3 ms·

Some differences between the Law of Consecration and Communism are: 1. Nobody is forced to live the Law of Consecration. It is a personal choice and not one f

Some differences between the Law of Consecration and Communism are: 1. Nobody is forced to live the Law of Consecration. It is a personal choice and not one forced down your throat under threat of death. 2. Under the Law of Consecration, as practiced under Joseph Smith, families would define their needs rather than have their needs dictated. 3. Communism is about power and control. The Law of Consecration is about individually loving your neighbors.

lcall 7y ago
I wonder why this and those with similar comments were downvoted. I have spent some time studying both systems (at 2 universities) and observing over decades, and it looks accurate to me. The law of consecration, doctrinally, in all the source documents and major attempts to practice it, is voluntary, as is any true Christian behavior. I learned some things about communism, read a number of books about individuals' experiences, from various countries, for a little while majored in Russian history at a university in the midwestern/central USA, reading, watched many Soviet films, etc., and my mother has a degree in Asian Studies and knows Mandarin, etc etc of various family studies & travel, and communism seems consistently, across time and place, to be a combination of attractive words with a murderous horror of physical and mental abuse and control over individuals and any group that might not be in favor with those in power.
- 0xcde4c3db 7y ago
  As often happens in discussions of political and economic systems, you're comparing an idealized concept of one side to the history of the other side; of course the history side looks worse. ETA: it occurs to me that there's a parallel here to the fundamental attribution error: my favorite system has flaws because its fundamental principles haven't been fully realized, while other systems have flaws because their fundamental principles are bad. Anyway, it's a pattern to watch out for.
  - wincy 7y ago
    I think (but might be wrong) that Mormons did live the law of consecration when they first settled in Utah. Found a link about the United Order in the early church. Sorta worked? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Order https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Order
  - lcall 7y ago
    The law of consecration has been tried, so there is history: while pioneers were crossing the plains (common efforts to care for the migrating poor, planting crops other later travelers would harvest, etc), one source being a somewhat new book "Saints", new chapters of Vol. 2 still being released, with citations to much source material. Also, Orderville (wikipedia references include Orderville, United Order, and Law of Consecration). There are probably others. Edit: none of this says people are perfect, but that this aspect of Christianity is very different from communism. (I had a whole semester class on Stalin, and also some limited reading since.)

lcall 7y ago

I wonder why this and those with similar comments were downvoted. I have spent some time studying both systems (at 2 universities) and observing over decades, and it looks accurate to me. The law of consecration, doctrinally, in all the source documents and major attempts to practice it, is voluntary, as is any true Christian behavior. I learned some things about communism, read a number of books about individuals' experiences, from various countries, for a little while majored in Russian history at a university in the midwestern/central USA, reading, watched many Soviet films, etc., and my mother has a degree in Asian Studies and knows Mandarin, etc etc of various family studies & travel, and communism seems consistently, across time and place, to be a combination of attractive words with a murderous horror of physical and mental abuse and control over individuals and any group that might not be in favor with those in power.

0xcde4c3db 7y ago
As often happens in discussions of political and economic systems, you're comparing an idealized concept of one side to the history of the other side; of course the history side looks worse. ETA: it occurs to me that there's a parallel here to the fundamental attribution error: my favorite system has flaws because its fundamental principles haven't been fully realized, while other systems have flaws because their fundamental principles are bad. Anyway, it's a pattern to watch out for.
- wincy 7y ago
  I think (but might be wrong) that Mormons did live the law of consecration when they first settled in Utah. Found a link about the United Order in the early church. Sorta worked? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Order https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Order
- lcall 7y ago
  The law of consecration has been tried, so there is history: while pioneers were crossing the plains (common efforts to care for the migrating poor, planting crops other later travelers would harvest, etc), one source being a somewhat new book "Saints", new chapters of Vol. 2 still being released, with citations to much source material. Also, Orderville (wikipedia references include Orderville, United Order, and Law of Consecration). There are probably others. Edit: none of this says people are perfect, but that this aspect of Christianity is very different from communism. (I had a whole semester class on Stalin, and also some limited reading since.)