Mormonism and the United Firm

[Droopy]

k

[Droopy]

Again, the Lord's economic system is not socialism.

No, but the economic system you are supporting here is. That's what this entire argument is all about. Redistribution of wealth, equality of economic condition, the absence of private property, private markets, and stored private capital are all salient, fundamental and primary features of socialism, in one or another of its various forms.

THAT IS THE POINT.

You have been banned from the thread.

[David Bokovoy]

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.

Droopy, the "rules of discourse" I have set forth from the beginning of this thread have been designed to allow us to pursue this discussion while fully honoring discussion guidelines here at MA&D. Despite my own desire to occasionally respond to posters in a way that would lead this topic into a discussion of contemporary politics, I have resisted the urge because to me, whether I'm right or wrong, the doctrine is too important not to openly discuss in a forum devoted to LDS apologetics and discussion. Moreover, in all honestly, I personally am not very interested in current political policies and/or agendas on either side.

Since you have such strong feelings against the scriptural/historical analysis I have presented, it would have been nice for you to contribute some alternative scripturally based perspectives devoid of contemporary political allusions/rhetoric. Despite my disagreement with their analysis, I have sincerely appreciated the efforts of Wade, Deborah, Alter Idem, etc. who have attempted to follow these specific "rules of discourse." I fully support the moderators' decision to keep this forum free from discussions involving contemporary political agendas (I even changed my signature line without being asked). I'm committed to honoring those rules and if the moderators ever feel that this thread becomes too out of hand in terms of their guidelines for religious discussion, I promise to move on and support their closure of the thread without complaint.

No hard feelings.

[alter idem]

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

This is the problem. I do not interpret them to mean what you interpret them to mean.

This is often how we come to an impasse in discussions, unfortunately.

I read them and am able to reconcile them with those church leaders who say that private property was still a part of the Law of Consecration. I believe that Joseph Smith still recognized private property in the form of stewardship--I offered a quote which supported this position. I determine that Joseph Smith believed in private ownership in the context of a stewardship granted by God through his church leaders.

It seems your position is that private property cannot exist under the Law of Consecration. Given the many statements to the contrary by J Reuben Clark, Marion G. Romney, Ezra Taft Benson, George Q. Cannon, Lorenzo Snow, I think I am in good company in my views on this.

I fully recognize that some united orders had no private property, but I also offered support for the notion that these were done in varying ways, not completely faithful to the law of consecration. You would see the 'no private property' as being more faithful to the initial plan, while I see it as a divergence from the original. And, it is fact that all these untied orders ended: They were disbanded and the properties of the group ended up being privately held. I'd call that 'failure'. I suspect that they ended in failure not just because the people were unable to live them, but also because they were flawed.

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.

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

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

Well, it seems we are going in circles. You tell me to read your earlier statements and I tell you I disagree with your interpretation.

I'll read them again...

[David Bokovoy]

I fully recognize that some united orders had no private property, but I also offered support for the notion that these were done in varying ways, not completely faithful to the law of consecration. You would see the 'no private property' as being more faithful to the initial plan, while I see it as a divergence from the original. And, it is fact that all these untied orders ended: They were disbanded and the properties of the group ended up being privately held. I'd call that 'failure'. I suspect that they ended in failure not just because the people were unable to live them, but also because they were flawed.

Like the reconstruction of the South, the reformation of Mormon separatism was a real concern, not simply in terms of LDS practices regarding plural marriage. The inspired economic systems put into place by Joseph and Brigham did not fail, they succeeded incredibly! The eventual termination of such practices was not a misstep by the Brethren. It was the only step available for the Church to survive given the persecution we faced.

[Calm]

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

[Calm]

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.

It is extremely problematic imo to apply finite principles to what is essentially an infinite existence filled with infinite individuals and likely infinite (as in eternally existing materials). At best it seems "consumption" would be limited to being in the possession of someone for a defined amount of time, but if time is not defined in eternity.....

Even in the millennium where there will be present eternal beings among the mortal ones, beings which will be able to actively act on the behalf of the finite beings....I find it problematic to compare that existence to the current one. What if one can accomplish what they desire in righteousness through the action of the Priesthood, through the action of their faith where not only can a mountain be moved out of the way, but a house be built, a vine grow and bear fruit, the heavens open and manna descend, five loaves of bread and two fishes feed 5 thousand, etc.

[wenglund]

It is extremely problematic imo to apply finite principles to what is essentially an infinite existence filled with infinite individuals and likely infinite (as in eternally existing materials). At best it seems "consumption" would be limited to being in the possession of someone for a defined amount of time, but if time is not defined in eternity.....

