Law of Consecration Questions

[Brade]

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."

Ok. I'm glad we cleared that up. I'm sure you recognize the difficulty of discussing capitalism because 'capitalism' is used today with many meanings.

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

I appreciate the time and effort you've put into this. So, thanks. I've bracketed the question of whether stuff round here (on the earth) is or can be eternally ours (right now) in the sense you describe if it's true that there's a divine owner of the earth and it's true that he's specifically placed us in a certain relation toward his stuff (i.e. the steward-relation). So, setting that question aside, I'm actually quite happy to go along with everything you've said there.

[zerinus]

You may wish to read through the following thread which provides an answer to your question. The Law of Consecration requires surrendering everything one possesses unto God, hence there is no such thing as individual private ownership in the Lord's system.

Best,

That is not correct. Once a man had consecrated his property to the Church, the property that was given back to him to live on (which may have been larger or smaller than what he had originally given, depending on the size of his original estate), was deeded back to him, meaning that he had a legal title to it, and could sell it if he wanted to. Here is the reference:

D&C 51

:

5 And if he shall transgress and is not accounted worthy to belong to the church, he shall not have power to claim that portion which he has consecrated unto the bishop for the poor and needy of my church; therefore, he shall not retain the gift, but

shall only have claim on that portion that is

deeded

unto him

.

In other words, he could not have reclaimed what he had originally consecrated, but could claim what was given back to him (which may have been larger than what he had originally consecrated). If he had had nothing when he joined the Church, and then left the Church afterwards, he would have been even better off! A deed is a legal title. It means the property is yours, you can do what you like with it.

[zerinus]

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 an element of truth in that, but not entirely as you have imagined it.

There is no private ownership of property under the United Order. Instead, men and women serve as stewards over God's property.

Well, men serve as stewards over God's property even now, whether they realize it or not! The fact that they may own a legal title to their property under the law of the land, and trade it under that law if they want to, does not alter that fact. Under the United Order men still have legal title to their property, and can trade it if they want to; but they voluntarily submit to an order in which God is acknowledged as the supreme title holder, and operate under the laws prescribed by that order.

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.

See the scripture and explanation given above.

[zerinus]

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:

[David Bokovoy]

That is not correct. Once a man had consecrated his property to the Church, the property that was given back to him to live on (which may have been larger or smaller than what he had originally given, depending on the size of his original estate), was deeded back to him, meaning that he had a legal title to it, and could sell it if he wanted to. Here is the reference:

D&C 51

:

5 And if he shall transgress and is not accounted worthy to belong to the church, he shall not have power to claim that portion which he has consecrated unto the bishop for the poor and needy of my church; therefore, he shall not retain the gift, but

shall only have claim on that portion that is

deeded

unto him

.

In other words, he could not have reclaimed what he had originally consecrated, but could claim what was given back to him (which may have been larger than what he had originally consecrated). If he had had nothing when he joined the Church, and then left the Church afterwards, he would have been even better off! A deed is a legal title. It means the property is yours, you can do what you like with it.

I am sorry. But you clearly do not have a correct doctrinal nor historical understanding of these issues. D&C 51 presents some later revisions to the United Order allowing the Saints to still practice the LofC in a secular society. These modifications, however, did not negate the doctrinal truths behind the LofC in which an individual becomes a steward rather than an owner. Remember, one cannot be a steward if one is an owner: "And if the properties are mine, then ye are stewards; otherwise ye are no stewards" (D&C 104:56)

As Brigham Young explained:

[Brade]

I am sorry. But you clearly do not have a correct doctrinal nor historical understanding of these issues. D&C 51 presents some later revisions to the United Order allowing the Saints to still practice the LofC in a secular society. These modifications, however, did not negate the doctrinal truths behind the LofC in which an individual becomes a steward rather than an owner. Remember, one cannot be a steward if one is an owner: "And if the properties are mine, then ye are stewards; otherwise ye are no stewards" (D&C 104:56)

As Brigham Young explained:

[zerinus]

I am sorry. But you clearly do not have a correct doctrinal nor historical understanding of these issues. D&C 51 presents some later revisions to the United Order allowing the Saints to still practice the LofC in a secular society. These modifications, however, did not negate the doctrinal truths behind the LofC in which an individual becomes a steward rather than an owner. Remember, one cannot be a steward if one is an owner: "And if the properties are mine, then ye are stewards; otherwise ye are no stewards" (D&C 104:56)

First of all I don't agree that there was a

[David Bokovoy]

First of all I don't agree that there was a

[Brade]

Way to kill the discussion David.

