Mormonism and the United Firm

[mfbukowski]

Frankly, I think the failure to truly "think through" this problem is endemic, and it makes me wonder if anyone who posts on this message board has ever taken an economics class in their lives. Not that modern economics classes teach the LoC. Obviously they don't. But they must (as I imagine, not ever having taken one myself, either!) dwell upon the realities of things like labor, capital, production, distribution, supply, demand, etc. People apparently believe that these elements of an economy either a)all disappear or b)take care of themselves once the Law of Consecration is instituted in a society. Such notions are, in my judgment, patently ridiculous. Unless you intend that life under the LoC is to consist of nothing but an agriculturally based subsistence economy, much more akin to the so-called "Third World" of today than to the "First World" typified by the United States, then one must face the realities of determining market demands, designing and adjusting production capabilities to meet that demand, and working out the means by which the demanded products are distributed to the market in an expeditious and economical fashion. In addition, one must deal with the realities of how to staff the labor needs of the production facilities; to likewise provide for the housing, feeding, health care, education, recreational wants and needs (among countless others) of the labor force.

Frankly, I would not be surprised if I know more about actual business practice than anyone on this board, except perhaps one attorney I know who's input here has been conspicuously absent, but you have consistently failed to reveal what your assumptions are concerning the type of society we will be living in when we are asked to live the LOC.

Without knowing that, your castles in the sky really make no sense, and to attack others for making the same mistake you are making is just plain arrogant.

Will we be living the law only in the Millenium? With Christ as King, whom everyone obeys and who controls distribution? Is that the way it will be?

Are you talking about the period following the great destruction which has been prophesied when perhaps the infrastructure has been reduced to dust? Are you talking about a period of transition from today's culture toward Zion with intact infrastructure?

Are you assuming that within say 50 years in something very close to today's present culture we are called to live the LOC- or some of us are OR WHAT?

I have consistently asked this question and have been ignored. This entire thread is meaningless including all your supposedly brilliant economic theories until we get everyone out of their academic ivory towers and talk turkey about how to get the job done.

But first we have to figure out what the job is. The rest is just pie in the sky, very nearly literally.

Another underlying presumption seems to be that we are in a position to advise the church on it's business affairs and how to prepare for the LOC which I think is absurd. I think the church has some of the best advisors in these matters available anywhere, and that presumption is very very naive. And to think that this thought has never crossed the mind of the prophet and Q of 12 just strains credibility beyond belief.

So to presume that somehow this thread or any like it might actually help in any way concrete economic way is just....... naive. I will leave it at that. So it is pointless to come up with economic theories without stating your assumptions.

Spiritual and doctrinal preparation is another issue. It is clearly necessary to discuss these doctrinal issues to prepare us all for what will be required of all of us, and so far, the thread has done a good job of that imo.

[Calm]

With due respect to all parties, I think what we may be experiencing here is the unavoidable tension between academia (where theory is one's bread and butter) and the business world (where practical application is one's bread and butter).

I have been an euntrapeneur for a number of years now, and I have learned from sad experience how seemingly good ideas can quickly turn bad when not thought through very carefully. I have seen people invest thousandss and even millions in ventures the idea of which at first had everyone salivating, but when it came to developing and implementing the idea, it soon became clear just how infeasible and wrong-headed it was, and subsequently all the investments were evaporated into thin air. That deeply troubles me because I feel partially responsible for the incredable loss

In a Zion community, it is likely imo that this risk would be eliminated to a great extent. There would be enough communication between intended customers and producers to be able to create realistic planning due to the openness of the community and the commitment of all to use resources wisely.

There might or might not be the risk of investing in something that one doesn't know will work or not such as developing new technology....if we have a lot of input from the Lord and are not left so much on our own for these types of decisions, then it may be much easier to avoid going down fruitless paths.

