Book of Mormon Socialism

[thesometimesaint]

Mola Ram Suda Ram:

I gladly pay my taxes. I like the goods and services like the fire department, the police department, the libraries, roads, schools, feeding hungry people, and the hundred other services the government provides with my tax dollar. I also gladly pay my tithing, generous fast offering, generous monthly contributions to the Church welfare program, Perpetual Education Fund, and financially support the Missionary from our local Church Ward.

I consider myself well blessed by God, and from living in my country.

[David Bokovoy]

Heavenomics?

That's a new one for me.

I'm curious, does your conception of "heavenomics" include the obligatory redistribution of wealth as the method by which poverty is eradicated? Will banking software be modified to make sure everyone's checking account balance is always exactly the same amount as everyone else's?

This is meant to be a serious question, not a flippant one. Maybe you've answered this question elsewhere, but I haven't seen it if you have.

Thanks.

It depends upon what you mean by the term "obligatory." Is redistribution of wealth an "obligation" in Zion for the sake of morality and to be a part of God's community, of course!

Will, however, such redistribution be obligatory in the sense of required by compulsion? Of course not.

As defined in the D&C, we will be agents held responsible over our stewardship, yet "it is not meet that [God] should compel in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward" (D&C 58:26).

[Deborah]

Mola Ram Suda Ram:

I like the goods and services like the fire department, the police department, the libraries, roads, schools, feeding hungry people, and the hundred other services the government provides with my tax dollar.

I like those services at the local level as well. However, imagine how much more we could do in our own communities if the federal government wasn't in our pockets or mandating the states for things that don't interest them.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola Ram Suda Ram:

I gladly pay my taxes. I like the goods and services like the fire department, the police department, the libraries, roads, schools, feeding hungry people, and the hundred other services the government provides with my tax dollar. I also gladly pay my tithing, generous fast offering, generous monthly contributions to the Church welfare program, Perpetual Education Fund, and financially support the Missionary from our local Church Ward.

I consider myself well blessed by God, and from living in my country.

You did not answer my question.

[Senator]

I'm curious, does your conception of "heavenomics" include the obligatory redistribution of wealth as the method by which poverty is eradicated? Thanks.

Not meaning to answer for David, may I give my own answer to your question.

Redistribution of wealth is a given in heavenomics. "Obligatory" is the modifying word in need of address here.

The great mystery to the Zion collective, is how to create a free and independant people, who, through there own autonomy feel to self impose obligations to insure that there are "no poor among them".

[thesometimesaint]

Deborah:

Where do you think the funding for those local goods and services comes from? The Interstate Highway System was started under Eisenhower. Where do you think the requirement for clean water comes from? The EPA establishes the minimal safety standards for safe clean drinking water for all public entities. Or do you want the return of burning rivers. See Cuyahoga River fire.

States Rights was the call of the Segregationist South. You really want a return of Jim Crow?

[Nomad]

It depends upon what you mean by the term "obligatory." Is redistribution of wealth an "obligation" in Zion for the sake of morality and to be a part of God's community, of course!

Will, however, such redistribution be obligatory in the sense of required by compulsion? Of course not.

As defined in the D&C, we will be agents held responsible over our stewardship, yet "it is not meet that [God] should compel in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward" (D&C 58:26).

So will there even be any kind of currency in such a system? If so, will everyone have the same amount, more or less?

Will everyone have pretty much the same amount and quality of land, improvements, vehicles, electronic gadgets, etc.?

I'm just trying to get a handle on the practical application of this system you envision. I've read a lot of the rhetoric about everyone being "equal" under a United Order kind of arrangement, but I really struggle trying to see it put in practice. I mean, will there still be big sprawling commercial dairies or will everyone have to have their own cow? Will there be multi-square-mile commercial grain growing operations, or will everyone (or maybe every ward) have to have its own wheat field, combine, mill, etc.? I think these are valid questions to ask, don't you?

[Nomad]

Not meaning to answer for David, may I give my own answer to your question.

Redistribution of wealth is a given in heavenomics. "Obligatory" is the modifying word in need of address here.

The great mystery to the Zion collective, is how to create a free and independant people, who, through there own autonomy feel to self impose obligations to insure that there are "no poor among them".

