"well, You Say You Want A Revolution..."

[thesometimesaint]

Most religions that I know of discourage usury, and most countries that I know discourage high interest rates. That is except in the US where interest rates can legally exceed 300%.

 

We in the US get our progressive tax idea's from Adam Smith.

[sunstoned]

Most religions that I know of discourage usury, and most countries that I know discourage high interest rates. That is except in the US where interest rates can legally exceed 300%.

 

We in the US get our progressive tax idea's from Adam Smith.

Payday loan companies are a good example of this.

[TheSkepticChristian]

So the statement talks about laws prohibiting one type of means of gain (usury) which is a far cry from saying the government should be levying progressive taxes and redistributing wealth.

 

The early Church and Utah was the government. Utah was a Theocracy. 

 

Let's look at the historical context, Governor Brigham Young said, "If you do not pursue a righteous course, we will separate you from the Church. Is that all? No. If necessary we will take your grain from your bin and distribute it among the poor and needy, and they shall be fed and supplied with work, and you shall receive what your grain is worth.” Governor Brigham Young also said, "“There shall be no private ownership of the streams that come out of the canyons, nor the timber that grows on the hills. These belong to the people: all the people.”

 

Korihor in Alma 30:17 “every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime"

 

BYU encyclopedia says, "Three events undoubtedly influenced Brigham Young to introduce the United Order system in 1874. First, completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869 led to an influx of Gentiles into the territory. The accompanying individualistic and competitive attitudes and institutions of nineteenth-century American capitalism seriously threatened to erode the bonds of selflessness and cooperation that held the LDS social fabric together."

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/United_Orders

 

Brigham Young said, "They put me in mind of some men I have seen who, when they had a chance to buy a widow's cow for ten cents on the dollar of her real value in cash, would make the purchase, and then thank the Lord that he had so blessed them. Such men belong to the class of Christians referred to on one occasion by Charles Gunn; and, if you will excuse me, I will tell you what he said about them. He said that “hell was full of such Christians.”"

 

 

The church was probably also talking about laws when it said, "If this evil should not be checked, and measures not be taken to prevent the continued enormous growth of riches among the class already rich"  Here is more on the Church letter 

 

 

 

"At the time co-operation was entered upon, the Latter-day Saints were acting in utter disregard of the principles of self-preservation.

They were encouraging the growth of evils in their own midst which they con-

demned as the worst features of the systems from which they had been gathered.

Large profits were being concentrated in comparatively few hands, instead of be-

ing generally distributed among the people. As a conseqnence, the community

was being rapidly divided into classes, and the hateful and unhappy distinctions

which the possession and lack of wealth gave rise to, were becoming painfully ap-

parent. When the proposition to organize Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Insti-

tution was broached, it was hoped that the community at large would become its

stockholders; for if a few individuals only were to own its stock, the advantages 

Edited July 16, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Most religions that I know of discourage usury, and most countries that I know discourage high interest rates. That is except in the US where interest rates can legally exceed 300%.

 

We in the US get our progressive tax idea's from Adam Smith.

Once again your are wrong.

 

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/tax-spending/adam-smith-and-progressive-taxation/

 

He was in favor of essentially a flat tax.  The key word being proportionate. a progressive tax system means that the more money you make the higher the amount or disproportionate amount, in comparison to some one making less, in terms of percentage, you would pay in taxes.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Payday loan companies are a good example of this.

Huh? They are a good example of a progressive tax? That does not even make sense.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Wrong. The First Presidency never said who should be doing the checking. I think the evil needs to be checked and measures taken to prevent it as well. The question is who? Perhaps they meant the government, perhaps they meant the Church, perhaps they meant the individual. 

 

You don't know.

We can turn to scripture. When we teach them correct principals they will govern them selves. They were not talking about a government, I can assure you. Governments often exacerbate the issue any way.

[Mystery Meat]

The early Church and Utah was the government. Utah was a Theocracy. 

