Law of Consecration Questions

[David Bokovoy]

Frankly, given the choice I'm not sure which 19th century doctrine/policy ("doctrincy") modern capitalist, "self sufficient" LDS would be more reluctant to practice: polygamy or Consecration. That would be an interesting question to ask a Church class: would you rather live in an economically communal society where only our "needs" are accounted for and there are no "rich", or a polygamous one? I wonder if the answers would be divided along gender lines...

Well, here's how Brigham felt about that question:

"There is another revelation still prior to this time, stating that it is the duty of all people who go to Zion to consecrate all their property to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This revelation was referred to at the April Conference in 1854. It was one of the first commandments or revelations given to this people after they had the privilege of organizing themselves as a Church, as a body, as the kingdom of God on the earth. I observed then, and I now think, that it will be one of the last revelations which the people will receive into their hearts and understandings, of their own free will and choice, and esteem it as a pleasure, a privilege, and a blessing unto them to observe and keep most holy." Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 299.

Given the Americanization of the Church, I suspect plural marriage would be a much easier 19th century practice to restore than the Untied Order.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello TAO,

Correct, the United Order is unlike any other economic system.

Really the concept is: Make what you need, donate the rest to the Lord.

Private Property, individual ownership exists under the law.

The surplus wealth goes to the church (you donate it).

So while there are elements representing all economic systems, it is kinda on it's own, unlike any other.

I would say it's got the positives of both capitalism and communism. It allows personal ownership, while allows the poor to be served with what can be done without.

But that's my opinion.

I think the difficulty in living the law is that one's whole community must live it - and we aren't grouped enough to do it. It will be more possible as Christ's church spreads.

Also, we should wait till the Lord tells us to participate in it. Be prepared, and hope, but do not tempt the Lord. So we wait till God's ok to start (given by the prophet).

You may want to review the thread I linked for an explanation of the United Order and the reasons why individual private ownership is impossible under the Law of Consecration. 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

[CA Steve]

Given the Americanization of the Church, I suspect plural marriage would be a much easier 19th century practice to restore than the Untied Order.

David,

I always enjoy your posts. I suspect that, in my case, I would have an easier time of convincing my wife to give up all our belongings than to accept a second wife.

[TAO]

You may want to review the thread I linked for an explanation of the United Order and the reasons why individual private ownership is impossible under the Law of Consecration. 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

[frankenstein]

Capitalism renounced from the Lord The Only Wholeness

"Whatever our political complexion, we need to remember that no political party preaches the United Order as we in the Church have had it revealed to us.

Neither capitalism nor communism is reconcilable with [The United Order]."

[BCSpace]

So what if I group them all together under the appropriate terminology?

now you attempt to speak for the Lord "So what if I group them all together under the appropriate terminology?".

CFR where the word the economic system of "capitalism" is mention by name in the "Enrichment L The Law of Consecration and Stewardship".

I never made that claim. But I did claim that the LoC can only work under conditions of capitalism and the free market and those conditions are expressly taught in the material.

In the material linked, the only comparison and contrast is with socialism, communism and The United Order.

Note that all the comparison with these is contrast.

[BCSpace]

Neither capitalism nor communism is reconcilable with [The United Order].

Looking at the words immediately after, he's speaking of a spiritual state that may or may not accompany capitalism. Capitalism istelf is neutral which allows agency and that is why the LoC can operate in those conditions. The other economic systems are not neutral because they rob men of their agency as mentioned in the doctrine.

Communism introduced into the world a substitute for true religion. It is a counterfeit of the gospel plan. The false prophets of Communism predict a utopian society. This, they proclaim, will only be brought about as capitalism and free enterprise are overthrown, private property abolished, the family as a social unit eliminated, all classes abolished, all governments overthrown, and a communal ownership of property in a classless, stateless society established.

Ezra Taft Benson,

[frankenstein]

Looking at the words immediately after, he's speaking of a spiritual state that may or may not accompany capitalism. Capitalism istelf is neutral which allows agency and that is why the LoC can operate in those conditions. The other economic systems are not neutral because they rob men of their agency as mentioned in the doctrine.

So capitalism and the free market(or enterprise) are indeed used in official doctrine to positively describe the LoC. Not that is has to be. The same grouping of principles is already there.

I have some hot irons for sale, how many shall I put you down for.

mince and mingle your philosophy all you want, the fact is The LDS has approved the statement "Neither capitalism nor communism is reconcilable with [The United Order]."

capitalism is not reconcilable with The United Order, plan and simple.

[JackNimble]

I have some hot irons for sale, how many shall I put you down for.

mince and mingle your philosophy all you want, the fact is The LDS has approved the statement "Neither capitalism nor communism is reconcilable with [The United Order]."

capitalism is not reconcilable with The United Order, plan and simple.

From what I have read so far, it appears the LoC works within the framework of capitalism but cannot, even in the slightest, work within the framework of socialism/communism because there is no private ownership.

private ownership/private control = capitalism

private ownership/ government control = fascism

government ownership/ government control = communism

government ownership/ private control = not done on a telestial earth (This would be close to the LOC, in my opinion)

[David Bokovoy]

From what I have read so far, it appears the LoC works within the framework of capitalism but cannot, even in the slightest, work within the framework of socialism/communism because there is no private ownership.

