DiscussMormonism.com

My thesis here is that 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 to a number of mistaken assumptions and ideas about the nature and structure of "Zion"

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 those who isolate and emphasize this one particular aspect are distorting and "looking past the mark" of its essence.

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 economic 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 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.

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

Here is what I predict will happen:

It will be declared and the only thing that will change is that we meet with the Bishop to determine excess or need and what we are willing to part with if needed. The tithing principle that everything we have comes from the Lord as well as temple covenants make "re-deeding" unecessary. It's already been done.

That is it. It's too complicated and possibly wealth destructive (sell at a loss) to divy up a house. Other assets can be disposed of if needs be. Everyone's property is considered private. So there really is nothing to it except that all your income and disposable assets are looked at in "tithing settlement".

The biggest mistake people make imho is in thinking that a UO is an economic system. It's not. In no way does it determine who produces or what is produced or at what cost. It does not determine what a person's needs are. Only the indivudal can determine that. It does not preclude profit taking or investment or savings. It's foundational principle is private property and the freedom to use it as one sees fit. Etc. etc.

The bottom line is that it will work in a free market capitalist system. Any other system will strain or destroy it just as they do to economies now.

Droopy wrote: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 to a number of mistaken assumptions and ideas about the nature and structure of "Zion"

Parable teaching otherwise:

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.

Scripture saying otherwise:

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;

More scripture:

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.

Sorry, you're wrong.

Scripture saying otherwise:

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;

Yet "equal" does not mean equal assets, it means equal opportunity:

The expressions in the revelations describing the portion or stewardship as “equal” ( D&C 51:3 ; see also D&C 70:14 ) does not mean equality in the sense that all are exactly the same. President J. Reuben Clark Jr. explained: “One of the places in which some of the brethren are going astray is this: There is continuous reference in the revelations to equality among the brethren, but I think you will find only one place where that equality is really described, though it is referred to in other revelations. That revelation ( D. & C. 51:3 ) affirms that every man is to be ‘equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.’ (See also D. & C. 82:17 ; 78:5–6 .) Obviously, this is not a case of ‘dead level’ equality. It is ‘equality’ that will vary as much as the man’s circumstances, his family, his wants and needs may vary.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1942, p. 55.)
Enrichment L - The Law of Consecration and Stewardship

So the socialist interpretation is wrong.

I can not conceive of anything more MONTY PYTHON than Zion making by the uncircumcised of heart. But do not let me stop you. By all means have at it.

bcspace wrote:Yet "equal" does not mean equal assets, it means equal opportunity:

The expressions in the revelations describing the portion or stewardship as “equal” ( D&C 51:3 ; see also D&C 70:14 ) does not mean equality in the sense that all are exactly the same. President J. Reuben Clark Jr. explained: “One of the places in which some of the brethren are going astray is this: There is continuous reference in the revelations to equality among the brethren, but I think you will find only one place where that equality is really described, though it is referred to in other revelations. That revelation ( D. & C. 51:3 ) affirms that every man is to be ‘equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.’ (See also D. & C. 82:17 ; 78:5–6 .) Obviously, this is not a case of ‘dead level’ equality. It is ‘equality’ that will vary as much as the man’s circumstances, his family, his wants and needs may vary.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1942, p. 55.)
Enrichment L - The Law of Consecration and Stewardship

So the socialist interpretation is wrong.

No, it means equal in earthly things. Now obviously someone with eight kids will need a bigger house with more bedrooms then someone with two. Some will need things others will not based on their skills and hobbies. I will have a closet full of my games, a punching bag, and other things that others will not because they fit into my wants and needs. Others will need pianos, tracts for gardening, various kinds of electronic equipment, paintball guns, etc. There is still equality.

"Equality of opportunity" is a phrase you added without any support. I stand by equal in earthly things according to circumstances, wants, and needs. There is nothing about opportunity in there.

Nightlion wrote:I can not conceive of anything more MONTY PYTHON than Zion making by the uncircumcised of heart.

I can. You trying to build it alone.

But do not let me stop you.

Believe me, you are in no danger of stopping us.

By all means have at it.

Will do. You are welcome to repent and join us at any point.

If principle one is that resources are centrally owned and allocations made centrally - regardless of individual contribution and revenue generation - there is no way in hell that it's any kind of capitalist system, dream on! There may very well be motivations built into the system that have capitalistic elements, but wealth would not be independently gained and controlled.

The most nefarious element of the UO is the lack of freedom in moving into and out of the system.

bcspace wrote:Yet "equal" does not mean equal assets, it means equal opportunity:

The expressions in the revelations describing the portion or stewardship as “equal” ( D&C 51:3 ; see also D&C 70:14 ) does not mean equality in the sense that all are exactly the same. President J. Reuben Clark Jr. explained: “One of the places in which some of the brethren are going astray is this: There is continuous reference in the revelations to equality among the brethren, but I think you will find only one place where that equality is really described, though it is referred to in other revelations. That revelation ( D. & C. 51:3 ) affirms that every man is to be ‘equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.’ (See also D. & C. 82:17 ; 78:5–6 .) Obviously, this is not a case of ‘dead level’ equality. It is ‘equality’ that will vary as much as the man’s circumstances, his family, his wants and needs may vary.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1942, p. 55.)
Enrichment L - The Law of Consecration and Stewardship

So the socialist interpretation is wrong.

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?