Zion: "Communal" or Zion Community Part II

[_Droopy]

A few general fundamental statements regarding my understanding of the concept and underlying focus of the transfer of wealth for the support of the poor in a Zion society and some salient differences as over against secular systems:

1. Such transfers of wealth for the alleviation (and eradication of it in the future Zion society) are an integral aspect of the UO, but do not define its primary economic focus.

2. The central theme of the UO is economic independence and self sufficiency. The transfer of wealth (the charitable "welfare" component of the economics of Zion) is a deeply important but secondary characteristic of such a society, made possible only by the first.

3. The poor are not seen as a special, set apart identity group within gospel doctrine, but as with "the rich" as individuals who are as individual in a set of unique circumstances and conditions (classified as "poor" or "affluent" or whatever), and who are dealt with in a Zion sense as individuals before gospel law and according to gospel principles.

4. In a strictly instrumental, or material sense, the actual having of and accumulation of wealth or being poor per se, carries no moral, spiritual, or ethical weight. It is only our perception of and personal attitudes toward our individual condition that is of spiritual and moral concern. If we are rich, but also greedy and consume our wealth "upon our lusts," or if poor, if our "eyes are full of greediness" and we set our eyes and hearts "upon other men's goods (the very core of class envy which is why I emphasize it so much in discussions such as this in which gospel teachings intersect with economic and political ideas) and consume what we have upon our lusts (the lifestyles of many of the underclass poor that prolongs and entrenches the condition of poverty itself) then it is these individual characteristics, and not the material conditions within which we develop and manifest them, that are important to the gospel.

[_Yoda]

Droopy---

A couple of questions:

Do you agree with the current Church mandate that members should seek help from the State before seeking help from the Bishop's storehouse? Why or why not?

If a person is aged, has spent his/her entire life serving the Church, but is now at a point where he/she can no longer work, should this person be made to feel guilty about asking for help?

Why or why not?

[_Droopy]

Droopy---

A couple of questions:

Do you agree with the current Church mandate that members should seek help from the State before seeking help from the Bishop's storehouse? Why or why not?

Could you provide a CFR for this claim? I've looked over the Church's official website, including it provident living pages, which goes into significant detail regarding the Church welfare system and its overarching principles, and I've found no such mandate.

On that site, resource materials include Providing the Lord's Way, which sets forth the long held, traditional counsel that, although government assistence is not out of the question, it should be avoided, while family and then Church, in that order, should be the primary resources in times of need.

If a person is aged, has spent his/her entire life serving the Church, but is now at a point where he/she can no longer work, should this person be made to feel guilty about asking for help?

Why or why not?

As I've clearly stated several times, on these recent threads David started I believe, as well as some going back a year or more at the MADboards on the same subject, in a Zion society, or among a Zion people, the Church (its members, in other words) would have full responsibility for the permanent support of those who cannot support themselves due to age, infirmity, disease or disability, or similar circumstances.

Welfare services for the otherwise "able bodied" has always been understood to be a matter of temporary, intermittent assistance as a means of seeing individuals and families through hard times as they prepare and work toward self reliance and economic independence - the core of the gospel welfare principles. Those who cannot support themselves, and, at the same time, have no family willing or able to help them, is another matter entirely.

[_Yoda]

I don't have a specific reference, but I can tell you that when my disabled father (who is 73) asked for a food order from the Bishop's Storehouse, he was asked whether or not he had applied for food stamps, and encouraged to do so before coming to the Church for help.

I was confused by this counsel, and asked my in-laws, who are current temple presidents, about this. They informed me that there have been changes in Church policy, and that this is now standard. I do not have anything in writing, so maybe they are misinformed?

The odd thing is...my in-laws reside in NC. My father's bishop is in CA. It's a weird coincidence that both parties were wrong on this.

Harmony and I actually discussed this on another thread in Terrestrial a while back. Both of us grew up in the era of the Church you described, where government assistance was discouraged. We were both confused that this change has evolved.

[_Droopy]

I don't have a specific reference, but I can tell you that when my disabled father (who is 73) asked for a food order from the Bishop's Storehouse, he was asked whether or not he had applied for food stamps, and encouraged to do so before coming to the Church for help.

I was confused by this counsel, and asked my in-laws, who are current temple presidents, about this. They informed me that there have been changes in Church policy, and that this is now standard. I do not have anything in writing, so maybe they are misinformed?

The odd thing is...my in-laws reside in NC. My father's bishop is in CA. It's a weird coincidence that both parties were wrong on this.

Harmony and I actually discussed this on another thread in Terrestrial a while back. Both of us grew up in the era of the Church you described, where government assistance was discouraged. We were both confused that this change has evolved.

The only thing I've been able to find on the Church's welfare website, or in the Church newsroom, is the observation that because of the severe economic downturn, Church welfare services are under a great deal of strain. Nothing more was said but the implication could be that, for the time being, government welfare might be, at least in certain circumstances, something to consider to a greater degree than in the past.

However, that's pure speculation. I can find no indication of a "mandate" or alteration in traditional Church counsel on the hierarchy of responsibility in welfare services, beginning with the family, and then moving to the church with the state as last resort.

This could be an urban legend working its way through the Church, due to present economic circumstances. It wouldn't be the first time, after all.

[_Yoda]

I don't have a specific reference, but I can tell you that when my disabled father (who is 73) asked for a food order from the Bishop's Storehouse, he was asked whether or not he had applied for food stamps, and encouraged to do so before coming to the Church for help.

I was confused by this counsel, and asked my in-laws, who are current temple presidents, about this. They informed me that there have been changes in Church policy, and that this is now standard. I do not have anything in writing, so maybe they are misinformed?

The odd thing is...my in-laws reside in NC. My father's bishop is in CA. It's a weird coincidence that both parties were wrong on this.

Harmony and I actually discussed this on another thread in Terrestrial a while back. Both of us grew up in the era of the Church you described, where government assistance was discouraged. We were both confused that this change has evolved.

The only thing I've been able to find on the Church's welfare website, or in the Church newsroom, is the observation that because of the severe economic downturn, Church welfare services are under a great deal of strain. Nothing more was said but the implication could be that, for the time being, government welfare might be, at least in certain circumstances, something to consider to a greater degree than in the past.

However, that's pure speculation. I can find no indication of a "mandate" or alteration in traditional Church counsel on the hierarchy of responsibility in welfare services, beginning with the family, and then moving to the church with the state as last resort.

This could be an urban legend working its way through the Church, due to present economic circumstances. It wouldn't be the first time, after all.

True.

This is an issue I have been frustrated with for a while, so I appreciate your input.

My father is a very proud man. It absolutely killed him to have to turn to the Church for help. I felt bad because I had encouraged him to do so, and the reaction by the bishop was very negative. We are helping all we can, but based on the distance, the Church's help would have been nice...particularly since he devoted his life, essentially, to Church service.

I have not read all of your arguments with David, so forgive me if I have covered something you have already addressed.

What are your thoughts on the United Order? My understanding is that the United Order was basically a theocratic redistribution of wealth.

For example, in today's society, it is common for a wealthy socialite who is single to buy a 20 room mansion, and live in it by him/herself.

If this same person was living under the United Order, he/she would give his/her proceeds to the Church. The Church would then purchase a modest home for him/her. Another person who has a large family would be more likely to live in a 20 room mansion.

[_LDSToronto]

I don't have a specific reference, but I can tell you that when my disabled father (who is 73) asked for a food order from the Bishop's Storehouse, he was asked whether or not he had applied for food stamps, and encouraged to do so before coming to the Church for help.

I was confused by this counsel, and asked my in-laws, who are current temple presidents, about this. They informed me that there have been changes in Church policy, and that this is now standard. I do not have anything in writing, so maybe they are misinformed?

Liz, concerning the counsel your father received, it may have been under another set of rules. Here is what the current handbook says:

Before providing Church welfare assistance, the bishop reviews with members what resources and efforts they and their family can provide to meet their needs. Teaching principles of provident living and committing members to live by these principles will often help members do much to resolve their needs themselves.