 

Let's look at the historical context, Governor Brigham Young said, "If you do not pursue a righteous course, we will separate you from the Church. Is that all? No. If necessary we will take your grain from your bin and distribute it among the poor and needy, and they shall be fed and supplied with work, and you shall receive what your grain is worth.” Governor Brigham Young also said, "“There shall be no private ownership of the streams that come out of the canyons, nor the timber that grows on the hills. These belong to the people: all the people.”

 

Korihor in Alma 30:17 “every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime"

 

BYU encyclopedia says, "Three events undoubtedly influenced Brigham Young to introduce the United Order system in 1874. First, completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869 led to an influx of Gentiles into the territory. The accompanying individualistic and competitive attitudes and institutions of nineteenth-century American capitalism seriously threatened to erode the bonds of selflessness and cooperation that held the LDS social fabric together."

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/United_Orders

 

Brigham Young said, "They put me in mind of some men I have seen who, when they had a chance to buy a widow's cow for ten cents on the dollar of her real value in cash, would make the purchase, and then thank the Lord that he had so blessed them. Such men belong to the class of Christians referred to on one occasion by Charles Gunn; and, if you will excuse me, I will tell you what he said about them. He said that “hell was full of such Christians.”"

 

 

The church was probably also talking about laws when it said, "If this evil should not be checked, and measures not be taken to prevent the continued enormous growth of riches among the class already rich"  Here is more on the Church letter 

 

None of what you said says that Brigham Young would advocate for the USA to be participating in redistribution of wealth.

[TheSkepticChristian]

None of what you said says that Brigham Young would advocate for the USA to be participating in redistribution of wealth.

 

Brigham Young was not the president of the USA, he was the governor of Utah and President of the church. He was concerned about "accompanying individualistic and competitive attitudes and institutions of nineteenth-century American capitalism seriously threatened to erode the bonds of selflessness and cooperation that held the LDS social fabric together"

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/United_Orders

 

and is clear Brigham Young and the early church supported a religious utopia. 

 

According to Historian Ronald W. Walker

 

 

at times he denounced unrighteous monopolies struck out at capitalists who lock up all the means so that the people can not get a dollar and attacked monied castes that created distinctions without reference to goodness virtue or truth...brigham young might put the best face on things but the coming of gentile culture spelled the end of his social vision secularism urbanization and the market economy left little room for a labor driven agrarian cooperative theocracy

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=5893

Edited July 16, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Mystery Meat]

Brigham Young was not the president of the USA, he was the governor of Utah and President of the church. He was concerned about "accompanying individualistic and competitive attitudes and institutions of nineteenth-century American capitalism seriously threatened to erode the bonds of selflessness and cooperation that held the LDS social fabric together"

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/United_Orders

 

and is clear Brigham Young and the early church supported a religious utopia. 

 

According to Historian Ronald W. Walker

 

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=5893

 

And I don't disagree with any of that. I support those same things. What I don't support, and there is plenty of support from Latter-day Prophets and Apostles as well, is government "Robbin Hooding." 

[TheSkepticChristian]

And I don't disagree with any of that. I support those same things. What I don't support, and there is plenty of support from Latter-day Prophets and Apostles as well, is government "Robbin Hooding." 

 

but that is what Brigham Young did in the theocracy of Utah. Sure, the 20th century church changed a lot. 

 

 

 Latter-day Prophets and Apostles as well, is government "Robbin Hooding." 

 

and I am not surprised, but I hope someday we go back to the 19th century church, except for the priesthood ban. 

Edited July 16, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Mystery Meat]

but that is what Brigham Young did in the theocracy of Utah. Sure, the 20th century church changed a lot. 

 

 

 

and I am not surprised, but I hope someday we go back to the 19th century church, except for the priesthood ban. 

 

And I have no problem with BY doing that in his theocracy. Theocracy is not the same as a democratic republic, with or without the 20th Century.

