Zion: "Communal" or Zion Community Continued

[_Droopy]

It is a moving target Droopy. And yes I recall on a very bad day wondering about a number of things. And this will be my last comment on this thread since we should not make it personal in this forum. So I will just say some days I feel closer to the roots of my faith and other days I do not.

I can accept that.

And by the way the Church does teach grace and it has been obscured. I refer you to Robinson's books Believing Christ and Following Christ as well as Millet's Grace Works! If you want to debate the role of grace and works from and LDS standpoint at some point let me know.

I wouldn't claim that Robert Millet et al represent "the Church." As to settled doctrine, my only concern is the teachings and counsel of the Brethren.

I have done so with the passages from Mosiah. They say what they say. You have to bring a lot of other stuff in to get around the what Benjamin said that really have no bearing the passages. He was talking to the Church. He did not distinguish between some corporate body or the individual as you attempt to do here. He simply said to give to the poor.

As I believe I've made clear, that which I've brought in is nothing more than a long, intergenerational (since at least the 30s and the birth of the present Church welfare system) body of consistent, invariant teachings regarding the proper purpose, focus, and conditions, for a Bishop or other local ecclesiastical leader in the disbursement of FO funds. I would also say that this would apply to individuals as well, not necessarily in the meeting of an unknown beggar on the street (which has happened to me on many occasions, in which I have responded as Mosiah instructs) but with family or friends on a self destructive path for whom continued help would effectively mean the subsidy of their self destruction (I am in that situation now with some close family relations, in which the amount of money that has been squandered is very large).

The "bounds and conditions" associated with Church welfare are quite well articulated, it appears, and create no conflict or contradiction with King Benjamin.

Any blessing we receive is conditional upon obedience to the eternal laws upon which that blessing is predicated. Just being, per se, does not transcend those bounds and conditions.

Of course, all of this occurs within the further bounds and conditions of the revelations and inspiration of the Spirit. Everything in such matters is a case by case basis. Being His Church, He ultimately decides what shall be done in any case in which the dynamics and full import of the situation is not clear. Only Christ can see into the heart and motives of human beings.

The governing laws and conditions, however, are still the template upon which wise and prudent decisions are to be made. It is a high wire act, to be sure, but that's what the Gift of the Holy Ghost is all about.

However that said I am in partial agreement at least in theory with what you say. I do not believe we should continue to give to someone who is not willing to work to improve their lot. I do not believe Benjamin or any other passage is a vote for mandatory redistribution of wealth. I believe we are told to voluntarily give up our wealth to bless those not as fortunate so hoarding personal wealth may be considered sinful.

I think we can agree on the above. My only caveat would be regarding the "hoarding" of wealth. Keep in mind that stuffing money into a mattress is not at all the same as accumulating capital for use in one's stewardship in the creation of opportunity and wealth for others (creation of businesses and jobs, in other words).

And how much "hoarding" is too much? The scriptures the speak to the actual structure of the UO mention needs and wants, and base it all upon individual and family circumstances and personal capability and capacity.

David has spoken many harsh words against "hoarding
as a "sin," but in this again, I don't find cooborating teachings among the modern GAs or in the scriptures. Abraham and Job, just as two examples, were vastly wealthy. Was this "hoarding" sinful? The scriptures don' t seem to indicate this.

This becomes especially problematic, it would seem, given that one of the core principles within the Church as to welfare and personal economic independence has always been precisely the importance of saving, and not spending all of one's capital as it comes in.

Is a savings account against rainy days, potential crisis, future college tuition, piano or martial arts lessons, or a mission, "hoarding"?

I do not know enough about the UO to opine but it seems as if it is a quasi free market with control by the church on exactly who gets what based on needs and perhaps wants to a limited extent. That seems a far cry from the free market system you are all in favor of.

