the Church for many years.  IT DID cause problems when Brigham Young died (which would make for an extremely LONG post).  To organize these lands measured off for him, they were issued a deed.  These lands did NOT lie fallow, they did NOT remain undeveloped.  They WERE seen, eventually, as legal deeds for people, some of whom kept the lands and perhaps some of their ancestors actually OWN the land today.  This, of course, after they were surveyed, and normally after Brighams Death.

The article doesn't say anything about Brigham's death and the challenges that ensued. It does say that these parcels were surveyed within a month of Young's quote about not buying land and only allotting what a person can reasonably farm. Only a year after that he seems to have changed his position because Brigham Young and Heber Kimball were meting out 1 1/4 acre lots by September of 1848, with larger allotments to follow (up to 10 acres). "Each man's receipt for his land became his deed for the purpose of maintaining his claim and conveyance of the land in the future." They didn't give out proper deeds because the Federal govenment's land system didn't include this new frontier. Brigham was installing a temporary system that could easily be grandfathered in when the Federal system caught up.

It looks more like the first year was a survival year where very little land was issued so there's little room for claiming that the land was deeded then taken back. In the years following, the allotment receipts were treated like deeds, and the Provisional government (and then the Territorial government) of 1850-onward allowed for the Surveyor General to issue "certificates ... considered proof of legal possession for 'the amount of land therein described.'" And these certificates could be sold or transferred. "[T]he inhabitants of said City, . . . shall have power ... in all actions whatsoever, to purchase, receive, and hold property, real and personal, in said City; ... to sell, lease, convey, or dispose of property, real and personal, for the benefit of said City; to improve and protect such property, and to do all other things in relation thereto, as natural persons."

The Church/government retained rights over the water and timber as a natural monopoly. Rather than conjure up a civics course I'll point out that even in this instance, these are not deeded over by the Church then reclaimed.

6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

With short searches on it, here is an actual CHURCH source on this.

United Orders

These are considered Religious Communism by many, though I know that term is probably not to many people's liking here. 

This is shifting away from our core discussion of whether or not the Church retains ownership even when deeding property, but I want to point out that your link isn't the strong source you seem to think it is.

Quote

In the vast majority of United Orders in Utah Territory, members contributed to a common fund, received capital stock and stock payouts, and limited their labor and commerce to the local order. Women generally shouldered the tasks of textile production, education, cooking, and medical and midwife care, while men labored on farming and infrastructure projects.4 But not all United Orders functioned the same way. In the “United Order of Enoch” in St. George, applicants signaled their covenant pledges by being rebaptized and pledging to abide by the order’s rules, and they elected a board of managers to direct the community’s various enterprises; in Brigham City, a board of managers largely extended the cooperative network to regular citizens. In Orderville and Price, members of the order aimed for complete communal living; the board of managers instituted a work schedule, assigned labor, and regulated meals and barter exchanges.5

Were all United Orders still Religious Communism when "not all ... functioned the same way"? Were these different Orders similar enough that they still qualified? Perhaps a better term may be Religious Co-op since "members contributed to a common fund [and] received capital stock". In some cases membership was "extended ... to regular citizens". I may have been too young during the cold war, but is that how Communism operated? My fellow factory workers could gather with our majority shares and say "We've produced a glut of shirt buttons, let's hold off until textiles have caught up. There is a need for belt buckles though. Let's retool for that." Is that how it operated? Even if they didn't have that much control, did they at least receive periodic stock payouts like in the United Order? Or was that yet another case of "we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us"?

[JohnsonJones]

3 hours ago, mordorbund said:

The article doesn't say anything about Brigham's death and the challenges that ensued. It does say that these parcels were surveyed within a month of Young's quote about not buying land and only allotting what a person can reasonably farm. Only a year after that he seems to have changed his position because Brigham Young and Heber Kimball were meting out 1 1/4 acre lots by September of 1848, with larger allotments to follow (up to 10 acres). "Each man's receipt for his land became his deed for the purpose of maintaining his claim and conveyance of the land in the future." They didn't give out proper deeds because the Federal govenment's land system didn't include this new frontier. Brigham was installing a temporary system that could easily be grandfathered in when the Federal system caught up.

