Zion vs the Beast VI: All Things Common

  Previously: One Heart and One Mind

Have you ever thought about what it really means to have "all things common? Does it mean we have to give up our private property rights and surrender our stuff to a common storehouse? If so, who would control the storehouse? Who would be in charge of doling out the goods? If there is to be no central governing authority in Zion than how would this process work? I'm not sure what this would like look, but again, there are some clues in scripture. In 1831, Joseph Smith received a revelation called "the laws of the church of Christ," in which some interesting guidelines are given. This is what it says in regard to consecration:

And behold, you shall consecrate all your properties, unto me, with a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken, and they shall be laid before the bishop of my church and two of the elders, such as he shall appoint and set apart for that purpose. And it shall come to pass that the bishop of my church, after that he has received the properties of my church that it cannot be taken from the church, he shall appoint every man a steward over his own property, or that which he has received, inasmuch as it shall be sufficient for himself and family. 

And the residue shall be kept and administered to him that has not, that every man may receive according as he stands in need. And the residue shall be kept in my storehouse to administer to the poor and needy as shall be appointed by the elders of the church and the bishop, and for the purpose of purchasing land and the building up of the New Jerusalem, which is hereafter to be revealed, that my covenant people may be gathered in one in the day that I shall come to my temple. And this I do for the salvation of my people. (T&C 26:8)

The Saints during Joseph’s time failed to live the Law of Consecration, but we can still use this scripture to predict what a future scenario may look like. At first glance it seems like we are required to give all of our property to the "church" under the direction of the bishop. But, the Lord has clarified that His church is not a worldly organization ran by men, but a spiritual entity that exists whenever there are two or more that gather in His name. And giving control of the communal goods to one man, the bishop, seems like an unrighteous dominion disaster just waiting to happen. So what are these versus really telling us? 

If the church is not a hierarchical entity, then who is supposed to assist the bishop in doling out goods to the poor? Well, that'd be us, the stewards. Notice that the bishop is to "appoint every man a steward over his own property." Wait, does the concept of private property still apply here? The word steward, used during the middle ages in England and Scotland, was used in reference to an officer "who manages the affairs of an estate on behalf of his employer." It was also used in reference to an "overseer or workman," and an "officer on a ship in charge of provisions and meals." From this derived the Scottish name Stewart and the French name Stuart, which became associated with royalty. A steward then, is not one who manages his own property, but the property of another. In the context of the scripture above the "employer" is God, not the bishop. It is God that owns everything because He created it all. The bishop is just a man, a common judge in Israel whose job is to help solve disputes between stewards. He is supposed to be a servant, not a master, and in the future Zion, there may not be such a title as a bishop anyway. Maybe that was purely a creation of the New Testament-style Church that Sidney Ridgon and others pressured Joseph into setting up.  

God, being the owner of everything, makes us stewards over our "own property," meaning He gifts the property to us, with His only stipulation being that after we have sufficient for our needs and the needs of our families, we give the rest back to Him. Ideally this surplus of goods goes into a storehouse and is reserved for the poor, with the ultimate goal of eradicating the class distinctions between rich and poor. However, the storehouse always seems to get commandeered by religious leaders, who make sure that the wealth gap is maintained. The famous scripture in Malachi about robbing God of tithes and offerings is NOT directed to the ordinary saints who give tithes. It is directed at the priests who collect and hoard those tithes and refuse to give them back to the poor; they are the robbers. Anciently they were the Pharisees, modernly they are Church leaders who invest tithing funds in real estate, shopping malls, and pharmaceutical stock. 

Scores of societies, both ancient and modern, have endeavored to live such a communal existence, sharing all goods and property in common, but all of them fail. In fact, the only successful societies we know about are the ones recorded in scripture: the cities of Enoch and Melchizedek, and the Nephites at Bountiful. The common denominator of communism failing, whether voluntary or coerced, is centralization under hierarchical leadership. The leaders of these societies always seem to capitulate to the temptation to abuse power, some of them going so far as to equate themselves with the Divine. A little detour into history will illustrate what I'm talking about, so find your favorite chair, make yourself comfortable, and open your mind as we head down yet another rabbit hole. This one will be a blast from the past. 

The Origins of Messianic Communism

Murray Rothbard has brought to light some interesting and obscure history about the roots of communism in his classic two-volume work, An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought. What follows will be a summary of a few sections of that book.

The idea of communism has been around for a long time, but our modern Western concept of it began with Plato. In his famous literary works The Republic and The Laws, he describes a society that is stratified into three classes: the philosopher-king rulers, the guardians (soldiers), and the producers, consisting of laborers, peasants, and merchants. The three classes represent the different parts of each human soul: one that craves, i.e., consumes, one that fights, and one that thinks. Plato is adamant that, the lower classes representing the baser depravities of human nature, must relent to the higher nobilities of human existence. Akin to Manly P. Hall's Atlantean utopia (based off of Plato's writings), the philosopher-priest-kings rule the roost, while guardians defend them from enemies, foreign and domestic, and the producers divide the labor that sustains the civilization; all by force of course. 

Plato's subjects live a communal existence, with no one having private property, and where all things are shared in common, including wives. Marriages (for the elite who are allowed such a privilege) will be arranged by the State, and human children will be raised by the government in breeding facilities. Freedom of speech is frowned upon, higher learning is reserved for the elite who are falsely and purposely touted as semi-divine, and gold and silver are replaced with government fiat currency. There are no inalienable rights to property, including even one's own body, and all economic planning proceeds from one centralized bureaucratic agency. Occupations are divided up into moral rankings, with some being more "essential" than others (where have we heard that before?), and conscious efforts are made by those who run the State to keep the economy "static." This curtailment of economic innovation is motivated, according to Rothbard, by "fear of collapse of the domination of the state by the ruling elite." The economic engine must not be allowed to be revved too loudly by allowing full economic freedom, for paramount to the ruling class is to maintain the gap between rich and poor, between the rulers and the ruled, between the adepts and the profane. 

From Plato's idealism sprang myriad movements and social experiments throughout the last few millennia, all of them failing. However, the idea of messianic (idealism marked by an aggressive crusading spirit) communism was born, with the leading socialists always pining that the system would work "if only the right people were in charge." Failing to learn from hindsight, is unfortunately, a mental state that cannot be remedied by logic, and thus the socialistic agenda is still pushed today. But, for those with minds open enough to actually learn the lessons of history, the truth is painfully obvious: socialism and communism are NOT sustainable. Why then, would the Lord ask us to have all things common? What element present in a true Zion society is the magic ingredient that makes the system work? At present we do not know because it has not been revealed, and we have not been asked to live the Law of Consecration... yet, but if Zion is to come again, we will have to be prepared to live such a law. Perhaps part of our preparation will be to learn why other experiments in communalism have failed in the past, and how to avoid the mistakes made by others. 

In his classic book, Rothbard lays out the history of messianic communism, beginning with Plato and ending with Marx himself. A pivotal figurehead along that path was the Italian mystic Joachim of Fiore (1145-1202), a religious monk who believed that history would unfold in three great successive ages ruled by the Holy Trinity: the era of the Old Testament, ruled by the Father, the New Testament era ruled by the Son, and the final stage, the end of the world, ruled by the Holy Spirit. In this final stage poverty will finally be obliterated, because, according to Joachim, mankind will be liberated from his physical body. With no need to eat or drink, Joachim asserts that mankind will be spending time in monasteries contemplating the mysteries of God, and eagerly awaiting the last judgement. Of course, such a utopia would be easily achieved, as a communal existence without physical needs is the epitome of redundancy. As with many millenarians, Joachim believed that the advent of the Second Coming would happen sooner than later, and predicted that it would come by the beginning of the 13th century. 

Other chiliasts followed suit, namely, the Amaurians, followers of Amalric, a professor of theology from the University of Paris. Amalric was condemned by the pope for his heretical doctrines and died shortly thereafter. The Amarians, Amalric's philosophical progeny, also subscribed to the the three great ages of history ruled by the Holy Trinity, but added the concept of dispensational incarnations: Abraham for the Old Testament age, Jesus for the New Testament age, and wait for it, themselves for the final age. Notice the patterns that begin to emerge as we move through Rothbard's history; the most ambitious religious zealots become obsessed with power and insert themselves as the object of worship and adoration, oh ya... and they take all the goods in the storehouse. 

Another group in northern Europe were known as the Brethren of the Free Spirit. These neophytes subscribed to the idea propagated by the Platonic philosopher Plotinus, namely, that man was part of God in the beginning, separated from God, and then eventually reabsorbed back into God. This metaphysical oneness with God could only be achieved after passing through the veil of mortality - unless of course you were one of the Brethren of the Free Spirit. These adepts, who had spent years stoically enduring training and self-denial, had perfected themselves to the point that they could partake of godly reabsorption while in mortality. In other words, they became self-appointed gods among men. And when you're a god whatever you do is moral and not a sin, or at least that is what you tell your followers, whose most cardinal sin is to disobey you, their masters. And thus it was with the Brethren, who engaged in every kind of debauchery imaginable, while claiming it was impossible for them to sin. 

Their faithful disciples swore oaths of "absolute obedience" to their masters, and provided the communal goods they lived on. The Brethren believed that all the goods of those inside and outside their cult belonged to them. Rothbard says they "regarded all property of the non-elect as rightfully" their own. In fact, their version of "all things common" was that they had the right to steal from the common man, live like kings, and do whatever they wanted. The Brethren of the Free Spirit are reminiscent of the ilk of king Noah and his wicked priests, the Gadianton robbers who ravaged the Nephite society during the time of Helaman, and modern "Brethren" who today are enjoying the wealth, fame, power, and prestige of a 100 billion dollar religious institution, but I won't name any names. 

Rothbard's next group were called the Taborites, and man did they take things to the next level. They were part of the radical wing of the Hussite movement, followers of Jan Hus, who was put to death by the Counsel of Constance for heresy on July 6th, 1415. Hus was a religious reformer who spearheaded the pre-protestant movement in Bohemia, which was then western Czechoslovakia. Veering far afield from Hus, the Taborites added a new twist to missionary work. Instead of converting sinners, they believed they had a duty to exterminate them. Stamping out in sin preparation for the millennium meant stamping out sinners, literally. Rothbard writes that "when sacking churches and monasteries, the Taborites took particular delight in destroying libraries and burning books." Apparently, the Hitlerian idea of ritualistic book burning has been around for a long time. 

These guys, like the others before them, also believed in communism, but like Lenin preferred the violent revolutionary type. They dreamed of returning to "a lost golden age" where there was no private property. But to accomplish this ideal they proposed the scheme to wipe out and exterminate the merchants, landlords, and other capitalist swine that stood in their way. With the free-market curmudgeons removed the Taborites would be free to setup their communist utopia in Bohemia, and from thence unleash it upon the rest of the world. However, the Hussite revolution of 1419 foiled their grandiose plans, and they settled in the town of Usti, renamed Tabor, meaning mount, which they associated with the Mount of Olives. It was here that they began their communist experiment. 

True to their credo, all things were held in common, with private property being viewed as the mother of all sin. Even wives were shared, and monogamy was outlawed, even to the point that a husband and wife could be brutally beaten to death if they were ever seen together. The common store soon began dwindling, as the temptation to consume overcame the necessity to work, which is a common (no pun intended) problem in communal societies. In economics they call this phenomenon the "tragedy of the commons," which happens when a resource is overused because it is not privately owned. The "elect" of the Taborites, to shield themselves from starvation, in the tradition of the Brethren of the Free Spirit, claimed a divine right to the goods of others. Interestingly, less affluent Taborites noted that in such communities the only thought for most was survival, or how to get the most food by doing the least amount of work. Fittingly, they referred to some members of the commune, I can only assume the elite, as "robbers," who undertook "unjust campaigns for the sole purpose of robbing." Needless to say, the Taborites society collapsed and the experiment ended as abruptly as it began. 

The next group to resurrect the Taborite dystopia were the Bohemian Adamites, who like the Brethren, considered themselves "living gods, superior to Christ." This superiority was assumed because Jesus was dead and they were still alive; mind boggling logic to say the least. The Adamites took marital communalism to the next level, not only was marriage outlawed, but "promiscuity was compulsory," at least for the women, the men being more than willing participants.  Rothbard writes that "a man could choose any woman at will, and that will would have to be obeyed." They didn't sugar coat their system like Brigham Young did, claiming that one having a “higher” priesthood could take the wife of another; they just took her without explanation. They wandered about their civilization naked most of the time, simulating the garden of Eden, and were governed by their leader, aptly named Adam-Moses, who was the ultimate authority in granting permission for sex. Akin to the Taborites, they also held the conviction that they were destined to stamp out sin by exterminating unbelievers, believing they were "God's scythe, set to cut down and eradicate the unrighteous." During guerilla warfare with the forces of a Hussite commander the Adamites engaged in genocide, murdering men, women, and children indiscriminately. But an army of 400 Hussites would eventually overwhelm them, massacring every living soul among their community. A decade later in 1434, the Hussites would also crush the remaining Taborites, with the survivors going underground, planting and cultivating the seeds that would lead to history's next great communistic disaster: the Anabaptist experiment in Munster, Germany.  

