The Sermon on the Mount and the LofC

[David Bokovoy]

OK. Bear with me then as I seek to understand better. Are you suggesting that the gospel of Christ cannot be fully practiced (or you can use different more precise words if those don

[BCSpace]

The more I have studied and pondered the meaning and ramifications of the commandments of the Lord vis-a-vis the establishment of Zion, the more convinced I have become that the Law of Consecration has little or nothing to do with economic philosophy per se.

Absolutely right.

Or, in other words, that it cannot be properly discussed, envisioned--let alone practiced--under the auspices of anything termed "economic theory." Grouping terms such as "capitalism," "socialism," and "communism" with the "United Order" as though they are competing answers to the same question is, in my judgment, entirely misguided, and creates division and conflict where none need exist.

True. But the LoC/UO has enough conditions placed upon it for us to see what economic systems it works in and by implication, what economic systems more closely match living the gospel. Socialism/Communism is obviously out and there are no black marks whatsoever on the neutral agency promoting capitalism/free market and in fact the conditions under which the LoC/UO can exist mirror the latter so much that if it walks like a duck......

Some posting here in the various threads on the subject have attached "little grey communist" aspects to their illustrations of the UO that don't exist such as all working in the fields and in factories being paid the same wages and having one's occupation and goods dictated to them by the Church. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

[Mansquatch]

My contention is that capitalistic economics, and its associated notion of property rights, while laudable in many respects, is not Zion.

Capitalism is what you make of it. With greedy individuals we have got some bad things going on now. Capitalism allows people to fully exercise their free will in matters of wealth and property. Thus right now, with less people using free will in good ways our situation is not too great.

As far as the "notion of property rights", the right to property is a God-given right. Why would He give such a right if it is only a notion or something He despises. God gives us property and tells us good things to do with that property. "Because I have been given much I too must give". Zion is what we get from proper use of God-given property rights. If one never owned something they cannot ever give it.

It's a fact that in America capitalism is the economic structure,

Highly debatable in the current and recent environment, keeping in mind what true capitalism (meaning free market economy) is. But generally it is referred to as such. Even I myself refer to it as such, even though what we have is most definitely not the free market.

I don't think that revolutionaries, or politicians, or judges ought to simply force, against the wishes of a significant population, some more Zion-like society. I think that it ought not be forced for the simple reason that if it were, then it wouldn't be Zion-like.

That I think a Zion-type society is the right kind of society in terms economics and rights and so forth does not mean that I think it ought to be forced on people who want to go about things a different way.

A close look at D&C 42 informs us that it is definitely by choice.

For my own part, my hope is that people will come to understand and accept that there is a better sort of society, and, over time, society will move in that direction from the bottom up, as it were, by people becoming more charitable, more trusting and worth of trust, and so forth. To put this in terms of the prisoner's dilemma, as it is right now, society is so fractured in terms of information sharing, trust, and things of that nature, that to play the cooperation card, betting that other players in the game will play the cooperation card, will be a losing strategy. However, if we can get to a point where we can trust each other more, and already have it in our minds that cooperation will more equitably benefit everyone, then we'll cooperate. So, my hope for a Zion-like society is, first and foremost, a hope that people will educate themselves and work to be, well, nicer and more trustworthy, and that by and by (and I mean maybe 200, 300, 500 years in the future) society will reflect the sort of society Joseph Smith seemed to have in mind.

Very much agreed.

[BCSpace]

Any economic system that creates poverty is not of God.

That's not true at all especially when we see that the LoC is not an economic system. A UO does not tell us how, what, or when to work. It does not tell us what we can and cannot produce and how much and by what means. It does not set wages or prices, etc.

All economic systems produce or result in poverty. The problem is that some systems, like socialism, produce nearly 100% poverty and those systems would overwhelm any established UO because there is no or not enough surplus to take care of the need. A God approved economic system therefore results poverty by choice or ability and allows people to alleviate it by choice and gives them the ability to do so without infringing on the agency of others and there is only one economic system that gives all three. It is quite obvious from the doctrine on the LoC that the Lord's economic system is capitalistic. The Lord even speaks and operates in capitalistic terms, rewarding those according to the quality and quantity of their production. Matthew 25:14-30 and D&C 76 for example.

[urroner]

Zion is based upon people abiding by principles of righteousness and not rules of righteousness. Rules are based upon principles and when a people learn to abide by principles of righteousness, rules are no longer necessary, but until then rules are necessary.

