Talk:Law of consecration
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject, an attempt to provide comprehensive and detailed information about the Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism on Wikipedia. To participate in the project, edit this article, visit the List of articles about the Latter Day Saint movement, the project page, and/or join the discussion. For writing guidelines about contributing to the project, you may want to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints) | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
Of course the Law of Consecration isn't communism. Communism, at least in it's ideal state, does not have prophets or any form of nobility class. What I would like to see is an argument for why that law does not resemble Feudalism, where a rich and religiously empowered nobility lets serfs farm their land and give their profits to the kings and dukes and whatnot.
[edit] United Order & Private Property
It is incorrect to say that within the United Order that there was private property held by individuals, although this was the case in some United Orders it was not in all of them. Others stressed private responsibility and stewardship over community or Church held property. J. Reuben Clark was not a historian and did not live in an era when such United Orders existed. He may be used as an example of modern Mormon views on Consecration, but is not a credible authority on the history of the United Order. --Tobey (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