I agree that there is still a lot of mystery as to how all of this law of consecration stuff will work. See my reply to David Bokovoy above and feel free to offer your own ideas about my questions.

Thanks.

[David Bokovoy]

So will there even be any kind of currency in such a system? If so, will everyone have the same amount, more or less?

Will everyone have pretty much the same amount and quality of land, improvements, vehicles, electronic gadgets, etc.?

I'm just trying to get a handle on the practical application of this system you envision. I've read a lot of the rhetoric about everyone being "equal" under a United Order kind of arrangement, but I really struggle trying to see it put in practice. I mean, will there still be big sprawling commercial dairies or will everyone have to have their own cow? Will there be multi-square-mile commercial grain growing operations, or will everyone (or maybe every ward) have to have its own wheat field, combine, mill, etc.? I think these are valid questions to ask, don't you?

If we look towards the example of the United Firm, some with a special gift for producing increase were given a larger stewardship than others in order to increase the communal wealth. However, private ownership of property did not exist. All property belongs to God. So no one will have more than anyone else, though some will possess a larger stewardship.

[Mark Beesley]

Earth to Mark, Nephi did not practice socialism.

So, are you saying that you don't know which Nephi I was talking about? Or are you saying that you define socialism in a bad way?

[thesometimesaint]

Mola Ram Suda Ram:

"BTW I will decide how my money gets spent. I don't understand why you think the goverment is going to spend it better.

Look at the mess they have created. You really think that giving it to the government is better than giving it to the church?".

BTW Don't pay your tithing. Enjoy a nice hot place. Don't pay your taxes. Enjoy prison.

I think I answered your question. I do both. I contribute to both because I believe in both.

Now a question for you. Who builds the better Interstate Highways System, the Church or the government?

Ps. In the first edition of his work Answers to Gospel Questions, Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:

"The Savior said that preceding his coming there would be signs in the heavens. No doubt there will be appearances of commotion among the heavenly bodies. We are informed by prophecy that the earth will reel to and fro. This will make it appear like the stars are falling. The sun will be darkened and the moon look like blood. All of these wonders will take place before Christ comes. Naturally the wonders in the heavens that man has created will be numbered among the signs which have been predicted

[Nomad]

If we look towards the example of the United Firm, some with a special gift for producing increase were given a larger stewardship than others in order to increase the communal wealth. However, private ownership of property did not exist. All property belongs to God. So no one will have more than anyone else, though some will possess a larger stewardship.

Ok, I conclude then, by what you're saying, that you do think there will be things like commerical agribusiness in a law of consecration abiding society. I think you must be right. And if you are, then it makes me wonder how much different life will look then compared to how it does now, other than the elimination of poverty, which could be done now if we did something as fundamental as ceasing to make war.

[frankenstein]

I'm not talking about competition among consumers, but among producers. Demand is part of the equation and where there is high demand and limited availability of course price goes up.

the ebook example would show I understand quite well, competition came in and prices went up.

as for you "demand + limited seats = increase prices"

airline passengers are not asking for an 3 fold increase in price, it is the greedy airline which arbitrarily increase the price under the false mantra "demand+limited seats = increase prices". there is no need (other than the hungry hippos to get more marbles) for the airline to raise prices, they are not providing any extra service, thus there is no additional cost to the airline which needs be covered by a rate increase. And thus, we now see that it is greed (evil) of the provider which drives the price. airline holiday price increase are a hungry hippo money grab plain and simple.

[WalkerW]

I see that I missed an entire thread on the question of the Book of Mormon's support for socialism.

I don't care to get into a discussion of this matter, and don't really have time anyway over the next while, but did want to register my opinion: I see no support whatever for socialism in the Book of Mormon.

For which I am grateful. Socialism has reduced enough people to unnecessary poverty, and killed more than enough scores of millions. It should go the way of phrenology, liver-divination, leechcraft, witch-burnings, and astrology, which have done far less damage.

I was wondering when you were going to pop in, Mr. Freedom Fest.

By the way, I have a new article in the North Texas Daily (UNT's paper) on rhetoric and the market. My first one was on morality and the market.

[WalkerW]

The economic order of Zion is not any man-made "ism."

