Acts 4:32-35

[LeSellers]

It appears to me that the last 30 years of Laissez faire economics has resulted in the near destruction of that very same economic system.

LoL!!! RoFLMBFB off!!!

"Laissez-faire" economics!!!?? HaHaHa!! That's a good one.

There hasn't been a single case of "lassez-faire economics" in USmerica since well before Teddy Roosevelt. Please, go back to 1980 and name one, just one, item or activity a person did, touched, used or thought about, that was not regulated, taxed, restricted, subsidized, limited, or forbidden by one layer (after another, after another) of government. Just one!

(Wiping copious tears from both eyes, and blowing nose.) HaHaHaHa. Six thousand professional comedians out of work and you're standing there telling jokes. Have you no shame?

Lehi

[changed]

In my opinion, what makes this a difficult concept for us to "get our brains around" is that we live in an extremely materialistic world. We are "taught" to amass as much as we can as a sign of success. But what if there was a culture that really didn't care about accumulating material goods, but sought more after spiritual growth and community in Christ? They would live by a different set of priorities.

While I'm not an expert on the ancient days regarding the early Christian movement, I was taught that women and slaves couldn't even own land if they wanted. Also, most of the things we go to the store to buy, they had to make themselves. We do know there were certain "trades men" (Joseph and Jesus worked as carpenters), many of the apostles were "fishermen", and Matthew was a tax collector. So there were certain "jobs and professions" which people did in order to receive compensation. Yet we also know from the scriptures that when the people sought after the finer things (costly apparel, jewelry, and such) there society began to fall into corruption.

So I think it in error to say it is a "required duty" to give up everything in order to participate in true Christian Community, rather many in fact developed a different set of priorities which they choose to live by. Personally, I prefer the Native American approach. Many of the tools (while keep individually), were used for the benefit of all. As example, the drum keeper would be more of the "caretaker" of the tribes drum instead of the owner (although this "right" would be passed down from father to son).

Also, the best "bow and arrow" maker would not sell his product, rather he would teach others how to make them for themselves. The same is true regarding Tepee's, flutes, drums, clothing, and other things. They hunt and gathered as a community, everyone had enough food and a proper shelter. While they did have some personal items, there concept of ownership was vastly different. They appear to have been more focused on tribal identity instead of individual wealth.

This may be the "key to Zionic identity", they simply lived by a different set of priorities which we are unaccustomed too in our day and age. Yet one we again may seek when our identity changes our needs and wants into something more from heaven instead of earth!

I agree. I think the "tribal ownership" philosophy works better in small groups though, and it also only works when everyone is willing to work and contribute... the UO only works for a righteous people where no one abuses the system.

[WalkerW]

There hasn't been a single case of "lassez-faire economics" in USmerica since well before Teddy Roosevelt.

As I said, the name of the game drastically changed in the Progressive Era of the 20th century. For an excellent survey of those who talk about economics, but are really talking about their social vision, see Thomas Sowell's chapter "Intellectuals and Economics" in his Intellectuals and Society (Basic Books, 2009).

By the way, my main problem with secular centralization is the assumption that a human institution has all knowledge by which to plan an economy. Divine centralization (i.e. God at the head) is quite different, even though Joseph Smith still proposed a theodemocracy.

See F.A. Hayek, "The Use of Knowledge in Society," American Economic Review 35:4 (1945) and "The Pretence of Knowledge," American Economic Review 79:6 (1989). The last one is from his Nobel Prize speech.

[changed]

There hasn't been a single case of "lassez-faire economics" in USmerica since well before Teddy Roosevelt. Please, go back to 1980 and name one, just one, item or activity a person did, touched, used or thought about, that was not regulated, taxed, restricted, subsidized, limited, or forbidden by one layer (after another, after another) of government. Just one!

I was going to post something that I do that is not taxed/regulated etc. etc.... but because I don't report it, it's probably forbidden ... I know, I should live by the laws of the land, but when the laws are unjust and it is so hard to figure out how to report it all, what all the regulations are - I just give up on it. Let the gadiantons fend for themselves.

[ElfLord]

WalkerW:

Laugh or cry all you want. The essence of Capitalism is to effect public policy through the acquisition of private wealth.

While nearly every country has outlawed slavery it is still practiced world wide. Including here in the US amongst the good Christian capitalists.

http://abcnews.go.co...=2981327&page=1

Something like this nearly happened to my wife when she first moved to Utah from out of the country:

She was sponsered by a nurse up in parkcity to come and go to school at the U to learn English. To help around the house she was to help clean and be a Nanny after school for the newborn of 3 months. By the end of the 2nd week, the newborns crib was moved into her bedroom and she was its sole provider on threat of pulling her sponsership. Luckily the 85 year old Neighbor saw my wife in the back yard with the crying baby at the same time trying to do her homework for class and stopped to ask her why she was crying and probed a little deaper to find out the situation.

He became her sponser and she moved out that weekend.