In reality, capitalism is the very antithesis to the LofC. Capitalism is the pursuit of self-interest. The Law of Consecration is the pursuit of God's interest. Whereas within capitalism, self-interest functions as the fundamental motive for all economic activity, in the United Order, the building of God's kingdom, the establishment of financial equality amongst the Saints (with the eradication of poverty) provide the fundamental motives for all economic activity.

There is no private ownership of property under the United Order. Instead, men and women serve as stewards over God's property. As explained in modern revelation, under the United Order, all private property was to be given to God by the Saints who would then redistribute his land in order for his covenant people to serve as stewards: "And if the properties are mine, then ye are stewards; otherwise ye are no stewards" (D&C 104:56)

One cannot be a steward if one is an owner.

[frankenstein]

From what I have read so far, it appears the LoC works within the framework of capitalism but cannot, even in the slightest, work within the framework of socialism/communism because there is no private ownership.

The statement supported by the Church, via publication in the Ensign, is that neither capitalism nor communism, is reconcilable with The United Order.

[TAO]

The statement supported by the Church, via publication in the Ensign, is that neither capitalism nor communism, is reconcilable with The United Order.

How 'bout we just settle with 'the law of consecration is superior to all of these'!

Then we could all agree =D!

[BCSpace]

I have some hot irons for sale, how many shall I put you down for.

mince and mingle your philosophy all you want, the fact is The LDS has approved the statement "Neither capitalism nor communism is reconcilable with [The United Order]."

capitalism is not reconcilable with The United Order, plan and simple.

And yet we see in later publications, it is reconcilable. Rather than claim new inspiration, methinks someone made a mistake, especially considering some of the prophetic quotes in the LDS Enrichment section I link to.

In reality, capitalism is the very antithesis to the LofC. Capitalism is the pursuit of self-interest.

No, capitalism is neutral because self-interest can be good or bad. One's self interest could be pure greed but it could also be Christ-like love or anything in between.

Whereas within capitalism, self-interest functions as the fundamental motive for all economic activity,

Yes, and it's the same under the LoC.

in the United Order, the building of God's kingdom, the establishment of financial equality amongst the Saints (with the eradication of poverty) provide the fundamental motives for all economic activity.

This is patently false. The LDS doctrine of equality in the LoC does not match this at all. Instead, equality means that everyone wants and needs are met.

There is no private ownership of property under the United Order. Instead, men and women serve as stewards over God's property. As explained in modern revelation, under the United Order, all private property was to be given to God by the Saints who would then redistribute his land in order for his covenant people to serve as stewards: "And if the properties are mine, then ye are stewards; otherwise ye are no stewards" (D&C 104:56)

One cannot be a steward if one is an owner.

Then you are ignoring doctrine already referenced even near the beginning of this thread (and not even by me) and are in direct conflict with what the LDS Church teaches on this matter. Private property is a fundamental principle of the LoC and one cannot be a steward if one is not an owner. From the official doctrine the Church publishes in the section I link to in my siggy: "The stewardship is private, not communal, property."

How 'bout we just settle with 'the law of consecration is superior to all of these'!

Then we could all agree =D!

Then all of us would be in conflict with doctrine. The LoC is not an economic system, but it requires a certain economic sysytem in order to work and that system comprises the neutrality of capitalism and the free market.

[David Bokovoy]

BC,

No, capitalism is neutral because self-interest can be good or bad. One's self interest could be pure greed but it could also be Christ-like love or anything in between.

I strongly disagree and reject any effort to mix the philosophies of men (such as capitalism) with the word of God. The pursuit of self-interest is never neutral. Fortunately for all of us, Christ set the perfect pattern for living the Law of Consecration when he fully surrendered his own self-interest to the will of God:

[WalkerW]

Look closely at the line. The LofC creates private stewardship, not private ownership. The word steward means one who oversees/governs property belonging to another. In this case, it means one who oversees/governs the property of God.

To be fair, capitalist and natural lawyer John Locke viewed what we call "private property" as stewardship over God's property because all things belong to God and all things are common to man. The way one fleshes out a stewardship in Locke's philosophy is by mixing one's labors with it.

Free-market supporters need to recognize that capitalism is flawed. Of course it is. It is a human, secular institution. But it does more to raise the standard of living for everyone involved (including the poor, despite hyperbole from naysayers), create cooperation among individuals via trade and exchange, and maintain the freedom of individuals than any other secular economic system. I'd rather have that than centralized planning by a human, secular institution. Anytime God is not at the head and there is no moral, covenant binding among the people, the system will be flawed. You make the best with what you have to choose from.

For anyone interested, see Nathan B. Oman, "Property, Contract, and the Market: A Mormon Perspective."

[Brade]

Look closely at the line. The LofC creates private stewardship, not private ownership. The word steward means one who oversees/governs property belonging to another. In this case, it means one who oversees/governs the property of God.

