The Future UO: A Few Observations on its Characteristics

[_Droopy]

If I had to choose between capitalism and anything else I'd probably pick capitalism. Learning to love the Lord's plan was hard for me. You remind me of myself when I first saw the contradiction when I started seriously studying the Doctrine and Covenants.

Too bad, is it not, that not a single modern authorized servant of the Lord in our day can be found to support you and David et al's particular gospel hobby?

I'll ask you again to direct me to the relevant teachings of the modern Brethren. Official Church sources please.

I'm currently a moderate and usually vote Conservative (Republicans and Southern Democrats).

Just perfect. A "moderate" is someone who is unsure or confused regarding his own philosophical core, and who tries to maintain a "tossed salad" approach to philosophical issues (including political).

A moderate, in other words, is someone who really isn't comfortable taking an informed, passionate stand on anything...except his moderation.

Once one has taken a stand on anything, moderation, by definition, ceases. Once one is on one "side" of any issue, question, or belief, that side becomes a comparison and contrast (opposition in all things) to any other side, and there can be no moderation once one has said "yes" or "no."

What, for example, is the "moderate" position on convenience abortion on demand?

What is the "moderate" position on adultery?

What is the "moderate" position on pornography?

However, I accept that the conservative dogma you espouse will die in the fires of the Second Coming (or hopefully before). Don't get too attached. Idolatry is a dangerous thing.

Just more confused emotional flailing. I won't rise to the occasion here, as I will only find myself flailing back.

[_Droopy]

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.

That is not what it means.

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.

So you're guessing it's this just because you see it in the middle?

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).

I deny that this can be inferred. This is your own bias talking.

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.

Wait, so you want to compare being exalted to making money? Both are examples of grown and are comparable.

I am bewildered.

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.

But the Nephite society collapsed explicitly because they divided into ranks/classes. Of course the rich won't be punished. They will happily help the others. Well, the righteous ones will. The rest will leave the Church in disgust long before we get to that point.

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.

"Cut down to size"? What?

You're also seriously comparing a parable about faith to wealth accumulation again? Oh boy.

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.

So, same old, same old. Again, this Zion sucks.

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.

Again with the socialist strawman.

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.

You believe this because of your economic philosophies not because of the gospel. If they're rich they have to be capitalists. The word of Adam Smith is the Word of God on this matter.

Baloney.

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.

Indeed, but not in the way you think.

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?

Except for the early Christians, the Enochians, and the Nephites.

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).

It has done this but that does not make it the best of all systems.

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.).

So Jesus doesn't need to come? If Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck had their way it would have the same effect?

Have a great time riding your gospel hobby horse off into the sunset, but I'm not sure how you can do that and hold fast to the iron rod at the same time.

"Hi-yo, Rama Lama Ding Dong! Away!"

[_The Nehor]

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?

Obviously not. I am arguing that the parable you've used above does not actually have any relevance to the issues we are discussing because its context - someone determining for others what they shall have, how much, and at what level of quality - does not accurately reflect a free, democratic capitalist society in its economic aspect.

So you admit that the context supports my interpretation but are throwing it out because it conflicts with your political views? Got it.

Droopy:

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.

This assumes that you really have a substantial grasp on just what the UO was in those ages and among those peoples, something for which we have virtually no scriptural record as to any details of the system, and that the future, pre-Millennial UO is going to be simply a carbon copy of those ancient systems, or of the incomplete and partly experimental system in force under Brigham Young. I am dubious regarding both points.[/quote]

I am dubious about your dubiousness.

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.

[/quote]

I have never heard the GAs say any such thing. They have said that it is not complete equality in the sense that everyone has the same things. It's your claim that they mean 'equality of claim' that I have never heard substantiated.

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?

Where have I argued or implied this? It is you, David Bokovoy, and a few others (such as the late Dr. Nibley) who are arguing that the UO represents an alternative to or repudiation of free market, private property based economic relations.

Indeed I am.

I'm not saying that the LoC is "capitalism" because the concept of capitalism is a creation the Marx and of the Left, and in the real world, it comes in a number of forms, not all of which can supply the temporal blessings that its proper form can.

And it's proper form is?

What I have long argued is that the UO is structured and organized as fundamentally a free market, individual initiative and de facto private property (private stewardship) based system, in its economc aspect, and cannot possibly function successfully in an economic sense (providing economic independence and self sufficiency for most and a comfortable standard of living for the intermittently poor and for those who cannot support themselves). Nor can either free agency or the development of the individuated, unique talents and capacities of each person that is the core of the plan of salvation be maintained in any other system in any gospel-harmonious way.