[David Bokovoy]

That is not correct. Once a man had consecrated his property to the Church, the property that was given back to him to live on (which may have been larger or smaller than what he had originally given, depending on the size of his original estate), was deeded back to him, meaning that he had a legal title to it, and could sell it if he wanted to. Here is the reference:

D&C 51

:

5 And if he shall transgress and is not accounted worthy to belong to the church, he shall not have power to claim that portion which he has consecrated unto the bishop for the poor and needy of my church; therefore, he shall not retain the gift, but

shall only have claim on that portion that is

deeded

unto him

.

In other words, he could not have reclaimed what he had originally consecrated, but could claim what was given back to him (which may have been larger than what he had originally consecrated). If he had had nothing when he joined the Church, and then left the Church afterwards, he would have been even better off! A deed is a legal title. It means the property is yours, you can do what you like with it.

Before I finish with this thread, I really need to point out one more problem with your analysis. Note that in your effort to deny the fact that individuals did not own property under the Law of Consecration, you cited D&C 51:5 which states that a person who opts to leave the United Order could do so with that portion of the property that had been deeded to him by the Church.

Since the date for this revelation you

[David Bokovoy]

Way to kill the discussion David.

I tend to do that. Poor social skills.

[Tribunal]

Brother Bokovoy (or anyone else who understands the Law of Consecration) is it your understanding that the intent of the Law of Consecration is for the Church to own as much property (land) as possible to establish Zion, and this is done by purchasing property (land) from members or members offering their property (land) to the Church?

Do you believe the purchasing of property (land) around the Salt Lake City area by the Church as supporting this understanding?

So the intent of the Law of Consecration is for the Church to own the land and for the members to have stewardship and care for the land?

[WalkerW]

I tend to do that. Poor social skills.

For what it's worth, I think your commentary and knowledge of the Law of Consecration and its history are invaluable.

[WalkerW]

Best books and/or articles on the Law of Consecration and its history?

[zerinus]

Before I finish with this thread, I really need to point out one more problem with your analysis. Note that in your effort to deny the fact that individuals did not own property under the Law of Consecration, you cited D&C 51:5 which states that a person who opts to leave the United Order could do so with that portion of the property that had been deeded to him by the Church.

Since the date for this revelation you

[Brade]

I believe that that amendment doesn't alter the meaning of the original revelations. I believe that was the meaning all along, but the saints may not had understood them correctly to implement them as intended (in the same way that you are not understanding it correctly), and that amendment was added by the Lord to correct that misunderstanding.

Well, to be clear, the problem would have to be with Joseph Smith. He was the source of the original revelation. If it's true that it came out wrong, and the meaning of the revelation was always suppose to be that God's Divine Notion of Property Rights is the same as property rights in the United States, then it's Joseph's fault that the original revelation didn't say that. He obviously misunderstood what God tried to reveal to him, if, as you say, the meaning all along was what it now says. So, it's not that the saints didn't understand God. It's that Joseph Smith didn't.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Tribunal,

Brother Bokovoy (or anyone else who understands the Law of Consecration) is it your understanding that the intent of the Law of Consecration is for the Church to own as much property (land) as possible to establish Zion, and this is done by purchasing property (land) from members or members offering their property (land) to the Church?

Do you believe the purchasing of property (land) around the Salt Lake City area by the Church as supporting this understanding?

So the intent of the Law of Consecration is for the Church to own the land and for the members to have stewardship and care for the land?

