Mormonism and the United Firm

[mercyngrace]

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?

I'll weigh in, if you don't mind, with my purely speculative opinion based on the events of 3 Nephi.

The logistical administration of the LOC is dependent upon the people trying to live it. I don't believe we will sign anything over to the church for a couple of reasons. First, I don't believe most people will be ready to live the law. Second, I believe those who are ready to live the law won't need to sign anything - their temple covenants are enough. Third, it may be that legal and political conditions prevent "donations" of this magnitude to a church - the SC may occur in a day when churches are persecuted, there is no such thing as "non-profit" status, and we are holding sacrament meetings in our own living rooms.

In the aftermath of the destruction leading up to the SC and the Savior's initial appearance, we will gather and build the city of Zion in which consecration is written in our hearts, no legal paperwork required. From this city will come the law that will govern the earth during the millinium. Perhaps there will be a need for signing over deeds at that point as people learn the laws of Zion and are slowly initiated into an understanding of the kingdom.

[BCSpace]

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?

I postulate that we already have, at least those of us who attend the temple. Our stewardships are our own houses and assets so there was no need to sign over and then sign back. As we know from doctrine, there is no "equalization", so generally no need to transfer our families to a different house or skim our assets. Obviously I don't really know how it will all actually play out, but now that we know what the principles of this law are (agency and private property), it's not unreasonable that we can make some accurate guesses.

[Ahab]

Well, we could take any product in our hypothetical warehouse and examine it in this fashion, and you would soon see that the notions at work in your warehouse scenario are, to put it mildly, simply ridiculous. No such thing could ever work. You talk about "informing suppliers" about what the warehouse needs. ??? What do these suppliers supply? Where do they get it? How much inventory do they keep on hand? Who decides what products get produced and when? Who then produces them? How do the laborers at the production facilities get what they need (and want) to live?

When you stop to think about it all, it really starts to make your head spin.

And yet we provide all kinds of services, including producing all sorts of products, collectively, don't we.

All I'm suggesting, in a nutshell, is that we keep on doing pretty much everything we are already doing, except with one little change, namely, eliminating "money" from our economic system. Well, there would be one other change, too, for some people, if we did get rid of money, and that would be to perform some kind of labor to benefit everyone, collectively, in all of society.

Oh, but... says some well-meaning person... how will you get anyone to do anything if you don't pay them any money? What would be anyone's reason for contributing anything to society? Can't you imagine how many "lazy" people there would be who wouldn't do anything at all except soak up the resources that other people produced with their labors? Don't you see how we need to have something hanging over the heads of each person who works to keep them working, without which the whole economic system would totally collapse for everyone? In other words, don't you see how we need to have some sort of tool to oppress the laborer, to keep those who labor producing?

To such I say: Look, there are already enough free-loaders who don't do much of anything other than soak up the services and products produced by other people, and they get away with that kind of behavior in this day and age because they have something called "money"... something which is pretty much useless in and of itself, intrinsically, with it's whole purpose being for use in trade to get something else of some real value.

The real wealth in this world comes from the natural resources + labor (people working) + some level of skill/ability/intellect/charity to make something from those resources. That's where the real wealth is, and "money" is not necessary to benefit anyone in society. In fact, it is money and people's homage to money that is causing so much trouble in this world we live in.

The laborer in Zion will labor for Zion, and those who labor for money will perish.

Death to money! Let's all agree to just get rid of it, totally, along with any level of "high regard" that anyone has for it!

Big up to Charity! Let's all agree to do what we do to benefit others, collectively, while still providing all of the services we provide, including the services required to produce products, with no unfair advantage to anyone!

p.s. I neglected to mention that one of the many things people could bring to that "warehouse" I spoke of... which could be only one of many other warehouses on this planet... would be titles to real property, such as a title to land. That way, there would be a way for people to get land from other people who are willing to share what they have, even if they couldn't carry it all with them.

