Self Reliance on LDS.org today - How the emphasis has changed over the years

[gclayjr]

https://www.lds.org/liahona/2017/10/let ... _xLIDyM-2_

President Thomas S. Monson has taught: “Self-reliance is a product of our work and undergirds all other welfare practices. It is an essential element in our spiritual as well as our temporal well-being. … ‘Let us work for what we need. Let us be self-reliant and independent. Salvation can be obtained on no other principle. Salvation is an individual matter, and we must work out our own salvation in temporal as well as in spiritual things

and

Only when we become self-sufficient, Elder Hales added, “can we truly emulate the Savior in serving and blessing others.”4

I also see in my Stake more emphasis on Job skills, Budgeting, and education and less emphasis on Food storage, Gardening, 72 hour kits etc.(Never did give any attention to guns, Gold, Silver etc.). Does this emphasis, give us a good clue as to where OUR emphasis should be?

Also, as automation and robots, become more prevalent, what does this mean for the ongoing eternal principle of Work, in our lives?

Regards,

George Clay

PS: This also shows a path contrary to the God Socialism, so popular among many here who see an eternal future where everbody just voluntarily puts everything into a pool to be evenly divided up by God or the Church

[Michelle]

"Work is a principle of eternity." I remember reading that when I was younger (wish I could find who said it, I want to say Brigham Young?)

I know that people keep trying to convince me that technology is inspired and a blessing (the most common response being"it helps with genealogy") but it seems to me to be a counterfeit to the plan to "earn our bread by the sweat of our brow." An attempt to become like God in a way that counters the plan God gave. A way to avoid natural consequences with work arounds and tricks. A way to avoid hard work, but still get the reward. Sounds like Satan's plan to me.

I have said it before and I believe it will become even more obvious in the days ahead: God did not make a mistake when he sent Adam from the garden to till the earth. The meek will inherit the earth because they are the only ones who will know what to do with it.

Consider a modern example. If you live in Venezuela right now, money is more or less worthless. Even if you have money, there is not enough food to buy and you may be killed and have it stolen if you do buy it. Working for anyone else is pretty useless as well since they will probably just pay you in money.

But. . . if you are not in the city, if you grow your own food, if you raise your own animals, you have the hope of survival. You are dependent on God for the rain, the sun and the protection you need. What a great place to be!

Any skills learned about work and self reliance now, can only help in the days ahead should we find ourselves in the place of the many hungry Venezuelan's.

(A note on my tech and genealogy comment: I believe that most technology, if it is inspired, is God's attempt to mercifully meet us where we are at. As a people, technology continues to create problems and then try to solve the problems it causes. For example, in America, the ease and luxury of sedentary work, cheap worthless "food", and cancer causing products [from the chemicals we clean with, to the plastic we wear in the form of polyesters, to the cosmetics that poison us, etc] have left us incredibly unhealthy. Much of modern medicine focuses on treating the diseases created by this "luxury" like heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. Hardly a blessing, just merciful mitigation that would be unnecessary if we lived as God intended. Before anyone jumps in with infectious diseases: the Lord addresses this in the earliest scriptures. The Old Testament directs us to wash ourselves, quarantine our sick and eat healthy food to stay healthy. All things that would mitigate the effects of infectious disease as agreed upon by modern science. And then in modern times, we also have the power of the priesthood to heal, on top of the carnal laws that would mitigate disease.

Now for genealogy, there are cultures in which genealogies were kept very ably without modern computers. And I find it very frustrating to see how often the work I have carefully done and entered into family search is polluted by careless entries by those who don't follow the instructions given. Hardly a help. It may be helpful in the search, but not necessarily in the completion of the work. How much time is wasted by those who baptize the same person 10 times with slightly different details? Or continue to add people who are clearly not correct in an effort to keep going on a line? Wasted time and effort.)

There are not shortcuts to heaven. I am delighted to see the emphasis on work. We had a spiritual experience in the pre-existence. The purpose of mortality is to add a physical body and experience. Too often we use tech to avoid the physical world and re-immerse ourselves in a world dominated by our minds and our mental experiences. We need to appreciate that God gave us a physical experience because it is absolutely necessary to our eternal progression. The punishment Satan and his followers received was to not get a physical body or experience. That should help us understand how important this is.

Not to mention the damage that is being done by staring at screens to our brains and research shows will only be accelerated by the further implementation of virtual reality.

(I am not unaware of the irony that I am sharing this on the computer, but it is hard to find people in real life who will even speak face to face anymore. Technology being used to mitigate the effects of technology. Sigh.)

[mes5464]

I agree with the Prophet and Apostle. Only by having our own testimony (self-reliant, not dependent on the testimony of another) will we be saved. I also agree that automation and robotics is a threat to the further prosperity and self-reliance of the saints.

I do agree that socialism is not the solution to the temporal salvation of the saints but I do believe the united order is the only way that we can temporally save the saints. I believe that only by living the united order will we be able to maintain our lives, liberty, and property. I do not believe that individualism can do this, i.e. we can't stand alone, we must stand united.

I am willing to consider that I am wrong in this assessment. I do believe that with God's help anyone can stand alone, much like Samson, and defeat the entirety of the gadianton's that come against him. And, I think an important lesson that is overlooked with the example of Samson is, you don't have to be all that righteous to qualify for God's blessing of freedom and independence.

Doctrine and Covenants 98:8
I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.

We are promised that the priesthood can "put at defiance the armies of nations":

JST, Genesis 14
30 For God having sworn unto Enoch and unto his seed with an oath by himself; that every one being ordained after this order and calling should have power, by faith, to break mountains, to divide the seas, to dry up waters, to turn them out of their course;

31 To put at defiance the armies of nations, to divide the earth, to break every band, to stand in the presence of God; to do all things according to his will, according to his command, subdue principalities and powers; and this by the will of the Son of God which was from before the foundation of the world.

32 And men having this faith, coming up unto this order of God, were translated and taken up into heaven.

[gclayjr]

MES5464,

I do agree that socialism is not the solution to the temporal salvation of the saints but I do believe the united order is the only way that we can temporally save the saints. I believe that only by living the united order will we be able to maintain our lives, liberty, and property. I do not believe that individualism can do this, i.e. we can't stand alone, we must stand united.

I don't believe that the answer lies in the United Order, I do believe that the answer lies in living the Law of Consecration. The United Order was a failed attempt to live the Law of Consecration. We should go back to the principle, not the failed attempt to implement it. We should learn from our mistakes.

Regards,

George Clay

[gclayjr]

Michelle,

Any skills learned about work and self reliance now, can only help in the days ahead should we find ourselves in the place of the many hungry Venezuelan's.

You have stepped into exactly the quandary I was puzzling.

I think that we spend too much time trying to become "prepared" for an apocalypse, and maybe not enough time preparing for how society is evolving.... However, if one lives in Venezuela, that looks a lot like an apocalypse.

I struggle under that myself... Maybe preparing for living after the Nuclear attack during the cold war, economic collapse during the "stagflation" of the 70's the economic collapse after 2008 or the destruction of our society after the war between the "deep state" and Trump.... All of which I have believed might happen and none of which has happened....yet

I still wonder will me/my kids future be surviving an apocalyptic event, or learning to survive and thrive in a society that tempts all with debt, and a job environment where there are fewer and fewer good paying jobs where one can easily support a family by working for the man?

Regards,

George Clay

[brianj]

How does the law of consecration make us self reliant? Sure, if I lived that principle I would want to achieve the satisfaction of producing more than I consume, but that means that I will be helping those who aren't able to produce as much as they need or want.

For that matter, how can any of us be self reliant? Isn't that why the rest of you are blessed with family, so if you are really hurting someone will be there to help you? To uplift you so you have a real reason to believe tomorrow might be better? So when you have a need that you just can't fulfill someone will be there to provide for that need?

Because all I seem to see is people talking about how much support they get from their family, telling me that if I need help I should go to my family, and that if I don't have any family support it's my fault or my problem.

[Joel]

remember this

Past LDS Church teachings, thankfully out of print

"...since all capitalistic systems are founded upon the institution of private property, inheritance and the profit motive, great inequalities of ownership and income inevitably result. ...Among the more plausible suggestions offered to correct existing abuses without adversely affecting the productive system, is to continue the socialization of our service institutions through a system of progressive taxation based upon ability to pay...taking the bulk of their [captains of industry] profits to finance free education, free libraries, free public parks and recreation centers, unemployment insurance, old age benefits, sickness and accident insurance, and perhaps eventually FREE MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL SERVICE (Emphasis mine). ...The average family may not have much more money, if any, to spend under such a system than now. But...then the meagre (sic) family income can be devoted entirely to the necessities of life, plus some of the comforts now enjoyed by the higher income classes. ...To finance all of this, of course, will necessitate huge sums of money. ...And it will also require a carefully worked out tax system so that every one will contribute according to his financial ability. Inheritance and estate taxes will become progressively higher, until the present system of permitting large fortunes to be passed on from generation to generation will become extinct. And incidentally, the so-called idle rich who have been living on the earnings of past generations will be no more."

(- Priesthood and Church Welfare; A Study Course for the Quorums of the Melchizedek Priesthood for the year 1939 - prepared under the direction of the Council of the Twelve, pages 88-89 )

without the ellipsis

[Lyster]

How does the law of consecration make us self reliant?

I've often considered (every time I hear the term self-reliant anymore) about how the Law of Consecration teaches us to be inter-reliant. Working together in harmony will grant us far more blessings than forcing everyone to be a stay-at-home farmer.

Individuals survive. Communities thrive.

[Michelle]

Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

WE CALL UPON responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

I believe the family, not the individual, is the basic unit of society.

We do a disservice to all people when we neglect this important distinction.

Instead of "single adults" we have adults who aren't married, but have parents, siblings, maybe children, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.

If any of these are missing, there are usually at least some that exist. Exceptions to having any familial relationships are possible, but rare . . .

except that won't be the case in the near future and already isn't in some countries.

If you have unmarried cohabitation you may or may not have a knowledge of who any of those people are.

If you have societies like we are building now: with fertility rates and birth rates plummeting you look at the very real possibility of not just some, but many or even most people not having siblings. If you don't have siblings in the first generation, you don't have aunts and uncles and cousins in the second.

If you have whole societies built on individuals or families of 0-2 kids, you quickly have a society that has an abundance of elderly and not enough caretakers.

Imagine a husband and wife that have 1 child. That child does not have children. With current lifespans it is likely that child will be supporting not just their parents in their old age, but also their grandparents: up to 6 people. And if longevity runs in the family you might have great grandparents still needing care, up to 14 people. (This may be financial, but even just the ability to care emotionally with visiting regularly would become a hardship.) In reality, it doesn't even matter if the individual is trying to financially support so many people, current social programs would force financial care through government programs and taxes, which would not be as burdensome if only some people found themselves in this situation, but this is now the lifestyle of choice for many people.

Keep going as this hypothetical only child ages and there is no one to care for them in their old age, whether emotionally or financially.

Self reliance is not individual anymore than salvation is: it is familial. And traditional communities were built on families, albeit groups of families, not stranger neighbors. Yes, we individually choose to follow Christ and accept Him as our Savior. But whether all our family members choose to accept Christ, we have an obligation to have the work done for every human being who has ever lived or the earth will be burnt and wasted at His Coming.