Thomas Muntzer and the Munster Debacle

The Anabaptists were a sect that rose up throughout Germany as a consequence of Luther's Reformation. They believed in predestination of the elect, or the doctrine of election, and conveniently, they fancied themselves as that elect. They believed in being born again through the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and they replaced conventional church membership with a small fraternity of the elect. In other words, they were better than you, and they knew it. As you read what follows you may be reminded of a similar group of people in the Book of Mormon, who brayed on a public Rameumptom with the following prayer:

Holy, holy God!... we believe thou has elected us to be thy holy children..., and thou hast elected us that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast, by thy wrath, down to hell... (Alma 16:18, RE) 

The Anabaptists broke into two branches: the nonviolent sect reminiscent of the Amish, and the revolutionary sect that wanted to "seize power in the state" by establishing an "ultra-theocracy." The first leader of the violent sect was Thomas Muntzer (1489-1525), a student of theology and German mysticism who studied at the universities of Leipzig and Frankfurt. He was a contemporary and follower of Martin Luther, who recommended him for the pastorate in the city of Zwickau, located on the Bohemian border. Luther later regretted this, as Muntzer grasped onto the old creeds of the Taborites, and began propagating theocratic communism, stamping out sinners through violence, and the idea of spiritual wifery. Muntzer soon began calling himself a prophet, and added the sacrilege that the "living Christ had permanently entered his own soul," going so far as to claim that he "himself was becoming God." As you will see, this guy was a real nut case. 

He was soon expelled from Zwichau, and began wandering around Germany looking for Taborite remnants, and calling himself "Christ's messenger." He settled in Allstedt, became a minister and amassed a small following, eventually forming a group called "The League of the Elect." News of the preacher spread to Duke John, a prince of Saxony, who being alarmed by rumors requested to hear him preach. Muntzer took advantage of the opportunity, and thundered out an aggressive ultimatum that the Saxon princes would have to choose between God and the devil, "God" of course being the choice of joining the Anabaptists. The Saxon princes didn't take him seriously, nor did they take any punitive action against him, and he continued amassing impoverished followers who were ready to take the communal leap. Rothbard describes his proposed utopia as thus:

The poor were the elect, and would establish a rule of compulsory egalitarian communism, a world where all things would be owned in common by all, where everyone would be equal in everything and each person would receive according to his need. (Volume, I, p. 148)

In 1524 Muntzer left Allstedt and moved to the Thuringian city of Muhlhausen, where after failed efforts to incite revolution, he went to Nuremberg, where, after distributing revolutionary pamphlets, was expelled again. As luck would have it, a sympathetic revolutionary group had seized Muhlhausen, and upon his return, they imposed their communist pipe dream. But, as Rothbard recounts, it didn't work, because well, no one wanted to work. He writes:

The monasteries were seized, and all property was decreed to be in common, and the consequence, as a contemporary observer noted, was that "he so affected the folk that no one wanted to work". The result was that the theory of communism and love quickly became in practice an alibi for systematic theft. (Ibid, p. 149)

Whilst Muntzer was enjoying his communist reprieve, the Peasant's War broke out in Germany as a response to the excessive taxation and totalitarian rule of the German Princes. The Princes' armies were sweeping through Germany and brutally exterminating peasant armies without much resistance. Muntzer responded by declaring that God would protect them, and while giving his speech a rainbow appeared in the heavens which the peasants took as a sign. But, it was all in vain, for the princes easily crushed their tattered armies, captured Muntzer, and subsequently tortured and executed him. However, Muntzer's legacy continued on, with disciples endeavoring to the pick up the pieces he left behind, until the perfect opportunity presented itself in the northwestern German city-state of Munster.

Northwestern Germany was ruled by an ecclesiastical aristocracy, with each province electing its own secular bishop. These bishops, representing the clergy who theocratically ruled the city-states, would bargain over taxes with the Princes of Germany. They were able to exempt themselves from taxes, and run their cities through "an oligarchy of guilds, which used government power to cartelize their various professions and occupations." In other words, corrupt local government. The city of Munster had a population of around 10,000, and during the Peasant's War, the bishops lost their stronghold, but regained it later after crushing a rebellion. However, a grass roots movement of common people rose up and re-took Munster, forcing its bishop to relent and recognize it "as a Lutheran city." 

The Anabaptists took advantage of this instability, and began sallying forth to Munster in droves, anticipating the establishment of the New Jerusalem. A young minster, Bernt Rothmann, became an Anabaptist convert, and began preaching that messianic communism was part of the primitive Christian Church, that they held all things common among them, "with no Mine and Thine and each giving according to his need." Thousands of peasants began flocking into Munster seeking reprieve from their abject poverty, while others joined at the prospect of "plundering and robbing the clergy and the richer burghers." Another preacher of communalism, Melchior Hoffman of the Netherlands, moved to Munster, bringing thousands of converts with him, who, calling himself the prophet Elias, was promptly put in jail by the Bishop. But the movement was gaining teeth, and a new prophet rose up, a baker from Haarlem named Jan Matthys, who would become the new leader of the coercive Anabaptist wing. 

He commissioned apostles to go out and baptize new converts, and re-baptize old ones. One of Matthys' converts who would prove influential was one Jan Bockelson, a troubled young man who would be instrumental in the Anabaptist take-over of Munster. After running wildly through the streets of Munster, having "apocalyptic visions," writhing and seething on the ground, and calling on everyone to repent, Bockelson helped the Anabaptists gain enough leverage to seize the town. The wealthy Lutherans, realizing that their worldly goods were on the chopping block, promptly exited, leaving Munster in the hands of the communists. The zealots began preaching that the entire world would be destroyed in less than two months, except of course for the city of Munster, which resulted in another inpouring of converts, this time to the tune of thousands. An Anabaptist majority was soon won in the city council, and Matthys relocated to Munster and assumed absolute, dictatorial control of the town, with the help of his new right-hand man, Bockelson. The stars had aligned for the Anabaptists, and as Rothbard opined, "The Great Communist Experiment could now begin." 

The first order of business was a plan to exterminate the "unclean and the ungodly." This was to be done first in Munster, to prepare the city for the advent of the New Jerusalem, and from thence stamp out sin throughout the rest of the world. However, instead of killing, the zealots decided upon driving out the heretics, who consisted of Catholics and Lutherans. This was done in February, and many women and children were forced to face the remaining winter with no warmth, no food, and no provisions. Eerily, this compulsory exodus is reminiscent of General Sherman's burning of Atlanta, Georgia during the Civil War, who, after killing scores of men, drove the women and children out of their homes and into the wilderness at the onset of winter. The Anabaptists caught the chagrin of the Bishop, who launched what would become a long siege of the city, but despite his onslaughts, the zealots established their communist regime. 

The first property cast into the common storehouse was that of the expelled "heretics," from which the poor were encouraged to take what they needed. However, the "needs" were interpreted by seven deacons appointed to oversee the redistribution. When Matthys met resistance from a Blacksmith who baulked at this new social order, the dictator made an example of him by publicly stabbing, shooting, and killing the poor soul. Other protesting miscreants were thrown in jail, and the loyal Anabaptist rank and file sang a hymn to honor the ritual killing by their new leader. With dissent crushed and fear instilled in the populace, Matthys declared that having private money was un-Christian, and after two months the city government had confiscated all currency from its citizens. All food was seized from the homes of the people, which were declared public, meaning that everyone was "permitted to quarter themselves anywhere," and Rothbard adds, "it was now illegal to close, let alone lock, doors." If citizens wanted to eat they had to meet in "communal dining-halls," where they enjoyed rationed meals while listening to readings from the Old Testament. 

With the communist experiment in full sway, the Anabaptists next attacked the freedom to read, and began a campaign against education and learning. They surmised that since the Bible equated the "unlearned" with the elect of the world, they should destroy every book they could and make possessing them a crime. To celebrate this ignorance, a mob of zealots erected a great bonfire and burned every "book and manuscript in the cathedral library," as well as every book they could lay their hands on from every private home. The only book allowed to be read was the Bible. And of course, this was all designed as a propaganda scheme to create intellectual dependence on the leaders of the Anabaptists, to ensure that their interpretations of scripture were above scrutiny and criticism. 

Matthys took courage at his new dictatorship, being both feared and adorned by his faithful subjects, he decided that God had "ordered" him to take the Bishop's armies on headlong. But, to his misfortune, God did not protect him, and as he "and a few others rushed out of the gates at the besieging army," they "were literally hacked to pieces." With Matthys out of the way, the young and ambitious Bockelson was free to pursue his politico-theocratic ascension, preaching to the people that "God will give you another Prophet who will be more powerful." And one might add more despotic, cruel, and sycophantic. After running naked through the streets of Munster, he collapsed on the ground and remained there for three days, after which he "rose again," feigning to have received visions from God directing him to head a new dispensation. This was enough to fool the trusting masses, and Bockelson was handed the reigns of the city. His first act was to restructure the city council by abolishing all the old positions and appointing a new order in their stead: a council of twelve elders who "were given total authority over life and death." Virtually every act of defiance to Bockelson and the order was now grounds for capital punishment. 

The new order conscripted the citizenry into forced labor and military service, no one was paid for anything, the economic guilds were jettisoned, and consequently, less and less was being produced. Bockelson, facing the prospect of food stores running low, turned his attention to women, and passed a law making polygamy compulsory. The ratio of women to men was three to one, as many of the expelled heretics had left their wives and daughters behind. Bockelson, like so many spiritual wifery proponents after him, cited the patriarchs of the Old Testament for justification of polygamy, and those who would not comply with the new marriage system, were of course, executed. Faithfully putting into practice his new credo, Bockelson soon amassed a harem of over a dozen wives, with his favorite one being Divara, the beautiful widow of the deceased Jan Matthys. The men in town submitted cheerfully to the new order, but many of the women baulked, and it was made a capital crime for wives to complain or quarrel over their husbands taking on new brides. But Bockelson met strong resistance and was forced to relent by allowing divorce, but after seeing his new marital system fail, he decided to scrap the whole business, outlawing marriage altogether and declaring a new system of "compulsory free love." Rothbard describes the irony of the whole matter: "And so, within the space of only a few months, a rigid puritanism had been transmuted into a regime of compulsory promiscuity."

Bockelson was a skilled organizer. His men were more regimented than the bishops irregularly paid mercenaries who were besieging the city. Skilled in rhetorical persuasion, Bockelson offered them money (remember that money was outlawed for the Munsterian citizenry) to desert and join the ranks of the Anabaptists. Many of them came under his employ, and the bishop becoming desperate had pamphlets dropped offering amnesty for the city if Bockelson surrendered. But, if any one was caught reading them, they were punished by death. The bishop, out of resources, was forced to relent on the siege, and Bockelson responded by declaring himself "king and Messiah of the Last Days." His kingship would extend to the entire world, and he was touted as a heir of king David, descending from a line whose right it was to rule (this is also where the Illuminati claims their ruling authority from). This was all confirmed by "revelation," and Bockelson ranted that God had "given him power over all nations of the earth." Despite Jesus coming before him, Bockelson asserted that he was the prophesied Messiah from the Old Testament, and anyone who dared defy him "shall without delay be put to death with the sword." If Matthys was a nutcase, Bockelson was a psychotic sociopath. There was not enough power in the world to satisfy his lusts. 

Exempt from living the forced communism of his subjects, he was free to revel in the fast declining store of goods controlled by his theocratic state. Rothbard explains that he wore the:

finest robes, metals, and jewellery... appointed courtiers and gentleman-at-arms... appearing in splendid finery... this luxurious court of some two hundred people was housed in fine mansions requisitioned for the occasion. A throne draped with a cloth of gold was established in the public square, and King Bockelson would hold court there, wearing a crown and carrying a sceptre. A royal bodyguard protected the entire procession... (Volume I, p. 157)

Bockelson and his ruling elite further ravished the impoverished citizens of Munster, confiscating 83 wagon-loads of bedding and clothing. As starvation and cold settled upon the dejected population, they began to murmur against their overlords who were enjoying luxury at their expense. But Bockelson explained this away, by declaring that since he was the Messiah he was already dead and therefore his sumptuous and riotous living didn't count. But he assured his duped subjects that they too would be enjoying the same luxury at the dawn of the millennium, which would come as soon as king Bockelson had subjugated the entire world. But as dissent ramped up, so did Bockelson's totalitarian terror, and the death penalty was enacted against any who would merely "disagree" with the divine king. Instead of conquering the rest of the world, he used the rapidly depleting treasury to send missionaries, apostles, and pamphlets to surrounding areas, but to no avail. The princes of Europe had had enough of Bockelson's antics, and "all the states of the Holy Roman Empire agreed to supply troops to crush the monstrous and hellish regime at Munster." The city was totally blockaded from the outside, and starvation become a real prospect for the elite, who confiscated the last vestiges of food and provisions from the already-starved citizenry. Rothbard writes that "the masses ate literally everything, even inedible, they could lay their hands one."

