Meadowchik Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 On 3/12/2015 21:53:00, why me said: What is liberty? For example, if I am a poor person in the US, my liberty is limited. I cannot travel to china as a weathly person can. I cannot buy healthy food as the upper income person can. And I cannot live the lifestyle of a person with money. My freedom is very limited by my income and that lack of freedom covers freedom of movement and living space as examples. So, liberty is a matter of income in many cases. Also, if I am homeless, I have no time to watch TV, read the newspapers etc. My total life is focused in survival. We need to look at the difference between moderan liberalism, ie, the welfare states that made up Europe until the 90s and the classical liberal societies, mainly the US and Britain during Thatcher. The resultant high taxes of modern liberalism offered a more fair and equitable society. Here is a simple explanation between the two types of liberalisms: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-modern-and-classical-liberalism I wanted to point out what I guess one could call "tiers" of liberty. Those not living hand-to-mouth, even if considered "poor" in their countries, are at much more liberty to pursue advancement of ther situations than those who are living hand-to-mouth. Then, say, those just above poverty levels in America may have all the major appliances, own a home, and have a car but not be able to afford to fly or go to overseas for vacations. Yet those in this no-fly category are among the richest 1 billion or so in the entire world. But, considering your question, I'm curious how you would address these inequalities, and when such response would be enough. To how much "liberty" is one entitled? Are those with more morally obligated to give their excess to the wants of those who already have their needs met, but who do not have as much discretionary income? I live in a country where the poor are given enough to eat and live, where there are even special helps for schooling and financial aid for extracurricular activities and even sometimes vacation offerings for students. I can tell you first hand that there are those who feel this is not enough.
Meadowchik Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 More to the point, what is the spirit of the Law of Consecration? Short of building a compound where the whole ward moves in and divides all posessions, what are we to do today to share our excess? With whom should we share? Should it be family first, or neighbors? What about those in extreme poverty in foreign countries or our own, should we give to them before we give to the neighbor who asks? This is a question that any LDS might duly ponder, as we shouldn't be waiting for the government to tell us who and how to help. If we are called upon by God to help, we should be finding a way to do it, right? But, even then, it's not simple. What about the neighbor who is abusive or the church member who is manipulating for financial aid from the ward or the poor in other countries who will likely use aid to wage war? If we are obligated to help those who have less but who have what they need, must we "enable" manipulative, abusive, or harmful behavior? If anyone is wondering, these are not rhetorical questions.
Walden Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 On 12/3/2015, 5:05:42, Deborah said: I don't disagree, but more often than not it's our life choices. Many people with no support put themselves through school at great sacrifice. Plus today we have on-line classes. It is very rare that someone should be completely unable to better their circumstances. An interesting, related story posted at Salon, titled: "The single ugliest myth the rich perpetuate about the poor: Wealthy white conservatives want to believe they've earned their fortunes, so they pathologize the lower classes" "Many wealthy white conservative males believe they deserve their good fortunes, and that the poor are taking handouts. But on average little of the money of the wealthiest Americans is spent on productive job-creating ventures. Potential young entrepreneurs, in contrast, are too often mired in debt and deprived of opportunities to prosper. Based on the evidence, the very people demeaned by the rich as ‘lazy’ are generally the hardest workers. Most Safety Net Recipients Are Working Almost 63 percent of America’s work-eligible poor are working, and 73 percent of public support recipients are members of working families. As noted by Paul Krugman, “only 26 percent of jobless Americans are receiving any kind of unemployment benefit, the lowest level in many decades.” For Those Who Aren’t Working, Living-Wage Opportunities Aren’t Available Congress has continually thwarted job creation proposals, contributing to a stunning increase in the long-term unemployment rate, from 17.5 percent to 43.7 percent after the recession, and then down to a still-middle-class-crushing 27 percent today. The Middle Class Produces the Entrepreneurs Experience has shown that productive new ideas, and the job creation that comes with them, are generated by young middle class people. But as debt and job loss has plagued this part of America over the past 30 years, the number of new startups has dropped dramatically. Immigrants Bring Even More Entrepreneurship According to the Wall Street Journal, immigrants make up 13 percent of the population, but 28 percent of the small business owners. Plus, they boost local economies by starting businesses in developing neighborhoods."