[David Bokovoy]

Nothing like a post going down the drain because the mods are testing.

Any who.

So I see nothing in here about redistribution as being the primary means at eliminating poverty.

That wasn't my primary point, but nonetheless, he did mention Fast Offering which as we have discussed before most certainly is a redistribution of wealth.

[David Bokovoy]

I would respectfully ask that all posters wishing to discuss contemporary economic perspectives to do so in the context of the issues addressed in the OP.

Thanks.

[Vance]

the term "capitalism" was actually coined by Karl Marx in an attempt to get rid of it.

Why am I not surprised by this?

[David Bokovoy]

It appears from this passage of scripture that the early saints in the Old World divested themselves of private ownership of lands and homes, not by deeding the ownership over to the Church, but by selling their private ownership to others (presumably to the gentiles?). This effectively rendered the early saints vagabonds or subject to and tenents of the new owners (gentiles?). Right?

Note the passage in question:

[Vance]

I would respectfully ask that all posters wishing to discuss contemporary economic perspectives to do so in the context of the issues addressed in the OP.

Thanks.

Sorry!

I posted the previous post before I saw this.

Sorry!

[David Bokovoy]

Sorry!

I posted the previous post before I saw this.

Sorry!

No worries, Brother. Just work in the scriptural discussion of the OP and we're all good.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That wasn't my primary point, but nonetheless, he did mention Fast Offering which as we have discussed before most certainly is a redistribution of wealth.

Yes, that is a form but is it the primary form? As I recall you tried to argue in another thread that redistribution of wealth was the primary form of elminiating poverty.

I just want you to clarify if that is not what you said.

[David Bokovoy]

Note that Elder Bruce R. McConkie presents the correct view of this scriptural passage:

[David Bokovoy]

Yes, that is a form but is it the primary form? As I recall you tried to argue in another thread that redistribution of wealth was the primary form of elminiating poverty.

I just want you to clarify if that is not what you said.

No. The primary form of wealth redistribution under the United Order involves turning ownership of private property over to the Lord's agent(s) who then eradicate poverty.

[Vance]

No. The primary form of wealth redistribution under the United Order involves turning ownership of private property over to the Lord's agent(s) who then eradicate poverty.

And then what happens to the steward that through indolence misuses that stewardship (property) and thus is unprepared to supply for his needs, (thus remaining poor)?

Does he (and other do-gooders) insist that the more industious steward (that has already given more property than the stewardship he received in exchange) make up the difference by either supplying goods or relinguishing even more stewardship?

The only way to eliminate poverty is for all to be industrious, at least to some degree.

[David Bokovoy]

On the question of whether or not the Church owned the property donated by the early Saints, note the following commentary by biblical scholar Halvor Moxnes:

"The distribution of goods is made by the apostles. As leaders of the community they function as brokers. Thus the donor-patrons do not recieve any special honor or reward. Their gift is an act of service towards those in need, but it is not to be transformed into status for the benefactors. It does not give them a special honor, but it is a sign of the spirit of unity within the community;" in "Patron-Client Relations and the New Community in Lukes-Acts," The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991), 265.

[BCSpace]

Note that Elder Bruce R. McConkie presents the correct view of this scriptural passage:

[David Bokovoy]

Perhaps your use of nondoctrinal works has confused you, but I don't necessarily think BRM was confused as you've presented only the first aspect. The next one was that property was deeded back to the member and it was considered that member's personal and private property. Once again from LDS doctrine to which I link to:

In addition, one of the the fundamental principles underlying consecration and stewardship is private property:

Now if I decide to send my kids off to an expensive school and I determine, between me and the Lord, that this is a righteous desire, I will operate my "property" in such a way as to produce enough profit in order for them to do so. I migh fail at the endeavor. I also might wildly succeed producing surplus that I can decide to further consecrate. Btw, such surpluses can only be had in a free market and capitalistic system......

So everyone can rejoice in that one will likely keep his own house, the back 40, and even be able to add on that gameroom, den, or pool you've always wanted. There will be no Soviet/LBJ style cement housing projects mandated or required though DB will be able to sell any property deeded back to him for such a purpose if he so desires.

The bottom line is that the LoC you've grown up hearing about is a myth and simply because many have failed to actually take advantage the available doctrine. Now thanks to that capitalist tool, the internet, all may more easily partake.

Yes, you've cited this all before, but until you can counter the scriptural interpretation presented in this thread, the point remains that in claiming that private ownership of property existed, the manual is clearly in error and much like the updated version of Gospel Principles, needs to be corrected in a new edition.

[wenglund]

Note the passage in question:

[WalkerW]

I would respectfully ask that all posters wishing to discuss contemporary economic perspectives to do so in the context of the issues addressed in the OP.

Thanks.

Sorry, David. Economics and business organization are hobbies of mine and part of my education. I get carried away.

Didn't mean to derail the thread. I will bow out until further notice.

[David Bokovoy]

Sorry, David. Economics and business organization are hobbies of mine and part of my education. I get carried away.

