I’m sorry if my curiosity has offended you in some way. I actually think there are other comments in this thread a member of the church would find more annoying.
From 1847 thru 1887 the Utah LDS Theocracy was communitarian. The United Order of Enoch anticipated communism in many of it’s practices. LDS rationalizations do not alter the facts.
God revealed the absolute truths of the economic system directly through Brigham Young.
The main thrust of Edmunds-Tucker was to eliminate the LDS church as a corporate entity and align the economic system of Utah with the capitalism extant in the US.
It is appropriate for Romney to explain his beliefs in this context. Was God in error? Did Brigham Young misrepresent the truth? Or is communitarian society his goal?
Crane
Didn’t someone mention paranoid musings?
Monty,
Are you saying that Utah was not a communitarian theocracy under Brigham Young?
Crane
No. I’m saying your post is an asinine comment.
Monty,
Perhaps you could explain yourself - in the context of the topic of this thread.
Crane
But you can top 'em, right?! 
Actual text of the bill (PDF file).
Monty,
Please correct my ‘errors’ or withdraw (and apologize for) your insulting comments.
Brigham Young is one of the greatest economists of the 19th century. He is the only one who created and managed a real economy for over 40 years. He applied the principle of ‘from each according to ability and to each according to need’ before Marx hypothesized it and he implemented Keynesian strategies long before Keynes was born. As President of the LDS organization, his path was revealed to him by God.
So, are these principles still extant within LDS? Does Romney ascribe to, or reject, the principles of a founder of his religion .
Crane
Unless you are an actual moderator on this site, Crane, you can save yourself the trouble of making further asinine comments directed at me.
Should be:
Monty,
The prefix “Please” indicates a request, not an order.
Are responses to your insults not allowed?
Actually, since you expressed a view, I had anticipated an interesting discussion on the topic.
Crane
I did not insult you. I made an accurate commentary on the caliber of your post. Later on, if you wish, we can delve into your apparent lack of understanding of the constitution’s stance on religion re: presidential qualifications.
Marx wasn’t the first left wing theoriser. The Utopian Socialists anteceded him in their use of the phrase and I’m sure the concept goes back further (perhaps even to the beatitudes). Marx’s writings were largely in response to industrialisation and agricultural development decreasing the proportion of the population involved in food production, thus increasing the number of literate individuals.
Monty,
Sorry, you seem to be on a different topic.
Crane
:dubious: Or, we could delve into your . . . quite surprising, and quite suspicious, reluctance to discuss your religion’s history and traditions here – you never hesitated to do so before. I started this thread as a parody, but now I’m wondering if there might be some real bad news about the LDS I still don’t know about.
In all seriousness, if the general public knew the full level of extreme racism and xenophobia that the vast majority of older LDS (say lifelong members 45 years old and above) were indoctrinated with up until just a couple of decades ago, Mitt Romney or any other active, faithful Mormon would never be a viable presidential candidate.
“Indoctrinated” as in, via sermons and (contemporary) literature?
Yes, as well as the teachings of both official and “unofficial” doctrine in sermons and Sunday School lessons, which while technically opinion, were openly taught as fact to millions of Mormons (young & old alike) in the 1940’s, 50’s, 60’s & 70’s.
Well, I’d say the same was true for much of the white South through the end of the '50s at least. That is, they were taught things like that in Sunday school or by other quasiofficial channels.