Monday, August 31, 2009

Irony

I've been wondering about this for a while now...

First, a little bit about me... When it comes to politics, I'm a little conflicted. I'm a registered Libertarian, but since attaining the right to vote, I've found myself more often than not, voting for and supporting candidates for the Democratic Party.

Living in Utah, in a predominantly Mormon community is interesting though. Mormons generally vote Republican. Somehow they have it in their minds that to vote otherwise is to promote the work of Satan. I've been called a traitor and a "wolf in sheeps" clothing in the past year, due to my choice of candidate in the 2008 presidential debate and my stance on Prop 8. With few exceptions Mormons intensely dislike the current US president, categorizing him as a Socialist (gasp!) and some of the more extreme members believing him to be a racist - which considering the LDS Churches history and beliefs with regard to race is laughable at best.

I was raised Mormon. One of the principles of Mormonism I was taught was that of the United Order, or the Law of Consecration. The idea is that basically, that at some point in the future, when Christ reign supreme on the earth, and everyone is forced to acknowledge that the Mormons are Gods chosen people, at that point, Christ and his 'one true Church' will control everything, and we can live this law. The law is basically that everything belongs to the Church, and each contributes his all, and is given accords to his means.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

You can read more about it, in an excellent post today by Mormon Heretic - here.

I just find it both ironic and mildly amusing that a Church which esteems a philosophy of total equality as the ultimate human experience, would get so worked up when they perceive that a black man might have the audacity to suggest such a thing....

19 comments:

  1. What's really ironic to me is your rejection of one authoritarian collective (LDS Church) and your enthusiastic embrace of another (socialism). To you, the former is virtually devoid of good while the latter seems to be bursting with it.

    Part of me would like to debate the finer points of political theory vs. religious doctrine. But the practical part of me knows it would probably be a waste of time.

    Short answer? The United Order is completely voluntary. I can't simply "opt out" of a socialist government. The difference is a little thing called choice.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Say what?

    At no point in this post did I reject the authoritarian collective, nor did I show an enthusiastic support of socialism.

    My point was the Mormons think the United Order is how a society should be run, and yet they consider Socialism a pernicious evil.

    As far as choice goes... Do you honestly think you could live in a predominantly Mormon community, reject (or rather choose not to participate in) the United Order, and yet still run a competitive business?

    If you rejected the United Order, I think you'd also be choosing to relinquish your temple recommend, and as we both know, based on basic LDS Theology, there goes your eternal salvation - but it's your choice!

    Of course if you're referring to my other posts on the subject... The difference between a communal system run by the government, or by the Church is more than just choice - even though I think I'd need more evidence that there is in fact more choice within the LDS Church.

    With the government, you get to vote on elected officials.

    In the LDS Church, the officials are picked by a seated monarchistic type system.

    With government, there is a level of transparency in how business is being done and how public funds are being spent.

    If you get the LDS Church to publish the salaries, stipends or other compensation offered to senior officials, I will return 100% activity in the LDS Church, immediately pull down this blog and commit myself to a lifetime of Church Service, 100% tithe paying and wholehearted support of capitalism, the Republican party and I shall also publish and send to Glenn Beck a full apology for all thoughts, opinions or YouTube clips published at his expense.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "If you rejected the United Order, I think you'd also be choosing to relinquish your temple recommend, and as we both know, based on basic LDS Theology, there goes your eternal salvation - but it's your choice!"

    Yep, it is my choice. Look, you've rejected it, and other than some guff you've taken from family and church people, you're not too bad off, are you? People may have hurt you emotionally, but nobody can force you to stay in the church. That's not the case with social democracy. I can't simply take my ball and go home if I don't like the game.

    -----

    "In the LDS Church, the officials are picked by a seated monarchistic type system."

    Right, and if you don't like the leaders you can take your ball and go home.

    -----

    "With government, there is a level of transparency in how business is being done and how public funds are being spent."

    I'll humor you and go with this statement, simplistic stretch that it is. Again, if you don't like the closed books of the church, you leave. Done. People might hurt your feelings, but you're free. I do not have this option with an authoritarian collective government. Spiritual "law" I can freely violate without temporal consequence. Temporal law I cannot.