Too true. I always say that consecration has two main elements that are missing from secular systems: God and covenant.

[WalkerW]

A significant problem with these discussions is that they impose a set of modern concepts on a very different economic world. How do concepts developed in a monetary economy related to the needs and practices of a barter economy which is heavily agrarian? King Benjamin certainly wanted to stop the creation of a division between those who thought themselves better and those who were considered inferior, but that was a social process manifest through an economic display. It wasn't inherently economic.

In the case of distributing to the poor, it was sharing versus selfishness, not capitalism versus socialism.

As far as the "all things in common" response after Christ's appearance, we have very little information as to what that actually meant or how it was implemented. Speculation on that phrase is just than--speculation. It becomes a way to discuss modern political systems that really don't relate to the Book of Mormon, save that the phrase became the tangent on which they take off.

Thank you, Brant.

I remember a while back there was another thread about "socialism" and "capitalism" and helping "the poor." I explained that even the term "the poor" is abstract. Do we help "the poor" own TVs, cars, iPods, the Internet, none of which existed in the times of King Benjamin, Jesus, or Joseph Smith? Does it make a difference that since the 1800s, despite the population multiplying six times, average life expectancy has more than doubled and real income has risen nine times? Or that in the past 50 years, the average income (adjusted for inflation) has tripled, food production is up by 1/3, child mortality is down 2/3, and life expectancy is up 1/3? Should we rejoice that we are less likely to die as a result of war, murder, childbirth, accidents, tornadoes, flooding, famine, whooping cough, tuberculosis, malaria, diphtheria, typhus, typhoid, measles, smallpox, scurvy or polio? How about that we are more likely to be literate, finish school, own a telephone, a flush toilet, a refrigerator, electricity, or a car? Is it worth noting that absolute poverty (i.e. less than a 1985 dollar a day) worldwide has been cut by half in the past 50 years, with the poor in the developing world growing their consumption twice as fast as the world as a whole between 1980 and 2000? Can we really be considered "poor" when today's poverty is equal to the middle-class of 1955: a very abundant and luxurious timeframe? Should we take into account that the 1955 middle-class didn't have eBay, Amazon, Starbucks, Google, or Blackberry? Or that the average 1955 working man could now qualify for welfare? Or that the majority of today's "poor" have electricity, running water, flush toilets, a refrigerator, a television, a telephone, a car, and air conditioning (only 36% of all Americans had air conditioning in 1970, whereas 79% of poor households had it as of 2005)? Should I be thankful that I only have to work 1/2 a second (less than that, actually) for the hour of reading light each night, rather than the 8 seconds in the 1950s, the 15 minutes in the 1880s, the six hours of the 1800s, or 50 hours in 1750 BC Babylon?

These have to be taken into consideration and terms must be well-defined (For the above, see Matt Ridley, The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves, HarperCollins, 2010).

[Deborah]

airline passengers are not asking for an 3 fold increase in price, it is the greedy airline which arbitrarily increase the price under the false mantra "demand+limited seats = increase prices".

Whatever the market will bear.... Airlines provide a service (though I question the word service with today's airlines) and if people feel that service is too costly they will stop buying, which will result in lower demand and lower prices.

I btw don't fly because I hate this "service."

[elguanteloko]

I see that I missed an entire thread on the question of the Book of Mormon's support for socialism.

I don't care to get into a discussion of this matter, and don't really have time anyway over the next while, but did want to register my opinion: I see no support whatever for socialism in the Book of Mormon.

For which I am grateful. Socialism has reduced enough people to unnecessary poverty, and killed more than enough scores of millions. It should go the way of phrenology, liver-divination, leechcraft, witch-burnings, and astrology, which have done far less damage.

We got it, Dr. Peterson although it's kind of strange that you just state your opinion... in a discussion board, without intending to discuss it. About your statement that "Socialism has reduced enough people to unnecessary poverty, and killed more than enough scores of millions" I would like to CFR you.

Oh, BTW, please keep in mind what Socialism is (I doubt that you even know that). Here's a primer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.^[1][2][3] A socialist society is organized on the basis of relatively equal power-relations, self-management, dispersed decision-making (adhocracy) and a reduction or elimination of hierarchical and bureaucratic forms of administration and governance; the extent of which varies in different types of socialism.^[4][5] This ranges from the establishment of cooperative management structures to the abolition of all hierarchical structures in favor of free association.

