The First Presidency on the Economy

[Russell C McGregor]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

How could it?  The only candidate I can think of who sought to stop the Robber Barons and to engage in real trust-busting was Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican.  We have no such candidates today, and no leaders like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young who understand the value of the Law of Consecration, and who seek to put it into effect.  In Mormonism, the religious and political views cannot be separated.  Mormonism is a way of life, not a Sunday-go-to-meetin religion.

 

Skeptic is rather fond of a certain Democratic hopeful (I'm not sure if we should even call him a candidate yet) whom I will not name, but whose initials might rhyme with B.S.

And he loves to work him into the conversation at every opportunity.

 

[TheSkepticChristian]

12 hours ago, Sevenbak said:

Marion G Romney's talk from many years ago on Socialism vs. The United Order is an excellent treatise on this topic.

Did he talk about social democracy vs the United Order? I think Brigham Young was a social Democrat, the early church was a social democrat.

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

How could it?  The only candidate I can think of who sought to stop the Robber Barons and to engage in real trust-busting was Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican

there is one candidate that has similar views, but he is not as socialist as Roosevelt. However, I am not interested in talking about him here, I can't. I will only talk about stuff that is related to the church. 

[Walden]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

How could it?  The only candidate I can think of who sought to stop the Robber Barons and to engage in real trust-busting was Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican.  We have no such candidates today, and no leaders like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young who understand the value of the Law of Consecration, and who seek to put it into effect.  In Mormonism, the religious and political views cannot be separated.  Mormonism is a way of life, not a Sunday-go-to-meetin religion.

Please, any political candidate or other leader who would attempt to champion the Law of Consecration would be labeled as a communist or socialist and run out of town on a rail.

I am not necessarily comparing communism with Law of Consecration, but the subtle nuances between the two would not be comprehended by the vast majority of Americans.

[TheSkepticChristian]

So what did the First Presidency mean when they stated, "  If this evil should not be checked, and measures not be taken to prevent the continued enormous growth " ? 

[carbon dioxide]

23 hours ago, Walden said:

I am not necessarily comparing communism with Law of Consecration, but the subtle nuances between the two would not be comprehended by the vast majority of Americans.

In most aspects yes but one area they would understand is Communism is not voluntary where as Consecration is it voluntary.  

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/5/2015, 10:50:35, carbon dioxide said:

In most aspects yes but one area they would understand is Communism is not voluntary where as Consecration is it voluntary.  

Not true.  Marxist communism is a form of automatic harmony achieved in a kind of religious millennium, but only comes with the "withering away of the state."  The late Bertrand Russell frankly declared that communism is thus a religion in the full meaning of the word.

The various communist parties which now exist and have existed (Soviet, Chinese, Yugoslav, Vietnamese, Cambodian, etc.) ran socialist states under what is called the "dictatorship of the proletariat."  That state never "withered away," leaving only communism.  None of those states ever practiced communism.  The only true communist organizations in history have been Mondragon (in the Basque region of Spain), the Hutterite Brethren (USA and Canada), the LDS United Order, the Essenes, and early Christianity (in ancient Judea).  Each of them has been a success, though the latter two are in abeyance.

ETA: the Israeli Kibbutz in another such organization.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[SmileyMcGee]

2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

In most aspects yes but one area they would understand is Communism is not voluntary where as Consecration is it voluntary.  

Well, I think the "voluntary" nature of either depends on context. Consecration is not voluntary if you want to be exalted and have an eternal family. i could "voluntarily" remove myself from a communist state. 

[theplains]

On 03/12/2015, 12:03:51, TheSkepticChristian said:

The early church lived the law of consecration, 

According to D&C 119, tithing was substituted in place of the law of consecration (which was withdrawn
due to the failure of many to abide it).

Thanks,
Jim

[why me]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Not true.  Marxist communism is a form of automatic harmony achieved in a kind of religious millennium, but only comes with the "withering away of the state."  The late Bertrand Russell frankly declared that communism is thus a religion in the full meaning of the word.

The various communist parties which now exist and have existed (Soviet, Chinese, Yugoslav, Vietnamese, Cambodian, etc.) ran socialist states under what is called the "dictatorship of the proletariat."  That state never "withered away," leaving only communism.  None of those states ever practiced communism.  The only true communist organizations in history have been Mondragon (in the Basque region of Spain), the Hutterite Brethren (USA and Canada), the LDS United Order, the Essenes, and early Christianity (in ancient Judea).  Each of them has been a success, though the latter two are in abeyance.