    -----

    "If you get the LDS Church to publish the salaries, stipends or other compensation offered to senior officials, I will return 100% activity in the LDS Church, immediately pull down this blog and commit myself to a lifetime of Church Service, 100% tithe paying and wholehearted support of capitalism, the Republican party and I shall also publish and send to Glenn Beck a full apology for all thoughts, opinions or YouTube clips published at his expense."

    This comment enumerates some things that you seem to perceive to be my goals of arguing with you. Either I haven't made myself clear or you're not catching my drift.

    1- I don't care if you return to activity. I'm not 100% active myself, not a real big fan of the United Order, and not real fond of paying tithing or fast offerings. I go if I want to go, pay if I want to pay, participate if I want to participate. I don't give a damn what anybody things, and I have no dog in your personal race.

    2- I have never suggested you pull down this blog or that you discontinue posting your true feelings.

    3- I'm not asking you to extol capitalism if you truly don't, though I wish you would at least give it a fair shake, maybe take a less emotionally-charged approach to economics in your postings.

    4- I don't give a s*** about the Republican Party.

    5- And I doubt your rantings about Glenn Beck have damaged him enough to warrant your apology. Your hostility toward him doesn't offend me. I just think it's a bit misguided and by posting your thoughts in this format, you are inviting debate.

    ReplyDelete
  4. OK - so on the last comment, I'll admit to having a little bit of fun... Even so, you're right on all 5 counts. If anything on the last one, I've only helped to up the man's publicity, although in perhaps the most insignificant way possible.

    I'll give you that with Government there are temporal consequences, while with a religion there are spiritual consequences. In the minds of most Mormons though, are not the second set more important?

    With a government, you do have the opportunity to take your ball and leave, you just need to take it to another country. It may require more temporal expense to do so, but my parents have done this 3 times for various religious and cultural reasons. It is an option. I suspect you likely weren't a part of the crowd yelling for Streisand and Penn to leave the country several years ago, but many within the Church were. I've also heard the "If you don't like the LDS Church, you can get the hell out of Utah" comment made more often than I care to remember.

    Here's my question though...

    Why do people stick with the LDS Church?

    I feel that they honestly believe that it's true, and that it has a bearing on their eternal destination. If you have a community of people who genuinely believe that, and then ask them to live a socialist type existence which is tied to that reward, do they really have a choice? You can live the way we say you will and have eternal glory, or you can be a sinful, evil follower of Satan and risk eternal damnation - but you're free to choose! That's what the LDS version of Free Agency comes down to. Although I understand this was not how it was originally taught.

    This may be a little personal, but it appears that you and I may share a similar dislike for the United Order. First of all - My hat goes off to you for being consistent. It's those who preach the United Order as a divine and wonderful law, and in the same lesson decry the evils of socialism (Because it's my money, I earned it) that I have a problem with.

    So here's the question... If the LDS Church, through an official revelation or proclamation from the Brethren, brought back the United Order... Would you participate?

    And if not, what do you see as the potential consequences of such a decision, and how would you mitigate them?

    ReplyDelete
  5. For me... I would choose not to participate.

    In addition to losing my temple privileges, which as you pointed out, I don't have anyway... I see the following.

    My not being in the Order would become more public than my current spiritual standing within the Church(Even though I know I've come up in PEC and Ward Council on multiple occasions already - people are just too afraid to approach me now - although it's fun to see them trying!)

    With that public knowledge of my rejection of the prophet, people would be more openly antagonistic towards both me and my family.

    I might realistically be risking my job, and my ability to interact with businesses in the area would be compromised.

    I would likely be in the same boat as other dissenters and non-mormons.

    Many of these would likely choose to leave the area, increasing the proportion of the population who participate and further alienating those who don't.

    Businesses may become restricted to members of the Order - Why stay open all week to serve a few, when the leaders of the Order provide guaranteed sales on friday between 10 and 11 when those with vouchers from the order can come and get their merchandise? And why bother with standard currency at this point as well, plus any incentive to try and earn additional profit, has been squashed by the order (I know, I know!!).

    I would likely have to leave the area and move to an area where the Order does either not exist, or is minimal in implementation. I suspect at this point, the LDS Church would begin an existence a lot like the FLDS Church down in Colorado City - and then the greed of the leaders would set in, and the problems would begin.

    I don't think it ever will be implemented though... But that's just my uninspired opinion!

    If I may add as well...

    I have no problem at all with pure capitalism. I would like a system which practices either Capitalism, or Socialism in it's purest form. I think both are perfectly reasonably ways to run an economy.

