Mormonism and the United Firm

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I know of no liberal-leaning LDS Christians who think that Swedish-style socialism is comparable to Soviet Union-style socialism.

Who argued that? Nice strawman.

[William Schryver]

Were they paid? If so, by who?

No one will work without being paid, unless they're a slave and have no other choice except death.

The better question is: where did the labor and materials come from to construct the 37 miles of the Utah Central Railroad? Where did the locomotives and other rolling stock come from? Did "unity" bring them into being? I don't think so.

I will tell you this: the final spike, driven by Brigham Young himself, had the words "Holiness to the Lord" engraven upon it.

[Deborah]

The reason that these methods were changed is do to the Americanization of the Church, but that is a politically charged issue that would violate board rules.

You keep referring to the Americanization of the church but don't explain what it means. But I wonder if what you term Americanization is merely growing to a point where the saints are so scattered that they are unable to work in such a united way. It seems that living the LOC as the early saints did you need a closed system where the people are gathered in one place. Furthermore many statutes today prohibit the kinds of activity the early saints did, particularly in construction where you have multiple requirements for licensing and inspection, etc.

On another note those evil Americans are some of the most generous people in the world and contribute far more than any other nation to help the needy throughout the world. I think that a large part of our modern application of the LOC is found in the church's humanitarian efforts throughout the world.

[BCSpace]

I know of no liberal-leaning LDS Christians who think that Swedish-style socialism is comparable to Soviet Union-style socialism.

Who argued that? Nice strawman.

I am not a liberal-leaning LDS Christian, but I would make that comparison as the princples are all the same. One "style" has simply taken it as far as it can go. However, for those who differentiate, notice that there was no "Soviet-style" in JS's time and JS still denied any such comparison to the LoC:

Some have suggested that the practice of the law of consecration and the system of the united order are only a religious kind of socialism or communism. Others assert that it was a development either from the economic philosophies of Joseph Smith

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am not a liberal-leaning LDS Christian, but I would make that comparison as the princples are all the same. One "style" has simply taken it as far as it can go. However, for those who differentiate, notice that there was no "Soviet-style" in JS's time and JS still denied any such comparison to the LoC:

And yet I wonder why some members are hell bent on socialist policies? Makes me wonder.

[David Bokovoy]

I'm sorry you interpreted my questions as condescending. I can't imagine why you did. They were not intended in that fashion. Not at all. I can only chalk it up to the constant difficulty of interpreting tone via message board.

Nonetheless, they are sincere questions. From what I could see of the previous posts on the thread, those issues had not been addressed. My previous thought and study of this issue is such that I am convinced that these questions must be addressed, otherwise any discussion of the LoC is entirely moot.

I am also convinced that you have not considered them. Frankly (and I don't say this condescendingly) I think your perspective on a society living the Law of Consecration is extremely naive and lacking in terms of its possibilities for practical application. Perhaps I am wrong in making this judgment. Hence my questions.

"Unity" never built a bulldozer. Only bulldozer factories build bulldozers. Assuming bulldozers will be needed in a society living the LoC, how will they be produced?

If you'll read the thread, Will, you'll see that I really haven't done much more than present the revelatory principles the Lord has provided together with the ways the Saints of God have historically understood and applied those prinicples. In fact, I specifically requested that this thread not delve into specifics in terms of current application because the moment that occurs the discussion becomes politically charged and we loose focus. You may view these principles I've presented throughout this thread as "extremely naive," but Joseph didn't.

Moreover, I have never pretended to hold all the answers, certainly not in terms of how the Lord's system will apply specifically in every single circumstance around the world. The truth is that no one does. The Lord has revealed the principles and basic patterns. As I see it, we should look towards the historical application of these revelations by the Saints of God. I suspect that the individual application in various circumstances will then be left to local priesthood leaders seeking guidance from the Lord in terms of personal application and stewardships.

[David Bokovoy]

And yet I wonder why some members are hell bent on socialist policies? Makes me wonder.

This is what I warned against at the beginning of this thread in terms of turning this discussion of Gospel principles and their historical application by the Latter-day Saints into a politically charged discussion. I'm going to ask all offenders to please cease so that the discussion can continue. If anyone cannot refrain, please disengage.

[David Bokovoy]

You keep referring to the Americanization of the church but don't explain what it means.

Again, I'm not going to discuss this point. It's too politically charged and will violate board rules. We should be able to stick to the topic at hand without exploring these issues.

[BCSpace]

I am not a liberal-leaning LDS Christian, but I would make that comparison as the princples are all the same. One "style" has simply taken it as far as it can go. However, for those who differentiate, notice that there was no "Soviet-style" in JS's time and JS still denied any such comparison to the LoC:

And yet I wonder why some members are hell bent on socialist policies? Makes me wonder.

