Mormonism and the United Firm

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

David, you are making a pitch for a socioeconomic system based solely upon your own interpretation of scripture.

Who, then, are you- to cry repentance unto this people?

Have the Prophets made this pitch? Has this been commanded by those with actual stewardship over this Church and this people?

It has not.

Who then are you, to proclaim this new Gospel?

You've run this sales pitch twice now, and it has been closed twice due to politics.

That's not simply the fault of those who responded to your sales pitch, but to the irretreivably, inescapable, and unavoidable political nature of the topic itself.

The most simple reason- borne out by both Mormon doctrine and history is the one I've already pointed out.

You were not called, ordained, or set apart to proclaim an sociopolitical economic theory to this people.

Those given those keys do not and have not advocated your cause.

As for me and mine, we will follow the Lord and his prophets over a new messiah.

You'll note the implied equity of effort here. It doesn't say "What man among you, having twelve sonsand is no respecter of them, and eleven serve him obediently, saith unto the twelfth: Be thou clothed in the same robes and raiment as thy faithful, obedient brothers".

That is your interpretation. Nowhere, however, does the Lord advocate robbing Peter to pay Paul.

You'll note that the Lord advocates for equal opportunity- not equal outcomes. Nowhere does the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the Gospel specify that we will inherit equal kingdoms despite disparate efforts. Those who put out little or no effort- who procrastinate the day of thier repentance- will not achieve the Celestial kingdom.

Note that in the world at large, it is the pursuit of that which is above another that is the problem. It is the pursuit of wealth, and it's attendant of evils of greed, covetousness, and envy which are the problem- not the goods themselves.

CFR- please demonstrate where the Prophet mandated equal (or identical) outcomes for unequal labor.

CFR- Please demonstrate for us precisely where this specifies a universal system applied to all the Saints as opposed to the comparatively small community of Saints then at hand.

Please demonstrate where this system was intended to be universal to Zion throughout the world and throughout time?

David, I did not see a responce to these points brought up.

The main problem I have is that it seems as though you assume that some one should receive equal finances for unequal labour. None of the scriptures you quoted include that. That you would be paid for what you do. Also some one else brought up that you should cease to be idle. I have a hard time that the Lord will make all finacnially equal if they do not labour equally. I am all for equal pay only if every one does equal work, or iow, they do their fair share.

In todays society we see a huge problem of people milking the system and taking adavtage and being completly lazy. Today's world is not ready for any type of LoC. I would not let what might happen in the futre color what happens today. The 2 systems are not remotly the same.

[David T]

David, I did not see a responce to these points brought up.

The main problem I have is that it seems as though you assume that some one should receive equal finances for unequal labour. None of the scriptures you quoted include that. That you would be paid for what you do. Also some one else brought up that you should cease to be idle. I have a hard time that the Lord will make all finacnially equal if they do not labour equally. I am all for equal pay only if every one does equal work, or iow, they do their fair share.

Here's what the Savior said:

1 For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard.

2 And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard.

3 And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace,

4 And said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way.

5 Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise.

6 And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle?

7 They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive.

8 So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them theirhire, beginning from the last unto the first.

9 And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny.

10 But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny.

11 And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house,

12 Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.

13 But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?

14 Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.

15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?

16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

Equal pay for equal work is certainly useful in its place, but I'm not sure it's a principle of the Gospel.

[David Bokovoy]

Here's what the Savior said:

Equal pay for equal work is certainly useful in its place, but I'm not sure it's a principle of the Gospel.

Very nice. This parable is clearly the answer to Mola Ram Suda Ram's and Selek's concerns. Please know, I'm not pointing any fingers, here. Honestly, I have far too many of my own weaknesses that I need to to work through, but friends, as the Savior taught, if we get caught up in the mindset where we worry about others not working their fair share and therefore not deserving what we receive, we're simply not ready for the Celestial order. This is why charity is the greatest of all gifts and why without it, we are nothing. Charity is the love that a God possesses which manifests itself in placing others and their needs above our own self interests. In my mind, the reason that this parable is so powerful is that charity is the anthesis to the concept of "equal pay for equal work."