And I completely disagree with everything you say here.

So in other words the equality is the standard "American dream" tripe about how everyone could be rich if they wanted to be.

I don't know anything about such "tripe," as I've never heard it expressed by any serious free market thinker.

So your talk about "equality of opportunity" meant something else?

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".

I guess one good tripe deserves another.

No such thing as good tripe. Trust me, I've eaten the stuff.

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.

Droopy:

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.

Yes, it states that there will be no rich...and no poor, which would appear to suggest a general level of affluence or economic condition placed in a median bwtween these to extreme poles (and as you have not defined what you mean by "rich," I have no idea where the one pole resides).

Again you come up against the word "equality" in the D&C showing you to be wrong.

Perhaps "middle class" is as good a term as any, even though it carries connotations that will not be present in the UO and which free market capitalism has rendered rather moot in any case.

No, there are no classes at all.

I'm following the plain meaning of scripture.

No, you're quite clearly not, which is why I can't find a single General Authority in the entirety of the last century, and as yet in this one, who supports or has taught your "plain meaning of scripture." in the Church.

There aren't many talks on the Law of Consecration or the United Order out there. Just like there aren't many on animal sacrifice. We aren't living the Law so they speak little on it. The only times I've heard it spoken of in your time frame are General Authorities rebuking people for trying to live it wrongly (i.e. communism).

Perhaps you could show me where these GA teachings reside, as I've obviously managed to miss them.

In the absence of GA teaching we have the scriptures.

[_The Nehor]

Right, because doing business will be at best a necessary evil in Zion. We have other things to worry about.

1. How will wealth be created in Zion Nehor - the wealth necessary to fund Zion's infrastructure and render most able bodied members of it self sufficient and economically independent, and to fill the Bishop's storehouse and maintain its welfare function?

By people willingly and happily creating it.

2. Who will maintain us and our families at decent standards of existence while we do these unspecified "other things?"

We will. Part of Zion will be all making sure that all have their basic needs met.

It will be created by those who want to create it. Basic things like food, power, shelter, and the like all will assist in making sure it happens. If I need more I'll create it. Others can come by them by creating them or asking others with specific skills to help them create. The ruling principle will be charity not profit.

Not only does the above answer, clarify, and elucidate nothing (demonstrating that your knowledge of just what the ancient Zion communities were really like, like your knowledge of what the future UO will be like, is, like the rest of us, appreciably zero, as to any particulars) but I should I suppose thank you for overtly descending into intellectually vacuous blather at the last moment, demonstrating, yet again, that you have not the slightest idea what you're talking about, and care little for a philosophically and theologically serious discussion of this subject. You're here to beat your breast, as has been the case for years, and is the case with so many others who share your beliefs.

I know more then you know. :)

Thanks for admitting you can't argue against me. I, like most of your opponents, know that when you start talking about "serious discussion" that you have nothing else to say and nothing to rebut with.

Too bad, as here in the Celestial room, discussion is supposed to remain at a respectable intellectual level. Vague, fragmented, obfuscatory ink squirting as you've written above just makes it look like you're running away because you've been cornered and have left yourself no exit.

I was about to say the same thing about you.

Okay then, what is the fatal flaw in my "Vague, fragmented, obfuscatory ink squirting"?

Sorry I had to say it, but if you don't intend to meet me halfway and have a philosophically mature debate and wish to continue insulting my intelligence, then off the tracks to the train.

I wasn't insulting your intelligence. You insulted mine by calling it "blather". I'm sorry if the teachings of scripture aren't on a high enough level for you to appreciate on a "philosophically mature" level but please don't stand on the tracks while waiting for the train. It's not safe.

[_The Nehor]

If I had to choose between capitalism and anything else I'd probably pick capitalism. Learning to love the Lord's plan was hard for me. You remind me of myself when I first saw the contradiction when I started seriously studying the Doctrine and Covenants.

Too bad, is it not, that not a single modern authorized servant of the Lord in our day can be found to support you and David et al's particular gospel hobby?

To be a gospel hobby I would have to spend an inordinate amount of my study time fixated on it. Yousee socialism and communism everywhere and comment on it endlessly while endlessly talking about how God approves of free markets and capitalism. I'd say 80% of your posts on a board designed to discuss religion involve politics.

I discuss this when you bring it up (which you do every time, I have not once) and not even every time you bring it up.

Who has the gospel hobby?

I'll ask you again to direct me to the relevant teachings of the modern Brethren. Official Church sources please.

I ask you to support your "equality of opportunity" reading of D&C with relevant teachings of the modern Brethren. Official Church sources please.

