Mormonism and the United Firm

[William Schryver]

calmoriah:

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.

I agree 100% with this statement.

In my opinion, the Law of Consecration is a covenant whose righteous fulfillment entails a very specific (and very profoundly held) attitude which is manifest in unmistakable clarity by the actions of those in that covenant relationship.

[mfbukowski]

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.

I'm glad you showed up- I've been waiting for you!

This is the point I have been trying to make for pages and pages now.

[David Bokovoy]

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

.

1. I enjoy being challenged when the challenger does so with substance, which is why I have repeatedly asked you and others who have disagreed with my postings to contribute scriptural analysis to support your alternative view.

2. Given the profession that I have dedicated my entire life to and the seriousness of any public accusation, real or imagined, that I am declaring that the Church has gone astray and that I personally hold the exegetical insights to set the Saints right carries extremely weighty consequences for me personally and my family. You are the second individual to make this assertion in this thread, simply because you do not agree with and/or understand these issues. So this not a mere academic challenge in my case, and I will no longer allow these repeated assertions from you or anyone else to stand uncorrected. Given the seriousness of such charges in my case, I anticipate that in the future these types of corrective postings will likely represent the full extent of my public participation on message boards.

[William Schryver]

.

1. I enjoy being challenged when the challenger does so with substance, which is why I have repeatedly asked you and others who have disagreed with my postings to contribute scriptural analysis to support your alternative view.

2. Given the profession that I have dedicated my entire life to at great personal and familial sacrifice, together with the seriousness of any public accusation, real or imagined, that I am declaring that the Church has gone astray and that I personally hold the exegetical insights to set the Saints right carries extremely weighty consequences for me personally and my family. You are the second individual to make this assertion in this thread, simply because you do not agree with and/or understand these issues. So this not a mere academic challenge in my case, and I will no longer allow these repeated assertions from you or anyone else to stand uncorrected. Given the seriousness of such charges in my case, I anticipate that in the future these types of corrective posting will likely represent the full extent of my participation on message boards.

I have not, at any time, or in anything I have said, suggested that you are declaring that "the Church has gone astray," nor that you have claimed to "personally hold the exegetical insights to set the Saints right."

What, pray tell, are you talking about?

My word! Where did this come from?

I did interpret things you said as suggesting that at least some of the Saints do not correctly understand the principles of the LoC. I believe others have discerned the same from things you have said. Is that not what you meant? If not, please clarify yourself so we can move on.

I don't get at all what has brought on this quasi-meltdown ...

[rockslider]

Well I've learned one thing from this thread. Throw out the topic of LoC and watch the faithful devour each other.

It seems I'm the only "critic" in the mix, and wow, the contention levels are very interesting to witness.

[jwhitlock]

Well I've learned one thing from this thread. Throw out the topic of LoC and watch the faithful devour each other.

It seems I'm the only "critic" in the mix, and wow, the contention levels are very interesting to witness.

Anmerkungen von der Erdnuss-Galerie.

[USU78]

Anmerkungen von der Erdnuss-Galerie.

Genau! Does woar joa guat g'sagt!

[rockslider]

Anmerkungen von der Erdnuss-Galerie.

Sorry, did not bring about any Pentecostal moment for me. However, I assume that was not the intent?

[USU78]

Given the profession that I have dedicated my entire life to and the seriousness of any public accusation, real or imagined, that I am declaring that the Church has gone astray and that I personally hold the exegetical insights to set the Saints right carries extremely weighty consequences for me personally and my family.

Heartiest apologies if I gave the impression I was doing so. I was personally friends with many of the so-called "September Six," and have seen how things can develop.

You may quote me as being of the opinion that our good friend David has never, to my knowledge, asserted any position at odds and/or inconsistent with a faithful life of Church service. Differences of opinion hereabouts are so much cottontree fluff. They're a-blowin' this way now . . . in a half hour they'll be a-blowin' that way.

And if sometimes the conversation gets somewhat heated, remember the old maxim: the reason academic controversies get so heated is precisely because the stakes are so very low.

[David Bokovoy]

Well I've learned one thing from this thread. Throw out the topic of LoC and watch the faithful devour each other.

It seems I'm the only "critic" in the mix, and wow, the contention levels are very interesting to witness.

My dear friend and Brother. Of course the faithful never consume others to gain perceived victories.

[David Bokovoy]

Anmerkungen von der Erdnuss-Galerie.

Notes of the peanut gallery.

[Ceeboo]

Ohhh! Sorry to all for the intrusion in this thread, I thought this was the chat room!

Peace,

Ceeboo

[mercyngrace]

Wade,

I appreciated your response to my last comment (page 13 or so) but disagree that just compensation and obedience are the same law. Christ was obedient precisely by violating the law of just compensation. In fact, not only did He not receive justice, a just sacrifice WOULD NOT SUFFICE. The sacrifice had to be INFINITE AND ETERNAL.

Droopy,

I apologize if I misunderstood your position. Your sarcastic (per your description) references to red berets and the People's Police of Zion being used to confiscate goods from the inhabitants of Zion seem to have painted a vivid picture of how you view those who disagree with you on this matter of private ownership. Again, if I misread you, I apologize.

Mods,

Is there a corollary to Godwin's law about "Communism" remarks?

Senator and mfbukowski,

Let's all be in the same ward

Now, back to the topic at hand.

I'm still skimming all the comments from the last four days but I wanted to throw a couple of random thoughts out there. This whole bit is prefaced, of course, with a huge "In my opinion,".

1. The people who will unite to build Zion won't care one whit whether ownership is established but stewardship is essential to ensure that all needs are met. For example, I have a lawn mower and you don't but because of the kind of person you are, I have no concern about in whose garage it resides or who uses it so long as we both have access and the machine is maintained. I trust that you will treat the lawn mower as if it were your own whether or not it is because you know that I will need it and that others may also. That doesn't mean there isn't private ownership, it just means that people who are ONE don't really care either way because they trust each other and if carelessness or mishaps occur, they forgive each other and work to resolve the issues that arise. My fence? Your fence? Does it matter so long as it keeps the animals in? And if we both rely on the animals, and we both maintain the fence is there a need for a deed?

Seems the Nephites maintained private ownership because if they hadn't the unified society couldn't have disintegrated into people become lifted up by their fine apparel and individual material wealth. The degradation didn't occur because they had deeds and titles of ownership, but because they suddenly valued them more than they valued their neighbors.

2. If a small community of Zion operated under the law of consecration, I would expect the members of the community to interact with the outside world by the law of just compensation as described by Wade earlier in the thread. If I owned an airline I could provide free passage to some passengers while requiring a fare from others just as if I owned a hotel chain, I could offer a discount to LDS who show a current temple recommend when making a reservation in a town with an LDS temple. Those are modified ways of consecrating ones temporal goods outside of Zion.

3. As to the value of commodity in a truly Zion community, the only value anything has is its usefulness to someone in need. I need a loaf of bread and you need a lb. of beef. We exchange goods because we both have a need that can be filled - does it matter if bread is easier to come by than beef? Not really. I only need one loaf of bread, so that's all I take. And what if you have a loaf of bread, I have a lb. of beef and neither of us have needs but Bro. Doe could use both, we give it willingly with no need for exchange because we know that Bro. Doe fills the needs of others in community whenever he is able. We would know this to be true of everyone involved in Zion. For were it not true, it would not be Zion. In this type of community, the mantra isn't "I got mine!" but "You would do the same for me."

4. In a truly Zion community, there would be a shift in values such that the primary concern for everyone is the well-being of each other. Sister Mary Ellen Edmunds, formerly of the RS General Board, gave a talk once in which she described an African greeting she learned on that continent. One person asks "Are you well?" and the response to that query is "I am well if you are well." With that attitude, it doesn't matter how many things I own if you don't have enough. If you don't have enough, I am unwell. The only value in ownership is in your willingness to give it away. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

5. To repeat myself, there can be no compulsion in Zion. There can be no "People's Police" who confiscate, or governments who legislate. In fact, government redistribution would violate Zion specifically because that city's inhabitants MUST choose to set apart or make holy their time, talents, energy, and goods (consecrate) through willing self-sacrifice, as Christ did, in order to be worthy of living within her borders!

[BCSpace]

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.

Would seem so, but technically, we've already covenanted to live the LoC. So I think once one realizes this, the shift will be easy and probably not such a shock as Mormon mythology would have one believe.

A long time ago, I used to think it would be near socialistic (being the devil's version of the LoC) and communal like many LDS do today. But the more I study it, the more I realize that while socialism is still the devil's counterfeit, the nuts and bolts of the LoC are really free market capitalism simply because socialistic principles are outlawed by the LoC. The LoC isn't really an economic principle anyway, just a way to righteously take care of the poor (who will be cast out if they can't do something with their talent such as they have. So nothing by way of economic principle needs to change and if it does, it likely is forbidden by the LoC because agency and private property are protected.

In fact, the LoC dovetails nicely with a framer's constitution which outlines what the government can't do to you. In the LoC's case, equalization of property assests and possessions are outlawed and so is the notion of telling people what to do with their stewardship. Contrast that with socialism and a "living" constitution which outlines what the government must do for you and you must go along.

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.

I would suggest that it remains symantic because all consecration is is the realization that everything comes from the Lord and He has given it to you to do with as you please and your judgement depends on what you do with it.

[David Bokovoy]

Would seem so, but technically, we've already covenanted to live the LoC. So I think once one realizes this, the shift will be easy and probably not such a shock as Mormon mythology would have one believe.

A long time ago, I used to think it would be near socialistic (being the devil's version of the LoC) and communal like many LDS do today. But the more I study it, the more I realize that while socialism is still the devil's counterfeit, the nuts and bolts of the LoC are really free market capitalism simply because socialistic principles are outlawed by the LoC.

Self interest is the antithesis of charity. Enough said.

The LoC isn't really an economic principle anyway, just a way to righteously take care of the poor (who will be cast out if they can't do something with their talent such as they have. So nothing by way of economic principle needs to change and if it does, it likely is forbidden by the LoC because agency and private property are protected.

As illustrated throughout this thread, the Law of Consecration is so much more than simply a righteous way to take care of the poor. It really is.

[David Bokovoy]

Wade,

I appreciated your response to my last comment (page 13 or so) but disagree that just compensation and obedience are the same law. Christ was obedient precisely by violating the law of just compensation. In fact, not only did He not receive justice, a just sacrifice WOULD NOT SUFFICE. The sacrifice had to be INFINITE AND ETERNAL.

Droopy,

I apologize if I misunderstood your position. Your sarcastic (per your description) references to red berets and the People's Police of Zion being used to confiscate goods from the inhabitants of Zion seem to have painted a vivid picture of how you view those who disagree with you on this matter of private ownership. Again, if I misread you, I apologize.

Mods,

Is there a corollary to Godwin's law about "Communism" remarks?

Senator and mfbukowski,

Let's all be in the same ward

Now, back to the topic at hand.

I'm still skimming all the comments from the last four days but I wanted to throw a couple of random thoughts out there. This whole bit is prefaced, of course, with a huge "In my opinion,".

1. The people who will unite to build Zion won't care one whit whether ownership is established but stewardship is essential to ensure that all needs are met. For example, I have a lawn mower and you don't but because of the kind of person you are, I have no concern about in whose garage it resides or who uses it so long as we both have access and the machine is maintained. I trust that you will treat the lawn mower as if it were your own whether or not it is because you know that I will need it and that others may also. That doesn't mean there isn't private ownership, it just means that people who are ONE don't really care either way because they trust each other and if carelessness or mishaps occur, they forgive each other and work to resolve the issues that arise. My fence? Your fence? Does it matter so long as it keeps the animals in? And if we both rely on the animals, and we both maintain the fence is there a need for a deed?

Seems the Nephites maintained private ownership because if they hadn't the unified society couldn't have disintegrated into people become lifted up by their fine apparel and individual material wealth. The degradation didn't occur because they had deeds and titles of ownership, but because they suddenly valued them more than they valued their neighbors.

2. If a small community of Zion operated under the law of consecration, I would expect the members of the community to interact with the outside world by the law of just compensation as described by Wade earlier in the thread. If I owned an airline I could provide free passage to some passengers while requiring a fare from others just as if I owned a hotel chain, I could offer a discount to LDS who show a current temple recommend when making a reservation in a town with an LDS temple. Those are modified ways of consecrating ones temporal goods outside of Zion.

3. As to the value of commodity in a truly Zion community, the only value anything has is its usefulness to someone in need. I need a loaf of bread and you need a lb. of beef. We exchange goods because we both have a need that can be filled - does it matter if bread is easier to come by than beef? Not really. I only need one loaf of bread, so that's all I take. And what if you have a loaf of bread, I have a lb. of beef and neither of us have needs but Bro. Doe could use both, we give it willingly with no need for exchange because we know that Bro. Doe fills the needs of others in community whenever he is able. We would know this to be true of everyone involved in Zion. For were it not true, it would not be Zion. In this type of community, the mantra isn't "I got mine!" but "You would do the same for me."

4. In a truly Zion community, there would be a shift in values such that the primary concern for everyone is the well-being of each other. Sister Mary Ellen Edmunds, formerly of the RS General Board, gave a talk once in which she described an African greeting she learned on that continent. One person asks "Are you well?" and the response to that query is "I am well if you are well." With that attitude, it doesn't matter how many things I own if you don't have enough. If you don't have enough, I am unwell. The only value in ownership is in your willingness to give it away. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

5. To repeat myself, there can be no compulsion in Zion. There can be no "People's Police" who confiscate, or governments who legislate. In fact, government redistribution would violate Zion specifically because that city's inhabitants MUST choose to set apart or make holy their time, talents, energy, and goods (consecrate) through willing self-sacrifice, as Christ did, in order to be worthy of living within her borders!