[scooby]

This thread is like some kind of Mafia dinner-conversation where everybody's talking in code, except nobody knows each other's codes.

[thesometimesaint]

Ahab:

I don't know as money in and of itself is the problem. After all money is just a means of exchange. More likely it would be the "love of money is root of all evil".

Further I believe D&C 49:20 is instructive here.

[Ahab]

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-

Great analogy!

And FYI, I'm applying the same concept when talking about anyone giving anything through my imagined "warehouse" system, with me realizing nothing we own here is our own, technically, because it actually all belongs to God, our Father in heaven, and Jesus Christ... and everyone else who owns everything they own through the covenant whereby they share everything with them.

[Calm]

That may be what it says, but that's NOT what happened. I mentioned the case of Brigham Young's estate. If the members had given up all claim to private property, why did they believe that anything belonged to them? The way I see it, there is 'theory' and there is 'practice'. They might have theoretically believed they were giving up all claims to their property, but clearly, as in the case of when Pres. Young died, the heirs insisted on demanding what they saw as their property. I don't think you can deny that this did not happen.....

I cannot agree with you that the Law of Consecration abolished private holdings--I do not believe that it did, regardless of the semantics in the deeds--the reality of the situation was that people believed they owned their own consecrated properties; they sure acted as if they did, even passing them down to their heirs.

I think the fact that people act as owners when they believe they are owners no matter what the 'title' they have accepted--steward, servant or other---is the essential reason we need to try and understand what God is really telling us and whether or not how it was practiced, whether the ownership is the eternal reality or a delusion.

[Ahab]

Ahab:

I don't know as money in and of itself is the problem. After all money is just a means of exchange. More likely it would be the "love of money is root of all evil".

Further I believe D&C 49:20 is instructive here.

I realize it is possible to use money wisely, as wisely as possible, but I stand on my assertion that money, itself, is usually used as a tool of oppression and for making the rich/poor distinction in society which creates an unfair advantage among the rich vs. the poor.

For example, just look at what happened after a few people in the banking industry made some really bad decisions, or at least bad for some other people, while still coming out on top for themselves. Millions of lives have been negatively affected by people who have used money un-wisely, and if money had not been a tool with which they could have done their dirty work, it wouldn't have happened.

Money is essentially a tool of power, and that power in the wrong hands causes a lot of trouble. Sure, in the right hands it is possible to do some good with that money, but people can usually do all the good things they do without any "money" involved, whatsoever, because the real power is in the SERVICE people provide to other people, which can be accomplished without money.

For an example of that, imagine all the things that you can do without charging anyone any money to do what you do for them.

[Calm]

This is not just mere

[thesometimesaint]

Ahab:

It was GREED that caused the economic meltdown. IOW the love of money.

Charging money is a separate argument. There is a limitless list of good things people can do without charging money, even if it costs them money. IE. When I give my neighbor a cup of flour. I do so without charge to them, but it still cost me money to replace that flour. I've got good neighbors. They give me some of the cookies that flour help make.

[Calm]

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.

My answer will be "no" as well unless the governments of the world break down and we go back to a subsistence level of existence during the events leading up to the second coming. I see too many potential legal entanglements happening to be able to live the LoC effectively as a community.

[Ahab]

Ahab:

It was GREED that caused the economic meltdown. IOW the love of money.

The opposite of "love of money'" is "hatred of money", and that's what I have, I believe, because I can see a wonderful way to live without anyone having any need to have any "money"... with me defining money as a tool of trade to get something ELSE of some real value.

There is a limitless list of good things people can do without charging money, even if it costs them money. IE. When I give my neighbor a cup of flour. I do so without charge to them, but it still cost me money to replace that flour. I've got good neighbors. They give me some of the cookies that flour help make.

Imagine nobody needing any money now, though, with everyone providing some kind of service for other people.

That flour came from someone who grew some wheat, and that wheat can be grown without the need for any money. All it takes is some wheat seed and some water, both of which God has provided for everyone on this planet.

Everything we have on this planet comes from the natural resources we have on this planet + labor (people working) + some level of skill/talent/ability/intellect/charity to make something from those resources, and none of those resources requires any use of any money. That fact that money is used today doesn't mean that it needs to be used.

All we need is some kind of accounting/inventory tracking system to keep track of what is where, everywhere, and with that we can do everything we are currently doing without any need for any "money" in the economic system, including providing everything we currently use for communication, transportation, service/production, and storage of everything we produce on this planet.

[mfbukowski]

This thread is like some kind of Mafia dinner-conversation where everybody's talking in code, except nobody knows each other's codes.

In the absence of an agreed upon time line- I agree! If we can't even agree on when this will all kick in and what kind of legal system we will be under, if any, it seems discussion of what type of legal ownership we will have is a moot question, much less worrying about where we will get our guitar strings and if Holiday Inn Express will be around for our vacations.

[alter idem]

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.

I suspect that members of the church will live the Law of Consecration before the millenium. However, I expect that it will be done in other countries where the members have very little property or valuables. In time, as it is proven successful, and if things change here in the US (economically as well as spiritually), then, it could be implemented here.

Living the Law of Consecration takes strong faith and it is much easier to implement when it brings the level of prosperity of its members up, rather than initially bringing it down. However, I do think that members in the US would contribute at first to help others make a success of their communities--just as we do now with PEF and Humanitarian Aid etc.

[Ahab]

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

Perhaps you are someone who can answer a question I've had for some time. It appears you might be.

Do you imagine some point in time when authorities in the Church will give people callings to work on a farm, to produce food, and not only produce it, but also to process it and store it in some sort of "warehouse" facility? If so, how about clothing, as well as all of the resources needed to produce clothing, like wool from sheep, and leather from cow-hide, and cotton from cotton plants, and silk from, oh, wherever it is that silk comes from?

If you can imagine some point in time when authorities in the Church will give people callings to work on farms, and ranches, and clothing manufacturing facilities, how about also some callings to work in the electronics industry to produce nifty gadgets and appliances, as well as metal manufacturing facilities to produce some kind(s) of metals?

Maybe? Someday? Someday soon, I hope?

I, for one, would appreciate such a calling, and I wouldn't require any money at all as long as, somehow, all I needed would be provided for me by the others who would be in the kingdom and also working to produce everything we needed.

[mfbukowski]

It was GREED that caused the economic meltdown. IOW the love of money.

Let me suggest that this is not the kind of comment we want unless we want to turn this into a political discussion. I have worked directly creating mortgage backed securities and know this area very well and strongly suggest we take a turn away from this direction if we want to keep the thread open. It was not greed which created the crisis.

[Calm]

we know what the principles of this law are (agency and private property)

Sometimes I feel like there are two completely separate discussions going on in this thread, lol.

[Calm]

This thread is like some kind of Mafia dinner-conversation where everybody's talking in code, except nobody knows each other's codes.

Ah, that explains it.

[thesometimesaint]

Ahab:

What you are describing is a form of barter system. It works fine in small isolated communities that are relatively self sufficient. The problem comes in where a group needs something that that group doesn't/can't produce, or the group that does produce it is too far away, or doesn't desire or need what the first group does produce.

To give but a small example say your group produces really good wheat. It meets your basic needs and you are happy. Now also say my group produce wheat really good wheat and we are happy. What would be the incentive for us to barter for wheat. There wouldn't be any.

Further suppose my group can't make grain mills for some unspecified reason. Now say your group along with really good wheat also makes wheat mills. What would be the incentive for your group to barter with my group for wheat? Again there wouldn't be any.

[mfbukowski]

Further suppose my group can't make grain mills for some unspecified reason. Now say your group along with really good wheat also makes wheat mills. What would be the incentive for your group to barter with my group for wheat? Again there wouldn't be any.

