Mormonism and the United Firm

[rockslider]

I would suggest that the Law of Tithing has nothing to to with the LoC. Its a lesser law ... It's like God removing the Melchezdic Priesthood from the people of Moses and leaving them with the Aaronic.

D&C 84:19-25

[jwhitlock]

I would suggest that the Law of Tithing has nothing to to with the LoC. Its a lesser law ... It's like God removing the Melchezdic Priesthood from the people of Moses and leaving them with the Aaronic.

D&C 84:19-25

Take a look at D&C 119:3-5, D&C 64:23, and D&C 85:3 for a better understanding of the Law of Tithing.

It has everything to do with the LoC in that the fuller practice of the LoC encompasses the Law of Tithing. These scriptures that I have quoted suggest very strongly that the LoT is preparatory to leading us to ZIon. Indeed, if you accept that Zion will be established before Christ's coming in glory, then D&C 64:3 indicates that the LoT has applicability within Zion itself.

[William Schryver]

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.

I've read the thread. I've read your first post multiple times, just to make sure I understand what you're trying to say--and yet I must confess I'm still uncertain on that point.

You're the one who has suggested the Saints don't understand the scripturally based doctrines of the United Order. And yet I have not seen where you have made that argument--except by implication--in this entire thread. That is the reason I am now asking you for elaboration on the point. In order for me to even know if I have an "alternative perspective," it will be necessary for you to list a few of the doctrines of the Law of Consecration that you feel are not understood by the Saints.

Do you, for example, believe that the Saints don't understand that, in order to enter into this covenant, they must consecrate all of their "property" to the "bishop"?

Do you believe that the Saints don't understand that, in order for their covenant to be fulfilled, the poor must be provided for?

I believe the Saints understand these concepts. I really don't understand what you believe they don't understand. Help me out here.

[William Schryver]

I would suggest that the Law of Tithing has nothing to to with the LoC. Its a lesser law ... It's like God removing the Melchezdic Priesthood from the people of Moses and leaving them with the Aaronic.

D&C 84:19-25

I disagree with this perspective. I believe it has been made perfectly clear, through the years, by prophets and apostles of the restored church, that the Law of Tithing will most certainly continue, even within the context of the Saints being bound by the covenant of the Law of Consecration. The Law of Tithing is an eternal law.

[William Schryver]

Take a look at D&C 119:3-5, D&C 64:23, and D&C 85:3 for a better understanding of the Law of Tithing.

It has everything to do with the LoC in that the fuller practice of the LoC encompasses the Law of Tithing. These scriptures that I have quoted suggest very strongly that the LoT is preparatory to leading us to ZIon. Indeed, if you accept that Zion will be established before Christ's coming in glory, then D&C 64:3 indicates that the LoT has applicability within Zion itself.

I agree 100%.

[Brade]

I've read the thread. I've read your first post multiple times, just to make sure I understand what you're trying to say--and yet I must confess I'm still uncertain on that point.

You're the one who has suggested the Saints don't understand the scripturally based doctrines of the United Order. And yet I have not seen where you have made that argument--except by implication--in this entire thread. That is the reason I am now asking you for elaboration on the point. In order for me to even know if I have an "alternative perspective," it will be necessary for you to list a few of the doctrines of the Law of Consecration that you feel are not understood by the Saints.

Do you, for example, believe that the Saints don't understand that, in order to enter into this covenant, they must consecrate all of their "property" to the "bishop"?

Do you believe that the Saints don't understand that, in order for their covenant to be fulfilled, the poor must be provided for?

I believe the Saints understand these concepts. I really don't understand what you believe they don't understand. Help me out here.

As I understand it, Bokovoy's point is that many LDS don't understand what he believes are the scripturally based doctrines of the United Order, not because they don't understand that they must consecrate all of their property, but because they don't understand that they don't have a legitimate (i.e. recognized by God?) property right over many of the things they might consecrate in the first place. As I understand it, Bokovoy doesn't believe they have no right at all over such things, just that their right is that of a steward and not a property owner.

[William Schryver]

As I understand it, Bokovoy's point is that many LDS don't understand what he believes are the scripturally based doctrines of the United Order, not because they don't understand that they must consecrate all of their property, but because they don't understand that they don't have a legitimate (i.e. recognized by God?) property right over many of the things they might consecrate in the first place. As I understand it, Bokovoy doesn't believe they have no right at all over such things, just that their right is that of a steward and not a property owner.

If you're right (and I can certainly understand why you have come to this conclusion) then I'm afraid I must disagree with David that the Saints lack understanding on this point. In my experience, spanning many years of discussions, both in classroom settings and in "one on one" private settings, it is my impression that the Saints understand this point sufficiently well, and most would not hesitate for a moment to comply with the counsel of the prophet in their day were he to call upon them to enter formally into the covenant that all have made in the temple.

Furthermore, when it comes down to the practical application of the principles of the United Order, the only difference between a "steward" and a "property owner" would be semantic in nature. Employing the word "steward" instead of "owner" is merely a way to constantly remind the Saints of their covenant obligations, but it will have little or no effect on how things actually work in practice.

One needs to remember that the Law of Consecration has no "enforcement clause," as it were. It can only function on the basis of the principle of common consent.

[USU78]

One needs to remember that the Law of Consecration has no "enforcement clause," as it were. It can only function on the basis of the principle of common consent.

This is precisely the point I've tried to make in this thread: The lack of compulsion and the lack of "one size fits all" uniformity that are both im- and explicit in the LOC are the most remarkable portions of the law. One can leave it at any time. And if one does, one takes out what was brought into it, less the Bishop's portion for the poor.

But the lack of "one size fits all" uniformity needs to be stressed as well. That's why I brought up the case of my G-G-grandfather's "opt-out," which was, ultimately, no opt-out at all, since his efforts provided cash wages in a cash poor economy, as well as the derring-do to create public works in the absence of an effective government that could tax and spend on building such things.

I don't know why one must infer lack of understanding or failures to the early co-ops and united effort plans, when they served a wonderful purpose quite effectively: Deseret got built up and peopled in the absence of help from and in the face of armed hostility from the US; the missionaries kept going out and bringing folks home to Zion; the base was nurtured upon which all of the wonders of the last 20-30 years rest.

Some of us monthly, some of us weekly, and some of us less frequently renew our covenants in this regard. We understand very well what we're saying and what the implications are. One does poorly to assert without evidence that we do not.

[William Schryver]

This is precisely the point I've tried to make in this thread: The lack of compulsion and the lack of "one size fits all" uniformity that are both im- and explicit in the LOC are the most remarkable portions of the law. One can leave it at any time. And if one does, one takes out what was brought into it, less the Bishop's portion for the poor.

But the lack of "one size fits all" uniformity needs to be stressed as well. That's why I brought up the case of my G-G-grandfather's "opt-out," which was, ultimately, no opt-out at all, since his efforts provided cash wages in a cash poor economy, as well as the derring-do to create public works in the absence of an effective government that could tax and spend on building such things.

I don't know why one must infer lack of understanding or failures to the early co-ops and united effort plans, when they served a wonderful purpose quite effectively: Deseret got built up and peopled in the absence of help from and in the face of armed hostility from the US; the missionaries kept going out and bringing folks home to Zion; the base was nurtured upon which all of the wonders of the last 20-30 years rest.

Some of us monthly, some of us weekly, and some of us less frequently renew our covenants in this regard. We understand very well what we're saying and what the implications are. One does poorly to assert without evidence that we do not.

Great observations!

You also have caused me to want to clarify my meaning on one point I have made. I have termed as "failures" the 19th century efforts to live the Law of Consecration. When I say that, I don't really mean at all that the individual efforts were utter failures. They weren't. My point is simply that these various efforts never truly reached the point of "fruition" that I associate with the as yet future effort that will result in the building of the city of Zion, and which will then be continued through the millennium. What the 19th century LoC endeavors proved, in my judgment, is that the Saints do understand the things David apparently feels they do not. They willingly and obediently made and kept covenants to consecrate all they had to the building up of the kingdom. That is really all any of us will ever have to do, and those who did it back then were and will yet be blessed for their obedience in this matter.

I am curious, how do you think pencils, bridges, and guitars (bulldozers, iPods, personal computers, cell phones, PVC pipe for sprinkler systems, etc., etc., etc.) will be produced in a society living the Law of Consecration?*

* = Hint: the answer, as I see it, is not really complex at all. In fact, it's simple as can be.

[William Schryver]

I just want to report that I'm married to a brilliant, wise, and beautiful woman.

I just took a few minutes to explain the context of the discussion this thread has entailed, and then I expressed to her my questions, as I have repeatedly posed them over the past few days. I told her she could think about it for a while, then I went and did some things, only leaving her with the hint that the answer was not really a complex one at all.

When I returned a few minutes later, she provided the answer that I am convinced is the correct one.

Once again it has been proven that I am the luckiest man in the world.

In any case, I must leave now, but I will check back later. I'll be very interested to see if USU78 is as smart as Mrs. Schryver. (I already know he's not as beautiful. )

[wenglund]

Some excellent points have been made, and I appreciate the help in expanding the horizons of my understanding.

I continue to feel, though, a need for caution in taking too literally or applying too exactly today the more ancient historical perspectives on the LoC in preference over more recent comments by Church leaders. In part, here is why:

1) The size of the church has drastically changed, going from thousands to millions.

2) Distribution of the Church, which has gone from mostly a single cluster gathered around the prophet in the U.S., to countless clusters scattered world-wide.

3) The predominate nature of Church's economy, which has gone from agrarian to industrial to service.

4) The level of education regarding both temporal and spiritual matters have evolved to lesser and greater degrees.

5) The level of technology in a variety of areas has increased exponentially since Joseph's day.

6) We have gone from being jacks of all trades and for the most part completely self-sufficiency, to extensive division of labor as well as broad range of trade and specialization.

Like with many precepts of the gospel, while I think the basic principles of the LoC are timeless, the manner in which they are practiced may reasonably change depending upon the circumstances (like those listed above). It is like with the law of tithing, the basic principle of giving a tenth of one's increase remains unchanged, whereas the way in which members pay their tithes has changed, from in-kind offerings like giving portions of their flocks and crops, to monetary contributions.

Who knows? Something to think about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Deborah]

Furthermore, when it comes down to the practical application of the principles of the United Order, the only difference between a "steward" and a "property owner" would be semantic in nature. Employing the word "steward" instead of "owner" is merely a way to constantly remind the Saints of their covenant obligations, but it will have little or no effect on how things actually work in practice.

An article by William O. Nelson,

[BCSpace]

Furthermore, when it comes down to the practical application of the principles of the United Order, the only difference between a "steward" and a "property owner" would be semantic in nature. Employing the word "steward" instead of "owner" is merely a way to constantly remind the Saints of their covenant obligations, but it will have little or no effect on how things actually work in practice.

That is correct. We already do this with tithing which is part of the reason why I think it won't necessitate very much practical change at all to switch over to living the LoC. What some people will have to get over is the price of entry into the system, much like people have to overcome their fears to getting baptised into the Church today.

After paying that price, the fundamentals of the LoC allow for accumulation of wealth and property with the realization that the Church may need some or all of it down the road. I'd say where the LoC is working properly, that is, not as a communal system, the need for all of one's extra accumulated wealth will be rare indeed. If it devolves into a communal system, it will consume itself as everyone's accumulated wealth as well as the means and desire to produce more are destroyed.

[David Bokovoy]

.Furthermore, when it comes down to the practical application of the principles of the United Order, the only difference between a "steward" and a "property owner" would be semantic in nature.

The important thing for readers to note, is no one, including Will, has been able to justify this claim scripturally. All we have are a series of unfounded assertions of people in essence shaking their heads, and saying "No it's not."

Again, there are no occurrences of the terms

[David Bokovoy]

I've read the thread. I've read your first post multiple times, just to make sure I understand what you're trying to say--and yet I must confess I'm still uncertain on that point.

You're the one who has suggested the Saints don't understand the scripturally based doctrines of the United Order. And yet I have not seen where you have made that argument--except by implication--in this entire thread. That is the reason I am now asking you for elaboration on the point. In order for me to even know if I have an "alternative perspective," it will be necessary for you to list a few of the doctrines of the Law of Consecration that you feel are not understood by the Saints.