Robert F. Smith Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 21 hours ago, why me said: .................................................................... 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. There were hundreds of units of the Order which were established back in the day, and this is the analysis of merely one of those (Monroe), which was poorly organized and operated for only a very short time (1874-1876). Karl C. Sandberg, “Getting Up a History of Monroe: The Long Shadow of the United Order,” Sunstone, 19 (Dec 1996):37-45, online at https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/104-37-45.pdf , pointing out as the overarching cause of failure that during “this twenty-five year period, from the 1870s until the turn of the century, the Church had lost its economic system, its marriage system, its political system, and its judicial system.” -- citing in n. 48, These points are discussed in detail by Claude Burtenshaw in "Utah Statehood: The Demise of the Mormon Political Kingdom of God," paper given at the 1996 Sunstone Symposium Salt Lake City, August 17 (tape #SL96-331). This was all crucial to the continued success of the United Order. The Feds basically disestablished the LDS Church, and could only be mollified by a policy of complete accommodation. More to the point is the appraisal of a non-Mormon expert on communal systems: Kenneth Rexroth said that the Mormons had made practical the communal movements of the 1840s, i.e., a low-pressure, small-scale utopian socialist movement which actually worked!! Rexroth, Communalism: From Its Origins to the Twentieth Century (NY: Seabury, 1974). See also Ephraim E. Ericksen, Psychological and Ethical Aspects of Mormon Group Life (1922/1975); Arthur Maass & Raymond L. Anderson, . . . and the Desert Shall Rejoice: Conflict, Growth and Justice in Arid Environments (MIT, 1978); Leonard J. Arrington, Feramorz Y. Fox, and Dean L. May, Building the City of God: Community and Cooperation Among the Mormons (1976/1992). Dean May, “One Heart and Mind: Communal Life and Values Among the Mormons,” in Donald E. Pitzer, ed., America’s Communal Utopias (1997), 135-158. Mario De Pillis, “The Development of Mormon Communitarianism, 1826-1846,” doctoral dissertation (Yale Univ., 1960); Gordon E. Wagner, “Consecration and Stewardship: A Socially Efficient System of Justice,” doctoral dissertation (Cornell Univ., 1977).
Deborah Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 4 hours ago, Walden said: An interesting, related story posted at Salon, titled: "The single ugliest myth the rich perpetuate about the poor: Wealthy white conservatives want to believe they've earned their fortunes, so they pathologize the lower classes" You do realize most wealthy white conservatives weren't always wealthy and and worked and sacrificed to get their wealth. It is an ugly myth to days they don't deserve their wealth when they have earned it. Many of todays' millionaires started working in their garages, literally. It's plain silly to say they patholgize the lower classes when that's where many of them started. Here are just a few articles: 10 World Famous Companies that Started in Garages www.retireat21.com/blog/10-companies-started-garages Here are ten of the world's most gigantic businesses that started in garages... ... Always love seeing where millionaires and billionaires started! It seems like most ... Where 14 Of The Top Internet Businesses Got Started www.incomediary.com/where-14-of-the-top-internet-businesses-were-sta... Companies Started in Dorm Rooms and Garages ... from any where possible to make my dream of becoming a millionaire young a reality. ... Click Here For More ... Steve Jobs and the Humble Start of 9 Other Entrepreneurs ... abcnews.go.com › Money Oct 7, 2011 - ... most successful companies using what the space they had: garages, dorm rooms and ... Steve Jobs' and 9 Other Humble Garage Beginnings ... You'll never guess which billionaire began his company inside a church crypt. 16 Billionaires Who Started With Nothing — Including ... www.businessinsider.com/billionaires-who-came-from-n... Business Insider Feb 20, 2014 - These 16 moguls started out dirt poor and are now among the world's richest people. Garage Millionaires: Famous Companies That Started Out In ... www.1stchoiceacegaragedoors.com/garage-millionaires-famous-compani... Jul 21, 2015 - Garages are often used for storing cars, or other items that people want to store away from the house. In fact, these days, people are more likely ...
The Nehor Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 17 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. 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. Uh.......no. The fundamental principle of the Law of Consecration is that men must become equal in material things to become equal in spiritual things and the rich must be made humble and the poor exalted. God does not speak about the importance of private property when discussing Consecration. To get that interpretation you have to turn to anti-Communist talks given by General Authorities during the Cold War trying to distance Consecration from Communism and rightly disabuse members of the idea that the communist party was the path to consecration. Funny how that interpretation has not been spoken from the pulpit since the Cold War went kaput. 1
The Nehor Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 42 minutes ago, Deborah said: You do realize most wealthy white conservatives weren't always wealthy and and worked and sacrificed to get their wealth. It is an ugly myth to days they don't deserve their wealth when they have earned it. Many of todays' millionaires started working in their garages, literally. It's plain silly to say they patholgize the lower classes when that's where many of them started. This is misleading. Social mobility is way down. You can always point out exceptions to the rule. My father was one of them who went from relative nothing to very wealthy but they are the exception not the rule. The idea that it is hard work is a self-gratifying myth. Even if you do not directly inherit wealth the social and cultural capital you get from being raised in a higher income bracket is huge. Studies have shown that children of the economic upper classes without a college degree regularly end up making double what other children with college degrees make. Even with little wealth children raised in higher income brackets know from upbringing how to rise high and have picked up the social signals and have the connections they need to do well. I am good at my job and do it well but I did not suffer and sacrifice for it and make good money. I have a friend who was raised in much less affluent environment who is a divorced mother working two jobs who is smarter then me, has a more advanced degree, and probably better at her job making probably above half of what I am. I also think part of the reason I got my job is because I could talk boating (generally a hobby of the wealthy) with the company president. Most ultra-successful entrepreneurs who start from relatively nothing to become wealthy are raised middle class. Most of the very wealthy still have wealthy parents. As to hard work.....yeah, the idea that capitalism is a meritocracy will collapse when we find a way to measure effort. The Jews, the Muslims, and the early Christians all agreed that collecting interest was a sin because it led to indolent and unearned wealth. Something to consider in a society where investments, loans, and the like dominate (and crash) our economy. 1
