Mormonism and the United Firm

[gurn]

I

[mercyngrace]

I

[gurn]

There is only one resolution for that problem. We, as a people, need to experience a change of heart.

I think you're right. I'm not sure our system is the primary problem, but rather the state of our commitment.

[mfbukowski]

I couldn't agree more.

[David Bokovoy]

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.

"Wo unto you rich men, that will not give your substance to the poor, for your riches will canker your souls! and this shall be your lamentation in the day of visitation, and of judgment, and of indignation... Therefore, if any many shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart not his portion, according to the law of my gospel, unto the poor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment." Book of Commandments, chap. 58, verses 19-20

[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.

It's true, from a legal perspective, these contracts were not "clean transactions." The Saints were simply doing the best they could to implement the Lord's commandments in accordance with 19th century American laws. As Oliver Cowdery stated in the August 1832 issue of the Star,

"The church at Jerusalem in the days of the apostles, had their earthly goods in common; the Nephites, after the appearance of Christ, held theirs in the same way; but each government was differently organized from ours; and could admit of such a course when ours cannot."

[USU78]

It's true, from a legal perspective, these contracts were not "clean transactions." The Saints were simply doing the best they could to implement the Lord's commandments in accordance with 19th century American laws. As Oliver Cowdery stated in the August 1832 issue of the Star,

"The church at Jerusalem in the days of the apostles, had their earthly goods in common; the Nephites, after the appearance of Christ, held theirs in the same way; but each government was differently organized from ours; and could admit of such a course when ours cannot."

I'm actually giddy when I think of the bootstrapping of an economy out of, essentially, nothing or less than nothing that took place in Missouri and Illinois and the Great Basis . . . as well as to a great extent in Ohio.

Those footprints we try every day to walk in are giants', boyz and girlz.

[Avatar4321]

I

[Avatar4321]

I'm actually giddy when I think of the bootstrapping of an economy out of, essentially, nothing or less than nothing that took place in Missouri and Illinois and the Great Basis . . . as well as to a great extent in Ohio.

Those footprints we try every day to walk in are giants', boyz and girlz.

And how should we follow their footsteps?

[Deborah]

There is only one resolution for that problem. We, as a people, need to experience a change of heart.

Which is why I asked the question earlier, what is going to have to happen to get that change of heart given what the early saints went through.

[Calm]

What does the BYU physical facilities plant produce?

Students?

[mercyngrace]

Which is why I asked the question earlier, what is going to have to happen to get that change of heart given what the early saints went through.

If 3 Nephi is the model.... I'd say adversity and persecution.

[Avatar4321]

Which is why I asked the question earlier, what is going to have to happen to get that change of heart given what the early saints went through.

Many are called and few are chosen. And until we let go of the things of the world and begin to act in the way the Lord has counseled to act to be chosen, we will not have the change we need.

[scooby]

I

[Ahab]

I

[LeSellers]

... your group produces really good wheat. It meets your basic needs and you are happy. ... 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.

You ignore the law of comparative advantage. One of the two of you will produce better grain than the other, or will produce it more cheaply, or will have a variety that stores better of something. The other group will have an advantage over the first, even if the first can do both things better than the second. The obvious questions are why? and how?

It's because the group that produces (let's use "cheaper productivity") the best crop is better off buying its mills from the other group (even if the mills are not as good as those it could produce on its own) because its advantage in wheat production means it will produce more by applying the resources to wheat production and using the surplus to buy the mills. In this way both groups are better off, as is always the case whenever two people or groups trade.

A doctor who earned his way through medical school by typing up other students' papers may be a better typist than his secretary, but it will be to his advantage (and hers) to have her type, rather than do it himself, because his resource (time) is far better spent in medical practice than in keyboarding.

There is no exact equivalent in the wheat you hypothesize (one product will always be better in some way than the other). So there is always an incentive to trade because trading increases the wealth of all who engage in it. (Otherwise, they would not trade at all.)

People trade because both parties win, and more wealth is created than if each tries to be totally self-sufficient.

Lehi

[Ahab]

People trade because both parties win, and more wealth is created than if each tries to be totally self-sufficient.

Some people seem to tie the idea of being "self-sufficient" to the idea that a person must produce everything all by himself (or herself), as if it doesn't count it he/she gets some help from other people, and while that may be someone else's idea of what it means to be "self-sufficient", it isn't my idea, because my idea allows for the idea that other people can help me to get what is sufficient for my own self.

In truth, nobody can go it alone, anyway, because everything we have access to as a raw resource was put there by at least one other person, namely God, and I prefer to act in cooperation with him and all of his people who are one with him rather than trying to do it all by myself, and preferably without any need for money.

You talk as if we have to "buy" something from someone else to be able to share in what they produce, and not only is that not necessary, but it isn't as productive as working in cooperation with them, as when the supplier and the utilizer of that resource are both in the same organization.