Do you, for example, believe that the Saints don't understand that, in order to enter into this covenant, they must consecrate all of their "property" to the "bishop"?

Do you believe that the Saints don't understand that, in order for their covenant to be fulfilled, the poor must be provided for?

I believe the Saints understand these concepts. I really don't understand what you believe they don't understand. Help me out here.

You are way out of line in turning any of my comments in this thread into a suggestion that I believe the "Saints," i.e, the "Church" do/does not understand these concepts. I have devoted my entire life to my profession as a religious educator for the Church, entrusted to teach scriptural courses by the Church at the most prestigious institutions in the United States. I have been employed to write Institute curriculum for the Church and would never presume to offer an insight that the "Saints," i.e. "Church" does not understand, but I do.

As illustrated by this thread, many of the individual Saints, including you, do not have a strong religious and historical grasp of these issues, but the "Saints" of God certainly do.

Since you'll be offering your views on the KEP this summer, are we to understand from this that the Church does not truly understand the KEP, but that you are going to set the Church on the right path?

Your efforts to paint me personally as one seeking to correct the Saints, i.e. "Church" on this important doctrinal topic have been dully noted and will not be forgotten. As usual, you are once again way out of line.

[BCSpace]

.Furthermore, when it comes down to the practical application of the principles of the United Order, the only difference between a "steward" and a "property owner" would be semantic in nature.

The important thing for readers to note, is not one, including Will, has been able to justify this claim scripturally. All we have are a series of unfounded assertions of people in essence shaking their heads, and saying "No it's not."

It doesn't appear that you have read the Church's teaching on the matter which I link to in my siggy. Will is absolutely correct. Once we have shown our willingness and obedience by consecrating our property and assests to the Church (the Lord), we recive back private property and assets as stewardships according to our needs and wants to be increased and administered as we see fit. There are several verses and quotes by Church leaders to this effect in the manual section I link to.

Edit:

It really is just semantics. The twist is that leap of faith, that price of admission, which occurs when you begin to live the LoC. However, we may have already done this simply by getting our endowments and the Church could simply assume a temple worthy and endowed individual to have already deeded his property to the Church and then received back his stewardship because of covenants made.

[wenglund]

The important thing for readers to note, is not one, including Will, has been able to justify this claim scripturally. All we have are a series of unfounded assertions of people in essence shaking their heads, and saying "No it's not."

Hi David,

I don't know if this is Will's point or not, but I think we may be getting hung up on terminology the net affect of which may be relatively meaningless. Under the LoC, whether a property (like a pair of shoes) is mine by virtue of ownership, or mine by virtue of it being my stewartship, my rights in relation to that property, as differentiated from the rights of other people, is pretty much the same. Right?

In other words, if I have been given stewartship over a pair of shoes to wear, I have the right to use those shoes when and whereever I please, whereas other people don't. If they wish to wear my shoes, they just can't take (steal?) them, but they must get my permission. The same is true if I owned the shoe. The difference between ownership and stewarship, particularly in terms of rights, then, is relatively meaningless.

I like this analogy about shoes because, when I was a child I didn't have the means to purchase shoes myself, so my parents purchased them for me. Technically, then, the shoes were my parents. They owned them. However, I was given the shoes to take care of (i.e. I was given stewarship over the shoes), and to have as my own (I was given ownership over them). This did not mean that since I had stewartship over the shoes that I didn't have ownership. I did. I had both. And, my stewartship and ownership of the shoes didnt' mean that my parent no longer owned them. They did. It just meant that, in certain respects, we co-owned them together. It did mean, however, that my siblings and the kids next door didn't own the shoes or have stewartship over them, and thus didn't have the same rights to the shoes I did, and they would be wrong were they to take and use my shoes without permission.

Granted, during my childhood I wasn't living under the LoC (though my parents were). But, I am not sure it would have made any difference in terms of rights to my shoes if I had been. Do you?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[USU78]

In any case, I must leave now, but I will check back later. I'll be very interested to see if USU78 is as smart as Mrs. Schryver. (I already know he's not as beautiful.

