The Economy Of Heaven

[Stone holm]

Solzhenitsyn would strongly disagree. He repeatedly pointed out that Marxist Communism as practiced under Lenin was something truly despicable from the beginning. (e.g., Gulag, pt 3, p 9-25).

Wasn’t the majority of the bleeding in WW II done by the Russians, the Germans and the eastern Europeans? Neither democratic socialism (nor democratic anything else) arose in any of these countries (other than W. Germany) until the Reagan/Bush era.

BTW, the US did the majority of the bleeding compared to its Western European allies, yet the US rejected democratic socialism.

Just as democratic socialism should never be compared to Marxist communism, “democratic capitalism“ should never be compared to “police state capitalism.”

I agree that there is a fundamental tension between democratic capitalism and the united order/law of consecration. Can you agree that there is also a fundamental tension between democratic socialism and the united order/law of consecration?

You are correct that most of the bleeding was done by the Russians but they were under the control of a dictator. I was referring to the democracies. I do not want to suggest that what happened under Lenin was good, I think most believe it went from very bad under Lenin to worse under Stalin. The point is that system is not rightly compared to what developed in free Western Europe.

[JarMan]

Same as here. And if you don't pay your tithing you don't go to the Temple, point being?

The government will put you in jail if you don't pay your taxes. If you try to resist they will come for you and use deadly force, if necessary. That hardly qualifies as voluntary. Explain to me how this is the same as not paying tithing.

[Avatar4321]

I've never understood the hostilty towards the free market. How is it bad to provide for oneself? In a free market you make money providing people with what they need and want and doing that to as many people as you can. It's not forced labor. It's efficient. It helps provide for the needs to society.

I dont know all the details of the economy of Heaven. I hope the Lord will teach me more.

[tyler90az]

Do you understand the difference between socialism and the UO? That the UO was VOLUNTARILY entered into, while socialism is forced upon citizens who may not agree with it?

Here is a good page for you that explains many conservative LDS ideaologies:

http://www.latterday...ive.com/videos/

It comes down to the premortal war in heaven - Satan forcing everyone to be good, vs. God giving everyone freedom to choose for themselves what they would do... ie - should charity be provided by the gov? or should people voluntarily (without a middleman) serve one another? etc.

The UO was not socialism it was communism. JS just did it smarter by allowing personal ownership of property for people who bought in. As opposed to Communism where the state owns everything with nobody owning personal property. The difference real is slim, simply a brilliant micro level move by JS, he understood people value knowing they personally own something. However, at the end of the day the surplus went right back to the church.

I am a firm capitalist, but lets just be honest about the situation.

Edited July 7, 2013 by tyler90az

[tyler90az]

The government will put you in jail if you don't pay your taxes. If you try to resist they will come for you and use deadly force, if necessary. That hardly qualifies as voluntary. Explain to me how this is the same as not paying tithing.

I say this ignorantly. But, didn't we have a group called the Dananites?

[Stone holm]

By these standards democracy becomes an involuntary system, and you could make the same argument against military spending or any other type of spending which makes the ownership of private property feasible.

[pmccombs1]

In these threads, I always advocate for Third Way economics: neither socialism nor capitalism in the traditional sense. We could learn a lot from the Red Tories, the Blue Labour people, Philip Blond's ResPublica... the "communitarian polarity" that displaces notions of "Left vs Right."

[Bikeemikey]

The government will put you in jail if you don't pay your taxes. If you try to resist they will come for you and use deadly force, if necessary. That hardly qualifies as voluntary. Explain to me how this is the same as not paying tithing.

Jarman,

You strike me as a reasoned fellow. It also seems that you may have a libertarian bent in your politics.

As such, it seems you probably feel that all taxes are an improper act of immoral and illegitimate coercive compulsion on the part govt. is that correct?

I am inclined to think that coercive taxation is a violation of my freedoms. However, not sure what to do about it. And if I am going to allow taxation of any kind it makes sense to me to insist that some of that forced taxation goes toward the needy, not just the military.

Edited July 7, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[thesometimesaint]

Really?????? What happens in Europe if you don't pay your taxes?

To me? Nothing. I don't live in any European country. But I do live in a country that has by law the authority to tax, and punish violations of those laws.