 

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Communism is an ideology as capitalism is an ideology. Communism has certain values it wishes to achieve as does capitalism. For communism it is: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. If communism has a religious millennium so does capitalism as people bow down at the alter of capital. But to which alter do communists bow down to? In its pure form it is about community and its social dynamics. If communists believe in the dictatorship of the worker, capitalists believe in the dictatorship of the bourgeois.

The united order would be more successful if it existed in a socialist society where the social comes before profit. However, it is extremely difficult to attain if the society has capital at its center where profit comes before people. Thus, it failed in the US with the early saints and most likely failed in the new testament when the early church attempted a more communal existence for somewhat the same reasons.

Edited December 5, 2015 by why me
mistake

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, why me said:

 

Communism is an ideology as capitalism is an ideology. Communism has certain values it wishes to achieve as does capitalism. For communism it is: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. If communism has a religious millennium so does capitalism as people bow down at the alter of capital. But to which alter do communists bow down to? In its pure form it is about community and its social dynamics. If communists believe in the dictatorship of the worker, capitalists believe in the dictatorship of the bourgeois.

The united order would be more successful if it existed in a socialist society where the social comes before profit. However, it is extremely difficult to attain if the society has capital at its center where profit comes before people. Thus, it failed in the US with the early saints and most likely failed in the new testament when the early church attempted a more communal existence for somewhat the same reasons.

You are wrong.  The United Order and the communism of Primitive Christianity (and the Essenes) were quite successful and were destroyed by outside forces.  In the case of the United Order, it was the Federal Govt, in the case of Primitive Christianity, it was the repeated Roman destruction of the Jewish state (of which Jewish Christianity was an active part), along with Hellenistic Christian Apostasy.

You are also wrong in the economic sphere: Soviet, Yugoslav, and Chinese communism was state capitalist.  The best introduction to the subject is by the chief Yugoslav communist theoretician and Vice President, Milovan Djilas, The New Class (Praeger, 1957, and many times reprinted).  He lived to see the self-destruction of modern communist states and wrote about it with great clarity.

[Russell C McGregor]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

According to D&C 119, tithing was substituted in place of the law of consecration (which was withdrawn
due to the failure of many to abide it).

Thanks,
Jim

 

No Jim, Section 119 doesn't say that.

While it can occasionally be amusing watching you, who do not accept our sacred texts as authoritative, earnestly trying to tell us, who do accept them, what they mean, it does grow old after a while.

 

[The Nehor]

16 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

So what did the First Presidency mean when they stated, "  If this evil should not be checked, and measures not be taken to prevent the continued enormous growth " ? 

Here you go:

The big high spikes are usually trouble. The 1928 spike came the year before the stock market crash that brought about the Great Depression. The times of greatest prosperity and development in the United States were in the low dip in the post-war boom when the nation developed its transportation and services infrastructure and the buying power of the average American was comparatively high.

The jump in 1986 is partially due to Reagan rolling back the tax rate on high income workers. A bit of this was artificial as Congress rolled back the ability to dodge taxes by disallowing companies to reimburse high-level employees with company cars, club memberships, and other perks to help dodge taxes. It stabilized a bit but lately we are hitting dangerous levels of inequality again.

The economy tends to tank, radical political philosophies (from both the Right and Left) tend to flourish, and although the US has been fortunate in other countries it sometimes to leads to revolution or just plain instability.

I think the Church Leaders knew what they were talking about. I wouldn't be surprised to hear similar counsel again soon. I expect we will hear howling inside and outside the church if we do.

[SmileyMcGee]

14 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

 

No Jim, Section 119 doesn't say that.

While it can occasionally be amusing watching you, who do not accept our sacred texts as authoritative, earnestly trying to tell us, who do accept them, what they mean, it does grow old after a while.

