Mormonism and the United Firm

[wenglund]

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]

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

One of the best comments in this entire thread.

[volgadon]

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!

One my favourites too. I remember as a five year old listening to my mom playing that song, asking her which it was, and being very impressed by the odd name and the story behind it.

As for that rendition from EFY or whatever, I've actually been trying to find that ever since one of my favourite mission companions raved about it.

I think the way the hymn distills the doctrine of unity to its essence, that is, presents everything simply but beautifully.

[alter idem]

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.

IMO you have not established this as fact.

In 1843 John Finch lectured on "English Socialism" in Nauvoo. Joseph spoke later on the subject indicating 'he did not believe the doctrine of Socialism as propounded by Finch'. Later he spoke again on the subject 'reiterating the united order principle that "every one is steward over his own"'. p. 130 Working Toward Zion. Joseph Smith considered stewardship as private ownership.

George Q. Cannon recognized the appeal of communism in 1878, but claimed 'there is more widespread ownership of the soil than you will find in any part of these United States." p.133 Once again, the saints held their property privately and this was considered one aspect early leaders recognized which set the United Order apart from communism in the 19th century.

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

[rockslider]

Hyrum was never excommunicated. He obediently held to his agreement of silence and choose to focus his life on continued service, two to three days a week, in the Temples of our Lord.

I would not be surprised if JS was standing next to me when I presented that DVD to him Wednesday.

[BCSpace]

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?

A bank. There will be savings, interest, and investments under the LoC. The LoC really isn't an economic system at all. It simply allows for free market capitalism and forbids any sort of socialism. What the LoC is is a subsystem of distributing welfare needs.

[Droopy]

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.

Its nothing more than the de rigueur leftist anti-Americanism we see throughout the secular world transferred to and seasoned to a liberal LDS taste, and can be dispensed with upon those grounds.

[William Schryver]

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

Really? Somehow I never thought that the one is even remotely analogous to the other. How could a "bishop's storehouse" provide the labor and materials necessary to construct a massive, professionally engineered bridge across a wide canyon? Let's assume that this hypothetical bridge will only benefit a relatively small number of the inhabitants of a remote area, but which is strongly regarded as a reasonable "need" by those particular citizens of the society in question. Describe the process, if you would.

Do you envision the existence of a currency? Or will all transactions be "in kind"? Or do you not envision any kind of equal exchange of one manifestation of wealth for another? Will all such questions of equivalency of value go by the wayside under the system you envision?

[David Bokovoy]

Its nothing more than the de rigueur leftist anti-Americanism we see throughout the secular world transferred to and seasoned to a liberal LDS taste, and can be dispensed with upon those grounds.

Again, if you cannot refrain from making political commentary, please find another thread.

Thank you.

[David Bokovoy]

Hyrum was never excommunicated. He obediently held to his agreement of silence and choose to focus his life on continued service, two to three days a week, in the Temples of our Lord.

I would not be surprised if JS was standing next to me when I presented that DVD to him Wednesday.

Thank you for the clarification.

Best

[William Schryver]

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

His name is not important. It is the role he will play in the process that is unique. Nevertheless, it is written:

D&C 90

32 And behold, verily I say unto you, that ye shall write this commandment, and say unto your brethren in Zion, in love greeting, that I have called you also to preside over Zion in mine own due time.

[wenglund]

I do in fact have some very refined ideas about "how it is supposed to work."

I realize that you may not have much time right now to devote to this topic, but when you do, I would appreciate hearing your ideas, if not on this thread, then on its own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[William Schryver]

Hyrum was never excommunicated. He obediently held to his agreement of silence and choose to focus his life on continued service, two to three days a week, in the Temples of our Lord.

I would not be surprised if JS was standing next to me when I presented that DVD to him Wednesday.

I'm sure Christopher Nemelka feels the same concerning his recent endeavor at the cemetery.

[volgadon]

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.

Glib, throwaway one-liners? Would it help if I posted the rest of the text to the hymn?

You said that David had "openly called for an egalitarian society the salient feature of which is the absence of economic distinctions and equality of economic condition." Your own words. I replied with the opening to a hymn penned by W. W. Phelps, calling, essentially, for the same thing. You went on an irrelevant tangent involving Rousseau, then said about this hymn that as for you and your house, ellipsis, I.E. said hymn is not following the Lord. I replied to that by asking you if you would have walked out half-way through the Kirtland temple dedication. Why? Because that hymn was sung right after the intermission. If this ideal was something the prophet saw fit to include in the dedication ceremony of the first temple of this dispensation, then it is something I feel we should probably strive for. How have I cut-n-pasted Marx to this discussion? You are the one that keeps bringing things like that up.

[William Schryver]

I realize that you may not have much time right now to devote to this topic, but when you do, I would appreciate hearing your ideas, if not on this thread, then on its own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks for your expressions of interest. I would like to, someday, engage in a more detailed discussion of these things. The fact is, however, that I have already spent way too much time this morning posting on this thread, and I really must return to my higher priorities. I will check back later, assuming I get the opportunity ...

[David Bokovoy]

]IMO you have not established this as fact.

Then I invite you to go back and respond to the historical evidence that proves this point.

In 1843 John Finch lectured on "English Socialism" in Nauvoo. Joseph spoke later on the subject indicating 'he did not believe the doctrine of Socialism as propounded by Finch'. Later he spoke again on the subject 'reiterating the united order principle that "every one is steward over his own"'. p. 130 Working Toward Zion. Joseph Smith considered stewardship as private ownership.

George Q. Cannon recognized the appeal of communism in 1878, but claimed 'there is more widespread ownership of the soil than you will find in any part of these United States." p.133 Once again, the saints held their property privately and this was considered one aspect early leaders recognized which set the United Order apart from communism in the 19th century.

Again, the Lord's economic system is not socialism. In terms of private ownership and its relationship to the Law of Consecration, please see my recent post on the historical changes brought about by the Bates' lawsuit.

I believe someone earlier on the thread asked; How can you consecrate something to God that you don't actually own? Of course everything in this world belongs to God. Even we belong to God. But, he gave us our agency and sent us to this earth where he allows us to be free. He acknowledges that in our earthly existence we 'own' things. And he asks us to give them back to him and in this way, all his children benefit. Our time, talents, temporal goods. Like the parable of the talents, he sees what we do with them, and holds us accountable. There is nothing evil about 'ownership'. It is an important aspect of stewardship and responsibility. We are not the same, our efforts will produce varying degrees of success, due to our inherent differences in talents and abilities, education, interests etc. But, together we can all enjoy prosperity, if we work for the greater good of the Kingdom, rather than selfishly work to enrich only ourselves. IMO, it MUST involve a sense of 'ownership' aka 'stewardship' so that a person is responsible and accountable as well as motivated to succeed and produce. I believe Heavenly Father recognizes this and why he promises to make us 'heirs' in his kingdom.

In terms of consecrating what we don't actually own, see the comments I provided from Brigham Young.

I'm not sure exactly what 'teaching' you are referring to. The Law of Consecration has not been removed from the canon. Those of us who have been endowed covenant to live it.

I was referring to comments concerning giving up all we own to God in the Lectures on Faith.

[Argos]

Posted A minute ago

PostDroopy, on 18 June 2010 - 09:58 AM, said:

Its nothing more than the de rigueur leftist anti-Americanism we see throughout the secular world transferred to and seasoned to a liberal LDS taste, and can be dispensed with upon those grounds.

Again, if you cannot refrain from making political commentary, please find another thread.

Thank you.

DROOPY: Another comment by David that you are distracting this thread and you'll be banned from it. Argos.

[wenglund]

A bank. There will be savings, interest, and investments under the LoC. The LoC really isn't an economic system at all. It simply allows for free market capitalism and forbids any sort of socialism. What the LoC is is a subsystem of distributing welfare needs.

I agree with your last sentence. Certainly, that is how it works today.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[David Bokovoy]

I agree with BY. In relation to Heavenly Father, we really own nothing, and can consecrate nothing to him, since all is his. Does this mean that in terms of ourself and in relation to others we have no private ownership. I don't think so. But, we can reasonably disagree since it is of little or no consequence at this time. And, ultimately, the difference between not owning and owning but consecrating is to me also of little or no consequence, and thus not worth arguing over. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

I hope you had a change to read through my comments on the Bate's lawsuit which brought about the private ownership principle into the Law of Consecration.

Best

[wenglund]

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.

I am wondering if there is a difference between the LoC during mortality verses the LoC during immortality. The reason I am wondering about this distinction is because of the notion that Will mentioned earlier--i.e. "consumption". Is their consumption in heaven? If not, then I am not sure an economic system is even necessary there.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[alter idem]

Do you reject this teaching because it has been removed from the canon?

I believe you may be referring to the change prompted by the Bates case..correct?

If so, this is my answer to this question.

First off, I don't think the original policy as it was interpreted was right. I think it ignored the fact that the person voluntarily joined the United Order and therefore, if they voluntarily chose to leave, they should retain at least what they'd been given. It would have been an impossible nightmare to give them back what they'd originally consecrated and this would have destroyed the order. But, it would not have destroyed it to allow the person to retain what they'd been given.

IMO it was wise to give back property if a person left. I am reminded of the FLDS--their organization holds all the property--the people truly own nothing. Families are not even permanent but can be broken up by church leaders, wives and children are considered 'property' the church owns and can be given to other men.

I think it was unwise of the early church leaders to try and keep a person's property if they left the group. I side with the court and believe it was right that the church change the way they dealt with this situation.

edited to add: I'm reading back a few posts so sorry for the delay.

You were referring to the lectures on faith? See my second to last response--at the end. It clearly gives my view on this topic.

[wenglund]

Wade,

I hope you had a chance to read through my comments on the Bate's lawsuit which brought about the private ownership principle into the Law of Consecration. Best

I must have missed it (the thread is moving quite fast--a testiment to the high level of interest in this topic), so I will take some time to go back and look for it.