This is essentially the traditional Marxist conception (from each according to ability, to each according to need), and is utterly inconsistent with the principles of the UO as found in the D&C and in all GA expositions upon it that I have ever found. Nothing I've ever read on the subject of any contemporary prophets or apostles, and nothing in the relevant texts in the D&C explicating the fundamental principles of the LoC (which is the economic aspect of the UO), indicates that the Church will have any role in deciding who gets what and how much of it. That will be determined by each individual for himself and his family according to his own use and expansion of his stewardship.

The only role the Church will have is the disbursement, or distribution of wealth, on an as needed basis to various members of the community, according, again, to need, want, and circumstance. In all cases it is the individual who decides what his own circumstances and condition warrant, within the boundaries of the UO, in which all excess capital above the individual covenant stewardship is transferred to the Church for the building of Zion (which involves much more than welfare services).

Nowhere have I seen anything indicating that the Church will "decide," independently and by fiat what others will have and in what quantities (and indeed, in a really free market, which I expect the UO to be, the quantities of things available will be such that the Church will probably not have to make such zero sum decisions very often, if at all, and its provision of welfare to those in need will be quite generous, given the dynamism of wealth creation throughout the rest of the Zion economy). The stewardship is a covenant between the individual and God, through the Church, the terms of which are arrived at on an individual basis.

Last of all what about Pres Monson's comment about erring on the side of generosity?

I support his view, but I suspect President Monson would be the first to say that this, like so many other such decisions, depends both on the degree and depth of knowledge we have of a situation, as well as upon what the Spirit actually indicates should be our response on a case by case basis.

[_Droopy]

Just for context here, don't the comments by Packer and other more recent GAs comments about the welfare system come after the UO? In other words it seems they may be speaking of something entirely different. The UO may have been a wealth distributions system where as the current welfare system is not. Or the UO may be a wealth distributions system as is the current church welfare system but limited in its outreach in that those who are lazy, idlers and refuse to take steps to improve are not to be assisted. Thus there is still wealth distribution in play but it is somewhat selective in its application.

Everything Elder Packer and the many other GAs who have spoken to this issue have referenced, as to the principles and structure of the UO, would appear to relate primarily or solely to the Zion communities that will exist immediately preceding the Second Coming of Christ and the inauguration of the Millennium. I've never seen any indications to the contrary anywhere. The Earth during the Millennium will be returned to its paradisaical state, or, in other words, will become a Terrestrial planet, the nature of which is, although not anything like a Celestial world, is substantially different, in some fundamental ways, from the present "Telestial" world.

"Economics," in the present sense of the study of scarce resources with alternative uses, loses much, or is substantially altered in its meaning and application by, such a change.

[_Droopy]

Or the UO may be a wealth distributions system as is the current church welfare system but limited in its outreach in that those who are lazy, idlers and refuse to take steps to improve are not to be assisted. Thus there is still wealth distribution in play but it is somewhat selective in its application.

I think this is a point I've been trying to make at the MADboards and here for quite sometime, but at which those with the modern leftist gnostic view of poverty and economic relations will not hear.

All gospel principles relating to the blessings we receive are conditional and selective, which is the whole purpose of quoting and emphasizing those verses in the D&C which make clear that all blessings are predicated upon obedience to the laws governing reception of those blessings, and that all laws and principles have "bounds and conditions" associated with them.

One of my primary criticisms of David's view is that he looks at "the poor" as an identifiable and homogeneous class having a unique and specialized relation to the gospel and to the non-poor based upon nothing more than their status as "poor."

The gospel, on the other hand, appears to take each individual as an individual (outside any identity group to which ideological theorists may assign him) in his specific circumstances and internal condition of the heart, and relate this to gospel principles and the eternal laws upon which the blessings sought are made active and extended to each individual on an individual basis.

The particularly maddening thing about the whole concept of "communal" this and that is that it washes out and dilutes both the necessity for individual worthiness (assumed by the group) while at the same time brands as "guilty" righteous individuals within otherwise wicked social groupings for no other reason than their presence within that group.

The sociopolitical implications of this are rather clear: all "capitalists" and affluent people, regardless of their personal righteousness, and even saintliness in their individual lives, are "guilty" of the existence of the poor as a class, and the poor, as a class, are "worthy" and have a preemptive claim of entitlement upon the property of others based upon no other requirement or condition other than their presence within the class "poor."

