Law of Consecration Questions

[David Bokovoy]

I would not say that they successfully implement the LoC. As I recall the historical evidence suggests that it was a huge failure. I don't have a reference handy right now maybe others have one.

Of course it depends upon how one defines "failure." The LofC and the various United Orders were directly responsible for the Saints of God flourishing in the harshest of environments. In my mind, transforming the desert into a rose constitutes a tremendous success.

If it was so successful why are we not practining it today?

Because of the Americanization of the Church.

Take care.

You too.

[David Bokovoy]

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.

I agree with your points here, except on the issue of "success." For my perspective see Ibid.

[BCSpace]

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

Never said it was. However, all aspects of it are so I'm simply calling a duck a duck.

aspects of capitalism are like The United Order.

What aspects of capitalism are not? We already know that greed is not an aspct of capitalism and is not extant in any standard definition.

Capitalism is a secular institution based upon human greed.

This is a more common and realistic definition:

"Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the market rather than by central planning by the government; profit is distributed to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses and companies."

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:

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Of course it depends upon how one defines "failure." The LofC and the various United Orders were directly responsible for the Saints of God flourishing in the harshest of environments. In my mind, transforming the desert into a rose constitutes a tremendous success.

Interesting. I see from a certain perspective you do have point.

Because of the Americanization of the Church.

What does that mean? Do I even want to ask? Lol.

[BCSpace]

Because of the Americanization of the Church.

What does that mean? Do I even want to ask? Lol.

It means some people have grown up thinking that the LoC was some sort of God approved communal system designed to enhance the principles of socialism which they favor. Instead, the doctrine from the Church's primer which I link to is:

President J. Reuben Clark Jr. said:

[cinepro]

Of course it depends upon how one defines "failure." The LofC and the various United Orders were directly responsible for the Saints of God flourishing in the harshest of environments. In my mind, transforming the desert into a rose constitutes a tremendous success.

Why wouldn't a purely capitalistic system have been just as (or more) effective for developing "harsh environments"?

[frankenstein]

frankenstein:

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

bcspace: 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.

frankenstein: capitalism is not mentioned in the Enrichment section you linked.

bcspace: Never said [capitalism] was. However, all aspects of [capitalism] are so I'm simply calling a duck a duck.

Yes you continue to mingle your own philosophy with the Doctrine of the Church, and you continue to pronounce your philosophy as the correctly representing Doctrine.

You have not shown how the Church or its leaders state that capitalism is reconcilable with The United Order. You only have cherry picked clippings here and there which show nothing to support that the Church now states that capitalism is reconcilable with The United Order.

[WalkerW]

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.

Generations of students are now being taught that English colonists came to the New World fully armed to impose themselves on the native population, violently expel them, and feel fully justified in doing so on the grounds of an ancient, prestigious legal doctrine that was arrogantly blind to the rights and even the lives of semi-nomadic tribal peoples. Their lands were

[WalkerW]

In reality, capitalism is the very antithesis to the LofC.

As is socialism. Both involve surrending our wills to the wrong thing: either ourselves or a man-made central institution.

[cinepro]

You have not shown how the Church or its leaders state that capitalism is reconcilable with The United Order. You only have cherry picked clippings here and there which show nothing to support that the Church now states that capitalism is reconcilable with The United Order.

Here's the wikipedia definition of capitalism:

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the market rather than by central planning by the government; profit is distributed to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses and companies.

Here's the wikipedia definition of the Law of Consecration:

The Law of Consecration, as practiced by the Latter Day Saints, was for the support of the poor (Doctrine and Covenants 42:30). Latter Day Saints were asked to voluntarily deed (consecrate) their property to the Church of Christ, and the church then would assign to each member a "stewardship" of property "as much as is sufficient for himself and family" for his "needs, wants, family, and circumstances" (D&C 42:32;51:3). If consecrated property became more than was sufficient for the assigned steward, the "residue" was "to be consecrated unto the bishop" kept for the benefit of "those who have not, from time to time, that every man who has need may be amply supplied and receive according to his wants" (Doctrine and Covenants 42:33).

Can anyone describe how a capitalist society might function under the principles of the Law of Consecration? How is it possible?

Suppose I gave you the job to take 50 LDS families (volunteers) and start a town that operates on capitalism and under the Law of Consecration as described in the D&C. The families vary from newlyweds to retired couples, some single people, some large families of >6 kids, others who have had 1 or 2 kids and are done. Some were wealthy, some were poor, but all have agreed to abide by the principles of the LoC and your leadership.

