The Future UO: A Few Observations on its Characteristics

[_Droopy]

I think you and Droopy often assume I am a socialist. I am not.

When I say "the socialist interpretation is wrong" and you say "No", you bet I'm going to think you are a socialist.

I don't think Nehor is a socialist so much as he is just anti-capitalist, having been, to this point, burdened by what Von Mises called the "anti-capitalist mentality." That mentality has imbued all schools of thought on the Left but is not limited to that. It can be an individual characteristic as well, and I think that's pretty much what we're seeing here.

I'm not so sure about the late Brother Nibley.

[_Buffalo]

It's too bad that the Skousen/John Birch wing of the church has to reinterpret all of Joseph's scripture to make them fit your right wing political views. But politics is more important than theology, right BC?

This is the Celestial room, so perhaps you could take theses kinds of needlessly provocative and intellectually odd animadversions somewhere else.[/quote]

Feel free to report it if you think it crosses any lines.

[_Buffalo]

I don't think Nehor is a socialist so much as he is just anti-capitalist, having been, to this point, burdened by what Von Mises called the "anti-capitalist mentality." That mentality has imbued all schools of thought on the Left but is not limited to that. It can be an individual characteristic as well, and I think that's pretty much what we're seeing here.

I'm not so sure about the late Brother Nibley.

Joseph Smith had the same affliction.

[_Droopy]

But they will still be accumulating wealth, making profits, investing capital, and saving for a nicer future etc. They will also be hiring and firing, setting prices and productions quotas, and choosing a college and profession without government or Church control

Now, to cut to the chase, as they say, let's now ask the question of those taking the Proudhonian approach to the concept of the UO: What in the above (accumulating wealth, making profits, investing capital, and saving for a nicer future etc.) is to be considered wrong, evil, anti-gospel or anti-Christian?

Let's look at each in turn, in a free market economic sense, and ask that, or a very similar question.

1. Accumulating wealth (saving).

2. Investing accumulated wealth in productive economic activity ("working" or "venture" capital).

3. Making profits (excess wealth remaining after all costs of production have been met not used for immediate consumption (this can also be on the household level)).

4. Living normal, economic life (hiring and firing, setting prices and productions quotas, and choosing a college and profession, and let's add taking the dog to the groomer, piano and ballet lessons, butterfly collecting, film making, setting up a lemonade stand on the front lawn, or whatever).

What does anybody here see, within any of these categories or specific forms of human action, that is incompatible, inharmonious, or in clear contradiction to the principles of the UO and a Zion society?

[_Droopy]

I don't think Nehor is a socialist so much as he is just anti-capitalist, having been, to this point, burdened by what Von Mises called the "anti-capitalist mentality." That mentality has imbued all schools of thought on the Left but is not limited to that. It can be an individual characteristic as well, and I think that's pretty much what we're seeing here.

I'm not so sure about the late Brother Nibley.

Joseph Smith had the same affliction.

Which is why, it must be, that Joseph, when asked regarding the philosophy of socialism after a lecture given by Owenite socialist John Finch, said "I said I did not believe the doctrine." and why when asked whether the Latter day Saints believed in having all things common, said simply "No."

[_Droopy]

So because socialism isn't it it must be capitalism? There's a fallacy there somewhere.

In a formal sense, this could be, but tell me, what is the alternative between freedom and serfdom?

Is there a "middle ground" between being economically free and being enslaved? Is the condition of people within Zion a semi-enslaved condition?

Yet the indiviudal retains the deeded assets and any surplus not already consecrated. People who enter into this covenant (many of us already have when you think about it) are generally not going to have much of a problem. But they will still be accumulating wealth, making profits, investing capital, and saving for a nicer future etc. They will also be hiring and firing, setting prices and productions quotas, and choosing a college and profession without government or Church control.

So it's exactly the same as now? Your Zion sucks.

Hardly. Without any wicked around, conditions will otherwise be vastly different than at present.

[_Buffalo]

Which is why, it must be, that Joseph, when asked regarding the philosophy of socialism after a lecture given by Owenite socialist John Finch, said "I said I did not believe the doctrine." and why when asked whether the Latter day Saints believed in having all things common, said simply "No."