There are so many conditions that we don't know about---how much the Lord will be involved, how large and widespread the community will be, whether or not it is organized on a worldwide basis or on a small community basis that then interacts with other communities through some sort of liaison and whether or not they interact also with nonZion based communities, what type of communications will exist, what level of development will exist (will we be back to more or less subsistence living due to worldwide catastrophes or will our standard of living be as good or even better than today), etc. etc. Each of these impacts the practical side of how things will be operated, how complicated it will be. We can use the growth of the Church as an indicator for how things might change due to population growth and how the Church goes about figuring out how what its people need and how to get it to them as a hint as to how it might operate later, but even there it would make a huge difference if the Church becomes the working government or if it still must accommodate the wishes of secular governments.

[Calm]

Frankly, I would not be surprised if I know more about actual business practice than anyone on this board, except perhaps one attorney I know who's input here has been conspicuously absent, but you have consistently failed to reveal what your assumptions are concerning the type of society we will be living in when we are asked to live the LOC. ......

But first we have to figure out what the job is. The rest is just pie in the sky, very nearly literally....

I see someone else's reaction was pretty much the same as mine.

[mfbukowski]

I see someone else's reaction was pretty much the same as mine.

Will we only live the LOC in the Millenium?

Will it start in a few years before we "go to Missouri"?

Where does the great destruction fit into this?

And Will is worrying about infrastructure without answering these questions? And then calling us naive?

[wenglund]

I highly doubt the gluttony that attempts to feed Americas insatiable appetite will exist in the United Order(s) consider revelations about how the merchants of the earth more the loss of Babylon wherein they were made rich.

Perhaps.

so here is my opinion on the matter.

we already know that labor is divided according to skill. takes care of production and distribution.

I think you are forgetting a key component of division of labor and trade and specialization--that being the law of diminishing marginal returns.

Wants, must and can be defined by the scriptures "The Lord is my Shepard I shall not want". so there goes the killer pc with all the bells and whistles.

Will it be that "there goes" Bonneville International (the media organization that enables international broadcasts of General Conferance) with all its state-of-the-art communications equipment?

...supply and demand have no part in the LoC. Supply and Demand determining prices is really 99.9999999% greed.

I am affraid that with all your good intents, you don't understand the supply and demand models very well. What actually drives those curves is cost/benefit, and for the demand side, the rational motive to maximize utility.

For instance a place ticket for travel in 1month cost 200 but for travel on Thanksgiving or any other holiday the price increases 3 to 4 fold, the airline claims supply and demand, yet the airline does not provided additional services, therefore the airline has no reason other than greed to raise the price.

Ummm...no. What drives the price up is limited supply being allocated to consumers who value Thanksgiving air travel more than others, enough to pay more for the tickets. This may result in higher profits for the airlines, but the sale of the tickets wouldn't happen at the Thanksgiving prices unless the cost/benefit analysis of certain customers made it feasible.

...now some may say "well the consumers determine the price" wrong, the consumers choices boiled down to "squeal like a pig" or nothing, so most decide to squeal like a pig. ; and the economics keep the promoting the farce that is supply and demand.

Please, with all due respect, I don't think the discussion is enhaced by such insipid oversimplifications.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[David Bokovoy]

Again, reminding posters to limit their comments to the very specific non-political objectives of this discussion.

Thank you.

[wenglund]

In a Zion community, it is likely imo that this risk would be eliminated to a great extent. There would be enough communication between intended customers and producers to be able to create realistic planning due to the openness of the community and the commitment of all to use resources wisely.

I appreciate and respect what you have thoughtfully suggested. However, what you may not be factoring into your equation is the "cost" of increasing communication so as to lower risk. The over-all cost may exceed the benefit of lower risk (I have worked with non-profit organizations that have been very big on open communication and involving as many people in the decision-making process as felt appropriate, only to find themselves paralyzed in accomplishing even the simplests of tasks).

There might or might not be the risk of investing in something that one doesn't know will work or not such as developing new technology....if we have a lot of input from the Lord and are not left so much on our own for these types of decisions, then it may be much easier to avoid going down fruitless paths.

But, I would think that growth in the gospel would consist of becoming more and more like our Father, which of necessity, as with the development of our earthly children, would entail decreasing one's dependancy upon the Father, and becoming more self-reliant. I could be wrong, but what you and others seem to be suggesting in terms of the LoC is greater reliance on God for our economic decision-making and risk management.

