Mormonism and the United Firm

[rockslider]

Why was Hyrum Andrus censured (actually threatened with excommunication, iirc) for his public teachings?

When you truly seek for Zion, then comes the trial of your faith. If I might use Hyrum's words, God set him a sail, on the rapids of the Mighty Colorado River, in a leaky bathtub, with no rudder. A trial of contradiction, the true test.

[David Bokovoy]

When you truly seek for Zion, then comes the trial of your faith. If I might use Hyrum's words, God set him a sail, on the rapids of the Mighty Colorado River, in a leaky bathtub, with no rudder. A trial of contradiction, the true test.

Suffice it to say that this great man is in full fellowship today.

[Nomad]

William Schryver-

... 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.

This is one of the few level-headed statements I have read on this thread. Pretty funny, too.

Of course, you and I have talked about this topic before and I know where you're coming from and I agree with you 100%.

Some of our brothers and sisters here, for all their good intentions, remind me of the ridiculous chapter in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged where the "elite few" go off and construct their own little city, complete with a monorail, hanging gardens, and public fountains (so to speak). Just as Ayn Rand's super-capitalists couldn't really have done such a thing without the proletariat to assist them, neither could Br. Bokovoy's envisioned (as I understand it) proletariat society of the common man really succeed with nothing besides the existing scriptural references of the Law of Consecration to guide them. It would require the talent and vision of an Enoch, or someone like him, in order to actuate the entire endeavor. When it's finally time for the city of Zion to be built, I believe its "Enoch" will appear.

[David T]

Suffice it to say that this great man is in full fellowship today.

I'm actually wondering why the Hyrum Andrus topic was requested to be closed, as I'm interested in continuing to comment there as I continue to listen to the lectures.

[Nomad]

When you truly seek for Zion, then comes the trial of your faith. If I might use Hyrum's words, God set him a sail, on the rapids of the Mighty Colorado River, in a leaky bathtub, with no rudder. A trial of contradiction, the true test.

What exactly does that mean?

It sure sounds to me like a self-serving and self-justifying excuse. I've never known God to direct people in such a way that they run afoul of the leadership of His church.

Do you know why he was censured but just don't want to reveal it for fear of alerting people to the fact that there might be some kind of inherent flaw in what he was teaching?

[David Bokovoy]

What exactly does that mean?

It sure sounds to me like a self-serving and self-justifying excuse. I've never known God to direct people in such a way that they run afoul of the leadership of His church.

Do you know why he was censured but just don't want to reveal it for fear of alerting people to the fact that there might be some kind of inherent flaw in what he was teaching?

His issues had nothing whatsoever to do with his outstanding explorations of the doctrines of the Restorations as revealed through the Prophet Joseph Smith. I see no reason to drag up anyone's past sins in a public forum, especially in the case of one who now is in full fellowship with the Church. This line of inquiry is not only socially inappropriate, but certainly unacceptable for anyone who believes in the atonement of Christ.

[rockslider]

I'm actually wondering why the Hyrum Andrus topic was requested to be closed, as I'm interested in continuing to comment there as I continue to listen to the lectures.

There were several things that seemed to come together, that brought me to the tapes I thought were gone years ago. I assumed they were for my children, or for me, or maybe someone here. While all of those reasons might be true, a more important reason became apparent, which I do not want to go into.

I just wanted to leave that particular thread right where it's at. Further discussion should be fine in another.

After meeting with Hyrum this morning, I'm sure he would be pleased for those here to enjoy them as they may. The Spirit seems to concur.

[rockslider]

What exactly does that mean?

It sure sounds to me like a self-serving and self-justifying excuse. I've never known God to direct people in such a way that they run afoul of the leadership of His church.

Do you know why he was censured but just don't want to reveal it for fear of alerting people to the fact that there might be some kind of inherent flaw in what he was teaching?

The recordings are here, judge for yourself

[rockslider]

It sure sounds to me like a self-serving and self-justifying excuse. I've never known God to direct people in such a way that they run afoul of the leadership of His church.

I so want to drop the Pederson letter ...

Imagine a true teacher, and great orator, giving up teaching/preaching to avoid runing afoul of the leadership of His church. The Temple and the Church are/were more important to Hyrum than his life's work and joy.

[Whoknows?]

It would require the talent and vision of an Enoch, or someone like him, in order to actuate the entire endeavor. When it's finally time for the city of Zion to be built, I believe its "Enoch" will appear.

A "wild man" who cries in the wilderness to bring forth fruit meet for repentance.

"Prepare ye the way of the Lord, and make his paths straight, for the hour of his coming is nigh"

The Lord requires us to forsake the crafts of men BEFORE he will visit us with the sanctification of the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost.