In your description of how you would set things up, also include your procedure for adding people to the group who want to join, and for excusing people from the group if they opt out.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

As is socialism. Both involve surrending our wills to the wrong thing: either ourselves or a man-made central institution.

That is interesting.

[volgadon]

Why wouldn't a purely capitalistic system have been just as (or more) effective for developing "harsh environments"?

If you spoke Russian I would have linked to an excellent documentary. The Ural was colonised with a capitalistic mindset. The raison d'etre for settling the Ural was to exploit the rich ore deposits. They did not develop the harsh environment, but exploited it st and themselves out of business. It remains a backward region to this day.

[WalkerW]

That is interesting.

The difference is that markets (while done for profit, which act as signals for demand) require you to provide a good and a service for others. You must please your customers, otherwise you go out of business. Innovation and expansion require cooperation with other individuals and businesses. As Leonard Read and

have noted, no one person can make a pencil. It requires the trading, exchanging, servicing, and cooperation of millions of individuals. This is how cultures progressed and developed. See Matt Ridley, "Humans: Why They Triumphed," The Wall Street Journal (May 22, 2010) or his book The Rational Optimist for more details.

As for "greed," which is one of the most abstract

I've ever heard against markets, the interest in my own well-being and the well-being of my family requires me to provide services and goods to others. Only by doing so, do I too benefit. Economist Walter E. Williams makes this point

in the first few minutes.

Serving others benefits both you and them. What a concept.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

As for "greed," which is one of the most abstract

I've ever heard against markets, the interest in my own well-being and the well-being of my family requires me to provide services and goods to others. Only by doing so, do I too benefit. Economist Walter E. Williams makes this point

in the first few minutes.

Serving others benefits both you and them. What a concept.

Dr Walter Williams is a brilliant man. I love that guy. He makes some really good points.

Thanks for the link.

[Brade]

The difference is that markets (while done for profit, which act as signals for demand) require you to provide a good and a service for others. You must please your customers, otherwise you go out of business. Innovation and expansion require cooperation with other individuals and businesses. As Leonard Read and

have noted, no one person can make a pencil. It requires the trading, exchanging, servicing, and cooperation of millions of individuals. This is how cultures progressed and developed. See Matt Ridley, "Humans: Why They Triumphed," The Wall Street Journal (May 22, 2010) or his book The Rational Optimist for more details.

As for "greed," which is one of the most abstract

I've ever heard against markets, the interest in my own well-being and the well-being of my family requires me to provide services and goods to others. Only by doing so, do I too benefit. Economist Walter E. Williams makes this point

in the first few minutes.

Serving others benefits both you and them. What a concept.

Yeah, see, this is why I think we need to spend some time and pin down what we mean by words like 'capitalism'. I know lots of people that use something like greed-arguments against capitalism, and none of those people are against markets. It's a rather plain fact that markets existed before capitalism. Many anarchists, for example, (and I consider myself a sort of philosophical anarchist) are against capitalism, but for, what people usually like to call, 'free markets'.

Mola offered one candidate necessary condition for capitalism

[WalkerW]

Yeah, see, this is why I think we need to spend some time and pin down what we mean by words like 'capitalism'. I know lots of people that use greed-arguments against capitalism, and none of those people are against markets. It's a rather plain fact that markets existed before capitalism.

Mola offered one candidate necessary condition for capitalism

[Brade]

I'll just go with Wikipedia because it was quick, easy, and I happen to agree with it:

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the market rather than by central planning by the government; profit is distributed to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses and companies.

Ok, see, now if that's all capitalism is, then (even as an anarchist) I'm not against that*. I take it that you and I agree, though, that that (the capitalism described by your wiki quote) does not exist in America today. We have something quite a bit more than that. And, I'm willing to bet that no where in the world is it true that wiki-capitalism exists. Also, it's worth noting, and I'm sure you know this if you've read Adam Smith, a necessary component of his notion of capitalism was a moral sense (even though some out of context quotes make it sound as if morality didn't factor into his notion). He was, first and foremost, a moral philosopher.

*Although, I should confess, that my acceptance of that will depend on how things like the extent of justified private ownership is fleshed out.

[LeSellers]

my acceptance of [the definition of capitalism] will depend on how things like the extent of justified private ownership is fleshed out.

Then let us start from the premise that each person "owns" himself. "Own" in this context means that each person has the right to do with his own life (and all that entails) and person as he will, and that no one else has a higher claim to his services, time, and exertions.

If we cannot agree with this premise, then there is no room for discussion (at least on my part). I stipulate that each of us has "provisional ownership" because God does own us (being our Creator and without Whom, we would have no existence). However, this stewardship has no temporal limitations. People do everything that is possible (both good and evil, selfish and altruistic) and God, with rare exception, does not intervene during our mortality.

