Mormonism and the United Firm

[mfbukowski]

Wealth is created, in either context, in the same way. What is that?

Let me get this straight: in a global UO, there is no need to create wealth. Where then, do the resources in the Bishop's storehouse come from, as well as the infrastructure upon which it is supported?

You are speaking here, essentially, of a simple barter economy of "cottage industries" with little economic complexity. The computer industry is the antithesis of this (as are most productive activities in a modern, technological/industrial society).

Is that what the scriptures teach, acoplypse followed by Mad Max?

Is a society of subsistence poverty the gospel's ideal?

See the above. Tap tap tap.

[rockslider]

20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your ^aunbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have ^bfaith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this ^cmountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be ^dimpossible unto you.

Orson used to talk about intelligences that were in all matter and tended to obey

can't help my self William,

Do you suppose the 2 that can handle 10,000 are in apostate cruisers? And who is going to build thost apostate cruisers?

[wenglund]

Wade,

You keep referring to "laws" but remember the law is a schoolmaster to bring men to Christ.

Yes, I know. That is why I keep referring to them since I wish to utilize them to that end.

What did Jesus/Jehovah do that made Him the Christ? He redeemed men from death and sin through an infinite atonement - and act of grace.

Yes, and he exemplified the way we should live in order to become like him (see below).

Grace is an undeserved act of kindness, mercy, or compassion and Paul teaches that we are not under the law but under grace (Romans 6:15) Elder Christoffel Golden Jr explained, in reference to Paul's words, that "we should know that he is referring to the law of justice as embodied in the commandments of the law of Moses and not to the higher law of God."

The law of just compensation is Mosaic. You're well familiar with "an eye for an eye". The higher law goes beyond "fairness" and "justness" and invites us to become saviors to each other by extending "grace".

I personally don't believe the law of just compensation is Mosaic any more than the law of justice is Mosaic, particularly since it was reiterated as late as 1831 in the passage of D&C 38 that I quoted. Granted, the "eye for and eye" application of the this law may be mosaic, but not the law itself. In fact, as previously mentioned, the law of just compensation, which to me is the same as the law of obedience, was irrevocably decread before the foundations of the eatth. (See D&C 130:20-21). One may abide this irrevocable law in a "higher" sense by compensating mercifully, and by not necessarily obediently serving with the intent of receiving a certain compensation.

With regard to private ownership and your statement above about the laws being schoolmasters intended to bring us to Christ and enable us to become like Christ. If, ultimately, we are to become like God, and if God is the owner and giver of all things unto his children, then I don't see how we can fully become like God without, ourselves, at some point owning and giving what we own to our children. It seems perfectly reasonable to me for us to now emulate on earth that which is in heaven.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Droopy]

I think he believes people who disagree with him are communists. See the Zion thread. And I think he fundamentally misunderstands what is being said here.

1. Clearly, it is rather you who appears to fundamentally misunderstand what I have been saying upon this subject for years here, as well as what is being said in this thread. If you actually believe what you have claimed about me above, then I don't think you've been paying very close attention to my posting history on gospel subjects with political relevance.

NO ONE has argued for compulsion or the government forcing anything. Living the LOC has to be voluntary - it's the height of free choice! Choosing to serve and sacrifice for others out of love - it's the ultimate in the righteous use of agency regarding temporal welfare.

No one has to argue for compulsion. Compulsion is inherent and necessary in any socialistic "communitarian" system of the kind David imagines is appropriate. Redistribution of wealth for the purpose of leveling socio-economic distinctions can only be done in one manner, and that is by forcible confiscation of private property and severe limitations upon personal economic activity. What David is talking about, a system of complete equality of economic condition among the Saints, can only be accomplished through the ruthless abrogation of free agency, which would violate the spirit and intent of the entire plan of salvation.

God's children are not, never have been, and never will be equal in this sense, and therefore, for make them equal in this sense, the application of overwhelming social coercion will be necessary, as it always has been in countries that have approached economic organization in the way David espouses.