Just so you know, I am keeping my mind open to your point of view and to others. You have made some compelling points, though I may not always agree with your interpretations, or even the interpretation of other menbers and even leaders of the Church. My intent here is to learn and gain understanding, and not to stake out a dogmatic position, particularly with so little, relatively speaking, for us to go on.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[David Bokovoy]

I believe you may be referring to the change prompted by the Bates case..correct?

If so, this is my answer to this question.

First off, I don't think the original policy as it was interpreted was right. I think it ignored the fact that the person voluntarily joined the United Order and therefore, if they voluntarily chose to leave, they should retain at least what they'd been given. It would have been an impossible nightmare to give them back what they'd originally consecrated and this would have destroyed the order. But, it would not have destroyed it to allow the person to retain what they'd been given.

IMO it was wise to give back property if a person left. I am reminded of the FLDS--their organization holds all the property--the people truly own nothing. Families are not even permanent but can be broken up by church leaders, wives and children are considered 'property' the church owns and can be given to other men.

I think it was unwise of the early church leaders to try and keep a person's property if they left the group. I side with the court and believe it was right that the church change the way they dealt with this situation.

edited to add: I'm reading back a few posts so sorry for the delay.

You were referring to the lectures on faith? See my second to last response--at the end. It clearly gives my view on this topic.

Just so you know. I completely agree with you. Joseph was absolutely inspired to institute these changes. My only concern is that the doctrinal precepts behind consecration are not lost to Latter-day Saints by this inspired change.

[David Bokovoy]

I must have missed it (the thread is moving quite fast--a testiment to the high level of interest in this topic), so I will take some time to go back and look for it.

Just so you know, I am keeping my mind open to your point of view and to others. You have made some compelling points, though I may not always agree with your interpretations, or even the interpretation of other menbers and even leaders of the Church. My intent here is to learn and gain understanding, and not to stake out a dogmatic position, particularly with so little, relatively speaking, for us to go on.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You're a good man, Wade. I love you.

[Droopy]

With all due respect to David and the sincerity of his beliefs, what I see here is that David, again with all due respect, has become infatuated and imbued with a common but deeply cankering and debilitating virus all too traditionally common among western intellectuals, which is, to borrow Paul's phrase, the consuming fire of equality. That fire, once it takes hold of the imagination and mind, has demonstrated itself in history to be a tsunami that carries all before it without regard to consequence. It has within a secular context, during the last century, when attempts have been made to apply its ideas and see them through to their logical conclusion, consumed the lives, dignity, and humanity of hundreds of millions of our brothers and sisters, and ended the lives, in its single minded, fanatically focused pursuit, of a hundred million more.

In its more benign forms (democratic socialism) it has created economic malaise and stagnation, dangerously invasive and intrusive leviathan government, and intellectual and moral infantilism among the people's living under such systems, everywhere and every time is has been established.

Joseph was asked whether the Saints believed in the common ownership of property. He replied "No"

I've posted, with others here, in this thread, yet again, clear, lucid and unambiguous statements regarding the primacy and importance of:

1. Private property

2. The existence of private capital stock

3. Private economic initiative

4. Free markets

Within a Zion context. David dismisses all of this with a wave of the hand by appeal to "historical application" and "historical context" even though historical context may by of little relevance (are we still living the economic principles of ancient Israel? Nibley seemed to think so, or seemed to think we should be, even though the Church teaches that the Mosaic law was done away and fulfilled in Christ. Are we to practice animal sacrifice? Is the future Zion to be built in Missouri likely to be against a background of pre-industrial, 19th century technology and social context?).

Others such as volgadon, who wish to cut and paste Marx into the Restoration (much as say, Darin would cut and paste his social views into the Church in another context) are content to cheer this on with paeans to the glories and beauties of the collective mass working and toiling together for "the common good" (think of the old communist Chinese realist art showing concourses of happy peasants with smiling faces laboring in fields, all without property, personal stewardship, freedom or individual self determination, but each burning bright with the noble fires of "equality").

David opened a thread upon a subject within which there is no possibility of disentanglement from politics and political philosophy, but then asks that all of its inherent and foundational political implications be ignored.

The subject is the economic organization of society, a subject that, by definition, is not only inherently political, but political to the degree (through economics) that it impacts and conditions virtually all other aspects of that society.

We are asked to ignore all of this. We are then broadsided with assertions regarding the proper form of economic life that could have been lifted, in fundamental form, right out of the Communist Manifesto or from any Frankfurt School theorist but buffered to LDS taste with iconoclasticlly interpreted scriptural references and personal statements taken from disparate individual GAs.

The entire OP is rather a set-up, in my view (not that David did this consciously) in that all who disagree with the fundamental premise of the OP are forced, by ignoring the essential underlying political context of that fundamental premise, to fight their battles on David's turf and according to rules of discourse and within acceptable intellectual perimeters that he has established beforehand.

I respect David's appeal here, but just don't feel it to be intellectually honest of me to agree to the ground rules he has set. He who controls the terms of debate controls, of course, the possibilities of its potential resolution.