Mormonism and the United Firm

[wenglund]

Is there a scarcity of resources now?

For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves.

Therefore, if any man 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.

Were these verses only applicable to those saints living the United Order in 1834?

It certainly was applicable to the saints then. But, beyond that, we can only speculate since the passage is silent otherwise.

But, even still, I don't know that this passage fully addresses the economic question of scarsity of resources (which includes labor and technology as well as land). How could one be poor and needy to begin with without at least some form of scarcity?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mercyngrace]

How could one be poor and needy to begin with without at least some form of scarcity?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hoarding by those who seek power and to get gain. Those who buy up armies and navies, false priests...

edit: Think of all the food we've sent to NKorea or the food we sent to Iraq that ended up being traded for oil by Saddam's government.

[Avatar4321]

Bottom line, though: It was always intended to be voluntary. He who wished to opt out always was supposed to be able to. This lack of compunction is what distinguishes the Latter-Day UEPT from even the one in Peter's time, when the person who held back might even lose his life for his lack of commitment.

Peter blew it, IMO, in Acts: Ananias and his wife should have been allowed to opt out and tithe. "We have learned from sad experience . . .."

I disagree with your analysis of what happened with Ananias and his wife. It wasn't that they chose not to opt in that got them killed. In fact, Peter told them that they didn't have to and it would have always been theirs. Ananias and his wife sinned because they had lied and said they had given everything but really hadnt. If they hadn't lied, they wouldn't have died.

[Avatar4321]

You're tilting at windmills.

Joseph Smith said that one was the ideal -- no private property. That is clearly expressed in the Book of Mormon and scattered throughout the statements of general authorities. But it seems system he put into place provided for private ownership of stewardships, something less than the Zionic ideal.

Ive read the Book of Mormon atleast a dozen times and Ive never seen this idea clearly expressed or even implied.

[wenglund]

Hoarding by those who seek power and to get gain. Those who buy up armies and navies, false priests...

edit: Think of all the food we've sent to NKorea or the food we sent to Iraq that ended up being traded for oil by Saddam's government.

If there were no scarcity of resources, then it wouldn't matter if people were hoarding. The hoarding simply makes the scarcity manifest.

I would submit, too, that even absent hoarding, there would be still be the poor and needy prior to the rich distributing their wealth. The fact that there is a distinction between rich and poor even under the LoC suggests that there is scarcity of resources at least on a micro level. Right?

THanks, -Wade Englund-

[mercyngrace]

If there were no scarcity of resources, then it wouldn't matter if people were hoarding. The hoarding simply makes the scarcity manifest.

I would submit, too, that even absent hoarding, there would be still be the poor and needy prior to the rich distributing their wealth. The fact that there is a distinction between rich and poor even under the LoC suggests that there is scarcity of resources at least on a micro level. Right?

THanks, -Wade Englund-

By scarcity of resources, do you mean that there is not an infinte amount of resources? If so, I get that.

The way I read the scripture from D&C 104 is that there is enough and to spare BUT we have to be judicious with it because (next verse) if we don't share with those in need we're going to have a very warm afterlife. One of the main purposes of this life is to learn charity (pure religion and undefiled, etc) and we can't do this if there are infinite resources. There has to be need in order for there to be a compassionate meeting of that need (opposition in all things).

Just thinking aloud.

[Calm]

That depends upon whether the LoC exists in heaven. If it does, then I would think that private ownership would have to exist, elsewise how can we consecrate that which is not ours to consecrate.

Even if we did not have possessions, we would still have our time and talent and effort for consecration.

[Droopy]

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

This involves a serious logical problem.

If all things belong to God" then none of us except God have private ownership

All things belong to God.

Therefore, no human beings may own private property.

This is a valid deductive argument, but there is clearly a fundamental problem with the first premise, which begs a rather obvious question:

What does anything belonging to God have to do with it also or concomitantly belonging to his mortal children as individuals managing private stewarships?

In other words, how do you leap from God owning the universe, to no human being having any private ownership in any aspect of that universe? Taken to its logical conclusion, we do not even own, or have power over our own bodies, and therefore anyone, for any reason, for the common good, in a purely communitarian order could use (commandeer) them for their own purposes (such as enslave us to do work for them, or produce offspring etc.).

The problem with David's entire conceptualization here is that, despite what may be his protestations to the contrary, If God owns everything, and if it logically follows from this that humans own nothing, then if follows from this, based upon the principle of equal redistribution of wealth, that everything belongs to everyone and yet no one in particular, including all material things, resources, materials, our bodies and all their attributes. David wants to keep God in the picture by allowing that all things belong to him. However, by claiming that because God owns all things in the universe, that it follows, because of this, that human beings can own nothing privately, David has simply followed the path which all utopian socialistic thought must follow as it coalesces around its central organizing principle of equality.