For the most part I agree. When I posed the question I had in mind the most prevelant forms of consumption in mortality: food, perishable clothing, shelter, transportation, healthcare, etc. I am just not sure these things will be necessary with resurrected being. And, if they aren't a factor, then I would think there would be little or no need for an economic system.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

...

Droopy,

Thank you for a cogent response my post, but you completely missed my point, probably because I didn't articulate it very well.

You have a good point in thinking of raw materials as only a latent form of weath until a laborer uses those materials to make something else out of those materials, so I'll expand my idea of weath to include not only the raw materials that are available on this planet, but also as the labor and skill required to make things from those materials.

So, in short, I'm defining weath as natural resources + labor + skill/knowledge/intelligent use of those materials.

Now, to get back to my point, I still maintain that all of the natural resources on this planet belong to everyone, with nobody having any right to have any more than anyone else, even though some people seem to think they are entitled to more than a fair share, and I define a fair share as an equal entitlement to ownership of all of this world's natural resources.

In other words, I'm saying that ALL of the land, minerals, ores, bodies of water, air, and vegetation belong to everyone, with no one person or group of people entitled to any more than anyone else, because I believe God intended this planet to be shared by all of us, equally, with none of us having any more than anyone else.

Now, look at the state of the world to see if all of this world's resources are being shared equally by everyone, as they should be.

Do you think everyone has an equal right to enjoy all of this world's resources, including having the right to say how each resource is allocated to each person, or each group of people?

That's not what I see. I see the vast majority of this world's resources allocated to people who have something called MONEY, with those who don't have that thing called MONEY either going without some things or struggling to get and keep what little they can get.

And btw, I realize I misquoted the words of our Lord when he said the LOVE of money is the root of all evil, but if there wasn't a love of money wouldn't we just get rid of it, altogether? What makes some people feel that money should be highly valued or regarded as a thing that we should have as something which is necessary to be able to share our resources with each other?

Have you ever stopped to realize that even with the world in the "economic" condition it is in now, the world still has all of the natural resources and people who are willing to work that it had before the economic system took a nose dive?

Why should "MONEY" cause us all so much trouble? Why should this world's resources depend upon how much "money" we have... again, with money defined as something to trade to get something else of any real value. Money itself is good for nothing, other than as something to trade to get something else with it, so why not just cut the "money" out of our economic system while everyone continues to produce something of some real value while we trade those things with others?

We can still actually do the work it takes to produce things and provide services, even if we don't get paid with money, but for some reason the people with most of the money don't want that to happen, because for some reason they think "money" will solve all of this worlds "economic" problems, even though, in fact, it is what is causing so much trouble for most of us on this planet because it serves to divide those who have it with those who don't have it and are made to feel they need it to get what they really need to survive.

Plain and simple, money is usually used as a tool of oppression used by those who have it to try to get those who don't have it and want it to do something for them, and we can do just fine without it as long as we're willing to serve each other.

[William Schryver]

Ahab:

So, in short, I'm defining weath as natural resources + labor + skill/knowledge/intelligent use of those materials.

Now, to get back to my point, I still maintain that all of the natural resources on this planet belong to everyone, with nobody having any right to have any more than anyone else

[Ahab]

... 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.

I'm not suggesting we toss out computers and accounting/inventory systems to keep track of things.

Even without money, X number of people can still produce a certain quantity of products to be consumed by consumers of that product, and when those products are consumed then X number of people can produce some more of those products.

I'm simply talking about taking "money" out of the system we use to produce and distribute products, with each product consumed by the people who want those products, and with each product produced by people who are willing and able to produce those products.

Catch the vision, man. This is the economic system that will be used by Zion, and it's very similar to how we do "service projects" for people today except that nobody will need to "buy" the materials needed to produce things.

[frankenstein]

from a Utah paper roughly 1879 - 1880 (i do not know the exact date) concerning the Kingston United Order.

A board of directors preside over the affairs of tfhhee community to the wants of the respective families and individuals are represented and famished accordingly.

Labor is of course divided the various employments being given to those best adapted for their performance and all moves along in peace and harmony.

So what do we learn:

Labor according ones ability

Provisions according ones needs

That is exactly Karl Marx.

From The Kings of the kingdom : the life of Thomas Rice King and his family (page 220 - 221)

This now leads to the fourth type of order that President Young believed most closely fit the economic ideal of heaven, a plan to be built around a communal or a large family organization. In economic terms it was to be a command or managed economy paralleling the theocratic aspects of Church government and built around socialistic rather than market principles

That pesky "s" word.

what I think would be noteworthy is a side by side comparison of the Gospel Principles and Moral to those of economic systems. I find it very interesting that LDS largely cling so doggedly to the a system that at its roots is the antithesis of Gospel. Much like the Jews rejected the Son of God but pegged Pilot for the "Son of the Father".