But here is a good example of not paying taxes.

[Sleeper Cell]

The UO was not socialism it was communism. JS just did it smarter by allowing personal ownership of property for people who bought in. As opposed to Communism where the state owns everything with nobody owning personal property. The difference real is slim, simply a brilliant micro level move by JS, he understood people value knowing they personally own something. However, at the end of the day the surplus went right back to the church.

I am a firm capitalist, but lets just be honest about the situation.

There was another difference. A major difference. The UO was set up and administered by living prophets and other people called by God. The UO was not democratic socialism; it was theocratic socialism (or theocratic communism, if you prefer). Among other things, this meant that the church decided how to invest the surplus.

I suspect that many of those who wish that the church was still living the UO (rather than supporting free enterprise capitalism) are among those who are the most critical of how the church invests and spends its money today.

[thesometimesaint]

The government will put you in jail if you don't pay your taxes. If you try to resist they will come for you and use deadly force, if necessary. That hardly qualifies as voluntary. Explain to me how this is the same as not paying tithing.

Try telling that to God when you stand before him.

[Stone holm]

There was another difference. A major difference. The UO was set up and administered by living prophets and other people called by God. The UO was not democratic socialism; it was theocratic socialism (or theocratic communism, if you prefer). Among other things, this meant that the church decided how to invest the surplus.

I suspect that many of those who wish that the church was still living the UO (rather than supporting free enterprise capitalism) are among those who are the most critical of how the church invests and spends its money today.

I agree the UO was more communist than socialist. I tend to be fairly indifferent to how the Church invests and spends tithing or other funds as I suspect most Mormons are except possibly those yearning for a better chapel, or a closer Temple, or perhaps a branch of BYU. Most of us are quite willing to pay our tithing and remain clueless about the rest.

I also don't think most of us yearn for a return to the UO, although sometimes I muse as to whether the time isn't right to buy up some small towns and jump start a UO with some of our unemployed.

[Bikeemikey]

The UO was not socialism it was communism. JS just did it smarter by allowing personal ownership of property for people who bought in. As opposed to Communism where the state owns everything with nobody owning personal property. The difference real is slim, simply a brilliant micro level move by JS, he understood people value knowing they personally own something. However, at the end of the day the surplus went right back to the church.

I am a firm capitalist, but lets just be honest about the situation.

Can someone please CFR that under the united order the assets deeded to the church were then deeded back to members.

[bdouglas]

The church goes up and down, sideways, and every other way on this question, depending on the political climate. I find the following "Apostolic Directive" from 1875 interesting. It is signed by Brigham Young and all of the members of the 12 who were in SLC at the time. It says:

THE EXPERIENCE OF MANKINDhas shown that the people of communities and nations among whom wealth is the most equally distributed, enjoy the largest degree of liberty, are the least exposed to tyranny and oppression and suffer the least from luxurious habits which beget vice. Under such a system, carefully maintained there could be no great aggregations of either real or personal property in the hands of a few; especially so while the laws, forbidding the taking of usury or interest for money or property loaned, continued in force.

Please don't get the idea I'm a socialist. I'm a businessman and have been my entire working life, and politically I am Independent. But I'm also not one of those American LDS who somehow think American-style capitalism is part of church doctrine. I eagerly look forward to the day when it will be replaced by something better.

[bdouglas]

Solzhenitsyn would strongly disagree. He repeatedly pointed out that Marxist Communism as practiced under Lenin was something truly despicable from the beginning. (e.g., Gulag, pt 3, p 9-25).

And Solzhenitsyn also condemned the capitalistic West as materialistic and spiritually bankrupt. See link:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/4809823/Alexander_Solzhenitsyn_denounced_the_West_too_but_we_didnt_want_to_know/

(Quote from link: "Obituary comments on Alexander Solzhenitsyn have understandably concentrated on his courageous rejection and defiance of Communism and the sufferings he incurred as a consequence. Yet his relevance today derives more from his equally emphatic denunciation of Western liberal materialism.")

Edited July 7, 2013 by bdouglas

[tyler90az]

There was another difference. A major difference. The UO was set up and administered by living prophets and other people called by God. The UO was not democratic socialism; it was theocratic socialism (or theocratic communism, if you prefer). Among other things, this meant that the church decided how to invest the surplus.