It looks more like the first year was a survival year where very little land was issued so there's little room for claiming that the land was deeded then taken back. In the years following, the allotment receipts were treated like deeds, and the Provisional government (and then the Territorial government) of 1850-onward allowed for the Surveyor General to issue "certificates ... considered proof of legal possession for 'the amount of land therein described.'" And these certificates could be sold or transferred. "[T]he inhabitants of said City, . . . shall have power ... in all actions whatsoever, to purchase, receive, and hold property, real and personal, in said City; ... to sell, lease, convey, or dispose of property, real and personal, for the benefit of said City; to improve and protect such property, and to do all other things in relation thereto, as natural persons."

The Church/government retained rights over the water and timber as a natural monopoly. Rather than conjure up a civics course I'll point out that even in this instance, these are not deeded over by the Church then reclaimed.

This is shifting away from our core discussion of whether or not the Church retains ownership even when deeding property, but I want to point out that your link isn't the strong source you seem to think it is.

Were all United Orders still Religious Communism when "not all ... functioned the same way"? Were these different Orders similar enough that they still qualified? Perhaps a better term may be Religious Co-op since "members contributed to a common fund [and] received capital stock". In some cases membership was "extended ... to regular citizens". I may have been too young during the cold war, but is that how Communism operated? My fellow factory workers could gather with our majority shares and say "We've produced a glut of shirt buttons, let's hold off until textiles have caught up. There is a need for belt buckles though. Let's retool for that." Is that how it operated? Even if they didn't have that much control, did they at least receive periodic stock payouts like in the United Order? Or was that yet another case of "we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us"?

 

There are other sources online that go into more detail on how the Church retained the land (that's why I originally posted the first article where you didn't see how it was granted out...it was to point out that the land the Church owned was NOT actually given, it was deeded for use, but it was CHURCH owned still.  That did NOT mean it was left fallow and undeveloped though.  It is why I highlighted that it was STILL ALL Church owned. 

Other sources online though don't seem as church friendly and so I am not posting them.

There was land beyond what the church owned that was privately owned.  This isn't what we are discussing though as that wasn't included in the Law of Consecration or United Orders we were discussing. 

The United Orders created under Brigham Young are a fascinating item.  If you want me to source all the material though, it would be easier for me to simply say...go research them yourself as I don't feel like writing books upon books of material with the resulting sources.  The writing of all of it would make my posts much longer than they are usually (and they already tend to be long).

For a short summary though...

They varied drastically from each other.  Some were more like a co-op similar to what you would see with government public utilities and such today.  There would be communal items shared and set apart for each as they needed.  Think like how public utilities are handled in the United States, but without really paying for them...they are meted out in how much each would need or want.  The labor and other things are done communally, or with each individual who was part of the order (it wasn't seen as involuntary...and so in THEORY was voluntary...but...and speaking from a more non-religious viewpoint of the history...if you wanted certain things like say....water...well...volunteering to be part of the order probably was in your best interest) in producing them.

Another good example is similar to what we can see today, though less participation with more who are NOT participating that are benefiting from the results.  Each week we have members clean the Ward Buildings.  This is something done by members of the church for the benefit of the Ward and the Ward community.  In theory, we all should participate in this (and under the United Order we all WOULD participate in this) when we are asked to do so. 

HOW much it affected DRASTICALLY changed from community to community.  You had places in Saint George where people would pledge to the Order and do certain things, but it probably was not something that was overly intrusive, to places like Taylorsville where every aspect of your life was controlled by the Order (Taylorsville I believe was also commented on by Brigham Young as being the ideal to which all other societies should try to become).  In Taylorsville everything was owned by the United Order and things were given out by the Order as to what you would NEED.  You were told where to work and when to work and what to do.  They had communal meals where all ate together and ate the same food.  No one had clothes any richer or poorer than anyone else as they all had the same design of clothes to wear.  In fact, there really was no rich or poor in that community.  They all had what was needed.  They all had the same stuff together.  [According to some sources this eventually turned out problematic as young people are...young people.  They didn't want to wear the same things as their peers and everyone else for starters.  They wanted to be fashionable...etc...etc...etc. and this led to discontent among many of them.  This discontent could be seen to be the eventual downfall of this United Order and the change to a more business like function where slowly less was communal and more capitalism snuck in). 