There are so many conditions that we don't know about---

That has kind of been one of my objections to some of the discussion here. I think there may be way to much dogmatizing going in the face of relative ignorance. I think it is good to explore different perspectives, but I am not sure it is wise or necessary at this point to cement ourselves in any position--and this even given reasonable arguments on both sides.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

The over-all cost may exceed the benefit of lower risk (I have worked with non-profit organizations that have been very big on open communication and involving as many people in the decision-making process as felt appropriate, only to find themselves paralyzed in accomplishing even the simplests of tasks).

That is assuming that communications and the ability to process those communications stay at the same level as they are now. It is possible that either with greater technology or with greater unity of purpose, such communication is greatly simplified.

But, I would think that growth in the gospel would consist of becoming more and more like our Father, which of necessity, as with the development of our earthly children, would entail decreasing one's dependancy upon the Father, and becoming more self-reliant. I could be wrong, but what you and others seem to be suggesting in terms of the LoC is greater reliance on God for our economic decision-making and risk management.

I am actually not making any assumptions, just pointing out that there are many future events and outcomes and conditions that may or may not have impact on how the LoC community operates. What I am saying is that any detailed conversation about practicalities is useless speculation, imo, at least useless except for being great fun.

That has kind of been one of my objections to some of the discussion here. I think there may be way to much dogmatizing going in the face of relative ignorance. I think it is good to explore different perspectives, but I am not sure it is wise or necessary at this point to cement ourselves in any position--and this even given reasonable arguments on both sides.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The only thing I'm very concerned about in this conversation is how we should go about shaping our attitudes now in order to prepare for whatever the Lord has in mind for us and that includes bringing our hearts and minds and bodies in line with the concepts of full consecration.

[wenglund]

That is assuming that communications and the ability to process those communications stay at the same level as they are now. It is possible that either with greater technology or with greater unity of purpose, such communication is greatly simplified.

The costs that I had in mind aren't those that can necessarily be addressed with tehnology. They have to do with the limits of the human mind. The human mind is limited in its capacity to process the increased communications. The technology can be developed that enambles 13 million people to communicate at once with each other, but the human mind isn't sufficiently advanced enough to handle that level of communication, or anything close to it. As such, then undavoidably the more people that are involved in communicating with each other on each and every economic decision affecting them, the greater the cost in time and energy and resources, such that the benefit of lower risk may at some point be outweighed by the cost of increased communication.

Just something to think about.

I am actually not making any assumptions, just pointing out that there are many future events and outcomes and conditions that may or may not have impact on how the LoC community operates. What I am saying is that any detailed conversation about practicalities is useless speculation, imo, at least useless except for being great fun.

I can appreciate that. I just wanted to introduce the notion of progression (specifically, children developing towards independence and inter-dependance like unto their Father) in rlation to the LoC since I am not sure it has been fully considered.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LeSellers]

supply and demand have no part in the LoC.

It will have to unless suddenly all things now in short supply become freely and unreservedly available.

The classic example is water v. diamonds. Water is a necessity, diamonds are a luxury. Why, then, do diamonds cost much and water little? It's because there is an awful lot of water (in spite of what many people say) and there are few diamond (although the shortage is contrived and artificial, courtesy of DeBeers, LTD.).

If steel is ubiquitous, like water, its price will fall (irrespective of how it is measured). If steel remains in limited availability, it will still command a price, and that price will depend on how much people demand it. If food is plentiful and, because it is, there are no restraints on how much anyone can claim it will have no price. If it requires growing and is not plentiful, those who want to eat will have to pay the price(s) those who grow it will exact.

Suplly and Demand determining prices is really 99.9999999% greed.

This is just plain false. "Suplly and Demand" is nothing more than a shorthand way of saying that things in limited supply must be parceled out in ways that most effectively meet the highest (most important) needs of the population that wants to use that thing for competing ends.

Let's say there is a hurricane coming and the people in Key West, Florida, want gasoline. Some want it to leave the island, some to power generators, and others to light bonfires and tiki torches. There is not enough to do all of all three. Who should get the gasoline? The answer is those who are prepared to pay the most for it.