Trying to alter the ontological reality of the vast differentiation in attributes among God's children on earth by imposing a single economic and social standard through which those vast differences and attributes can be manifested can be thought of as nothing less than tyranny, and that is precisely what would be required to achieve the desired result.

Besides, neither David nor anyone else here who has views similar to his has ever adduced an argument demonstrating just why an absolute economic egalitarianism is even important at all. Great concourses of his children have and will achieve their exaltation without having lived under any such system, and the Brethren have never so much as broached anything even approximating David's doctrines as articulated here during the 20th century, let alone my or my parents lifetimes.

[volgadon]

Compulsion is inherent and necessary in any socialistic "communitarian" system of the kind David imagines is appropriate.

Do a little reading on the kibbutz movement. You are quite wrong about compulsion, but this is all I will say so as not to drag the thread into politics.

[Droopy]

In my estimate, this is a very significant point. As I tried to express in the very title of this thread, the systems revealed through the prophet Joseph are unlike any other secular order. We're not talking socialism or any other secular -ism. If anything, we could perhaps refer to this religious view as Consecrationism. After twelve some odd pages of opposition, however, the absolute accuracy of Brigham Young's observation concerning the Saints is extremely clear:

You have openly called for an egalitarian society the salient feature of which is the absence of economic distinctions and equality of economic condition.

The name for this is "Socialism".

Words mean things, and ideas have, still as we speak, consequences.

[volgadon]

You have openly called for an egalitarian society the salient feature of which is the absence of economic distinctions and equality of economic condition.

This earth was once a garden place, with all her glories common...

[Droopy]

Do a little reading on the kibbutz movement. You are quite wrong about compulsion, but this is all I will say so as not to drag the thread into politics.

Nonsense. The Kibbutz movement severely restricts individual human potential and growth, which is why many have left it over the decades since it began. Further, as with virtually every communitarian movement I have studied, including those that have flourished in America, children are taken away from parents at an early age and raised communally by caregivers and teachers, only being allowed to see their parents for short periods. This is a salient feature of the Kibbutz movement that should cause one to come up short a bit and ask some questions.

The most repressive communist societies of the 20th century followed a similar form.

[Droopy]

This earth was once a garden place, with all her glories common...

Another soul-mate of Mr. Rousseau I see.

As for me and my house...

[Ahab]

...

Under this system, the man was a

[Droopy]

I actually believe, Wade, that your reading is a nice way to try and extract principles of application from the revelation that could work within the Telestial environment in which we now live.

Now David seems to have introduced a kind of conceptual equivocation here. A Zion society, having seceded from the surrounding "world" will exist prior to the Second Coming. Its purpose is the preparation of the Saints for that coming. The world, and all things in it, will still be very much a fallen, natural "Telestial" world.

All the laws and truths of economics will still be in force and violations of them, as with violations of all eternal laws, at whatever level or kingdom they may apply, will bring problems and failure.

If we are speaking of the Millennium, then we are speaking of a world that has been returned and restored to its paradisaical state, or Terrestrial state, and "economics" as normatively understood at present will be only partially, if at all applicable.

We cannot have it both ways here. What are we discussing, the Millennium, or Zion in the pre-Second Coming Telestial world?

[David Bokovoy]

1. Clearly, it is rather you who appears to fundamentally misunderstand what I have been saying upon this subject for years here, as well as what is being said in this thread. If you actually believe what you have claimed about me above, then I don't think you've been paying very close attention to my posting history on gospel subjects with political relevance.

No one has to argue for compulsion. Compulsion is inherent and necessary in any socialistic "communitarian" system of the kind David imagines is appropriate. Redistribution of wealth for the purpose of leveling socio-economic distinctions can only be done in one manner, and that is by forcible confiscation of private property and severe limitations upon personal economic activity. What David is talking about, a system of complete equality of economic condition among the Saints, can only be accomplished through the ruthless abrogation of free agency, which would violate the spirit and intent of the entire plan of salvation.