The pulchritudinous Mrs. Schryver is, no doubt, a whole lot smarter'n me . . . but I daresay Mrs. '78 compares more than favorably, both in pulchritude and in smarts.

First off, there's a serious lack of attention to what ownership is vs. stewardship. I can own things, all sorts of things, as far as other folks are concerned, but as between me and that great Being with Whom I live in covenant relationship, He is the author of all and the ultimate Owner of all. I merely hold things and, as the hymn says, "give [Him] but [His] own," whenever I make an offering or tithe. Should He have need of anything that I have, I will surely give it Him. I am His steward, and no creature has any right to any of the stuff over which I am steward. It's not all that different from holding real property in fee. Even if you've paid off your mortgage, the sovereign has rights superior to yours and asserts those rights in the form of taxes and restrictions on use even of your home.

If there was a failure in the LOC as practiced in its various iterations, it was that too many folks were too worried about what somebody else was up to with their own stuff. It's none of my business how Will and the lovely Mrs. Schryver live in covenantal relationship with G-d. 'Course, in fairness, when you're living a subsistence existence and somebody else looks better fed and clothed, it's hard not to wonder. We must judge our forebears, if at all, charitably.

Now, as to the question of CDs, internet communications, jet fuel, pencil lead, and such. There is no reason to believe everybody everywhere will be living the LOC, even during the Millenium. Let's assume there is a community living the LOC. It has poorish resources (making it less of a target to the aggressors that always live among us), yet its adherents want to keep enjoying things like the internet and CD information storage, and personal communications via shipping apostles and missionaries all over creation, and pencils and such.

It makes the work of perfecting the saints, redeeming the dead, preaching the gospel and serving the needs of the needy all that much easier. We can accomplish these things faster and better if we combine our efforts. The trappings of civilization and the economic engine that makes such wonders and conveniences possible are, therefore, not a bad thing.

Here's the problem: resource poor covenant communities living the LOC will be unlikely to be able to produce the infrastructure necessary to produce the wonders and conveniences. How will they acquire them? It is unthinkable that they would predate their neighbors who aren't living in the LOC. It is almost as unthinkable that the neighbors would simply part with them without receiving in exchange something they valued as highly. So . . . our covenant community must produce goods and services of such value that they will part with difficult to make things like pencil leads and internets and CDs and such.

How are our intrepid LOCers going to produce things of such value? Foodstuffs are unlikely to be of such value that things it takes capital and financial derring-do to produce are an easy offset. Likelier it is that the producers of foodstuffs would be relegated to inferior or dominated status -- as the US sought to accomplish in the 1860s-90s in the Great Basin. Only by themselves producing things of great value in a resource-poor environment will our LOCers be able to enjoy the conveniences the neighbors provide.

It's possible that the community itself bands together to make such things. It is just as likely, perhaps moreso, however, that each individual within the covenant community participates in the greater economy while maintaining his covenant relationship with G-d as His steward and through his tithes and offerings helps to support the covenant community, especially the poor within WHICH SHALL BE WITH [uS] ALWAYS.

Of course, I could be completely wrong.

[Calm]

Edit:

It really is just semantics. The twist is that leap of faith, that price of admission, which occurs when you begin to live the LoC. However, we may have already done this simply by getting our endowments and the Church could simply assume a temple worthy and endowed individual to have already deeded his property to the Church and then received back his stewardship because of covenants made.

Even if there is no practical difference in the sense of how one takes care of the property, imo, there is likely to be huge difference in attitude between the individual who thinks of him/herself as a steward and one who thinks of him/herself as an owner in relation to the things of the Lord and that just might make a significant practical difference in how much we are capable of being one with the Father and the Son and the rest of the Saints.

There are reasons words are chosen, we don't just toss all the synonyms of a concept into a hat and pull out one and use that. If "steward" is used in a revelation of the Lord and not "owner", I would be very cautious about assuming that "steward" really means "owner" when one gets to the important details. I would instead suggest that it is at these important details that the differences between the two are magnified and very, very important.

[wenglund]

If there was a failure in the LOC as practiced in its various iterations, it was that too many folks were too worried about what somebody else was up to with their own stuff.

