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.
So basically you are saying it is unacceptable to pervert the meaning of Christianity in the name of conservatism?
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?
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.
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 under the UO and LoC if I want a BMW can I get one or is it to excessive? Should I drive a Chevy instead and donate my surplus to the storehouse? Who decided this? Who decides whether someones wants and needs it appropriate and who allocated the funds for such purchases?
Baker wrote:The most nefarious element of the UO is the lack of freedom in moving into and out of the system.
But the legal layout of it means your personal property is yours by legal right so moving out of it isn't hard.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
moksha wrote:So basically you are saying it is unacceptable to pervert the meaning of Christianity in the name of conservatism?
I'm just declaring what I am sure the Word of the Lord says.
It's unacceptable for lesser teachings to have superiority over what the Lord says. It's a kind of idolatry.
Trying to support the philosophies of men by mingling in a few scriptures is even more dangerous of course.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Not according to LDS doctrine which I quoted for your reference. Here is another from the same source:
“They had all things common.” The phrase “they had all things common” ( Acts 4:32 ; see also Acts 2:44 ; 3 Nephi 26:19 ; 4 Nephi 1:3 ) is used to characterize those who lived the law of consecration in ancient times. Some have speculated that the term common suggests a type of communalism or “Christian Communism.” This interpretation is in error. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught the true nature of having all things common: “I preached on the stand about one hour on the 2nd chapter of Acts , designing to show the folly of common stock [holding property in common]. In Nauvoo every one is steward over his own [property].” ( History of the Church, 6:37–38.)
Nightlion wrote:Um, let's see, how shall I put it?
You could just say it.
The last thing Zion is about would be money.
It's only one component of a larger whole, agreed. But it is one of the hardest parts of the law. There is a reason it is placed where it is in the Temple. The others are easier to live.
That would make this LDS approach to Zion a$$backwards, if I am allowed here to say so.
You are allowed to say so, but you are wrong.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
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 under the UO and LoC if I want a BMW can I get one or is it to excessive? Should I drive a Chevy instead and donate my surplus to the storehouse?
It depends on your needs and wants and whether or not they are righteous.
Who decided this? Who decides whether someones wants and needs it appropriate and who allocated the funds for such purchases?
You counsel with the Bishop. If there is need he will ask you what you can give and may even recommend something. But ultimately, it will be your decision.
bcspace wrote:Not according to LDS doctrine which I quoted for your reference. Here is another from the same source:
“They had all things common.” The phrase “they had all things common” ( Acts 4:32 ; see also Acts 2:44 ; 3 Nephi 26:19 ; 4 Nephi 1:3 ) is used to characterize those who lived the law of consecration in ancient times. Some have speculated that the term common suggests a type of communalism or “Christian Communism.” This interpretation is in error. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught the true nature of having all things common: “I preached on the stand about one hour on the 2nd chapter of Acts , designing to show the folly of common stock [holding property in common]. In Nauvoo every one is steward over his own [property].” ( History of the Church, 6:37–38.)
Even Joseph Smith is against you.
No, he's not. You seem to be ascribing to me beliefs I do not hold. I have always accepted the doctrines regarding stewardship over your own property.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo