> they’re barely getting by, tithing their 10%, but the Mormon church is amassing such wealth yet my friend’s family of five is on food stamps. Something feels off there.

The church has welfare programs to help members and non-members that are need. I've personally recommended such food and rent assistance from the church at a point in my life. I've even had the church cover expenses for mental health counseling.

I've also personally witnessed and helped to deliver food and provide service to those in need. Sometimes people in need receive in aid more than they tithe.

There's also a huge social network of people helping each other out not directly related to church funds.

There is also the Helping Hands program that provides labor and food and other support when there are natural disasters all over the world, including some big ones here in the US.

This is not a situation that's all take and no give. Not only does the church provide a lot of welfare support, but actively encourages members to be Christ-like and serve everyone in need.

Absolutely! As I said, I’m officially a member and live in a fairly affluent area. When I was unemployed and going through some tough times, even though I’ve never tithed they extended food aid to me. It was a very humbling experience, and if I didn’t have to believe all the stuff Joseph Smith made up I’d probably be an active Mormon. The ingroup exhortations of beliefs that, charitably, are very unlikely, is something I have a very hard time doing, even though quite honestly my life would be better if I was an active Mormon. I have so much respect for all the work Mormons do, though, and think I’m a better person for having grown up with friends in the church.

You bring up something that bothers me too. The manipulation of local congregations in order to fund the central corporation is disappointing to say the least. Mormons are often the nicest people you'll find. It's a shame they are expected to express belief in racist, sexist, or other bigoted beliefs in order to be fully acceptable to their in-group.

I point out in another comment that, charitably, congregations receive about 8% of donations back to fund local congregations, often several multiples less. Some congregations I saw send about $25k/week on average for ~200 congregants, and have an $8k budget (about twice that if you account for mainteance, about about $20k when taking charitable giving of food and bill payment into account). What was most disappointing was the training of how to get people with long term needs off of the congregation's dime.

I think the Mormon church would do well to adopt a less centralized form of governance, treasury, and cash management.

     It's a shame they are expected to express belief in     
     racist, sexist, or other bigoted beliefs in order to be 
     fully acceptable to their in-group.

It's a shame you feel that way. I've been to churches in Massachusetts, Utah, Missouri, Texas, Yucatan, and Guatemala. I'm not sure where you're getting that.

A few commentaries and examples. Remember these are not local congregations pushing this, but the central corporation. The item isn't "all Mormons do this" but rather there is a culture that encourages these divisions.

Racism

- https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/09/mormons...

- https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/05/fake-apology-for-mo...

- https://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/06/09/39-years-later-priest...

Sexism

- https://www.livescience.com/46867-mormon-church-gender-roles...

- https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/02/22/where-mormon-chur...

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_women

Other bigotry

-https://rewire.news/article/2019/04/25/lgbtq-mormons-are-sti...

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8:_The_Mormon_Proposition

Maybe it depends on beliefs and definitions. But here is much that we are taught, centrally. We certainly hear a lot about being kind to others, and also that we are not authorized to change God's commandments with respect to the nature and purpose of individual and family, now and in eternity. I believe one can search by topics, etc: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/general-conference?lang=...

and about:

families: http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854587315.html

service to all others: http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854587314.html

And generally: http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854587122.html

But even these topics have a hard time introspecting the racist norms integrated. Consider: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/01/18/error-printed-lds...

I have genuine hope for Mormons, that they can repatriate for their historical blunders and be the great, solid people they aspire to be. They really do tend to be great people, just a little to at-the-ready to do what their hierarchical leadership deigns -- and to me that sacrifice of moral compass was my fundamental wedge issue. Self-introspection is a difficult principle to learn regardless of one's background.

Thanks for your comments. Humans are imperfect, a work in progress. I'm not perfect, I will keep trying. God is perfect. I have learned He lives. I'm glad He is patient, while knowing everything.

Yes and no. One way to think of it is as a redistribution of wealth -- while some locations are pushing larger amounts of money into the system, others are undoubtedly receiving more than they give. The end result is that everyone, regardless of the affluence of their neighborhood, gets a perfectly acceptable building and environment in which to learn.

Thinking about the US education specifically...imagine if we handled finances that way? Schools are largely paid for by local property taxes, so the rich areas get well funded schools, and the poor areas get poorly funded schools. If it was centralized and balanced, the rich schools might not get as many 3d printers, but perhaps the poor schools could get books. It might not be fair in the sense that those that pay more should get more, but it would be fair if your end goal is balance and charity.

> My seminary teacher, the sweetest woman you’ve ever met, got VERY upset and yelled at me when I said that it sounded like Communism.

Yikes. It sounds like part of her knew you were right but she was in serious denial.

By "latter days", do you mean after the LDS version of the end times? I thought that the "Latter Day" in Latter Day Saints referred to the time period of Joseph Smith. Mormons, from what I understand, encourage each other to prep for the end time and even have a semi-official guide on how to do so(it's free and pretty good, actually). It makes sense to me that they would also want to amass as much resources as possible to eventually build Zion.

> I have concerns though, when my friends family lives in a house where their youngest kid got lead exposure, and they’re barely getting by, tithing their 10%, but the Mormon church is amassing such wealth yet my friend’s family of five is on food stamps. Something feels off there.