This, I believe, is why we have been warned in The Family: A Proclamation to the World

Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

WE CALL UPON responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

This new direction for self reliance training is not about individual work and finances, it is about being able to care for family. Husbands and wives working together. Children working with their parents. Extended family uniting in a common purpose of temporal and spiritual stewardship. It is a restoration of the family to its proper place as the fundamental unit of society.

[gardener4life]

MES5464,

I do agree that socialism is not the solution to the temporal salvation of the saints but I do believe the united order is the only way that we can temporally save the saints. I believe that only by living the united order will we be able to maintain our lives, liberty, and property. I do not believe that individualism can do this, i.e. we can't stand alone, we must stand united.

I don't believe that the answer lies in the United Order, I do believe that the answer lies in living the Law of Consecration. The United Order was a failed attempt to live the Law of Consecration. We should go back to the principle, not the failed attempt to implement it. We should learn from our mistakes.

Regards,

George Clay

You had some really good points. You brought up the Saints should be united. You brought up that an individual can't make it alone. You have some positive points. However, you might want to read 4th Nephi again. The city of Enoch, Melchizedek, and the time period after Christ visited the Nephites are clear that they were blessed and happier and more prosperous than any people that ever were. And that they had all things in common.

The United Order failed not because of what it was or it being less than ideal but because of selfishness and people not being able to pull themselves out of the Telestial kingdom. When Christ's kingdom is realized during the Millenium people will live with all things in common again. But the key here is seeing the reality --> They were more prosperous and more blessed and happier than they ever could in any other system, once their selfishness was done away. So the problem isn't which system but selfishness, and worldly desires getting in the way. You can also argue that if someone can't live United Order at least in their heart then they won't ever fully reach a full living of Law of Consecration either, because the idea is they aren't loving God and their brothers and sisters fully. However, I am saying this in friendship and appreciative of your comments.

I would also bring your attention to a side note. This is quite interesting and I read this recently. IF you read Official Declaration number one, you find some interesting truths. #1, the Lord won't force us to accept his laws, but if we reject them we will lose the opportunities. (Ancient Israel could have had more but rejected living worth of holding the Melchizedek Priesthood as a whole (with a few exceptions for prophets and leaders.) They had to live a lower law to teach them obedience first. They lost access to higher blessings. Also in Official Declaration #1, The Lord showed the prophet what would happen if they don't do what the Lord said. And we also read Limhi and his people fell into bondage to the Lamanites because of their worldliness. Limhi's people later repented and came back but saw that they took the longer route through hardship. And they had to be humbled to get there. Why choose this route? And why did they get there? They chose to reject truth. Why did they reject truth? They were caught up in the world. One of the illusions that led them down the slippery slope was thinking they could be selective about truths. (Doesn't that sound like us today as a society?)

We don't want to be in bondage. That's scary and a rough life. Better to humble ourselves before Heavenly Father than be in bondage, either spiritually or temporally. And if our country continues to be full of pride we could very soon see bondage physical.

In above its worth noting that we're shown and told what can happen if we don't stay true. But we are shown some interesting things that do hold true if we do hold true. Here is a really awesome example. (But it only holds true if we're true to it.);

Now I will tell you what was manifested to me and what the Son of God performed in this thing. … All these things would have come to pass, as God Almighty lives, had not that Manifesto been given. Therefore, the Son of God felt disposed to have that thing presented to the Church and to the world for purposes in his own mind. The Lord had decreed the establishment of Zion. He had decreed the finishing of this temple. He had decreed that the salvation of the living and the dead should be given in these valleys of the mountains. And Almighty God decreed that the Devil should not thwart it. If you can understand that, that is a key to it. .

Hmm interesting. Here and in other places in the scriptures the Lord decrees that he won't allow Zion to fail. But conditions apply. We can reject Zion and the gospel and lose that blessing. That includes the United Order and the Law of Consecration. That would be foolish to do but that could happen. It could happen if we are disobedient or full of pride too. And our country is full of pride--> "America First" should actually be saying "Self Reliance first" but people with pride mixed it up. Why did Wilford Woodruff quote in the manifesto that he was shown what would come to pass if they didn't go the direction the Lord wanted? Because it shows what happens if we drift away from Zion.

Also some people miss that part of prophets, seers, and revelators can see conditionally/what would happen if, and not just what will happen. A lot of people overlook this one.

[gclayjr]

gardener4life,

You had some really good points. You brought up the Saints should be united. You brought up that an individual can't make it alone. You have some positive points. However, you might want to read 4th Nephi again. The city of Enoch, Melchizedek, and the time period after Christ visited the Nephites are clear that they were blessed and happier and more prosperous than any people that ever were. And that they had all things in common.

The United Order failed not because of what it was or it being less than ideal but because of selfishness and people not being able to pull themselves out of the Telestial kingdom. When Christ's kingdom is realized during the Millenium people will live with all things in common again. But the key here is seeing the reality --> They were more prosperous and more blessed and happier than they ever could in any other system, once their selfishness was done away. So the problem isn't which system but selfishness, and worldly desires getting in the way. You can also argue that if someone can't live United Order at least in their heart then they won't ever fully reach a full living of Law of Consecration either, because the idea is they aren't loving God and their brothers and sisters fully. However, I am saying this in friendship and appreciative of your comments.