Ah, yes, a horizontal, rather than verticle, form of "ark-steadying"--or, as some may call it, "envy" or "busy-bodies".

Seems the failures that some may have experienced with the LoC back in the day, are the same failures some may experience today in relation to the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jwhitlock]

Now, if you want to posit that, in Zion (both before and after the second coming of Christ) we will be provided with the equivalent of the "replicators" used in Star Trek (devices that can convert energy to matter, and thus produce anything desired, from a cup of tea to a complex matter/anti-matter reactor) then I suppose the need for raw material production, manufacturing facilities, and distribution networks will disappear. That, I admit, will be cool--if that's how it's going to work. In fact, I'm all for it if that's what the Lord has in mind.

But, just for the sake of discussion, let's assume for a moment that replicators will not be provided, and that we will be forced to "make it work" within the constraints of the existing parameters in terms of the creative process described by: producing and harvesting raw materials, converting those materials via some kind manufacturing process, and then distributing the resulting products to those who want/need them.

Will, I wanted to comment back on this in passing. Being somewhat of a techno-geek, I have a little more than a passing interest in what's going on out in the world as far as the "Star Trek" kinds of replicators that we fantasize about. A great deal of theoretical and practical work has been done in areas of energy, nano-tech, and bio-tech that make for fascinating reading. The kinds of things they're talking about, where we start to be able to produce, directly from raw materials, finished goods in one place on demand are not that far off. The main impediments to those things are not so much the technical as they are the capital / political / regulatory speed bumps that exist in our system today. I don't think a lot of people realize the amount of knock-your-socks off technology that's on the boards out there.

I tend to see this as another undercurrent in the preparation setting the stage for Zion. I posit that folks living in Zion will have enhanced understanding, and will be able to make much better use of the technology available in commoditizing what they produce. Our society has been moving clearly in the direction of an information based society as far as production is concerned; there is increasing need of people to intelligently direct and design what is being produced; once it is designed, the actual production is many times a simple afterthought that is moved off shore to the cheapest producer with the desired quality.

I believe that there is the very real possibility that Zion will make great use of technology in accomplishing its ends; indeed, the explosion of technology and knowledge can be viewed as being preparatory to the redeeming of Zion as it's supposed to exist before Christ comes. The technology we have available today and what will be available soon in the future has the potential to change the game dramatically when coupled with the principles of Zion. And Zion, unlike our society today, will be far better qualified to make the best and most appropriate use of technology, perhaps making the issue of production and consumption a non-issue.

Of course, there's also the principle that God can make things happen by His power so that Zion can flourish. But the pattern seems to have been, over time, to have us make use of our own resources and abilities, and the technology we're being provided with points to some very interesting possibilities. From a practical standpoint, looking at technologies that are on the board or that have been prototyped today, these could include such things as:

- Localized sources of energy production powering individual neighborhoods, or even residences, with more electricity than they can make use of. No grid required.

- Localized water and water-waste processing technology that removes the need for centralized large-city systems.

- Plentiful local backyard and agricultural resources that can fulfill a large percentage of a community's requirements directly. (Note - in addition to technology, I also think that things will just grow far better in Zion; Nibley talked about his dwarf fruit trees that were "obscene" in the amount they bore, which he attributed to his faithful observance of the Law of Tithing)

- Localized production of commodities and finished goods in communities using new "replicator" technology based on computerized nano-tech.

And the list goes on.

Personally, while I don't know exactly how Zion will work, I tend to see an increase, not a decrease, in the usage of technology as part of Zion. To be honest, a great deal of what we direct technology to do in our society today is a complete waste. The principles of Zion will allow technology to be more fully directed to what is important, and in doing so, I believe that there will be a significant change for the better in the standard of living easily available to all who live in Zion. The question of "possessions" may well become relatively unimportant.

That's one option for how the LoC can be supported in Zion, and how technology can significantly change the principles of production and distribution that we now live with. It may well be that the Lord will want us to use technology as an enabler for Zion, and that such technology is part of His plan. We'll see.

[wenglund]

Even if there is no practical difference in the sense of how one takes care of the property, imo, there is likely to be huge difference in attitude between the individual who thinks of him/herself as a steward and one who thinks of him/herself as an owner in relation to the things of the Lord and that just might make a significant practical difference in how much we are capable of being one with the Father and the Son and the rest of the Saints.

This is a good point. However, I wonder how much of an attitudinal factor specific words will have on someone developed enough spiritually to be ready to fully enter the LoC.

If, though, words may be a factor even in such cases, then I would think use of both words ("ownership" and "stewartship"), rather than one at the exclusion of the other, would make the most positive difference. The word "ownership" tends to envoke an attitude to take good care of what is yours, whereas the word "stewartship" tends to envoke the attitude you suggest. So, if someone in the LoC views their property as both "ownership" and "stewartship", then attitudenly they would be better off than were they to just think in terms of "stewartship" or "ownership".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jwhitlock]

If there was a failure in the LOC as practiced in its various iterations, it was that too many folks were too worried about what somebody else was up to with their own stuff. It's none of my business how Will and the lovely Mrs. Schryver live in covenantal relationship with G-d. 'Course, in fairness, when you're living a subsistence existence and somebody else looks better fed and clothed, it's hard not to wonder. We must judge our forebears, if at all, charitably.

This may well be the foundational weeding out characteristic that will determine who is able to live in Zion, and who is not.

When all have that which is sufficient for their needs, it will be a test of character for those who want to live the Celestial law to move quickly past the issues of pride and "fairness". To those who just look at the surface of things, Zion will probably not appear to be particularly fair, and that will drive them away.

[William Schryver]

The pulchritudinous Mrs. Schryver is, no doubt, a whole lot smarter'n me . . . but I daresay Mrs. '78 compares more than favorably, both in pulchritude and in smarts.

First off, there's a serious lack of attention to what ownership is vs. stewardship. I can own things, all sorts of things, as far as other folks are concerned, but as between me and that great Being with Whom I live in covenant relationship, He is the author of all and the ultimate Owner of all. I merely hold things and, as the hymn says, "give [Him] but [His] own," whenever I make an offering or tithe. Should He have need of anything that I have, I will surely give it Him. I am His steward, and no creature has any right to any of the stuff over which I am steward. It's not all that different from holding real property in fee. Even if you've paid off your mortgage, the sovereign has rights superior to yours and asserts those rights in the form of taxes and restrictions on use even of your home.

If there was a failure in the LOC as practiced in its various iterations, it was that too many folks were too worried about what somebody else was up to with their own stuff. It's none of my business how Will and the lovely Mrs. Schryver live in covenantal relationship with G-d. 'Course, in fairness, when you're living a subsistence existence and somebody else looks better fed and clothed, it's hard not to wonder. We must judge our forebears, if at all, charitably.

Now, as to the question of CDs, internet communications, jet fuel, pencil lead, and such. There is no reason to believe everybody everywhere will be living the LOC, even during the Millenium. Let's assume there is a community living the LOC. It has poorish resources (making it less of a target to the aggressors that always live among us), yet its adherents want to keep enjoying things like the internet and CD information storage, and personal communications via shipping apostles and missionaries all over creation, and pencils and such.

It makes the work of perfecting the saints, redeeming the dead, preaching the gospel and serving the needs of the needy all that much easier. We can accomplish these things faster and better if we combine our efforts. The trappings of civilization and the economic engine that makes such wonders and conveniences possible are, therefore, not a bad thing.

Here's the problem: resource poor covenant communities living the LOC will be unlikely to be able to produce the infrastructure necessary to produce the wonders and conveniences. How will they acquire them? It is unthinkable that they would predate their neighbors who aren't living in the LOC. It is almost as unthinkable that the neighbors would simply part with them without receiving in exchange something they valued as highly. So . . . our covenant community must produce goods and services of such value that they will part with difficult to make things like pencil leads and internets and CDs and such.

How are our intrepid LOCers going to produce things of such value? Foodstuffs are unlikely to be of such value that things it takes capital and financial derring-do to produce are an easy offset. Likelier it is that the producers of foodstuffs would be relegated to inferior or dominated status -- as the US sought to accomplish in the 1860s-90s in the Great Basin. Only by themselves producing things of great value in a resource-poor environment will our LOCers be able to enjoy the conveniences the neighbors provide.