But Bockelson fed them more lies, declaring that God would save them by Easter, but when Easter came and went, he recanted and said that he meant spiritual salvation. His violence was ramped up again. Anyone caught trying to leave was beheaded, as well as those who criticized the king. Meanwhile, the Bishop once again dropped leaflets promising amnesty to those who left, and Bockelson was running out of time. Rothbard explains how the saga ends:

Bockelson would undoubtedly have let the entire population starve to death, rather than surrender; but two escapees betrayed weak spots in the town's defence, and on the night of 24 June 1535, the nightmare New Jerusalem at last came to a bloody end. The last several hundred Anabaptist fighters surrendered under an amnesty and were promptly massacred, and Queen Divara was beheaded. As for ex-King Bockelson, he was led about on a chain, and the following January, along with Knipperdollinck, was publicly tortured to death, and their bodies suspended in cages from a church tower. (Ibid, p. 159) 

I think only one verse from the Book of Mormon can sum up the sacrilege and sheer hubris of the Anabaptist debacle. It's surely mind boggling how the antics of one or two leaders can cause so much death, misery, and injustice to transpire among a group of people, especially when they base their iniquity on righteous principles found in God's word. Here is how Mormon summed up what happened with Korihor, which can be easily applied to both Matthys and Bockelson:

And thus we see the end of him who perverteth the ways of the Lord; and thus we see that the Devil will not support his children at the last day, but doth speedily drag them down to hell. (Alma 16:15, RE) 

Early Communist Experiments in Colonial America

According to Manly P. Hall, Sir Walter Raleigh was a pupil, a follower, and an associate of Sir Francis Bacon. Both men were Rosicrusians, the branch of Freemasonry associated with Mystery Babylon, the mother of Harlots, that I've been writing about throughout this current blog series. Bacon was the author of the novel The New Atlantis, in which the plan for the New World Order, based upon Atlantean myth, is spelled out. In Hall's book, America's Assignment With Destiny, he reveals that Bacon and Raleigh, and other prominent men in their secret order (The Order of the Quest) were behind a grand scheme for the colonization of America, where, they hoped that someday the philosophical Atlantis would "rise up out of the sea." This philosophical empire would be ruled by ten kings, in a "democracy" that would be based upon Plato's writings. But anyone who reads all that Plato wrote will find out that he was statist and a communist, and by "democracy" Bacon and his cohorts really meant a one-world totalitarian socialist state.

According to Murray Rothbard (in his book series Conceived in Liberty), the first settlements in America were organized by companies granted monopoly privilege from the English crown. This mercantilist system was the British tradition during the proceeding spice trade frenzy. Merchants who had connections to the crown would petition for grants (taken from the taxes paid by the peasants) for voyages for seeking new trade routes or exploring new lands. The new discoveries of lands and resources would be divided up between merchants and royalty, and this cozy relationship ensured the propagation of the British Empire throughout the world. Sir Walter Raleigh obtained such a monopoly grant in 1585 for exploration and settlement in the new world. Led by painter John White, the settlers landed off the coast of North Carolina, on the island of Roanoke. However, they were cut off from communication from England because of the battle with the Spanish Armada, and upon White's return a few years later, not a living soul was found, and it was assumed they had been massacred by natives. 

Raleigh sold his rights to the monopoly to other merchants, and by 1612 the Crown had granted charters for two more companies: the Virginia Company and the East India Company. These were financed by an increase in taxes, which was protested by Sir Edwin Sandys of the House of Commons, who persuaded Parliament to reject any further legislation to increase taxes. However, the Crown's response was to dissolve Parliament and imprison Sandys. According to Hall, Francis Bacon become a member of the Virginia Company in 1609, and its charter included extending its boundaries to the California coast. The various members of the company ranged from liberals, to patriots, to imperialists, which Hall asserts was the "real source of the Revolution of 1775." Hall reveals that it was Bacon himself who drew up the charters of the proposed government under the Virginia Company, which he called the "germ of the Constitution of the United States." However, the Virginia Colony in Jamestown turned out to be a dire failure, simply because it was an experiment in compulsory communism, with no incentive for its settlers to enjoy the fruits of their labors. 

Rothbard adds that the bulk of the settlers that came with the Virginia Company were indentured servants, bound by seven year contracts of "voluntary servitude." But as Rothbard shows, these servants were actually slaves, consisting of "vagrants and criminals" (taken from English prisons) and even kidnapped children from the indigent. Rothbard explains:

Furthermore, many of the indentures were compulsory and not voluntary - for example, those involving political prisoners, imprisoned debtors, and kidnapped children of the English lower classes. The children were kidnapped by professional "spirits" or "crimps" and sold to the colonists. (Conceived in Liberty, p. 48)

The colony arrived in Virginia in May of 1607, and by that fall over 70% were dead. This alarmingly high death rate continued for several years. The owners of the company were the overlords of the settlers, even though each one was promised a grant of 100 acres of land and a portion of the company stock by the end of the seven years. As the coerced communism failed, the charter would slowly add more incentives to the settlers, but this was a slow process, and Rothbard explains that by 1609:

The colony was still being run on "communist" principles - each person contributed the fruit of his labor according to his ability to a common storehouse run by the company, and form this common store each received produce according to his need. And this was a communism not voluntarily contracted by the colonists themselves, but imposed upon them by their master, the Virginia Company, the receiver of the arbitrary land grant for the territory. 

The result of this communism was what we might expect: each individual gained only a negligible amount of goods from his own exertions - since the fruit of all these went into the common storehouse - and hence had little incentive to work or to exercise initiative or ingenuity under the difficult conditions in Virginia. And this lack of incentive was doubly reinforced by the fact that the colonist was assured, regardless of how much or how well he worked, of an equal share of goods from the common store. Under such conditions, with the motor of incentive gone from each individual, even the menace of death and starvation for the group as a whole - and even a veritable reign of terror by the governors - could not provide the necessary spur for each particular man. (Ibid, p. 49) 

The settlers were ruled by martial law, as exacted on them by the company. Captain John Smith, the "hero" romanticized by the story of Pocahontas, was one of their virtual dictators, exercising "justice" on them by his own decree. Sir Thomas Gates was another of their punitive masters, appointed governor by the company in 1609. Some of the crimes punishable by death included:

trading with Indians without a license, killing cattle and poultry without a license, escape from the colony, and persistent refusal to attend church. One of the most heinous acts was apparently running away from this virtual prison to the supposedly savage Indian natives; captured runaway colonists were executed by hanging, shooting, burning, or being broken on the wheel. (Ibid, p. 49)

The recalcitrant colonists rebelled, as one might expect in such a harsh environment. And after governor Gates was obliged to appoint bodyguards for his safety, they ramped up the strictness. A new rule forced every man and women to attend Anglican church service twice a day (and I thought once a week in a three-hour block was bad). Consequences for absences increased with each truancy; after the first food was withheld, the second come with a public whipping, and the third sent the troublemaker to work in the galleys for six months. In addition to the threats of violence for playing hookey, the settlers were expected to fully submit to ecclesiastical leaders. Failure to subordinate themselves by "placing themselves under the minister's instructions," resulted in more whipping. And worse yet, if one criticized the "Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England," one could be expect to be tortured to death. 

At length, the colony came under the partial Puritan leadership of Sir Edwin Sandys, who in 1619 replaced Sir Thomas Smith as treasurer. Sandys was the same man who had protested taxes and monopoly privilege in Parliament a decade earlier. Sandys began a transformation in Jamestown that led to increased economic freedom and religious tolerance. He also advocated for the abolishment of the "singe plantation" in favor of "private plantations." After a new Puritan governor, Sir George Yeardley was appointed, church attendance requirements decreased to only twice on Sundays, with absences punishable by a small fine of three schillings, and land that was promised at the end of the seven years was immediately granted to the occupants. As one might expect, incentive levels skyrocketed, and as one colonist remarked, their labors were followed with "alacrity and industry, so that":

within the space of three years, our country flourished... the plenty of these times likewise was such that all men generally were sufficiently furnished with corn, and many also had plenty of cattle, swine, poultry, and other good provisions to nourish them. (Ibid, p. 51)

The next great colonial communistic disaster was none other than the Plymouth Colony, inaugurated by a partnership between the South Virginia Company and a few London merchants. The new venture, John Peirce and Associates, received a grant in 1620 from the Virginia Company, and laid out a plan for the pilgrims who signed up with them. Each settler was promised, again at the end of seven years, a share of the joint-stock, along with the opportunity to further invest 10 pounds for each additional share, the profits of which would be divided up among them after the appointed time. Like Jamestown before them, they determined to live in communalism until the seven years was up, "with each settler contributing his all to the common store and each drawing his needs from it - again, a system of from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

The 100 plus pilgrims sailing across the Atlantic on the Mayflower landed in Plymouth in December of 1620. However, a provisional government had to be establishment while the ship was still at sea, as many of the indentured servants were anxious to shirk their contracts and try their luck at freedom in the new land. In this they were repulsed, as a minority of pilgrims were able to form a "body politic" to control the majority, and thus the "first government of the new world was formed," a government that was in no way independent from England. By the end of the first winter the communistic experiment had claimed over half of the lives of the colonists. And by 1621, John Peirce managed to obtained another patent from the Council of New England, granting each settler 100 acres of land. However, the practice of communism continued until 1623, when the settlers were finally allowed to keep the fruits of working their own land. William Bradford, who had governed the colony since 1621, recounts in his own words the results of allowing this new autonomy: 

At length after much debate, the Governor, with the advice of the chief among them, allowed each man to plant corn for his own household, and to trust themselves for that; in all other things to go on in the general way as before. So every family was assigned a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number with that in view... This was very successful. It made all hands very industrious, so that much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been... The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to plant corn, while before they would allege weakness and inability; and to have compelled them would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.

The failure of this experiment of communal service, which was tried for several years, and by good and honest men proves the emptiness of the theory of Plato and other ancients, applauded by some of later times, - that the taking away of private property, and the possession of it in the community, by a commonwealth, would make a state happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For in this instance, community of property (so far as it went) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment which would have been to the general benefit and comfort. For the young men who were most able and fit for service objected to being forced to spend their time and strength in working for other men's wives and children, without any recompense. The strong man or the resourceful man had no more share of food, clothes, etc., than the weak man who was not able to do a quarter the other could. This was thought injustice...

As for men's wives who were obliged to do service for other men, such as cooking, washing, their clothes, etc., they considered it a kind of slavery, and many husbands would not brook it... If (it was thought) all were to share alike, and all were to do alike, then all were on an equality throughout, and one was as good as another; and so, if it did not actually abolish those very relations which God himself has set among them, it did at least greatly diminish the mutual respect that is so important should be preserved among them. (William Bradford Of Plymouth Plantation, p. 116, emphasis added)

Despite Bradford's eloquent summation of the failures of such a communistic system, he still believed that it was the people, not the system, that were responsible for its demise. He writes:

Let none argue that this is due to human failing, rather than to this communistic plan of life in itself. I answer, seeing that all men have this failing in them, that God in His wisdom saw another plan of life was fitter for them. (Ibid, p. 116)

This last comment is interesting to say the least, because, as I will reveal later in an ancient text that has been recently published, the Patriarchal Fathers lived successfully in a communal system of shared property. However, I believe the main difference between theirs and the communist experiments I have written about so far boils down to one thing: free agency. 

Around the time Joseph Smith was consorting with the angel Moroni (or Nephi depending on what source you read), another communistic experiment was being attempted in the town of New Harmony, Indiana, by socialist advocate Robert Owen. This one was also a failure, but for different reasons than Jamestown and Plymouth; the added ingredient of free agency present in Owen's utopia, was by itself not enough to ensure success. Owen had gained his wealth from investing in and managing a spinning mill in New Lanark, Scotland, which he used to purchase a small town in Indiana along the Wabash river. The town, named Harmony, had been previously owned by George Rapp, a German pietist who founded a religion called the Harmony Society, consisting of Lutheran Separatists who believed in Christian theosophy. Rapp and his followers emigrated from Germany in 1804 and purchased land to build a town in Pennsylvania. They established a religious commune with strict requirements, with celibacy being the main tenet. After a decade of economic prosperity Rapp sold the town and purchased new territory in Indiana, which he sold to Owen in 1825. 

Owen had become an advocate for social reform in the early 1800s. He railed against what he considered a tripartite evil: religion, the family, and private property. In his proposed socialistic utopia, he agitated for the abolishment of religion, the rearing of children by the community, or government, and the sharing of all property into one communal pool. He began his social experiment upon the purchase of Harmony, which he redundantly renamed, New Harmony. Owen was not the violent or totalitarian type; those that came to live in New Harmony were not subject to whippings, forced labor or public execution (which would not have been allowed in the state of Indiana). He attracted a cadre of astute intellectuals, artists, and scientists, among them were Thomas Say, Charles-Alexandre Leseur, Madame Duclos Fretageot, and William Maclure, a wealthy Scottish philanthropist who would become Owen's partner. The problem with Owen's society, is that there were too many theorists and not enough laborers. As a result, the experiment ended within two years. But Owen's legacy lived on, and other communal experiments erupted throughout the country, all of them ending with a similar fate. Owen even caught the attention of Karl Marx and Frederic Engels, who mentioned him in their writings. 

Even though Owen had never actually seen a communal society succeed, he continued to advocate for socialism throughout his life. After his return to England, he published a personal manifesto in the early 1840s, in which he described the idiosyncrasies of his philosophic socialism. He became more aggressive in advocating for state-sponsored socialism, in contrast to the voluntary kind he attempted in New Harmony. These later writings are imbued with a kind of messianic aura, painting socialism as a mystical institution that would become the harbinger of human hope and happiness. But like many socialistic theorists before and after him, Owen neglected to include himself as part of the broken system in need of fixing. It is easy to insert your theoretical ideas as the answer for what other people should do, while continuing to live an imperfect life like everyone else. Karl Marx was the ultimate example, he hardly worked a day in his life, incessantly borrowing money from the wealthy Engels, which he used to espouse his ideas while neglecting his wife and children to the point that they were starving. 

The Book of Mormon has the answers for this theoretical dilemma. The text insists that priests are no better than their listeners. A priest can be anyone, not just a member of Christ's church, who promulgates any idea or philosophy, whatever it may be. The priests, after they are done flapping their jaws on their proverbial soapbox, should return to their labors. In other words, everybody works, both priest and teacher, listener and saint. Thus, at least one magic ingredient in Zion is labor, where rhetoric is put into actual practice. No one will be above hard work.  No one will sit and theorize while living on the labors of others. Murray Rothbard would often say that socialism doesn't work, simply because no one is willing to take the proverbial garbage out. There is no incentive to do so. There is no reward. In Owen's society, everyone was so focused on science, art, and philosophy, that they neglected the mundane labor necessary to sustain them. And without proper incentive, that labor will not get done. 