You do know, of course, that if the people who wnat to light tiki torches buy all of the gasoline, those who want to flee will not be able to, and those who want to run generators will not be able to. So the price rises not because of greed, but because those who want to flee say, "Sell me the gas," and those who want to run generators say, "Sell me the gas." When one of them says, "I don't want it that much," we have determined the highest and best use of the limited supply of gasoline.

For instance a place ticket for travel in 1month cost 200 but for travel on Thanksgiving or any other holiday the price increases 3 to 4 fold, the airline claims supply and demand, yet the airline does not provided additional services, therefore the airline has no reason other than greed to raise the price.

It has an immense reason to raise the price: it has to know what the highest and best use of the limited number of airline seats is. Raising the price to exclude the frivolous bidders is how they do that. Only those who really must travel on those days means that the people who cannot travel on other days will fly while those who can will choose to shift their demand for airline seats to a time when there are seats available.

Furthermore, the "service" they provide on Thanksgiving is different (not "more") from the service provided a week earlier. It is on Thanksgiving, which is not on the Thursday prior. The difference is the day on which the service is provided.

now some may say "well the consumers determine the price" wrong, the consumers choices boiled down to "squeal like a pig" or nothing, so most decide to squeal like a pig. ; and the economics keep the promoting the farce that is supply and demand.

The choice is not "squeal like a pig (whatever you were trying to convey with that) or nothing, it is pay the higher price and prove you need airline travel on Thanksgiving or opt for a substitute. The substitutes include (but are not limited to) staying home, driving, take a bus, take a train, make a phone call, write a letter, and use Skype.

Some people seem to believe that the airlines have an unlimited supply of aircraft, of pilots, of baggage handlers, of fuel, of stewardesses, and all of the things that it takes to fly all the passengers who want to fly at any given time. They do not. They have buy what they have anticipated will be the most effective amount of each resource (including an amazing level of redundancy). They cannot afford to have planes sitting on the ground with all the crew and support staff they require just because some and scientist and his monster decide, on Monday night, that they would like to fly, cheaply, to Detroit on Tuesday.

There is a very small supply of such transportation, and if the scientist wants to fly, he'll have to outbid the other passengers for the two seats he wants. If another passenger outbids him, he has another chance to raise the bid, and at some point, one or the other bidder will decide he "doesn't want it that much", and drop out of the auction.

Most socialists simply have no idea of what economics is all about. Economics is (the study of) how people allocate scarce resources so as to obtain the best uses of them. No process has been invented that is superior to the pricing system of the free market.

God will, perhaps, in the Millennium, unmask a better alternative, but until then, like it or not, the price mechanism is the only reliable game in town. It plays no favorites, and it assures that, over time, all resources are used for their highest and best uses.

Lehi

[William Schryver]

Thank you for sharing your opinion. May I once again remind all parties that this is a scripture based discussion and that anyone who wishes to express an opposing view should support his or her perspective via scriptural analysis and the historical application of the Law of Consecration by the Latter-day Saints.

You proof-text a statement I made in jest, about God making guitars, and try to make something of it? Weird.

At any rate, you can try to play this would-be trump card over and over and over and over again, but the simple fact is that you simply cannot address the hard questions being thrown at you. It's quite telling, actually, that you are incapable of doing so, and that your only recourse is to claim that "opposing views" must cite scripture. It's become a recurrent means of evasion for you. Opposing views (like those espoused by Alter Idem) have cited scripture; have cited the words of modern prophets and apostles, etc., but you ignore them or casually dismiss them. You are so obsessively fixated on your notion that you won't even consider the idea that there might be things you are overlooking.

David, you are my friend, and I have substantial regard for you. It's apparent that you have done some research into this topic, and I have no doubt that you are well-versed in many aspects of it. But, as many others have already observed, there is a huge disconnect in your mind (or a huge void) between the philosophical/theological basis of the LoC and the practical application of those principles. Of course, as the history of the church attests so well, it is not the principles, but rather their application that has always proved to be the challenge. You have made the strange claim that there were successful implementations of the LoC in the 19th century church, notwithstanding that the undeniable historical facts demonstrably prove you wrong. And why did these prior attempts fail? Quite simply because the Saints never figured out how to practically apply the principles of the LoC as they have been revealed to date.