We, as a Church, have not arrived at that point and the world is even further away from that point.

From my POV, in a true zion society, there is no such thing as ownership of things, rather it is a matter of possession. I have what I have because I have it, but if you need it and will put it to good use and I don't need it, than based on righteous principles, I will let you have it, but if you have something and don't need it and I do, you will let me have it. It's also not a matter of materialism since materialism isn't based on principles of righteousness. I define materialism as trying to outdo the Joneses.

But in today's society, it's not that way, so we shouldn't expect people to behave that way. If somebody can help the world more by having a huge mansion and a fancy car, then I have no problem with that person having a huge mansion and a fancy car. If somebody has a the ability to buy a huge mansion and a fancy car, yet chooses to give the money instead to charity, I have no problem with it.

The Bible doesn't say that money is the root of all evil.

[BCSpace]

"Nevertheless, in your temporal things you shall be equal, and this not grudgingly, otherwise the abundance of the manifestations of the Spirit shall be withheld" (D&C 70:14)

"For verily I say unto you, the time has come, and is now at hand; and behold, and lo, it must needs be that there be an organization of my people, in regulating and establishing the affairs of the storehouse for the poor of my people, both in this place and in the land of Zion... That you may be equal in the bonds of heavenly things, yea, and earthly things also, for the obtaining of heavenly things. For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things" (D&C 78: 3-6).

Amen. But what is LDS doctrine on the meaning of equality for verses such as these?

(L-4) The Fundamentals of Stewardship

Receiving a stewardship. Once consecration of all things was made to the Church, the individual was ready to receive a stewardship and accept complete accountability for it. President Romney described this process:

[David Bokovoy]

BIZ: Um, Jesus DID say that the poor will be with us ALWAYS. Was he wrong?

The statement to which you allude traces its origin to the Gospel of Mark:

[mercyngrace]

Zion is based upon people abiding by principles of righteousness and not rules of righteousness. Rules are based upon principles and when a people learn to abide by principles of righteousness, rules are no longer necessary, but until then rules are necessary.

We, as a Church, have not arrived at that point and the world is even further away from that point.

From my POV, in a true zion society, there is no such thing as ownership of things, rather it is a matter of possession. I have what I have because I have it, but if you need it and will put it to good use and I don't need it, than based on righteous principles, I will let you have it, but if you have something and don't need it and I do, you will let me have it. It's also not a matter of materialism since materialism isn't based on principles of righteousness. I define materialism as trying to outdo the Joneses.

But in today's society, it's not that way, so we shouldn't expect people to behave that way. If somebody can help the world more by having a huge mansion and a fancy car, then I have no problem with that person having a huge mansion and a fancy car. If somebody has a the ability to buy a huge mansion and a fancy car, yet chooses to give the money instead to charity, I have no problem with it.

The Bible doesn't say that money is the root of all evil.

I agree with nearly everything you've posted here.

One thing I wonder is how having a huge mansion and a fancy car helps the world.

Another thing I wonder is how we'll reach the point of living the LoC if we keep telling ourselves that the present condition of the world is an impediment. I live my other covenants regardless of the condition of the world. Obviously, we can't live the LoC completely but we can do much, much, better. I'm embarrassed to admit that our ward has done less than 50% visiting teaching in the last quarter. In other words, we can't even get our people to visit each other much less impart freely of their substance. We humble ourselves and live the Lord's laws or the Lord humbles us. That's the pattern. Our willingness to bear one another's burdens and impart of our substance to those in need directly correlates to how humbly we recognize our own status as beggars before God.

[David Bokovoy]

Amen. But what is LDS doctrine on the meaning of equality for verses such as these?

So according to that last, it is our claims that have equal standing, not that we are materially equal. It is also interesting to note that even some of the bretheren had gone astray on these points........

Look closely at what those verses (D&C 70:14; and 48:3-6) specify are the

[urroner]

I agree with nearly everything you've posted here.

One thing I wonder is how having a huge mansion and a fancy car helps the world.

Suppose I'm a business man and, in order to promote my business, I have to entertain business guests quite often and these guests want to stay in luxury and I also realize that if I put them up in my house, I get more business from them. I have also chosen to reinvest a certain percentage of my earnings back into the business to either keep it up-to-date or to increase the work I do. By doing this, I employ more people. I also donate a certain percentage to charities or non-profits. The more money I make, the more people I employ and the more I donate to those in need.