[frankenstein]

in terms of BoM economics, I think it is worthy of note that "costly apparel" was spoken of in a negative manner.

---------------------

nice article walker

[WalkerW]

Why on earth is capitalism always associated with greed by those who support socialist views. Many capitalists, such as Larry Miller, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, and Oprah Winfrey are very generous givers of their own time and money. Whereas, socialists always want to give away someone else's money.

I strongly suggest those that commonly slap the "Greed" label on capitalism see the following:

Paul J. Zak (ed.), Moral Markets: The Critical Role of Values in the Economy (Princeton University Press, 2008).

J. Henrich, R. Boyd, S. Bowles, C. Camerer, E. Fehr, H. Gintis, R. McElreath, M. Alvard, A. Barr, J. Ensminger, K. Hill, F. Gil-White, M. Gurven, F. Marlowe, J. Patton, N. Smith, D. Tracer,

[WalkerW]

Read The Wealth of Nations - greed is essential to capitalism - it can't function without it. That's capitalism's genius - the recognition of real-world motivators of real people.

"Greed" is quite misleading. Smith recognized that self-interest was a motivating factor in capitalism. However, his The Theory of Moral Sentiments is often ignored in favor of the Marxist coloring of his work in The Wealth of Nations.

[Loran Howard Blood]

On a related note, in a very recent trip to the Church History museum, I was pleased to see some of the early consecration deeds on display documenting how the faithful Saints in the beginning of this dispensation surrendered all rights, privileges, and ownership of their property to the Church of Jesus Christ.

And yet again, this is a mischaraterization of what actually happened and what the D&C elucidates is the central premise of the entire system. The "surrendering of all rights, privileges and ownership of their property" to the Church was not a literal transfer of the property itself to a big warehouse from which the other members of the community could pick and choose other peoples previously owned goods, commodities, and "means of production" for their specific use. The "transfer" was a spiritual and legal one, involving an explicit affirmation that all personal property actually belongs to God, and that all of it, as well as all our time, talent, ability, skills etc. are to be available for and dedicated to the building of Zion. What is was not was a literal transfer of all private material "things" into a literal commons.

The proof of this is in the scriptures themselves. Immediately upon transfer of all private property to the Church, one received it back again as a private "stewardship" that, although not "owned" in the present sense, was private, individual, and personal and the individual responsibility and concern of the steward.

As with the law of free agency and personal stewardship as already understood and practiced in the Church, the Zionic stewardship, while not explicitly "owned" by the steward, is, in very point of fact, de facto "private" property around which the same moral barriers and demarcation lines are erected at the present time. This means that as a member of a Zion community, if I'm hungry and have no means of support, I go to by Bishop and he sends me to the Bishop's storehouse. I cannot walk onto your property (stewardship) in the belief that we have "all things in common" and take what I desire. That would be considered "theft" in the moral sense in Zion just as it is now.

Again, as I've pointed out many times before, saying that "all things belong to the Lord" is very different than saying that "all things belong to the community." "Having all things in common" relates to the covenant relationship with the UO, that is: the covenant relationship of steward to the Lord is one of the common ownership of all things by God and the consecration of it to the building of Zion. It is not indicative, as literally every General Authority who has ever spoken at any length on the matter makes clear, have any relation to an actual economic egalitarianism in any literal sense.

That kind of system would be both counterproductive, economically, for any Zion community (as history has shown it is counterproductive, at various levels of intensity, everywhere and anywhere it is ever implemented as an economic policy) as well as in intense violation of the core principle of free agency

On this point, I should say, David is correct, in a way, that "agency" cannot actually be removed from us by any political or economic system. We can lay, chained and starving in a dungeon, and still have all of our agency intact. Without the freedom to act among a range of alternatives, however, or, in other words, without our "free" agency, agency itself is and remains an abstraction (and an internal mental, psychological state of which we may be aware) of no particular relevance to our mortal probationary state as far as actual acting in the world is concerned.