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Here's what the Savior said:

Equal pay for equal work is certainly useful in its place, but I'm not sure it's a principle of the Gospel.

This parable only tells us that those that basically confess Jesus at the 11th hour will receive the same reward as those that laboured in the vineyard their whole life or the whole day. What do the scriptures tell us about lazy and slothful servants? They recieve no reward. That sounds like no work for equal pay. And this parable in no way has anything to do with the millennium.

This idea that all will receive equal finances, mainly with focus on today's world is a fantsy and one that does not work. The world has tried it a few times. Of course the main differnce will be that the Savoir will be running the show. Until that happens I can't fathom the idea.

When the Lord returns I take it on faith that he will make it work some how. I have no idea how he will equalize it all. I know right now it simply just wont work as there are evil men in the world. And trying to model a system off of this idea in the past has just been a huge failure. Again I strongly exhort all to not sacrafice today's world for the idea of what the futre will be.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Very nice. This parable is clearly the answer to Mola Ram Suda Ram's and Selek's concerns. Please know, I'm not pointing any fingers, here. Honestly, I have far too many of my own weaknesses that I need to to work through, but friends, as the Savior taught, if we get caught up in the mindset where we worry about others not working their fair share and therefore not deserving what we receive, we're simply not ready for the Celestial order. This is why charity is the greatest of all gifts and why without it, we are nothing. Charity is the love that a God possesses which manifests itself in placing others and their needs above our own self interests. In my mind, the reason that this parable is so powerful is that charity is the anthesis to the concept of "equal pay for equal work."

See my responce above.

BTW, David, I enjoy this thread so far. I don't see you as pointing fingers. I think there are indeed some interesting things to consider what life will be like during the mellennium.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

My favorite.

D & C 42:42

"Thou shalt not be idle; for he that is idle shall not eat the bread or wear the garments of the laborer."

I used to think that this meant that there should be strict care not to give too much or share too much to poor people that "wouldn't work".

However, I have come to see this verse as warning against causing laborers to labor for you in order to profit from the laborer, at least to the degree that one wishes to thereby live a life of leisure (idle).

In other words, this is not a way to view the down-and-out, but a way to view those who have profited.

But I'm very biased, I will admit, in looking at the matter through a certain economic lens that I have decided is right (but that decision was not come to lightly nor devoid of spirit or scripture, of course, but it is a bias).

Perhaps there is more than one way of being idle, and it isn't just either/or.

Edited to add: Btw, I'm ALL about a life of leisure, lol, disclosing that bias as well, LOL.

Actually this verse says nothing about making a prophet off of others. All it tell us is that we should not be idle and expect to pe paid for not doing something.

This verse of scripture actually seems to back up what I have been saying, that is that there cannot be equal pay for all if all don't pull their weight. For that is idle cannot expect to take the bread and clothes of the labourer. This is indeed a powerful scrpture.

[semlogo]

David, you are making a pitch for a socioeconomic system based solely upon your own interpretation of scripture.

Who, then, are you- to cry repentance unto this people?

Have the Prophets made this pitch? Has this been commanded by those with actual stewardship over this Church and this people?

It has not.

Who then are you, to proclaim this new Gospel?

You've run this sales pitch twice now, and it has been closed twice due to politics.

That's not simply the fault of those who responded to your sales pitch, but to the irretreivably, inescapable, and unavoidable political nature of the topic itself.

The most simple reason- borne out by both Mormon doctrine and history is the one I've already pointed out.

You were not called, ordained, or set apart to proclaim an sociopolitical economic theory to this people.

Those given those keys do not and have not advocated your cause.

As for me and mine, we will follow the Lord and his prophets over a new messiah.

You'll note the implied equity of effort here. It doesn't say "What man among you, having twelve sonsand is no respecter of them, and eleven serve him obediently, saith unto the twelfth: Be thou clothed in the same robes and raiment as thy faithful, obedient brothers".

That is your interpretation. Nowhere, however, does the Lord advocate robbing Peter to pay Paul.

You'll note that the Lord advocates for equal opportunity- not equal outcomes. Nowhere does the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the Gospel specify that we will inherit equal kingdoms despite disparate efforts. Those who put out little or no effort- who procrastinate the day of thier repentance- will not achieve the Celestial kingdom.

Note that in the world at large, it is the pursuit of that which is above another that is the problem. It is the pursuit of wealth, and it's attendant of evils of greed, covetousness, and envy which are the problem- not the goods themselves.

CFR- please demonstrate where the Prophet mandated equal (or identical) outcomes for unequal labor.

And the Seer was roundly repudiated by the Brethren, including Pratt himself, if I recall correctly. It is NOT doctrine.

CFR- Please demonstrate for us precisely where this specifies a universal system applied to all the Saints as opposed to the comparatively small community of Saints then at hand.

Please demonstrate where this system was intended to be universal to Zion throughout the world and throughout time?

Pardon me, but this all sounds like someone making a lot of excuses to dismiss a doctrine that he finds disagreeable.

[David T]

This parable only tells us that those that basically confess Jesus at the 11th hour will receive the same reward as those that laboured in the vineyard their whole life or the whole day.

So the Eternal reward is not equal to the amount of work one did, correct?

What do the scriptures tell us about lazy and slothful servants? They recieve no reward. That sounds like no work for equal pay.

I think you're beating up a strawman if you think we're saying people get a free pass to do no work, or slothful work. That's not true at all.

See the Nibley articles linked above, where he discusses this principle ("Work we must, but the lunch is free"). We each have different talents and abilities. The system of the Gospel is that we do what we can do to the best of our ability.

Thus, in the gospel, a business executive who works 60 hours a week to oversee a huge conglomerate isn't worth millions more than a graphic artist who dedicates his time and talents as needed to promoting said business.

And this parable in no way has anything to do with the millennium.

I think there are many applications and layers to the Savior's parables.

This idea that all will receive equal finances, mainly with focus on today's world is a fantsy and one that does not work. The world has tried it a few times. Of course the main differnce will be that the Savoir will be running the show. Until that happens I can't fathom the idea.

Exactly. The whole point is that it isn't a system of the world, for those living in the world. Hence, the Gospel plan to go into the world and make disciples (build Zion in the hearts) of all nations. The only way such a system would be feasable is if all involved have the desire in their hearts to do as such, and have removed pride and entitlement from the picture.

Entitlement (an aspect of pride) is one of the biggest sins of the age.

[David Bokovoy]

This parable only tells us that those that basically confess Jesus at the 11th hour will receive the same reward as those that laboured in the vineyard their whole life or the whole day.

And that's the problem with the Savior's parables. They always just seem too darn difficult to be taken at face value. There has to be a non-literal meaning. Suffice it to say that this parable doesn't simply tell us "only about those that basically confess Jesus at the 11th hour." As illustrated by the Savior's introduction, this parable has a specific context that we are not free to ignore. Jesus' story is a depiction concerning how the "kingdom of heaven" operates.

[alter idem]

WARNING: In my mind, this is an extremely important religious topic and one of the great spiritual evidences for the authenticity of Mormonism. Hence, I'm going to insist that no one contributing to this thread violate board rules by posting contemporary political concepts regarding any specific parties, individuals, and/or platforms. I would like to hear from everyone interested in commenting, and/or correcting these religious views, but will ask moderators to ban anyone from the thread who cannot keep this discussion focused only upon modern revelation. Instead let's put forth a sincere effort to properly understand these important religious precepts within LDS theology. I'm especially interested in hearing some of the reasons (justified via scripture and/or LDS history) that some do not agree with the following interpretation of Mormonism.

LDS Church history and modern revelation has much to say regarding the economic Kingdom of God. The first modern revelation given by the Lord addressing the need for religious and economic equality among the Saints occurred in January of 1831:

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So the Eternal reward is not equal to the amount of work one did, correct?

Eternal reward is not the same as recieving financial gain. This parable is precisly about the Eternal reward. I think it disingenous not fitting to use it to say that in life the guy working at Subway for one hour should receive the same pay as his boss that works 12 hour shifts his whole life. That to me is what you seem to think it says.

I think you're beating up a strawman if you think we're saying people get a free pass to do no work, or slothful work. That's not true at all.

It is called sarcasim. But there is a principal in the gospel that the lazy and slothful servant will not recieve a reward. That was my main point. That is also why, into days society the LoC wont work. To many people want a free lunch and they want to sit on the couch all day.

See the Nibley articles linked above, where he discusses this principle ("Work we must, but the lunch is free"). We each have different talents and abilities. The system of the Gospel is that we do what we can do to the best of our ability.

I agree. That is waht the gospel is about. And only teh saviour can judge the intents of our heart. That is again, why I have said that this system does not work until the Savoir returns.

Thus, in the gospel, a business executive who works 60 hours a week to oversee a huge conglomerate isn't worth millions more than a graphic artist who dedicates his time and talents as needed to promoting said business.

But alas, only the Savior is qualified to judge that. I am confident that he would chastise some one who was not trying his best.

there are many applications and layers to the Savior's parables.

I agree. I still think it a strech to think this parable is talking about how one should operate a business in todays world. Why don't you try it and see if you can stay in business.

Exactly. The whole point is that it isn't a system of the world, for those living in the world. Hence, the Gospel plan to go into the world and make disciples (build Zion in the hearts) of all nations. The only way such a system would be feasable is if all involved have the desire in their hearts to do as such, and have removed pride and entitlement from the picture.

Entitlement (an aspect of pride) is one of the biggest sins of the age.

I agree with every word. It seems as though we are on the same page.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And that's the problem with the Savior's parables. They always just seem too darn difficult to be taken at face value. There has to be a non-literal meaning. Suffice it to say that this parable doesn't simply tell us "only about those that basically confess Jesus at the 11th hour." As illustrated by the Savior's introduction, this parable has a specific context that we are not free to ignore. Jesus' story is a depiction concerning how the "kingdom of heaven" operates.

Yes, but with regards to what specifically? See my responce and analogy about Subway. Eternal reward and earthly financial gain are not the same thing.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Pardon me, but this all sounds like someone making a lot of excuses to dismiss a doctrine that he finds disagreeable.

No he just disagree with David's interpretation of scripture. I think Salek has some valid critisims. But alas Salek cannot defend his own statements.

[alter idem]

Very nice. This parable is clearly the answer to Mola Ram Suda Ram's and Selek's concerns. Please know, I'm not pointing any fingers, here. Honestly, I have far too many of my own weaknesses that I need to to work through, but friends, as the Savior taught, if we get caught up in the mindset where we worry about others not working their fair share and therefore not deserving what we receive, we're simply not ready for the Celestial order. This is why charity is the greatest of all gifts and why without it, we are nothing. Charity is the love that a God possesses which manifests itself in placing others and their needs above our own self interests. In my mind, the reason that this parable is so powerful is that charity is the anthesis to the concept of "equal pay for equal work."

The parable is not talking about actual work--it's talking about how God chooses to reward his servants.

This scripture is probably more an answer to their concerns:

'Thou shalt not be idle; for he that is idle shall not eat the bread nor wear the garments of the laborer'. D&C 42:42

That means 'idle' rich and poor alike.

All were expected to work and if unable to work, to at least contribute under the Law of Consecration. No one was able to take advantage of the others in the community.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I have another thought. I am willing to wager (lol) that during the mellennium there will no longer be money. I am curious on your thoughts on the idea David.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Alter Idem,

Thank you for your contributions, but it's clear that you have not read through this thread, since all of the issues you've raised, including my use of the Seer to provide historical context have already been addressed. Despite the fact that I have in several posts answered this issue, I will however, take the time to point out one problematic issue that you've raised:

No. The Law of Consecration did not involve abandonment of private ownership. It also was completely voluntary, and it was based on the belief that all things belong to GOD.