Just one of those long time entrenched Mormon mythologies that people grow up with and some cling to. I remember first teaching the LoC in a GD class long ago and before I prepared the lesson, I was under that same impression. But as I studied what the Church actually teaches about it, my eyes were opened and so were many others during the lesson.

[mfbukowski]

It is the former. And if you seriously believe there will be "no need for wealth creation," then I can only say that you are mistaken. Grossly mistaken. Without continuous production of more wealth, civilization would cease.

Well it appears that you are talking about bulldozers in the Millenium, and I find that a little speculative. We don't exactly have an economic model for what would happen having Christ as King. Conditions during the Millenium will obviously be quite different than they are now and though clearly we need to change ourselves individually into a "Zion People".

We are told that spirits and resurrected beings will visit the earth on a regular basis and that people will be translated when they reach the "age of a tree". That could make retirement planning a bit more predictable, but I suppose I will be out of work as an estate planner. I think it is a little speculative at this point to worry about business opportunities under these conditions. I would not want to be in the funeral business.

I can't imagine a more speculative thing to worry about frankly. I will stick to making sure I am ready to do all my bishop will ask me to do during that time. I think we cannot possibly understand the conditions well enough to actually plan for it.

I still like the day trading idea. All we would have to do is ask a resurrected being what the market will do tomorrow.

[William Schryver]

You may view these principles I've presented throughout this thread as "extremely naive," but Joseph didn't.

I never suggested that the "principles" are naive. Why do you want to misrepresent what I did say? Here is my actual quote:

I think your perspective on a society living the Law of Consecration is extremely naive and lacking in terms of its possibilities for practical application.

As far as I'm concerned, no discussion about the Law of Consecration has ever been disputed on the basis of the principles involved. The only real questions have always been in terms of its practical application.

With this thread, you have thrown down the gauntlet, as it were, for the Saints to live the economic order of the City of Enoch. Believe me, I'm all for it! But we'd better damn well know how to apply it practically before we set out. All this vague talk of "unity" isn't going to cut it. It will result in NOTHING.

As I see it, we should look towards the historical application of these revelations by the Saints of God.

What "historical application" are you talking about? Something from the 19th century? Because if that's what you mean, I'm afraid you're on weak ground, since it's quite obvious the Saints NEVER figured it out between 1830 and today. I'm afraid you're going to have to go back to the time of Enoch, and unfortunately, I'm not aware of any record of their practical application of these principles.

Look, you're the one who is acting like you want to talk about this stuff. I'm willing. But all this vague and dreamy talk about the Saints uniting themselves and their resources is just a bunch of bunk, if you ask me. It reminds me of the late 60s flower children who fancied that they'd start a commune; get back to the land, and set their souls free. They didn't have a freaking clue about how to practically implement such a vague and idealistic dream. So, they moved back to their apartments in the city, and they're still talking about the "good old days" of the commune whenever they run into each other in the supermarket while buying their milk and bananas in 2010.

Well, we've had the talking part of the Law of Consecration down pat for almost two hundred years now. I'm ready to see some action following up those pretty words. But what I have found is that there is not hardly a single soul who seriously gives the matter any thought, let alone one who possesses answers to the practical challenges that would be faced in such an undertaking.

[BCSpace]

As far as I'm concerned, no discussion about the Law of Consecration has ever been disputed on the basis of the principles involved. The only real questions have always been in terms of its practical application.

With this thread, you have thrown down the gauntlet, as it were, for the Saints to live the economic order of the City of Enoch. Believe me, I'm all for it! But we'd better damn well know how to apply it practically before we set out. All this vague talk of "unity" isn't going to cut it. It will result in NOTHING.

Agreed. What's really troubling is this intentional and frantic avoision of talkling about the practical applications. It's not all DB's fault. A few other squeamish people have done their share of making everyone gun shy about the practical application because, imho, the Church's view of the practical applications is against their own.

[rockslider]

No one will work without being paid, unless they're a slave and have no other choice except death.

The better question is: where did the labor and materials come from to construct the 37 miles of the Utah Central Railroad? Where did the locomotives and other rolling stock come from? Did "unity" bring them into being? I don't think so.

I will tell you this: the final spike, driven by Brigham Young himself, had the words "Holiness to the Lord" engraven upon it.

I wondered if they were paid by a government organization. But it does not matter, I was leading towards the following concept:

Around 2003, I spent 3 months living/working in Taiwan. I gained a whole new appreciation for our beatified cities, animal control, water/sewer systems etc.

I would suggest that it IS a concept of unity that makes these things so. It might not be a perfect unity, but non-the-less a unity. It

[David Bokovoy]

I never suggested that the "principles" are naive. Why do you want to misrepresent what I did say? Here is my actual quote:

As far as I'm concerned, no discussion about the Law of Consecration has ever been disputed on the basis of the principles involved. The only real questions have always been in terms of its practical application.