The problem is that "Having all things in common" in 4rth Nephi and the new testament are not explained. People, including those who established early United Orders, put it into the framework of their times where many of the devout Christians who settled in the United Stated tried to make Utopian societies based upon the New Testament. They failed! I would agree that part of it is that they weren't ready for it. And in fact, that is probably why God via his prophets didn't explain it too thoroughly at the time. That was also the problem with the early "United Order" attempts. In fact, the actual "economic" philosophies employed for early LDS United Order societies, varied from community to community

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/United_Orders

Some of which were "communal" as we know it and some were not. So actually, there was no "United Order", but several varied and different experiments at living the Law of Consecration which have been collectively called "The United Order". Over the Years, because of this confusion with various Utopian (Read Socialist) interpretations of the Law of Consecration we have been given more information

“They had all things common.” The phrase “they had all things common” (Acts 4:32; see also Acts 2:44; 3 Nephi 26:19; 4 Nephi 1:3) is used to characterize those who lived the law of consecration in ancient times. Some have speculated that the term common suggests a type of communalism or “Christian Communism.” This interpretation is in error. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught the true nature of having all things common: “I preached on the stand about one hour on the 2nd chapter of Acts, designing to show the folly of common stock [holding property in common]. In Nauvoo every one is steward over his own [property].” (History of the Church, 6:37–38.)

Each stewardship is considered private property (see Reading L-4), and the residues and surpluses consecrated for the storehouse became the “common property of the whole church” (D&C 82:18). It is referred to as the “common property” because the covenant members of the order had access to it, according to their just “wants” and “needs,” including the need to improve their stewardship (see D&C 82:17–18)

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and ... g=eng&_r=1

So I would caution you to research this and not get caught up in the "God Socialism" fallacy. If you want to learn how the extreme of this can lead to gross heresy, just read the many rants of Robert Sinclair here on this board (although he is not alone in this misconception)

Regards,

George Clay

[brianj]

Instead of "single adults" we have adults who aren't married, but have parents, siblings, maybe children, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.

If any of these are missing, there are usually at least some that exist. Exceptions to having any familial relationships are possible, but rare . . .

I get the impression you are not a convert to the church. Am I correct?

I am a convert. I met the missionaries and was baptized when i was 18. I have a mother who willingly chose to move all the way across the continent to Florida. I have a father who doesn't want to speak to me. I have a brother who is a complete stranger. I have aunts, uncles, and cousins who are just as distant. I haven't seen any of my extended family in over a decade, and I am convinced that if I never see my father again he won't miss me.

The concept of a ward family is meant to be something different from an extended family big enough to be a ward. Some of us really wish that more church members understood this.

Self reliance is not individual anymore than salvation is: it is familial. And traditional communities were built on families, albeit groups of families, not stranger neighbors. Yes, we individually choose to follow Christ and accept Him as our Savior. But whether all our family members choose to accept Christ, we have an obligation to have the work done for every human being who has ever lived or the earth will be burnt and wasted at His Coming.

This, I believe, is why we have been warned in The Family: A Proclamation to the World

Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

WE CALL UPON responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

This new direction for self reliance training is not about individual work and finances, it is about being able to care for family. Husbands and wives working together. Children working with their parents. Extended family uniting in a common purpose of temporal and spiritual stewardship. It is a restoration of the family to its proper place as the fundamental unit of society.

Only it only works for people who have family. Do you have any idea how frustrating it has been for me when some clueless person hears that I am a convert and responds with that nonsensical "we're all converts" line? Really? You're a convert? What was it like when your family disowned you? When you were written out of wills? When you were surrounded by big close Mormon families whose presence is an impossible to miss reminder that you are alone?

Family is important, but it really shouldn't be an excuse for ignoring or ostracizing people who aren't part of a family or don't have family.

[gclayjr]

brianj,

Only it only works for people who have family. Do you have any idea how frustrating it has been for me when some clueless person hears that I am a convert and responds with that nonsensical "we're all converts" line? Really? You're a convert? What was it like when your family disowned you? When you were written out of wills? When you were surrounded by big close Mormon families whose presence is an impossible to miss reminder that you are alone?

While I live in the mission field, not out in Utah where "Gentile" means non-mormon, I was BIC in Utah, and grew up LDS... but mostly lived in the mission field. When I count my blessings, one thing I often ponder is whether, had I grown up in a family and culture that was not LDS, would I have had the clarity, interest or spirit to recognize the truth when missionaries came by, or would I just go back to the Drag strip or the ski slopes and focus on the more enjoyable things of life.

I did a tour in the Marine Corps at the time when Viet Nam was ending. I was never sent in-country. Often times people express appreciation for my service. However, I am often uncomfortable, because while I did serve my country, I was never in true combat. I don't know how well or badly I would have performed had I ever been sent into combat, but I do know that combat is a crucible that those of us who have never experienced will never understand. I am both glad that I never had to experienced it, and somewhat in awe of those who have.

I think it is the same about "being converted". I was not born converted. Most of my youth, I was active in small branches in the Finger Lakes region of New York, but it was mostly just what me and my family did. After, I left home, I did have to face a few things and decide that I had to decide whether this gospel was true or not. Over a period of time, study and prayer, I received a testimony that this IS the true church of Jesus Christ. However, there is definitely a difference between one who has been immersed in the LDS church throughout their life, making a choice to study, and pray and find out whether it is true, and someone who can recognize it, without that background.

You have my respect and admiration, and just like those who have truly faced combat,. I do recognize that you went through a crucible, that I would only be arrogant, if I compared it to mine.

Regards,

George Clay

[gardener4life]

gardener4life,

You had some really good points. You brought up the Saints should be united. You brought up that an individual can't make it alone. You have some positive points. However, you might want to read 4th Nephi again. The city of Enoch, Melchizedek, and the time period after Christ visited the Nephites are clear that they were blessed and happier and more prosperous than any people that ever were. And that they had all things in common.

The United Order failed not because of what it was or it being less than ideal but because of selfishness and people not being able to pull themselves out of the Telestial kingdom. When Christ's kingdom is realized during the Millenium people will live with all things in common again. But the key here is seeing the reality --> They were more prosperous and more blessed and happier than they ever could in any other system, once their selfishness was done away. So the problem isn't which system but selfishness, and worldly desires getting in the way. You can also argue that if someone can't live United Order at least in their heart then they won't ever fully reach a full living of Law of Consecration either, because the idea is they aren't loving God and their brothers and sisters fully. However, I am saying this in friendship and appreciative of your comments.