    My posts in support of Socialism or a social Democracy, have largely been to say that it's not the evil everyone thinks it is.

    The problem comes when it is implemented by a totalitarian government without accountability.

    The problem is that people compare that perverted form of socialism, with the pure version of capitalism, neglecting the fact that we don't have capitalism in it's purest form right now. We've got a corrupt mixture of both systems right now, where corporations rule, and then needs of the people are ignored, in favor of greater profits.

    It does an disservice to either philosophy to compare the pure form of one with the perverted form of the other. Something which I realize I am guilty of myself.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "So here's the question... If the LDS Church, through an official revelation or proclamation from the Brethren, brought back the United Order... Would you participate?"

    I would participate only after 1) I had thoroughly processed the decision, 2) prayed about it, and 3) received a decisive answer in the positive.

    And even then I'd probably allow myself a grace period, even if it got me into trouble.

    I'll add that it would be much easier for me to enter into that kind of economy now, as I have next to nothing to contribute and everything to gain. I'd come out ahead in that trade off right now.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I hope you know I mean no disrespect by this, but from my perspective as more of an outsider, looking in...

    If it's a system you don't necessarily like, or agree with...

    Why go through steps 1 thru 3 and possibly a waiting period as well?

    It would seem to me that you feel a sense of obligation, although it may be small, to follow counsel handed down to you from those who you believe to be closer to God or capable of receiving direction from him on your behalf. And if that is the case, would you truly be making this choice based only on the merits of the system, or possibly out of fear of eternal consequences?

    And with that obligation, is it possible that logic based part of your mind is saying "This is a bad idea", while the faith based part is saying "But you have to do this" and the steps are just a way for you to justify the decision to yourself?

    Why not just dismiss it right off as a bad idea?

    ReplyDelete
  8. The "calling" to live the UO would be a spiritual one, not a legal/civil one. That's the difference. When a choice is spiritual in nature, I feel it best to take a spiritual approach to its resolution.

    ----

    "It would seem to me that you feel a sense of obligation, although it may be small, to follow counsel handed down to you from those who you believe to be closer to God or capable of receiving direction from him on your behalf. And if that is the case, would you truly be making this choice based only on the merits of the system, or possibly out of fear of eternal consequences?"

    An overriding belief in deity and an overall belief in the LDS Church as the path toward it does oblige me to at least entertain callings/requests from church leaders.

    However, I've never made any major choice based on that counsel alone. On merits? Yes. The merits of a system or program have weighed in, as has logic.

    For instance I don't like the fact that the church sends illegal immigrants on missions. Part of the doctrine is the observance of law. So does that mean I can choose a law or two that I'd rather not follow, and still retain my good standing? I think the 'Hispanic Initiative' is BS.

    But here's the thing: so far, it hasn't affected me. My spirituality isn't influenced by it. I have no stewardship over it or direct stake in it. Thus I can base my perspective in opinion and logic.

    If and when I spiritually cross paths with this issue, that's when I'll employ a spiritual process to see where I stand. If I open myself to truth and receive a definite answer that ignoring the law re: illegal aliens is totally cool, well, I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

    This is not to say that I have the faith to support something that runs completely against my logical perspective yet feels ok spiritually. I may well burn in hell for my stubbornness, but at least that's between me and God.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I see what you're saying about spiritual vs. civil matters.

    At the same time though, if a law is imposed civilly, there is still a democratic process in place to over turn that law, whereas if you follow that course of action within a religious organization, would likely lead to your expulsion. Part of the reason I try to be somewhat secretive about my identity and cautious about what I discuss. I've already had one faithful Mormon tell me to get the hell out of his Church!

    It reminds me of the story of Churchill (of course it could be urban legend), asking a woman if she would sleep with him for $10,000 (although it was likely British pounds, and could have been more). She responded affirmatively, whereon he asked if she would do it for $10 - Her response - I'm not a prostitute!! To which he responded. We know what you are, we're just haggling over price.

    The illegal alien thing might not concern or affect you, but where is the line that separates that from coerced acceptance of the United Order.

