Mormonism and the United Firm

[jwhitlock]

One of the other items that I mentioned before that needs to be further defined, is the concept of equality. Are we talking about full material equality down to the last paper clip, or are we talking about a harmonic equality that takes in to full account the individual needs and wants of the saints involved? In my opinion, it is the latter; I don't see the Lord as every advocating a system of absolute "fairness" in the material sense of the word.

Indeed, the law of the Celestial kingdom, which is the foundational law required for Zion, would have us rejoicing in the gifts and blessings and possessions others around us have, which while being very unequal in quantity and type, bless the entire community when they are properly used by the individual possessing them. As a rather crass example, if I'm a computer geek, I may desire to have much more computer equipment than many other people in a Zion community would even be interested in, yet as I used that equipment in a beneficial way for the community, the community would be enriched by my very "unequal" possessions. The same type of thing would apply to others; those who had a talent for farming and gardening and the desire to do such things would be blessed with more land than others whose interests lie elsewhere.

Hence, the concept of equality needs to be more seriously defined here, especially if there is a desire to extend the discussion into economic or financial equality as part of Zion's LoC, which i think doesn't really apply. If strict material / possession equality doesn't apply as I have described, then the same must logically apply to economic and financial equality. A better term for now, until Zion is restored, would be economic and financial harmony, which is what the law of tithing tends to move us towards.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

You guys can have your malls, I don't want any part of it

Straw man alert, straw man alert.

[rockslider]

One of the other items that I mentioned before that needs to be further defined, is the concept of equality. Are we talking about full material equality down to the last paper clip, or are we talking about a harmonic equality that takes in to full account the individual needs and wants of the saints involved? In my opinion, it is the latter; I don't see the Lord as every advocating a system of absolute "fairness" in the material sense of the word.

Indeed, the law of the Celestial kingdom, which is the foundational law required for Zion, would have us rejoicing in the gifts and blessings and possessions others around us have, which while being very unequal in quantity and type, bless the entire community when they are properly used by the individual possessing them. As a rather crass example, if I'm a computer geek, I may desire to have much more computer equipment than many other people in a Zion community would even be interested in, yet as I used that equipment in a beneficial way for the community, the community would be enriched by my very "unequal" possessions. The same type of thing would apply to others; those who had a talent for farming and gardening and the desire to do such things would be blessed with more land than others whose interests lie elsewhere.

x2

[Droopy]

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

I'll just look around me here in my office and say:

My computer, computer screen, speakers, laser printer, computer table, chest of drawers, two stand alone lights, by hundreds of books, bookshelves, speakerphone, scented candle, etc. Then outside in the other rooms there's all the furniture, televisions, DVDs and VCRs, food, refrigerator to keep the food cold, sink, dishwasher, washer and dryer, hairspray, toothpaste, shampoo, dog food, etc., etc. One may expand that ad infinitum.

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.

1. What you have described above is not wealth per se, but potential, or latent wealth. Iron ore is nice, but useless until labor, intelligence, technology and creativity turn it into iron and steel.

2. We are all to enjoy it? Sure. How, however, is this to be accomplished?

3. Define "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.

That's democracy my friend, and a terrible, terrible manner in which to decide anything in a society of any size and complexity, and especially who gets what and how much.

If you are a carpenter, should I and three hundred million other people, who have no idea of your unique circumstances, needs, desires, hopes, dreams, and personal capabilities decide what your income should be? Why?

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???

Yes well, that's what a car thief asks himself when he walks by a nice new Toyota Celica sitting in a parking lot with no one around and the doors unlocked.

Entire books have been written in answer to this question, but as a nutshell answer, a society without economic transactions using a medium of exchange based upon the concept of money prices through which the value of things or services is known, implies:

1. You are living in a primitive, simple barter economy at a subsistence level.

2. Everyone is living in a great commons without boundaries, conditions and limits between them as to property and resources and without free markets. In such a system, there is no price for anything, and hence, no one knows the value of anything (except perhaps, to himself as an isolated individual). Without valuation, a society has no idea what to produce, how much, for what purpose, how to allocate resources, within what time frame, and for whom.

Robinson Crusoe can value any number of things subjectively, but live in a society (of one) without much problem because of its primitive simplicity and the fact that he expresses his economic preferences only to himself.

In a society anything approximating ours, or one like it, such as system is not thinkable if even a modicum of economic prosperity or complexity is desired. Without a money price, the land you desire for you farm cannot be expressed as a valuation in economic terms. You want it, but so do x number of other people. Their desire and yours create a market for that land expressed in a money price that rises and falls over time as according to the law of supply and demand. This is extremely important for a number of critical reasons which time precludes me from going into at the moment, but among the most important of them is that is a number of people, including you, want the same piece of land, instead of fighting and killing each other for it, one or more people purchase it in a free, contractual, and peaceful manner.

Secondly, private ownership avoids the "tragedy of the commons" in which, since nobody owns anything, nobody really cares very much about its maintenance and improvement. A price for the land tells you that you have saved, sacrificed and invested in something that is now you're stewardship and your responsibility. It also tells other people in the same market that similar land of a similar kind is now valued by at least one person in the amount of the medium of exchange you were willing to part with because you wanted that land more than you wanted the quantity of the medium of exchange.

The person you paid for the land can now use the money you gave him to pay of his mortgage, pay for the college tuition of one of this children, take his wife on a vacation, or whatever. Or he can invest in a new tractor to farm another piece of land he was waiting to sell the land he sold to you so he could purchase the tractor. Then, he may hire some people to maintain the farm, creating some jobs in the community. This is how it works.

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.

This is a misquotation of scripture, and if you will do a serious personal inventory (as they used to tell us in AA), you will find that these perceptions are not grounded in the gospel or its values but in evny.

[Droopy]

However, if this presumably eternal principle holds true irrespective of persons, then those of us who take existing matter of the earth and organize it and create a product or service, then it seems reasonable to conclude that we own that product or service by virtue of having created it--that is, until we transfer ownership through a negotiated transaction. Man-made creation, then, is evidence of private ownership for mankind. (I don't think it coincidental that the law of tithing applies to a persons "increase"--which is another word for "creation")

An interesting extrapolation of Locke's fundamental insight into the larger arena of the gospel.

If private ownership is sinful, it would appear to be the case that the entire concept of stewardship is cut off at the knees.

[rockslider]

Well I'm not some educated debater, had to look up straw man

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.^[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet weaker proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."

Deborah suggested that the law of sacrifice was base on the sacrifice of material possessions, I suggested that its based on the sacrifice of one's self.

I don't see the straw man???

I do see I made an offensive remark, edited it out ... sorry about that, no desire to take the discussion in that direction

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well I'm not some educated debater, had to look up straw man

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.^[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet weaker proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."

Deborah suggested that the law of sacrifice was base on the sacrifice of material possessions, I suggested that its based on the sacrifice of one's self.

I don't see the straw man???

I do see I made an offensive remark, edited it out ... sorry about that, no desire to take the discussion in that direction

You claimed that we "could have our malls". That is a straw man. No one was even talking about that.

[rockslider]

I apologize again.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I apologized, and a good brother might edit his out as well, so as not to follow the straw man

[rockslider]

Brother, we need not report anything as there was no board violation. All is well.

So I can still drive the D9?

Thanks Mola.

[wenglund]

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

I agree, though I think the law of sacrifice also includes offering a sacrifice of material possessions--as in the case with tithes and offerings.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockslider]

I agree, though I think the law of sacrifice also includes offering a sacrifice of material possessions--as in the case with tithes and offerings.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

yes, a true stumbly block for a friend of mine that might be considering giving it another go

[volgadon]

Another soul-mate of Mr. Rousseau I see.

As for me and my house...

Would you have walked out half-way through the Kirtland temple dedication?

[rockslider]

Would you have walked out half-way through the Kirtland temple dedication?

maybe, I hear the view from the outside was pretty cool, hand stamp get back in maybe?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So I can still drive the D9?

Thanks Mola.

But of course.

[Deborah]

Deborah suggested that the law of sacrifice was base on the sacrifice of material possessions, I suggested that its based on the sacrifice of one's self.

The point I was intending to make was that by having ownership of something, when we choose to give it away out of love that is the sacrifice of self. Giving away something that doesn't belong to you to begin with isn't a sacrifice at all. But you are right when you put blood, sweat and tears into something it has more value which makes the sacrifice even greater and generally one is putting in that kind of effort because he has some ownership.

The parable of the talents represents to me this idea that we each have our own gifts, and they are ours. But they are ours because the Lord has granted them to us and that is why we are obligated to expand them so that all can be edified. But we put effort into developing those gifts because we have some pride in the fact that they have been granted to us. In other words the Lord grants ownership to us, and we expand on that gift and willingly impart it to others because we love what we are doing and we want all to have joy in our talents.

[wenglund]

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 can't speak for Droopy, but Will has explicitly said that he has no idea how it is supposed to work, and if it wasn't clearly implied by me, I will now explicitly state that I haven't any idea either. All I am arguing here is that I interpret the relatively few and vague quoted passages differently than some.

Besides, I prefer that the plan come from God instead of from men. I am quite confident that he knows what he is doing, far better than any of us.

And, may I also say that while this discussion is interesting and informative, and while I believe that people can reasonably disagree on various points, the good news is that it isn't incumbant upon us at this time to come to a definitive decision either way, otherwise we would be hearing about it during recent General Conferences and during contemporary Sunday lessons rather than from century old controversial documents (The Seer and Journal of Discourse), quarter century old tapes from a now relatively obscure member, and seemingly fruitless debates among a handful of unauthoritative members on the internet. For my part, it is sufficient for me to live the law of consecration according to my temple covenants, and this given the economic circumstances in which I now live, and in a way that best enables me to achieve my ultimate objective of becoming like Christ.

In other words, I see little if any cause to get highly emotional or zealous or dogmatic about this topic. But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

In other words, I see little if any cause to get highly emotional or zealous or dogmatic about this topic. But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I agree.

[rockslider]

I believe Wade has hit on a very key concept here. I know that it is at the very heart of matter for me. I suppose another thread might be appropriate. But to me, my hopes, dreams and what is left of my faith is eyeballs deep in what my hero's have taught me, i.e. the likes of Orson Pratt, B.H.Roberts and Hyrum Andrus. This is the gospel that is in my heart and soul.

This thread has been another eye opener for me. The spirit says awake and arise, but old rip van winkle is finding this brave new world a bit challenging.

btw

I will warn you of the tapes, they are the opposite of the escalator theory, there is no laying back to wait and see, there is only pursuing the face of God, personally, through personal revelation.

Looks like poor David has caught the bug.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Deborah,

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.

Once again, the driving principle behind the Law of Consecration is the recognition that ownership is but a secular allusion. As President Brigham Young declared:

"When the Saints find out the truth as it is, they will learn that they have nothing to give to the Lord, because they hold nothing but what already belongs to Him. We seem to possess much

[David Bokovoy]

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.

That's simply not true. They were tremendously successful and directly responsible for accomplishing an incredible miracle, i.e. allowing the Saints of God to survive the harshest of climates while turning the desert into a rose. The settling of the American frontier occurred as a result of the inspired economic systems put into place by Joseph and Brigham. The notion that these systems were a "failure" is one of Satan's biggest lies.

[BCSpace]

Once again, the driving principle behind the Law of Consecration is the recognition that ownership is but a secular allusion. As President Brigham Young declared:

On the other hand, the Church (and JS) has said:

[David Bokovoy]

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

And as I have repeatedly declared, I believe we should follow the Lord's plan and the blueprint provided via the D&C and the inspired systems put into place by Joseph and Brigham.

[William Schryver]

I can't speak for Droopy, but Will has explicitly said that he has no idea how it is supposed to work ...

Since all I ever did was ask certain very specific questions (all of which, it would seem, were misinterpreted as to their implications <sigh>) I can understand why you might have drawn this conclusion. However, I do in fact have some very refined ideas about "how it is supposed to work." But once I saw how this thread was going to develop, and out of deference to what I have chosen to consider "the better part of valor," I have concluded to refrain from taking part in this particular discussion.

I will only say that Zion will be built up in its time, and according to revelation--not by the will of man, but by the will of God.

[David Bokovoy]

On the other hand, the Church (and JS) has said:

The Lord has given the earth to us as our stewardship to do with as we please and to give an accounting of it in the end. Private property and ownership is the method by which our stewardship is measured.

BC, you're trying to make the Prophets an offender for a word. Joseph, Brigham, Orson Pratt, and a host of Latter-day Prophets and Apostles have declared that the secular concept of private human ownership is inconsistent with not only the Law of Consecration, but the doctrines of Atonement and heirship. Marion G. Romney, and Ezra Taft Benson state that private ownership is consistent with the plan. I would humbly suggest that you return and review the section of this thread that explains the doctrinal precepts explaining why Joseph and all the early brethren rejected the concept of private ownership. If you will do so, I suspect that you will be able to harmonize the basic principles Presidents Romney and Benson were trying to teach with the perspectives of the earlier Brethren and the standard works.