I am only an Amateur Historian on this though.  My focus of History is in another category but some of the best libraries to research this stuff if you live in the area are the Brigham Young University Library and the Utah University Library (I think Utah State University may also have a bunch of resources as well).  If you have access to a University Library that shares loan applicability you may also be able to get some of this material (some of it is under lock and key and only available for local research) to read on your own.  The journals and primary sources are the best resources out there.

OFF TOPIC and NOT REALLY PERTINENT TO THE ITEMS DISCUSSED...

I actually admit I found more fascination with some of the handcart stories (there was one with personal accounts of the Willie and Martin handcarts which related regarding how severe conditions were and how some actually survived...which are probably a little too explicit in violence and gore for these forums) then in the United Order.  I find it interesting though how far RIGHT much of the church membership n the United States (more of a US problem than what I see internationally, and even more so centered on the Arizona, Utah and Idaho areas, though there are plenty outside those states as well) has gotten to the point that they cannot actually believe what older Saints were taught or what the thought processes were relating to more socialistic policies in the early Church.  If we want to have open minds in humility, I think many in the Church lack that and thus lack the ability to learn about some of these facets of the earlier church.  They can't believe what actually happened!  The shame is that by learning about this they can realize exactly WHY Marxist Communism is so evil.  The differences are extremely stark, even though in many ways there are strong simliarities (as I stated above, Ezra Taft Benson remarked how Communism was merely a copycat and mockery of the true Order the Lord would do things), only ONE is truly run by the Lord and his servants.  By trying to ignore it I feel (so more of a personal feeling) that they lessen just how stark the difference is between a system when it is led by the Lord vs. when it is led by men.

It is if you have two vehicles that run on very similar principles (we'll say a Ford Ranger and a Toyota 4runner), but one is driven by a man and another driven by the Lord...and the one by the Lord never has to refuel, never breaks down no matter how many miles, and never even needs maintenance...you'd be able to notice a massive difference between them.  They both have the same idea on how they run (ICE), but there are things with the one the Lord drives that just cannot be replicated by those that men drive.  Some may try to say it is the system, and there may be some of that, but to the degree that one would exceed the other could only be attributed to the divine. 

Instead, they'd rather say that the Lord is in a Boat rather than a car and thus they are totally different and separate vehicles...which I think reduces the impact of seeing just how much a difference a program run by the Lord is in relation to that run by men.

 

[mordorbund]

13 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

There are other sources online that go into more detail on how the Church retained the land (that's why I originally posted the first article where you didn't see how it was granted out...it was to point out that the land the Church owned was NOT actually given, it was deeded for use, but it was CHURCH owned still.  That did NOT mean it was left fallow and undeveloped though.  It is why I highlighted that it was STILL ALL Church owned. 

You've made the claim that the Church retained ownership of lands allotted through consecration and even reclaimed them after the nominal owner apostatized. I have a reliable document that says the actual deed was given and the Church would not be able to do that. Additionally, when I did research on this I saw real, legally-binding deeds signed over and given out. The evidence I've seen looks like what you're describing was not practiced. But you claim it again. So I'm thinking the claim must be coming from somewhere. Maybe Bishop Partridge didn't follow the revelations initially and this was done for a limited time. Or maybe the practice was more wide-spread in the pioneer era and I just haven't come across it yet. I've done some research on my own and I'm not seeing what you've claimed. I ask you for sources so I can learn more about this practice. So far, I'm not seeing what you are and I'm starting to think that you've read into the documents something that isn't there.

I've re-read the portion you quoted and I still don't see how the land was granted out but ownership retained by the Church. That first year the land wasn't granted out (except on a limited basis to Church leadership). The second year Brigham Young himself gave receipts along with land allotments and later signed into law that these surveyed lands could be bought, sold, exchanged and so on because the owners actually owned them. Can you show me in the paragraph you've quoted where it says the Church owned the land that it deeded out?

13 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I find it interesting though how far RIGHT much of the church membership n the United States (more of a US problem than what I see internationally, and even more so centered on the Arizona, Utah and Idaho areas, though there are plenty outside those states as well) has gotten to the point that they cannot actually believe what older Saints were taught or what the thought processes were relating to more socialistic policies in the early Church.  If we want to have open minds in humility, I think many in the Church lack that and thus lack the ability to learn about some of these facets of the earlier church.  They can't believe what actually happened!

I don't know how I'm supposed to assume this isn't about me since I'm the only one pushing back on your narrative right now (and I've admitted my relative youth). I have a difficult time believing what actually happened if what actually happened was never recorded and left no evidence behind. If you want to discuss the similarities and differences between the United Orders and Communism we can work our way to that. Right now I'm narrowly focused on the Church keeping land it deeded out.

[JohnsonJones]

On 6/2/2023 at 7:33 AM, mordorbund said:

You've made the claim that the Church retained ownership of lands allotted through consecration and even reclaimed them after the nominal owner apostatized. I have a reliable document that says the actual deed was given and the Church would not be able to do that. Additionally, when I did research on this I saw real, legally-binding deeds signed over and given out. The evidence I've seen looks like what you're describing was not practiced. But you claim it again. So I'm thinking the claim must be coming from somewhere. Maybe Bishop Partridge didn't follow the revelations initially and this was done for a limited time. Or maybe the practice was more wide-spread in the pioneer era and I just haven't come across it yet. I've done some research on my own and I'm not seeing what you've claimed. I ask you for sources so I can learn more about this practice. So far, I'm not seeing what you are and I'm starting to think that you've read into the documents something that isn't there.

I've re-read the portion you quoted and I still don't see how the land was granted out but ownership retained by the Church. That first year the land wasn't granted out (except on a limited basis to Church leadership). The second year Brigham Young himself gave receipts along with land allotments and later signed into law that these surveyed lands could be bought, sold, exchanged and so on because the owners actually owned them. Can you show me in the paragraph you've quoted where it says the Church owned the land that it deeded out?

I don't know how I'm supposed to assume this isn't about me since I'm the only one pushing back on your narrative right now (and I've admitted my relative youth). I have a difficult time believing what actually happened if what actually happened was never recorded and left no evidence behind. If you want to discuss the similarities and differences between the United Orders and Communism we can work our way to that. Right now I'm narrowly focused on the Church keeping land it deeded out.

I don't like repeating it over and over, but I'll post the quote (still shown above) from Fair Mormon once again...

Quote

The author's final source is a nineteenth century work which describes a visit to Salt Lake City by a Jewish author. That author writes:

I may say all the real estate in the valley is the property of the church, for proprietors have only an interest in property so long as they are members of the Mormon Church, and reside in the valley. The moment they leave or apostatize, they are obliged to abandon their property, and are precluded from selling it, or if they do give the bill of sale it is not valid—it is not tenable by the purchaser. This arrangement was proposed by the governor and council, at the conference which took place during my residence among them in 1854, and thousands of property holders subsequently deeded their houses and lands to the church, in perpetuity.

Under the operation of this law, nobody but Mormons can hold property in Great Salt Lake City.^[3]

Already, we have seen that the author has distorted the source. The real estate in the valley's is the Church's—the members do not "own" it. This is not to say that non-members cannot (and do not) own property elsewhere. But, since the property owners deeded their goods to the Church, the Church is the legal owner.

Not my words...it's a quote.  I merely bolded the part so you can see who actually was the LEGAL owner at the time.

YES...there were deeds given out.  The deeds were not considered legal in the eyes of the government as to those people having claim over the church's claim at that time.  This actually caused a GREAT DEAL of problems in the 1870s and a lot of trouble occurred over this.  Those who were still with the Church still had these deeds recognized by the Church at the time.  Those who had not stayed faithful...well...their stories varied. 

Most of these are from hard sources rather than internet sources (and even if they were on internet sources, as many of these who LOST their lands are those who left the church...their accounts are not normally seen as favorable and thus not something I would want to post on a forum that should be pro-LDS rather than against the church). 

However, there IS enough on the internet from sources that are postive towards the Church or Neutral that basically say the same thing (at least from what I see if you put it all together) that at this point I think one is being obtruse on it if they say they can't see it.

Anyways, this discussion is beginning to go in circles and that is never fun. 

 

Edited June 8, 2023 by JohnsonJones

[mirkwood]

The link (directly to the official website of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints):

Lesson 14: The Law of Consecration (churchofjesuschrist.org)

 

Screenshot:

 

 

 

Argue all you want, but your position is contrary to that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Edited June 8, 2023 by mirkwood

[JohnsonJones]

On 6/8/2023 at 12:15 PM, mirkwood said:

The link (directly to the official website of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints):

Lesson 14: The Law of Consecration (churchofjesuschrist.org)

 

Screenshot:

 

 

 

Argue all you want, but your position is contrary to that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

That doesn't go contrary to what I said...at all.

PS:  Before reading the entire response, it could be important to read the last note I put in this post if you have not agreed with my statements on Consecration previously.

Even under Brigham Young, the property was ultimately the Church's (or his).  It could be taken back if the individual left the Church (and, Brigham Young WARNED the Saints what would happen if outsiders and non-members got this property in Utah.  One could even say it was a prophecy.  It is one that is absolutely being fulfilled today.  When I have gone to Utah I see everything Brigham Young predicted would happen if non-members got a hold of the property in Utah, has happened). 

However, when deeded the land, as long as they stayed faithful in the Church, that land was their stewardship.  The property was their stewardship.

ONE BIG difference I can see, is they didn't treat it as if they owned it in general.  They treated it as if it were STILL the Lord's property and treated it with that same type of respect.  Just as we would respect the work that we do for the Lord, all they DID was work for the Lord.  Their stewardship was a calling, just as much as being called a Bishop, or otherwise. 

You still see elements of this idea today, but not as widespread.  The idea that your body is a Temple for example.  It is the Lord's.  You have control of it, but ultimately, it is the Lord's handiwork and you should respect it as the Lord's. 

Now, the way Taylorsville and other locations (as PER HISTORY...not necessarily what the Conservatives want you to think...but back then...the Saints were actually Liberals and Democrats up until the 40s and 50s, and probably would be politically and economically opposed to the things Conservative Saints support today, though they would still support the more conservative Morality in regards to Chastity) WERE more communistic as things WERE held in common (and were considered more the perfect model of what Brigham Young FELT it should work). 

I think the problem is that membership has gotten too far into political worship.  They think conservative values are the Lord's values...when in truth, historically, the Church was actually very LIBERAL up until the Democrats decided to go against the moral constructs of chastity as found in the Bible in the second half of the 20th century. 

This conservative worship has made it impossible for many Saints to understand WHERE some of the ideas of the older Saints came from and how it was practiced. 

I don't think members today would do very well living under the Conditions the Saints lived under up until Joseph F. Smith. 

The Church was a very different vehicle.

Even when I joined, the church was very different in it's feelings and approaches.  Ironically, in liberal programs (Church Welfare for example...which had welfare and used Welfare ideas LONG before the United States or most other nations did) the Church was far more successful in them than anyone else has been.  If people could SEE how these programs actually worked...it shows the difference between a program run by the Lord vs. that run by men. 

It shows the drastic difference between what one would consider socialism or communism (and the terms set Conservatives off because most can't understand that there are differences...I'll address that below) when under the perfect system of them vs. that which was created by the adversary as a mockery of those systems.

 

PS:  As a comparison between Religious Communism and Marxist Communism.  Would you say that every Christian religion is evil?  That it is wrong?  Or would you say that there is a Christian religion that has the Lord directing it?  If you compare the differences between the Religion the Lord leads and other Christian religions, would you say there is a difference?

Or would you say all Christianity is wrong and evil?  Does it actually help if you deny Christianity and say that our Church is not a part of it?

Is our Church Christian?  There are certainly those who want to say it is not.  Are they correct?  When they see us and label us as non-christian...does that actually help?  Should we continue to say that we are Christian?  What does claiming we are Christian do? 

I feel that when we see what our Church is focused on and what it is centered about, the very definitions we use to define Christianity must ALSO apply to our Church.  By the definition, we ARE Christians. 

This helps us to understand our relationship to other Christians and to see how our form of Christianity differs from other forms of Christianity.

There are those in the World that want to define us differently.  They want to say we are not Christians. 

I think it is this trend that our Prophet is trying to change.  He is pointing out that we are Christians...not something different. 

Comparing things in the same category is useful in seeing the differences between the Lord's way of doing something as opposed to what others do. 

Admitting that there is One Christian religion that is led by the Lord and then using that as a contrast vs. other Christian religions can help us see the differences between how the LORD does things...and how others do things.

The same applies for other programs the Lord has in place.  It is the term that offends, but the term fits when using the term Socialism or Communism in relation to how the Saints ran their economics in the early Modern Church.  Just as the Definitions apply to us as being Christian, and thus falling in that category because the definitions that define a Christian religion also apply to us...the same holds true for how the church's operations under Brigham Young worked.  By UNDERSTANDING how these and it worked, one can see WHY Marxist communism is actually a mockery and poor copycat created by the adversary in relation to the way the Lord ran the system.  To me this helps build my testimony on the differences between divine leadership vs. that of men.

However, if the term Socialism or communism offends people too much, then perhaps calling it by saying the Lord's economic policies vs. Marxist Policies, Stalinist Policies, Maoist Policies, Modern China Policies, North Korean policies...would be easier and better (though more wordy and you'd have to keep more items in mind then lumping them all together).  They each are different from each other (some allowing the ownership of property, even more than the ownership that was held under Brigham Young in some of these communistic ways of doing things) but also all fall under the same umbrella.

This expands if we talk about Socialism, because then we have a lot more various policies regarding it.  We even have a United States Socialism that is practiced today (and though more stringently based upon the Church's Socialistic programs at it's beginning, now days it's more of a loosely based system that can trace it's lineage back to the  Church's programs structures).  Socialism and Communism are far more widespread than many think or understand in Conservative circles. 

One could even say the most successful Socialistic program in use today is not the Church's programs, but the United States Military.  One could also say it's successful because it's propped up (HEAVILY) by a non-socialistic form of funding beyond it's own means to support. 

The Church uses a modified form of Consecration today with it's Missionary program.  Missionaries can still have things they own that they buy with their stipends.  They are stewards over the places they live and the other things they are given to use.  What they actually own is far more limited than what members normally have.  Though it was not always so, I also have heard that when their mission ends, any excess funds they may have are to be returned to the mission.  If you want an example of HOW modern day Consecration might work...look no further than the missionary program of today.  Of course, that is ALSO propped up by those who are not living in that system (much like the military programs of housing, healthcare...etc.  are propped up).

THAT SAID...I do not know if when the church uses Consecration again or uses it, whether it will be similar to the programs that Joseph Smith ran, or that Brigham Young ran, or will be something different.  I will admit, in a program that is ran today, it MAY be what people here feel it will be like.  I think that would be a tad unbalanced in relation to the poor nations of the world who would then get FAR less in measure than what Saints in Europe and the US get (and to balance it out, there would have to be a DRASTIC measure of taking stuff from members in the US and Europe to give equal opportunity to those in other nations...but I'm not sure how it would work), but it may be just as some describe it with everyone getting to keep everything they have, just saying they give it to the church in word, but in actuality keeping everything they have with the church deeding it back to them.

[Vort]

9 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Even under Brigham Young, the property was ultimately the Church's (or his).  It could be taken back if the individual left the Church [...]

However, when deeded the land, as long as they stayed faithful in the Church, that land was their stewardship.  The property was their stewardship.

I don't care to wade into the, um, discussion, but do you see that the references cited by @mirkwood and @mordorbund contradict the bolded assertion above?

[JohnsonJones]

24 minutes ago, Vort said:

I don't care to wade into the, um, discussion, but do you see that the references cited by @mirkwood and @mordorbund contradict the bolded assertion above?

I've seen their items.  Morderbund quoted an item from Bishop Partridge, without highlighting the rest of the article, nor using the historical context of other areas which happened in relation to it, which I tried to show and address from the historical context but was ignored.

I don't see how Mirkwood's item actually contradicts what I said overall.  Historically there were some differences, BUT overall that's exactly how it worked originally when they got to Salt Lake.  AS LONG as they were members, they retained the property.  This is why, when the entire legal ramifications came around later in regards to ownership, many of them got their property (without attender) to be the actual owners outside of the church's prerogative.  However, there is also historical records of people losing that property when they left the Church or other things occurred.

The lesson (beyond that quote) also had a few other items of interest NOT quoted by Mirkwood.  For example, one reason I included the bolded portion at the end of my post was this quote in the lesson.

Quote

Explain that the principles of the law of consecration have not changed since it was revealed through the Prophet Joseph Smith. However, the application of those principles changes from time to time. The current prophet helps us understand how to apply these principles in our day.

Of interest, the lesson lists some scriptures which point out to a more communistic lifestyle with things held in common than what others have suggested (and perhaps more than even I have suggested) in this thread.  These being some of the scriptures listed...

Moses 7:18

Quote

18 And the Lord called his people ^aZion, because they were of ^bone heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.

Acts 4: 32-35

Quote

32 And the multitude of them that believed were of ^aone heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ^bought of the things which he ^cpossessed was his own; but they had all things ^dcommon.

33 And with great power gave the apostles ^awitness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great ^bgrace was upon them all.

34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses ^asold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

35 And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and ^adistribution was made unto every man according as he had ^bneed.

4th Nephi 1: 1-3

Quote

1 And it came to pass that the thirty and fourth year passed away, and also the thirty and fifth, and behold the disciples of Jesus had formed a church of Christ in all the lands round about. And as many as did come unto them, and did truly repent of their sins, were ^abaptized in the name of Jesus; and they did also receive the Holy Ghost.

2 And it came to pass in the thirty and sixth year, the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face of the land, both Nephites and Lamanites, and there were no contentions and disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another.

3 And they had ^aall things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly ^bgift.

And of interest, this portion of Church history which I suspect may apply today if they tried to institute it Church wide as they had before...

Quote

The law of consecration consists of principles and practices that strengthen members spiritually and bring about relative economic equality, eliminating greed and poverty. Some Saints lived it well, to the blessing of themselves and others, but other members failed to rise above selfish desires, causing the eventual withdrawal of the law from the Church. In 1838 the Lord revealed the law of tithing (see D&C 119), which continues today as the financial law of the Church.

AS I said previously, a more limited version of the Law of Consecration is actually practiced today by the Church Missionaries.  I do not know if the Law of Consecration as we are to practice it would be instituted in a similar fashion to what they live, but it could be interesting to look at the Missionary program and how missionaries live to see how the Law of Consecration is and could be implemented in our day. 

 

Edit: getting away from the entire Communism/Socialism discussion, to me, the entire reason for the Law of Consecration is to put the Lord first.  That's really what the point of it is.  As the Rich man was told to do (but he could not do), we have to be willing to give everything we have and follow the Lord if that is required.  It's one thing to think it, it is another to actually do it.  The question we each should have is NOT how much we are going to be given stewardship over, or how much we can keep for ourselves, but would we be willing to have NOTHING and give all we have to follow the Lord and do as he would have us do.

I feel that is actually the ultimate point of the Law of Consecration (beyond it's physical usefulness in ensuring all have what they need in mortality).  I hope that we have that in common, but I wonder at times when people try to point out what they will get out of it and what they get to keep.

It probably is also why I get verbose on it myself.  My single point I probably am wanting to make (but make it poorly) is ultimately, we cannot expect to keep anything.  We should expect to have nothing in return for ourselves.  Instead, we need to be willing to give ALL of it up just for the chance to follow what the Lord would have us do.  Physical material items mean nothing, only the Lord means anything in this context. 

Edited June 13, 2023 by JohnsonJones

[mordorbund]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

Morderbund quoted an item from Bishop Partridge, without highlighting the rest of the article, nor using the historical context of other areas which happened in relation to it, which I tried to show and address from the historical context but was ignored.

I would say that's an inaccurate summary of my posts in this thread. Perhaps I'm not communicating clearly enough.

@JohnsonJonesCould you summarize my main points without trying to rebut them. I want to make sure we understand each other. Once you do that I'll try to summarize your main points witout rebuttal.

[Traveler]

As a side note: My great grandfather was the executive secretary of the United Order woolen mills of Brigham City.  The executive secretary would be the same as the CEO.  Part of his legacy left to family was a copy of the rules of the United Order.  These rules were part of our family, and we were expected to live by them.  I do not remember which number, but I remember well the following rule:

I will not appropriate for my use that which does not belong to me or has not been assigned to me according to my stewardship.  (Not exact words - my paraphing)

In my youth, I understood this to mean that I am not able keep lost items that I find – even if the owner cannot be located.  I sometimes wonder if we have taken a step back, rather than forward as a society of Zion.

 

The Traveler

[LDSGator]

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/06/24/world-watches-with-concern-as-mutiny-unfolds-in-russia-a81622
 

If I see Putin at Epcot I’ll let everyone know. Word is that he boarded a flight to somewhere. 

[askandanswer]

6 hours ago, LDSGator said:

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/06/24/world-watches-with-concern-as-mutiny-unfolds-in-russia-a81622
 

If I see Putin at Epcot I’ll let everyone know. Word is that he boarded a flight to somewhere. 

Surely you don't imagine that Putin would choose the dreariness of Disney above the delights of Dubbo? Not even Putin would make such a dumb decision. I've heard that Dubbo has a really good fish and chip shop and that you can get a decent pizza there.  
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Dubbo+NSW+2830/@-32.2520848,148.5952579,6223m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x6b0f71b04ca4913b:0x50609b490442530!8m2!3d-32.2443908!4d148.614418!16zL20vMDIwNzRz?authuser=0&entry=ttu

 

[Just_A_Guy]

I have to admit, this was not on my 2023 Bingo card.

[LDSGator]

13 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I have to admit, this was not on my 2023 Bingo card.

So lost here. Apparently Prigozhin chickened out and decided that living in fear for the rest of his life (which will be very short) was better than just marching into Moscow. 

[Guest Godless]

51 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

So lost here. Apparently Prigozhin chickened out and decided that living in fear for the rest of his life (which will be very short) was better than just marching into Moscow. 

[Carborendum]

This whole Wagner Group thing doesn't smell right. Something is going on that is not what it seems.

[Traveler]

Monday Ukraine announced (Monday April 22) that they had captured a Russian General.  This is a little perplexing because I have not seen any coverage of this in USA news broadcasting.  But then I do not watch every minute of news coverage.  There is a lot of stuff on You Tube and other internet sources but there does not seem to be any Russian response or US responses????  In light of this and what Israel did with Iran – there has to be repercussions – across the entire world structure of country alignments. 

 At first glance this looks to be good for Western aligned countries, but I am concerned that without solid Western (democratic) leadership that all this could be more destabilizing – especially in light of political unrest and demonstrations against Israel and not Hamas.   Things seem to keep turning in ways I do not expect.

 

The Traveler

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Monday Ukraine announced (Monday April 22) that they had captured a Russian General.  This is a little perplexing because I have not seen any coverage of this in USA news broadcasting.  But then I do not watch every minute of news coverage.  There is a lot of stuff on You Tube and other internet sources but there does not seem to be any Russian response or US responses????  In light of this and what Israel did with Iran – there has to be repercussions – across the entire world structure of country alignments. 

If it isn't interesting to the internal politics of the US, the news has nothing to spin.  So, why would they waste breath on it?

I'm sure you'll find one or two articles about these things on virtually every news outlet. But they're not really pushing them too hard. It doesn't sell.

[NeuroTypical]

I get much of my geopolitics news from creators like this guy: https://www.youtube.com/@PrestonStewart

 

 

[LDSGator]

46 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I get much of my geopolitics news from creators like this guy: https://www.youtube.com/@PrestonStewart

 

 

This won’t satisfy every one of course, but it’s a good indicator of bias in the news. 

[NeuroTypical]

Yay - they keep that thing updated!  

Yep, everyone and every source has a bias.  Every media source has a political bent.  Every individual reporter, every news desk anchor, every editorial staff.  

Although I'd suppose NPR could be re-evaluated.  They suppressed Hunter's Laptop and the COVID lab leak theory, and pushed Trump's Russian Collusion controversy hard.  And, when all 3 turned out to be what they are, NPR couldn't be bothered to admit any wrongdoing or apologize.

https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trust

 

[LDSGator]

44 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

NPR couldn't be bothered to admit any wrongdoing or apologize.

Our side doesn’t do that either. Self critique is  impossible when dealing with true believers.