Yes, I believe that purchasing land and sponsoring building projects around Salt Lake City certainly reflect the Church's interest in establishing Zion. One of the things I love about Joseph's vision of Mormonism is that the Prophet did not intend to establish a "church" in the traditional sense, but rather a corporation, i.e. United Firm that would eradicate poverty and foster financial equality. So personally, I would love to see even more efforts to purchase land, and to build factories, malls, etc. and expect that such will in fact be the case in the future.

I do not, however, believe that the intent of the Law of Consecration is for the Church to own as much property as possible. As I understand it, the intent is to change this world into the celestial kingdom and make men and women like our God who is himself a consecrated deity.

[David Bokovoy]

Hey Walker,

Thanks for the kind words.

Best books and/or articles on the Law of Consecration and its history?

I would recommend starting with Lyndon Cook's Joseph Smith and the Law of Consecration which covers the economic structures put in place by the Prophet Joseph from 1831-1844. For the structures put in place by Brigham Young, I would recommend beginning the study with Arrington, Fox, and May's Building the City of God.

Best,

--DB

[David Bokovoy]

I have not studied the history of D&C 51 in detail, and you may be right that verse 5 was added later, in line with other similar amendments that were made to the many sections of the D&C in a later edition.

I am correct. But if you would like a second witness in addition to the Joseph Smith Papers, here's the commentary provided by Marquardt:

[Brade]

There's another problem with zerinus' view. To see it, grant it. Let's grant that zerinus is right and that the amendment to DC 51 wasn't merely the result of certain legal pressures. So, let's say that DC 51 does identify aspects of God's Divine Law of Property Rights. The point of that move seemed to be to suggest that the property rights regimes of the United States, or let's just say "western societies", are the same property rights regimes as those in God's heaven. But, even if zerinus is right, that's not true. They're still radically different in at least one sense.

According to the DC, by God's property rights regime, a person doesn't have a divine right to accumulate as much wealth as they want without any consideration for the needs of others. By God's law, there's an important and broad moral consideration for the well-being of others that circumscribes my rights in property

[WalkerW]

I think it is worth pointing out that free-market capitalism has its roots in Scholastic economic thinkers long before Adam Smith. Hard to imagine given the liberation theology of the 20th century.

[BCSpace]

God's property rights are not the same as the property rights of western societies. God's property rights and the property rights of western societies (U.S. property rights if you like) are different in at least the way I sketched above.

They are exactly the same because they work exactly the same. You merely have erroneously appended a principle, which the property owner has agreed to follow, that does not affect the economics required to live the LoC. Rather, it is the economics that make the LoC possible to succeed.

I say "at least" because David's offered very compelling reasons for thinking that they're radically different in another way.

What we have seen so far is that his visions of the UO are radically different from doctrine taught by the LDS Church. Now I have no illusions that the LoC will be practiced like the early Saints practiced it. One, because LDS doctrine warns us against thinking that way, and two, because economies today are much more complex and nuanced. But a simple extrapolation of principles taught shows that a UO will look exactly like free market capitalism today. There is private property. The ability to dispense with property as one sees fit. There is no command economy. There is nothing to prevent one from moving to the job or eucation one desires. There is accumulation of wealth and capital (else nothing would work). Etc. etc.

The only difference would be that people who have entered this covenant will be keeping an eye out for the poor and their own surpluses, neither of which has anything to do with the economic system. If they did, the LoC would fail.

[Brade]

You merely have erroneously appended a principle, which the property owner has agreed to follow, that does not affect the economics required to live the LoC. Rather, it is the economics that make the LoC possible to succeed.

What principle have I erroneously applied? Will you pick it out for me, please?

But a simple extrapolation of principles taught shows that a UO will look exactly like free market capitalism today.

Ok, so let's start listing the conditions of free market capitalism as it exists today in, say, America. And, on your view, since the United Order is identical with modern free market capitalism (whatever that ends up meaning), we'll also end up with a list of conditions of the United Order. Nice.

