Mormonism and the United Firm

[mercyngrace]

To me, the idea of money being the best thing to have in Zion to govern how all resources in Zion will be distributed, is akin to imaging money being the best thing to have in Heaven to govern how all those resources in Heaven will be distributed, and frankly, it's just really weird and very strange for me to think of MONEY as something that would be a good thing to have in Heaven, or Zion, where I imagine people do things just because they love others so much that they really want to help everyone to be happy.

Money in Zion, and money in Heaven, including the Celestial kingdom?

If anyone thinks they can help me to see that as anything other than just really weird, please feel free to give it a try. Go for it.

We (Or at least I) aren't talking about Heaven, Ahab, we're talking about a city created by human beings over time in preparation for the Lord returning to govern. At least in the last few pages, we aren't talking about a celestial endstate but a transitional beginning.

Was the widow's mite a good thing? Was it consecrated? Of course!

Do you consider your tithes and offerings a consecration? I do. They represent the same amount of sacrifice as my time, talents, and goods. Not to mention the fact that it is much easier to fit a check into the little gray envelope than a dozen eggs, two lbs of ground beef, and 4 loaves of bread.

[wenglund]

Ahab,

All I hope is that if money is the medium of exchange during the millenium, you are still able to retain your testimony in the restored gospel and the LoC (I certain will be able to retain my testimony if money happens to be discarded). If you are, then no problem. Like MnG said, the money issue is really just a distraction.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

We (Or at least I) aren't talking about Heaven, Ahab, we're talking about a city created by human beings over time in preparation for the Lord returning to govern.

I realize we're not talking about Heaven, but I believe Heaven will be governed by the same principles we use to govern Zion.

So, just to be clear, you're saying you've been talking about how you think things should be in Zion before our Lord's return, rather than in Zion after his return, while thinking our Lord may govern Zion differently than he did before his return?

At least in the last few pages, we aren't talking about a celestial endstate but a transitional beginning.

Are you saying you think Zion may use money before our Lord's return, and then get rid of money after he returns?

If so, I agree with that, because I know there are some people in the Church today (and maybe even outside the Church) who are the people of Zion, today, and I can see that we are currently using money, today. I guess maybe I just got thrown off track a little because I've been talking and thinking about how Zion would be better off without money, rather than just thinking about how things are today in Zion.

Was the widow's mite a good thing? Was it consecrated? Of course!

Do you consider your tithes and offerings a consecration? I do.

Yes, I do, too. I've just been looking ahead to a day I can see when things will be better in Zion, without any need for money.

They represent the same amount of sacrifice as my time, talents, and goods. Not to mention the fact that it is much easier to fit a check into the little gray envelope than a dozen eggs, two lbs of ground beef, and 4 loaves of bread.

I can see that, but since the overall end goal is to get stuff to the people who need that stuff, I'm thinking of the day when we can just phase out the step where we trade our services and goods for money, with the people who want those services and goods simply getting them directly from the supplier(s) with no need for the money.

[mercyngrace]

So, just to be clear, you're saying you've been talking about how you think things should be in Zion before our Lord's return, rather than in Zion after his return, while thinking our Lord may govern Zion differently than he did before his return?

Are you saying you think Zion may use money before our Lord's return, and then get rid of money after he returns?

If so, I agree with that, because I know there are some people in the Church today (and maybe even outside the Church) who are the people of Zion, today, and I can see that we are currently using money, today. I guess maybe I just got thrown off track a little because I've been talking and thinking about how Zion would be better off without money, rather than just thinking about how things are today in Zion.

By George...

[Ahab]

Ahab,

All I hope is that if money is the medium of exchange during the millenium, you are still able to retain your testimony in the restored gospel and the LoC (I certain will be able to retain my testimony if money happens to be discarded). If you are, then no problem. Like MnG said, the money issue is really just a distraction.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm sure that money will still be used by people outside of Zion during the millenium, but it really would bother me to see it being used in Zion after our Lord's return. It wouldn't bother me to the point that I wouldn't still see the Church as part of God's kingdom on Earth, though. i know we are, even though we're not perfect yet and we still have a lot of growing to do. I'd just like to see money get phased out ASAP, at least by those in Zion, if not by everyone else who would still live on this planet.

[mercyngrace]

deleted - because I think we might be on the same page now.

edit: Ahab, I just want to say that I can see you have a very good heart and that your desire is to care for others and I really appreciate that you can see a Zion where charity is our only currency. I've seen that place, too, and from time to time, I've experienced it, even in this telestial world of ours. The real task before us is helping others to catch the vision by teaching them the principles of priesthood - which are based on love unfeigned.

