D&C 82:17 vs. D&C 49:20

[David Bokovoy]

I have no desire to participate and/or add on to the lengthy attack thread that misinterprets my views. Just way too much nonsense and drama. However, Nomad asked a very good question that deserves its own consideration regarding the apparent contradiction between D&C 82:17 and 49:20.

Nomad:

I would have enjoyed a School of the Pundit's discussion between you and Brother Schryver on this topic. It now appears that will never happen. That is unfortunate. For my own part, I remain confused about your stance on the various scriptures you cite. I've asked a few quetsions concerning your interpretation of "equality" as it aplies to the Law of Consecration, but I don't believe you ever answered. How do you reconcile these two aparently contradictory passages?

Quote

Doctrine and Covenants 82:17

And you are to be equal, or in other words, you are to have equal claims on the properties, for the benefit of managing the concerns of your stewardships, every man according to his wants and his needs ...

Quote

Doctrine and Covenants 49:20

But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.

Thanks in advance for your reply.

Thank you for asking a very good question. Once one understands the historical context to these revelations, there really isn

[BCSpace]

The Joseph Smith Papers, vol. 2:

Nondoctrinal work. One can obviously hold to whatever views one likes, but if one wants to accurately represent the Church's position on common property and equality, one would be better served to click the link in my signature.

[mercyngrace]

Nondoctrinal work. One can obviously hold to whatever views one likes, but if one wants to accurately represent the Church's position on common property and equality, one would be better served to click the link in my signature.

No need to throw Joseph Smith under the bus. Just reread the words David cited.

The common property is that which has been returned to the storehouse - not the individual stewardships which is what you might consider private (and deeded) property.

The relevant quote from your own link is:

Residues and surplus: storehouses and treasuries .

President J. Reuben Clark Jr. explained:

[zerinus]

Nondoctrinal work. One can obviously hold to whatever views one likes, but if one wants to accurately represent the Church's position on common property and equality, one would be better served to click the link in my signature.

The article on LOC was very good, but the video on Evolution was not!

[David Bokovoy]

Nondoctrinal work.

Whether ancient or modern writ, ignoring the historical context to scripture leads to misinterpretation. Revelation has a setting in the temporal world, and I believe students of scripture should put forth every effort to understand that context. From my perspective, denying the validity of Joseph

[Nomad]

David Bokovoy:

So you see, the reference to every man having equal claims according to his wants is a statement that contextually means that if a member of the United Firm desired to produce a greater increase of wealth to be given to the Lord

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

`

`

`This is my last post on this message board. It has become the kind of place with which I no longer desire to be associated.

.

This board seems to be dying. We lost Droopy, Will, now it seems Nomad. I guess DCP doesn't post here anymore? Who is next Bill?

[David Bokovoy]

David Bokovoy:

So, by your own admission, "distribution of wealth" under the Law of Consecration is not truly "equal" at all in terms of wealth, per se.

The attribute of "equality" applies only to each individual's "wants and needs." Or, in other words, each man receives a stewardship equal to his wants and needs and consistent with his established track record for magnifying his calling and improving upon his stewardship (as taught in the parable of the talents).

I guess there will be great industrialists in the milennium after all, the only difference being that none of them will "grind on the face of the poor." The one thing there obviously won't be is a mathematically "equal" distribution of the raw wealth of those joined in the United Order.

(BTW, this was the only point William Schryver was ever trying to make when he asked his questions concerning who would construct bulldozers during the milennium. It's too bad you couldn't see far enough past your biases to give those questions the serious consideration they deserved.)

Even so, thank you for answering my question, and (hopefully) clarifying for everyone who has followed these threads of yours just what "equal" means in the context of the Law of Consecration.

By my own admission? I have never, ever suggested that wealth would be distributed 100% equally, or that such was ever the case under Joseph's United Firm. This point has always been obvious. If, for instance, a family with three children receives less than a family with six children then an exact equal division of wealth has not occurred. So the argument that you/Will assumed I was making was never my point.

`This is my last post on this message board. It has become the kind of place with which I no longer desire to be associated.

Have a great life!

If you choose to respond to my earlier request for a brief explanation of your objections/reservations about Schryver's KEP thesis, I have sent you a PM with my e-mail address.

I'll invite you to read my views on the BofA and the KEP when they are in print.

[David Bokovoy]

This board seems to be dying. We lost Droopy, Will, now it seems Nomad.

Dying isn't the word I would use. This place will benefit from less drama and more discussion.

[David T]

Nondoctrinal work.

But, BCSpace, that original version of the revelatory document produced by Joseph Smith as reproduced in the Joseph Smith Papers is recently and officially published by the Church (Church Historian's Press). According to your expressed personal interpretation of the Statement on Church Doctrine, doesn't that fit?

[David Bokovoy]

But, BCSpace, it's published by the Church (Church Historian's Press) according to your personal interpretation of the Statement on Church Doctrine, doesn't that fit?

A good point. Additionally, Joseph claimed that this was a revelation from God and the early Church leaders made important financial decisions with this view in mind. Is BC claiming that the Prophet was mistaken?

[mercyngrace]

Dying isn't the word I would use. This place will benefit from less drama and more discussion.

I can't fathom why this topic is so divisive.

If we don't all share the exact same understanding right now, that's not unreasonable. Plenty of people argue over whether a full tithe should be "net" or "gross" but we don't judge their faithfulness or worthiness on this individual interpretation.

There is no reason consecration should be a sifting issue - it ought to be a unifying issue since the whole point is to be of one heart and one mind.

[David Bokovoy]

I can't fathom why this topic is so divisive.

If we don't all share the exact same understanding right now, that's not unreasonable. Plenty of people argue over whether a full tithe should be "net" or "gross" but we don't judge their faithfulness or worthiness on this individual interpretation.