    A member of the LDS Church, in good standing has in many ways surrendered their right to choose when it comes to something like the UO. Several years ago, when I was struggling with corruption amongst the brethren, I was informed by a relative that I have given up my agency to sustain/not sustain the brethren during my initial visit through the temple. While blind obedience to the brethren is not specifically articulated during that process, I guess it could be inferred in a chain of this, therefore this, therefore blind obedience is required type logic... The UO, however is specifically mentioned. I suspect that many, like myself just went along with it, oblivious to what we were actually doing. But enough of that... I don't particularly want to find myself in front of a council of love for revealing stuff I shouldn't.

    I guess my whole point is with a civil law, you have the option of democratic redress. Within a religious organization, while you may have the guise of free agency, a decision to disregard a commandment such as the UO, means you have to disregard your entire belief system as provided by the organization. You're not just rejecting what is essentially socialism, your rejecting the prophet, Christ and God. It's not really a choice to a good standing member.

    I personally see that as very dangerous... One minute you're mandating only white shirts for men, the next it's obedience to the laws of the land, only when it doesn't affect the tithing income from illegal aliens, and then it's the United Order. From there it's just a hop skip and a jump before you've got brainwashed members flying planes into a building in Gods name - because I guarantee you, those men likely prayed about it, and Allah answered them loud and clear that he wanted them do it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Comparing Mormonism with Islam...conversation over.

    ReplyDelete
  11. No, simply pointing out historical problems with any religious movement/organization that requires strict obedience.

    Christianity in the middle ages = The Crusades, The Inquisition and Witch hunts etc.
    Mormonism = Underage Marriage, Polygamy and Polyandry, Blood Atonement etc.
    FLDS = Underage marriage/rape, UO communities which enrich the leadership of the Church etc.
    Islam = Jihad, Suppression of women, genital mutilation etc.

    I don't know if there is one religion which is devoid of this...

    In each instance, there is a line that got crossed. Religion is a powerful thing, and in almost every case in history, corrupt men have abused it's power for personal gain.

    If I have misspoken, please correct me.

    Back to the original point... Is the United Order completely voluntary - I would submit that based on the stakes in play within the LDS Church...

    It isn't a choice.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Back to the original point... Is the United Order completely voluntary - I would submit that based on the stakes in play within the LDS Church...

    It isn't a choice."

    I'm not sure why you're having such a problem with my take here. Can one, given the hypothetical UO situation, opt out and keep their status in the church? Probably not.

    But can they opt out, keep their home, their property, their money, and their lifestyle? YES. Nobody is forcing you to believe anything. Nobody forces you to pay tithing, fast offerings- any of that. Other than perhaps socially, you are not penalized in any way for not doing so.

    Other than up and leaving the country, as you have suggested with a straight face, an American has no recourse in a socialist situation. Sure, you could lobby for some legislative change, but once it's implemented, YOU MUST COMPLY unless the policy is changed or reversed.

    I'm guessing this isn't difficult to grasp for whoever else is reading this comment thread. There is quite a difference here.

    Yes, power does corrupt people. Religion is often a catalyst for that. But the minute you start drawing comparisons between Thomas Monson and Osama bin Laden, this conversation becomes an outright joke.

    Back to the original original point, how ironic that you lambaste one authoritarian collective while defending another.

    ReplyDelete
  13. If you are a member of the LDS Church, you believe that rigid obedience to all men in authority above you is required for exultation. You can try and argue or justify that if you want, but it is, what it is.

    I know this, because I cannot answer that particular question with a satisfactory answer, as well as the question on honesty.

    I would submit that any GA who promotes or defends the policy on illegal immigration should have his position and recommend stripped because they are being dishonest in their dealings. Unless of course God allows for breaking of commandments in his name...

    A member in good standing, faced with the question of do you live the UO or not, is not faced with that choice alone.

    The choice is Eternal Progression or Eternal Damnation. It's a choice, yes, and temporally the consequences are limited. But spiritually it's not really a choice - Unless you can justify it somehow?

    I didn't compare Osama Bin Laden and President Monson.

    I stated that there was an imaginary line which exists when it comes to religion. Bin Laden represents a point waaay over that line. The LDS Church has crossed that line in the past and will continue to cross it in the future, as do all fundamentalist type religions. When you're in the organization though, it's really hard to tell when that line gets crossed, and if you can, and realize it's been crossed, the cult mentality either keeps you quiet or kicks you out.