Suppose, and I feel this is very true in today's world, if I lived in a house that just meets my physical needs, I would make a lot less than if I lived in a big house and drove a fancy car.

[David Bokovoy]

That's not true at all especially when we see that the LoC is not an economic system.

Surely you can't be serious!!

All economic systems produce or result in poverty.

Let me correct that:

All "man-made" economic systems produce or result in poverty.

The Lord even speaks and operates in capitalistic terms, rewarding those according to the quality and quantity of their production. Matthew 25:14-30 and D&C 76 for example.

I'm sorry, but rewarding people who develop their talents is not capitalism. If anything, the Lord's parables, including the one you cite, teach that the rich should not save/horde their substance, but rather consecrate, i.e. make "holy/sacred" the possessions God has entrusted them to use as his stewards.

"And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided? So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God" (Luke 12:16-21).

In reality, the fate of those who save their profit for a raining day, who make larger financial investments building bigger "barns" in order to take their ease instead of putting their substance to good use by helping the poor is made quite clear both in the New Testament and in modern revelation:

"Therefore, if any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart not his portion, according to the law of my gospel, unto the poor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment." (D&C 104:18)

[mercyngrace]

Suppose I'm a business man and, in order to promote my business, I have to entertain business guests quite often and these guests want to stay in luxury and I also realize that if I put them up in my house, I get more business from them. I have also chosen to reinvest a certain percentage of my earnings back into the business to either keep it up-to-date or to increase the work I do. By doing this, I employ more people. I also donate a certain percentage to charities or non-profits. The more money I make, the more people I employ and the more I donate to those in need.

Suppose, and I feel this is very true in today's world, if I lived in a house that just meets my physical needs, I would make a lot less than if I lived in a big house and drove a fancy car.

I knew this would be the example you'd give. Is the world a better place because you endorse extravagant living and cater to the whims of people whose hearts are set on the things of the world? That's rhetorical. (Rhetorical because we can't easily quantify the impact of one hypothetical man's decision to live by principle.)

I do understand the point you're making, I just don't know that I agree.

LDS refuse to drink at social affairs, bring modestly dressed wives to gatherings, and excuse themselves from inappropriate chatter by superiors and dignitaries all the time - putting principle above political and corporate possibilities. Is this any different?

edit: to eliminate unnecessary personal anectdote (me... rambling again... Imagine )

[Mansquatch]

Any economic system that creates poverty is not of God.

God Himself creates poverty, so I see your statement as problematic.

Free markets create wealth which is then to be shared. When it is not shared then the world lies in sin. It does not lie in sin simply because there is a free market.

Bring the problem back to an individual level and you will have proper focus. You are taking it out to a level that blames a whole system for what individuals are doing. If we use your logic here we could back up further and say that the earth is not of God because it has inherent flaws and allows for poverty. Individuals are the key, not systems. Truth be told, if all men were true followers of Christ then any economic system would work.

Through modern revelation, the Lord has declared,

[David Bokovoy]

God Himself creates poverty, so I see your statement as problematic.

Good grief!! CFR!!!!!!

Free markets create wealth, which is then to be shared. When it is not shared then the world lies in sin. It does not lie in sin simply because there is a free market.

Please review my posts. I never addressed the issue of a

[mercyngrace]

Nonsense. Adam Smith is not God. He

[David Bokovoy]

Of course, he isn't! That would be Ayn Rand.

(You do know I'm joking, right?)

LOL!! Post of the day! Darn those Russian capitalists! My people need to stay true to their order!

[Tarski]

Keep up the good fight David. If you can, on this point, convince enough LDS of the plain meaning of the words of their own scriptures and their own savior to have a measurable impact on the dominant political culture of the church, I will return to church activity and bring a few with me for good measure. Why? Well in part, because I would be forced to believe in miracles.

But there are too many that would--so to speak--walk right over the very face of Christ in their rush to get to a John Birch Soc. meeting or to catch an episode of Glen Beck.

[urroner]

But there are too many that would--so to speak--walk right over the very face of Christ in their rush to get to a John Birch Soc. meeting or to catch an episode of Glen Beck.

So when somebody disagrees with you politically because they tend to be more conservative than you, then they are walking on the face of Christ. Please correct me if I have misunderstood what you have just said.