When appropriate and feasible, those in need should seek help from family members before seeking help from the Church.

<<big snip for irrelevance>>

Members may choose to use resources in the community, including government resources, to help meet their basic needs. The bishop and members of the ward council should become familiar with these non-Church resources. Such resources may include:

1. Hospitals, physicians, or other sources of medical care.
2. Job training and placement services.
3. Help for people with disabilities.
4. Professional counselors or social workers.
5. Addiction treatment services.

Even when members receive assistance from non-Church sources, the bishop helps them avoid becoming dependent on these sources. He also advises them to comply with any laws associated with receiving non-Church assistance, especially while receiving Church welfare assistance. Bishops should be careful not to duplicate non-Church welfare assistance.

Hope that helps. Like I said, I'm unsure of what the previous policy was; this is current. You may have just had a bad bishop.

H.

[_Droopy]

I have not read all of your arguments with David, so forgive me if I have covered something you have already addressed.

What are your thoughts on the United Order? My understanding is that the United Order was basically a theocratic redistribution of wealth.

This is really not the understanding of the UO found in our modern scriptures (the D&C) or in any clarifications and explications of it by the modern Brethren Liz, which is at the bottom of my problem with the Bokovoy eradication-of-poverty-through-wealth-redistribution school. The UO is the mature application of the LofC within a social and political system oriented solely to the preparation of its people for the Second Coming of Christ. The LoC, upon which the UO is based is a celestial law of which there is an economic component.

Thinking of the UO as primarily an economic system who's primary justification is the eradication of poverty, or the equalization of socioeconomic class, will lead precisely to the kinds of mistaken assumptions and ideas about "Zion" as David has been expressing for quite sometime.

The United Order involves a number of social and cultural elements who's purpose is to foster the kind of spiritual, psychological and attitudinal characteristics required of a society prepared to meet Christ and his coming and inaugurate the Millennium.

This set of social attributes includes an economic component involving the eradication of poverty and the elimination of radical disparities in wealth accumulation (I will not use the term "distribution," as that carries, itself, ideological weight and only encourages the very ideas I"m trying to avoid here).

Wealth distribution for the alleviation of intermittent poverty and for the maintenance of the poor who are permanently poor due to circumstances, such as age, disability, or other factors that make productive contribution to Zion impossible or minimal, is an important and integral aspect of the economic portion of the UO. But the UO is not, in and of itself, about economics, and this is where David and others with similar views have lost track of the UO's essence, in my view.

Even the LoC itself is not strictly about material wealth, but about the consecration of our time, talents, skills, knowledge, experience, "know-how," and gifts to the building of Zion, of which economic considerations are but a facet.

The basis of the eradication of poverty in Zion is not the Bishop's storehouse and distribution (re-distribution, in the anti-capitalist mindset) of wealth. That component is present in the UO as a means of providing for the maintenance, at above living standards we would consider "poor," for those who cannot maintain themselves or who find themselves, for a season, unable to contribute productively. The major component of Zion, in an economic sense, which is really no different than the traditional welfare principles of the Church, is productive economic activity (the productive, economically creative, wealth generating activities made possible by the use of our stewardships), the goal of which is economic self sufficiency and independence for the vast majority who are able to contribute economically, in Zion. Work, production, and industry, or, in other words, wealth creation, is the core of the economics of Zion

This must be the case, both doctrinally, and for the reason that the reverse simply cannot be true, in an economic sense. Without wealth creation individually and across the society, broadly speaking ("capitalism," in other words), the Bishop's storehouse does not exist and there is no welfare. To eradicate poverty, in other words, vast amounts of wealth must be created that includes not only that portion given to the Church for the maintaining of Zion's infrastructure and the support of the poor, but an adequate living standard for the non-poor (the vast majority who work, employ, are employed, and who finance, run, and manage various kinds of businesses) and profit capable of being plowed back into productive activity for the expansion of existing business ventures, and the hiring of employees (the real way to eradicate poverty, by the way, without impoverishing the entire society in the process).