God's children are not, never have been, and never will be equal in this sense, and therefore, for make them equal in this sense, the application of overwhelming social coercion will be necessary, as it always has been in countries that have approached economic organization in the way David espouses.

Trying to alter the ontological reality of the vast differentiation in attributes among God's children on earth by imposing a single economic and social standard through which those vast differences and attributes can be manifested can be thought of as nothing less than tyranny, and that is precisely what would be required to achieve the desired result.

Besides, neither David nor anyone else here who has views similar to his has ever adduced an argument demonstrating just why an absolute economic egalitarianism is even important at all. Great concourses of his children have and will achieve their exaltation without having lived under any such system, and the Brethren have never so much as broached anything even approximating David's doctrines as articulated here during the 20th century, let alone my or my parents lifetimes.

Again, Droopy, of course you're free to disagree, but I would ask that if you have a contrary opinion concerning this analysis of the Lord's economic system as revealed in holy writ that you attempt to provide justification for your view via scriptural analysis and its historical application. This has been the request since the opening post and despite offering much criticism, you have failed to present anything of substance. I suspect it's clear to the vast majority of readers why after several reminders, you have failed to do so. It certainly is to me.

[Droopy]

Again, Droopy, of course you're free to disagree, but I would ask that if you have a contrary opinion concerning this analysis of the Lord's economic system as revealed in holy writ that you attempt to provide justification for your view via scriptural analysis and its historical application. This has been the request since the opening post and despite offering much criticism, you have failed to present anything of substance. I suspect it's clear to the vast majority of readers why after several reminders, you have failed to do so. It certainly is to me.

David, the reason I'm not doing this, and relying on an appeal to gospel doctrine as a systematic whole, and to critically reasoned argument, is because, if you will look back over the some 14 pages of this thread, several other posters have engaged in scriptural exigences and interpretation, showing that your particular interpretations of the scriptures you are using as your prooftexts are less than compelling. Will asked a very, very simple question of you, and I've asked it several times: how is wealth created?

You have refused to answer in any substantive manner. You refuse to engage the economic problems (severe) of your proposed system. Did you look at I,Pencil, at the link I provided? How would the production of such a simple item as this be accomplished without free markets and private ownership of property?

Silence.

Others have and will engage you scripturally. Can I do that? Sure, I have my standard works right here. What I would like to engage, however, so as not to become redundant, are the, what I perceive to be deep and pervasive doctrinal, economic, and philosophical problems of your theory without the endless wrangling over scriptural exegesis.

I find that arguing scriptural interpretation with you, over the UO, is rather like arguing with a determined EV on the subject of grace.

[alter idem]

In terms of historical contextualization, I referred to this unpublished revelation received by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the opening post, but I would like to add the following lines that I find of particular interest:

"And the property which they [the Bishopric] receive of the Church, is not their own, but belongeth to the Church. Wherefore, it is the property of the Lord and it is for the poor of the Church, to be administered according to the law.' Joseph Smith, "Revelation on the Duty of Bishops," March 1832, Newel K. Whitney Papers, BYU Library.

Are you using this unpublished statement(therefore not canonized) from Joseph Smith to claim there was no private ownnership? Others LDS leaders will disagree with you. This from an address by Victor L. Brown.

This procedure, the bishop deeding back to the individual his stewardship, preserved in every man the right to private ownership and management of property. Private ownership of property was basic to the united order. The intent was that each man would improve his stewardship--that is, use the property to produce a living for himself and his family. Any surplus that he might produce above the wants and needs of his family was consecrated to the Church. This surplus went into a bishops storehouse, from which the needs of the poor, the orphan, and the widow were met; from which stewardships were given to others; and from which the activities of the Church were financed

The Law of Consecration, Victor L. Brown was a member of the Presiding Bishopric; fireside

address was given at Brigham Young University on 7 November 1976.

http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6126

[David Bokovoy]

David, the reason I'm not doing this, and relying on an appeal to gospel doctrine as a systematic whole, and to critically reasoned argument, is because, if you will look back over the some 14 pages of this thread, several other posters have engaged in scriptural exigences and interpretation, showing that your particular interpretations of the scriptures you are using as your prooftexts are less than compelling.