It's possible that the community itself bands together to make such things. It is just as likely, perhaps moreso, however, that each individual within the covenant community participates in the greater economy while maintaining his covenant relationship with G-d as His steward and through his tithes and offerings helps to support the covenant community, especially the poor within WHICH SHALL BE WITH [uS] ALWAYS.

Of course, I could be completely wrong.

Hark! A voice in the wilderness.

You have once again confirmed to me my long-standing respect for you. Well done, my friend!

I have yet to read any posts below this one since I returned, and I must yet respond to David's unnecessarily heated post above (<sigh>), and I haven't the opportunity at present to do more than commend you for the wisest words (in my judgment) yet spoken on this thread. I want to greatly expand on what you have, so far, merely hinted at, but I will start a new thread to do so. I hope to do so before I retire for the night ...

[William Schryver]

You are way out of line in turning any of my comments in this thread into a suggestion that I believe the "Saints," i.e, the "Church" do/does not understand these concepts. I have devoted my entire life to my profession as a religious educator for the Church, entrusted to teach scriptural courses by the Church at the most prestigious institutions in the United States. I have been employed to write Institute curriculum for the Church and would never presume to offer an insight that the "Saints," i.e. "Church" does not understand, but I do.

As illustrated by this thread, many of the individual Saints, including you, do not have a strong religious and historical grasp of these issues, but the "Saints" of God certainly do.

Since you'll be offering your views on the KEP this summer, are we to understand from this that the Church does not truly understand the KEP, but that you are going to set the Church on the right path?

Your efforts to paint me personally as one seeking to correct the Saints, i.e. "Church" on this important doctrinal topic have been dully noted and will not be forgotten. As usual, you are once again way out of line.

This is an overreaction, to say the least. This is not personal, it is merely a rhetorical exercise, as are all threads on this message board, when it comes right down to it. Why must you continually take offense where none is indicated nor intended? I understand how much you detest being challenged on those things about which you have formed firm opinions, but I'm afraid this is a topic of sufficient importance to justify such challenges. There is most certainly a sub-text to your comments in this entire thread, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who has detected it. I find it hard to believe that the implications underlying your comments do not represent a deliberate commentary on the current status of the "understanding" of the Saints vis-a-vis the Law of Consecration.

David, feel free to clarify what you really meant with the following statement, if not that the Saints (or at least good portion of them) do not yet understand the scripturally based doctrine of the United Order, as I and many others have concluded on the basis of your remarks.

You wrote:

It's practical application is important, no doubt, but before one can apply doctrine, one must correctly understand doctrine.

Did you, perhaps, just mean that I am the one who doesn't correctly understand the doctrine? If so, what particular doctrine are you talking about? I have not, to my knowledge, expressed opposition (at least as of yet) to any of your scriptural interpretations. I have merely asked a few questions, none of which have been answered by you, and only a few by others. In my mind, the questions I have posed are very uniquely appropriate to this discussion, notwithstanding your repeated evasions of them and assertions that they do not speak to the topic of your thread. Fine, I have concluded that I will initiate a new thread in order to evoke discussion of the questions I have posed, and to further the discussion of the future implementation of the principles of the United Order.

In the meantime, I think you should review the things I have said on this thread and then seriously ask yourself if anything I have written has truly warranted the reaction you have displayed towards me. My feelings towards you remain unchanged. I have great affection for you, and great respect for your thoughts in your known areas of expertise. I think I may disagree you with on some things, but I am also convinced that they are, for the most part, not the things you believe I disagree with you on. (I hate dangling prepositions!) At any rate, I think much of your defensiveness on this thread (as manifest towards my remarks) is based on flawed (and somewhat prejudiced, apparently) conclusions concerning what you think I believe, rather than what I have actually claimed to believe. You know, some intellectual exercises entail bold challenges and spirited discussion, but it was my impression that those with experience in the academy are generally less inclined to hypersensitivity in such cases. It appears my conclusions in that regard were perhaps a bit premature.