Who said anything about socialism? False dichotomy.

[_Droopy]

Droopy

Please comment on this passage:

D&C 49:20
20 But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.

This is in a section of the D&C that has nothing to do with the UO pr LoC. It is inserted in a section that really is not discussing things economic. How does the relate to your positions above as well as the current state of capitalism in the world?

Well, in any detail, or in any ultimate sense, I'm not really sure what the clear import of this verse really is. In the context of this discussion (and others like it), I think that perhaps we can move toward some kind of interpretative clarity by working up from the bottom.

At the bottom, we would look at the words ("it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another"), and, if we interpret the term "that" as meaning "anything whatsoever" we would then tend to see in this an absolute or near absolute equality of economic condition. So in this scenario everyone has their little pink house, their white picket fence, a little yard with some flowers and a bird bath, a used Yugo (the Nibley model, with no radio and heat only), a transistor radio on the kitchen table, a bare bulb above that table, and a closet with a small number (the same as everybody else) of olive green Mao suites with matching beret.

Somewhere between this communist model of egalitarian uniformity and libertarian anarchism lies both free market, democratic capitalism, and a more refined and perfected social order known as the United Order.

Two things, it would appear, would have to be true about the UO for it to be either a righteous or a economically viable social system. The first is that it must, by its very nature be market based (this can be inferred from the fact that there will be no poor within the Zion society, which implies a very substantial and dynamic market society capable of creating a great deal of wealth and keeping the Bishop's storehouse full, as well as, more importantly, providing the means for economic independence for those capable of work and economic contribution). The second is that the UO, being a social order grounded in the gospel, must be organized around the exaltation, progression, and growth of the people within it. This would seem to obviate the leveling mentality seen so much among some LDS in the message board world who have their heels dug in regarding an egalitarian interpretation of the relevant texts.

True, the large poles of wealth we see at present between "rich" and "poor" will be substantially decreased (the rich will be brought low and the poor exalted), but this should not be confused as a mandate requiring a classless society or that, in the rich being abased, they are in some sense being punished for being rich per se.

I think those waiting for the rich, including rich people in the Church who are otherwise righteous and faithful Saints, to be "cut down to size" by economic moral nannies in Zion are going to find themselves, like the foolish virgins, with the doors to Zion closed in their faces.

The righteous rich will gladly and of their own free will transfer substantial portions of their wealth (on and individual basis and based upon individual characteristics, gifts, abilities and talents) to the Bishop's storehouse, and all the righteous poor in Zion will have an equal claim upon it. Just as importantly, the poor in Zion will have equal access to jobs in a free market economy that is an efficient and prolific creator of jobs and economic opportunity.

Keep in mind this statement by President Lorenzo Snow:

It was a law which, if observed, would have made the people the richest and wealthiest of any people in the world. There would not have been a poor Latter-day Saint in their midst. Every man would have had all he needed to make him happy and comfortable, so far as financial matters were concerned.

Well, everybody being rich and comfortable? What this patently is not, if this is the case, is socialism of any kind. Is it "capitalism"? Well, strong capitalistic (individual initiative based, free market economic dynamics) must certainly be present for this kind of economic performance to be considered.

Is is the secularist economic world we deal with at present? Clearly no. What is it? Well, until the present or a future Prophet reveals the finer details of the system, that remains a good bit theoretical.

It seems to me the the scriptures Joseph Smith issued to the world were very concerned with the plight of the poor and down trodden. The Book of Mormon certainly is. So is the D&C. And really that is not surprising considering the poverty of the Smith family and the economic losses sustained by Joseph Senior.

I am not saying Joseph Smith was a socialist. But I am skeptical he would have been the enthusiastic free marked capitalist you and BC seem to be in favor of.

But why wouldn't he have been, as this is the only system of production and resource allocation that has any proven, historical record, both in theory and in practice, of providing the poor with a way out of their poverty - productive work, or, in other words, wealth creation?

