Mormonism and the United Firm

[David Bokovoy]

As has been illustrated repeatedly throughout this thread, Joseph and his contemporaries believed that the Law of Consecration in its truest sense did not include private ownership. This is a fact. Those who disagree with this perspective are free to question whether or not the early Brethren were correct, but no one can deny this historical reality.

Again, the following survey from Building the Kingdom of God describes the Prophet

[scooby]

That God ultimately owns everything is true in any economic system, and doesn't, as I see it, endorse any one system over another in and of itself.

What would be interesting is to know what kind of system(s) will exist in the telestial or terrestrial kingdom. If the LOC is unique to the celestial kingdom, then it stands to reason that nothing like what's being described as the LOC will exist in the other two kingdoms. Yet, the scriptures talk about receiving inheritances in the telestial kingdom. How is that going to be any different than the LOC?

[volgadon]

Private ownership cannot exist in this system, for the very reason that one has given everything one possesses back to God. If one has followed the Prophet

[Calm]

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.

But the servants didn't own the talents they were given, as evidenced by the fact the Lord took away the talent from the servant that was too fearful of losing the talent...even though there was no loss for the Lord.

And what right would the Lord have to take away anything of ours or to allow others to take them from us (which he does at times without asking us first) if it wasn't really his?

[Calm]

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.

Why would we have to give an accounting of something we owned to someone else?

[Calm]

And the beautiful thing is that if we have great business acumen or are skilled husbandmen, we still have an incentive to put our talents to work, by creating an increase we can provide more for our brothers and sisters. This of course requires that we be filled with the love of Christ, that we love as he loves us. "Greater love hath no man than he who lays down his life for his friends." Zion truly is the pure in heart.

It is certainly the principle the Lord appears to operate by.

[David Bokovoy]

This reason that this concept, friends, is so important is that once one accepts the truth concerning the secular concept of ownership, a beautiful system emerges concerning our relationship to God and the Atonement of Christ. This is why I feel so passionately about the subject.

For those who worry that this doctrine destroys

[David Bokovoy]

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

Nicely done by the way! One of my all time favorite hymns! There's a great acoustic guitar version of this hymn on one of the Youth Conference CD's awhile back. Can't remember the singer's name, but it's fantastic!

[William Schryver]

Suffice it to say that this great man is in full fellowship today.

This may be true, but, if my understanding of things is correct (and if it is not, then I will welcome correction on the matter) Hyrum Andrus was censured and his continuing membership in the church was jeopardized specifically because of the things he was teaching; specifically because of his passionately advocated interpretations of many of the same passages of scripture you have cited in this thread.

Indeed, if I recall correctly, there were also many others who were disciplined (and many cut off) by the church as a direct result of the extended influence of his teachings. Many who were influenced by his teachings ended up joining apostate splinter groups in the years prior to 2000.

One might reasonably ask on what basis the Priesthood leaders of the church found fault in his teachings, for that is most certainly what they did. Were they simply mistaken? Were they merely unwitting victims of the "Americanization" of the church in the 20th century; well-meaning but essentially deceived as to the "real" meaning of the Law of Consecration--all in consequence of their cultural training?

I am myself a passionate advocate for the eventual redemption of Zion, and I pray for that day to come soon. But when it does, it will be because the God of heaven speaks through His prophet on the earth, and not on any other basis. As Nomad hinted earlier, the redemption of Zion must needs come by power, and that power will be exercised through a modern equivalent of the Enoch who, in his day, as it is written, moved mountains and turned rivers in their courses. I am confident we shall yet see our own Enoch; the times will call him forth. But until then I would caution all to be very wary of "voices in the wilderness" claiming to hold the exegetical keys to the kingdom.

[rockslider]

William,

This is the part of the test of contradiction. God revealing to you concepts which the church is willing to excommunicate you for if you publically teach them. If any of you know Heschel Pederson personally, ask him about this fact. Ask him about the "Pederson letter".

I looked up your address and mailed you a DVD yesterday. Judge for yourself, or maybe best throw it down and trample it underfoot right away.

If you venture the tapes, he will emphasize, over and over to follow your present Bishop on up to and especially the living Prophet. There are absolutely no claims of any "exegetical keys".

This is among the truest statements Hyrum Andrus ever stated: "If you want to truly know your religion, study the men that knew Joseph Smith". Confess him with our lips but know him not comes to mind.

I can testify of this, Hyrum knew Joseph Smith. It seems a bit ironic that you would pour so much of your life's effort into JS as the Prophet and provider of the BoA, and yet attack his teachings in this area.

[William Schryver]

William,

This is the part of the test of contradiction. God revealing to you concepts which the church is willing to excommunicate you for if you publically teach them. If any of you know Heschel Pederson personally, ask him about this fact. Ask him about the "Pederson letter".

I looked up your address and mailed you a DVD yesterday. Judge for yourself, or maybe best throw it down and trample it underfoot right away.

If you venture the tapes, he will emphasize, over and over to follow your present Bishop on up to and especially the living Prophet. There are absolutely no claims of any "exegetical keys".