[Ahab]

Whether or not there is

[wenglund]

it is patently undeniable that neither the capacity to labor, nor the qualities of

[William Schryver]

Given David's kindly request that we back up our views using scripture and historical context, may I posit in support of Will's assertion above, the following passage of scripture: "And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all." (Abr. 3:19)

And, in light of the discussion about personal property, I found interesting the use of the word "estate" in verse 26 of the same chapter.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

There you go stealing my thunder. I had them all set up ...

(Just kidding. Good job. You anticipated me 100% correctly.)

[Ahab]

... it is patently undeniable that neither the capacity to labor, nor the qualities of

[wenglund]

Why use a medium when you can cut out the middle man, or the thing that is in the way of getting what you really want?

The simple answer is ease of exchange. The prophet Joseph understood this, and that is why he worked to establish the Kirtland Safety Society. And, while that institution failed, the reason for establishing the institution were sound (Joseph said it was "established upon just and righteous principles for a blessing not only to the Church but the whole nation"--se HoC Vol.2, Ch.35, p.497).

Hisatorian Scott Partridge had this to say about the economic conditions leading up to the establishment of the KSS: "It is no surprise that under such conditions, where raw materials and labor were readily available, where entrepreneurial talent was abundant, the limiting factor on productive growth would be a shortage of capital....Like most other banks of the time on the western frontier, the Mormon bank began because its founders were in desperate need of credit." (BYU Studies, Vol. 12, No. 4, p.442)

Wiki does a good job of listing some of the limitations of a barter system (see Here).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[USU78]

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.

When the Brigham City United Effort Plan Trust was formed, one of Lorenzo Snow's councilors, a 4-wife polygynist who also happens to be one of my Great-Great Grandfathers (as well as my Great-Great-Uncle . . . if you can decipher that) requested a meeting with BY himself to discuss his request to opt out of the co-op. His reasoning was that he had a huge family to support (he did) and a lot of property to do it with (also true) and he didn't anticipate ever having to be a drawer against the UEPT's provisions for the poor, but would rather commit to make significant contributions to the Bishop's Storehouse. He was also a major player in many of the cooperative efforts at digging canals and other quasipublic works, generating sufficient cash to actually pay wages to Stake members working on those projects (a rare thing indeed in those days). BY specifically authorized the opt-out and reaffirmed his position in the Stake Presidency.

I keep wondering at those words you keep using. I'm not sure they mean what you think they mean.

[BCSpace]

what I think would be noteworthy is a side by side comparison of the Gospel Principles and Moral to those of economic systems. I find it very interesting that LDS largely cling so doggedly to the a system that at its roots is the antithesis of Gospel. Much like the Jews rejected the Son of God but pegged Pilot for the "Son of the Father".

Actually, if you check out my siggy, you'll find a link to an LDS manual section on the subject. It's a far better primer than anything you'll find not published by the Church. Upon reading it, you will find no such antithesis to the gospel being taught or at it's origins. For one, you'll find that private property and a free market are essential to living the LoC.

[Ahab]

The simple answer is ease of exchange.

I've thought about this before, FYI, and I suggest you give a little more thought to what I have said.

Imagine everyone bringing their products to a big warehouse for distribution, or better yet, posting what they have to offer on an online message board while saying something like this:

Come and get it. No money required. Just check in with one of our clerks to let them know what you're taking as you leave so we can keep track of the inventory. Also, if there is anything else you need, please let one of the clerks know so we can inform our suppliers about what we stand in need of. That way, the people who bring stuff will have a better idea of the kind of things people would like to have.

And then in the fine print below there would be a message that would read something like this:

While what we have here is free for the taking, we would prefer that you bring something in exchange for what you take. Anything at all, as long as it's something you think someone else would find useful, or funny, or both.

Oh, but... says some well-meaning fellow... what if someone comes and just takes everything away without leaving anything in exchange. What then?

Well... says another well-meaning fellow... that's okay. People will still continue to come and drop off what they can give, and the guy who tries to sell it will find himself at a disadvantage because people will still be able to come here and get what they want for free.

The prophet Joseph understood this, and that is why he worked to establish the Kirtland Safety Society. And, while that institution failed, the reason for establishing the institution were sound (Joseph said it was "established upon just and righteous principles for a blessing not only to the Church but the whole nation"--se HoC Vol.2, Ch.35, p.497).

His motives and intent were above reproach, of course. Suppose you tell me why you think his vision didn't materialize.

Hisatorian Scott Partridge had this to say about the economic conditions leading up to the establishment of the KSS: "It is no surprise that under such conditions, where raw materials and labor were readily available, where entrepreneurial talent was abundant, the limiting factor on productive growth would be a shortage of capital....Like most other banks of the time on the western frontier, the Mormon bank began because its founders were in desperate need of credit." (BYU Studies, Vol. 12, No. 4, p.442)

Wiki does a good job of listing some of the limitations of a barter system (see Here).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm not suggesting that people go in debt to provide for themselves, or others. I'm simply suggesting that people give what is in their power to give, according to the time/talents/skills/intellect they have to devote to providing a service, including the service it takes to produce some sort of product, while other people do the same and everybody shares in what is produced.

Hint: Thing bigger than some small bartering stand on a road side. The sky isn't even the limit.

[frankenstein]

Actually, if you check out my siggy, you'll find a link to an LDS manual section on the subject. It's a far better primer than anything you'll find not published by the Church. Upon reading it, you will find no such antithesis to the gospel being taught or at it's origins. For one, you'll find that private property and a free market are essential to living the LoC.

from a Utah paper roughly 1879 - 1880 (i do not know the exact date) concerning the Kingston United Order.

A board of directors preside over the affairs of tfhhee community to the wants of the respective families and individuals are represented and famished accordingly.

Labor is of course divided the various employments being given to those best adapted for their performance and all moves along in peace and harmony.

So what do we learn:

Labor according ones ability

Provisions according ones needs

That is exactly Karl Marx.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From The Kings of the kingdom : the life of Thomas Rice King and his family (page 220 - 221)

This now leads to the fourth type of order that President Young believed most closely fit the economic ideal of heaven, a plan to be built around a communal or a large family organization. In economic terms it was to be a command or managed economy paralleling the theocratic aspects of Church government and built around socialistic rather than market principles.

some one better get the anti-socialism memo to BY.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

United Orders did allow for ownership of property only after it was first deeded in totality to the Church or what ever authority. Truman Madsen states that if a person was not willing to give to absolutely everything to the Church or authority, that person was not selected to join the community.

A system which thrives on personal greed and "me above everyone else", is not a system support by the Gospel.

But for involuntariness and no religion, the remainder of other systems are far more close to the principles of Gospel.

[BCSpace]

Actually, if you check out my siggy, you'll find a link to an LDS manual section on the subject. It's a far better primer than anything you'll find not published by the Church. Upon reading it, you will find no such antithesis to the gospel being taught or at it's origins. For one, you'll find that private property and a free market are essential to living the LoC.

So what do we learn:

Labor according ones ability

Provisions according ones needs

That is exactly Karl Marx.

So what you're saying is that the Church got away from the original governing principles (free market, private property, no resdistribution, and no command economies etc) of the LoC and therefore it failed? I can handle that.

[frankenstein]

So what you're saying is that the Church got away from the original governing principles (free market, private property, no resdistribution, and no command economies etc) of the LoC and therefore it failed? I can handle that.

nice try but you conveniently left out a important piece.

A board of directors preside over the affairs of the community to whom the wants of the respective families and individuals are represented and furnished accordingly.

Labor is of course divided the various employments being given to those best adapted for their performance and all moves along in peace and harmony.

and you also ignore the statement that BY sought socialist principles rather than market principles.

[BCSpace]

So what you're saying is that the Church got away from the original governing principles (free market, private property, no resdistribution, and no command economies etc) of the LoC and therefore it failed? I can handle that.

and you also ignore the statement that BY sought socialist principles rather than market principles.

You seem to be ignoring what the Church teaches about the matter. If you want to know about the LoC and what it's based on, I'd start with that. A handy reference has been provided and I have quoted extensively from it in other posts in this thread.

A board of directors preside over the affairs of the community to whom the wants of the respective families and individuals are represented and furnished accordingly.

Labor is of course divided the various employments being given to those best adapted for their performance and all moves along in peace and harmony.

That is indeed evidence that they got away from the fundamental principles or simply added to it. The original LoC allowed for a man to manage his own private property as he saw fit. The more communal and socialist it became, the more need there was for control and loss of agency. A recipe for failure by any standard.

[frankenstein]

You seem to be ignoring what the Church teaches about the matter. If you want to know about the LoC and what it's based on, I'd start with that. A handy reference has been provided and I have quoted extensively from it in other posts in this thread.

That is indeed evidence that they got away from the fundamental principles or simply added to it. The original LoC allowed for a man to manage his own private property as he saw fit. The more communal and socialist it became, the more need there was for control and loss of agency. A recipe for failure by any standard.

so what you are saying is that you know better than the Prophet how the affairs of the Church or programs of the Gospel/Church should have been run.