The problem is that "Having all things in common" in 4rth Nephi and the new testament are not explained. People, including those who established early United Orders, put it into the framework of their times where many of the devout Christians who settled in the United Stated tried to make Utopian societies based upon the New Testament. They failed! I would agree that part of it is that they weren't ready for it. And in fact, that is probably why God via his prophets didn't explain it too thoroughly at the time. That was also the problem with the early "United Order" attempts. In fact, the actual "economic" philosophies employed for early LDS United Order societies, varied from community to community

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/United_Orders

Some of which were "communal" as we know it and some were not. So actually, there was no "United Order", but several varied and different experiments at living the Law of Consecration which have been collectively called "The United Order". Over the Years, because of this confusion with various Utopian (Read Socialist) interpretations of the Law of Consecration we have been given more information

“They had all things common.” The phrase “they had all things common” (Acts 4:32; see also Acts 2:44; 3 Nephi 26:19; 4 Nephi 1:3) is used to characterize those who lived the law of consecration in ancient times. Some have speculated that the term common suggests a type of communalism or “Christian Communism.” This interpretation is in error. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught the true nature of having all things common: “I preached on the stand about one hour on the 2nd chapter of Acts, designing to show the folly of common stock [holding property in common]. In Nauvoo every one is steward over his own [property].” (History of the Church, 6:37–38.)

Each stewardship is considered private property (see Reading L-4), and the residues and surpluses consecrated for the storehouse became the “common property of the whole church” (D&C 82:18). It is referred to as the “common property” because the covenant members of the order had access to it, according to their just “wants” and “needs,” including the need to improve their stewardship (see D&C 82:17–18)

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and ... g=eng&_r=1

So I would caution you to research this and not get caught up in the "God Socialism" fallacy. If you want to learn how the extreme of this can lead to gross heresy, just read the many rants of Robert Sinclair here on this board (although he is not alone in this misconception)

Regards,

George Clay

You totally went off in left field and misunderstood completely.

I have only quoted you scripture. You went way off in left field assuming some kind of socialism crap and totally bent what someone said in the wrong direction, slandered the scriptures, and led people to think the scriptures say one thing and meant another. Just read 4th Nephi. I have only quoted you whats there. It does not say socialism. It does not say communism. I also did not say socialism. It does say that we will take care of one another. This has to do with love and service and pro family. Last I checked love, service, and family first don't refer to socialism.

If you don't read the scriptures you won't understand them and you will accuse people wrongly. And you better get your facts straight before you accuse someone of some kind of neo socialism promotion wrongly. Also leaders have pointed out how church programs and future church programs will not be and are not socialism. If you had bothered to check that out instead of going off in left field you could have found that out quite easily. Here is one example, Marion G Romney talked about it once;

http://scriptures.byu.edu/gettalk.php?ID=1476

[gkearney]

[WARNING my graduate degree in history is going to be employed below]

While it is true that the various attempts by the Mormons at communitarianism failed, it is not true to say that all attempts at communitarianism generally fail. There are examples of communitarian systems which have been and continue to be viable. Two that spring to mind are the Hutterites, a communal branch of the Anabaptists, and the Amana Colonies in Iowa. In both of these cases they are what sociologists refer to as ethnoreligious groups which means you are either born into the group or marry into it.

Then there are the various monastic communities of the Catholic, Orthodox, Armenian and Coptic faiths. Some of these communities have functioned for thousands of years and so it would not be fair to say that they have failed.

With in the restorationist faiths there is one very small and nearly extinct groups which has practiced the United Order since the time of the death of Joseph Smith, the Church of Jesus Christ (Cutler) has fewer than 10 members left all of which are members of the same family. One other unique aspect to the Cutlerites, as they are sometime known, is that they are the only one of the post-Joseph groups to continue the practice of the temple endowment outside of the LDS Church.

I think if you look at who has succeeded with communitarianism, like the Hutterites, and who have failed, like the Mormons, you can seen a couple of trends. Those where it has worked be they ethnoreligious or monastic, have kept the groups relatively small and do not proselytize new members. They also tend to live outside of the wider economy or, as in the case of the Amana Colonies, have been able to alter their systems to work within the wider economic systems.

In the case of the Mormon experiment I think the reasons for failure are two fold, first the system were simply incapable of absorbing the numbers of people that were coming into the communitarian communities. Many of these people were very impoverished and were bringing little in the way of resources while placing considerable demands upon the communities for support. Second is that after the arrival of the railroad and telegraph in the Utah Territory the saints were no longer able to remain isolated from the wider economy of the county. I think it is safe to say that in the case of the Latter-day Saints the United Order was doomed by the rapid influx of people which the systems could not absorb and the inability to modify the systems to respond to the growing influence of the wider economic system rather than some personal failure of the members themselves.

It is interesting to note that while the LDS experiments in communitarianism generally ended by the turn of the 20th century the Community of Christ/RLDS started a series of such experiments in the early to mid 20th century. The last of these founded in 1960 is the Harvest Hills Cooperative Community. It still exists today albeit in a form somewhat different from its founding. They have been forced to modify their structure in much the same fashion as the Amana Colonies have done.

It is interesting to consider however that two restorationist groups have managed to keep their communitarianism systems somewhat intact. In the case of the Harvest Hills Cooperative Community by constantly modifying the system to meet new conditions and in the case of the Church of Jesus Christ (Cutler) by becoming in effect a ethnoreligious group, tied to the Fletcher family. While it would seem that the Harvest Hills Cooperative Community will be able to continue on into the foreseeable future the fate of the Church of Jesus Christ (Cutler) would seem to be in doubt as all of the members are now over the age of 65 and there is no source of new membership to replace them. I would anticipate that they will become extinct sometime in the next 20 years barring some major reversal in their fortunes.