That path leads, as a matter of both theoretical and practical necessity, to its inevitable end, which is ownership of everything, not by God, but by a central apparatus of control, command and regulation that imposes an equal outcome upon all. In other words, God does not own all property, but everyone owns everyone else's in God's name.

This means, ultimately as well, that as a matter of practical political economy, everyone is living in a society utterly devoid of boundaries, borders, or limits with regard to everything and anything material or physical that has value as a resource. This would, extending the whole metaphysical argument logically, include material things and substances as well as our bodies, our time, talents, skills, abilities and labor.

David appears to have not the slightest recognition of the fantastic economic problems implied by his social model. A society without private property is a society utterly without free markets, and therefore a society utterly without any way of determining what the value of anything actually is at all.

This is a recipe, as all history bears ugly witness, to both economic and social disaster, and I do not believe that the Lord is the author of either.

[wenglund]

By scarcity of resources, do you mean that there is not an infinte amount of resources? If so, I get that.

In a manner of speaking, yes.

However, resources can also be scarce in the sense that they may be insufficient to meet demand--which insufficiency can occur for a variety of reasons other than hoarding. It may be a function of lack of production capacity, as in the case of an unforseen pandemic where there is only a limited supply of the cure on hand and where production of the cure is a long and involved process. Or in the case of people with rare skills, like great artist of the calaber of Rembrant, who have only so many original works to go around.

Resources can also be scarce in terms of technological development. For example, prior to the industrial revolution as compared with today, technological resources were scarce for mass producing goods and services, scarce in terms of mass communication, and scarce in terms of speed and distance of travel, etc.

Under conditions of trade and specialization, there may be a scarcity of job resources. A thriving community only needs so many doctors and teachers and so forth. Because of these kinds of unavoidable scarcities, not everyone can choose to be a doctor. Some people may be left with the option of collecting garbage.

The way I read the scripture from D&C 104 is that there is enough and to spare BUT we have to be judicious with it because (next verse) if we don't share with those in need we're going to have a very warm afterlife. One of the main purposes of this life is to learn charity (pure religion and undefiled, etc) and we can't do this if there are infinite resources. There has to be need in order for there to be a compassionate meeting of that need (opposition in all things).

Just thinking aloud.

I understand your point, and I agree with the spirit of it. It is just that if the kind of scarcities I mentioned above also exist under the LoC, I am just curious as to the mechanism of allocation. Is God going to handle the miriad of economic decisions that are currently being handled by the "invisible hand"?

Just thinking aloud as well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Even if we did not have possessions, we would still have our time and talent and effort for consecration.

Actually, those are things we privately own and possess (intangible though they may be), elsewise, as previously mentioned, how could we consecrate them? How could we consecrate that which is not ours to consecrate?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Actually, those are things we privately own and possess (intangible though they may be), elsewise, as previously mentioned, how could we consecrate them? How could we consecrate that which is not ours to consecrate?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You raise a good point here.

[Droopy]

You raise a good point here.

Yes, its an excellent point, because it implies that the entire egalitarian socialist concept is self negating. If nobody owns anything, then nobody has anything to give. The very concept of charity is abandoned at the outset.

[scooby]

I'm inclined to believe that any government that institutes anything like the Law of Consecration makes it all the more difficult for the Church to institute it themselves.

[zerinus]

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:

[mercyngrace]

Actually, those are things we privately own and possess (intangible though they may be), elsewise, as previously mentioned, how could we consecrate them? How could we consecrate that which is not ours to consecrate?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes. The steward still has to choose how to use his talents per the parable.

[David Bokovoy]

I'm not convinced that the scriptures tell us we need to give all our things to anyone but God.

Which is precisely why this thread is so important. More Latter-day Saints need to understand what the scriptures "tell us" on this matter. Too many of us have neglected our duty to take the Doctrine and Covenants seriously in our study. Through modern revelation, the Lord has declared: "See that ye

[David T]

In other words, right now, to get into the spirit of things, if you are able, increasing your regular fast offerings might be a very good idea.

[David Bokovoy]

Actually, those are things we privately own and possess (intangible though they may be), elsewise, as previously mentioned, how could we consecrate them? How could we consecrate that which is not ours to consecrate?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Private property exists within the world and its secularly driven institutions. Saints entering into the kingdom of God forsake the world and accept the Lord

[William Schryver]

First of all, I must confess that I have not read this thread, not even the entire OP (although I did scan through it). So I may very well be missing important elements of the discussion that has already taken place. That said, (and forgive me if this has already been addressed; just point me to where) I do have a few general questions that are always on the list when it comes to the topic of the Law of Consecration and building up of Zion (topics very near and dear to my heart). So, here is my first set of questions:

• 
  
• Is wealth created? If so, how?
  `
  
• Must wealth be created by those living the Law of Consecration?
  `
  
• How is wealth created within the context of a society living the Law of Consecration?
  