[TheSkepticChristian]

And I have no problem with BY doing that in his theocracy. Theocracy is not the same as a democratic republic, with or without the 20th Century.

 

but the same principles can be applied, there is really no big difference 

[Mystery Meat]

but the same principles can be applied, there is really no big difference 

 

Yeah, there is a huge difference.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Yeah, there is a huge difference.

 

LOL Sure

[Mystery Meat]

LOL Sure

 

Difference number 1: The person running the Church is called of God and has access to the Holy Ghost and hold priesthood keys. The leader of the USA, well based on the last three presidents will either have committed adultery while in office, made a huge bungle which resulted in many, many deaths or been extremely arrogant and vindictive. Let's not get into congressman or senators...

[TheSkepticChristian]

Difference number 1: The person running the Church is called of God and has access to the Holy Ghost and hold priesthood keys.

 

it is possible to make a secular version of the United Orders

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/United_Orders

 

Just like the 10 Commandments, there are secular laws based on the ten commandments

 

It is clear that today Brigham Young would be ...

Edited July 17, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Mystery Meat]

it is possible to make a secular version of the United Orders

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/United_Orders

 

Just like the 10 Commandments, there are secular laws based on the ten commandments

 

It is clear that today Brigham Young would be 

 

That is anything but clear. You are putting words in his mouth. Reposting the same link over and over again does not change that. I have already read it. Like every other source you try to use to make a point, it does not actually support your point.

 

If it was clear, trust me, you and me would not be having this conversation. I am much more loyal to Brigham Young than I am to some meaningless debate about economic systems.

[rodheadlee]

it is possible to make a secular version of the United Orders

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/United_Orders

 

Just like the 10 Commandments, there are secular laws based on the ten commandments

 

It is clear that today Brigham Young would be 

No thanks. Obama is no Brigham Young. Our federal, state and local governments spend way too much time figuring out how to tax us more. Fuel tax, carbon credits, pay by the mile hiway tax, DMV fees, property taxes, sales taxes, room taxes, sin taxes, use taxes and on and on.

[Stone holm]

It is virtually impossible to reconcile the economic thinking of the 19th Century Prophets with the late 20th century Prophets. The earlier Prophets were very close to what Pope Francis is arguing. But we modern Mormons have become addicted to materialism. It's interesting that we argue that you cannot compare the 19th Century prophets because you are talking secular leaders, then turn around and argue for a flat tax for secular government because tithing is a flat rate. Of course the latter argument is specious because we urge paying much more in fast and other offerings if we can afford to do so.

[Mystery Meat]

It is virtually impossible to reconcile the economic thinking of the 19th Century Prophets with the late 20th century Prophets. The earlier Prophets were very close to what Pope Francis is arguing. But we modern Mormons have become addicted to materialism. It's interesting that we argue that you cannot compare the 19th Century prophets because you are talking secular leaders, then turn around and argue for a flat tax for secular government because tithing is a flat rate. Of course the latter argument is specious because we urge paying much more in fast and other offerings if we can afford to do so.

 

Stone, I do not think that is an accurate summation of what has been put forth is this thread, nor do I think it is an accurate dichotomy of what the prophets have taught and spoken. I don't think any of us, at least not me, think that pursuit of riches for the sake of pursuing riches is a quality of a disciple of Christ. I don't even think capitalism is good, nor have I seen any statement by a modern day prophet call it inspired. At best it is a weak substitute for a better way; at worst it is a creation of satan. However, I have yet to see any evidence that any prophet has ever advocated for a centralized economic system whereby political leaders and bureaucrats would be in charge of redistributing wealth. Key holders and priesthood leaders couldn't do it, I don't understand why anyone thinks that the current crop of washingtonians would fare any better. In the meantime, the Lord's laws of love and charity still apply to the rich and poor alike. As someone who has always had an abundance of substance, I can testify that sometimes the greatest thing a person can do to help another has nothing to do with money, although in some exceptional cases it certainly does. Everyone in our society seems to be obsessed with money and how to get more of it, both rich and poor alike, with little thought of what good that money will do for them, or anyone else for that matter, in the long run. 