So while it is true to say that most of the communitarian efforts of people have generally failed it is not true to say that they universally fail. Monastic communities continue to function as do a few ethnoreligious groups. Even a few restorationists have clung to the idea in some form.

[gclayjr]

gardener4life,

The United Order failed not because of what it was or it being less than ideal but because of selfishness and people not being able to pull themselves out of the Telestial kingdom. When Christ's kingdom is realized during the Millenium people will live with all things in common again. But the key here is seeing the reality --> They were more prosperous and more blessed and happier than they ever could in any other system, once their selfishness was done away. So the problem isn't which system but selfishness, and worldly desires getting in the way. You can also argue that if someone can't live United Order at least in their heart then they won't ever fully reach a full living of Law of Consecration either, because the idea is they aren't loving God and their brothers and sisters fully. However, I am saying this in friendship and appreciative of your comments.

What you said here can be a bit ambiguous. Most people, when citing the United Order, they are referring to those implementations where they tried to pool everything with nobody owning or controlling anything but all belonging to the community such as was practiced in Orderville, Utah

Under the United Order, no person in Orderville could have private property, as it was all considered to be God's land. Each person was made a steward over some personal effects, and every family a steward over a home. During the first two years, the settlers worked without receiving income. They were allowed to use supplies and take food as needed. The bishop of Orderville oversaw the distribution of goods. Credit were recorded for all work done by men, women, and children and used to obtain needed materials and keep track of the labor done in the settlement. In 1877, the Order began a price system to replace the credit system, and monetary values were assigned to all labor and goods. At the beginning of each year, debts were forgiven, and those who had earned a surplus voluntarily gave it back to the Order.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orderville,_Utah

If this was not what you meant, then I apologize. However,, something like this is what many mean when they use the term "United Order"

Interestingly, Like many failed Socialist governments, including Venezuela, it did thrive for a brief time before everything went downhill.

What I quoted from the Church above, indicates that the church does NOT endorse this as being the economic order for living the Law of Consecration.

Each stewardship is considered private property (see Reading L-4), and the residues and surpluses consecrated for the storehouse became the “common property of the whole church” (D&C 82:18). It is referred to as the “common property” because the covenant members of the order had access to it, according to their just “wants” and “needs,” including the need to improve their stewardship (see D&C 82:17–18)

Private ownership of the means of production (to use a Marxist/Socialist term) is quite OK. The idea of things being in common, is that all we have belongs to God, and that we we commit ourselves, out time, and our talents to helping to build the kingdom of God, and particularly to helping those in need is the core of living a consecrated life, not the abolishment of private property.

Regards,

George Clay

[gardener4life]

Sorry Clay,

I should apologize too and be a bit more careful. I'm sorry we misunderstood one another and I'll try to do better with you.

[Michelle]

Instead of "single adults" we have adults who aren't married, but have parents, siblings, maybe children, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.

If any of these are missing, there are usually at least some that exist. Exceptions to having any familial relationships are possible, but rare . . .

I get the impression you are not a convert to the church. Am I correct?

I am a convert. I met the missionaries and was baptized when i was 18. I have a mother who willingly chose to move all the way across the continent to Florida. I have a father who doesn't want to speak to me. I have a brother who is a complete stranger. I have aunts, uncles, and cousins who are just as distant. I haven't seen any of my extended family in over a decade, and I am convinced that if I never see my father again he won't miss me.

The concept of a ward family is meant to be something different from an extended family big enough to be a ward. Some of us really wish that more church members understood this.

Self reliance is not individual anymore than salvation is: it is familial. And traditional communities were built on families, albeit groups of families, not stranger neighbors. Yes, we individually choose to follow Christ and accept Him as our Savior. But whether all our family members choose to accept Christ, we have an obligation to have the work done for every human being who has ever lived or the earth will be burnt and wasted at His Coming.

This, I believe, is why we have been warned in The Family: A Proclamation to the World

Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

WE CALL UPON responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

This new direction for self reliance training is not about individual work and finances, it is about being able to care for family. Husbands and wives working together. Children working with their parents. Extended family uniting in a common purpose of temporal and spiritual stewardship. It is a restoration of the family to its proper place as the fundamental unit of society.

Only it only works for people who have family. Do you have any idea how frustrating it has been for me when some clueless person hears that I am a convert and responds with that nonsensical "we're all converts" line? Really? You're a convert? What was it like when your family disowned you? When you were written out of wills? When you were surrounded by big close Mormon families whose presence is an impossible to miss reminder that you are alone?

Family is important, but it really shouldn't be an excuse for ignoring or ostracizing people who aren't part of a family or don't have family.

To work backwards through your post: I do not ignore or ostracize people who do not have or are not part of a family.

It think you may have some misconceptions about "big close Mormon families." I have yet to meet one, though I have heard rumors they exist.

I have met big families. I have met close families, many not Mormon. I have met Mormon families, though the big and close are often missing.

I have siblings that don't speak to me, and probably never will again. (Going on 13 years for my youngest brother.) My Dad likes to remind his children on the rare occasion that we see him, every few years even though he lives about 30 miles away, that he is sorry he had us and worse that he tried to raise us in the church (which only lasted until I was about 8.) I haven't seen most of my extended family for more than a decade, just based on my age, I would guess 25 years. I couldn't even tell you all my first cousins names (not that there are that many, but I haven't even met some) that would be due to uncles who disowned the family long before I was born. I never met them either, but they are dead now, so. . .

My husbands family has similar problems, though his Dad was a convert.

And to answer your first question: I was born in the covenant. So, you can see how well that worked out. I even have polygamous ancestors on both sides. Pioneers. But I didn't know that until I was nearly 30. I didn't move to Utah until I came for college, lived all over the US though. Church and the gospel were not the top prioritey to my parents when we were growing up. But, I wanted something different. So, I took it upon myself to learn the gospel and chose to have a large family and do all those things you are talking about "real Mormon families" doing, though I don't know very many at all who do.