There is no reason consecration should be a sifting issue - it ought to be a unifying issue since the whole point is to be of one heart and one mind.

I agree that it is tragic. And would suggest that this enmity is the direct result of pride:

"The central feature of pride is enmity

[wenglund]

I can't fathom why this topic is so divisive.

If we don't all share the exact same understanding right now, that's not unreasonable. Plenty of people argue over whether a full tithe should be "net" or "gross" but we don't judge their faithfulness or worthiness on this individual interpretation.

There is no reason consecration should be a sifting issue - it ought to be a unifying issue since the whole point is to be of one heart and one mind.

Nicely said. Sometimes we may lose sight of the fact that our approach to discussing Zion may in some ways be at odds with the intended spirit of Zion. How we say thing may inadvertantly counter our own desired message--kind of like talking unlovingly about love. I am speaking mostly introspectively here, and I say these things primarily for my own benefit, thinking I have room for improvement in this regard, and that it is in my interest going forward to do better.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[BCSpace]

No need to throw Joseph Smith under the bus. Just reread the words David cited.

So, the OP is completely consistent with the institute manual linked in your signature. Or, to quote what David already wrote: Once one understands the historical context to these revelations, there really isn

[David Bokovoy]

I think Nomad drives my point home well enough.

And what point is that?

More importantly, you failed to respond to this question:

"Joseph claimed that this was a revelation from God and the early Church leaders made important financial decisions with this view in mind. Is BC claiming that the Prophet was mistaken? "

Thanks,

--DB

[mercyngrace]

I think Nomad drives my point home well enough.

For clarity, is your point that there is not absolutely equality of wealth? Because David agreed with that and so did I In my own case, this is a point I've made from the beginning and a point I've clarified repeatedly. Need and ability drive the specifics of the stewardship.

[BCSpace]

More importantly, you failed to respond to this question:

"Joseph claimed that this was a revelation from God and the early Church leaders made important financial decisions with this view in mind. Is BC claiming that the Prophet was mistaken? "

I responded to it directly. It's doctrinality tells us whether or not we as a Church must consider it. Whether or not we have to consider it says nothing at all about it's revelatory nature or if JS was wrong. The ony thing that matters is what the Church itself teaches as doctrine.

[David Bokovoy]

For clarity, is your point that there is not absolutely equality of wealth? Because David agreed with that and so did I In my own case, this is a point I've made from the beginning and a point I've clarified repeatedly. Need and ability drive the specifics of the stewardship.

Unfortunately, we've seen this happen a lot in terms of these threads, i.e. people getting worked up over misunderstanding an argument and/or perspective. I'm personally very grateful that you've always contributed so much substance with such kindness. Thank you for the example.

[David Bokovoy]

I responded to it directly. It's doctrinality tells us whether or not we as a Church must consider it. Whether or not we have to consider it says nothing at all about it's revelatory nature or if JS was wrong. The ony thing that matters is what the Church itself teaches as doctrine.

So leaving aside for a moment what the church does or does not teach today, do you acknowledge the historical fact that private ownership of property did not exist under the United Order revealed to Joseph Smith in section 82?

[David Bokovoy]

For the record, I believe that when read carefully, the manual teaches the correct concept (though I admit it is a bit confusing and from my perspective probably needs to be changed). Note the following paragraph that introduces the quotes from President Romney that BC and Droopy gave such great emphasis:

[BCSpace]

For the record, I believe that when read carefully, the manual teaches the correct concept (though I admit it is a bit confusing and from my perspective probably needs to be changed).

This is what I meant when I said Nomad made my point. You are beginning to agree with the manual which in your Acts thread, you said was in error.

Note the following paragraph that introduces the quotes from President Romney that BC and Droopy gave such great emphasis:

I will mark in blue the emphasis again relative to to the current debate:

[zerinus]

This board seems to be dying. We lost Droopy, Will, now it seems Nomad. I guess DCP doesn't post here anymore? Who is next Bill?

I will hang around and keep you company, don't worry!

[David Bokovoy]

This is what I meant when I said Nomad made my point. You are beginning to agree with the manual which in your Acts thread, you said was in error.

I will mark in blue the emphasis again relative to to the current debate:

Neither I nor Droopy have disagreed with anything stated in the manual. But again you have to remember that it was you who said the manual was in error. This leaves the impression that you had not even read the quotes given from it until very recently.

And thus they truly own property as that is what stewardship is all about. It is no different than when we teach tithing. Everything comes from the Lord so it is not unreasonable to expect 10% to be given back (individual ownership). In fact, the teaching on tithing implies that the Lord respects our indiviudal and private ownership. He doesn't come swooping in to take whatever He wants. However, it is incorrect to assume that 100% is automatically required under the LoC.

Sure. Nothing in that perspective negates anything I have stated before and I certainly haven't quoted anything out of context. These have been freely available to you for a long time now and it's good to see you moderating your position based on actual doctrine that you have finally decided to look up.

Others would find that offensive I'm sure and the argument could easily be made and proven that your opinion is based on your own political views, but I won't resort to driving someone out of a conversation because I don't need that kind of help to defend my positions.

Frankly I think it no coincidence that a nation founded on capitalism would see the re-introduction of the LoC and I find it telling that you still have not been able to address the doctrines surrounding the need for capitalism to support any UO.

Are you willing to answer this question?

So leaving aside for a moment what the church does or does not teach today, do you acknowledge the historical fact that private ownership of property did not exist under the United Order revealed to Joseph Smith in section 82?

[BCSpace]

Are you willing to answer this question?

I did in the other thread. It might be wise not to scatter your thoughts on the same subject into so many different threads.