[David Bokovoy]

Keep up the good fight David. If you can, on this point, convince enough LDS of the plain meaning of the words of their own scriptures and their own savior to have a measurable impact on the dominant political culture of the church, I will return to church activity and bring a few with me for good measure. Why? Well in part, because I would be forced to believe in miracles.

But there are too many that would--so to speak--walk right over the very face of Christ in their rush to get to a John Birch Soc. meeting or to catch an episode of Glen Beck.

Well, given my long-time respect for you, Bro, there's reason enough to do it. It is truly amazing how many individuals can read these scriptures and fail to see how incompatible their political views are with Jesus teachings and LDS Church history.

The irony of this whole thing is that their devotion to conservative political agendas in lieu of the plain and simple gospel of Christ simply illustrates how truly effective the Federal government was in their efforts to Americanize the LDS Church. In other words, the very thing they deplore, i.e. strong Federal intervention is directly responsible for the new version of Mormonism they embrace. Like the reconstruction of the South, the reformation of Mormon separatism at the end of the Civil War was a real concern, not simply in terms of LDS practices regarding plural marriage but also LDS economics designed to eradicate poverty.

I invite those interested in this historical process to consider Klaus J. Hansen's important article "The Metamorphosis of the Kingdom of God: Toward a Reinterpretation of Mormon History," in Dialogue, vol. 1; no. 3 63-83.

Best,

--DB

[Brade]

Well, given my long-time respect for you, Bro, there's reason enough to do it. It is truly amazing how many individuals can read these scriptures and fail to see how incompatible their political views are with Jesus teachings and LDS Church history.

The irony of this whole thing is that their devotion to conservative political agendas in lieu of the plain and simple gospel of Christ simply illustrates how truly effective the Federal government was in their efforts to Americanize the LDS Church. In other words, the very thing they deplore, i.e. strong Federal intervention is directly responsible for the new version of Mormonism they embrace. Like the reconstruction of the South, the reformation of Mormon separatism at the end of the Civil War was a real concern, not simply in terms of LDS practices regarding plural marriage but also LDS economics designed to eradicate poverty.

I invite those interested in this historical process to consider Klaus J. Hansen's important article "The Metamorphosis of the Kingdom of God: Toward a Reinterpretation of Mormon History," in Dialogue, vol. 1; no. 3 63-83.

Best,

--DB

If you have access, Jonathan Moyer's dissertation, Dancing with the devil: The making of the Mormon-Republican pact, is worth checking out.

[mercyngrace]

But there are too many that would--so to speak--walk right over the very face of Christ in their rush to get to a John Birch Soc. meeting or to catch an episode of Glen Beck.

I remember being at a church social one evening where a political topic came up and I made some very harsh remarks, typical of the rhetoric on my side of the ideological divide. Most within earshot nodded in agreeement but one sister, relatively new to the church, looked at me strangely. Her look puzzled me but I tried to dismiss it, thinking she was simply too new to the faith to understand the gospel foundation for my political position.

But that look ate at me. No. It gnawed at me. The Spirit was such a disquieter that I finally had to admit that I hadn't been Christ-like and there were gaping incongruities in how I applied the gospel to politics. It was the beginning of a change that is ongoing. Not from right to left but from earth heavenward, which usually means not aligning very well with any man-made political theories.

As I mentioned earlier, I've forsaken being right for being led. And I've stopped using God's word to justify what I believe in favor of trying to be like God so He can show me what He believes.

So let's not be too quick to condemn people who are convinced their interpretation of scripture and political thinking is sound. If God can right my ship, He will most certainly do it for others.

[David Bokovoy]

If you have access, Jonathan Moyer's dissertation, Dancing with the devil: The making of the Mormon-Republican pact, is worth checking out.

You've got to be kidding!! I've got to track this down today!!

Thanks!!

[urroner]

The abstract from the "devil's" dissertation:

ABSTRACT

The Mormon Church initially positioned itself in opposition to America

[Mansquatch]

Good grief!! CFR!!!!!!

Good grief !! "Inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall not prosper in the land." Omni 1:6

Please review my posts. I never addressed the issue of a

[mercyngrace]

Mansquatch,

Adam Smith held charity in high regard, that much is absolutely true. He is not known for that so much today, I think. He did however believe that man's lesser nature meant that charity, while a virtuous act, could not alone provide the essentials for living. Self-interest is the mechanism he felt would remedy this shortcoming. Said Smith: