Question For My Catholic Friends Is Mormonism Inconsistent With Distributism

[Stone holm]

Can only the Catholics lay claim to distributism? Is it only a moral doctrine that Catholics can implement?

[MiserereNobis]

I've read the encyclicals upon which distributism is based (Nerum Rovum and Quadragesimo Anno) but I haven't studied distributism in-depth beyond that.  Perhaps you could read over the encyclicals and then decide if any of those ideas contradict Mormon doctrine.

 

Maybe 3DOP can weigh in here.

 

It is nice to have a Catholic alternative to both capitalism and socialism.  Your question prompts me to study it more.

[Stone holm]

I've read the encyclicals upon which distributism is based (Nerum Rovum and Quadragesimo Anno) but I haven't studied distributism in-depth beyond that.  Perhaps you could read over the encyclicals and then decide if any of those ideas contradict Mormon doctrine.

 

Maybe 3DOP can weigh in here.

 

It is nice to have a Catholic alternative to both capitalism and socialism.  Your question prompts me to study it more.

I spent three years at Notre Dame in graduate studies and never once heard it mentioned. It is one of the most impressive things I have heard coming out of Catholicism, it ranks right up there with Mormonism's Snow Couplet in my estimation.

[MiserereNobis]

I spent three years at Notre Dame in graduate studies and never once heard it mentioned. It is one of the most impressive things I have heard coming out of Catholicism, it ranks right up there with Mormonism's Snow Couplet in my estimation.

 

Maybe that's due to the US political climate.  We see things in the two party way.  You're a conservative and pro-capitalism or a liberal and pro-socialism.  Perhaps this false dichotomy shoves distributism to the side, since distributism would be 100% Catholic (which is rather conservative) yet it is not capitalism.

 

ETA:  I like to remind my Catholic friends that Catholic teaching pre-dates the US by ALOT so we shouldn't wed Catholicism to US political situations.  Catholicism was here long before and, unless the "end" happens, Catholicism will be here long after the US.  Think about the political entities that have come and gone in the world while the Catholic Church has remained.

Edited April 13, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[Stone holm]

Maybe that's due to the US political climate.  We see things in the two party way.  You're a conservative and pro-capitalism or a liberal and pro-socialism.  Perhaps this false dichotomy shoves distributism to the side, since distributism would be 100% Catholic (which is rather conservative) yet it is not capitalism.

 

ETA:  I like to remind my Catholic friends that Catholic teaching pre-dates the US by ALOT so we shouldn't wed Catholicism to US political situations.  Catholicism was here long before and, unless the "end" happens, Catholicism will be here long after the US.  Think about the political entities that have come and gone in the world while the Catholic Church has remained.

Mormonism in its first century had quite a bit of teaching that looked an awful lot like distributism, but we have gradually switched our emphasis to projecting a "Leave it to Beaver" type family normalcy which increasingly doesn't seem to have much emphasis on the home production/self sufficiency thing, self sufficiency has come more to mean get good training so you can get a job in corporate America type thing. It has paid off, but it's a spiritually lifeless economic approach.

[Alan]

What is "distributism"?

[Stone holm]

What is "distributism"?

That is almost too long to answer and I don't have cut and paste to do a reference to Wikipedia here, but if you google it you will get plenty of sources. It is a theory on governance and economics which says that what can be done locally should be done locally. Economically, it favors wide spread individual property ownership, family businesses to do the farming, small production and shops, where a larger scale is required it favors cooperatives. It also favors guilds. It is neither capitalism or socialism, because it disdains large corporations and the concentration of wealth and property on the one hand and is opposed to government ownership and control on the other. The original intent of the ZCMI was distributist in nature as it sought to provide a local market for small producers. Hebert J Grant made it a point to where locally produced suits to conference, etc. You don't see much emphasis on home production anymore in the Church. Pope Francis, however, has been preaching things similar to it again which has seemingly brought out Catholic opposition to him from the conservatives. It is generally viewed as a social and economic view developed by the Catholic Church.

[BCSpace]

It is incompatible with LDS theology and doctrine in that there is a system imposed which prevents one from rising as high as possible or sinking as low as possible; thus agency is removed.