Families are families. Especially in today's world. Mormon's, as far as I can tell, follow many of the same trends as non-Mormons in divorce, in estrangement, in choices about whether or not to have children and how many. (Demographics is kind of a passion of mine, so I like to look at this data among other things.)

Sometimes what we imagine others around us are experiencing, or maybe they are actually trying to pretend they are experiencing, is not reality.

Most Mormon families I know are split, with some active, some inactive, and some who have left completely (whether removing their names or excommunication.) If one parent leaves the church and they don't get divorced, the other usually follows and then the kids fall like dominoes, one by one or a few at at time. Most have people who have left and disowned the family. Many are estranged from one or both parents. Just like mine, and it sounds like yours.

I have have to go back and say my husband and I were both able to think of "big Mormon families" we knew growing up. That appeared to be the ideal you are speaking of (not in Utah either of them.)

The ones he knew had 10 kids and seemed great. But the update is the parents are now divorced, one of the 10 kids committed suicide, many inactive or left the church with all the normal problems of living in the world today.

The one I knew had 9 kids. They held the branch together. Dad was branch president, stake president. The family was at every activity. Kids: missions, temple marriages, on and on. Until the youngest was old enough to share Dad's secret. Honestly, it makes me sick to think about and I won't give the details, but lets just say,

Luke 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

Don't get me wrong. I am shooting for the ideal myself. I shut down anybody who implies at least half my kids will leave the church, because that is how things are now. But I also know it is possible, and even likely. That is why I work so hard at doing what I do.

In spite of the current reality, I have faith that it is in fact families that are going to save the world. In whatever form it is saved. Those families will probably look a lot like the ones you and I are from, but with at least 2 or maybe 3, sticking with the gospel and joining others who are doing the same. Does that mean their won't be "single" people there doing good? No, I think there may be a surprising number, for the reason's I stated in my original quote, but that were cut off when you quoted me.

Single people are on the verge of becoming the basic unit of society (well in relative terms, demographics can get in the decades easily.) And yes, that will contribute and even cause the calamities. Not that single people individually are bad, or that that is the intent. It simply is true that without the majority of people choosing to live in traditional families and multiply and replenish the earth, the calamities will come.

But what those calamities look like it a discussion for another day. It is going to be a doozy though, and it will start slowly in about 5-6 years and grow from there lasting at least 10 years at this point. (Longer if nothing changes in terms of birth and fertility rates and there is no indication at this point that they are going to move in a positive direction.) No special prophecies needed. Just the cold hard facts of demographics.

[gardener4life]

Its sad that things like that are happening. But I hope people don't think like everyone's got skeletons in their closets. I think a lot of people are really keeping the commandments and living temple worthy. I also think everyone is getting tested right now. Thoroughly...

It's so hard to be good now because 'Babylon' is so much a part of what's going on. And you know a lot of people their feeling right now is like...the great and spacious building is so big and so thoroughly infested itself throughout society that there's no way to pull away from it anymore. You can't escape it. That's very worrisome because being in the world isn't our goal and we know its harmful. So yeah...we're really getting tested.

[JohnnyL]

Yes, I think the emphasis has changed. "Money is better," especially since I think the 15 are more comfortable with the Second Coming being a ways away. If you can get $5,000 a year more, you can buy one of those expensive long-term food storage kits, then have $5,000 more the next year, and the next, etc. Money is easily transportable and transferable. It doesn't usually spoil, etc. It can be used for almost anything, while commodities can't. So while food storage is still a commandment, the emphasis is on money. It's hard to buy your way out of debt with food, pay utilities with food, etc.

[brianj]

To work backwards through your post: I do not ignore or ostracize people who do not have or are not part of a family.

It think you may have some misconceptions about "big close Mormon families." I have yet to meet one, though I have heard rumors they exist.

I have met big families. I have met close families, many not Mormon. I have met Mormon families, though the big and close are often missing.

I have siblings that don't speak to me, and probably never will again. (Going on 13 years for my youngest brother.) My Dad likes to remind his children on the rare occasion that we see him, every few years even though he lives about 30 miles away, that he is sorry he had us and worse that he tried to raise us in the church (which only lasted until I was about 8.) I haven't seen most of my extended family for more than a decade, just based on my age, I would guess 25 years. I couldn't even tell you all my first cousins names (not that there are that many, but I haven't even met some) that would be due to uncles who disowned the family long before I was born. I never met them either, but they are dead now, so. . .

My husbands family has similar problems, though his Dad was a convert.

And to answer your first question: I was born in the covenant. So, you can see how well that worked out. I even have polygamous ancestors on both sides. Pioneers. But I didn't know that until I was nearly 30. I didn't move to Utah until I came for college, lived all over the US though. Church and the gospel were not the top prioritey to my parents when we were growing up. But, I wanted something different. So, I took it upon myself to learn the gospel and chose to have a large family and do all those things you are talking about "real Mormon families" doing, though I don't know very many at all who do.

Families are families. Especially in today's world. Mormon's, as far as I can tell, follow many of the same trends as non-Mormons in divorce, in estrangement, in choices about whether or not to have children and how many. (Demographics is kind of a passion of mine, so I like to look at this data among other things.)

Sometimes what we imagine others around us are experiencing, or maybe they are actually trying to pretend they are experiencing, is not reality.

Most Mormon families I know are split, with some active, some inactive, and some who have left completely (whether removing their names or excommunication.) If one parent leaves the church and they don't get divorced, the other usually follows and then the kids fall like dominoes, one by one or a few at at time. Most have people who have left and disowned the family. Many are estranged from one or both parents. Just like mine, and it sounds like yours.

