The Future UO: A Few Observations on its Characteristics

[_Droopy]

That's not what a gospel hobby is.

“We frequently look about us and see people who incline to extremes, who are fanatical. We may be sure that this class of people do not understand the gospel. They have forgotten, if they ever knew, that it is very unwise to take a fragment of truth and treat it as if it were the whole thing”

-Joseph F. Smith

See, it's something that is true blown out of all proportion.

A perfect match, indeed, for David's near obsession with Zion as an economic system who's primary purpose is the redemption of "the poor" from want.

You see socialism and communism everywhere

More dismissive and mischaracterizing blather.

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.

That may be because the intersection of the gospel and politics/economics is one of my key intellectual foci, and because, over the last couple of years or so, its been perhaps 97% of all the posts David as presented at the MADboards, and one taken up by the tiny "LDS Left" on that board in his support.

See, it's your gospel hobby.

Nope, just a serious interest and life long study.

Big, big difference. My views agree in fundamental form and tendency with those of the modern Brethren. Yours are quite novel and stand out, with a tiny coterie of other members and church intellectuals, as well outside the historic and consistent teachings of he leaders of the Church.

Then you have perpetuated it.

I have takan a stand for freedom, liberty, and free agency against those who distrust and despise it, and I have defended the scriptures against their breaking on the rack of certain modern LDS intellectuals bent on imposing their own ideological template upon those scriptures.

I am educated on these subjects.

I've seen virtually no evidence of that over the last five years.

Perhaps you could provide it.

I say almost nothing about "capitalism" here because we are discussing Consecration and the UO which I don't think have much to do with "capitalism". So how you can characterize ideas I haven't shared is cartoonish is baffling to me.

At least you have tacitly admitted here that your views about this are your own private interpretations of scripture, and do not necessarily reflect their actual meaning and implications.

[_The Nehor]

First, you say this:

No, all you've shown with those quotes is it will not be a flat and complete equality of possessions. This is something I have never disagreed with.

Yet, prior to this, you made the claim, regarding economic conditions within Zion that:

...there are no classes at all.

Could you please clarify which of these two claims you wish to be associated with, as it does not appear that you can have it both ways.

I don't think that differences in material possessions mean a difference in class. I hit a punching bag and play tennis for exercise so in the UO I would expect to possess (or make myself) a punching bag and some racquets and a court. That is not a class difference.

Secondly, you claim:

I present 4 Nephi as evidence. Consecration failed when ranks and classes appeared.

But perhaps you should go back and take a closer look at this verse, because what it actually says is that

And now, in this two hundred and first year there began to be among them those who were lifted up in pride, such as the wearing of costly apparel, and all manner of fine pearls, and of the fine things of the world.

And from that time forth they did have their goods and their substance no more common among them.

And they began to be divided into classes; and they began to build up churches unto themselves to get gain, and began to deny the true church of Christ.

This does not indicate that there were no degrees of temporal condition among them, or that, in a strictly conceptual sense, various levels or "classifications" did not exist relative to economic condition. Indeed, this close resembles 3 Nephi 6:12 in which "the people began to be distinguished by ranks, according to their riches and their chances for learning; yea, some were ignorant because of their poverty, and others did receive great learning because of their riches."

This is silliness. The scripture said they were divided into classes. Not that they suddenly realized there were classes.

In both verses, the problem is not "capitalism," free markets, private property, or the making of profit. The problem, in both cases, is the rise of pride and an awareness of rank and class. In verse ten of 3 Nephi 6, we read:

But it came to pass in the twenty and ninth year there began to be some disputings among the people; and some were lifted up unto pride and boastings because of their exceedingly great riches, yea, even unto great persecutions.

Following this, "the people began to be distinguished by ranks..."

It is not, in other words (and the gospel as a whole does not indicate) the presence of wealth, riches, prosperity, and of a free market economic order, that created the problems for the Nephites. Nor was it the presence of a variety of economic strata among them based on individual characteristics (minus, again, the vast disparities of wealth seen in a non-Zion society). It was pride and unrighteous attitudes toward their wealth that produced an awareness of rank, class, and status; it is when the Nephites became aware of rank and class and became concerned with them - when they became meaningful and began to affect their perceptions of and relations with each other, that the trouble began and spread.

But 3 Nephi has nothing to do with UO. It was before Christ came.

The condition of poverty can be just as conducive to the generation of wickedness, greed, and moral degeneration as the temptations attendant to wealth, and the poor can be just as avaricious and greedy as certain of the rich.

Then why do the scriptures warn more of the dangers of riches then of poverty? I admit that many of the poor are wicked but the scriptures suggest that it is the rich who are in greater danger. Something about passing through the eye of a needle.

In other words, this verse may well be telling us, not that consecration failed when ranks and classes appeared, but that ranks and classes appeared (the society became aware of and began to place importance in them) because consecration failed due to the rise of unrighteous attitudes and perspectives. Consecration failed, not because various degrees of economic condition existed among the Nephites, but because rank and classification became important and began to define people within that culture.

A ridiculous conclusion.

It is awareness of rank and class as indicating social and ontological worth, that creates the dissolution of the LoC.

So the key to Consecration is ignorance of economic difference? Right.........

[_The Nehor]

Of course not. That would require you to argue that people in Zion work for their bread alone and leave joy out of the equation. :)

Another cryptic, vague non-answer.

So joy is a vague non-answer in your ideal society? I'll pass on it then.

If you want specifics I can give them but then you'll demand GA backing and there isn't any for the specifics. Just pure revelation to me.

You can give them to me, but there is no present teachings by the Lord's authorized servants on those details. Interesting.

Not really, it happens all the time.

If you're receiving revelation the GAs are not, perhaps the problem here isn't just one of intellectual disagreement.

I never said that. I have no idea what revelation they are (or are not) receiving.

You won't debate. You just keep saying that only a free market can create Zion ad nauseum.

I've never made any such claim. All I've ever said, over some years now, is that the economic aspect of Zion cannot function, especially if poverty is to be abolished therein, under any other than free market economic conditions within the context of de facto private property (our stewardships will function, for all intents, as private property, even though it has explicitly been renounced as such by the covenant relationship) usage.

And I'm saying that you are utterly and completely wrong.

[_The Nehor]

That's not what a gospel hobby is.

“We frequently look about us and see people who incline to extremes, who are fanatical. We may be sure that this class of people do not understand the gospel. They have forgotten, if they ever knew, that it is very unwise to take a fragment of truth and treat it as if it were the whole thing”

-Joseph F. Smith

See, it's something that is true blown out of all proportion.

A perfect match, indeed, for David's near obsession with Zion as an economic system who's primary purpose is the redemption of "the poor" from want.

But it is. I have no idea if he has blown it out of all proportion. I've only seen him talk about it a few times.

You see socialism and communism everywhere

More dismissive and mischaracterizing blather.

Well, you've called me a socialist enough to convince me that you do.

See, it's your gospel hobby.

Nope, just a serious interest and life long study.

And all you talk about here.

Big, big difference. My views agree in fundamental form and tendency with those of the modern Brethren. Yours are quite novel and stand out, with a tiny coterie of other members and church intellectuals, as well outside the historic and consistent teachings of he leaders of the Church.

You haven't established that.

Then you have perpetuated it.

I have takan a stand for freedom, liberty, and free agency against those who distrust and despise it, and I have defended the scriptures against their breaking on the rack of certain modern LDS intellectuals bent on imposing their own ideological template upon those scriptures.

Don't beat your chest too much. You'll bruise it.

I am educated on these subjects.

I've seen virtually no evidence of that over the last five years.

That's because we never discuss economics here beyond you characterizing the Left as a pack of degenerates bent on destroying the world. Not much room for me to discuss economics.

Perhaps you could provide it.

If the opportunity comes I would be glad to.

I say almost nothing about "capitalism" here because we are discussing Consecration and the UO which I don't think have much to do with "capitalism". So how you can characterize ideas I haven't shared is cartoonish is baffling to me.

At least you have tacitly admitted here that your views about this are your own private interpretations of scripture, and do not necessarily reflect their actual meaning and implications.

I did no such thing. Nice try at a "Gotcha" though.