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.
Fairly accurate assessment.
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.
Wrong. Disagreements between the Bishop and someone with a stewardship are mediated and ruled on by the Stake High Council. Check the Enrichment section you love to quote so much (it's in there) and the Doctrine and Covenants.
"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
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.
Wrong.
I am absolutely right.
Disagreements between the Bishop and someone with a stewardship are mediated and ruled on by the Stake High Council.
This is true. But it doesn't change what I said.
Check the Enrichment section you love to quote so much (it's in there) and the Doctrine and Covenants.
bcspace wrote:You stated equal in earthly things while opposing what I said about socialism. Hence I addressed your belief directly.
I have always accepted the doctrines regarding stewardship over your own property.
That is good. But because of some of your previous statements, I can't be sure just yet.
I think you and Droopy often assume I am a socialist. I am not.
"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
Disagreements between the Bishop and someone with a stewardship are mediated and ruled on by the Stake High Council.
This is true. But it doesn't change what I said.
So it's entirely the individual's choice but the Stake High Council has authority to overrule him? How do you think that works? I admit the individual can always leave the situation by withdrawing but that doesn't mean everything is the individual's choice.
Got it right here.
Then how do you reconcile what you said against it?
"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
I think you and Droopy often assume I am a socialist. I am not.
When I say "the socialist interpretation is wrong" and you say "No", you bet I'm going to think you are a socialist.
The socialist interpretation of the United Order? Yes, but you are wrong too. I was disagreeing with you not standing with the Socialists.
"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
bcspace wrote:If the individual disagrees with the High Council, can the HC forcefully take the indiviudal's property?
No, but they can expel them.
I admit the individual can always leave the situation by withdrawing but that doesn't mean everything is the individual's choice.
There is always a choice.
Okay. I guess that is what you meant. I was been confused by how you put it though and I think others would be too.
"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
When I say "the socialist interpretation is wrong" and you say "No", you bet I'm going to think you are a socialist.
The socialist interpretation of the United Order? Yes, but you are wrong too. I was disagreeing with you not standing with the Socialists.
Okay then. But the only alternative is the free market capitalist approach which is God's way. The UO can't work with out it and that is why the LoC is not an economic system and no economic constraints have been placed on production etc.
If the individual disagrees with the High Council, can the HC forcefully take the indiviudal's property?
No, but they can expel them.
Yet the indiviudal retains the deeded assets and any surplus not already consecrated. People who enter into this covenant (many of us already have when you think about it) are generally not going to have much of a problem. But they will still be accumulating wealth, making profits, investing capital, and saving for a nicer future etc. They will also be hiring and firing, setting prices and productions quotas, and choosing a college and profession without government or Church control.