[cdowis]

Sounds like Ghandi's economic philosophy.

[cdowis]

It is incompatible with LDS theology and doctrine in that there is a system imposed which prevents one from rising as high as possible or sinking as low as possible; thus agency is removed.

 

That sounds like the United Order, does it not?

[Stone holm]

Sounds like Ghandi's economic philosophy.

Really? Please elaborate.

[Stone holm]

That sounds like the United Order, does it not?

Never mind , BCSpace kind of goes for social Darwinism, in an economic sort of way.

[The Nehor]

It is incompatible with LDS theology and doctrine in that there is a system imposed which prevents one from rising as high as possible or sinking as low as possible; thus agency is removed.

 

For Zion shall have no poor amongst them.

 

BCSpace's Addendum:

Unless of course they are total slackers or have no head for business in which case they can sink as far into poverty as they are able.

[Stone holm]

For Zion shall have no poor amongst them.

 

BCSpace's Addendum:

Unless of course they are total slackers or have no head for business in which case they can sink as far into poverty as they are able.

It always amazes me that people who argue strenuously against biological Darwinism, so readily accept social Darwinism. But we digress. I fail to see how distributism is incompatible with LDS doctrine unless we sort of replace the teachings of Christ with the philosophies of Nietsche and Ayn Rand, both of whom basically rejected JudeoChristian beliefs. It seems to me the whole concept of localism is very compatible with Mormon economics. There may, however, be some conflict with Mormon views on governance since we are very hierarchical in that regard especially with the advent of Priesthood Correlation, but even there one can see evidence of distributism in our assignment of duties to wards and quorums, although there has been a tendency to centralize financial matters. I suspect though that even that could be squared with the concept of wealthier wards helping to provide less affluent wards with buildings...sh don't tell BCSpace I said that.

[The Nehor]

It always amazes me that people who argue strenuously against biological Darwinism, so readily accept social Darwinism. But we digress. I fail to see how distributism is incompatible with LDS doctrine unless we sort of replace the teachings of Christ with the philosophies of Nietsche and Ayn Rand, both of whom basically rejected JudeoChristian beliefs. It seems to me the whole concept of localism is very compatible with Mormon economics. There may, however, be some conflict with Mormon views on governance since we are very hierarchical in that regard especially with the advent of Priesthood Correlation, but even there one can see evidence of distributism in our assignment of duties to wards and quorums, although there has been a tendency to centralize financial matters. I suspect though that even that could be squared with the concept of wealthier wards helping to provide less affluent wards with buildings...sh don't tell BCSpace I said that.

 

In truth according to LDS teaching God is pleased with only one economic order: Consecration. He is willing to put up with others if his servants are too weak to live it (as we are) so I would say distributism is incompatible with LDS doctrine despite some similarities. Still, what we are living now is incompatible so that is not that harsh an indictment....well except on the saints of course.

 

I place myself in that number. I have a big bank account and I admit I would be hard-pressed to give up financial security if asked for the good of us all. I'd like to think I could do it but I have never been brought to that point.

[cdowis]

Really? Please elaborate.

 

He wanted India to cut their economic dependency with Great Britain, and spin their own clothes (homespun), etc in their own local village.

 

 Didn't you see the movie?  The salt march, etc.

Edited April 14, 2014 by cdowis

[The Nehor]

He wanted India to cut their economic dependency with Great Britain, and spin their own clothes (homespun), etc in their own local village.

 

 Didn't you see the movie?  The salt march, etc.

 

Gahndi was a nut. I am generally anti-Imperialist but I think India is an exception. The British coming back and taking over again would be a huge advantage to everyone involved (except the British).

[Stone holm]

Gahndi was a nut. I am generally anti-Imperialist but I think India is an exception. The British coming back and taking over again would be a huge advantage to everyone involved (except the British).

I am not sure you can lay the present state of affairs in India at Ghandi's feet. It is sometimes hard to judge such things. If you go by literacy and standard of living for example, it is pretty clear that Afghanistan would be farther ahead right now had she been occupied by the Soviets rather than fighting a proxy war for us against them. But I am not sure the Afghans would agree.