I have have to go back and say my husband and I were both able to think of "big Mormon families" we knew growing up. That appeared to be the ideal you are speaking of (not in Utah either of them.)

The ones he knew had 10 kids and seemed great. But the update is the parents are now divorced, one of the 10 kids committed suicide, many inactive or left the church with all the normal problems of living in the world today.

The one I knew had 9 kids. They held the branch together. Dad was branch president, stake president. The family was at every activity. Kids: missions, temple marriages, on and on. Until the youngest was old enough to share Dad's secret. Honestly, it makes me sick to think about and I won't give the details, but lets just say,

Luke 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

Don't get me wrong. I am shooting for the ideal myself. I shut down anybody who implies at least half my kids will leave the church, because that is how things are now. But I also know it is possible, and even likely. That is why I work so hard at doing what I do.

In spite of the current reality, I have faith that it is in fact families that are going to save the world. In whatever form it is saved. Those families will probably look a lot like the ones you and I are from, but with at least 2 or maybe 3, sticking with the gospel and joining others who are doing the same. Does that mean their won't be "single" people there doing good? No, I think there may be a surprising number, for the reason's I stated in my original quote, but that were cut off when you quoted me.

Single people are on the verge of becoming the basic unit of society (well in relative terms, demographics can get in the decades easily.) And yes, that will contribute and even cause the calamities. Not that single people individually are bad, or that that is the intent. It simply is true that without the majority of people choosing to live in traditional families and multiply and replenish the earth, the calamities will come.

But what those calamities look like it a discussion for another day. It is going to be a doozy though, and it will start slowly in about 5-6 years and grow from there lasting at least 10 years at this point. (Longer if nothing changes in terms of birth and fertility rates and there is no indication at this point that they are going to move in a positive direction.) No special prophecies needed. Just the cold hard facts of demographics.

Thanks for the encouragement, Michelle, but since moving to Utah I have found the big families impossible to not find. I go to a temple weekly, and at least once a month end up in a session with someone receiving their own endowment and at least 20 family member there to support them. I have observed that in these cases several additional temple workers are in the Celestial Room trying to remind the family to keep it down and to leave enough room for other patrons to just walk past. I absolutely hate flying into the Salt Lake airport because every time I go to baggage claim I have to weave around often large groups welcoming home missionaries, remembering the only person who was there to pick me up was the person giving me a ride home. A few weeks ago we had the annual primary program in sacrament meeting and the place was packed with all of the visiting extended family. In past wards we asked people for help, people who had a track record of dropping everything when a family member needed something, only to be rebuffed with statements that we shouldn't try having a family if we can't take care of it ourselves.

Of course I don't know the reality. All I know is what I see. I see crowds filling the biggest sealing rooms in the temples to see a marriage, so many men standing in a circle to give a baby a blessing that I don't know how they can all reach the baby, a big influx when certain people give a talk in sacrament meeting, and so forth.

[gclayjr]

JohnnyL,

Yes, I think the emphasis has changed. "Money is better," especially since I think the 15 are more comfortable with the Second Coming being a ways away. If you can get $5,000 a year more, you can buy one of those expensive long-term food storage kits, then have $5,000 more the next year, and the next, etc. Money is easily transportable and transferable. It doesn't usually spoil, etc. It can be used for almost anything, while commodities can't. So while food storage is still a commandment, the emphasis is on money. It's hard to buy your way out of debt with food, pay utilities with food, etc.

Maybe. What I get out of it is that maybe we (I) should not concentrate on apocalyptic planning, but on more mundane (and enduring) problems. Of course today, and for the foreseeable future, we live in a world where money is the medium of exchange. Managing so that we will be self reliant in a world that continues to function, perhaps badly, in the current economic model, of mostly purchase and exchange, is perhaps as important, or more important than developing "pioneer" skills.

It makes me wonder how useful my machine shop, welders, and automotive tools would be for functioning in the future. I don't know if they will be that useful or not. At Least I am not in debt for those possessions, and the time I spend developing those skills and in building things like steam engines is fun and interesting.

Regards,

George Clay

[Michelle]

I guess I feel like we are suppose to live in today's world, but be preparing for tomorrow. If things do change, and I do believe they will. We simply won't be able to learn all we need to in that instant. We will have to be prepared with as many skills as possible.

I see that as a consistent message from the prophets that hasn't really changed.

[gardener4life]

Good comments.

I'm really worried about one skill set that is being neglected right now; gardening and food canning. We were always encouraged to be able to grow our own food. Then at some point twenty years ago people started pushing the idea that we were too proud and too prosperous to do so and that nothing could ever take that away. You can have all the skills in the world but gardening and growing vegetables is one you can't replace. And I rarely see people talking about this in church now.

Last Sunday, we had stake conference. And as I was looking at the speaker from the back, more than half the people in the chapel and cultural hall were using hand held devices to play games or were talking to each other. I would see a typical whole family sitting there with 2, 3, or 4 kids and only one adult would be paying attention some of the time and everyone else talking or doing their distractions. And that was most the room. I'm really concerned about this generation. Nobody seems to want to do what's right, even before we get to talk about self reliance.

[gclayjr]

gardener4life,

That is kind of the genesis of this thread. It used to be that they told us that we should grow gardens and can (bottle) food, even if it was cheaper to just buy it, because having those skills of self reliance was important. Now it looks like they are focusing, on education, budgeting and job skills.

Is this a change in direction and focus? As I recall, the original recommendation to become self reliant was over 80 years ago during the great depression. This is definitely one of those laws, while eternal, are implemented differently in different epochs. Have things changed that much in 80 years?

I have not heard any direction from the brotheren to give up gardening, canning, or 72 hour kits. I have just noticed a subtle (or maybe not so subtle shift) along with an admonition not to go crazy in things like preparedness.

Regards,

George Clay