God has decreed that labor is a necessary ingredient for Zion. He has explicitly stated that we should not be idle, for the idler "shall not eat the bread, nor wear the garment of the laborer." In socialism, one builds and another inhabits, one sows and another reaps. Zion will not be a socialistic society, the communalism it will embrace will be based on individual labor and incentive. Only after the needs of the individual and his family are satisfied will the extra goods be pooled into a common storehouse, and they will be placed there voluntarily. Isaiah has prophesied that those in Zion will enjoy the fruits of their own labors, the system he is describing is the opposite of socialism. He writes:

And they shall build houses and inhabit them, and they shall plant vineyards and eat the fruit of them. They shall not build and another inhabit, they shall not plant and another eat; for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, my elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labor in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them. (Isaiah 24:9, RE)

The Failure of the Early Latter-Day Saints

The first attempt by the Mormons to live the Law of Consecration was in the early 1830s. The scripture (T&C 26:7-8) I included at the beginning of this post spells out the requirements. Basically, the gist is that the Lord owns everything, and the people are made stewards over their earthly possessions, which are given to them by God. They were to consecrate this property by deed to the Church, and every year turn in any surplus production (beyond the needs of immediate family) for the benefit of the poor. The system was totally voluntary, and anyone who left the Church, moved away, or was excommunicated was given back their consecrated properties. This was not a communistic system, the private property of the individual was left in his hands as part of the stewardship, and he was free to engage in the market system to increase his yield. Although properties were turned over to the bishop for redistribution, the surplus was controlled by common consent. Edward Partridge explained it this way:

I will tell you that every man must be his own judge how much he should receive and how much he should suffer to remain in the hands of the Bishop. I speak of those who consecrate more than they need for the support of themselves and their families.

The matter of consecration must be done by the mutual consent of both parties; for to give the Bishop the power to say how much every man shall have, and he be obliged to comply with the Bishop's judgment, is giving the Bishop more power than a king has; an upon the other hand, to let every man say how much he needs, and the Bishop be obliged to comply with his judgment, is to throw Zion into confusion, and make a slave of the Bishop. The fact is, there must be a balance or equilibrium of power, between the Bishop and the people, and thus harmony and good will may be preserved among you. (Documentary History of the Church; 1:749) 

By the end of the 1830s, the Saints had abandoned consecration. Many factors led to its demise, ranging from the wealthier families' reluctance to hand over their property to the Church, to the opposition they faced from angry mobs in Kirtland and Missouri. In March of 1840, Joseph Smith announced to the Church that the Lord had rescinded the commandment to practice consecration. The Joseph Smith Papers state:

He said that the Law of consecration could not be kept here, & that it was the will of the Lord that we should desist from trying to keep it, & if persisted in if it would produce a perfect abortion, & that he assumed the wholesale responsibility of not keeping it until proposed by himself. (Quoted on Denver Snuffer's blog here, JS Papers, Documents Vol. 7, p. 215)

I took this quote from Denver Snuffer's blog, who commented that the revelation still applies today, and that "it will require a new command from the Lord to resume the attempt." However, an interesting look into Mormon history reveals that the Brighamite Church attempted to resurrect the Law of Consecration in the 1870s, which became known as the United Order, or the Order of Enoch. 

Brigham Young's sudden infatuation with the United Order was accompanied by some interesting "coincidental" economic factors that were coming into play in Utah. Up until the completion of transcontinental railroads, Mormons enjoyed an advantageous position of trade with gold rushers. Anxious to get to California, they sold their Eastern goods low and paid high prices for commodities produced in Utah. But the coming of the railroads changed all that. The diversity of "Gentiles" flooding into the territory brought new competition into Salt Lake valley. Non-Mormon merchants began thriving as they established businesses that catered to both Mormon and Gentile (I use the word sardonically, ironically, the Mormons were also Gentiles) alike. The leaders of the Church began losing their social and economic stronghold on the Latter-Day Saints.  

Young began making protectionist efforts to keep money flowing between Mormons and thus into the hierarchy of the Church. In the late 1850s, he commissioned apostle Lorenzo Snow and fifty chosen families to hie up to Box Elder Settlement to establish a system of cooperative living. This would later become Brigham City, and by 1864 Snow had established the Brigham City Mercantile and Manufacturing Association, a company starting out with $3K in working capital and 5 stockholders (Snow one of them) to invest in local manufacturing and home industries. Over time the stockholders grew along with the capital, and the investors could draw on yearly dividends. This created an incentive to keep industry in the hands of Latter-Day Saints, and it worked. However, it wasn't a purely "grassroots" company, as obviously it was financed by tithing funds; Lorenzo snow being a paid apostle. In that sense, the cooperative in Brigham City was centralized, but it served as a precedent for the United Order a decade later. 

Another protectionist scheme espoused by Brigham was the creation of ZCMI in Salt Lake City, or Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution, incorporated in 1870. It was established by a vote from the Council of Fifty, funded with tithing funds, and open to Mormon investors who were full tithe payers. Of the 1900 shares of original stock, 1772 were held by just four men, beholden of course to the LDS hierarchy. ZCMI fared sumptuously, and become a market force in the sale of boots, shoes, work clothes, building materials, fabric, needles, food preservation products, furniture, draperies, and even beauty products. Church leaders didn't just encourage Mormons to shop at ZCMI outlets, they demanded it, sometimes with vague spiritual threats. And as you can imagine, this lead to opposition from both Mormons and Gentiles. The leaders were able to stem the tide for a time, but when the Panic of 1873 came they had to raise the ante: it was time to reintroduce the United Order. 

In the October 1873 General Conference, a torrent of talks were unleashed on the hapless Mormon listeners lauding the glorious Order of Enoch. Subsequent speaking campaigns were undertaken by apostles and other leaders in St. George and surrounding settlements. Brigham Young went so far as to even threaten the very salvation of the Saints if they failed to comply, asserting that God had again commanded them to live the United Order, which:

superseded the law of tithing. The Order of Enoch was revealed at an early day, and the Saints being unprepared to enter into it at that time, the Lord introduced the law of tithing as a lower principle or law, which had continued to the present, and now God had again revealed the above Order for our observance, to prepare us for the greater things that were close upon us. (Quoted in The Second United Order Among the Mormons, by Edward J. Allen, New York, 1936, p. 96, emphasis added)

Of course, this was in direct defiance of Joseph's revelation to abrogate the practice 40 years earlier, but Brigham was considered a "prophet" by now, and could use his influence to hint to a revelation by God, which by the way, was never written down anywhere. At the end of his life, which came a few years after the order was reintroduced, he lamented that he'd never seen the Savior or received any revelation from God to direct the Church, but that he was a "Yankee guesser." He surmised that perhaps if he held out until he was eighty, like Moses he would finally be allowed to behold the Savior:

If I am faithful until I am eighty years of age, perhaps the Lord will appear to me and personally dictate me in the management of his church and people... (Brigham Young's Telestial Kingdom, Denver Snuffer; 2012)

That personal appearance never came, but Young wasn't above using his clout to persuade Church members to comply to his whimsical and ambitious leadership practices. He also asserted that God would curse the Saints if they weren't "disposed" to enter the Order:

If we are disposed to enter into the Order of Enoch, now is the accepted time and blessed are the Latter-Day Saints. But if we are not disposed to enter this order the curses of God will come upon this people, I cannot help it. I will not curse them. But the time has come for this work to be commenced. (The Second United Order... p. 50-51)

The Saints complied, voluntary orders sprung up all over the Utah territory, varying greatly in scope. Some towns incorporated farming or industrial cooperatives like Brigham City, and others jumped full-on into voluntary communism. Like the Owen experiment, no one was coerced, and some towns experienced success for the first few years, the most famous being Orderville. 

Orderville was founded by a group of Saints who desired to go far beyond what Joseph and even Brigham envisioned for the Law of Consecration. They wanted a completely communal society with no private property at all. In 1875, a rift broke out in Kanab and surrounding areas between the communalists and those who supported the less prohibitive cooperative system. The debate become so intense in Mt. Carmel that a group of communal dissenters broke off and traveled two miles northeast to a previously abandoned settlement they renamed Orderville. They wasted no time in establishing their communal order, where they enjoyed a common dining hall and uniform clothing and housing. Every activity in town was regulated by a common board elected by the people. This board oversaw farming, manufacturing, entertainment, clothing production, schooling, and cooking for common meals. The board was controlled by polygamous men, and women no longer had the freedom to run the relief society as they pleased. Their service which included cooking, sewing, etc., had to be limited to assignments issued by the men.

Despite centralized control of virtually everything in the town, the Orderville Saints actually prospered economically. They quadrupled the net worth of the town in the first four years, and by 1883 they were worth $80K. But due to external and internal pressures the leaders of the town had to make changes. Wages had to adjusted for sex and age, as some produced more than others. This trend continued, and after a flood destroyed the dining hall in 1880, Erastus Snow advised them to move to a quasi-private system consisting of unequal wages and partial stewardships, which included a plot of land for each family to use for their own economic ends. Orderville began to move from communalism to the cooperative systems that were popular in other Utah towns. And after Church leaders came under the scrutiny of the polygamy banning Edmunds Act of 1882, they counseled members to disband the orders. By 1889, all communal or cooperative ownership in Orderville was ended; the great communal experiment was over.  

Edward J. Allen, writing in 1936 from a non-member perspective, offers this analysis of the Orderville success:

Reports of progress in the Order are almost entirely lacking for this period and after 1880 there is no mention of the Order in the Journal of Discourses. Yet the communistic endeavors of the brethren of Orderville were being blessed with prosperity. From its inception to the close of 1882 the community had been operated as a united family. Each drew upon the common fund and all surpluses and indebtedness were cancelled at the end of each year and all began again on equal footing. This arrangement, coupled with an increasing abundance of goods, assured all of economic security. The stimuli for arduous endeavor were the approbation of one's fellow and the reward of one's conscious. This was sufficient for many of the original settlers, but the young men saw and heard of the progress of successful individuals in the competitive outside world. They and others in the community desired the opportunity of receiving rewards in proportion to their productivity. This problem was presented to Erastus Snow in the quarterly conference at Mt. Carmel. He advised the brethren to disband. (The Second United Order Among the Mormons, by Edward J. Allen, New York, 1936, p. 113)

Allen's commentary brings up some interesting questions. Despite Orderville being centrally controlled by a patriarchy, their voluntary communism was a success, at least for the first four years. Up until 1882, the entire town consisted of one "united family," which could have been a key to their initial success. But the outside temptations of capitalistic endeavor were too great for the young men, those who had the strongest backs and could produce the most labor. As Allen suggests, the original altruistic idealism the community began with gave way to the individual avarice that accompanies market systems. This begs the question: what is the correct balance between these two extremes that worked for Enoch and Melchizedek? There has to be incentive for people to produce goods and services, but in a Zion society there has to be a mechanism for caring for the poor. 

Indeed, for God to call a place Zion there would have to be no distinction at all between rich and poor. How is such a societal status achieved? What makes sense to me, and what Denver has suggested, is that it will take a new revelation from God to find out how to live this order. But in the meantime, also as Denver has suggested, we can practice by meeting in fellowships and pooling tithing money together to help those with the most pressing temporal needs. This is the first step, and will require those involved to have the attitude of what they can give, rather than what they can get out of the practice. And unlike the structure of the early LDS Church, there will be no centralized authority, i.e., a bishop or an elected board, in charge of redistribution. Every soul who contributes will be part of that process, no one will be a leader, no one will take charge. This will take extreme effort, because let's face it, it's easier to place the burden of leadership on one person rather than sharing equally in it. Most people prefer being told what to do, rather they admit it or not, simply because they don't want the responsibility that autonomy entails. 

There is another text we can draw from to learn about how to have "all things common," as prescribed by the Lord. Awhile back a friend of mine recommended that I check out a Christian author named Zen Garcia. He has a YouTube channel and has written over thirty books in the last twenty years, all of which you can find at this website. He is a very humble man, confined to a wheelchair, and is an expert on apocryphal texts. I have to admit, this guy has blown my mind on a number of occasions. I believe he is definitely led by the Spirit, and is making invaluable contributions to the Christian movement. Truth is beginning to poured out on the earth as a flood, and as evil ramps up in preparation for the Beast system, God will bolster His saints with restored knowledge that will increase their faith and steadfastness to resist that system. I believe Zen, Denver, and a host of others are part of that process. Before I close this post, we'll lightly explore one of these ancient texts that mentions having all things common. 

The Book of the Order of the Ancients

Zen Garcia has compiled two ancient texts into one book, The Book of the Order of the Ancients (click here for a hard copy and here for the kindle version) consisting of The Book of the Order of Elijah and the Writings of Abraham. I cannot find the source for the book of Elijah but the Writings of Abraham are said to have been discovered as a papyrus scroll in Egypt in 1831. I read the whole book in just a few hours, I couldn't put it down. It resonates considerably with the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible and Mormon theology in general, in fact, some verses are almost identical. Some of the concepts Elijah and Abraham write about are the Holy Order of God, the Patriarchal Fathers, the Melchizedek Priesthood, the Powers of Heaven, the Order of Enoch, the Schools of the Prophets, the Law of Consecration, Zion, seeing the face of God, the Everlasting Covenants, the General Assembly and Church of the Firstborn, sons of Perdition, the Atonement, law of witnesses, and more. The language and style of writing is very similar to the Book of Mormon; it is has the feel of a restored gospel text. 