It is also the only system human beings have ever attempted that has the capacity to provide relatively comfortable levels of economic security and living standards for all, including the poor (who benefit directly and indirectly the vast plethora of goods and services available, job growth, and the continual diminishing of prices created by competitive free markets, bringing, over time, even luxury goods available only to the upper classes when they are introduced, within their reach).

The UO economically will be, as I have said before, a more refined, purified and perfect form of a free market order, but with the imperfections and weaknesses of that system "weeded out," so to speak, and much of this will be in the form of the weeding out corrupt aspects of the present political and social set of conditions we live under that corrupt and pervert free market economics to their own ends (such as protectionism, barring of entry to trades and professions through the power of government, mercantilism, crony capitalism, high, punitive and politically motivated taxation etc.).

[_moksha]

Will the poor and those with capital interact with each other in this united order, or will interaction occur through intermediate overseers?

They interact now, on many levels, so why wouldn't they interact in a Zion society?

Foolish me, I thought there was much social stratification right now, because the rich seem to live in different parts of town, frequently in gated communities. Their children go to different schools, they eat different food, drive upscale cars and go to separate wards. Wouldn't this continue? Could you elaborate on what levels their interaction would occur in this future United Order?

[_The Nehor]

For what man among you having twelve sons, and is no respecter of them, and they serve him obediently, and he saith unto the one: Be thou clothed in robes and sit thou here; and to the other: Be thou clothed in rags and sit thou there—and looketh upon his sons and saith I am just?

Behold, this I have given unto you as a parable, and it is even as I am. I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine.

There are two fundamental problems with this position.

1. In a democratic, rule of law grounded free market"capitalist" economic order, no one decides for anybody else who has what, or how much of it, and this core fact renders the relevance of this verse moot.

So you're arguing God had no idea what he was talking about when he gave this parable? Seriously?

Perhaps if God read more capitalist literature He would have realized His mistake?

2. Your analysis in in contradiction to virtually every modern General Authority who has ever discoursed on the matter at any detail. As Ezra Taft Benson said, "The law of consecration "is a celestial law, not an economic experiment.

Of course it's not an experiment. It's been used before. Enoch, Nephites and Lamanites after Christ came, early Christians in the Old World, and Joseph and Brigham's attempts to bring it into being in this dispensation, failing because of the weakness of the saints.

For verily I say unto you, the time has come, and is now at hand; and behold, and lo, it must needs be that there be an organization of my people, in regulating and establishing the affairs of the storehouse for the poor of my people, both in this place and in the land of Zion—

For a permanent and everlasting establishment and order unto my church, to advance the cause, which ye have espoused, to the salvation of man, and to the glory of your Father who is in heaven;

That you may be equal in the bonds of heavenly things, yea, and earthly things also, for the obtaining of heavenly things.

For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things;

These are the same old tired, threadbare, isolated and incontextual proof texts used in precisely the same manner that EVs use Paul to prove salvation by grace alone. As has been pointed out again and again here, and by GAs elsewhere over much of the 20th century, the "equality" spoken of here is equality of claim or access to the economic blessings of a Zion community. It has no relation to economic egalitarianism in any literal sense.

So you're saying that the Law of Consecration is capitalism and we were already living it? That whole United Order thing was a step backwards?

So in other words the equality is the standard "American dream" tripe about how everyone could be rich if they wanted to be. Seems God would have been more clear and spent more time praising the saints for gouging the new immigrants to their communities rather then rebuking them then. They were just taking advantage of their "economic blessings".

But it must needs be done in mine own way; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.

Yes they will, but you're still a long, long way, given what we know about the proper interpretation of such verses from our modern prophets, seers, and revelators, from demonstrating any equality of condition or economic results.

Nope. And it states quite clearly there will be no rich...at least not until everyone is rich. Doesn't square with your "equality of opportunity" ideas.

Sorry, you're wrong.

Wresting the scriptures can become a full time occupation as the fever spreads and one's temperature rises. We've seen this all before, and I dare say we shall be seeing it in the future.

I'm following the plain meaning of scripture. The only scripture we have dictated by God and filtered through only one man, a prophet. If you want to argue that they don't mean what they mean go ahead. Just don't expect me to follow. I am one of those who takes God literally unless given a good reason to do otherwise.