 

To be fair, I was taught in seminary, institute, and many a Sunday school that tithing replaced consecration (or at least the practical implementation of the law through the United Order) due to a lack of faithfulness of the early saints. Not saying it's true, just that if it's wrong then some members appear to be mistaken as well. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

2 hours ago, SmileyMcGee said:

To be fair, I was taught in seminary, institute, and many a Sunday school that tithing replaced consecration (or at least the practical implementation of the law through the United Order) due to a lack of faithfulness of the early saints. Not saying it's true, just that if it's wrong then some members appear to be mistaken as well. 

you won't impress anyone here with that.

[TheSkepticChristian]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Here you go:

I think the Church Leaders knew what they were talking about. I wouldn't be surprised to hear similar counsel again soon. I expect we will hear howling inside and outside the church if we do.

nice. Source: Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, “Income Inequality in the United States, 1913-1998,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 2003.

Is there another opinion about what the First Presidency meant?

[SmileyMcGee]

13 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

you won't impress anyone here with that.

What makes you think I'm trying to impress anyone? I'm just asserting that Russell's mormon experience isn't identical to every Mormon's experience (including mine). my perspective is my perspective, I don't care what you do with it.

[TheSkepticChristian]

3 minutes ago, SmileyMcGee said:

What makes you think I'm trying to impress anyone? I'm just asserting that Russell's mormon experience isn't identical to every Mormon's experience (including mine). my perspective is my perspective, I don't care what you do with it.

and everybody here already knows that. Everybody here knows that there are many different experiences at church.

[Deborah]

To be clear the Law of Consecration is still in effect. The fact that we don't practice the United Order today doesn't negate that. I think if more people understood this they would forego a lot of things to help the poor more. The United Order was a way of practicing the LOC but not the only way. In fact I think in the BOM it was more where people had so much love that they just gave what was needed to help the poor and all benefited. They didn't even need anything as formal as the UO.

[SmileyMcGee]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

and everybody here already knows that. Everybody here knows that there are many different experiences at church.

are we not here to share those experiences and perspectives? If you don't like what I said that's fine...you don't need to attempt make up rules that limit comments that you don't like. 

Edited December 6, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[why me]

21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are wrong.  The United Order and the communism of Primitive Christianity (and the Essenes) were quite successful and were destroyed by outside forces.  In the case of the United Order, it was the Federal Govt, in the case of Primitive Christianity, it was the repeated Roman destruction of the Jewish state (of which Jewish Christianity was an active part), along with Hellenistic Christian Apostasy.

You are also wrong in the economic sphere: Soviet, Yugoslav, and Chinese communism was state capitalist.  The best introduction to the subject is by the chief Yugoslav communist theoretician and Vice President, Milovan Djilas, The New Class (Praeger, 1957, and many times reprinted).  He lived to see the self-destruction of modern communist states and wrote about it with great clarity.

From an sunstone article:

And in a fundamental way, the Order did not succeed because

it never managed to resolve the tension between the

need for close central control and the need for individual initiative,

both of which were part of the Mormon ethos. On the

one hand, we find in Mormon scripture the principle that "If

ye are not one ye are not mine" (DQC 38:27), which meant

working and moving as a cohort under a single director. But

on the other hand, "it is not meet that I should command 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.

. . . men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause,

and do many things of their own free will. . . ." (D&C

58:26-28).

To be efficient, the United Order had to have the members'

time at its disposal when the work needed to be done, and one

of the conditions people accepted in coming into the Order

was that they would work at the direction of the board. If hay

needed to be cut and member A had left for a week and

member B was off working for himself, the hay didn't get cut.

As a matter of fact, the Order put in seventeen acres of potatoes

the first summer, which failed because the potatoes did

not get planted on time. Why? Because too many people were

busy getting in their own gardens.27

In addition, if people were to be totally responsive to the

Order, the Order had to be completely adequate for the needs

of all, which was not the case in the Monroe Order. In fact, it

does not appear that this or any of the other orders organized

at this period ever reached the economic "take off point" where

they started to generate enough capital from within to sustain

future growth. Hence, we find the example of the blacksmith

taking jobs from people outside and keeping the payment for

himself, justifying himself on the grounds that the Order could

not yet take care of his needs.28

But it begns to appear that the collectivist principle was in

itself flawed. In the first place, it did nothing to correct the

more sluggish aspects of human nature, or so it would seem,

as some members tended to become passively obedient. Even

when they did everything they were told, they did only what

they were told. When people had to be "commanded in all

things," they had to be told in every instance what to do. The

result? They invested less of themselves and became less punctual

in performing their work and more careless about taking

care of Since the Order appeared to be in charge of

everything, they began to expect the Order to take care of

them. It appears shocking to find that the rations of a widow

were stopped until we learn that she was drawing rations to

feed four grown sons who were not members of the Order. Or

some people would draw more grain than they needed and

then sell it for their own profit.30

www.sunstonemagazine.com  The United Order

I think that we can see that the order failed for reasons that were typical. People were not ready to live it. And it was not easy to live such an order when people had been conditioned to think of themselves and profit.