The main theme of Elijah's book (by the way, it says that he has a future ministry) is the Holy Order of God. This is the ancient order of the Patriarchal Fathers beginning with Adam and ending with Noah, Shem (who is Melchizedek), and Abraham. For those who have read and studied Denver's talks and writings over the last decade, this material will resonate with what he has taught. The Holy Order is the ancient religion of the Fathers, it is what Joseph Smith was attempting to restore. It is the only true religion, not an organized institution, but rather a practice confined to families and small groups. In my next post I am going to delve deeper into the Holy Order, and how Satan has imitated it with the orders of various secret societies. For now there are just a few references from the text about communal living that I find interesting. 

Elijah's record is addressed to his son Elisha, and is basically an instruction manual on the requirements to enter into and live the Holy Order of God. One of those requirements is living the Law of Consecration. Elijah writes:

Everyone who desireth to enter the Order of Enoch must be one who loveth the Lord his God with all his heart, might, mind and strength and one who loveth his fellowman as himself, according to the word of the Lord through Moses. 

He must covenant to live the law of consecration and to hold all things common with his brethren according to the pattern set by our First Parents, for when they came forth from the garden they divided not up the land but held it in common until their posterity through wickedness began to lay claim to it for themselves. 

Behold, this private ownership of the property came to pass through the teachings of that evil combination which was organized by Cain that men might get gain for themselves because the love of God and man is not in them. (The Book of the Order of the Ancients, Kindle version, p. 13, emphasis added) 

When I first read that line about private property being a concept derived from Cain and secret combinations, I was shocked. I am a libertarian, to me private property is a foundational tenet of freedom. I must admit that this text is challenging my paradigm, but there is a higher law at play here, and it is not communism, at least not the Marxian type. Elijah goes on to explain that this communal living is a requirement to build Zion:

To live after the order of the ancients means that they must live in the community of God's elect, holding all things common and loving one another as themselves.

Yea, they must unite in one heart and one mind, for only thus can Zion be built up in its perfect order and the name of our God be glorified. (Ibid, p. 13)

Now we already know that holding all things common is a requirement for Zion from the Book of Mormon and the Bible, but Elijah's record is another witness of this, and adds more detail about what it actually means. It has something to do with the land. He says that Adam and Eve did not divide up the land but held it in common for their posterity. Obviously, the land has to be worked by someone to produce its yield, therefore, a person has to be made a steward over a certain parcel of that land, otherwise, chaos would ensue. The revelation Joseph Smith received on the Law of Consecration was probably similar in the methodology to the ancient order. There has to be stewards or no one would know what section of land to work, otherwise, everyone would be tripping over each other.  

In the Writings of Abraham it also mentions having all things common. Abraham tells the story of his childhood, which is also told in the Book of Jasher. His father, Terah, was a big-shot in the kingdom of Nimrod, and when Abraham was born the mystics and sorcerers in Shinar predicted that the child would grow and eventually destroy Nimrod's kingdom. Nimrod ordered Terah to bring him the child so he could kill it, but Terah brought a different child and Abraham left with his mother and hid in a cave. After a decade in the cave he went to live with Noah and Shem and was instructed in the Holy Order and the Gospel of Christ for the next thirty-nine years. Eventually, Abraham is commanded by the Lord to leave and go on a mission to Egypt, where he converts Pharaoh and his entire household to the Gospel. That is why, centuries later, the Egyptian Pharaohs had a semblance of the Holy Order but corrupted it into the Egyptian Mystery Schools. 

Abraham had twelve wives before he met Sarah, which is another part of the record I struggle with. Hopefully it is a mistranslation or an interpolation. From these wives he had 300 daughters but no sons, which sounds a little ridiculous. Nevertheless, he and his family, and extended family lived in communalism, where they shared their flocks, lands, and cattle. Lot, his nephew, was a part of this group. Abraham explains that Lot left the group to have his own property in Sodom where he built his own house. This grieved Abraham, but Lot was still considered a righteous man even though he wasn't obedient to the Order. In fact, he was the only righteous man found in Sodom, and was the only reason God spared it long enough to save him. Abraham writes:

Now after our departure from Egypt, a faction arose among our people upon seeing the great wealth which Pharaoh had entrusted to us, for they desired property which they could call their own. 

Lot also was among them, which thing grieved me greatly, but seeing they would not be reconciled, we gave unto them a portion of the common property and they departed from us under Lot's direction and settled in the Valley of the Jordan River. 

They went from place to place as their flocks needed pasture until they reached the city of Sodom where they mingled with the inhabitants and become one with them. 

Lot also built a house in Sodom and settled there, but of all that company that went out from us, only Lot maintained his integrity and did not violate the covenants of his priesthood nor bow to heathen idol gods. 

Nevertheless, Lot did not walk perfectly in the way of the Fathers for he dwelt not among the people of God but built his own house and he coveted his own property that he should govern it rather than holding all things common with the saints. 

Nevertheless, Lot did continue to serve the Lord and the Lord loved him and his family and his property grew very large. (Ibid, p. 141) 

This is an example of how one can voluntarily choose to leave the Order of Enoch and still be considered a righteous person. It is purely a higher law, never coerced or compulsory foisted upon the followers of Christ. But it is a requirement for Zion, and unless there is a people gathered together living this law in a place called the New Jerusalem, the whole earth will be utterly wasted at Christ's second coming.  I really do not think that the Law of Consecration will diminish freedom or liberty in any significant way. I think the main difference between the Lord's idea of communal living and individualistic private property is that those who enter the Order will choose not let greed and avarice get the best of them. There will still be incentive, those who labor will certainly enjoy the fruits of that labor, as Isaiah has asserted, but the "abundance" that will come will be pooled into a common store to care for the poor. Until eventually, there will be no poor, and no rich, and thoughts of individual pursuit of economic gain will pale in comparison of loving and taking care of each other. Perhaps ultimately, there will be no distinction between his, hers, theirs, and ours, and the very thought of even one person going without will be too much to bear. Maybe the point is that there are no rules of how this system will function, maybe the Lord just wants us to figure it out ourselves. 

I want to leave you with one more verse from the book of Elijah. This is about his future ministry to turn the hearts of the children to the fathers. Maybe, just maybe, part of Elijah's mission is to instruct us in how to live the Holy Order, including the Law of Consecration. This is just a hunch, but we know he will be some kind of link between us and the Fathers, and if we want their Zion to come down and meet our Zion, we will have to be living the same law: 

For the Lord hath said, behold, my servant Elijah shall not die but shall bear with him the keys of his ministry unto the heavenly city until the last days when I shall send him unto one of his seed whom I shall raise up to bear the fullness of this ministry among the sons of men. (Ibid, p. 11)

Stay turned for Part VII: the Holy Order.

Postscript: Recommended Videos

Here is a lecture from Murray Rothbard on the history of messianic communism. He covers all that I summarized from his book and some interesting things about Karl Marx at the end:

And here are two videos from Zen Garcia on the Book of the Order of the Ancients, one from six years ago and one from two years ago:

And here are two talks from Denver Snuffer on Zion where he briefly touches on having all things common:

Zion vs the Beast V: One Heart and One Mind

 Previously: The Atlantean Leviathan

In the last four posts we've gone over what Zion isn't, namely, a strongman model ruled by "benevolent" quasi "divine" priest-kings in a socialistic, communistic, and atheistic democracy. Saint John called this Satanic substitute for Zion a Beast, and described it with imagery from Atlantean myth and philosophy passed down in the Mystery Schools. A large body of scripture has been dedicated to warning us about about events that will transpire when the latter-day Zion is gathered, but little however, has been revealed about what Zion actually is. There are only three societies mentioned in scripture that were successful in living the requirements for Zion: the city of Enoch, the city of Melchizedek, and the Nephites in Bountiful described in 4th Nephi. Enoch and Melchizedek's societies were taken into heaven, and the Nephite experiment lasted almost 200 years before dissensions and contentions began creeping in again. 

Scriptural descriptions of these societies are brief and vague, leaving the details of their laws, monetary systems, societal structures, and communal logistics an enigma. How were they able to achieve the societal status of having "no poor among them"? What does it really mean to have one, heart, one mind, and all things common? How does justice, equality, liberty, and freedom fit into the Zion blueprint? And what kind of government, if any, did these societies have? Unfortunately, scripture is bereft of these details, but just like the prophecies about the latter-day Beast, there are clues placed throughout ancient and sacred texts that can help us gradually form the pieces of the puzzle into a picture that begins to make sense. 

In addition to these clues, the writings and talks of Denver Snuffer over the last decade have shed further light on what a Zion society might look like. Think what you want about Denver, but he has written and spoke more about Zion than any other "spiritual guru" to come out of the Remnant movement. Some opine that he is a prophet, a teacher, or even the Davidic servant, but he has never claimed to be any of those titles. He has claimed, however, to have been in the presence of the Savior, which is a hard pill for many to swallow, and from those experiences he has claimed to have received a message to deliver, the crux of which is how to prepare a people for Zion. He stated once that since 2014, when he delivered his ten talks throughout the Mormon corridor, he has only really been giving one long talk, the continual theme being Zion. I have read, listened to, and/or studied almost every recorded talk that Denver has given, which you can find here, and I can tell you that everything he says about Zion is backed up in scripture. And, in my opinion, any intellectually honest discussion of Zion and its requirements should include what Denver has taught about it. The only way to know for sure if he is telling the truth is to study it out for yourself and take it to the Lord in sincere prayer. Remember, it is the message that is important and not the man. God can reveal truth through any person He wants, even a lawyer from Sandy, Utah. 

With that said, let's get started... Obviously, there is no way to condense all the material on Zion into one blog post, as volumes could be written on the subject. I'm just hoping this post will pique your curiosity, and serve as a catalyst for you to do your own research, because this topic is exhilaratingly fascinating. Think for just a moment about the almost endless volumes of literature that have been written on utopia, dystopia, and idealism. As human beings, we are collectively obsessed with fantasizing about higher forms of living, idyllic societies, and grandiose ideals. It is as if there is some kind of innate seed of altruism planted deep within our souls that yearns for something more; something that transcends our current existence. Because we are the offspring of God and have experienced something much better than this mortal realm, although we don't remember it, we long to return to it. 

Unfortunately, Satan has used this yearning to convince elites that such grandiose ideals for society can be accomplished by a powerful State, through the destruction of personal liberty. This idea has been called many things, but in our modern lexicon, it is known as Progressivism, and its modus operandi is to transform society from the outside in, through the legislative process. But, as many governmental experiments have proven throughout history, attempts to legislate morality and idealism have led to the misery and death of many souls. The purpose behind God's Zion is to create the ideal society from the inside out, to change individuals first, and through their own volition, work together in harmony for a higher ideal. The most detailed account in scripture that we have in regards to Zion is in 4th Nephi, and even that is short and sweet. The characteristics of their society were as follows:

And it came to pass in the thirty and sixth year, the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face of the land, both the Nephites and the Lamanites; and there were no contentions and disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another. And they had all things common among them; therefore, there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free and partakers of the heavenly gift...

And it came to pass that there was no contention in the land because of the love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people; and there were no envyings, nor strifes, nor tumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor many manner of lasciviousness. And surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God. There were no robbers, nor no murderers, neither were there Lamanites nor no manner of -ites, but they were in one the children of Christ and heirs to the kingdom of God. And how blessed were they, for the Lord did bless them in all their doings, yea, even they were blessed and prospered until an hundred and ten years had passed away. (4 Nephi 1:1,3, RE) 

Between the lines of these versus are implications that are rich enough to cover volumes of literary commentary, but I'll do my best to touch on the major points in this post. The Book of Mormon is written in chiasmas form, the beginning and the end contain prophecies and spiritual instruction (the Doctrine of Christ), the middle is full of Christian principles of living that teach us how to govern ourselves, how to serve others, when self-defense is justified, and the proper structure of Christ's church, the most important part being that priests and teachers are unpaid, are no better than the hearer or listener, and are to labor with their own hands for their support. In addition to Christian principles, the middle of the Book of Mormon also exposes false doctrine, anti-Christian philosophy and practice (from antichrists like Nehor, Korihor, and Sherem), and secret combinations. When studied in its full context, the Book of Mormon serves as a handbook for Zion, foreshadowing every facet of the society described in 4th Nephi throughout its hundreds of pages of pretext. The principles of Christ expounded in the Book of Mormon, when lived individually, can lead to collective peace and harmony. 