Didn't mean to derail the thread. I will bow out until further notice.

You have a lot to offer and I certainly appreciate contributions on the subject of economics and business organization. I'm simply asking people to link their observations with the thread's focus.

Best,

--DB

[David Bokovoy]

No. We are to assume that the property was sold (see the underlined portion above] and ownership of the property transfered as a part of the sell. It was the "proceeds" from the sell that was laid before the feet of the apostles. Whatever ownership may have existed with the proceeds, was evidently passed through the apostles and on to those to whom the proceeds were distributed according to need.

Who do you believe the properties (land and homes) were sold to?

I believe you are correct in this analysis, however, in suggesting that this act "effectively rendered the early saints vagabonds or subject to and tenents of the new owners," I'm not sure that this proposal is correct. The Saints may or may not have bought property with the proceeds held by the apostles, i.e. Church. I don't believe there is enough detail in the NT regarding these events to decide one way or another.

If so, that marks a clear difference between what occured in the early day church and what occured in the latter days. As such, a wrinkle is create when using scriptural passages to suggesting what exactly Zion may or may not one day consist of economically. You are obliged to decide whther it will consist of the saints selling their homes and land and distributing the proceeds, or simply deeding their homes and land to the Church. Whereas, from my perspective, I view the difference as indicating that there is no hard and faced formula, and conditioned upon the times and conditions in which the saints live. As such, I am more than content to wait for God to more fully reveal his will on the matter in his due time.

In his Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Elder McConkie notes that while there is not enough information in the NT to understand the way the primitive Saints lived the United Order, that they did, from his perspective, possess a system that reflected the UO put into place by the prophet Joseph in the 19th century. Whether he's correct or not, I still maintain that we absolutely have enough information in the D&C to understand the economic conditions that must exist in a Zion community.

[wenglund]

I believe you are correct in this analysis, however, in suggesting that this act "effectively rendered the early saints vagabonds or subject to and tenents of the new owners," I'm not sure that this proposal is correct. The Saints may or may not have bought property with the proceeds held by the apostles, i.e. Church. I don't believe there is enough detail in the NT regarding these events to decide one way or another.

Yes, the information is rather scant and far from difinitive, and as such I am fine with not paying it much mind or caring one way or the other.

Not that it matters, but it would be interesting to learn what proportion of the surrounding population were saints in that day. Learning this would give us some sense of how the actions of the saints may have affected the land and housing markets then. If the proportion of saints was relatively sizable, then the sudden selling off of land and homes may have caused a glut on the market, driving prices down, and this to the benefit of the presumably gentile buyers. Then, once the proceeds had been distributed among the saints, according to their respective needs, were the saints to then all turn around and look to purchase land and homes again, it may have create a scarcity that would drive the price of property up, likewise to the benefit of the gentile sellers. In short, depending upon the proportion of saints in the day, their move to sell off all their land and homes and then possibly repurchase them, may have resulted, itself, in a realized sizable loss of personal capital. If so, that would seem a terrible waste, though it may have resulted in some tax benefits. Who knows?

I mention this because I have been considering that a similar thing might happen to the housing markets, particularly along the Wasatch front and in Jackson Co., MO, were the call to be sent forth from the Church to the members for them to move from where they now live and settle in Zion.

In his Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Elder McConkie notes that while there is not enough information in the NT to understand the way the primitive Saints lived the United Order, that they did, from his perspective, possess a system that reflected the UO put into place by the prophet Joseph in the 19th century. Whether he's correct or not, I still maintain that we absolutely have enough information in the D&C to understand the economic conditions that must exist in a Zion community.

It doesn't appear to me that Bro. McConkie was using the specific biblical translation you quoted when writing his NT Commentary, but whatever the case, I don't dispute that, in general and in principle, the actions of the early day saints were not much different from the action of saints in these later days who attempted to live what they understood of the United Order.

I am just not prepared, myself, to conclude that all the essentials that need to be known about correctly living a Zion society have already been difinitively revealed in the D&C or elsewhere in the scritures. In fact, as these threads have demonstrated, I believe there is now ample room for mutually enlightening debate and differing reasonable opinions on the matter. As such, I am pleased to wait for further light and knowledge before solidifying my view one way or the other.

But, I can respect if others think differently.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

... I still maintain that we absolutely have enough information in the D&C to understand the economic conditions that must exist in a Zion community.

Out of the charity of your own heart, would you please point me to a post where you have outlined every condition that must exist ?

I haven't seen a list like that from you yet, or from anyone else either, for that matter, and I'd like to see if you have something on your list that I haven't thought about yet.

[David Bokovoy]

Out of the charity of your own heart, would you please point me to a post where you have outlined every condition that must exist ?

I haven't seen a list like that from you yet, or from anyone else either, for that matter, and I'd like to see if you have something on your list that I haven't thought about yet.

Despite the obvious condescension, I'm more than happy to point you in the right direction. I would recommend starting with this thread: