DiscussMormonism.com

The United Order was once practiced by Mormons. In the first half of the 20th Century, LDS leaders/businessmen were opposed to such communistic ideas. During the cold war period LDS leaders issued strong oaths against communism, since it stole cash from the wealthy, encouraged "that Negro music", incited civil rights and was intolerant of religion in general.

So what is the difference between the former Mormon practice of the United Order and communism?

I have condensed and simplified lengthy definitional differences in case any discussion may ensue.

Under the United Order you would practice sharesies and say Elder Moksha.

Under Communism you would practice sharesies and say Comrade Moksha.

Hope that helps...


###

Was taught in Seminary in HS(60's) that The United Order was Pure Communism given by God for the Saints. Communism as practiced by the Soviets was Satans counterfit of Gods pure United Order which was why it was so evil.

New Harmony was a community in Indiana that did very well in the 1800's practicing the United Order type living. Joseph should have sent some observers across the border to see it done well. One might say this community was a catalyst for the revelation.

http://www-lib.iupui.edu/kade/newharmony/home.html

Why is Utah so anti-health care reform? If they believe one day they will have to practice a form of communal living, why are they against helping the poor so much? Wouldn't a Christian church agree with socialized health care and education?

the law of consecration was practiced in the New Testament times as a voluntary movement. The same with the LDS church in the 1800's. The way it was run, from my understanding, was the person was paid their wage, used what their family needed for the week, and gave the rest (their surplus) to the church. What was given to the church was used to help those who did not have enough.

Communism was a government run enforced (by death and imprisonment) lifestyle. The person worked and the government gave them what the government decided they needed even if it wasn't enough. What the government had left over was used to fill their pockets.

There is almost nothing in common (pun intended) between the UO and Socialism/Communism. In the UO, there is a free market, profit taking, private property, and no price controls. Apples and oranges.

The United Order was voluntary.
It was.

IT WAS !!! GOT IT?

"and an everlasting order for the benefit of my church, and for the salvation of men until I come" said the LORD in a "Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet, April 23, 1834, concerning the United Order"

The word everlasting means that it was an order before April 23, 1834 and it is an order now.

Or I can not read the scriptures, the words of god/GOD/God. Or it was not revelation. Or whatever.


One thing is certain. I wish You Happy Holidays!

Well, that is one way of looking at it. If you read about peoples' experiences in it you'll find that some of them weren't in it so "voluntarily" after all; at least I don't consider it voluntary if you were blackmailed into participating in something just because you were afraid to lose your salvation otherwise.

On a different note, there are some striking differences between the UO and Communism, the most notable being the fact that participating in the UO involved stewardship over personal property. However the fact still remains that people are just regular human beings - greedy and selfish to an extent, but certainly for the most part not willing to work hard and then give most of it away. To me, that is why the united order and any such attempt has failed and will continue to fail; it represents a utopian ideal.

karl61 wrote:New Harmony was a community in Indiana that did very well in the 1800's practicing the United Order type living. Joseph should have sent some observers across the border to see it done well. One might say this community was a catalyst for the revelation.

http://www-lib.iupui.edu/kade/newharmony/home.html

Robert Owen's New Harmony was a thoroughgoing failure, as were all similar communitarian experiments of the 19th century, and demonstrate why, on a much smaller scale, socialism can never be made to work no matter how hard and how intensely it is implemented and no matter what form it takes.

Neither Owen's near totalitarian paternalism nor the unsustainable society he envisioned could possibly have been catalysts for the concept of the United Order, which is much more properly understood (if we are willing to take the D&C and generations of General Authority teachings regarding it at face value) as a refinement and perfection of free market principles mediated, not by communitarianism, but by the principle of charity, or the pure love of Christ. This is not a communitarian but simply gospel centered society.