I believe there are solutions to the problems that undermined all the previous efforts to implement the United Order. That is the part of the equation to which I have given much thought, after having realized that the basic spiritual principles are not and never have been the real problem.

Well, at any rate, it is quite apparent to me now that you are not really interested at all in discussing how the Saints will eventually build the city of Zion; you are merely interested in using a discussion about the Law of Consecration as a vehicle (soap box) to promote some kind of vague socio-economic notions you have (none of which has really been made very clear).

When you're really ready to discuss the implementation of the Law of Consecration, I'll certainly be interested in joining the discussion. In the meantime, I'll leave you to your soap box thread.

[frankenstein]

I think you are forgetting a key component of division of labor and trade and specialization--that being the law of diminishing marginal returns.

natural man concepts have no application to the highest spiritual law.

Will it be that "there goes" Bonneville International (the media organization that enables international broadcasts of General Conferance) with all its state-of-the-art communications equipment?

I do not object to Jesus having the best and most effective means to bring forth his message. However, an individuals gluttony has no part in the LoC.

Jeff said

I am affraid that with all your good intents, you don't understand the supply and demand models very well. What actually drives those curves is cost/benefit, and for the demand side, the rational motive to maximize utility. What drives the price up is limited supply being allocated to consumers who value Thanksgiving air travel more than others, enough to pay more for the tickets. This may result in higher profits for the airlines, but the sale of the tickets wouldn't happen at the Thanksgiving prices unless the cost/benefit analysis of certain customers made it feasible.

Lehi said

It has an immense reason to raise the price: it has to know what the highest and best use of the limited number of airline seats is. Raising the price to exclude the frivolous bidders is how they do that. Only those who really must travel on those days means that the people who cannot travel on other days will fly while those who can will choose to shift their demand for airline seats to a time when there are seats available.

Furthermore, the "service" they provide on Thanksgiving is different (not "more") from the service provided a week earlier. It is on Thanksgiving, which is not on the Thursday prior. The difference is the day on which the service is provided.

To both comments, i only see greed wrapped in cunning craftiness. and Jeff you proved my point about the pig.

Cost/benefit = how can I get the most for the producing the least. greed will have no place in the LoC.

I do not see in the living a United Order, that mass marketing will occur, that fear based marketin will be used to scare people into consuming products they do not need, that borderline lies will be used or permitted to advertise a product.

I do see that people will finally understand what they "want" - as defined by the scriptures. I do see that people will not be chasing after the Jones family. However, we (americans as a whole) are far from being able to live in such a way.

My expectation is that Jesus will come and "cleanse the Temple" so to speak and start anew.

And what He begins anew will only marginally reflect worldly concepts, and what He institutes will also reflect aspects of many things which people so dogmatically call the utmost evil.

[David Bokovoy]

You proof-text a statement I made in jest, about God making guitars, and try to make something of it? Weird.

At any rate, you can try to play this would-be trump card over and over and over and over again, but the simple fact is that you simply cannot address the hard questions being thrown at you. It's quite telling, actually, that you are incapable of doing so, and that your only recourse is to claim that "opposing views" must cite scripture. It's become a recurrent means of evasion for you. Opposing views (like those espoused by Alter Idem) have cited scripture; have cited the words of modern prophets and apostles, etc., but you ignore them or casually dismiss them. You are so obsessively fixated on your notion that you won't even consider the idea that there might be things you are overlooking.

David, you are my friend, and I have substantial regard for you. It's apparent that you have done some research into this topic, and I have no doubt that you are well-versed in many aspects of it. But, as many others have already observed, there is a huge disconnect in your mind (or a huge void) between the philosophical/theological basis of the LoC and the practical application of those principles. Of course, as the history of the church attests so well, it is not the principles, but rather their application that has always proved to be the challenge. You have made the strange claim that there were successful implementations of the LoC in the 19th century church, notwithstanding that the undeniable historical facts demonstrably prove you wrong. And why did these prior attempts fail? Quite simply because the Saints never figured out how to practically apply the principles of the LoC as they have been revealed to date.