You've started to give some conditions, but notice that you've already made a basic error, one that I pointed out earlier. Even in the most repressive dictatorship or communist society a person still has the ability to dispense with property as they see fit. However, in those systems I may not have the right to do so. And if I don't have the right to do so, and I do so (because I clearly have the ability), then state forces might fine me, or jail me, or kill me. If we're going to have this discussion at all, we need to at least make certain important distinctions, and this is one of them: that a person has an ability to do something does not entail that they have a right to do it (God-given or state-given).

Moving on. The conditions I have from you so far are:

1. People have a right to private property.

2. Property owners have the right to dispense with their property as they see fit.

3. There is no command economy (supply and price are not regulated by a state force).

4. People have the right to educate themselves according to their desires.

5. People have the right to choose their own vocation and change their vocation.

6. People have the right to accumulate wealth and to use that wealth to accumulate more wealth (i.e. use property as capital)

That's a good start. We're definitely going to need to flesh some things out, but first let me ask you this: Can capitalism exists in a society if everyone within that society has sufficient means of production such that it is not necessary for them to sell their labor to other capitalists?

[LeSellers]

Can capitalism exists in a society if everyone within that society has sufficient means of production such that it is not necessary for them to sell their labor to other capitalists?

Your hypothetical is an impossibility except at the most basic of subsistence standards of living. Anything complex, from a sewing machine to a computer to an automobile, requires far too much interaction among a variety of players that self-sufficiency is not possible. Even a #2 pencil requires the voluntary and largely unknown cooperation of thousands of individuals from around the globe to create it.

However, let's leave the issue of possibility and complexity aside. It would still be impossible for a person to provide all his own wants on his own because, irrespective of the skills he'd have to have to do so, the plain fact is that every person would have a varying level of skills across the board.

Let's imagine a highly skilled doctor, a surgeon, who had worked his way through college typing up other people's term papers. He can type 140 wpm. (For you kiddos out there, in the old days, not everyone could afford a typewriter, and not everyone could type. Error rates brought down your typing speed and there was no backspace key to eliminate them. Hiring a typist was a frequent and typical cost of going to school.)

Twenty years later, he is still capable of typing that fast, but it is more effective for him to dictate his reports and have a data input operator (who can type at 80 wpm) type them rather than doing it himself because his time is more valuable as a surgeon. Even though his typist is 39% slower than he is, and it will take 60% longer to produce the reports, he's far better off doing surgery and other medical procedures than typing.

It's called "comparative advantage" and it applies to every person, to every region, to every country. That's why Japan is losing automobile market share to Korea, why there are no televisions made in USmerica any more. It is more advantageous for USmericans to import cars and televisions than to make them here.

The things that make comparative advantage inescapable are as varied as geography, natural resources, labor forces, climate, weather (not the same things), seasons, latitude, insect pests and other vermin, and coastal access (among hundreds of other factors) can contrive to make them. In a treatise on government, one XVIII author wrote that a prince should be careful to have his (seafaring) people fish, rather than raise wheat. Gee!! Whodathunkit? People naturally do those things that return the greatest reward for the least effort. Fishing, for a coastal people makes the sense that raising wheat does not, and no princely intervention or coercion is necessary.

Further, division of labor has had the single greatest effect on the standard of living everywhere it has been implemented. It takes a lot less time to make 1,000 pins when five people are each doing one of the jobs needed to make them than when one man does all five in succession. But it takes five men to do it. And one of them must be the boss, to plan what the others will do and assure they have the materials and tools to do it.

So, no: there will never be a time when people will be better off without some of them selling their labor to a capitalist, rather than making things for themselves.

Lehi

[Brade]

Ok, so now we have this:

1. People have a right to private property.

2. Property owners have the right to dispense with their property as they see fit.

3. There is no command economy (supply and price are not regulated by a state force).

4. People have the right to educate themselves according to their desires.

5. People have the right to choose their own vocation and change their vocation.

6. People have the right to accumulate wealth and to use that wealth to accumulate more wealth (i.e. use property as capital)

7. There must exist a sufficiently large group of people for whom it is necessary to sell their labor to capitalists.