Edited December 6, 2015 by why me
website

[Russell C McGregor]

7 hours ago, SmileyMcGee said:

To be fair, I was taught in seminary, institute, and many a Sunday school that tithing replaced consecration (or at least the practical implementation of the law through the United Order) due to a lack of faithfulness of the early saints. Not saying it's true, just that if it's wrong then some members appear to be mistaken as well. 

 

I'm not saying the idea is original to Jim. I'm saying it's not found in the source he cites.

 

[SmileyMcGee]

Just now, Russell C McGregor said:

 

I'm not saying the idea is original to Jim. I'm saying it's not found in the source he cites.

 

Ah, I see. My apologies.

[BCSpace]

On 12/3/2015, 10:03:51, TheSkepticChristian said:

The early church lived the law of consecration, President Brigham Young was very concerned about the poor. The First Presidency stated, "One of the great evils with which our own nation is menaced at the present time is the wonderful growth of wealth in the hands of a comparatively few individuals. The very liberties for which our fathers contended so steadfastly and courageously, and which they bequeathed to us as a priceless legacy, are endangered by the mon- strous power which this accumulation of wealth gives to a few in- dividuals and a few powerful corporations. By its seductive influence results are accomplished which, were it more equally distributed, would be impossible under our form of government. It threatens to give shape to tne legislation, both State and National, of the entire country. 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, and the painful increase of destitution and want among the poor, the nation is liable to be overtaken by disaster" https://archive.org/stream/socialproblemsof00lumd/socialproblemsof00lumd_djvu.txt

 

I wonder if the modern First Presidency still thinks that measures should be taken to prevent the continued enormous growth of riches?

The official doctrine on the Law of Consecration states that private property is the fundamental principle of the LoC and that one is free to use it a they wish. Holding property in common is eschewed, socialism leads away from Christ, and there can be no forced actions in the context of imparting to the poor.  See my siggy (if it still exists) for the link to the official doctrine.

What this means in part is that the FP officially would be concerned only in the sense of the individual; that a wealthy person should choose to impart freely according to the law of agency.

 

Edited December 7, 2015 by BCSpace
Correction

[TheSkepticChristian]

2 hours ago, BCSpace said:

The official doctrine on the Law of Consecration states that private property is the fundamental principle of the LoC and that one is free to use it a they wish. Holding property in common is eschewed, socialism leads away from Christ, and there can be no forced actions in the context of imparting to the poor.  See my siggy (if it still exists) for the link to the official doctrine.

but what about social democracy? It seems that early church leaders were social democrats. 

 

2 hours ago, BCSpace said:

What this means in part is that the FP officially would be concerned only in the sense of the individual; that a wealthy person should choose to impart freely according to the law of agency.

Is that what "measures to prevent" means? and 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." 

 

[why me]

2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

but what about social democracy? It seems that early church leaders were social democrats. 

 

Is that what "measures to prevent" means? and 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." 

 

I believe that the church at this time was experiencing difficulties and so, the idea was to all work together for the benefit of all. But I wouldn't call the church social democratic. First, in europe at this time social democracy was not what we have today. It was much more militant. We need to remember that Karl Marx was writing his ideas down on paper at this time. There had been social experiments before. For example, Robert Owen hoped to create an utopian order in the US. But he failed too. It is extremely difficult to have an utopian idea flourish when it is intended to exist within a framework of profit before people, which was the basic system in the US. One must change the entire social and economic system of capital if one wishes a more social world to exist. And of course, to fight against the social darwinism that was present in the US economic system, the social gospel was created to offset the poverty that social darwinism was creating. Thus, we have the creation of the salvation army and various religious charites coming into existence at this time.

Edited December 7, 2015 by why me
spelling