I believe there are solutions to the problems that undermined all the previous efforts to implement the United Order. That is the part of the equation to which I have given much thought, after having realized that the basic spiritual principles are not and never have been the real problem.

Well, at any rate, it is quite apparent to me now that you are not really interested at all in discussing how the Saints will eventually build the city of Zion; you are merely interested in using a discussion about the Law of Consecration as a vehicle (soap box) to promote some kind of vague socio-economic notions you have (none of which has really been made very clear).

When you're really ready to discuss the implementation of the Law of Consecration, I'll certainly be interested in joining the discussion. In the meantime, I'll leave you to your soap box thread.

Will,

The problem with speculating with you on how a pencil, bridge, or guitar will be made in Zion is that as we have seen, any such discussion turns this doctrinal exploration into a heated political debate. I'm not interested in going down this path. This line of inquiry not only violates the board

[William Schryver]

David,

There are no political implications involved here at all. There never have been. There is only your quite apparent inability to place the Law of Consecration in a real life setting, as opposed to whatever it is you think you have been talking about on this thread.

That you do not appreciate the import of the questions concerning how a pencil, a bridge, or a bulldozer will be produced during the millennial era is an overwhelmingly tell-tale sign of the fact that your conception of the United Order is based on an illusion; some ethereal notions of the Saints joining hands in true harmony and riding off into the sunset.

Simply put, if one cannot easily state how a pencil, a bridge, or a bulldozer will be produced in the millennial era on this earth, then one clearly does not understand how the city of Zion will be built, nor how people will live during the 1000 years of the earth's rest.

You are reluctant to address these questions, not because you fear a political discussion will ensue, but because you don't know the answer. Or, at the very least, you are very uncertain about the answers you have considered, and are unwilling to share them at this point for fear that they will be subjected to criticism. But until you can give an answer to those questions, any talk about the Saints living the Law of Consecration is all empty wind as far as they (the Saints) are concerned.

At any rate, I have concluded that, as soon as my current project is completed (hopefully by the end of this coming week) I will start a thread on this board to address the questions I have posed, and to elaborate on the points to which I have merely hinted in my comments on this thread.

.

.

.

Edit: You also wrote: "I don

[David Bokovoy]

David,

There are no political implications involved here at all. There never have been. There is only your quite apparent inability to place the Law of Consecration in a real life setting, as opposed to whatever it is you think you have been talking about on this thread.

That you do not appreciate the import of the questions concerning how a pencil, a bridge, or a bulldozer will be produced during the millennial era is an overwhelmingly tell-tale sign of the fact that your conception of the United Order is based on an illusion; some ethereal notions of the Saints joining hands in true harmony and riding off into the sunset.

Simply put, if one cannot easily state how a pencil, a bridge, or a bulldozer will be produced in the millennial era on this earth, then one clearly does not understand how the city of Zion will be built, nor how people will live during the 1000 years of the earth's rest.

You are reluctant to address these questions, not because you fear a political discussion will ensue, but because you don't know the answer. Or, at the very least, you are very uncertain about the answers you have considered, and are unwilling to share them at this point for fear that they will be subjected to criticism. But until you can give an answer to those questions, any talk about the Saints living the Law of Consecration is all empty wind as far as they (the Saints) are concerned.

At any rate, I have concluded that, as soon as my current project is completed (hopefully by the end of this coming week) I will start a thread on this board to address the questions I have posed, and to elaborate on the points to which I have merely hinted in my comments on this thread.

.

.

.

Edit: You also wrote: "I don

[Deborah]

We have examples of how the LOC was practiced by the church in Joseph's day, and it has nothing to do with the formally established United Order.

The saints clearly demonstrated this as they sacrificed all and worked in unity to build the temples, to build Nauvoo out of wilderness, the trek west and the building of Salt Lake. Everyone contributed what they could. They bore one another's burdens and all sacrificed to whatever extent they were able. So I wonder if the hardships came so that they could truly understand this principle and live it without the paperwork.

I wonder then what it will take us to really begin living the LOC if we don't do it voluntarily. I also think that Joseph may have tried to establish the United Order to move the people forward, but I also wonder if it's really necessary to have such an establishment and whether when the saints are truly filled with the love of Christ they will do it without any direction and out of unity of the spirit.