Yet not successfully, Droopy. In fact, it's impossible to sustain your criticisms scripturally, let alone in terms of historical application.

Will asked a very, very simple question of you, and I've asked it several times: how is wealth created?

And I've answered it several times scripturally, which again, is the focus of this discussion.

You have refused to answer in any substantive manner.

I recognize that that is your opinion.

You refuse to engage the economic problems (severe) of your proposed system. Did you look at I,Pencil, at the link I provided? How would the production of such a simple item as this be accomplished without free markets and private ownership of property?

Silence.

Of course I'm not going to get sucked into this discussion of current economic/political application. Again, that is not the focus of this thread and to do so would rightfully lead us down the road to the closing of this thread. The doctrine here is too important to allow this attempted hijacking.

I find that arguing scriptural interpretation with you, over the UO, is rather like arguing with a determined EV on the subject of grace.

I'm afraid you've misunderstood. I have no interest in arguing with you over the scriptures. One can share alternative views without arguing. In terms of grace, however, you're correct. I'm quite "determined" of its relevance and importance for a correct understanding of the Lord's economic system as revealed in holy writ. After all we can do, we're saved by grace (2 Nephi 25:23).

[Ahab]

Will asked a very, very simple question of you, and I've asked it several times: how is wealth created?

That's a strange question, in my perspective. Maybe it would help if you first define what weath is.

As I see things, the wealth of this planet consists of all of it's natural resources which God has put here for ALL of us to enjoy, and what we have now are people acting as if they are entitled to a portion which isn't a fair portion.

Sure, some people don't really want as much as some others, but everyone should have a say in how everything is divied out.

If I'd like to have a farm, because I would like to grow a lot of food, why should I have to buy that land from one of my other brothers or sisters considering the fact that our Father put it here for all of us to enjoy???

Money is the root of all of this evil that has been going on for thousands and thousands of years, so if your idea of wealth is "money", defined as some stuff you have to trade to get something of any real value, you've got a lot of learning to do. If you're thinking of something other than money, though, I'm all ears.

What kind of "wealth" are you talking about creating?

[wenglund]

However, in order to properly understand a revelation, it

[David Bokovoy]

Are you using this unpublished statement(therefore not canonized) from Joseph Smith to claim there was no private ownnership?

I used this non-published revelation as simply one more piece of historical evidence to properly contextualize Joseph's views. If you'll go back through the thread, you'll see that there was a lot more where that quote came from.

Others LDS leaders will disagree with you. This from an address by Victor L. Brown.

It's true, there have been conflicting opinions on this subject expressed by some of the Brethren not well versed in our history. This is always the case. As I have illustrated however, the standard works, including the Book of Mormon itself, are quite clear on this topic. Again, as I have discussed throughout this thread, there were evolutionary developments in terms of the way in which the orders were applied, so that there was a stronger sense of private ownership following the Bates incident in 1833. I suspect that this is part of the reason for some later confusion.

Still, a historical analysis of this topic reveals that collectivism was always an important part of the economic application of the Law of Consecration, not just in its initial form. As part of Brigham's efforts to apply the Law of Consecration, certain resources, for example, were held under community control. Brigham Young decreed that "There shall be no private ownership of the streams that come out of the canyons, nor the timber that grows on the hills. These belong to the people: all the people." Message of Brigham Young cited in Leonard J. Arrington, Great Basin Kingdom: An Economic History of the Latter-day Saints, 1830-1900 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958), 52.