All Converted With No Contention

Mormon tells us first that all were converted to the Lord, "upon all the face of the land, both the Lamanites and the Nephites." This seems to be a prerequisite for Zion, which begins in the heart of the individual. Each of us must repent and turn to face God individually before we can qualify to live in such a society collectively. Denver explained that being saved and/or converted is a prerequisite for Zion in a talk he gave in 2019 entitled, Civilization: 

Our traditions have not and cannot bring Zion; that will require viewing God's work in a new way. Individuals may be saved individually and have been throughout history. But Zion is not about individual salvation. Zion is about covenant people of God, individually saved as a prerequisite, then gathered together to live in peace. (Transcript, p. 3)

The conversion of individuals in preparation to live in peace is in direct opposition of the progressive philosophy of legislating equality and societal bliss. It cannot be done through force, compulsion, unrighteous dominion, or legal processes. The latter method presupposes that those who write the laws are somehow superior to those who are subject to them, as if only they know what is good for society. God has stated unequivocally however, that He is no respecter of persons, and such lawmakers are assuming authority they do not possess, and are merely gratifying their vain ambitions. The elitist philosophy that some are destined to rule over others is deeply entrenched in the Mystery Schools, and has been since Cain made his first oath to Satan. If you've been following this current blog series, Zion and the Beast, you'll be familiar with the writings of Manly P. Hall, specifically his musings on the secret destiny of America. In one of the books he wrote on that subject, America's Assignment With Destiny, he graced his concluding chapter with these pretentious words: 

Truth always come to man through man. The great initiate-teachers have offered their souls as channels for the distribution of cosmic truths. These teachers are not only unselfish, they are also adequate for the ministry which is their chosen task. Through long periods of discipleship, they have become learned in statescraft, in law, medicine, art, literature, and science. In their natures, philosophy and mysticism have been unfolded far beyond the understanding of the profane. Obviously, the Great Schools, functioning through their trained and appointed messengers, constitute the highest leadership available to man or required by man... (p. 114, emphasis added)

This flowery language is subtly imbibed with the aforementioned philosophy: that some men are qualified to rule over others. These "unselfish" ministers, who have advanced far down the path of initiation, "constitute the highest leadership available to man or required by man," says Hall, who asserts that truth can only come "to man through man." In other words, humanism is his god, and only humanism can bring about his philosophic utopia; ruled by men over men. Hall asserts that only:

When a sufficient number has attained this degree of true leadership, the imperishable democracy of the sages will become a fact in the mortal sphere. (p. 115)

Leadership is therefore reserved only for the illuminated, the adepts who have become gods through the obtainment of gnosis, or knowledge granted by the Great Architect of the Universe, whom they refer to as Lucifer. The Book of Mormon, through simple language, plain and precious, penetrates the flowery pomp of Hall's rhetoric, and reduces it to its logical conclusion. The philosophy is introduced by Laman and Lemuel, who surmise that the right to rule belonged to them, Nephi's elder brethren. Throughout the history and wars between the Nephites and Lamanites we can see this philosophy playing out, ultimately resulting in the Gadianton belief that they were superior and deserved to possess the rights of government, as opined by the Luciferian initiate Giddianhi. But in Helaman we learn that all the fluff of one group being "destined" to rule over another boils down to one thing: the "right" to plunder. Mormon elucidates:

And seeing the people in a state of such awful wickedness, and those Gadianton robbers filling the judgment seats, having usurped the power and authority of the land, laying aside the commandments of God and not in the least aright before him, doing no justice unto the children of men, condemning the righteous because of their righteousness, letting the guilty and the wicked go unpunished because of their money; and moreover, to be held in office at the head of government, to rule and do according to their wills, that they might get gain and glory of the world; and moreover, that they might the more easily commit adultery, and steal, and kill, and do according to their own wills... (Helaman 3:1, RE)

As Isaiah saw in vision, this haughtiness of man shall eventually be made low, leaving individuals to govern themselves, which is the only way true peace and utopia can be brought about. Consider the following observation about the Nephite society that Denver Snuffer made in the same talk quoted above:

These people were most remarkable for what they lacked... divisions, contentions, and disputes... What were the names of their leaders? We don't know because, apparently, there were none. Who were their teachers? Again, we don't know because they were not identified. Who governed? Apparently no one. They had things in common, obeyed God's commandments, and spent time praying and hearing the word of the Lord. They were so very unlike us. (Civilization, p. 17, emphasis original)

Mormon's next line in the description of Zion practiced by the Nephites at Bountiful sounds simple, yet its implications are complex, "and there were no contentions and disputations among them." When Jesus introduced His doctrine to the surviving Nephites at Bountiful, the ones who would eventually establish a Zion society, a major tenet was that there should be no contention about those points of doctrine. The spirit of contention, He declared, is not of Him, but of the Devil, who "stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another." His doctrine consists of just a few simple concepts: believe and have faith in Him, repent, be baptized, become as a little child, etc. But surely there is more to the Gospel than that... what about principles, prophecy, dreams, visions, angels, healing, speaking in tongues, and the ineffable mysteries? What about the Holy Order, the Priesthood, the sealing power, temples, work for the dead, the Second Comforter, sealing, adoption, and on and on... After all, didn't Joseph Smith say that Mormonism embraces all truth? 

It most surely does, however, the doctrine is the springboard, the starting point, the gate of entrance. We are not supposed to argue about it, or change the requirements for entering the gate. We are not supposed to include or exclude people from the Gospel merely on our own whims, or our pretended authority, like modern Pharisees do. Any concept above and beyond the doctrine declared by Christ to the Nephites comes to each individual, line upon line, precept upon precept. And when we share those higher things with others, we are to do so by the Spirit, without contention, so that all who hear and participate are edified together. 

If you take any random grouping of people and put them together in a room to have a discussion about religion and politics you can count on major disagreements ensuing. It is a rare thing in this world to find any two people that agree on everything they talk about, and that is the way it is supposed to be. A world where everyone agreed on everything all the time would be mundane and boring. God created us to be vastly different from each other, all coming with our preconceived notions of truth and reality accompanied by varying personalities. There is absolute truth, but God has promised to teach us that incrementally, as we are able to handle it. In the meantime, we need to realize we don't know much of anything, and what an utterly futile and fruitless endeavor it is to attempt to force our beliefs on others. Being of one heart and one mind does NOT mean we all believe and act the same way. The point of Zion is to get people to live in harmony regardless of glaring differences of opinion in religion and politics - the two most divisive topics that exist. 

In a revelation given to Denver Snuffer called the Answer to the Prayer for Covenant, the Lord explained what being of one heart looks like:

Be of one heart, and regard one with another with charity. Measure your words before giving voice to them, and consider the hearts of others. Although a man may err in understanding concerning many things, yet he can view his brother with charity and come unto me, and through me he can with patience overcome the world. I can bring him to understanding and knowledge. Therefore, if you regard one another with charity, then your brother's error in understanding will not divide you. I lead to all truth. I will lead all who come to me to the truth of all things. The fullness is to receive the truth of all things, and this too from me, in power, by my word and in very deed. For I will come unto you if you will come unto me. (T&C 157:53, emphasis added)

It doesn't matter if someone errs in understanding, because guess what? We all do. The Lord is the source of all truth, and if we will just let others be, and love them for who they are and not what they believe, He will reward us by leading us to all truth. The right of the dissemination of all truth is His, and His alone. We only have bits and pieces of it, even great prophets who have beheld the Lord like Moses or the brother of Jared have limited understanding. A man, or woman, who has been in God's presence can still err in understanding. God cannot possibly reveal all the truth to someone all at once, it would be too overwhelming, that is why we can only trust Him. Those in Zion will be in the same predicament, but He promises that if we have charity for one another, He will restore knowledge of hidden things, hidden from the foundation of the world, even unspeakable things, greater than man can utter. 

In the next verse the Lord makes a fascinating statement. He reveals that the reason why Satan stirs us up to anger is to control us. It is the age-old divide and conquer stratagem, the Hegelian Dialectic, establishing order out of chaos. This is how governments and powerful religious institutions maintain their "power over the flesh." How ironic that the concepts we argue about the most, i.e., politics and religion, create the very institutions that literally control our thoughts and our actions. Here is what the Lord declared:

Study to learn how to respect your brothers and sisters and to come together by precept, reason and persuasion rather than sharply disputing and wrongly condemning each other, causing anger. Take care how you invoke my name. Mankind has been controlled by the adversary through anger and jealousy, which has led to bloodshed and the misery of many souls. Even strong disagreements should not provoke anger, nor to invoke my name as if I had part in your every dispute. Pray together in humility and together meekly present your dispute to me, and if you are contrite before me I will tell you my part. (T&C 157:54, emphasis added)

Anger and jealousy? In other words, drama. People love drama, it dominates our society, our media, our entertainment, our politics. Drama can consume us, it can destroy our agency by concentrating our energies on the vulgar and the profane. Politicians use it to control populations through fear; the opposite of love. The Book of Mormon has a phrase for this phenomenon, it consists of two words: stir up. If you do a word search with that phrase you will find over forty versus in the BOM in which it appears. It is very often used in the context of a leader endeavoring to incite anger and hatred for political gain or to start a war. Mormon tells us the lawyers also used it to make money:

Now it was for the sole purpose to get gain, because they received their wages according to their employ, therefore they did stir up the people to riotings and all manner of disturbances and wickedness... (Alma 8:12, RE, emphasis added)

In the case of Amalickiah, the word inspire is used in place of stir up, but its meaning is identical. He was a man skilled in political Machiavellianism, he killed all the right people and made all the right moves in order to rise to power in a very short time. The first thing he did after he became king of the Lamanites was to appoint political propagandists to stir up the Lamanites to anger against the Nephites. He needed an imperialist war to become a dictator over the entire promised land. Mormon tells us that:

...as soon as Amalickiah had obtained the kingdom, he began to inspire the hearts of the Lamanites against the people of Nephi. Yea, he did appoint men to speak unto the Lamanites unto from their towers against the Nephites...(Alma 21:31, RE)

And finally, the Jaredite example teaches us that people can be stirred up to the point where they are all-consumed with revenge, resulting in the destruction of an entire civilization:

And the people of Coriantumr were stirred up against the people of Shiz, and the people of Shiz were stirred up against the people of Coriantumr; wherefore, the people of Shiz did give battle unto the people of Coriantumr. (Ether 6:13, RE)  

Getting back to what the Lord said in T&C 157, He equates anger, jealousy, bloodshed and misery with this overall concept of contention. And then He declares the true meaning of taking His name in vain. It is not just cursing His name and combining it with other profanities, it is using it as an appeal to authority to back up your side of an argument. His words should give us pause: "as if I had part in your every dispute." He doesn't spend His time arguing, He certainly didn't during His mortal ministry. So why should we? Why do we have a tendency to play the God card? "God says you're wrong, God supports our side of this war, God wants us to do it this way, God wants our team to win, God has given His authority to us," etc. This is the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority, which means that those who use this argument are so insecure in their beliefs that they need some authority outside of themselves to prove their point, and God becomes the scapegoat. Religious leaders use this argument for gain, and it's called priestcraft, politicians and kings have historically equated themselves with the divine, and it's called statecraft. Jesus is telling us that He has no part of any of it. In Zion, no one will be going around telling others that God wants them to act, believe, or live a certain way. That won't be necessary, because the scriptures reveal all those who make it there will already know Him:

And they shall not teach every man his neighbor and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord, for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. (Hebrews 1:23, RE, see also T&C 158:15)

Contention was the reason why the early Saints failed to establish Zion, it created the divisiveness that prevented the people from having one heart and one mind. In a revelation to Joseph Smith, the Lord explained how the Saints lost their inheritances:

Behold, I say unto you, there were jarrings, and contentions, and envyings, and strifes, and lustful and covetous desires among them; therefore, by these things they polluted their inheritances. (T&C 101:2, see also, T&C 156:3)

Speaking of drama, Denver made another interesting point about the scriptural societies that became Zion in the talk entitled Civilization. In our modern society, our history books are full of "great" men who are revered for the things they accomplished. Like the Greeks, we have our own lexicon of heroes with their own monuments, whether it's giant faces carved in stone mountains or statues and shrines erected in "holy" places. By not including the details of what made Enoch and Melchizedek's societies successful, the scriptures tell us more about them by implying what they were not. Denver elucidates:

Maybe the point is that nothing and no-one stood out as remarkable or different within the community. There were no heroes and no villains; no rich and no poor; no Shakespearian plot lines of betrayal, intrigue, ambition, conflict, and envy. There was no adultery, theft, robbery, murder, immorality, and drunkenness--in other words, nothing to entertain us. Because all our stories, movies, music, novels, television plots, and social media are based upon and captivated by everything that is missing from these societies. (Civilization, p. 17, emphasis original)

In other words, no crime, no drama, no idolatry, no leaders vying for power, no unrighteous dominion, and no mindless entertainment. A society that we could scarcely imagine because it so far out of our scope of reality. To accomplish such a daunting ideal, we will have to change nearly every paradigm we have. 

Equality and Dealing Justly

Have you ever thought about what the true meaning of dealing justly is? This phrase only appears three times in the Book of Mormon: twice in regard to the Nephites at Bountiful, and once in Alma when he is explaining the concept of restoration to his son Corianton. Alma asserts that the meaning of spiritual restoration is to be restored in the next life to what you were in this life, whether it be:

...evil or evil, or carnal for carnal, or devilish for devilish; good for that which is good, righteous for that which is righteous, just for that which is just, merciful for that which is merciful. Therefore my son, see that you are merciful unto your brethren. Deal justly, judge righteously, and do good continually... (Alma 19:11, RE, emphasis added)

For starters, dealing justly means treating others the way we want to be treated, or in other words, the golden rule. But for Zion the implications of dealing justly go a bit further. For instance, unlike Manly P. Hall's Atlantean utopia, in Zion there will be no paternal State parceling out public outlays to its citizenry. There will be no taxes or government at all - because all taxes are legal plunder. No tax is collected without the underlying threat of force, and money or goods taken under threat is the very definition of plunder. Mormon informs us that in the Nephite society there were no robbers or murderers, which to me, means there was no State. 

My favorite libertarian philosopher, Lysander Spooner, once stated that:

All the great governments of the world--those now existing as well as those that have passed away... have been mere bands of robbers, who have associated for purposes of plunder, conquest, and the enslavement of their fellow man.