Now I know why virtually all the men in my Mormon friend's family and social circle were either surgeons or lawyers. Better be able to get by while also tithing 10%!

> It still sounds a lot like Communism, though.

That is because it is, 100%. If your teacher freaked out over it, she is having trouble reconciling it with the American cultural meme of "Communism is pure evil.", which stems from the Cold War, not religious doctrine.

And yes, something is off if a tithing LDS family is living on food stamps. I have had family who lost jobs and had no money, and the LDS church gave them food and money to cover bills, until they could get back on their feet. Such situations tend to be handled at the local level, and there are definitely good and bad leaders in all organizations, including churches.

Speaking as a member of the church, I've heard the position that, when in financial difficulty, first rely on family (where applicable), then rely on what's available through the government (which includes food stamps, unemployment benefits, etc), and finally rely on the church. I wouldn't see an issue with someone receiving aid from all three sources, even at the same exact time -- if a person qualifies for food stamps, then the church can spend an equivalent amount helping someone else, and perhaps help with other bills regardless.

I think the problem is that "communism" has a ton of baggage that implies a lot of things that aren't actually part of communism. Communism is actually a stateless ideology, which is completely different from the common usage of the term in describing countries like China and the USSR.

With the law of consecration, there's a clear, but voluntary state, and the end goal isn't the dissolution of the state, but the ending of the expectation to give up your property (the law would go away, but you'd continue to give because you want to). It's not socialism because it doesn't matter who owns the means of production, it only matters that the production is given to the church to be redistributed. It isn't communism because there is a clear state, but I suppose it's close since ideally there wouldn't be any social classes or coercion.

The main similarity is the ideal of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", but I think there are enough differences to make it reasonable to say it's not communism, but it is a collectivist system with similar goals.

I think the key difference is the Church's system is voluntary and communism is not voluntary.

That difference means everything in the world.

State communism might not be voluntary, but there are plenty of forms of communism that are voluntary: employee owned companies and cooperatives are literally communist.

And I don't really consider it voluntary if I am to believe the consequences that they teach: the threat of being ripped from and permanently separated from your family for eternity is just as coercive of a punishment as the threat of being sent to a gulag.

Nobody I know teaches that, in that way, but that some opportunities and blessings are gained or lost based on our choices: to say otherwise would be simply deceptive. Most marriages say "until death do us part", or such, or assume it, but eternal promises do have requirements to be met. God is both merciful and just: one attribute cannot rob the other. He gives us real choices, too.

Mormons might be confused given Ezra Taft Benson's use of the church and his position as president and prophet to literally promote the John Birch Society. If there was any indication from god that communism was evil, mormons believe it would come from their prophet, and in this case it did, thousands of times over.

I actually had the same thought back in high school. In my opinion there's an important difference though. Communism is forced upon you and removes freedoms. Law of consecration is voluntary--a choice you make.

Most Bishops (local leaders) will tell the family to stop paying tithes for a time or to continue to pay but then they turn around and give them food and a check for rent/mortgage until you're back on your feet. They'll work with you and frequently require that you do certain things though--like look for a job--in order to continue receiving assistance.

Communism is usually coercive, at least in the implementations we've seen, but there are plenty of theories that don't require coercion. That being said, the common usage of the term "communism" implies a dictatorship with heavy coercion.

Some differences between the Law of Consecration and Communism are:

1. Nobody is forced to live the Law of Consecration. It is a personal choice and not one forced down your throat under threat of death.

2. Under the Law of Consecration, as practiced under Joseph Smith, families would define their needs rather than have their needs dictated.

3. Communism is about power and control. The Law of Consecration is about individually loving your neighbors.

I wonder why this and those with similar comments were downvoted. I have spent some time studying both systems (at 2 universities) and observing over decades, and it looks accurate to me. The law of consecration, doctrinally, in all the source documents and major attempts to practice it, is voluntary, as is any true Christian behavior.

I learned some things about communism, read a number of books about individuals' experiences, from various countries, for a little while majored in Russian history at a university in the midwestern/central USA, reading, watched many Soviet films, etc., and my mother has a degree in Asian Studies and knows Mandarin, etc etc of various family studies & travel, and communism seems consistently, across time and place, to be a combination of attractive words with a murderous horror of physical and mental abuse and control over individuals and any group that might not be in favor with those in power.

As often happens in discussions of political and economic systems, you're comparing an idealized concept of one side to the history of the other side; of course the history side looks worse.

ETA: it occurs to me that there's a parallel here to the fundamental attribution error: my favorite system has flaws because its fundamental principles haven't been fully realized, while other systems have flaws because their fundamental principles are bad. Anyway, it's a pattern to watch out for.

The law of consecration has been tried, so there is history: while pioneers were crossing the plains (common efforts to care for the migrating poor, planting crops other later travelers would harvest, etc), one source being a somewhat new book "Saints", new chapters of Vol. 2 still being released, with citations to much source material. Also, Orderville (wikipedia references include Orderville, United Order, and Law of Consecration). There are probably others.

Edit: none of this says people are perfect, but that this aspect of Christianity is very different from communism. (I had a whole semester class on Stalin, and also some limited reading since.)

I think (but might be wrong) that Mormons did live the law of consecration when they first settled in Utah.

Found a link about the United Order in the early church. Sorta worked? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Order