With this thread, you have thrown down the gauntlet, as it were, for the Saints to live the economic order of the City of Enoch. Believe me, I'm all for it! But we'd better damn well know how to apply it practically before we set out. All this vague talk of "unity" isn't going to cut it. It will result in NOTHING.

What "historical application" are you talking about? Something from the 19th century? Because if that's what you mean, I'm afraid you're on weak ground, since it's quite obvious the Saints NEVER figured it out between 1830 and today. I'm afraid you're going to have to go back to the time of Enoch, and unfortunately, I'm not aware of any record of their practical application of these principles.

Look, you're the one who is acting like you want to talk about this stuff. I'm willing. But all this vague and dreamy talk about the Saints uniting themselves and their resources is just a bunch of bunk, if you ask me. It reminds me of the late 60s flower children who fancied that they'd start a commune; get back to the land, and set their souls free. They didn't have a freaking clue about how to practically implement such a vague and idealistic dream. So, they moved back to their apartments in the city, and they're still talking about the "good old days" of the commune whenever they run into each other in the supermarket while buying their milk and bananas in 2010.

Well, we've had the talking part of the Law of Consecration down pat for almost two hundred years now. I'm ready to see some action following up those pretty words. But what I have found is that there is not hardly a single soul who seriously gives the matter any thought, let alone one who possesses answers to the practical challenges that would be faced in such an undertaking.

Suffice it to say that even though I cannot go into the details, I happen to know for a fact that you are wrong and that the historical patterns and revelations are being applied with considerable success in some third world settings. I believe that in the not too distant future, we'll see some interesting growth in terms of practical application very much modeled after the patterns set forth in 19th century Mormonism. The Perpetual Education Fund was just the beginning.

[BCSpace]

Well, we've had the talking part of the Law of Consecration down pat for almost two hundred years now. I'm ready to see some action following up those pretty words. But what I have found is that there is not hardly a single soul who seriously gives the matter any thought, let alone one who possesses answers to the practical challenges that would be faced in such an undertaking.

I'm going to come right out and postulate (based on the fact, among others, that the Church has said it's not a communal life) that the application of the LoC in our society will not involve an initial selling of our property for redistribution. Can you imagine the problems that would cause? Why not remain in your own house? The Church has defined "equal" as not materially equal, but equal according to wants and needs. So what if my family of 9 has a 2700 sq ft house and someone else's family of 9 has a 5000 sq ft house? What would the purpose be to sell both houses and put each family in a 3850 sq ft house other than an antiGospel-like equalization? For some very extreme cases, perhaps a selling off of multiple properties to meet some existing need, but generally there will be no such thing. We are no longer a community of subsistence farmers where such an initial redistribution might make some sense.

What about those with no place to live? The proper application of the LoC in our modern society will simply be an expansion of tithing and fast offerings imho. Some will be giving more than 10% and alll will be providing other things like physical labor or the resources of companies they own. But all will be living essentially as they are now. Making and saving money, building and amassing capital and resources, and having no one to tell them what or how to do it, succeeding or failing on their own merits. The Bishop will determine needs in the ward and ask everyone for what they can give and they will give. There will be no taking. People who consistently fail will be have to modify their behavior or be cast out or have their aid reduced, just as it is now.

[William Schryver]

I wondered if they were paid by a government organization. But it does not matter, I was leading towards the following concept:

Around 2003, I spent 3 months living/working in Taiwan. I gained a whole new appreciation for our beatified cities, animal control, water/sewer systems etc.

I would suggest that it IS a concept of unity that makes these things so. It might not be a perfect unity, but non-the-less a unity. It

[rockslider]

Well, you're talking about "beautiful cities, parks, highways, schools, etc.," that were built under the auspices of a capitalist system. If the Law of Consecration can't improve on that system, then I can't see why anyone would ever choose it, can you?

I am of the opinion that an economic order based on the Law of Consecration (and the other laws of the Gospel) would not only be superior to our current system, but VASTLY superior!

"Imagine the perfect

[David Bokovoy]

Well, you're talking about "beautiful cities, parks, highways, schools, etc.," that were built under the auspices of a capitalist system. If the Law of Consecration can't improve on that system, then I can't see why anyone would ever choose it, can you?

I am of the opinion that an economic order based on the Law of Consecration (and the other laws of the Gospel) would not only be superior to our current system, but VASTLY superior!

I am of the opinion that the Zion of Enoch did not flee--it left of its own accord, on its own timetable, and under its own power. The capacity to do that was the natural byproduct of 365 years of living the Law of Consecration. I don't believe mankind has even come close to "catching up" with them yet.

Anyway, I'm disappointed that all that is apparently desired with this thread is a campfire singalong about the fabulous glories of ... something or other. I guess I'll leave again now.