 

I have grown to despise capitalism for its corrupting influence, its obsession with more and its devaluation of things more important than the bottom line. At the same time I have lived in areas of the world where there was more regulation, more government oversight, and more wealth redistribution. I don't think such policies made much of any difference to the attitudes about individual's desires for more money or increased love of fellowman, in fact it seemed to make them worse; the rich resented the poor, and the poor envied and despised the rich. Ultimately one cannot pass their own responsibility and Christian duty to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and comfort the weak through a system of progressive taxes. That turns charity into bureaucracy; an ugly, cold and entirely faceless endeavor more interested in political points and artificial warm and fuzzies than it is about actually touching another human being and changing their life.

 

So what are we to do? I am convinced that it doesn't really matter what imperfect economic system we live under: capitalism, communism or anything in between. They are all flawed and none of them can rightfully be compared to God's higher law of consecration. None. No one of those systems comes closer to the other, despite what zealot advocates of them might try to argue. They fall equally short for various reasons. Yet, there is still hope for you and me. We have entered into covenants; covenants to consecrate. And if you reflect on those covenants you will remember that consecration entails so much more than giving such a cheap and worthless thing as money (although that may be needed from time to time). Time, energy, our talents, and all else we have can be consecrated. In other words both rich and poor can live the law of consecration now. And so while our various earthly governments may endeavor down a path of fruitless and fallen economic policy you and I have the fortunate blessing of living a higher law today.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Mystery Meat

[Calm]

 

[thesometimesaint]

Once again your are wrong.

 

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/tax-spending/adam-smith-and-progressive-taxation/

 

He was in favor of essentially a flat tax.  The key word being proportionate. a progressive tax system means that the more money you make the higher the amount or disproportionate amount, in comparison to some one making less, in terms of percentage, you would pay in taxes.

 

Not so much.

 

Adam Smith said:

"the expense of defending the society, and that of supporting the dignity of the chief magistrate, are both laid out for the general benefit of the whole society. It is reasonable, therefore, that they should be defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society, all the different members contributing, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities."

"When the toll upon carriages of luxury, upon coaches, post-chaises, &c. is made somewhat higher in proportion to their weight, than upon carriages of necessary use, such as carts, waggons, &c. the indolence and vanity of the rich is made to contribute in a very easy manner to the relief of the poor, by rendering cheaper the transportation of heavy goods to all the different parts of the country."

(The Wealth of Nations)

 

PS:

Edited July 17, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[TheSkepticChristian]

. I don't think such policies made much of any difference to the attitudes about individual's desires for more money or increased love of fellowman, in fact it seemed to make them worse; the rich resented the poor, and the poor envied and despised the rich.

 

Maybe, but that was not what Brigham Young and the early church thought. 

 

So what are we to do? I am convinced that it doesn't really matter what imperfect economic system we live under: capitalism, communism or anything in between. They are all flawed and none of them can rightfully be compared to God's higher law of consecration. None. No one of those systems comes closer to the other, despite what zealot advocates of them might try to argue. 

 

but consecration is socialism + God, a religious utopia. Historian Ronald W. Walker presents Brigham Young's own characteristically outspoken words about his ideas of Zion; a labor-driven, agrarian, cooperative theocracy.

Edited July 17, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Avatar4321]

Who wants a revolution?

[Avatar4321]

Maybe, but that was not what Brigham Young and the early church thought. 

 

 

but consecration is socialism + God, a religious utopia. Historian Ronald W. Walker presents Brigham Young's own characteristically outspoken words about his ideas of Zion; a labor-driven, agrarian, cooperative theocracy.

Consecration and socialism are different ideas