So, what say you?

Lehi

[Brade]

Then let us start from the premise that each person "owns" himself. "Own" in this context means that each person has the right to do with his own life (and all that entails) and person as he will, and that no one else has a higher claim to his services, time, and exertions.

If we cannot agree with this premise, then there is no room for discussion (at least on my part). I stipulate that each of us has "provisional ownership" because God does own us (being our Creator and without Whom, we would have no existence). However, this stewardship has no temporal limitations. People do everything that is possible (both good and evil, selfish and altruistic) and God, with rare exception, does not intervene during our mortality.

So, what say you?

Lehi

Sounds good to me.

[TAO]

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.

Mmmmm.... I agree it's not a economic system, but I believe on it's own, it would in a way create it's own economic system - one of service - where people give to others out of love? There wouldn't really be need for any sort of ownership I think, because everyone would feel like helping everyone else. But then again, getting to that point is uber-difficult, but I do hope we get to this sort of 'system of service' sometime in the future.

[frankenstein]

The United Order, requires that everyone work for the common good of all.

There is no profit, there is surplus; which means, that which remains after your needs and scriptural wants are met.

Proportional equality, based on each persons circumstances, exists for all.

As for the Law of Consecration can and I would say does operate within any economic system and further the LoC does not need a economic system, as the LoC is more than tangible goods and real property.

[LeSellers]

[The ownership of oneself] sounds good to me.

In which case, the product of one's time, efforts, and talents must likewise be part of the person's property. E.g., if you carve a walking stick from a branch lying on the ground (one to which no one else has a legitimate claim), you own that walking stick. It was useless, you made it useful, and you did so by expending a part of your life on the project.

Lehi

[Brade]

In which case, the product of one's time, efforts, and talents must likewise be part of the person's property. E.g., if you carve a walking stick from a branch lying on the ground (one to which no one else has a legitimate claim), you own that walking stick. It was useless, you made it useful, and you did so by expending a part of your life on the project.

Lehi

Ok.

[LeSellers]

the product of one's time, efforts, and talents must likewise be part of the person's property.

Ok.

The only other issue is how you got the stick you carved into the walking stick.

I carefully stated that the stick was lying on the ground and had no previous owner. You, picking it up first, got legitimate property rights to that stick because you were the first to make use of it and no one else had a claim to it.

It is the same with any physical object, be it a stick or a piece of land. The first one to use (made something useful of it) it owns it. Once the person has the right to that object, he has eternal rights to it. He can keep it, use it, let it lie dormant, sell it, give it away, destroy it. It is his, as long as he acquired it without fraud or violence, i.e., legitimately. If the owner gives it away, the new owner has acquired it legitimately; if he sells it, the new owner has acquired it legitimately. The original owner could discard his property. When he does, and another person "picks it up", this second person has acquired it legitimately, and now has ownership of the object.

If someone deceives the owner and obtains the property by fraud, he has no legitimate claim to the property. If someone uses force (i.e., by violence), he has no legitimate claim to the property. If a mob comes and forces you away from your property, they have used violence, and do not have legitimate rights to it. If the same mob designates a smaller group, arms them, and uses them, either by actual violence or by the threat of violence, to take your property, the transfer is illegitimate. If this smaller group has fancy hats or shiny badges, neither the uniform nor the size of the mob makes the transfer valid, even if you, the true owner, were among those who chose this force. (Of course, if you had benefited from their violence in the past, you have little ethical ground on which to base any objection.)

In these cases, the practical control of the property may change hands, but legitimate ownership has not.

Lehi

[WalkerW]

Ok, see, now if that's all capitalism is, then (even as an anarchist) I'm not against that*. I take it that you and I agree, though, that that (the capitalism described by your wiki quote) does not exist in America today. We have something quite a bit more than that. And, I'm willing to bet that no where in the world is it true that wiki-capitalism exists. Also, it's worth noting, and I'm sure you know this if you've read Adam Smith, a necessary component of his notion of capitalism was a moral sense (even though some out of context quotes make it sound as if morality didn't factor into his notion). He was, first and foremost, a moral philosopher.

*Although, I should confess, that my acceptance of that will depend on how things like the extent of justified private ownership is fleshed out.

Oh certainly. We do not have that in America today. I don't equate crony capitalism with capitalism, as many tend to do. Bailouts and government ties don't exactly spell free market. And yes: Adam Smith did call for a moral sense. His writings get abused about as much as Herbert Spencer and his so-called "social Darwinism."