Sorry I troubled anyone with my silly questions ...

You can belittle the objective here Will. But until individuals correctly understand the principles, no one can ever successfully apply them. And as manifested by all of the opposition throughout this thread, as a whole, we're not even close to comprehending the precepts set forth concerning the Lord's economic order as set forth in the Doctrine and Covenants. The D&C, my friend, is the blue print to the society of Enoch.

[William Schryver]

DB:

Suffice it to say that even though I cannot go into the details, I happen to know for a fact that you are wrong and that the historical patterns and revelations are being applied with considerable success in some third world settings.

These efforts, as laudable as they may be in their respective contexts, are not being endorsed by nor administered by the Priesthood. If you don

[David Bokovoy]

DB:

These efforts, as laudable as they may be in their respective contexts, are not being endorsed by nor administered by the Priesthood. If you don

[Avatar4321]

Please don't misunderstand me. As I have stated previously, this is a topic of supreme importance to me. It is one of supreme importance to the future of Saints. I have given it much thought and research. If you somehow think that my underlying motive is to defend a capitalist-style economy, you are grossly mistaken. Quite to the contrary, I am convinced that when the Saints choose to live the Law of Consecration, it will result in the capacity to build a city "in a day," as it were.

So, describe how a Caterpillar D10 will be produced under the system you have imagined.

I'm curious about your thoughts on the matter. I must admit, the question you posed isn't one I've been thinking about much. I mean I know wealth producing theories but I never asked the question in a LoC context.

Granted discussion of this might not be appropriate for this thread, not sure. but I am very interested.

[William Schryver]

You can belittle the objective here Will. But until individuals correctly understand the principles, no one can ever successfully apply them. And as manifested by all of the opposition throughout this thread, as a whole, we're not even close to comprehending the precepts set forth concerning the Lord's economic order as set forth in the Doctrine and Covenants. The D&C, my friend, is the blue print to the society of Enoch.

I wasn't belittling any objective, David! What are you talking about? Do you mean the objective of understanding the principles of the "Lord's economic order"? Well, I've seen no evidence today that you or anyone else here has that understanding. I don't mean that in an offensive way. Not at all. I just think that all your talk about these "principles" amounts to little more than (as I said above) a bunch of hippies on acid in 1967, talking about how beautiful it would be if we could all just live together in peace and harmony. When you can tell me, in practical terms, how to build a city of Zion, then I'll be interested in what you have to say on this topic. If all you're going to do is throw out some effectively meaningless talk about "unity," "equal distribution of wealth," and the sort, well, then I have better things to do.

No offense intended. Really. I guess I just have different ideas about this topic than you do. That's cool. I'll move on and let this discussion proceed without me.

[William Schryver]

Well, I suspect you'd be surprised to learn the history of the PEF. With a bit of background, you wouldn't be so dismissive of these efforts.

Now who's being condescending?

At any rate, I am fairly aware of how the PEF was originally funded.

[mercyngrace]

"Wealth" is a great many things. Roads are wealth. Bridges are wealth. A dairy producing milk and cheese is wealth. Wheat growing in a field is wealth. Tractors to till the earth are wealth. Fuel to run the tractors is wealth. Water and the delivery systems constructed to bring it to homes and fields is wealth. Even in our present capitalist society, the vast majority of "wealth" is not personal in terms of who actually holds it.

Incidentally, what does your husband (and you, if applicable) do for a living? Or, in other words, where does your personal "wealth" come from?

I agree, much of our societal wealth is communal.

Let's assume that my husband is an architect.

How can "virtue" magnify industrial efforts? I don't understand the connection.

And what does the "celestial world" have to do with these questions? We don't live in a celestial world.

Follow-up question to the first set of questions: How do you imagine large-scale transportation systems and other kinds of civilization infrastructure will be constructed in a society living according to the Law of Consecration?

BOM promises a righteous people will prosper in the land and people who have been able to part the veil have access to greater knowledge and power than those who don't. Nephi built a ship without prior experience. The Jaredites traveled with glowing stones.

We are talking about the LOC, which if you've read my comments in this thread, I have repeatedly stated can only be formed by a Zion people, people who are righteously motivated and live by the laws of the celestial kingdom. The world these beings create is celestial whether it is within a home, a ward, or a larger community.

Teleportation? Actually, if you have everything you need where you are, how much travel do you really need to do (large-scale)? If I didn't have to move for employment or education, if I had clean, local, recreational ares, and lived in a pleasant community surrounded by family and friends, I'd probably travel very little. But I've spent my entire adult life on the road so I have a healthy appreciation for putting down roots.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Suffice it to say that even though I cannot go into the details, I happen to know for a fact that you are wrong and that the historical patterns and revelations are being applied with considerable success in some third world settings.

What is the point of this thread? To be vauge? How does that help any of use out?