  

I am overwhelmingly busy these days with pressing priorities, but I'll try to check back later today or this evening in order to see the progress of the thread.

[Olavarria]

The United order is definatly the way to go. But there are a handful of things I see as getting in the way.......

1)Pride. I can easily imagine a situation where people leave the Order, and maybe the Church, over what they view as an unfair assignment of stewardships. "Why does Bro. Jones get the house on the beach when it's closer to my job."

2)Lack of commitment. How many people would actually jump on this wagon and see it through the challenges it will undoubtably face? As the cliche goes, if so many of us are struggling with tithing and hometeaching how could we possibly....you know the rest.

3)Love(see #1). If you are exceptionally bright and talented and have a small family, you know that you will not see as much as you put in. It's gonna take a special kind of love to see other, bigger families get the reward for your work. "Why do the Spanish wards get all the Mc Mansions while my Ivy League educated, 1 child family has to live in this apartment?"

The Lord is at the helm, so I guess He'll challenge us to live it when the time is right.

[mercyngrace]

However, resources can also be scarce in the sense that they may be insufficient to meet demand--which insufficiency can occur for a variety of reasons other than hoarding.

Of course - that was just the first thing that popped into my head because greed is a common charge of anti-capitalists.

I understand all the other reasons for scarcity but the question becomes whether we actually need the resource we consider scarce. You can never get enough of what you don't need...

I understand your point, and I agree with the spirit of it. It is just that if the kind of scarcities I mentioned above also exist under the LoC, I am just curious as to the mechanism of allocation. Is God going to handle the miriad of economic decisions that are currently being handled by the "invisible hand"?

Just thinking aloud as well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm not sure true scarcity would have to exist under the LOC. We'd have to completely reprioritize our lives such that every man worked and shared his talents and goods freely without thought of recompense and so that every man taught his skills freely to all who desired to learn. We would have to be willing to rejoice and suffer together. This is why I posted earlier that it begins with an individual and then like minded individuals come together until all eventually see this as the best way to operate. The economic decisions would be handled simply by individual righteousness. See a need and fill it. Have a surplus and share it.

[Deborah]

It seems to me all these times when the LOC was fully practiced it was within the community of God, which was separate from the World. In other words to truly practice it the way God intended one can only do it under principles of righteousness, which precludes any coercion and requires true Christlike love.

In God's Kingdom prosperity will abound. One reason that there are no rich nor poor is that there is such an abundance of goods that all can partake. However, that abundance comes from everyone doing their part and working together. Those who give do so freely and out of love. Those who receive, do so graciously and without demanding more. All work together according to their capacity. I think of how the early temples were built, with tremendous sacrifice and with each and every person doing what they could to participate, whether it was sewing clothes for the workers, taking them food or laying the bricks. Those beautiful structures came about by all being united in one purpose and willing to put everything on the line so that all could enjoy the fruits.

[David Bokovoy]

This involves a serious logical problem.

If all things belong to God" then none of us except God have private ownership

All things belong to God.

Therefore, no human beings may own private property.

This is a valid deductive argument, but there is clearly a fundamental problem with the first premise, which begs a rather obvious question:

What does anything belonging to God have to do with it also or concomitantly belonging to his mortal children as individuals managing private stewarships?

Because in modern revelation, stewardship is not the same thing as "ownership."

The problem with David's entire conceptualization here is that, despite what may be his protestations to the contrary, If God owns everything, and if it logically follows from this that humans own nothing, then if follows from this, based upon the principle of equal redistribution of wealth, that everything belongs to everyone and yet no one in particular, including all material things, resources, materials, our bodies and all their attributes. David wants to keep God in the picture by allowing that all things belong to him. However, by claiming that because God owns all things in the universe, that it follows, because of this, that human beings can own nothing privately, David has simply followed the path which all utopian socialistic thought must follow as it coalesces around its central organizing principle of equality.

As I have illustrated throughout this thread, this is not "my" conceptualization. All I have done is quote modern revelation and illustrate the ways the Prophet Joseph and his contemporaries not only conceptualized, but applied these revelations from God. The Law of Consecration is based upon the principle that the earth and all things therein belong to the Lord (D&C 104:14). Man has no legal right to the earth and its wealth. Since Hyrum Andrus has been mentioned in this thread, let's provide the following quote from his masterful study on the issue:

[mercyngrace]

Concerning this issue, the Prophet Joseph taught,

[William Schryver]

Just in case my prior post got lost in the shuffle, here's the link to it: My Questions