Without the ability to actually "choose" our own conduct, act upon our motives, and sift alternative choices among a background of actually present and existing possibilities, "agency" is a moot theorem which makes for stimulating armchair philosophical discussion, but has no relevance to that actual business of mortality.

The point is that the freedom which those with David's particular beliefs regarding the economic order of a society wish to eliminate from the economic realm is inseparable from the concept of agency that defines and makes possible through the exercise of freedom the very existence and meaning of the "probationary" nature of mortality and the struggle to choose wisely while within it. It is utterly futile to be an "agent" in the world, economically or otherwise, unless one can consider oneself to be a "free agent." Everyone in gulag has their agency. None have freedom. Agency that cannot be actualized or applied because prevented so by external force may still be agency, but its entire purpose and potential is frustrated and inert.

Agency, in other words, without freedom, is dead, being alone.

Viewing these documents with my own eyes, I felt deeply touched by their commitment to eradicate poverty by building a Zion community like that depicted in 4 Nephi.

True enough, except that "eradicating poverty" is a happy derivative effect of the Celestial law of the UO. It is nowhere mentioned, ever, as the primary, fundamental, or major focus of the building of Zion. the UO is not primarily an economic system, and its central focus is not the eradication of poverty, even though this is a salient and required aspect of the system. The UO is a Celestial social order designed to prepare us to meet the Savior at his Second Coming. It is a matter of personal spiritual purification and refinement that covers the entire spectrum of individual spiritual maturity, of which the economic sphere is only one.

Everything we know about the system, as given in the D&C and as elucidated by the modern Brethren indicates that in Zion markets and economic transactions will be open, free, private, and capitalistic (that is to say, capital will be created, saved, and invested in productive economic activity - the only possible means of eradicating poverty at all). Excess beyond the unique, individual needs and wants of individual families will move to the Bishop's storehouse for the maintenance of the poor. The able bodied poor will not be poor for long, it would seem, so long as the economics of Zion remain of the private stewardship, free market variety. In such a system, economic growth will, in time, engulf most of the poor by making them productive and economically independent in their own right. In time I would foresee, except in a few cases (inadvertent temporary unemployment, sickness etc.) few but the poor who cannot work because of age, disability etc., in need of the Bishop's storehouse at all.

Much of the funds transferred to the Storehouse, indeed, will in time I think be used for other purposes than for maintaining "the poor" in Zion. Indeed, David's socialistic, redistributionist vision of Zion virtually guarantees that much of that society will never be more than a trip to the Storehouse away from want.

But though certainly socialistic in many respects, clearly neither this system nor the order implemented by the Nephites was "socialism." The economic order of Zion is not any man-made "ism."

Clever. David gets to eat his cake and have it too here. No statement of any of the Modern special witnesses of Christ in our age has ever approximated such a fuzzy, indistinct evasive non-definition of this kind. Those who have spoken on the subject have been crystal clear that the UO is not socialistic, communistic, collectivistic, or "communitarian" in any manner whatsoever.

David wishes to define it as "socialistic" but not "socialism." So then its "like" socialism, but its not rally socialism.

Nice cake if you can get it.

[WalkerW]

States Rights was the call of the Segregationist South.

Why is it that this is alright, but anytime someone mentions Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, that doesn't count against socialism?

For states' rights and property rights in early American political thought (particularly Jefferson), see the following:

Luigi Marco Bassani, "Life Liberty, and...: Jefferson on Property Rights," Journal of Libertarian Studies 18:1 (Winter 2004).

Thomas E. Woods, Jr., "Were States' Rights Just Code Words for Slavery and Oppression?" in his 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask (Random House, 2007).

[WalkerW]

...which could be done now if we did something as fundamental as ceasing to make war.

Peace and a mentality of cooperation goes a long way.

[Loran Howard Blood]

Deborah:

Socialists don't want your guns, your religion, or your money.

Oh but they do, as history teaches us most definitively. But this is only the window dressing. What leftists really want, as the phenomena of "political correctness" makes clear, is your mind and your conscience.

They can tolerate no heterodox thoughts, no "deviationism," and no "back talk" to their ideological orthodoxy. Leftism invades, colonizes and absorbs everything around it, even to the finest details of human life, and can leave no nook or cranny of the human condition unpoliticized and outside of government control.

It must, like The Thing, do so to survive.