    I'm not sure where in my post I lambasted the LDS Church and defended Socialism? I was mocking those members of the LDS Church who attack it viscously as a tool of Satan, yet believe when implemented by men who claim to be told to do it by God, it's good and pure. To some extent you're doing this to...

    Mormonism is based on Socialism - that was the whole dream of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and all of those guys. It's still taught as an ideal way to live. Choice or not, that's the ideal Mormon way.

    The whole context of this post, was what is the difference between a democratically elected government implementing it, and a religious organization.

    The difference is democratic voting in one case, or eternal consequences on the other.

    I believe Socialism is a viable alternative for a system where due to corruption, Capitalism is failing due to corruption - You seem to think I've embraced it enthusiastically - I just see it as one possible alternative. It, like capitalism is subject to corruption. I've never denied that.

    Both philosophies have pro's and con's.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "I'm not sure where in my post I lambasted the LDS Church and defended Socialism? I was mocking those members of the LDS Church who attack it viscously as a tool of Satan, yet believe when implemented by men who claim to be told to do it by God, it's good and pure. To some extent you're doing this to..."

    You're kidding me, right? I'm not talking just about this particular post. Read through your recent posts. Two themes here: LDS Church, bad. Obama/Socialism, not so bad.

    I should have obeyed my initial instinct and stayed out of this one. I'll repeat my thought once more:

    There are no civil or legal penalties for violation of religious principle. There are civil and legal penalties for violating governmental policy.

    Conservative mormons embrace the UO because it is a spiritual principle entered into voluntarily, on the individual level, and can be opted out of. They despise socialism because it is not voluntary, not based on individual choice, and cannot be opted out of as implemented.

    It's the principle of "Put them down on earth and let them CHOOSE to be righteous" vs. "Put them down on earth and I will FORCE them to be righteous."

    The concept of community is desired. Translate that from the individual level to the government level and you've got a problem.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This is kind of funny...

    The guy who detests organized religion realizes that for those in a religion, decisions made have eternal consequences and any decision needs to take into account the effect on a person's faith as a whole.

    The guy who defends organized religion thinks it's just like a club to can choose to join or leave. And that you can pick and choose the parts you like.

    There is more to religion, than just I choose to do this, and choose not to do that. Any religion, like Mormonism or Islam which had rigid standards, there is a much larger decision to be made than just do I follow this counsel or not.

    If you don't see that in Mormonism you really need to examine it on a closer level.

    Religion isn't a club... At least not if you take it seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Believe me, were it only a club, I'd be gone in a heartbeat. No club deserves the financial sacrifice or the volunteer labor that the LDS Church requires.

    I'm not sure where this conversation veered toward individual spirituality and cafe-style adherance to principle.

    You expressed something you percieved as an irony- that a certain group hates one concept while espousing a similar concept.

    I tried to explain how, because of the legal differences between the two, the whole deal isn't so ironic. You're comparing apples and mangoes. Yes, they're both fruits, but the fact that somebody likes one and doesn't like the other isn't really so epiphanous.

    ReplyDelete
  17. No, the problem is...

    There are two social systems which are similar...

    If the US becomes socialized (at least more so than it is now), you have to opt out by leaving the country.

    If the LDS Church requires socialism / UO (same thing). You choose to opt out, by leaving the Church - You can't stay fully 100% active in the church and choose not to participate in a program like this.

    In Mormonism, free agency only exists as long as the individual chooses the right. If you choose the wrong, you're shunned or in extreme cases, cast out.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thanks for the link!

    I probably didn't state this in my post, but the UO is a monopoly. If you don't opt in to the UO, you get frozen out. So, I wouldn't say that that one can really opt out of the UO. Everyone in the community had to buy from the community, and "freeze out" non-Mormons or anyone like the Godbeites who opted out.

    One of the primary reasons for the anti-polygamy raids was economic. The non-Mormons couldn't break into the Mormon markets because of UO, so they used polygamy as an excuse to break into Utah economically. Opting out of the UO would have been an unusually harsh sentence--kind of like leaving the country to opt out of socialism. It's more than losing a temple recommend, because you might not be able to purchase any food by opting out.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Thanks MH! I hadn't considered the temporal aspects of opting out, and I liked your post today about the differences between the various United Orders!

    Temporal or Spiritual though, there would definitely seem to be far more at stake for a member of the Church to opt out of this specific program. Yes, technically you are free, but it's a freedom under duress of eternal consequences.

    ReplyDelete