I agree. It's worth not ignoring this:

[p.63] As a result, "church authorities finally came to agree that a steward should hold legal rights to 'the Lord's property' placed in his charge," a modification Orson Pratt characterized "as an unavoidable concession to the property laws of 'Babylon'" (Arrington, Fox, and May, 26, 434 n. 41). The early revelation on consecration in the Book of Commandments was modified to conform with the laws of the land (Arrington, Fox, and May, 433-34 n. 39). The "laws of Babylon" thus constrained the implementation of the law of consecration.

The Church didn't operate in a vacuum, and it's continued existence in some form, in many cases, depended on making concessions to the economic and political environment in which it happened to exist. The fact that eventually the property laws and rights of the United States were adopted does not necessarily mean that those laws and rights are The Divine Laws of Property, and, in fact, scripture seems to suggest that God's notion of rights in property are quite different than ours.

[David Bokovoy]

I agree. It's worth not ignoring this:

The Church didn't operate in a vacuum, and it's continued existence in some form, in many cases, depended on making concessions to the economic and political environment in which it happened to exist. The fact that eventually the property laws and rights of the United States were adopted does not necessarily mean that those laws and rights are The Divine Laws of Property, and, in fact, scripture seems to suggest that God's notion of rights in property are quite different than ours.

Thank you, Brade. This is a great post. For what it's worth, I would also add my endorsement to the book Building the City of God: Community and Cooperation Among the Mormons. It's an outstanding read and provides great historical/religious insights.

Best,

--DB

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

In reality, capitalism is the very antithesis to the LofC. Capitalism is the pursuit of self-interest. The Law of Consecration is the pursuit of God's interest.

That is a rather cynical view of capitalism. I have not seen that definition anywere except by you.

Would you say that Socialism or Communism and the LoC are 2 peas in a pod?

The reality is that the LoC is vastly different from anything that anyone has tried or is trying currently.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

To be fair, capitalist and natural lawyer John Locke viewed what we call "private property" as stewardship over God's property because all things belong to God and all things are common to man. The way one fleshes out a stewardship in Locke's philosophy is by mixing one's labors with it.

Free-market supporters need to recognize that capitalism is flawed. Of course it is. It is a human, secular institution. But it does more to raise the standard of living for everyone involved (including the poor, despite hyperbole from naysayers), create cooperation among individuals via trade and exchange, and maintain the freedom of individuals than any other secular economic system. I'd rather have that than centralized planning by a human, secular institution. Anytime God is not at the head and there is no moral, covenant binding among the people, the system will be flawed. You make the best with what you have to choose from.

For anyone interested, see Nathan B. Oman, "Property, Contract, and the Market: A Mormon Perspective."

Before David responds. let me jsut say that I agree with your post.

[David Bokovoy]

That is a rather cynical view of capitalism. I have not seen that definition anywere except by you.

I'll repost the following then:

Capitalism is a secular institution based upon human greed. In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith described the foundational philosophy governing his economic system based entirely upon self-interest. This system which later became known as capitalism is identified in this famous passage:

[Brade]

I think it'd actually be useful if we could list a few necessary conditions capitalism, to sort of ensure that we're all talking about the same type of political-economy.

[frankenstein]

And yet we see in later publications, it is reconcilable. Rather than claim new inspiration, methinks someone made a mistake, especially considering some of the prophetic quotes in the LDS Enrichment section I link to.

as i have pointed out earlier, capitalism is not mentioned in the Enrichment Section you link.

and the statement "more like capitalism" is not a statement in support of The United Order being capitalism, rather it is a statement given in terms that people could understand.

aspects of capitalism are like The United Order.

----------------------------------------------------------------

walkerw, from Locke we also get the notion that "ownership" of property comes from destroying the property. See McIntosh (I forget the full citation) In that case the Court determined, based heavily on Locke, that since the Native Americans had not destroyed the land the Natives had no right of ownership to the Land. Thus, land trade by Americans with Indians were null and void, because Might = Right gave the US ownership of all lands the US had won in conquest from other European nations.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The pursuit of one

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think it'd actually be useful if we could list a few necessary conditions capitalism, to sort of ensure that we're all talking about the same type of political-economy.

You mean like agency?

[cinepro]

The Saints of God successfully implemented the LofC via the various inspired economic systems put into place in the 19th century. So I take issue with the suggestion that the LoC is vastly different from anything that anyone has tried.

I think it's a stretch to say the United Order was "successful". Even the worst economic systems can survive for a period of time before collapsing in failure. To be "successful", we need to have a more rigorous criteria than "it existed for a while".

The Law of Consecration may have had a slim, slim chance of succeeding back in the agrarian, utopian 1830's, but there isn't any chance of it working in today's world beyond a small, technically limited and isolated group for a single generation. Any theories for making it work beyond a single generation or at a scale larger than "small community" depend on huge voluntary changes to basic human nature.

Luckily, the modern direction of economic attitudes among LDS leaders and members make us the least likely group of people in the history of the world to ever try to adopt a communitarian economic system. I would expect the repeal of OD 1 and 2 before the Church ever moves towards the Law of Consecration as described in the D&C, or even moves beyond the current system of just begging members to give fast offerings.