[The Nehor]

I am not sure you can lay the present state of affairs in India at Ghandi's feet. It is sometimes hard to judge such things. If you go by literacy and standard of living for example, it is pretty clear that Afghanistan would be farther ahead right now had she been occupied by the Soviets rather than fighting a proxy war for us against them. But I am not sure the Afghans would agree.

 

No, I didn't mean to blame Gandhi. I just call him a nut.

 

 

 

I do thank Gandhi for entertaining me whenever I play Civilization.

[Okrahomer]

That is almost too long to answer and I don't have cut and paste to do a reference to Wikipedia here, but if you google it you will get plenty of sources. It is a theory on governance and economics which says that what can be done locally should be done locally. Economically, it favors wide spread individual property ownership, family businesses to do the farming, small production and shops, where a larger scale is required it favors cooperatives. It also favors guilds. It is neither capitalism or socialism, because it disdains large corporations and the concentration of wealth and property on the one hand and is opposed to government ownership and control on the other. The original intent of the ZCMI was distributist in nature as it sought to provide a local market for small producers. Hebert J Grant made it a point to where locally produced suits to conference, etc. You don't see much emphasis on home production anymore in the Church. Pope Francis, however, has been preaching things similar to it again which has seemingly brought out Catholic opposition to him from the conservatives. It is generally viewed as a social and economic view developed by the Catholic Church.

 

This sounds similar to E.F. Shumacher's economic theory.  Two of his books--"Small is Beautiful" and "Less is More"--were required (and very much enjoyed) reading for one my Economics classes at BYU.  I find the theory appealing, and recent Church efforts to encourage and teach family-based small farming strike me as quite compatible with the theory as well.

[thesometimesaint]

A fundamental flaw in Distributism is the idea that Capitalism concentrates to capture the State in Socialism. It doesn't, that is Fascism.

[blackhat]

In truth according to LDS teaching God is pleased with only one economic order: Consecration. He is willing to put up with others if his servants are too weak to live it (as we are) so I would say distributism is incompatible with LDS doctrine despite some similarities. Still, what we are living now is incompatible so that is not that harsh an indictment....well except on the saints of course.

 

I place myself in that number. I have a big bank account and I admit I would be hard-pressed to give up financial security if asked for the good of us all. I'd like to think I could do it but I have never been brought to that point.

So you are living a stander that if the Lord ask of you what you have, that you would gladly give it, known that you would receive greater  Blessing that what you giving.  

[The Nehor]

So you are living a stander that if the Lord ask of you what you have, that you would gladly give it, known that you would receive greater  Blessing that what you giving.

I don't know. I think I could but we all remember what happened to the little blue engine that could:

The Little Blue Engine

The little blue engine looked up at the hill.

His light was weak, his whistle was shrill.

He was tired and small, and the hill was tall,

And his face blushed red as he softly said,

“I think I can, I think I can, I think I can.”

So he started up with a chug and a strain,

And he puffed and pulled with might and main.

And slowly he climbed, a foot at a time,

And his engine coughed as he whispered soft,

“I think I can, I think I can, I think I can.”

With a squeak and a creak and a toot and a sigh,

With an extra hope and an extra try,

He would not stop — now he neared the top —

And strong and proud he cried out loud,

“I think I can, I think I can, I think I can!”

He was almost there, when — CRASH! SMASH! BASH!

He slid down and mashed into engine hash

On the rocks below… which goes to show

If the track is tough and the hill is rough,

THINKING you can just ain’t enough!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

For Zion shall have no poor amongst them.

 

BCSpace's Addendum:

Unless of course they are total slackers or have no head for business in which case they can sink as far into poverty as they are able.

Is that to be done by force? If you say no, then socialism or any from of government we have now is wrong. So it always amazes me that people think that our current government is fit to do these things. And if you say yes, then you do not under stand that laws of the gospel.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

A fundamental flaw in Distributism is the idea that Capitalism concentrates to capture the State in Socialism. It doesn't, that is Fascism.

And there is not much difference in socialism or fascism. They are the same side of the coin with few differences. Neither are compatible with the gospel.

 

Which system currently would allow you to chose what to do with your stewardship? Is that socialism? Is that the free markets?