What the world needs now is not only more love, but to work in cooperation rather than in competition with others, which can be done without any need for money.

[LeSellers]

You talk as if we have to "buy" something from someone else to be able to share in what they produce, and not only is that not necessary, but it isn't as productive as working in cooperation with them, as when the supplier and the utilizer of that resource are both in the same organization.

You do not understand what money is.

What

[zerinus]

Some people seem to tie the idea of being "self-sufficient" to the idea that a person must produce everything all by himself (or herself), as if it doesn't count it he/she gets some help from other people, and while that may be someone else's idea of what it means to be "self-sufficient", it isn't my idea, because my idea allows for the idea that other people can help me to get what is sufficient for my own self.

In truth, nobody can go it alone, anyway, because everything we have access to as a raw resource was put there by at least one other person, namely God, and I prefer to act in cooperation with him and all of his people who are one with him rather than trying to do it all by myself, and preferably without any need for money.

You talk as if we have to "buy" something from someone else to be able to share in what they produce, and not only is that not necessary, but it isn't as productive as working in cooperation with them, as when the supplier and the utilizer of that resource are both in the same organization.

What the world needs now is not only more love, but to work in cooperation rather than in competition with others, which can be done without any need for money.

I have read your posts in this thread with interest, and I have done some thinking about it; and I don

[David Bokovoy]

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 absolutely believe that we as a Church will put into place the Lord's economic system prior to the Second Coming. There are many, many prophetic statements supporting this view, including the most recent quote I cited from Orson Pratt/Brigham Young:

[Olavarria]

I absolutely believe that we as a Church will put into place the Lord's economic system prior to the Second Coming. There are many, many prophetic statements supporting this view, including the most recent quote I cited from Orson Pratt/Brigham Young:

[mfbukowski]

I absolutely believe that we as a Church will put into place the Lord's economic system prior to the Second Coming. There are many, many prophetic statements supporting this view, including the most recent quote I cited from Orson Pratt/Brigham Young:

[mercyngrace]

Realistically, how would this be implemented in today's church?

I would suppose it would be easier to implement after the destruction - we would definitely need a major infusion of humility to pull it off imo.

As far as logistics are concerned, I'll go back to what I said earlier in the thread:

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.

You get a message to meet the bishop at the temple. He takes you and your wife into the temple president's office and reminding you of the covenants you made in this, the Lord's house, he says "Bishop Bukowski, it is time for the saints to live the law of consecration fully. We have hungry and poor among us and it is our privilege to care for them. Will you commit to giving all your surplus to the building up of Zion?"

No papers are signed. But tears are shed and the sweet confirmation is felt by all in the room that this is the Lord's will and that soon He will personally lead a people that is pure in heart.

From that day forward, your bank account decreases and your donations increase. You donate time at the cannery whenever you are able and even deliver food to those in need. Perhaps there is a resurgence of welfare farms and your time is consecrated in service there also. That extra room in your house is converted into a bedroom and you take in anyone who needs a place. You always set extra places at your table and there is always a widow, orphan, single mother with children, or downtrodden brother with whom to gratefully share your dinner. No one feels ashamed. No one feels put out.

If the time comes when you have a need, you approach the bishop or your wife approaches the RS president just as it is done right now.

Come to think of it, we don't need an invitation to a special meeting in the temple. We can do this now.

[Ahab]

Apparently, you do not understand that trading (whether the trade involves money or not) is just a form of cooperation.

I do understand that, and I am all for trading (which is a form of sharing) resources. I'm simply suggesting that we elminate money from our economic system as well as the competition that usually goes along with it.

I have asked several times, and no one has responded, how scarce resources (I assume, absent any indication of the contrary state, that there will be scarcity in Zion and during the Millennium) how, I ask again, will these scarce resources be allocated so as to produce the greatest possible happiness among the children of men?

Why are all those in your camp so loathe to answer, or even acknowledge, this most basic of questions?

Lehi

I didn't see you ask that question earlier, which is the only reason I didn't answer it, but I'm willing to answer it now.

One way scarce resources could be allocated is on a first come first served basis, meaning the first people to get it would have the right to choose how to use it, including who to trade/share it with if they choose to trade/share it with others. Perhaps at this point you might see why I am suggesting that we take money out of the system, because without money as a means to get gain and thus create an unfair advantage for the person with that resource, the first person to get that resource would have one of 3 choices:

1) Use it himself, or herself, for whatever purpose he/she desired.

2) Give it away to someone else who would use it for their own purposes.

3) Leave it there for someone else to get later.

That's just one way to do things, though, and there are many other ways we could all choose to trade/share our resources, and it would be good to bear in mind that some resources can be re-cycled for use in another product, such as taking some steel that was once used to build a car to create something else from that metal, as well as from the other resources that were used to build that car.

[mfbukowski]

Mercy

But I thought we were talking about a change here......!