The core, of the UO, economically, in other words, is thrift, industry, work, and productive labor - the traditional gospel teachings regarding provident living.

The effect and social effects this allows, effects that will allow poverty as we know it to be eliminated as an aspect of the human condition, but without the corrupting incentives and economic/social hazards of all secular systems attempting the same feat, is the Bishop's storehouse and having "no poor" among us.

In other words, what I foresee in the future UO is a very free market "capitalist" economic groundwork, indeed, much freer than it is at present, mediated by an absence of greed, lust for wealth, political interference in market processes by equally greedy and power seeking Kingmen and Gaddianton Robbers (much of the present political, bureaucratic and special interest classes) through oppressive taxation, regulation, graft and corruption, and who's primary purpose is not the accumulation of private wealth, but preparation for the return of the Savior. In that preparation to which our wealth will be wholly consecrated by covenant, support of the poor is only one facet of a multitude of preparatory projects toward which or excess wealth will be utilized.

For example, in today's society, it is common for a wealthy socialite who is single to buy a 20 room mansion, and live in it by him/herself.

While a number of questions could be asked by any of us of such a person as to what her need of, or purpose in having, a 20 room mansion as living space for just one person may be (and legitimately so), my view is that this is not a question that can legitimately be asked of such a person, in an economically free, growth oriented market society, in a moral sense.

The reason Liz, and this is absolutely central to my philosophical views of economics, politics, and ethics, at least in our present non-Zion societal situation, is that that twenty room mansion, though perhaps representing a magnificent sense of social status preoccupation by the socialite, and a waste of resources in the sense that much of the living space there will never be used, has no causal relation to the poverty of others around her.

Her twenty room mansion does not represent any loss for the poor, and does not represent something the poor would have had in their pockets had the 20 room mansion not been constructed, no matter for what purpose.

In a socialist society, or any kind of non-market and property rights based society in which people struggle for portions of a static or diminishing piece of economic pie, this has some value. In an unhampered, or relatively unhampered market economy in which the pie always keeps growing and net wealth continues to be generated and accumulated, the use of private wealth by one, and even vast wealth, does not represent the removal of wealth from the poor, or represent something that would have gone to them had it not been used in the construction of the mansion (indeed, some of the poor were surely employed in its construction, either at the entry level or as general labor, for some months).

The "poor" may also be among those who cut its lawns, weed its gardens, dig up broken sewer pipes, and clean its upholstery.

The thing is, building and maintaining such a mansion is a net gain to the economy (even it terribly wasteful from the perspective of the lone soul inhabiting its vast bulk) and creates further wealth, both for the poor and for others who will permanently be involved in its maintenance and upkeep.

That mansion does not represent a piece of the economic pie that would have made the poor richer, but a bud on an ever growing economic tree, so long as it is allowed to keep growing.

If this same person was living under the United Order, he/she would give his/her proceeds to the Church. The Church would then purchase a modest home for him/her. Another person who has a large family would be more likely to live in a 20 room mansion.

I think this is a bit of a mischaraterization. In the UO, at it has been described, the person would give all of her excess wealth, above that as determined by here individual covenant made with her local Priesthood leader and the Church, based in individual needs and wants, on an individual and family basis, to the Church. With the income that remained as income, she would be able to purchase a house herself that she could afford.

Not being indigent, the Church would have no reason to buy her a house. I have no idea how inheritances will be handled in the UO. Much of it would be transferred to the Church, no doubt, but there is no way the Church would make a rich person indigent, and dependent upon the Church. I do imagine her remaining wealth might be invested in a new business venture, and the "socialite" required to become employed for her own maintenance, if capable.

[_Jason Bourne]

Droopy---

A couple of questions:

Do you agree with the current Church mandate that members should seek help from the State before seeking help from the Bishop's storehouse? Why or why not?

I do not think such a mandate exists. However the Church does not oppose seeking government assistance like it used to. We were always told that when we assisted people if it looked like it would be long term to also look at government resource.