If there is no State in a society, there is no seat of power to squabble over, no abstractive vehicle for obtaining the goods of others. If an ordinary robber, acting alone, attempts to rob you, he has to confront you personally, using some weapon to threaten you to give up your wallet. But a State has no face, no corporeal body, and no substance at all. It is merely an idea, an idea that has conscripted vast resources, armies, police, and weapons of mass destruction to support that idea. Unlike the individual robber, who is lucky to get away with a few bucks, the State robs you over and over again throughout your life, demanding obedience, fealty, and loyalty, and claiming it is for your own good. 

In primordial history, individual robbers were limited as to the amount of loot they could get, but some ancient group of them originally formed a band, a cartel if you will, and figured out that if they used the right words and expressed the right ideas to their victims, they could overtime create a "legitimate" organization to do their robbing for them, and thus the State was born. I believe the first robbers to accomplish this were Cain and his progeny, but that is a topic for another time. The point is, it is impossible for everyone to deal justly in a society if there is a State robbing everyone, as there will always be those who are lining up for its spoils, i.e., "benefits." This creates two classes of people: the plunderers and the plundered. Justice, equality, and having all goods in common cannot exist in such a society. So, in the coming Zion how will that really look? 

The Book of Mormon offers the first clue. When Mosiah was setting up his Christian republic (system of judges) among the Nephites, he explained to them that freedom comes with a cost, and that cost is that every person be accountable for their own sins. He wasn't talking about spiritual sins, he was talking about societal sins. In other words, instead of the limited liability system we live under today with our laws forcing us to get insurance, we become fully liable for damages we cause to others' bodies or physical property. I wrote about this topic in this post, on the subject of common law and maritime law. Common law stems from Mosaic law, where restorative penalties were carried out to their fullest extent. One meaning of dealing justly is that you accept full responsibility for your actions. Here is the Nephites' response to Mosiah:

And now it came to pass, that after Mosiah sent these things forth among the people, they were convinced of the truth of his words. Therefore, they relinquished their desires for a king and became exceedingly anxious that every man should have an equal chance throughout the land; yea, and every man expressed a willingness to answer for his own sins. (Mosiah 13:9, RE)

Equality does not mean that everyone is made equal, equality means that we all have "an equal chance throughout the land." But with that equal chance comes risk, and some take larger risks than others. And with those larger risks, come heavier consequences if things go wrong. This dear readers, is what it means to be free, and Mormon said that they were all made free. However, in Zion there is even more to dealing justly than merely being accountable for one's own actions. There is a higher law, which is explained in another talk given by Denver called Equality, given in Challis, Idaho in 2021. He begins by introducing a revelation given to Joseph in 1831 that can be easily misunderstood:

Nevertheless, in your temporal things you shall be equal in all things... (T&C 61:4)

Denver explains that this verse does not mean "that we will have identical property and identical possessions and be identically situated with one another..." It means, just as Mosiah taught, that all will be given an equal chance to do one thing: labor. We will all be equal in our opportunity to labor, which labor we can mix with the resources of the earth to create food, housing, and other goods. Denver points out that the Book of Mormon defines what it means to be equal in Alma:

And when the priests left their labor to impart the word of God unto the people, the people also left their labors to hear the word of God. And when the priest had imparted unto them the word of God, they are returned again diligently unto their labors, and the priest, not esteeming himself above his hearers; for the preacher was no better than the hearer, neither was the teacher any better than the learner, And thus they were all equal, and they did all labor, every man according to his strength. (Alma 1:5, RE, emphasis added)

And here is Denver's commentary:

They weren't all priests. (Well, that's not equal.) There weren't all teachers. (That's not equal either.) But they were all equal. "And they did all labor..." Oh, so they have one thing in common, and the one thing that they have in common is work, "...every man according to his strength." You have to give what you have. And one man's strength may not be another man's strength, but he needs to give according to the strength that he has. And one woman's strength may not be what another woman's strength is, but she must give according to the strength that she has...

Equal (as the Lord is explaining here [Denver is quoting Ezekiel 8:7, RE]) means "accountable." Every one of us is equal in the eyes of God, meaning you're going to pay a price or you're going to receive a reward, all of this talking about after they die. The righteous (after they die) shall live. The wicked (after they die) shall be dead. Everyone is equal. (Equality, p. 5, emphasis original)

In Zion there will be no magic potion that produces all the goods that we will have in common. Those goods can only be created by individual labors and pursuits, and voluntarily distributed among the people. No governing body or overseeing agency will distribute those goods; it will be done on an individual and case by case basis. First and foremost, we are each responsible for ourselves and for our families, and then when we have "enough and to spare," we share the "to spare" with others. Denver explains this by quoting the following scripture:

For it is expedient that I, the Lord, should make every man accountable as stewards over earthly blessings, which I have made and prepared for my creatures. [For] I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens and built the earth as a very handy work, and all things therein are mine. And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine, but it must needs be done in my own way. And behold, this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints: that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low, for the earth is full and there is enough and to spare... I... prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves. [So] therefore, if any man shall take of the abundance which I have made and impart not his portion, according to the law of my gospel, unto the poor and the needy, he shall with Dives lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment. (T&C 105:4-5, as quoted by Denver in Equality, p. 15). 

And here is Denver's commentary on it:

See, those words mean what those words say:

"The earth is full and there is enough..." That's one thing; that's when the labor of your hands has finally fed you. And then after you've made the ground sufficiently productive, there is not just enough, but there's also "and to spare." It is that "and to spare" that enough hard labor will eventually yield that can be used to help others. And not just the one who produces. 

"If any man shall take of the abundance which I have made and impart not his portion, according to the law of my gospel... " Okay--of the abundance. That's not the "enough." That's the "to spare." You have to produce "enough"--and that in and of itself may be a mighty challenge in a desolate wilderness--before you get to the point that you are producing both "enough" and "to spare." And when you have enough to spare, that abundance needs to be imparted in order to allow others to come and labor alongside you. (Equality, p. 15, emphasis original) 

This is what I believe is the higher law of dealing justly. The voluntary sharing of the "to spare" in the latter-day Zion will be what levels the playing field between the rich and poor. It will be the catalyst that creates the conditions where all goods will be held in common, and will be an important step in becoming one with our community and with God, who owns it all. It is this voluntary sharing of goods, beginning with simple food and housing, that will eventually result in what Isaiah prophesied about Zion millennia ago:

For the Lord shall comfort Zion; he will comfort all her waste places, and he will make her wilderness like Eden and her desert like the garden of the Lord... (Isaiah 18:2, RE)

The wilderness of the Rocky Mountains, where I believe Zion will be located (See this talk for more details on Zion's location), will never turn into Eden without our labor. God's promise that the earth will "yield its increase" is contingent upon our labor. Nothing will replace good 'ole fashioned hard work; even in Zion someone has to take the garbage out, it won't walk out the door by itself.  

Becoming One: Overcoming Contradiction

Have you ever wondered why the Lord wants us to be one? Does He mean that we should all think and act alike, losing our individuality and becoming a cog in the proverbial wheel of society? Are we supposed to blend into one societal mass, a metaphysical blob that combines all of its members into one homogeneous being? Are we to sacrifice our autonomy to be part of the group? Is society a living, breathing, and self-acting entity? Of course not. In fact, there is no such thing as a group. You cannot see, touch, hear, or smell a group. It does not exist. When you look at a group of people all you see are varying individuals; when you look at a forest all you see are distinguishable trees. The individual is antecedent to the group, which can only exist as an abstraction in your mind. Therefore, the entire premise of collectivism is based on the lie that the individual must give up his/her rights for the good of the group, which is a lie precisely because there is no group at all. We are all born with the innate, a priori knowledge that we existed first, and in the first place received our agency from God, a gift bestowed to each individual spirit, and that no group, or organization posing as a group, i.e., the State, can legitimately take that agency away. 

So I pose the question: what does Jesus really mean when He says that we should be one? What did He mean when He told the Nephites that He, and the Father, and the Holy Ghost are one? Joseph Smith explains what it means in the Lectures on Faith:

And he being the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fullness of the glory of the Father - possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the holy spirit that bears record of the Father and the Son, and these three constitute the great matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things, by whom all things were created and made that were created and made. 

And these three constitute the Godhead and are one: the Father and the Son possessing the same mind, the same wisdom, glory, power, and fullness, filling the all - the Son being filled with the fullness of the mind, glory, and power of the Father - possessing all knowledge and glory, and the same kingdom: sitting at the right hand of power, in the express image and likeness of the Father - a mediator of man - being filled with the fullness of the mind of the Father, or in other words, the spirit of the Father, which spirit is shed forth upon all those who believe on his name and keep his commandments. (Lecture 5:2, RE, emphasis added) 

The Father and Son being one does not mean that they have the exact same personality, or that they have somehow morphed into the same trinitarian Being. But they do possess the same mind, which consists of wisdom, glory, power, fullness, and possessing all knowledge. So when Jesus asks us to be one with Him and the Father, He is offering those same gifts to us: wisdom, glory, power, fullness, and knowledge. Thus, being one is not some kind of relinquishment of autonomous sovereignty, but rather is an invitation to be part of a fraternity, or circle of friends that share beliefs and ideas. In other words, Jesus is asking us to fellowship with one another. He is asking us to make friends. 

Joseph Smith, writing from Liberty Jail in 1839, expressed poetically what it means to have a friend:

But those who have not been enclosed in the walls of a prison without cause or provocation can have but a little idea how sweet the voice of a friend is. One token of friendship from any source whatever awakens and calls into action every sympathetic feeling. It brings up in an instant everything that is passed. It seizes the present with a vivacity of lightening. It grasps after the future with the fierceness of a tiger. It retrogrades from one thing to another, until finally all enmity, malice, and hatred, and past differences, misunderstandings, and mismanagements lie slain victims at the feet of hope. And when the heart is sufficiently contrite, then the voice of inspiration steals along and whispers, My son, peace be unto your soul. (T&C 138:11)

Joseph had been suffering for months on the floor of that cold, filthy, jail cell. He and his cellmates could not even stand all the way up and were not given adequate food. His statement comes from a letter that he wrote to the church in March, after spending the frigid winter in the jail. These poetic words came from the deep recesses of his soul, tempered by months of incessant suffering. It is as if he had an epiphany as he wrote, summing up with profound clarity what it really means to be one. Denver has commented on Joseph's words, making them applicable to us today:

Just like Joseph, we have perpetual conundrums and contradictions. We all face them. Some are of our own making but others are just inherent in living in this existence. When we thoughtfully consider the challenges, just like Joseph it seizes the mind, and like Joseph in Liberty Jail, makes us reflect upon so many things with the "avidity of lightning". That was Joseph's word. The mind is in this frenzied state, and with the avidity of lightning he's jumping from subject to subject, a fence to a fence, from things that console to things that outrage you. From things you know to be true to things that offend you. Back and forth, and back and forth, until, as Joseph puts it, "...finally all enmity, malice and hatred, and past differences, misunderstandings and mismanagements are slain victorious at the feet of hope; and when the heart is sufficiently contrite, then the voice of inspiration steals along whispers [.]" It's almost poetry, the way Joseph describes what he went through there. But it is poetry describing the actual bona fides of Joseph receiving answers from God. (That We Might Become One, pp. 3-4)

These words are inspiring to muse upon, but can people really live together in Zion devoid of all enmity, malice, hatred, past differences, misunderstandings, and mismanagements? Enoch's people certainly did, but it took hundreds of years before God took the entire city into heaven; it took time to perfect Zion. Not only does it take time, it will take people actually living together in a society. No monk living in isolation, meditating for hours on end each day, could ever achieve Zion. Such a monk will never encounter a situation where he would have to put off enmity, malice, and strife, because there is no one else around to annoy him. Let's face it, in every social group, no matter how big or small, there is always someone that gets on someone else's nerves, especially in families. There is always someone who is a know-it-all, or so insecure that they always have to be right - even when they are wrong most of the time. There are always those who are manipulative, condescending, boisterous, or socially awkward. And let's not forget about the tight wads; those who always let others drive and never pitch in for gas, or who live to get their next free meal. 

Now that I've brought you back to reality, how to we get back to Joseph's ideal, the place where "the voice of inspiration steals along and whispers...? We can start by simply letting people think they are right, even when they are wrong. We can beg God in our prayers to remove our reactions to those who reek of irritation and annoyance. We can counter manipulation and condescendence with service and unconditional love. We can choose not to be angry with our brother or sister who takes advantage of us, we can befriend the socially awkward, we can console the insecure, and we can humor the boisterous. In other words, we can have compassion on our fellow saints. The truth is, we are all broken in some way, all lost, all fallen, all laden with the baggage of mortality. We are all here on earth because of one common choice we made in the pre-existence: that choice was to follow Christ. Whether we know it or not, we are all searching for Him, all searching for something higher; transcendental of our current circumstances. That yearning, that longing for something more, creates the need for fellowship, for friendship, for acquaintance, to share in the hope for higher existence. Zion is that something more, that higher existence, and it can only come by removing our egotistical barriers, and dismantling our myopic paradigms.

Denver explained how contention is cultivated, and how our tools to change the minds of others are limited to persuasion, in talk entitled That We Might Become One, given in 2018:

The more we contend and dispute with one another the better we become at contention. We polish the rhetorical skills to oppose others. That spirit of contention can take possession of us and when it does, we are hard-pressed to be a peacemaker with others...

Our tools must be limited to persuasion, gentleness, meekness, love unfeigned, pure knowledge, all of them mustered "without compulsory means" to persuade others to accept truth. And if we fail to make the persuasive case then the problem is not others, the problem is that we've got to figure out how to be sufficiently knowledgeable as as to bring them aboard. 