You would do a three or four way trade. You trade the wheat for say, sickles to cut it will and the sickle guy gets the wheat mills- or whatever. You make a list of what you have to trade and what you need- and find different people to swap with to make it work. But I get your point. We have money for a reason.

[Ahab]

Ahab:

What you are describing is a form of barter system. It works fine in small isolated communities that are relatively self sufficient.

The problem comes in where a group needs something that that group doesn't/can't produce, or the group that does produce it is too far away, or doesn't desire or need what the first group does produce.

I don't know why you are limiting the concept I am talking about to a small community.

Try imagining hundreds or even thousands of small communities linked together by transportation and communication, with what each community produces shared by distribution to other communities. That's more like what I am talking about.

You're being far too narrow in your thinking on this issue, as I see things.

Think bigger. Think MUCH bigger.

Think about how the world is now, except with people working without any regard for money.

There really doesn't need to be any money in the world we live in, but if you would feel better if there was some, consider all of the money being "owned" and accessible by everyone, and not only in just one small community, but in everyone in all the communities operating under the same general government, with no rich or poor among them because all of them have all things in common, by common consent.

[mfbukowski]

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

[mfbukowski]

I would regard the D&C quotes as doctrinal in the same way that statements about the Millenium are doctrinal: not for application in today's situation.

Statements which are not part of canonized doctrine are just that: not canonized doctrine.

I think it is clear that when we are not even able to do our home teaching consistently and actually hold callings and pay tithing, we are not yet ready for the law of consecration. When we are ready for it, I will embrace it enthusiastically, but until then it is clear to me we are not ready for it.

It is a bit like "milk before the meat".

Edit: I recall that when I was an ordinance worker, some had a tendency not to find substitutes when they could not or did not want to work as scheduled. The temple president told us that our failure to commit to what we had agreed to do was a measure - and an illustration- of how willing we were to "really" accept the law of consecration.

This was post #2 on this thread- what- 28 pages ago? At least I am consistent.

[Calm]

Perhaps you are someone who can answer a question I've had for some time. It appears you might be.

Do you imagine some point in time when authorities in the Church will give people callings to work on a farm, to produce food, and not only produce it, but also to process it and store it in some sort of "warehouse" facility? If so, how about clothing, as well as all of the resources needed to produce clothing, like wool from sheep, and leather from cow-hide, and cotton from cotton plants, and silk from, oh, wherever it is that silk comes from?...

They already do this to a certain extent, my dad, after he retired and moved to Provo, was called to run the BYU physical facilities plant though he refused the calling due to prior family obligations.

[Ahab]

They already do this to a certain extent, my dad, after he retired and moved to Provo, was called to run the BYU physical facilities plant though he refused the calling due to prior family obligations.

What does the BYU physical facilities plant produce?

I was thinking more in terms of core necessities, like food and clothing and appliances (like refrigerators and freezers and washing machines and dryers and hot water heaters and pumps for pumping well water into a tank for distribution, etc) and nifty gadgets (like cell phones and computers and televisions and communications distribution hubs, etc.), and while I do see how being physically fit helps us all to live better lives by helping us to be more active and productive, I'm thinking the authorities in the Church would assign callings to take care of the more basic necessities, FIRST, while putting us to work as we are, before calling people to work in some of the more "fine tuning" types of callings.

I am in favor of people helping us all to see how we can be more physically fit and healthier, so I'm not saying I don't think your Dad's work would benefit everyone in Zion, but I'm wondering if and when Church authorities might call people to serve to provide the basic necessities to enable those in Zion to be self-sufficient in Zion.

So far, I haven't seen that happen, yet, and I'm wondering if it ever will, considering there may be an even better way for those in Zion to serve and provide for everyone else in Zion that I haven't really thought about yet.

p.s. And, yes, I do realize we can work to provide services and goods (including money) to people outside of Zion and then give some of what those customers/employers give us to Zion, just as we do now with our tithes and offerings. I'm just wondering if and when those in Zion will be self-sufficient on our own, without any need for support from those outside of Zion by laboring for them.