In terms of our Utah history, the absolute height of communal ownership was reached in the United Order movement of the 1870's. Various types of orders were instituted under Priesthood leadership, and some of these, like the system that existed in Orderville, Utah had no private ownership of real property whatsoever. Instead, all who joined under the direction of Priesthood leaders contributed their property to the community, all worked together under the direction of a central board, and all ate and prayed together as well. See Ibid. 323-349.

[alter idem]

I used this non-published revelation as simply one more piece of historical evidence to properly contextualize Joseph's views. If you'll go back through the thread, you'll see that there was a lot more where that quote came from.

It's true, there have been conflicting opinions on this subject expressed by some of the Brethren not well versed in our history.

"not well versed in our history"? So, if they disagree with you, they just aren't 'well versed'?

Is this how you explain J.Reuben Clark, Ezra Taft Benson and Marion G. Romney's strong positions on the Law of Consecration--what is was and was not? Not 'well versed'? Sorry, but this just seems like a convenient way to ignore their positions so that you don't have to deal with them.

This is always the case. As I have illustrated however, the standard works, including the Book of Mormon itself, are quite clear on this topic. Again, as I have discussed throughout this thread, there were evolutionary developments in terms of the way in which the orders were applied, so that there was a stronger sense of private ownership following the Bates incident in 1833. I suspect that this is part of the reason for some later confusion.

I don't disagree with you on this. The Law of Consecration was practiced in many different ways. All but Enoch's group fell apart.

Still, a historical analysis of this topic reveals that collectivism was always an important part of the economic application of the Law of Consecration, not just in its initial form. As part of Brigham's efforts to apply the Law of Consecration, certain resources, for example, were held under community control. Brigham Young decreed that "There shall be no private ownership of the streams that come out of the canyons, nor the timber that grows on the hills. These belong to the people: all the people." Message of Brigham Young cited in Leonard J. Arrington, Great Basin Kingdom: An Economic History of the Latter-day Saints, 1830-1900 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958), 52.

In terms of our Utah history, the absolute height of communal ownership was reached in the United Order movement of the 1870's. Various types of orders were instituted under Priesthood leadership, and some of these, like the system that existed in Orderville, Utah had no private ownership of real property whatsoever. Instead, all who joined under the direction of Priesthood leaders contributed their property to the community, all worked together under the direction of a central board, and all ate and prayed together as well. See Ibid. 323-349.

This statement from the article I quoted earlier:

As we look back over these noble experiments in Utah, we now see that the original law of consecration, revealed through the Prophet Joseph in the early 1830s, was never strictly followed in any instance, either in Utah or in Missouri.

Because of this, I'm not sure we can use the examples from the early days of the church to determine how it should be lived properly--They were ALL failures.

I know you keep insisting that private property was not part of the Law of Consecration, but you have not convinced me. I understand that everything belongs to God--we are his stewards here on earth and we'll be held to account for our stewardships. I believe that private ownership is the same concept as a stewardship or inheritance under the Law of Consecration. There is nothing wrong with holding something in one's name--believing it is their responsibility to care and improve on it. When the Jamestown group came to the Americas, they tried to live in a communal manner, but eventually had to abandon it because it did not work. Private ownership or stewardship allows people to benefit from their labor and some will be more prosperous than others--yet the whole community prospers when they willingly turn over their profits to be shared by those who were less profitable.

I also believe that in the Heavens we will have 'stewardships'. When we talk about 'worlds without end' we are talking about Heavenly Father giving us an inheritance, a stewardship from among his heavenly holdings.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Because of this, I'm not sure we can use the examples from the early days of the church to determine how it should be lived properly--They were ALL failures.

Bingo. That is why I think wierd that David is hanging so much of his hat on the history of how the saints tried to practice the LoC.

[jwhitlock]

And yet the matter of economic and financial equality is not only the historical background behind D&C 38, the revelation itself makes clear that by "possessions," the Lord is specifically referring to economic and financial matters. Note versus 16-17:

"And for your salvation I give unto you a commandment, for I have heard your prayers, and the poor have complained before me, and the rich have I made, and all flesh is mine, and I am no respector of persons. And I have made the earth rich, and behold it is my footstool, wherefore, again I will stand upon it."

One comment here in response; I find the scriptures, many times, to be very dualistic in nature. When we talk about the concept of rich, it can have several meanings at the same time. For instance:

D&C 6:7 - "Seek not for riches but for wisdom, and behold, the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto you, and then shall you be made rich. Behold, he that hath eternal life is rich."

I don't think that we understand verses 16-17 as you quoted completely; the phrasing "the poor have complained before me" as compared to "the rich have I made" seem to be somewhat disconnected in what they are really referring to. To me, it doesn't seem that the connection to straight economic / financial matters is as cut and dried as you make it to be; it almost appears like the Lord is relegating material things to a secondary status, and referring instead to a more important kind of "richness" having to do with the blessings of eternity.

In reading the scriptures quoted more closely, I get the impression that the Lord is only marginally concerned with the economic and financial connections to the LoC, which seem to be at most, temporary. Once Zion is restored, as we agreed, the economic and financial systems of the world no longer apply in that society; they are basically done away with and replaced by something else. As such, the institutions of finance and economics endure while the systems of the world endure, and only have effect there. Attempts to reform those systems via financial / economic redistribution in the name of the LoC are like fitting a square peg into a round hole; the LoC in Zion has no need of those systems and so doesn't ultimately deal with them.

The current partial implementation of the LoC among us in our time seems to be centered around the law of tithing as a temporary process of dealing with the economic systems of the world. As a practical matter, for us now, living the LoT seems to be what is most acceptable to the Lord; a premature attempt to implement the LoC before Zion returns would most likely end in failure, especially if it attempted to encompass current economic / financial systems. It's simply a matter of the time not being right.

Until the time is right, the law of tithing provides significant guidance as to what we should do while we're in the worldly system. Perhaps that is where our concentration should be, while we wait upon the Lord for the foundation Zion will provide to practice the LoC in its fullness. Like the Law of Moses which led to Christ, tithing is the law that is a schoolmaster to bring us into Zion and the LoC.

[rockslider]

Bingo. That is why I think wierd that David is hanging so much of his hat on the history of how the saints tried to practice the LoC.

Yep that Darn JS, maybe the failure was in his directions to them on how to set it all up. I'm thinking we should get Droopy, William and Wade together to put the plans together for the next go. Seems like they know how it should be done

I want to drive the D9 ... hope it has one of those big rippers on the back

[Deborah]

With regard to private ownership and your statement above about the laws being schoolmasters intended to bring us to Christ and enable us to become like Christ. If, ultimately, we are to become like God, and if God is the owner and giver of all things unto his children, then I don't see how we can fully become like God without, ourselves, at some point owning and giving what we own to our children.

Furthermore if we have no ownership in something how is it a sacrifice when we give it away? I can't see that the pure love of Christ has any part of this if we don't have any ownership in what is given to the poor. Why should I care what someone else gives if it's not mine? But when I have something of value that is mine and I willingly impart of it then that is the pure love of Christ.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yep that Darn JS, maybe the failure was in his directions to them on how to set it all up. I'm thinking we should get Droopy, William and Wade together to put the plans together for the next go. Seems like they know how it should be done

I want to drive the D9 ... hope it has one of those big rippers on the back

No no no, I think we should follow David's plan. After all..... he knows the history of it all.

[rockslider]

Furthermore if we have no ownership in something how is it a sacrifice when we give it away? I can't see that the pure love of Christ has any part of this if we don't have any ownership in what is given to the poor. Why should I care what someone else gives if it's not mine? But when I have something of value that is mine and I willingly impart of it then that is the pure love of Christ.

It seems to me that the blood/sweat/tears of the physical/mental/emotional work involved in producing a quality product is what the true sacrifice is ... the sacrifice of one's self, time, talents