Those who are prepared in this fashion have already consecrated their all in heart. The economy of Zion would not only be desired by such people it would be insisted upon as they each considered and preferred their neighbor before themselves. Such are the pure in heart. Such is the kingdom of God and the will of the Father.

This economy is ONLY for such a people as this. I think Christ declares in 3 Nephi 16 that the Gentile Church falls before the real Zion comes so it will begin with a few in number and not the problematic millions.

[mercyngrace]

Were you really unpaid? There are more ways than one to get paid then just getting finanical gain.

I served a mission for 2 years. I did not recieve finacial gain. Why was the mission called the most rewarding 2 years of my life?

MSRS,

I presumed Will was specifically talking about financial compensation.

You are absolutely right, though, for the righteous and charitable soul, living the LOC is its own reward.

MnG

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

MSRS,

I presumed Will was specifically talking about financial compensation.

You are absolutely right, though, for the righteous and charitable soul, living the LOC is its own reward.

MnG

You are probably right. At least I made one good point in this thread.

[Droopy]

I suppose the answer depends on whether or not we are talking about a global society in which the LOC is implemented (the millenium) or a more local, sub-culture of what are still called "Mormons" existing on our own in the larger culture.

Wealth is created, in either context, in the same way. What is that?

If it is the former, I would suppose there would be no need for wealth creation.

Let me get this straight: in a global UO, there is no need to create wealth. Where then, do the resources in the Bishop's storehouse come from, as well as the infrastructure upon which it is supported?

If the latter, one can imagine other communal experiments in which certain cottage industries arise which contribute to the larger economy. The Shakers come to mind, as well as others. Perhaps we will transplant Provo to Missouri and all go into the computer business. I think there are many possibilities.

You are speaking here, essentially, of a simple barter economy of "cottage industries" with little economic complexity. The computer industry is the antithesis of this (as are most productive activities in a modern, technological/industrial society).

If this occurs in a post-apocalypse context, wealth creation may be a non-issue: the main concern might be an agrarian subsistence level culture.

Is that what the scriptures teach, acoplypse followed by Mad Max?

Is a society of subsistence poverty the gospel's ideal?

[Fly Fisherman]

You are absolutely right, though, for the righteous and charitable soul, living the LOC is its own reward.

MnG

I read Approaching Zion by Hugh Nibley over 15 years ago, and it had a profound effect on me. Still, I consider myself a "novice" in my understanding of this subject and all comments are appreciated but especially those that seem to emphasize the spiritual side of this. (Sorry I can't offer more opinion here.) I have really appreciated your words on this thread, and David's. Not that the other comments are not appreciated, it's just that yours stand out to me with the following Elder Ezra Taft Benson quote. Perhaps some of the "dead ends", "bickerings" etc. on this subject happen since it is too easy to concentrate on the economics of the LoC and put too little emphasis on the Celestial law of it all.

Some view it as merely an economic alternative to capitalism or the free enterprise system, others as an outgrowth of early communal experiments in America. Such a view is not only shortsighted but tends to diminish in importance a binding requirement for entrance into the celestial kingdom. The law of consecration is a celestial law, not an economic experiment.

-Ezra Taft Benson

[Droopy]

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

I can't find anything in the D&C or in the statements of the modern anointed servants of the Lord that is in harmony with this assertion. The rules of the UO, as clearly set out in the D&C appear, indeed, in direct conflict with it.

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.

I beg to differ, as Selek has done: your interpretation of the carefully cherry picked scriptural texts you have used is essentially a gloss overlaying your scriptural sources allowing you to impose a wholly alien ideological/philosophical template upon them such that they may be artificially biased with regard to your chosen interpretational template.

The project you are engaged in here, David, is not at all that different from what the Hellenistic doctors of the church did with various aspects and teachings of the scriptures during the second and third centuries, what Liberation theologists have done with the NT in the present age, or what liberal LDS dissident intellectuals have done in forcing a nineteenth century sociological context upon the doctrines of Book of Mormon as the core methodological framework for understanding their conceptual origins. You are approaching the scriptures with a preconceived and predigested philosophy and imposing it upon the scriptures, when you should be approaching the scriptures ready, implicitly at least, to relieve yourself of any such "traditions of your fathers" as the scriptures and doctrines of the Church require.

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.

As I've already pointed out, the conclusion here does not follow logically from the premise you've adduced. There is a premise, or premises missing here, that you need to supply. Because the Lord owns all things, it does not necessary follow that man has no legal right to them. Does not the gospel teach us that God delegates things to us on earth, including authority to act in his name? Then why not stewardship over material things? Indeed, the entire gospel would appear to be grounded upon a concept of individual accountability for the talents received of the Lord in mortality.