I suspect that many of those who wish that the church was still living the UO (rather than supporting free enterprise capitalism) are among those who are the most critical of how the church invests and spends its money today.

Finally I found somebody that understands communism is not a political ideology. I just do not understand why that was brought up by you. Glad it was though!

[Stone holm]

Finally I found somebody that understands communism is not a political ideology. I just do not understand why that was brought up by you. Glad it was though!

The primary reason that Christianity went ape over Communism was Marx's approach in the Manifesto put it at odds with religion. You saw no comparable outrage at say Israel which at one point was heavily communistic and still has communistic communes. The industrialists helped fuel this outrage up until they figured out how to devise a truce with communism whereby they could mine its labor. After that the venom turned on Western Socialist countries because they have civil liberties and protected labor so it is more difficult to mine. We are starting to see a disturbing trend in America with the certain prison reforms where prisoners are released during the daytime to work for minimum wage and then returned to the prison at night. Given our broken drug enforcement system we have a huge and growing segment of the population incarcerated in either private or public owned prisons, as a result we may find ourselves with a fairly large semi slave population on our hands relatively soon.

[JarMan]

By these standards democracy becomes an involuntary system, and you could make the same argument against military spending or any other type of spending which makes the ownership of private property feasible.

You are misunderstanding the justification for use of force by the government. Since everybody personally has a right to defend themselves and their property, they can essentially delegate that power to the government. However, we do not have a right to take what belongs to somebody else. Therefore it is not a power that we can delegate to the government.

[JarMan]

Try telling that to God when you stand before him.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. You stated that democratic socialism was voluntary. I argued that it clearly is compulsory and that taxes are nothing like tithing because there is no force involved: no guns, prison, etc. If you would like to argue that tithing is somehow compulsory like taxes then I would like to hear your argument.

[JarMan]

Jarman,

You strike me as a reasoned fellow. It also seems that you may have a libertarian bent in your politics.

As such, it seems you probably feel that all taxes are an improper act of immoral and illegitimate coercive compulsion on the part govt. is that correct?

I am inclined to think that coercive taxation is a violation of my freedoms. However, not sure what to do about it. And if I am going to allow taxation of any kind it makes sense to me to insist that some of that forced taxation goes toward the needy, not just the military.

I don't think all taxes are improper. The government exists to protect our rights, in my view. Each of us individually has an inherent right to protect ourselves and our property. We delegate that authority to the government and then tax everyone to pay for it. It also makes sense to have taxes that function essentially as a user fee. For example, I don't have a problem with paying a gasoline tax to pay for roads (though I do have a problem with paying gasoline tax to pay for public transportation). I can find no moral justification for taxing people to support the needy since individually we do not have the moral right to take from others for our own subsistence.

[Rob Osborn]

Do you understand the difference between socialism and the UO? That the UO was VOLUNTARILY entered into, while socialism is forced upon citizens who may not agree with it?

Here is a good page for you that explains many conservative LDS ideaologies:

http://www.latterdayconservative.com/videos/

It comes down to the premortal war in heaven - Satan forcing everyone to be good, vs. God giving everyone freedom to choose for themselves what they would do... ie - should charity be provided by the gov? or should people voluntarily (without a middleman) serve one another? etc.

Satan never was going to force anyone into righteousness, he wants everyone to sin and become his prey. Charity is provided by people on many different levels none of which is any oart of Satans plans. Satan woyld just as soon see all the poor people in misery. Charity is provided by individuals, groups, organizations, etc. The truth is that because we as individuals are incapable of providing charity for everyone we instituted programs where one body agrees to oversee the distribution of food clothing, services. There isnt that much difference in whether the Catholics do it or the Mormons or the local government. None of these bodies is part of Satans plan

[JarMan]

Satan never was going to force anyone into righteousness, he wants everyone to sin and become his prey.

This is simply a twisting of doctrine to mean the exact opposite of what it really means. Satan did indeed want to force us into righteousness. And he wanted to have the glory for doing it. But his plan failed and we all got agency instead. Because his plan failed all he can do is hope to convert us by entangling us in sin.