I'm currently a moderate and usually vote Conservative (Republicans and Southern Democrats).

Just perfect. A "moderate" is someone who is unsure or confused regarding his own philosophical core, and who tries to maintain a "tossed salad" approach to philosophical issues (including political).

I'm quite sure of my philosophical core. It just isn't obsessed with property rights and markets. It's concerned more with charity, faith, justice, mercy, God, etc. My views on property rights and markets stem from those.

A moderate, in other words, is someone who really isn't comfortable taking an informed, passionate stand on anything...except his moderation.

I take a passionate stand against you on what we are discussing. I take a passionate stand for the gospel. That I don't think that capitalism is something worth taking a passionate stand for does not make me unwilling to take any stand.

Once one has taken a stand on anything, moderation, by definition, ceases.

Okay, then I am not a moderate. Of course when I spoke above I meant I was politically moderate not moderate on everything.

Once one is on one "side" of any issue, question, or belief, that side becomes a comparison and contrast (opposition in all things) to any other side, and there can be no moderation once one has said "yes" or "no."

True, but since I agree neither with you or the ultra-socialists you see everywhere I am a moderate generally. Of course I take stands on various issues.

What, for example, is the "moderate" position on convenience abortion on demand?

No idea. I'm against it though.

What is the "moderate" position on adultery?

No idea.

My stand: Don't stone them but don't tolerate it. If I could I would criminalize it.

What is the "moderate" position on pornography?

No idea.

But I'm against it.

However, I accept that the conservative dogma you espouse will die in the fires of the Second Coming (or hopefully before). Don't get too attached. Idolatry is a dangerous thing.

Just more confused emotional flailing. I won't rise to the occasion here, as I will only find myself flailing back.

No, I actually thought that one through.

[_The Nehor]

Have a great time riding your gospel hobby horse off into the sunset, but I'm not sure how you can do that and hold fast to the iron rod at the same time.

I don't think you know what gospel hobbies are or you wouldn't so quickly accuse me of having one.

You are the one who steers every discussion onto your "Capitalism is of God" monomania.

[_Nightlion]

Well sir you have certainly panned this discussion.

Let's call such an economy.......a united order. Hmm?

Thank you Brother Nightlion. Shall we not then move forward in such a cause? Yes, and what shall we expect in the way of a technology for such a wonderful system of human existence? Faith based or shall we be dependent upon the forces of the natural world such as electro-mechanical means for production and manufacturing?

After the valleys rise up and the mountains are laid low hydro-electrical generation of power seems problematic for one. After the elements have melted with fervent heat I expect coal might be all used up and even mineral deposits such as oil and gas might not exist anymore. What then?

[Guest]

A most astute observation of approaching realities my brother of Zion oneness. With any grace at all we may have some little time before such a dramatic earth metamorphosis to discover by faith the progress in technology Zion shall continue upon.

We both understand from the prophecies, I trust, that the two Zions that return shall have splendidly advanced technologies and we will have no need to continue the abominations of technologies of force as in this world of Satan's lying wonders where the electricity based technologies that draw power from the secrets of the prince and power of the air. We can expect then to be saved from having to discover and invent the new technologies of the millennial Zion.

Yes, yes, my friend that is a load off. So rather than having to bother ourselves with such concerns it behooves us to prepare more spiritually than temporally. It's a sad fact that a dearth of true saints since the Restoration leaves us on our own to advance in Zion studies and spiritual discovery. I am sure we both mourn the tragic waist of a hundred and eighty years with a legacy and mandate for Zion, having the power and scriptures trodden under foot by generations of hypocrisy craving the gain of oppression in open defiance to the causes of Zion and to no spiritual gain.

[Guest]

Yes, yes, my friend that is a load off. So rather than having to bother ourselves with such concerns it behooves us to prepare more spiritually than temporally. It's a sad fact that a dearth of true saints since the Restoration leaves us on our own to advance in Zion studies and spiritual discovery. I am sure we both mourn the tragic waist of a hundred and eighty years with a legacy and mandate for Zion, having the power and scriptures trodden under foot by generations of hypocrisy craving the gain of oppression in open defiance to the causes of Zion and to no spiritual gain.

I am simply beside myself in the expectant joy of Zion's progress. Let us take our leave of these loathsome digs for more conducive environs where the din of incessant arrogance and apostasy shall no more assault our sensibilities.

[_Nightlion]

I am simply beside myself in the expectant joy of Zion's progress. Let us take our leave of these loathsome digs for more conducive environs where the din of incessant arrogance and apostasy shall no more assault our sensibilities.

We shall go forth.