The reason, Droopy, that this doctrine is so important is that within Mormonism, consecration and the abandonment of all private property in a secular sense is directly linked with the doctrine of heirship. Note D&C 70:

[Droopy]

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?

Good question, but we could begin such an exploration by simply asking, how will a pencil be created in a throughly socialistic, egalitarian order in which there is no private property, no markets, no money prices, no profit motive, and no legitimate sources of information allowing producers to know how resources should be allocated, what should be produced, in what quantity, and at what cost to the consumer

If we are not living in a society of subsistence agricultural poverty, in other words, in which very little beyond barter is practicable, how are you going to get a standard yellow pencil for your child to take to 1st grade?

http://www.fee.org/pdf/books/I,%20Pencil%202006.pdf

[Droopy]

Hello Will,

Riches have been given to man by God. So in the ultimate sense, the Lord is the creator of all wealth.

This would appear to be an evasion of the question.

In terms of the Law of Consecration, wealth is generated through unity of individuals and resources.

Another evasion. Please, how is wealth created David?

[Droopy]

Double post.

[Droopy]

As it appears (unless I missed it), that no one on the "communitarian" side of this debate has bothered doing so, I will proffer an answer to Will's initial and repeated question regarding how wealth will be created in a Zion society.

This answer is within the context of a pre-Second Coming society, or a Zion society that has already separated itself from the surrounding culture and is preparing for the Lord's return. I am not speaking of the Millennium, in which the earth will be returned to its paradisaical state, and economics, as normativly understood, will no longer be, in substantive ways, applicable.

The answer is work.

Labor.

Productive economic activity.

Savings, investment, entrepreneurship...work.

The fundamental difference will be the the attitude and social bond of covenant relationship (not egalitarian leveling) that will pervade all social and economic transactions in such a society. The manner in which wealth is generated, through productive economic activity (there is no other way), will not change. Our perception of ownership will change, but the laws of economics (a part of the gospel, as is all truth), will not be altered.

[mercyngrace]

As it appears (unless I missed it), that no one on the "communitarian" side of this debate has bothered doing so, I will proffer an answer to Will's initial and repeated question regarding how wealth will be created in a Zion society.

I'm not sure if you consider me to be on the communitarian side but I said "work" and "industry" almost a hundred posts back.

I haven't seen anyone in the thread suggest that manna would dropping from heaven, water gushing from rocks, or corvettes and condos sprouting on the Tree of Life.

[David Bokovoy]

I can't find anything in the D&C or in the statements of the modern anointed servants of the Lord that is in harmony with this assertion. The rules of the UO, as clearly set out in the D&C appear, indeed, in direct conflict with it.

I beg to differ, as Selek has done: your interpretation of the carefully cherry picked scriptural texts you have used is essentially a gloss overlaying your scriptural sources allowing you to impose a wholly alien ideological/philosophical template upon them such that they may be artificially biased with regard to your chosen interpretational template.

The project you are engaged in here, David, is not at all that different from what the Hellenistic doctors of the church did with various aspects and teachings of the scriptures during the second and third centuries, what Liberation theologists have done with the NT in the present age, or what liberal LDS dissident intellectuals have done in forcing a nineteenth century sociological context upon the doctrines of Book of Mormon as the core methodological framework for understanding their conceptual origins. You are approaching the scriptures with a preconceived and predigested philosophy and imposing it upon the scriptures, when you should be approaching the scriptures ready, implicitly at least, to relieve yourself of any such "traditions of your fathers" as the scriptures and doctrines of the Church require.

As I've already pointed out, the conclusion here does not follow logically from the premise you've adduced. There is a premise, or premises missing here, that you need to supply. Because the Lord owns all things, it does not necessary follow that man has no legal right to them. Does not the gospel teach us that God delegates things to us on earth, including authority to act in his name? Then why not stewardship over material things? Indeed, the entire gospel would appear to be grounded upon a concept of individual accountability for the talents received of the Lord in mortality.

You're torturing the scriptures until they confess David, and I cannot for the life of me understand why you are breaking them on the rack in this manner. It still remains that nothing in the scriptures or the teachings of our modern prophets indicates a communitarian or literal egalitarianism in the UO.

Thank you for sharing your opinion, Droopy. However, from the beginning of this thread, I have asked those who would like to present an alternative perspective to do so by using the standard works and the contextualization of modern revelation given by Joseph Smith and his contemporaries. It's one thing to state that you disagree and claim that I have simply "cherry picked" the verses to support my position. It's quite another to be able illustrate your claim with substance beyond "I don't believe."