This is among the truest statements Hyrum Andrus ever stated: "If you want to truly know your religion, study the men that knew Joseph Smith". Confess him with our lips but know him not comes to mind.

I can testify of this, Hyrum knew Joseph Smith. It seems a bit ironic that you would pour so much of your life's effort into JS as the Prophet and provider of the BoA, and yet attack his teachings in this area.

Why do you (and David to some extent) insist on misrepresenting me? I really want to know.

In what way have I, in this thread or anywhere else, "attacked" Joseph Smith's teachings "in this area?" I have said nothing, so far, about my interpretations of the passages David has cited. You know absolutely nothing concerning my views "in this area." Absolutely nothing. Please refrain from suggesting anything to the contrary.

I am quite certain that my thoughts on the Law of Consecration are not what you apparently believe them to be.

[rockslider]

This may be true, but, if my understanding of things is correct (and if it is not, then I will welcome correction on the matter) Hyrum Andrus was censured and his continuing membership in the church was jeopardized specifically because of the things he was teaching; specifically because of his passionately advocated interpretations of many of the same passages of scripture you have cited in this thread.

Indeed, if I recall correctly, there were also many others who were disciplined (and many cut off) by the church as a direct result of the extended influence of his teachings. Many who were influenced by his teachings ended up joining apostate splinter groups in the years prior to 2000.

One might reasonably ask on what basis the Priesthood leaders of the church found fault in his teachings, for that is most certainly what they did. Were they simply mistaken? Were they merely unwitting victims of the "Americanization" of the church in the 20th century; well-meaning but essentially deceived as to the "real" meaning of the Law of Consecration--all in consequence of their cultural training?

I am myself a passionate advocate for the eventual redemption of Zion, and I pray for that day to come soon. But when it does, it will be because the God of heaven speaks through His prophet on the earth, and not on any other basis. As Nomad hinted earlier, the redemption of Zion must needs come by power, and that power will be exercised through a modern equivalent of the Enoch who, in his day, as it is written, moved mountains and turned rivers in their courses. I am confident we shall yet see our own Enoch; the times will call him forth. But until then I would caution all to be very wary of "voices in the wilderness" claiming to hold the exegetical keys to the kingdom.

Well, forgive me for my misinterpretation of the above post. I took it as a fairly aggressive attack against David, and Hyrum's interpretation of the given scriptures, with the added personal blow against Hyrum.

I accept David's interpretation as that which JS would have taught. Apparently, other TBM mileage may vary.

[David Bokovoy]

This may be true, but, if my understanding of things is correct (and if it is not, then I will welcome correction on the matter) Hyrum Andrus was censured and his continuing membership in the church was jeopardized specifically because of the things he was teaching; specifically because of his passionately advocated interpretations of many of the same passages of scripture you have cited in this thread.

Hyrum Andrus was not excommunicated for his views on consecration. Moreover, all I have done throughout this thread is present the views held by the Prophet Joseph and the men who knew him, this in addition to presenting the historical application of the Laws of Consecration.

Indeed, if I recall correctly, there were also many others who were disciplined (and many cut off) by the church as a direct result of the extended influence of his teachings. Many who were influenced by his teachings ended up joining apostate splinter groups in the years prior to 2000.

And splinter groups broke off from the Church because of Joseph Smith's teachings. This doesn't mean that Joseph was wrong. Come to think of it, splinter groups were inspired by Jesus' teachings and broke away into their own sects, but this doesn't mean that Jesus was mistaken.

True story concerning Hyrum Andrus I have on good authority. Brother Andrus was offered an apostolic position in one the fundamentalist groups inspired by his research. Brother Andrus' response,

"I would rather be a Deacon in the true Kingdom of God, then hold the highest office in the world outside God's one true Church."

[William Schryver]

Well, forgive me for my misinterpretation of the above post. I took it as a fairly aggressive attack against David, and Hyrum's interpretation of the given scriptures, with the added personal blow against Hyrum.

I accept David's interpretation as that which JS would have taught. Apparently, other TBM mileage may vary.

I have not expressed even an iota of objection to any of David's (or anyone else's) interpretations of the scriptures cited in this thread. How and why you have concluded otherwise is a mystery to me.

[Droopy]

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

Join the marketplace of ideas volg instead of just making the same old attempts in threads like this to rehabilitate Marx and cut and paste him to the gospel.

There's are philosophical argument going on here, and glib throwaway one liners such as those favored by STS don't add much to it.

[William Schryver]

Hyrum Andrus was not excommunicated for his views on consecration.

I never suggested he was. In fact, I didn't even know he had been excommunicated. I thought he was only threatened with it if he did not cease and desist from his public teachings that were leading others to apostasy.

Moreover, all I have done throughout this thread is present the views held by the Prophet Joseph and the men who knew him, this in addition to presenting the historical application of the Laws of Consecration.

I think I understand your stance on these questions quite well. I'm also pretty sure I understand the views of the Prophet Joseph Smith on the application of the Law of Consecration.

And splinter groups broke off from the Church because of Joseph Smith's teachings. This doesn't mean that Joseph was wrong. Come to think of it, splinter groups were inspired by Jesus' teachings and broke away into their own sects, but this doesn't mean that Jesus was mistaken.

I'm quite confident that "splinter groups" will continue to spin off from the main body of the church right up until the second coming of Christ.

True story concerning Hyrum Andrus I have on good authority. Brother Andrus was offered an apostolic position in one the fundamentalist groups inspired by his work. Brother Andrus' response, "I would rather be a Deacon in the true Kingdom of God, then hold the highest office in the world outside God's one true Church."

How noble and heroic of him.

[David Bokovoy]

Join the marketplace of ideas volg instead of just making the same old attempts in threads like this to rehabilitate Marx and cut and paste him to the gospel.

There's are philosophical argument going on here, and glib throwaway one liners such as those favored by STS don't add much to it.

Please limit your comments to Latter-day scripture and the historical application thereof. Contrasts and comparisons with contemporary political platforms and/or agendas are not appropriate.

[William Schryver]

Although none of my previous questions in this thread have been addressed, I have decided to throw out another one: In an economic order based on the Law of Consecration, what (if anything) will perform the function currently provided by banks in our current economic order?

[Droopy]

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.

I'll say this again here, for the record, even though I've been clear regarding it in similar threads before. I do not, and have not ever claimed to understand precisely how the future, fully revealed and practiced UO will be organized and applied. It is primarily those beating the drum of socialism/communitarianism here who have traditionally claimed to have all the answers, in a neat and tidy packages, relative to this, and who use both Nauvoo and, especially, the Salt Lake era UO as their template.

I've said before that I think, whatever its ultimate form, that it will be a refined, perfected, purified form of "capitalism", retaining its best aspects, including free markets, private initiative, creativity and efficiency, profit, and savings (creation and storing of working capital), but mediated by the covenant relationship between the individual and the Lord in which all material things are perceived and treated as belonging to the Lord. This is already the doctrine of the Church, but the future UO will make this doctrine explicit, while under present conditions, it is only implicit in the manner of our economic lives.

This covenant relationship, according to both the scriptures we now have detailing the basic form of the UO, as well as numerous teachings and statements of our modern prophets and apostles, is not one of equality of material condition but one of equality, or unity of purpose and desire in preparing for the Second Coming of Christ within a community of Saints dedicated to that purpose. As J. Reuben Clark said:

The united order exalts the poor and humbles the rich. In the process both are sanctified. The poor, released from the bondage and humiliating limitations of poverty, are enabled as free men to rise to their full potential, both temporally and spiritually. The rich, by consecration and by imparting of their surplus for the benefit of the poor, not by constraint, but willingly as an act of free will, evidence that charity for their fellowmen characterized by Mormon as

[David Bokovoy]

Since Will has again brought up my reference to the historical process of the "Americanization of the Church," this statement requires a brief explanation. Considerable historical analysis has been done on this topic, however, discussing these details would certainly turn too politically charged for this forum (some of us can't even simply stick to discussing the doctrine and principles of the Law of Consecration as found in the standard works without violating board rules). So let us refrain from considering this or any other related issue in this thread. I would simply refer those interested in the concept to consider Klaus J. Hansen's "The Metamorphosis of the Kingdom of God: Toward a Reinterpretation of Mormon History," in Dialogue, vol. 1; no. 3 63-83. This is a helpful article to read as an introduction to this historical event.

Thank you.

[volgadon]

Although none of my previous questions in this thread have been addressed, I have decided to throw out another one: In an economic order based on the Law of Consecration, what (if anything) will perform the function currently provided by banks in our current economic order?

I imagine banks will probably play the role of a bishop's storehouse of sorts.

[Deborah]

What I think should happen in terms of those who reject the Prophet Joseph's view, is for those persons to provide an explanation for how private ownership can function in terms of the doctrine of heirship as found in the standard works

But if someone inherits something does he not become owner of that thing? I don

[Droopy]

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.

Quite fascinating. You accuse bc of pitting the Brethren against each other, and then in the same breath...pit the Brethren against each other.

The bolded claim above is nonsense, if, as bc has pointed out, that which the Church (not isolated apostles under specific circumstances) has said consistently over time as a matter of unified teaching. The teachings of, for example BY cannot, in point of fact, be reconciled with later teachings on the subject because BY was clearly dealing with a specific disciplinary and survival oriented instance of the UO, capacitated to the conditions under which it was revealed, and which has only an outline relevance to the future UO as will be practiced by the Saints in preparation for the Second Coming.

[Senator]

I am confident we shall yet see our own Enoch; the times will call him forth.

Maybe our Enoch has already come, and his name is Joseph Smith.

[David Bokovoy]

Although none of my previous questions in this thread have been addressed, I have decided to throw out another one: In an economic order based on the Law of Consecration, what (if anything) will perform the function currently provided by banks in our current economic order?

I'll ask those interested in addressing Will's questions to do so in accordance with the thread's stated objectives by providing support for their position to the standard works and the historical application of the Law of Consecration.

Thank you.