MnG

[zerinus]

I'm now wondering if most of the views people are sharing in this thread are based upon seeing Zion as the ultimate type of society for the best of all people to live in, as a "United Firm", because based upon what I've seen some people say, I hope not.

To me, the idea of money being the best thing to have in Zion to govern how all resources in Zion will be distributed, is akin to imaging money being the best thing to have in Heaven to govern how all those resources in Heaven will be distributed, and frankly, it's just really weird and very strange for me to think of MONEY as something that would be a good thing to have in Heaven, or Zion, where I imagine people do things just because they love others so much that they really want to help everyone to be happy.

Money in Zion, and money in Heaven, including the Celestial kingdom?

If anyone thinks they can help me to see that as anything other than just really weird, please feel free to give it a try. Go for it.

I am sure people in heaven will not have any money. But I don

[Ahab]

deleted - because I think we might be on the same page now.

I think we are too, and that is a good feeling, even though I'm still ready to be rid of all money, once and for all, forever.

... well, at least among all the people I will live with.

[Ahab]

I am sure people in heaven will not have any money.

Well, at least not in the Celestial kingdom, which is what I was referring to when I said Heaven.

But I don

[mfbukowski]

I'm now wondering if most of the views people are sharing in this thread are based upon seeing Zion as the ultimate type of society for the best of all people to live in, as a "United Firm", because based upon what I've seen some people say, I hope not.

To me, the idea of money being the best thing to have in Zion to govern how all resources in Zion will be distributed, is akin to imaging money being the best thing to have in Heaven to govern how all those resources in Heaven will be distributed, and frankly, it's just really weird and very strange for me to think of MONEY as something that would be a good thing to have in Heaven, or Zion, where I imagine people do things just because they love others so much that they really want to help everyone to be happy.

Money in Zion, and money in Heaven, including the Celestial kingdom?

If anyone thinks they can help me to see that as anything other than just really weird, please feel free to give it a try. Go for it.

Big difference.

In the CK we will have everything we want/need. In Zion we will still have physical needs, food clothing shelter etc. The most efficient means of exchange is money. It's just less cumbersome than shells or bananas.

It's hard to get a banana out of an atm. You should try it sometime. And I hate it when my money gets all ripe and squishy. Yuck.

[Ahab]

Big difference.

Maybe now, but that's not the way it needs to be now.

In the CK we will have everything we want/need.

The principles for getting what we want/need will still be the same, though, because just as we can't now, we still won't be able to get everything we want/need all by ourselves with nobody else to help us.

In Zion we will still have physical needs, food clothing shelter etc.

I understand that our needs are a little different now in that without some things we would actually die, whereas after we are resurrected we won't even be able to die anymore, at least not in the way we usually think of as death, but even after the resurrection we'll still need other people to help us get everything we want/need in our lives, otherwise we'll be going without.

The most efficient means of exchange is money. It's just less cumbersome that shells or bananas.

That depends on what you really want, and who has it, I think.

If I have a load of bananas and you want a banana, there is no need for you to give me any money for a banana, because I can just give you one, directly, with the only thing needed to prompt that exchange being the charity in my own heart, well, that, and you also letting me know that you want a banana.

It's hard to get a banana out of an atm. You should try it sometime. And I hate it when my money gets all ripe and squishy. Yuck.

I'll file that bit of info away for future reference. Thank you.

[LeSellers]

I have not conceded that point, and I have told you, as well as I can, how Charity for others is the key to what to you remains a mystery.

It is a mystery because it simply will not work in a world (in which Zion will find herself) with limited resources.

You continue to focus on the "money" aspect, but money is only a convenient tool. The issue is, and always has been in my mind, how does a Zion society allocate scarce resources so as to maximize the happiness of her citizens? You have not answered that question. You have repeatedly waved your "Charity" hand and declared victory.

Charity without resources means everyone dies. We read of the Good Samaritan. The fact is, he had the two denarii, he had money. We read of the widow's mites, and forget that she had two mites, she had money.

All the Charity of the most generous heart cannot make one starving belly full, it takes resources (food, transportation to bring the food to the hungry, heat to cook with, a bowl to eat it from, and a safe place to eat it). Charity will not supply physical wants unless there are materials to supply them.

So I ask once again, how does your version of Zion allocate scarce resources without waste (which means that there will be the greatest possible happiness among the citizenry)?

The motivations of the hearts in the city is a given, so it is, for this discussion, an uninteresting question. How do 400 people eat the 100 bushels of wheat? How do they determine who will use the only tractor, or the three cords of firewood?

Until you answer this question, your Charity is vain.

Lehi

[mercyngrace]

All the Charity of the most generous heart cannot make one starving belly full...

Oh, I don't know about that, Lehi. There was a widow with a full barrel and cruse who might beg to differ. As I recall, she showed charity and she was never hungry again.

Just sayin'.

MnG

[LeSellers]

Oh, I don't know about that, Lehi. There was a widow with a full barrel and cruse who might beg to differ. As I recall, she showed charity and she was never hungry again.

Apples and aardvarks.

How many people lived off of the widow's barrel? (Hint: three, later four.)

By definition, the barrel and cruse were not scarce resources. Therefore, the premise is merely denied, but that does not rebut the argument.

I ask again, if there is any promise that, in a Zion society, all resources would be unlimited, where is that promise? I have not found it.

Lehi

[mercyngrace]

I ask again, if there is any promise that, in a Zion society, all resources would be unlimited, where is that promise? I have not found it.

Lehi

[BCSpace]

I ask again, if there is any promise that, in a Zion society, all resources would be unlimited, where is that promise? I have not found it.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

[mercyngrace]

Yet according to the Church as we have also seen (the link in my siggy), "Zion" is not to be found unless there is private property, the free market (agency to do what one wills with one's property and assets), and no communal system and no equalization.

The word "Yet" implies contradiction. Where do you see contradiction between the Lord rebuking the devourer and helping Zion to prosper and the description of Zion in the Institute Manual?

[mercyngrace]

I know many people who pay full and honest tithes whose material needs are not fully met. This promise is not made within the Law of Consecration, but within the lesser Law of Tithing. So, unless he believes that God is not keeping His promise (a position I reject), then one is left with the idea that the windows of heaven, the restraining of the devourer, and so on, are not exclusively connected to the material world.

If a full tithe payer has NEEDS, he should receive help from the church. That's why we pay fast offerings.

But I reject your the Church's categorization of this chapter's being about the leadup to the Second Coming. Chapters in the Bible are purely arbitrary, and this one is a great example of where the uninspired scribes who did it made a grievous mistake.

I didn't write these chapter headings. I believe they are unique to the LDS edition of the KJV. Nevertheless, modern scripture relates tithing to the second coming as well and modern prophets have related the blessings promised in Malachi.

[David Bokovoy]

Yet according to the Church as we have also seen (the link in my siggy), "Zion" is not to be found unless there is private property, the free market (agency to do what one wills with one's property and assets), and no communal system and no equalization.

BC, just curious. In your mind, what is the difference between the Law of Sacrifice and the Law of Consecration?

[USU78]

Apples and aardvarks.

How many people lived off of the widow's barrel? (Hint: three, later four.)

By definition, the barrel and cruse were not scarce resources. Therefore, the premise is merely denied, but that does not rebut the argument.

I ask again, if there is any promise that, in a Zion society, all resources would be unlimited, where is that promise? I have not found it.

I know of no one who's clear on the mechanics of the cruse and barrel getting regularly refilled. Was it "magic," or was it the magic of neighbors who of their own resources, acquired with money or some other medium of exchange, kept filling 'em up?

Not sure it's apples and aardvarks.

[mercyngrace]

I know of no one who's clear on the mechanics of the cruse and barrel getting regularly refilled. Was it "magic," or was it the magic of neighbors who of their own resources, acquired with money or some other medium of exchange, kept filling 'em up?

Not sure it's apples and aardvarks.

Or could it have been that the widow, who had a right to glean in the fields, was blessed by the righteous who made sure that servants gathered no more than was necessary? Perhaps it had nothing to do money or miracles, but charity.

Leviticus 22:23 When you gather in the harvest of your land, you must not completely harvest the corner of your field, and you must not gather up the gleanings of your harvest. You must leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the Lord your God.

[BCSpace]

Yet according to the Church as we have also seen (the link in my siggy), "Zion" is not to be found unless there is private property, the free market (agency to do what one wills with one's property and assets), and no communal system and no equalization.

The word "Yet" implies contradiction. Where do you see contradiction between the Lord rebuking the devourer and helping Zion to prosper and the description of Zion in the Institute Manual?

It contradicts what seems to be the notion that the Lord provides everything in an isolated communal system.

BC, just curious. In your mind, what is the difference between the Law of Sacrifice and the Law of Consecration?

They correlate fairly well. Living the law of sacrifice leads us to being able to consecrate. They are different, but the one leads to the other.

[mercyngrace]

It contradicts what seems to be the notion that the Lord provides everything in an isolated communal system.

When and where did I say the Lord provides everything in an isolated communal system?

edit: Though you have to admit, manna, quail, and water gushing from rocks is pretty neat. LOL!

[David Bokovoy]

They correlate fairly well. Living the law of sacrifice leads us to being able to consecrate. They are different, but the one leads to the other.

That's what I mean. In what way(s) do you believe they are different? Just curious.