Best

[Droopy]

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?

So a philosopher king can look down upon his carefully and lovingly planned and engineered society of equal citizens with equal shares and equal things and equal little pink houses for you and me and declare it "good".

It is so ideologues infatuated by grand fantasies of social reformation and resentful of distinction, achievement, hierarchy and differential outcomes - all the essential and inherent derivatives of free agency - can exalt themselves by making others low.

As Lucifer said in the preexistant world, to paraphrase him:

"This plan of salvation isn't fair. It distributes salvation and exaltation inequitably, and its far too private and individualistic. I mean look, one person is born in a righteous, stable, LDS family, and another is born in a dysfunctional home riddled with drugs, booze, abuse and emotional turmoil. Not only that, this one over there is going to be physically beautiful, and very athletically talented as well. That other one there is going to be short, fat, pimply, uncoordinated and bald, he's going to have all kinds of other problems, like migraines, asthma etc. All his life. That one there is going to be very smart. Great memory, intellect, and mental focus. That other one is going to have a lower IQ, some learning disabilities, and embarrassing nervous ticks. Now, I ask you, is this fair?

Now you all heard the Son say, " yes, but they're all going to have free agency, and they will be able to choose their own responses to the conditions within which they find themselves in mortality". Yeah right. That is not a level playing field. I've got a better plan. Its called the "No Child of God Left Behind" plan of salvation.

Its very simple: if one is saved, all must be saved, and no one jumps out of the herd and distinguishes him or herself and ends up with more talents at the end than anyone else. The entire group moves toward salvation only as fast as the slowest member. If anyone tries to stand out, that will be dealt with.

Everyone will look the same, be the same height, weight and have the same physical features. Everyone will have the same IQ, memory and intellectual capacity, the same basic emotional make-up, and the same general physical abilities.

Now, I've thought of everything here, so don't worry. This is only the beginning. Once they're all down there on earth, we'll have to insure that none of them is allowed to possess, own or control any property in excess of that of anyone else. If that happens, they're going to start being independent, taking initiative, and moving ahead or falling behind their comrades on earth in the area of material things, and we can't have that, because if that happens, its going to become obvious real quick that, despite our best efforts in making them all the same, some of them have developed differently and gone in different directions. Its going to be obvious that they have differences in talent, ability, faith, preserverence, maturity, initiative, all that stuff, and that is going to mean, ultimately, different outcomes in eternity, and then we're back to all that three degrees of glory crap again.

If that happens in the material sphere, you can be sure it will start happening in others as well, and there goes my whole plan down the crapper. The bottom line is there will be no free agency. If everyone's the same, then everyone will have the same salvation. The collective is saved, or no one is. What's nice about this is that no one fails; no one is left behind, and no one falls through the cracks.

Even better, no one has their self esteem crushed when they see others achieving and excelling when they have not, whether it be materially, intellectually, or whatever.

This is an outcome based plan of salvation, as opposed to the Father's mean spirited, insensitive and inequitable plan that leaves salvation up to the the individual choices of his children. Imagine how you would feel if the person next to you chooses to keep the commandments, while you did not? He chooses to be faithful to his wife, while you do not. He chooses to be charitable, while you do not. He goes to heaven while you go...well...uh, that's not important at the moment. But you get the picture. Is that fair? And if you're poor, and he's middle class, imagine how much harder it will be for you to make righteous choices?"

(Wild applause)

"Salvation is too important to be left to free will. We cannot allow spiritual market failure.

Onward to liberty, equality and fraternity! What say you my preexistent friends?"

(Standing ovation)

[Droopy]

I'm not sure if you consider me to be on the communitarian side but I said "work" and "industry" almost a hundred posts back.

I haven't seen anyone in the thread suggest that manna would dropping from heaven, water gushing from rocks, or corvettes and condos sprouting on the Tree of Life.

OK, but there was a long pause, and I don't think David's made the attempt as of yet.

[Droopy]

Thank you for sharing your opinion, Droopy. However, from the beginning of this thread, I have asked those who would like to present an alternative perspective to do so by using the standard works and the contextualization of modern revelation given by Joseph Smith and his contemporaries. It's one thing to state that you disagree and claim that I have simply "cherry picked" the verses to support my position. It's quite another to be able illustrate your claim with substance beyond "I don't believe."

Best

I, bc, and others have done so extensively for years here in this forum and it does not seem to advance the discussion any further than we have gotten here.

[David Bokovoy]

I, bc, and others have done so extensively for years here in this forum and it does not seem to advance the discussion any further than we have gotten here.

Well, again, I appreciate that you're willing to share your opinions, but remember scriptural and historical contextualization is the objective of this thread.

Thanks.