Mormonism and the United Firm

[LeSellers]

greed, excess, glutony, will not have place in those living the LoC in United Orders. Much of the Gospel is about "sufficient" for ones needs.

You managed to parrot the clich

[David Bokovoy]

Obviously leasing something subject to someone's righteousness would be a very strange real estate transaction, but theoretically both Knight and Young in these quoted instances would retain substantial control over the properties supposedly conveyed.

Indeed, personal control as steward.

[David Bokovoy]

Thereby rendering the issue of "ownership" vs."stewartship" a relatively insubstantial semantic debate (as some of us have conceeded).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

But again, I would submit not insubstantial from a revelatory perspective:

[Calm]

I think we

[David Bokovoy]

Yes, I'm aware of these transactions. They do not, IMNSHO, comply with the provisions of Section 42. The first, because it essentially takes the position that the fee/lessor's interest alone is sufficient to provide for the poor. That is fallacious. It is, moreover, a debt transaction, in which the "purchaser" is deemed a lessee, while the Bishop provides the funds for the acquisition of the property. This does not constitute a "clean" transaction of the kind envisioned by Section 42, where the Bishop claims the "pauper's portion" of the property consecrated, and the consecrator receives back a deed to the balance, which remains his.

The BY transaction was, if memory serves, designed to remove an ambiguity as to what was BY's and what was the Church's. During the early days, and earlier while JSJr was alive, the President held property as trustee and as an individual, but the documents didn't differentiate which was whose. The Trustee-in-Trust transactions were of later date. I don't, therefore, believe the BY conveyancing had much to do with the LOC.

If I am mistaken, I would be happy to be corrected on this.

You've got to be one of the most impressive souls in this forum! No doubt in contemporary legal matters and contracts, my knowledge pales in comparison to yours. But from a historical perspective, I believe that you have misinterpreted these documents. I'll start with the Brigham Young Deed of Consecration.

This Deed of Consecration was part of Brigham

[alter idem]

I think we

[alter idem]

Yes, I'm aware of these transactions. They do not, IMNSHO, comply with the provisions of Section 42. The first, because it essentially takes the position that the fee/lessor's interest alone is sufficient to provide for the poor. That is fallacious. It is, moreover, a debt transaction, in which the "purchaser" is deemed a lessee, while the Bishop provides the funds for the acquisition of the property. This does not constitute a "clean" transaction of the kind envisioned by Section 42, where the Bishop claims the "pauper's portion" of the property consecrated, and the consecrator receives back a deed to the balance, which remains his.

Please take note of my post in response to this document. The Lease/loan agreement was from 1832; the letter I cited from Joseph Smith to Edward Partridge was written in 1833; Joseph directed Bishop Partridge to stop these kinds of transactions. I think that the document should be considered in light of this development.

David may try to claim this change was forced, but as I pointed out, Joseph does NOT say he was forced. He says it is "the Law of the Lord", inferring that Bishop Partridge was misunderstanding how to implement the Law of Consecration.

[David Bokovoy]

I do not believe you have clearly established this at all. Even in reading the evidence you provide, I cannot agree. I believe you are interpreting it incorrectly because events do not support your conclusion.

Then I would humbly suggest that you try and respond to the evidence that negates your view.

Again, there are no occurrences of the terms

[David Bokovoy]

Please take note of my post in response to this document. The Lease/loan agreement was from 1832; the letter I cited from Joseph Smith to Edward Partridge was written in 1833; Joseph directed Bishop Partridge to stop these kinds of transactions. I think that the document should be considered in light of this development.

David may try to claim this change was forced, but as I pointed out, Joseph does NOT say he was forced. He says it is "the Law of the Lord", inferring that Bishop Partridge was misunderstanding how to implement the Law of Consecration.

To support this claim, you need to go back and deal with all of the revelations, both published and non-published, that specifically refute your assertion. Remember, we have historical information connected with this issue. Bishop Partridge was acting under the direction of the Prophet and his revelations. "And the property which they [the Bishopric] receive of the Church, is not their own, but belongeth to the Church. Wherefore, it is the property of the Lord and it is for the poor of the Church, to be administered according to the law.' Joseph Smith, "Revelation on the Duty of Bishops," March 1832, Newel K. Whitney Papers, BYU Library.

[wenglund]

But again, I would submit not insubstantial from a revelatory perspective:

[jwhitlock]

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

I think that this bears repeating in the context of the current discussion. I'll reproduce the link BC refers to here; it's a good document for reference when talking about the LoC.

[alter idem]

Then I would humbly suggest that you try and respond to the evidence that negates your view.

Again, there are no occurrences of the terms

[mfbukowski]

Yes, I'm aware of these transactions. They do not, IMNSHO, comply with the provisions of Section 42. The first, because it essentially takes the position that the fee/lessor's interest alone is sufficient to provide for the poor. That is fallacious. It is, moreover, a debt transaction, in which the "purchaser" is deemed a lessee, while the Bishop provides the funds for the acquisition of the property. This does not constitute a "clean" transaction of the kind envisioned by Section 42, where the Bishop claims the "pauper's portion" of the property consecrated, and the consecrator receives back a deed to the balance, which remains his.

Exactly. I have seen transactions like this done today as a tax-avoidance strategy in which it appears a transfer of ownership has taken place to provide a step up in basis while actually retaining control. The problem is the IRS usually sees right through it and deems it to be a financing strategy - which is what it is.

The BY transaction was, if memory serves, designed to remove an ambiguity as to what was BY's and what was the Church's. During the early days, and earlier while JSJr was alive, the President held property as trustee and as an individual, but the documents didn't differentiate which was whose. The Trustee-in-Trust transactions were of later date. I don't, therefore, believe the BY conveyancing had much to do with the LOC.

If I am mistaken, I would be happy to be corrected on this.

Yours was the input I was waiting for. Thanks!

[mfbukowski]

Indeed, personal control as steward.

You know I think there is still a problem with ownership and stewardship here- in this plan you have not done away with property ownership, you have simply transferred the ownership to the church. As much as I marvel at the wonder that the church is, I personally do not think the church is a perfect organization- it is still administered by humans who make mistakes and do things they should not do. I have seen them happen.

This system really becomes a feudal system where the "lord" is the church and the only entity capable of ownership with the "stewards" being the serfs who work the land and pay a portion to the "lord".

The question in my mind is: if the "lord" is the LORD, I have no problem with it. If the "lord" entity is a human directed organization I can imagine a lot of people having a big problem with it, and perhaps perfectly justifiably. This is where the analogy with Communism is perhaps somewhat justified. You have a human organization, administered by humans, owning everything

All you really have done is transfer ownership to a huge entity, you have not done away with ownership.

If all this happens after the second coming, I think the problem will resolve itself.

[mfbukowski]

But again, I would submit not insubstantial from a revelatory perspective:

[wenglund]

Then I would humbly suggest that you try and respond to the evidence that negates your view.

Again, there are no occurrences of the terms

[USU78]

DB: Also, please explain why the historical deeds of consecration specifically declare that the individual abandons all "ownership" claims.

I will leave this for the lawyers to explain.

A conveyance in trust is, ultimately, a legal fiction created first in Britain as an estate tax avoidance vehicle. The ancient Statute of Uses regulated and normalized the prior practice in 1535 under Henry VIII. A conveyance to a trustee is, indeed, a conveyance absolute in form, but is not a conveyance absolute in reality, and any problem with the paperwork or the way the trust is set up or the way the property is administered can prove deadly to the intended trust transaction.

Who are the beneficiaries, assuming a trust created that complies with Section 42? Both the poor and the settlor/consecrator. The latter had actual control under a reconveyance of some kind by the Trustee-in-Trust, with the early Missouri conveyances creating a leaseback with uncertain lease terms beyond the life-term of the lease "on good behavior." The former were to receive some kind of benefit from the Trustee's ownership of the property, yet that benefit was, at best, deferred until the demise of the settlor/consecrator. A very unsatisfactory system that. The poor's needs were immediate and heart-wrenching. The Trustee/Bishop was abdicating his responsibilities by deferring realization of the consecrated portion, sometimes for decades. True, the "remainder" interest of the trustee/Bishop had far lesser value at the time of the transaction, but when folks were suffering through the Missouri troubles, the Illinois troubles, the Utah War, and the various depressions and recessions that plagued the Great Basin through the 1940s, it is hard to imagine how this was supposed to work in practice.

We cannot ignore the common law's realities on the ground when we read these sections and the way the early Bishops and Trustees-in-Trust papered up the transactions.

[David Bokovoy]

That may be what it says, but that's NOT what happened.

Of course it

[David Bokovoy]

Exactly. I have seen transactions like this done today as a tax-avoidance strategy in which it appears a transfer of ownership has taken place to provide a step up in basis while actually retaining control. The problem is the IRS usually sees right through it and deems it to be a financing strategy - which is what it is.

Yours was the input I was waiting for. Thanks!

USU78 is a highly intelligent, kindly soul. His knowledge of contractual law far surpasses my own. But as I have shown, this historical assessment of Brigham's Consecration Deed is not correct.

[mfbukowski]

True, the "remainder" interest of the trustee/Bishop had far lesser value at the time of the transaction, but when folks were suffering through the Missouri troubles, the Illinois troubles, the Utah War, and the various depressions and recessions that plagued the Great Basin through the 1940s, it is hard to imagine how this was supposed to work in practice.

We cannot ignore the common law's realities on the ground when we read these sections and the way the early Bishops and Trustees-in-Trust papered up the transactions.

Starting with a noble goal is one thing but then the practicalities always intrude.

[David Bokovoy]

There you go- I think no one has a problem with the property being the LORD'S- but being the church's? It's a different thing.

I get that; trust me, I do. What helps me is the perspective that Mormonism is not simply another American Christian sect, i.e. a "church." According to Joseph's vision, we're a political kingdom and that's one of the things I love most about the Restoration.

[David Bokovoy]

Great insight from Dean L. Mays, one of the co-authors of Arrington's book.

"The Church programs are expressed in metaphors that are intricately intertwined with Consecration and Stewardship. A Church calling is referred to as a 'stewardship.' We understand it thus to be not a personal possession, that we can keep for as long as we wish and turn over eventually to whomever we wish, but a temporary grant of responsibility to perform service for Christ. This is precisely the relationship we would have to private property under the Law of Consecration. The extended lesson of working in such stewardships is that we are in fact stewards over all our earthly goods, which denies absolute ownership and enjoins accountability to God, to others sharing the earth with us, and to those who shall live on the earth after us."

Dean L. Mays, "The Economics of Zion," Sunstone, Aug. 1990

[mfbukowski]

USU78 is a highly intelligent, kindly soul. His knowledge of contractual law far surpasses my own. But as I have shown, this historical assessment of Brigham's Consecration Deed is not correct.

I think he was more concerned with the Knight lease. I was judging based on my own experience as a financial planner who deals primarily in using trusts in tax planning situations and he seems to be right on the money. Those type of transactions are considered financing instruments and not a genuine conveyance. It is essentially a sale-leaseback with further options to be exercised "down the road". But if Knight thought it was a genuine transfer, I suppose to him it was if that was his intent.

The BY transaction cited seems indeed not to be problematic- it seems like a simple conveyance to clarify what is his personally and what belongs to him as President of the church

Of course I am not an expert by any means on the historic legal system of Missouri, and I am not an attorney.

I think the point is more about what the legal effect of these transfers really were, not what their intent was. Frankly they appear as if whoever drafted these things were laymen just writing up what they thought looked good. Unfortunately we see these things all the time in real estate transactions especially among relatives who trust each other. They really don't know what they are doing, but they know what they think they are doing.

So for purposes of this discussion I think the intent is what we should be looking at- what is it they were trying to do, not necessarily what the instruments actually did or how well they were drafted.

[mfbukowski]

I get that; trust me, I do. What helps me is the perspective that Mormonism is not simply another American Christian sect, i.e. a "church." According to Joseph's vision, we're a political kingdom and that's one of the things I love most about the Restoration.

I've been asking this but haven't gotten a real answer I think, so let me ask you your opinion point blamk

Do you think we will be officially asked to live the law of consecration- not the spiritual practice of dedicating our lives and time, doing our callings etc, but the actual law of consecration- sign-your-house-over- to-the- church kind of consecration, before the second coming?

To me the answer to that makes all the difference and it seems no one is willing to tackle that question directly.

Just so I am not asking you to do something I am not willing to do myself- my answer is "no"- in my opinion, we will not be asked to do that before the second coming.

I could be totally wrong and missing something- but I am here to learn.

[rockslider]

I've been asking this but haven't gotten a real answer I think, so let me ask you your opinion point blamk

Do you think we will be officially asked to live the law of consecration- not the spiritual practice of dedicating our lives and time, doing our callings etc, but the actual law of consecration- sign-your-house-over- to-the- church kind of consecration, before the second coming?

To me the answer to that makes all the difference and it seems no one is willing to tackle that question directly.

Just so I am not asking you to do something I am not willing to do myself- my answer is "no"- in my opinion, we will not be asked to do that before the second coming.

I could be totally wrong and missing something- but I am here to learn.

Remember your thoughts on traps, seeds, basics? I also remember a comment/question