Clearly if "all things belong to God" then none of us except God have private ownership.

Hope that helps.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hello Alter Idem,

Thank you for your contributions, but it's clear that you have not read through this thread, since all of the issues you've raised, including my use of the Seer to provide historical context have already been addressed. Despite the fact that I have in several posts answered this issue, I will however, take the time to point out one problematic issue that you've raised:

Clearly if "all things belong to God" then none of us except God have private ownership.

Hope that helps.

In the mellennium, that much is true. Right now he has given us a stewardship of things. Which for todays purposes would be a sort of private ownership. What I mean by this is that if I have 3 guitars can you come take 2 of them away? What would give you the right to do that if you did indeed think that you could take them?

When the saviour returns I will glaldy give him all three. And I think that is the key to the whole thing. THat is the we will freely give it. The saviour will not fource us or make us. A lot must change until that time.

[LeSellers]

Clearly if "all things belong to God" then none of us except God have private ownership.

But we do have stewardship, and the steward is allowed to do anything he chooses with the property. It is true he will have give an accounting later to the owner, but in the meantime, his actions are not subject to review by his peers.

Lehi

[David Bokovoy]

Yes, but with regards to what specifically? See my responce and analogy about Subway. Eternal reward and earthly financial gain are not the same thing.

Someone really ought to tell the Lord: "For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Someone really ought to tell the Lord: "For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things

[mercyngrace]

So are you prepered to give all your stuff away today?

If I knew that my family would have what we need? Yes.

Is it fair...

Herein lies the problem. The higher law isn't about being fair. It's about being merciful.

References:

D&C 88:20-21 The celestial law is the law of Christ.

Galatians 6:1-2 The Law of Christ is to bear one another's burdens.

IMO, the problem with a system in which people demand others work for their bread is that it focuses our attention on others instead of on ourselves. At the heart of this is pride, enmity, and comparison which causes respect of persons. King Benjamin taught that we don't ask why the beggar is begging or how he got into his circumstance, we simply help him. The focus is on the righteousness of the giver not the receiver. That's how Zion and its laws are established, from the heart outward, not from legislation or policy inward.

God draws us to him not by our righteousness but by His. We become like Him out of a desire to love Him as He has loved us. This is the key of priesthood power - drawing others to us by OUR virtue and with love unfeigned. As we exercise true charity, others desire to emulate us. In a Zion society, that desire to emulate translates to becoming self-reliant so that we can care for others as someone unconditionally cared for us. Even when that doesn't happen, the willing giver is blessed.

The problem is that too few people have the pure love of Christ and they aren't willing to love people who don't deserve to be loved - which is precisely what Christ did and continues to do. Instead, we worry about whether all the men are wearing white shirts, whether the girls have too many earrings, and we use a letter of honorable release from missionary service as the measure of spirituality and worth. We are too busy looking on the outward appearance instead of following the example of the Lord who "looketh upon the heart".

We are too worried about how others keep the law. Too concerned with justice. And too busy making sure that everything is "fair".

Do you think when Christ knelt in Gethsemane, He quibbled over the exact amount of suffering would endure to save us? I don't think He cared about what was fair. I think He cared about claiming the rights of mercy so that grace could freely be offered to all who would accept it. Can we expect to be a joint-heir with Him if we are unwillingly to bear a little injustice to save our fellowmen?

[mfbukowski]

My favorite.

D & C 42:42

"Thou shalt not be idle; for he that is idle shall not eat the bread or wear the garments of the laborer."

I used to think that this meant that there should be strict care not to give too much or share too much to poor people that "wouldn't work".

However, I have come to see this verse as warning against causing laborers to labor for you in order to profit from the laborer, at least to the degree that one wishes to thereby live a life of leisure (idle).