The poor, in other words, within David's vision, have no "bounds and conditions" attached to their claim of entitlement and no requirements of obedience to laws upon which blessings are predicated necessary to actually receive the blessings of Church welfare. They need only be a part of an identity group, in this case, a socioeconomic one.

[_bcspace]

Zion: "Communal" or Zion Community Continued

Something interesting from LDS doctrine on the LoC:

“They had all things common.” The phrase “they had all things common” ( Acts 4:32 ; see also Acts 2:44 ; 3 Nephi 26:19 ; 4 Nephi 1:3 ) is used to characterize those who lived the law of consecration in ancient times. Some have speculated that the term common suggests a type of communalism or “Christian Communism.” This interpretation is in error. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught the true nature of having all things common: “I preached on the stand about one hour on the 2nd chapter of Acts , designing to show the folly of common stock [holding property in common]. In Nauvoo every one is steward over his own [property].” ( History of the Church, 6:37–38.)

And also:

The word equal is frequently used in the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants: “In . . . temporal things you shall be equal” ( D&C 70:14 ); “for if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things” ( D&C 78:6 ); “appoint unto this people their portions, every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs” ( D&C 51:3 ). The Lord gave His definition of the term equal: “And you are to be equal, or in other words, you are to have equal claims on the properties, for the benefit of managing the concerns of your stewardships, every man according to his wants and his needs, inasmuch as his wants are just” ( D&C 82:17 ).

This from Enrichement section L of the D&C Institute manual

[_moksha]

Didn't Jesus say that we would have the poor always and that those better off should look at their own blessings and give to the poor?

Wanting to haggle over this process in order to keep a maximal amount of shekels in the pockets of the haves, would seem to scoff at this idea. Makes those who haggle into the brothers of the Prodigal Son.

[_Droopy]

Didn't Jesus say that we would have the poor always and that those better off should look at their own blessings and give to the poor?

Yes, he did, but what does this have to do with what we are discussing here?

Wanting to haggle over this process in order to keep a maximal amount of shekels in the pockets of the haves, would seem to scoff at this idea. Makes those who haggle into the brothers of the Prodigal Son.

We are not "haggling over the process" for the purpose of "keeping more" of anything.

The core questions here are whether wealth and poverty are fundamental moral taxonomic categories (that overshadow any other characterological attributes a poor or rich person may have) that define human beings with respect to one another and with respect to their individual standing within the gospel (does a poor or rich person come before the Church or the judgment bar of Christ as a poor or rich individual, or as a member of the class "poor" or "rich"?), whether salvation is communal or only within community, and the "bounds and conditions" of welfare and the nature of the claims the poor have upon the Bishop's storehouse and upon their fellow citizens.

[_ajax18]

I don't think most people that find themselves in need are in the situation mostly due to their own choices very often. While this may be a more attractive conclusion for many of us, I don't think it's as true nearly as often as I did when I was younger and hadn't entered the wonderful world work. Perhaps when I observed the level of effort of many of my classmates as a high school student, it would be fair to call many of them idlers. But by the time they get fired from their first real job, I think most people get knocked around by the real world hard enough that they have no choice but to change their perspective really fast.

A lot of it has to do with the fact that life is a struggle for everyone. It seems like most homeless people I met are people that are mentally ill and just aren't quite able to get help. Some did it to themselves with drugs, but many of them just lost their mind through no fault of their own. Even the strongest and most productive members of the human family eventually get old and may live for quite some time in need of constant help, often times consuming way more than they ever earned. And while I fully admit that I don't have the information necessary to make perfect judgments concerning each situation, to literally follow King Benjamin's standard seems impossible to me as well whether it's the Church or me as an individual. So I can't really buy that when it comes to managing my own finances that somehow only the Brethren are authorized to know/decide how much and who I should help. We each have a responsibility to seek the Lord's guidance and decide how to be the best stewards we can be with what the Lord has blessed us with.