I am so grateful that you have contributed so much substance to this thread.

Much love and respect,

--DB

[David Bokovoy]

USU78,

Thank you for the kind words of endorsement.

Sincerely your friend,

--DB

[Calm]

The only value in ownership is in your willingness to give it away.

Very nicely stated, imo.

[Calm]

poor (who will be cast out if they can't do something with their talent such as they have.

I really hope you mean "won't" here and not "can't" as I know many people who can't do something with their talent through no fault of their own, including one wonderful lady who can only move one arm in a small awkward way due to MS and who is requiring much more than she could ever put into the system at this point. Those of us who have been blessed to serve her know that the only 'thing' we will ever get from her is her friendship, which is value enough and more imo.

[rodheadlee]

Great observations!

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.

Matthew

20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

By the power of faith these needs shall be fullfilled. Will we even need bulldozers? Free, non polluting energy will change the economic dynamics of the systems we have now.

Also, I think the visit by Jesus Christ to the Lamanites and Nephites typifies His return. There is going to be great destruction and loss of life preceding His return. There isn't going to be that many people left alive in their second estate and there isn't going to be much infrastructure left. I think people won't be driving their Hummer to Adam-ondi-Ahman, better keep those handcarts in good shape. We'll be coming by sailboat, you'll know when we are coming as the rivers will flow the other diretion for a week or so

[wenglund]

Wade,

I appreciated your response to my last comment (page 13 or so) but disagree that just compensation and obedience are the same law. Christ was obedient precisely by violating the law of just compensation. In fact, not only did He not receive justice, a just sacrifice WOULD NOT SUFFICE. The sacrifice had to be INFINITE AND ETERNAL.

That is an interesting way of looking at it.

However, it is my understanding that the atonement wasn't about Christ receiving just compensation, but rather him providing just compensation (satisfying the demands of justice), thereby making mercy possible. He didn't violate the law of just compensation, he fully satisfied it, and he did so by way of the law of obedience.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Well I've learned one thing from this thread. Throw out the topic of LoC and watch the faithful devour each other.

It seems I'm the only "critic" in the mix, and wow, the contention levels are very interesting to witness.

Family quarrels can be quite healthy at times. It all depends upon how they end. I am already seeing signs of an outpouring of love from both sides, and that bodes well. I personally see no call to get hystarical (I'm teasing of course).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mercyngrace]

That is an interesting way of looking at it.

However, it is my understanding that the atonement wasn't about Christ receiving just compensation, but rather him providing just compensation (satisfying the demands of justice), thereby making mercy possible. He didn't violate the law of just compensation, he fully satisfied it, and he did so by way of the law of obedience.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I respect your opinion but again disagree with it.

Christ didn't provide just compensation either, Wade, He gave much more than a quid pro quo offering. Just compensation would have required only a sacrifice equal to the sins of the world. Christ paid more than that. Why? Could it be that there is more to the atonement than a simple mathematical equation?

[wenglund]

I respect your opinion but again disagree with it.

Christ didn't provide just compensation either, Wade, He gave much more than a quid pro quo offering. Just compensation would have required only a sacrifice equal to the sins of the world. Christ paid more than that. Why? Could it be that there is more to the atonement than a simple mathematical equation?

Assuming you are correct that Christ's atoning "offering" paid more than what justice is owed for the sins of the world, I don't see how that supposedly violates the law of just compensation, or that Christ didn't provide just compensation. Rather, the atonement satisfied the law of just compensation, and then some. Think of it as analogous to an employer giving an employee a bonus in addition to the agreed upon salary. The salary (just compensation) isn't being violated by the addition of the bonus, nor does the addition of the bonus mean that the employer didn't provide the salary. Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mercyngrace]

Assuming you are correct that Christ's atoning "offering" paid more than what justice is owed for the sins of the world, I don't see how that supposedly violates the law of just compensation, or that Christ didn't provide just compensation. Rather, the atonement satisfied the law of just compensation, and then some. Think of it as analogous to an employer giving an employee a bonus in addition to the agreed upon salary. The salary (just compensation) isn't being violated by the addition of the bonus, nor does the addition of the bonus mean that the employer didn't provide the salary. Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Of course it does. Just compensation is a two way street.

Why would God demand Christ suffer beyond the price of justice if a quid quo pro redemption would have satisfied the law? That would be an act of abject cruelty. Unless it were necessary for some reason...