In other words, this is not a way to view the down-and-out, but a way to view those who have profited.

But I'm very biased, I will admit, in looking at the matter through a certain economic lens that I have decided is right (but that decision was not come to lightly nor devoid of spirit or scripture, of course, but it is a bias).

Perhaps there is more than one way of being idle, and it isn't just either/or.

Edited to add: Btw, I'm ALL about a life of leisure, lol, disclosing that bias as well, LOL.

May I gently suggest that we are getting awfully close here to something which could turn this thread in the wrong direction very quickly.

I think that most LDS have spent a lot of time getting educated to get a "job" and are employed by those who's motivation for employing them is precisely what you are decrying - the "profit motive". I would suggest that there is nothing wrong- in fact that it is beneficial for society-- for people who are creative entrepreneurs to figure out ways for others who are less creative or talented, to make money, while making some for themselves as well. There are people who have no desire to be in academia or work for the government who want to create their own success, and I would suggest that if there was no one like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs in this world, we wouldn't be discussing this because this forum might not exist.

But I am saying that gently, of course, since you mentioned it.

Edit: And most of these individuals are workaholics and are hardly "idle". I think it will be incredibly difficult to make the law of consecration work and will require changes of us all that I think we cannot even fathom.

[mfbukowski]

We might want to discuss what kind of personal changes would be required in our personal lives to actually live the law of consecration. What will motivate people to make new inventions? Are we all willing to live for a subsistence wage so that we all are equal? Or is that an inaccurate way of seeing it?

How can we prepare for the realities of the kind of change we are talking about? Will you personally accept the Bishop's decisions if it doesn't go your way?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Herein lies the problem. The higher law isn't about being fair. It's about being merciful.

References:

D&C 88:20-21 The celestial law is the law of Christ.

Galatians 6:1-2 The Law of Christ is to bear one another's burdens.

Wait just a sec, keep in mind that these comments are intended for the here and now, they are ment to reflect todays living.

I agree that the gospel is about mercy, but you cannot expect people to give (in some cases take) their money away in the name of mercy, for that in and of itself is not merciful to the person that earned the money. And they give that money to a guy that is fully capable of working but refuses to do so. Such is the case that happens today. At the risk of going politcal that is all I will say about this.

The Celestial law is indeed to bear one another's burdens.

I must ask though, are we in the Celestial Kingdom now? Were are in a telestial kingdom right now, should it be expected to live this higher law and force people (I am talking about the general public) to live it? Aw, that was a trick question as the gospel is all about agency to choose. Christ will require that we give all we have, but He will not force us to give it. We will give it freely. That will be another differnce is that we will all be on the same page.

We are too worried about how others keep the law. Too concerned with justice. And too busy making sure that everything is "fair".

I wouldn't say that this is so much the case as knowing that there are evil men who do not do what they say they will do and spend other peoples money unwisely. You must use wisdom in all things. When the Savoir returns I will gladly give all that I can. Right now, it is not wisdom to do that as people are un-trustworthy. And if you know they are not trustworthy should we still give all of our stuff to them?

Keep inmind that I don't disagree with a word you are saying. I just think the timeing is wrong to try and impliment this ideaology.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

We might want to discuss what kind of personal changes would be required in our personal lives to actually live the law of consecration. What will motivate people to make new inventions? Are we all willing to live for a subsistence wage so that we all are equal? Or is that an inaccurate way of seeing it?

How can we prepare for the realities of the kind of change we are talking about? Will you personally accept the Bishop's decisions if it doesn't go your way?

There are indeed some things to consider. I think some serious changes will have to happen before the LoC can work. I had claimed that I doubt there will be money during the mellennium. I don't see a need for it. I think that charity for others will be the motivating factor that will be the force behind people doing things that they do. I also doubt that we will have the jobs we do today. I doubt I will process medical claims or sell guitars.

To be honest I just don't know how this is supposed to work. There are to many moving parts for myself to comprehend.