Charity is provided by people on many different levels none of which is any oart of Satans plans. Satan woyld just as soon see all the poor people in misery. Charity is provided by individuals, groups, organizations, etc. The truth is that because we as individuals are incapable of providing charity for everyone we instituted programs where one body agrees to oversee the distribution of food clothing, services. There isnt that much difference in whether the Catholics do it or the Mormons or the local government. None of these bodies is part of Satans plan

There is a HUGE difference between voluntary organizations providing charity and the government providing it. The government possesses police powers and will compel you, using deadly force if necessary, to do its will. We cannot say that forced charity is good any more than we can say forced morality (Satan's plan) is good.

[Rob Osborn]

This is simply a twisting of doctrine to mean the exact opposite of what it really means. Satan did indeed want to force us into righteousness. And he wanted to have the glory for doing it. But his plan failed and we all got agency instead. Because his plan failed all he can do is hope to convert us by entangling us in sin.

There is a HUGE difference between voluntary organizations providing charity and the government providing it. The government possesses police powers and will compel you, using deadly force if necessary, to do its will. We cannot say that forced charity is good any more than we can say forced morality (Satan's plan) is good.

Satan never wanted save any of us from sin. There is a reason we are told he was a liar from the beginning. E lied about saving us, he has or had. no such desire. Instead, Satan wanted us all to sin so that he can ruke over us in his kingdom. It clearly states that all those who choose to follow Satan get just that- captivity in Satans power- its what he wants and has akways wanted.

No part of our government is forcing us to give to charity. We have laws which we agree upon to take care of our society. We akso live in a democracy with freely elected leadets. You dont like the law, then change it, become one of the ekected leaders. Its as simpke as that and no, its not part of Satans plans

[teddyaware]

I am intrigued by the comments of several Europeans on this board who seem to think American LDS have a fixation on capitalism as being nigh unto doctrine. I realise it is almost impossible to discuss Mormon economic views without getting a thread locked, but feel this a sufficiently important topic to take it up again. Capitalism as practiced in America seems to require a certain amount of greed, ambition and competition to function. I find it difficult to locate doctrine that treats any of these as truly important virtues. Although one commentator has suggested that competition may extend to heavenly spheres there seems to be little support for the concept. When you bring up the United Order in Church any praise for the system is quickly followed by condemnation of socialism based on the idea that even democratic socialism violates agency. So. Is economics simply irrelevant from an eternal perspective or not?

It all comes down to freedom. Under the US Constitution, and the free enterprise system that grows out of it, (I don't like the word capitalism because Karl Marx coined it as a pejorative ) humans have maximum moral latitude to be good or bad before God. Once humans start to vote for governments to do things for them that they should be doing for themselves, freedom is eroded more and more until they are made slaves in the name of fairness. When the Zion of God is established in all its glory, it will achieve the ideal society without any help whatsoever from governments and their tax dollars. Zion will rise in spite of heavy handed governments, not because of them. A truly righteous people are the only ones who can make the free enterprise system work properly. Largely wicked societies cannot make the free enterprise system work, and in the end they will leave their nations in ruins while demagogic tyrants who promise the moon reign.

Edited July 8, 2013 by teddyaware

[JarMan]

Satan never wanted save any of us from sin. There is a reason we are told he was a liar from the beginning. E lied about saving us, he has or had. no such desire.

He indeed did want to save us. Not because of concern for us, but because he wanted glory for doing it.

Instead, Satan wanted us all to sin so that he can ruke over us in his kingdom. It clearly states that all those who choose to follow Satan get just that- captivity in Satans power- its what he wants and has akways wanted.

No, Satan did not get what he always wanted. He (and we) got Jehovah's plan instead, which is agency. Satan is now required to play by those rules. You can't pretend that we got Satan's plan when we know that we got Jehovah's plan.

No part of our government is forcing us to give to charity. We have laws which we agree upon to take care of our society. We akso live in a democracy with freely elected leadets. You dont like the law, then change it, become one of the ekected leaders. Its as simpke as that and no, its not part of Satans plans

The government is indeed forcing us to give to charity. Money is forcibly taken from my paycheck and everybody else's to give to "the poor." I do not pay this money voluntarily. The fact that our government is elected does not change that.