[William Schryver]

Once again, thank you for sharing your opinion of my objectives and knowledge. Whatever I do or do not know, however, is not the focus of this thread. This thread discusses the scriptural doctrine of Zion as revealed to the Prophet Joseph, not its practical application in the world. It's practical application is important, no doubt, but before one can apply doctrine, one must correctly understand doctrine. With this thread, I am personally seeking greater understanding and taking an opportunity to share with others what I know.

All of you have done in contributing to this thread from the beginning is seek to distract from the thread's very specific objectives and to try and insult both me personally and the objectives at hand. Again, this is a scripturally based discussion, nothing more.

You have threatened several times now to stop participating in this thread. Given your feelings, I would humbly suggest that you follow through and either find other threads in which to contribute or start your own. If at some point you determine to stop mocking and contribute something of substance to this scripturally based topic, please feel to return. Given the importance of this discussion, however, I would like to cease with the distractions.

Thank you.

--DB

My, you sure are thin-skinned these days!

At any rate, let's talk about scriptural doctrine.

Perhaps you could list two or three points of the scriptural doctrine of the LoC that you believe are not well understood by the Latter-day Saints. I know I have read everything you have cited on this thread. I think I understand it pretty well. I've taught it for years as a gospel doctrine instructor, often finding opportunity to discuss the LoC in lessons where it didn't seem to be a part. So exactly what points of scriptural doctrine do you think the Saints are struggling with in respect to the LoC?

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Deborah,

We have examples of how the LOC was practiced by the church in Joseph's day, and it has nothing to do with the formally established United Order.

I must disagree. The formally established versions of the United Order were inspired systems put in place by prophets of God that provided the Saints an opportunity to live the Law of Consecration. Hence, these systems represent an integral part of exploring the Law of Consecration as understood by the Prophet Joseph and his contemporaries. Understanding these systems also leads to a fuller awareness of the very organization of the Church itself. On this topic, I would highly recommend considering Max H. Parkin's recent BYU Studies article, "Joseph Smith and the United Firm: The Growth and Decline of the Church's First Master Plan of Business and Finance, Ohio and Missouri, 1832-1834

Best,

--DB

[jwhitlock]

Once again, thank you for sharing your opinion of my objectives and knowledge. Whatever I do or do not know, however, is not the focus of this thread. This thread discusses the scriptural doctrine of Zion as revealed to the Prophet Joseph, not its practical application in the world. It's practical application is important, no doubt, but before one can apply doctrine, one must correctly understand doctrine. With this thread, I am personally seeking greater understanding and taking an opportunity to share with others what I know.

I don't agree with this. One understands doctrine by practicing it, along with making all of the attendant mistakes. We weren't sent here to read about the principles of the gospel, and then do them once we understood them; we were sent here to understand principles by trying to live them.

John 7:17 - "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."

Discussing the LoC from as a purely academic exercise without trying to understand its practical applications will virtually guarantee that we will not understand it. The understanding and the practice go hand in hand; they cannot be separated.

I noted earlier in the thread that the Law of Tithing is the practical application of the LoC in our day; we are to keep the LoC within the framework of the LoT until Zion is established. We can best understand the LoC in the context of Tithing, as we apply it in our lives. I would suggest that there is much to be learned concerning the spirit of the LoC if we will study the Law of Tithing and practice it.

[jwhitlock]

So exactly what points of scriptural doctrine do you think the Saints are struggling with in respect to the LoC?

Exactly the question I would like to see answered.

And, per my post above, I'd like to see what the saints are struggling with in its practical application today, within the framework of what the Lord has given us.

[David Bokovoy]

My, you sure are thin-skinned these days!

At any rate, let's talk about scriptural doctrine.

Perhaps you could list two or three points of the scriptural doctrine of the LoC that you believe are not well understood by the Latter-day Saints. I know I have read everything you have cited on this thread. I think I understand it pretty well. I've taught it for years as a gospel doctrine instructor, often finding opportunity to discuss the LoC in lessons where it didn't seem to be a part. So exactly what points of scriptural doctrine do you think the Saints are struggling with in respect to the LoC?

This thread has multiple pages now of scriptural and historically based discussion. If you have alternative perspectives and/or corrections to share on these matters please feel free to contribute your analysis.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello JWhitlock,

I don't agree with this. One understands doctrine by practicing it, along with making all of the attendant mistakes. We weren't sent here to read about the principles of the gospel, and then do them once we understood them; we were sent here to understand principles by trying to live them.

John 7:17 - "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."

Discussing the LoC from as a purely academic exercise without trying to understand its practical applications will virtually guarantee that we will not understand it. The understanding and the practice go hand in hand; they cannot be separated.

I noted earlier in the thread that the Law of Tithing is the practical application of the LoC in our day; we are to keep the LoC within the framework of the LoT until Zion is established. We can best understand the LoC in the context of Tithing, as we apply it in our lives. I would suggest that there is much to be learned concerning the spirit of the LoC if we will study the Law of Tithing and practice it.

I'm afraid you've taken John 7:17 completely out of context. This passage states that by doing God's will, a person will know whether or not Jesus' doctrine came from God. The pattern I am advocating in terms of this thread reflects the process expressed in the third Lecture on Faith:

"Let us here observe, that three things are necessary, in order that any rational and intelligent being may exercise faith in God unto life and salvation.

"First, The idea that he actually exists.

"Secondly, A correct idea of his character, perfections and attributes.

"Thirdly, An actual knowledge that the course of life which he is pursuing, is according to his will. "

In terms of this thread, the objectives from the beginning have focused on the second step, i.e formulating a correct scriptural/historical idea of the character, perfections, and attributes of the Law of Consecration.

Thanks.

--DB

[rockslider]

Lectures on Faith???

My poor brother, you my friend, have a rocky road ahead.

[jwhitlock]

Hello JWhitlock,

I'm afraid you've taken John 7:17 completely out of context. This passage states that by doing God's will, a person will know whether or not Jesus' doctrine came from God. The pattern I am advocating in terms of this thread reflects the process expressed in the third Lecture on Faith:

"Let us here observe, that three things are necessary, in order that any rational and intelligent being may exercise faith in God unto life and salvation.

"First, The idea that he actually exists.

"Secondly, A correct idea of his character, perfections and attributes.

"Thirdly, An actual knowledge that the course of life which he is pursuing, is according to his will. "

In terms of this thread, the objectives from the beginning have focused on the second step, i.e formulating a correct scriptural/historical idea of the character, perfections, and attributes of the Law of Consecration.

Thanks.

--DB

So, do I understand correctly that you disagree with what I bolded in my post?

Discussing the LoC from as a purely academic exercise without trying to understand its practical applications will virtually guarantee that we will not understand it. The understanding and the practice go hand in hand; they cannot be separated.

The principle contained in the scripture - doing the will of God in order to understand that will - is applicable to understanding of the LoC, which is, after all, a manifestation of the will of God concerning us. As such, I don't see the context as being problematic to my quote.

I'd like to know what you think concerning the concept of living the LoC today within the framework of the Law of Tithing, as a preparatory guide to the next step of living the LoC in Zion, once it's established.

[LeSellers]

natural man concepts have no application to the highest spiritual law.

Who claims they do?

The issue is not whether there will be "greed" under the Law of Consecration, but whether there will be material things that have multiple uses, but are not available in large enough supply to fulfill all of the needs people have. If there will be such shortages, there will have to be a mechanism of allocating those things.

Unless these shortages will not exist, then we have a choice between two options. Either God will reveal a different (and currently unknown) means, or there will be some sort of pricing mechanism. It may or may not involve money, per se, but it will create a hierarchy of uses to which the limited resource can be put, and some will not be able to meet their needs.

Just as with the limited seats available on your Thanksgiving Day flight, those whose needs are most urgent will have to have some means by which that urgency can be met at the expense of the others, whose needs are less imperative.

I request that you provide a hypothetical process that will resolve the dilemma without using force or coercion of any sort. Simply claiming that there will be no greed does not address the question: how do you allocate limited resources among the unlimited clamor for those resources?

Lehi