I believe every person we encounter down here, no matter who they are, wants to follow Christ. That's why we're here. The only reason they got here was because they want to follow Christ. Therefore, since they are predisposed to following Christ the reason they are not doing so at present is because no one has taken the time, no one has taken the trouble of giving sufficient cause to them to change, to turn, to repent, and to follow Christ. And by the way, at this point, none of us know enough in order to be able to truly follow Christ, because we are all riddled with half truths, part understanding, and the need for constant repentance, all of us. (p. 7, emphasis added) 

That last part is paramount, "we are all riddled with half truths, part understanding, and the need for constant repentance..." No one, not even those who have been in the presence of God, know all the truth. Omniscience is reserved for God and Him alone, therefore, it is foolishness to assume we know virtually anything at all. And worse than that, it is utter folly and hubris to assume that any one of us knows more than anyone of our fellow Saints. Nephi said it this way:

Oh that cunning plan of the Evil One. Oh the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves. Wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not; and they shall perish. But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God. (2 Nephi 6:9, RE)

The ironic thing about the search for truth is that it is littered with contradictions. We may spend years researching some rabbit hole only to find that it leads nowhere, and we have to start again (trust me I know from experience). We may feel inspired to go down another rabbit hole, only to have the Spirit ultimately lead us in another direction. It is almost as if God requires us to endure contradictions to humble us. In fact, that is exactly the effect of experiencing them. If we already "know" something, the natural response is to file it away in a box and put it on a shelf labeled, "I have figured this out and no longer need to search." But the instant we do that, even if what we have found is actual knowledge, we leave ourselves open to deception. Satan, the great Opposer, sneaks in and whispers flattering words like, "you're so smart, it's OK to let this knowledge create a wedge (dig a pit for thy neighbor) between you and others, it makes you better than them... you did the research, you put in the effort, and they didn't because they're lazy and stupid." And if it is knowledge that does not have the effect of lifting and blessing others, we should question the source of it, reset our minds to tabula rasa, and start over again. 

In the book of Abraham we learn that there will always be a level of intelligence greater than the one we have attained to, no matter how far we've progressed, or think we have progressed. Abraham writes:

And the Lord said unto me, These two facts do exist - that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they. I am the Lord, your God; I am more intelligent than they all. (Abraham 5:4, RE)

Perhaps the point of gaining knowledge in this mortal sphere, essential to salvation as Joseph Smith once opined, is to prepare us for greater contradictions in the world to come. What if part of our eternal progression is relearning how to humble ourselves as we ascend up Jacob's ladder by being confronted with conundrum after conundrum with each step? The fact of the matter is, that Jesus Christ experienced greater contradictions than any of us could ever bear, and afterward stayed true to the Father, and remained without sin. Joseph Smith mentioned this when he was explaining the relationship between the Father and the Son in the Lectures on Faith. He writes:

... the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or rather, man was formed in his likeness and in his image - he is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father, possessing all the fullness of the Father, or the same fullness with the Father, being begotten of him, and was ordained from before the foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins of all those who should believe on his name, and is called the Son because of the flesh - and descended in suffering below that which man can suffer, or in other words, suffered greater sufferings and was exposed to more powerful contradictions than any man can be. But notwithstanding all this, he kept the law of God and remained without sin... (Lecture 5:2, RE, emphasis added)

If Jesus Christ, the greatest of all, the most intelligent of all, "was exposed to more powerful contradictions than any man can be," how can we, mere mortals, allow our comparatively miniscule contradictions to drive wedges into our relationships with others? What a foolish thing to be divided over doctrine, precepts, tenets, creeds, or perceived knowledge, most of which are meaningless in the grand scheme of things. In Zion, there will continue to be contradiction, in fact, the further we progress up the ladder, the more powerful those contradictions become, it is all a part of our becoming like God. The point of Zion is to not let those contradictions divide us, to not let them get in the way of the two great commandments: loving God and loving our neighbor. Mormon informs us that the Nephite community that achieved Zion were "one in the children of Christ and heirs to the kingdom of God." How did they achieve this? There were "no manner of -ites," or in other words, no tribalism to divide them. No "our people verses your people," no customs and traditions to argue over, no "our ways are better than your ways." Ultimately, no contradictions worth even mentioning. 

Christ set the greatest example. He could have contended with everyone He met, and He would have always been right. But, as Denver explains, He chose not to:

How much of the gospel of Christ would not have been possible for Him to preach if He'd gone about contending? He chose not to. In that respect, perhaps His most godly example was the patience with which He dealt with those around Him; kindly, patiently, correcting them when they largely came to Him with questions trying to trap Him, but affirmatively stating in the Sermon on the Mount how you could take any group of people and turn them into Zion itself, if we would live the Sermon on the Mount. (That We Might Become One, p. 8)

Having "no manner of -ites" ultimately means that people give up their propensity to insecurity by exclusively associating their identity with a clan, a race, a tribe, a nation, a state, or even a team. This doesn't mean we have to give up who we are or where we come from, it just means we cannot let such trivial matters divide us. Ultimately, we are all part of one big family of God; all spiritual brothers and sisters in the grand scheme of eternity. The things that divide us here are merely illusions, planted deliberately in our periphery to test us. As Denver asserts, if we would just live the Sermon on the Mount to its fullest extent we could achieve Zion, as it is the blueprint for such a society. In this post, I wrote about the revolutionary nature of that sermon, specifically in regard to its nonviolent threat to Roman hegemony. But much more than that, it is roadmap to personal salvation, and an instruction manual to live in peace and harmony with one another. 

The Hive Mentality: A Satanic Substitute

Before closing this post, we must visit the evil side of having one mind, the Satanic substitute for unity. In the book of Revelation, specifically the sections we have been covering in this series, John describes the ten kings that will rule under the New World Order as having "one mind," giving "their strength and power unto the beast." This means that they will support the beast agenda because of what he will promise them. However, no two people have the same mind, and those ten kings will have their own secret agendas and ambitions, answering to the Beast in the meantime to move up the political ladder. The propensity of political leaders is to subtly shape and mold public opinion to carefully limit the scope of independent and free thought. After all, people who do not think for themselves or who do not have access to all the facts are much easier to control. 

This concept of the hive mentality has been pushed on the American people for the last century; for the purpose of dissuading dissent and suppressing the free flow of information. The State has accomplished this through the gradual nationalizing of public education that began before the progressive era. John Dewey, who was educated in the Hegelian Dialectic by his psychology mentor G. Stanley Hall (most likely a Skull and Bones appointed professor), played a pivotal role in the burgeoning federal educational system. In his own words, the goals of the State were admittedly not to create brighter minds, but more obedient citizens. This quote is taken from his personal educational manifesto, dubbed "My Pedagogic Creed”:

The school is primarily a social institution. Education being a social process, the school is simply that form of community life in which all those agencies are concentrated that will be most effective in bringing the child to share in the inherited resources of the race, and to use his own powers for social ends. Education, therefore, is a process for living and not a preparation for future living. (Source)

The “social ends” he is alluding to are the ends/goals of the State, and by “process for living” Dewey means conformity, or fitting into society. Admittedly, he confesses that State education is not designed to prepare an individual for the future, but is geared toward creating in the individual a dependence upon the social group/herd, and/or the State. Public education teaches at the lowest common denominator, which relegates children into a homogenous mold, stifling the brightest and enabling the dullest. Historical narratives are varnished and squeaky clean, omitting pertinent facts that paint government or its progressive proponents in a negative light. Free markets are castigated as barbaric and archaic while socialistic movements are heralded as noble, progressive, and grandiose. Most egregiously, obedience to authority and governmental paternalism is the supreme doctrine preached in public classrooms, even if it is unspoken, it is incessantly implied. This Satanic substitute of having one mind has the effect of diminishing that mind, even to the point that those brought up in such a system entirely lose their God-given ability to reason or think for themselves, which is, of course, the goal.

In a concise little book authored by Murray Rothbard entitled, Education: Free and Compulsory, the American descent into compulsory education is laid out, and surprisingly, began in the early 1600s in Massachusetts. The theocratical Puritans set up a compulsory literacy law to reinforce Calvinism and obedience to the local magistrate. The government, according to Rothbard, was "Calvinist absolutism," or strict adherence to the church, its dogma, and its leaders. Church attendance was mandatory, even though not every citizen qualified as a member. It was not until one achieved "membership" that they could vote in elections. John Winthrop was the first governor of Massachusetts, and believed that "natural liberty" needed to be reigned in by "God's ordinances," and that "correct civil liberty means being good 'in a way of subjection to authority'." As you recall, it was the reverend Roger Williams, the dissenting rebel, who, after being forcibly expelled from Puritan tyranny, founded Rhode Island in 1638. Adrian Larsen has written a very interesting article on this man, click here to read it. 

After the Revolutionary War, Massachusetts made school attendance mandatory by 1789, but it took another century before the rest of the states would follow suit. According to Rothbard:

In 1850, all the states had public schools, but only Massachusetts and Connecticut were imposing compulsion. The movement for compulsory schooling conquered all of America in the late nineteenth century. Massachusetts began the parade, and the other states followed, mainly in the 1870s and 1880s. By 1900, almost every state was enforcing compulsory attendance. (Education: Free and Compulsory, p. 41)

Prevailing in some states was the Platonic view that government should assume full control and care over children. According to the "father of the public school system in South Carolina," children were to be taught strict obedience to the State:

all children will taught in them... in these schools the precepts of morality and religion should be inculcated, and habits of subordination and obedience be formed... The state, in the warmth of her solicitude for their welfare, must take charge of those children, and place them in school where the minds can be enlightened and their hearts can be trained in virtue. (As quoted by Rothbard, in Education, p. 45) 

Rothbard goes on to discuss the myriad "educational reformers" who began to appear on the scene and with "tireless propaganda... came to control the schools through positions on the state boards of education, as superintendents, etc.; through the control of teachers' training institutions, and thereby of the teachers..." The effect was to the centralization of all schools under Federal regulations, even though it is the actual states that run the schools. The system relegates the states to mere extensions of the national government, whose educational "standards" are carefully designed to curtail creativity and logical reasoning. Here is Rothbard's conclusion:

The effect of progressive education is to destroy independent thought in the child, indeed to repress any thought whatsoever. Instead, children learn to revere certain heroic symbols (Gentile), or to follow the domination of the "group" (as in Lafcadio Hearn's Japan). Thus, subjects are taught as little as possible, and the child has little chance to develop any systematic reasoning powers in the study of definite courses. (Education, p. 53)

Similarly, the LDS Church has accomplished the same phenomenon with its doctrinal centralization policy called "correlation." All Church study materials, as well as Sunday School, Relief Society, and Priesthood lessons are all approved by a the corporate "correlation" committee before being published. I have heard so many people brag about this system because for some reason they think it is a good thing that "no matter what ward or stake you walk into, on any given Sunday, throughout the entire world, the lessons are exactly the same." Yet, all the "approved" materials are coming from a central governing authority, and everyone involved in the process is a paid employee of the corporate Church. Members are strongly discouraged from studying non-Church-approved sources (in fact they are told that doing so is threatening to their salvation) when looking into Church history, and are told by the leaders that some questions won't be answered until we pass through the veil. The effect of this "oneness" of mind is to fall deeper into apostasy, and deeper into intellectual and spiritual enslavement by Church leaders. Those who celebrate correlation as some kind of sign that the "Church is true" are in effect celebrating their idiocy, their darkness of mind, and their further separation from God. 

Being one does not mean that we have to give up our ability to think and reason, our cognitive independence, or our very mind. In the context of Zion, it entails allowing others to fall where they may on the cognitive and intellectual scale, and love them without judgement. No mystery or rabbit hole will be off-limits, no institution will be threatened by studying sources outside its purview, and no central authority will be in charge of parsing out "approved" study materials. God will be in charge of what is taught, and He will teach us knowledge about the universe, hidden things about the earth, and unspeakable things about the eternal world. 

Perhaps the theme of this entire post can be summed up in one scripture from the Book of Mormon. After Alma and his people escaped from king Noah, he set up Christ's church among them. When he ordained priests to teach them, he "commanded' them to only teach faith in Christ and repentance. This was not because he was the president of some committee to control church approved curriculum, but rather he was following the Lord's dictum to only teach His doctrine to His church... to prepare the new converts for greater things. The greater things were not controlled by Alma, they came to the saints line upon line, precept upon precept, and individually according to their faith and diligence. But in the meantime, they were to have their hearts knit together in unity and love, they were to love and accept each other as they were, from the least to the greatest. 

And it came to pass that Alma, having authority from God, ordained priests; even one priest to every fifty of their number did he ordain to preach unto them and teach them concerning the things pertaining unto the kingdom of God. And he commanded them that they should teach nothing save it were the things which he had taught them and which had been spoken by the mouth of the holy prophets. Yea, even he commanded them that they should preach nothing save it were repentance and faith on the Lord, who had redeemed his people. And he commanded them that there should be no contention one with another, but that they should look forward with one eye, having one faith and one baptism, having their hearts knit together in unity and in love one towards another. And thus he commanded them to preach. And thus they became the children of God. (Mosiah 9:9, RE) 

Stay tune for part VI...  "All Things Common," in which we'll explore what having our goods in common might look like.

Postscript: Recommended Blog Post and Collective Prayers Needed

Denver has recently published a new blog post on the theme of Zion entitled Remaining Restoration, which I highly recommend. 

Also, my friend Ken Cromar, who is very active in the freedom movement, has asked us to pray for the Brunson Brothers, as one of their cases to "drain the swamp" has found its way to the Supreme Court:

Click here for background on the case

And click here to go to Ken's website