why me Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: There were hundreds of units of the Order which were established back in the day, and this is the analysis of merely one of those (Monroe), which was poorly organized and operated for only a very short time (1874-1876). Karl C. Sandberg, “Getting Up a History of Monroe: The Long Shadow of the United Order,” Sunstone, 19 (Dec 1996):37-45, online at https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/104-37-45.pdf , pointing out as the overarching cause of failure that during “this twenty-five year period, from the 1870s until the turn of the century, the Church had lost its economic system, its marriage system, its political system, and its judicial system.” -- citing in n. 48, These points are discussed in detail by Claude Burtenshaw in "Utah Statehood: The Demise of the Mormon Political Kingdom of God," paper given at the 1996 Sunstone Symposium Salt Lake City, August 17 (tape #SL96-331). This was all crucial to the continued success of the United Order. The Feds basically disestablished the LDS Church, and could only be mollified by a policy of complete accommodation. More to the point is the appraisal of a non-Mormon expert on communal systems: Kenneth Rexroth said that the Mormons had made practical the communal movements of the 1840s, i.e., a low-pressure, small-scale utopian socialist movement which actually worked!! Rexroth, Communalism: From Its Origins to the Twentieth Century (NY: Seabury, 1974). If you remember my original contention I stated that it was very difficult to create a united order inside an economic system that was based on profit and self-reliance. I stated that such ideas would be better suited within a different economic system. Utopian societies have had a very dismal record when they exist in societies that were social darwinist in practice. And this was no different with the united order. How can a utopian movement co-exist inside a rugged capitalist society and prosper? Eventually, there will be a clash. Thus, my point. Now, within a socialist society, the united order would have had a better chance to succeed because the values would be very similiar. And perhaps even be encouraged by the dominant socialist ideology that would govern the society.
theplains Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 On 05/12/2015, 19:45:55, Russell C McGregor said: No Jim, Section 119 doesn't say that. I found a few items to support what I mentioned. According to the introductory notes of the D&C 119: "Because of failure on the part of many to abide by this covenant, the Lord withdrew it for a time, and gave instead the law of tithing to the whole Church". According to history site ...http://historyofmormonism.com/mormon-history/two-church-centers/tcc-1831/law-of-consecration/ "At the end of Zion’s Camp, in June 1834, however, the Lord chastised His people for their sins and took the Law of Consecration from the earth until Zion should be redeemed. This was due to the imperfections in some of the Saints, who were unwilling to live the spirit of this law, causing it to become corrupted." According to mormonwiki ... http://www.mormonwiki.com/Law_of_Consecration "... Since this revelation was received, Church members have not been required to live the law of consecration." From the church's manual: https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-110-121/section-119-the-law-of-tithing?lang=eng "Many of those who entered into this solemn covenant broke it and by so doing brought upon their heads, and the heads of their brethren and sisters, dire punishment and persecution. This celestial law of necessity was thereupon withdrawn for the time, or until the time of the redemption of Zion. While suffering intensely because of their debts and lack of means to meet their obligations Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, November 29, 1834, in solemn prayer promised the Lord that they would give one tenth of all that the Lord should give unto them, as an offering to be bestowed upon the poor; they also prayed that their children, and the children’s children after them should obey this law. (D.H.C., 2:174–5.) Now, however, it became necessary for the law to be given to the whole Church so the Prophet prayed for instruction. The answer they received [came] in the revelation [D&C 119].” (Church History and Modern Revelation, 2:90–91.)" Thanks, Jim
Robert F. Smith Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 8 hours ago, why me said: If you remember my original contention I stated that it was very difficult to create a united order inside an economic system that was based on profit and self-reliance. I stated that such ideas would be better suited within a different economic system. Utopian societies have had a very dismal record when they exist in societies that were social darwinist in practice. And this was no different with the united order. How can a utopian movement co-exist inside a rugged capitalist society and prosper? Eventually, there will be a clash. Thus, my point. Now, within a socialist society, the united order would have had a better chance to succeed because the values would be very similiar. And perhaps even be encouraged by the dominant socialist ideology that would govern the society. Nice, but how then do you explain the remarkable success of the Hutterite Brethren (USA & Canada), or of Mondragon?
Meadowchik Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 49 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Nice, but how then do you explain the remarkable success of the Hutterite Brethren (USA & Canada), or of Mondragon? The Church has grown more than they have over comparable periods of time. Perhaps the bigger question is, how to live as close to the Law of Consecration as possible while still working out the mission of the Church? The Church was not created as a means to an economic end such as the United Order. The order would be an outgrowth of that mission as it ripens and advances, no?
Recommended Posts