Approaching Zion - Selected Quotes

[iWriteStuff]

Interesting take on giving to beggars:

"A beggar is one who asks, for some reason or other not having what he needs: "Ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish" (Mosiah 4:16). He begs because he is hungry, and we must all eat to stay alive—to turn any beggar down, for all you know, is to sentence him to death—it has happened (Mosiah 4:16). The usual pious appeal to the work-ethic—there is no free lunch—will not do: "Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I . . . will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just"—I worked for mine! (Mosiah 4:17). Indolent and unworthy the beggar may be—but that is not your concern: It is better, said Joseph Smith, to feed ten impostors than to run the risk of turning away one honest petition. Anyone who explains why he denies help to another who needs it, says Benjamin, "hath great cause to repent . . . and hath no interest in the kingdom of God" (Mosiah 4:18), which kingdom is built up on the law of consecration. "For behold, are we not all beggars?" That is no mere rhetoric—it is literally true: we are all praying for what we have not earned."

I must confess that reading this changed the way I interact with panhandlers and beggars in general. I am less apt to judge, and swifter to charity.

[Sarah]

I'm posting some quotes as I find them from Brigham that might shed light on some of these questions about the United Order. Some of these are for me, so I can remember where they are.

Brigham Young, Aug. 1874

A few words upon the organization of this United Order. We regret that we are not in a capacity to make our own laws pertaining to our domestic affairs as we choose; if we were in a State capacity we could do so. The legislature could then pass laws by which we would have the right to deed our property to the Church, to the Trustee-in-Trust, if we chose, or in any other way the people would like to deed their property to God and his kingdom. But we cannot do this now, we are not a State. We are in the capacity of servants now, where we have to bow to the whims and caprices of the ignorant, and to the prejudice of willful, ignorant sectarianism; consequently we are under the necessity of getting up our constitution or the articles of
our association so that they will agree with existing statutes and be legal, that we can carry on business as we wish without being infringed upon or molested by anybody.
Some have complained, and say—“This does not incorporate the whole, we want articles of agreement under which we can give all that we have got.” Let me say to you that our articles of confederation, agreement or association will allow us to deed every particle of property that we have got to this cooperative institution—our houses, farms, sheep, cattle, horses, our labor, our railroad stock, bank stock, factories, and everything that we have we can deed to the trustees of this association. Whatever you have here in Lehi that you wish to deed over to those you have selected to be a board of trustees you can deed to them to take the supervision of it, and then you will put it out of the hands perhaps of unruly froward children and spendthrifts, and do good by so doing. And if you can put in every particle of your property, and have this governed and controlled by the best men you have here, why not do this just as well as to deed it to George A. Smith, the Trustee-in-Trust? Does not this answer every purpose? It does. Look at the reason of it if you wish to. If it is the word and the wish and the will of the organization here to deed only part of the property, I expect they will take the liberty of doing so; but this would not suit me. If I had property here in this place I should wish to deed every particle of it to this association. I wish to deed every particle of my property in Provo, just as quick as there is an opportunity, and have it done in a way that it will be beneficial to the people. I am laboring under a certain embarrassment and so are many others, with regard to deeding property, and that is to find men who know what to do with property when it is in their hands....
I have one little sermon to the Bishops, Bishop Young and all the rest of them, and to the Elders. I want to see a pattern set for this holy order, and, I give to each one of them a mission to go and call together five, ten, twenty or fifty families, and organize a complete organization, and show the rest of us how to live.

Brigham Young, June 1974

Now we come to our present condition. You know the past. These children who were born in this city or Territory, know what they can remember, and many of them are old enough to have many reflections
and can see and understand a great many things; but the older ones know that this people have drifted just as far as they can without a reformation. Every spiritual mind knows this. I will now say to my brethren and sisters, that while we were in Winter Quarters, the Lord gave to me a revelation just as much as he ever gave one to anybody. He opened my mind, and showed me the organization of the kingdom of God in a family capacity. I talked it to my brethren; I would throw out a few words here, and a few words there, to my first counselor, to my second counselor and the Twelve Apostles, but with the exception of one or two of the Twelve, it would not touch a man. They believed it would come, O yes, but it would be by and by. Says I, “Why not now?” If I had been worth millions when we came into this valley and built what we now call the “Old Fort,” I would have given it if the people had been prepared to then receive the kingdom of God according to the pattern given to Enoch. But I could not touch them.

[David13]

Interesting take on giving to beggars:

"A beggar is one who asks, for some reason or other not having what he needs: "Ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish" (Mosiah 4:16). He begs because he is hungry, and we must all eat to stay alive—to turn any beggar down, for all you know, is to sentence him to death—it has happened (Mosiah 4:16). The usual pious appeal to the work-ethic—there is no free lunch—will not do: "Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I . . . will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just"—I worked for mine! (Mosiah 4:17). Indolent and unworthy the beggar may be—but that is not your concern: It is better, said Joseph Smith, to feed ten impostors than to run the risk of turning away one honest petition. Anyone who explains why he denies help to another who needs it, says Benjamin, "hath great cause to repent . . . and hath no interest in the kingdom of God" (Mosiah 4:18), which kingdom is built up on the law of consecration. "For behold, are we not all beggars?" That is no mere rhetoric—it is literally true: we are all praying for what we have not earned."

I must confess that reading this changed the way I interact with panhandlers and beggars in general. I am less apt to judge, and swifter to charity.

There's quite a bit of humor in that.

First it is judgmental in that the conclusion is ... "He begs because he is hungry ..."

Yes, there are many beggars who are not hungry.

In fact, in Los Angeles, I and a fair number of friends never found one that was. I'm sure it can be done, we just never did it.

They won't take food. They throw out the food.

Jehovah's Witnesses are good at that. They always offer to buy food, but always get one goofy excuse or another. One of the last ones was "oh, I don't want Burger King, I want Taco Bell." But he was "begging" or trying to get money for drugs or alcohol, in ... Burger King.

How convenient. A beggar? No.

A con artist.

Now, if he wants money for drugs or alcohol, and you give it to him, have you helped him? To use alcohol or drugs? That doesn't help him.

You can ask them. I do. Most of them become hostile or defensive, or abusive, again, a fraud, not a beggar.

A very few will be honest. "No man, I ain't gonna lie, I'm tryin' ta get a drink."

Now, you have helped them to be honest, to face reality. To maybe? think there is a better way to live?

And ... you can still then buy them something to eat. If they will eat it.

And I'm not worried about my final judgment. God and Jesus Christ are both appreciative of honesty, and truly helping people,rather than enabling them.

dc

[marc]

God and Jesus Christ are both appreciative of honesty, and truly helping people,rather than enabling them.

dc

An interesting thought. Do angels accuse God and Jesus for enabling all us fallen people? After all, we keep sinning even after repenting. We are all hypocrites who rely on God and Jesus for our next breath and our next breath and so on. And we keep sinning and sinning. And Jesus continues for forgive us every time we sin. And He upholds each moment of our mortal life as we give in to each temptation to yield to sin after sin under the illusion of privacy. Why should He forgive us? We're just going to sin again.

[BeNotDeceived]

I'm posting some quotes ...

August 1874

... when we came into this valley and built what we now call the “Old Fort,”

Funny, I called my apartment "the fort" when I lived on 1st Ave in SLC. When I was there about 2 years ago, there was a huge apartment building using the name Brigham Apartments. Apparently the owner of the little building at 127 E. sold-out the right to use the name. Out my back window was another apartment building that was once his barn.

The interior walls were nearly two-feet thick.

I miss ye old fort.

[BeNotDeceived]

They won't take food. They throw out the food.

Jehovah's Witnesses are good at that. They always offer to buy food, but always get one goofy excuse or another. One of the last ones was "oh, I don't want Burger King, I want Taco Bell." But he was "begging" or trying to get money for drugs or alcohol, in ... Burger King.

How convenient. A beggar? No.

A con artist.

The cops here pretty much don't allow pan-handling, but for the rare occasion I started keeping a McDonalds Loyalty Punch Card in my wallet. Haven't needed it yet, but don't expect a happy reception.

[David13]

God and Jesus Christ are both appreciative of honesty, and truly helping people,rather than enabling them.

dc

An interesting thought. Do angels accuse God and Jesus for enabling all us fallen people? After all, we keep sinning even after repenting. We are all hypocrites who rely on God and Jesus for our next breath and our next breath and so on. And we keep sinning and sinning. And Jesus continues for forgive us every time we sin. And He upholds each moment of our mortal life as we give in to each temptation to yield to sin after sin under the illusion of privacy. Why should He forgive us? We're just going to sin again.

No. We are free, we have free will, or as some say, agency. We are not bound to do one thing or another. We have free will.

And we pay the price for our sins. Alcohol, drugs, promiscuous sex are all their own punishment, eventually.
dc

No, God and Jesus Christ do not save us from paying the wages of our sins.

If we got drunk, smashed our car and lost a leg, God and Jesus Christ do not grow us a new leg.
If we killed someone, God and Jesus Christ do not release us from our prison sentence.

[marc]

You only pay the price for your own sins if you do not repent (save murder/deny Holy Ghost). Furthermore, Jesus said He will forgive us every time we repent. Those other natural consequences do not prevent us from being saved in the Celestial Kingdom.

Mosiah 26:30 Yea, and as often as my people repent will I forgive them their trespasses against me.

It is important and essential for forsake all our sins and iniquities, but there are times when people relapse. Jesus is mighty to save for those who keep trying.

D&C 19:15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.

16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink...

[Sarah]

Brigham Young, Apr. 1877

Supposing that the property of the whole community were divided today equally amongst all, what might we expect? Why a year from today we should need another division, for some would waste and squander it away, while others would add to their portion. The skill of building up and establishing the Zion of our God on the earth is to take the people and teach them how to take care of themselves and that which the Lord has entrusted to their care, and to use all that we command to glorify his holy name. This is the work of regenerating, of elevating mankind to the higher plane of the Gospel; in other words, of simply teaching them their duty.

With regard to our property, as I have told you many times, the property which we inherit from our Heavenly Father is our time, and the power to choose in the disposition of the same. This is the real capital that is bequeathed unto us by our Heavenly Father; all the rest is what he may be pleased to add unto us. To direct, to counsel and to advise in the disposition of our time, pertains to our calling as God's servants, according to the wisdom which he has given and will continue to give unto us as we seek it

Now, if we could take this people, in their present condition, and teach them how to sustain and maintain themselves and a little more, we would add to that which we already have; but to take what we have and divide amongst or give to people, without teaching them how to earn and produce, would be no more nor less than to introduce the means of reducing them to a state of poverty.

I do not wish for one moment to recognize the idea that in order to establish the United Order our property has to be divided equally among the people, to let them do what they please with it. But the idea is to get the people into the same state of unity in all things temporal, that we find ourselves in with regard to things spiritual. Then let those who possess the ability and wisdom direct the labors of those not so endowed, until they too develop the talents within them and in time acquire the same degree of ability.

What do you say to this doctrine? Is it right or wrong? [The congregation answered, “It is right.“]

We want to get at a correct understanding respecting all these matters which so materially concern us. What would be the first lesson necessary to teach the people, were we to commence to direct their labors to the great end of becoming of one heart and one mind in the Lord, of establishing Zion and being filled with the power of God? It would be to stop expending and lavishing upon our dear selves all needless adornments and to stop purchasing the importations of Babylon. We can ourselves produce everything necessary for our consumption, our wear, our convenience and comfort, right here at home. We can produce and manufacture the material necessary to beautify our lands, gardens and orchards; to beautify and furnish our houses, and to adorn the beautiful bodies which we inhabit without sending our means to France, to England and other countries for things which can a little better be made at home among ourselves....

Many of you may have heard what certain journalists have had to say about Brigham Young being opposed to free schools. I am opposed to free education as much as I am opposed to taking away property from one man and giving it to another who knows not how to take care of it. But when you come to the fact, I will venture to say that I school ten children to every one that those do who complain so much of me. I now pay the school fees of a number of children who are either orphans or sons and daughters of poor people. But in aiding and blessing the poor I do not believe in allowing my charities to go through the hands of a set of robbers who pocket nine-tenths themselves, and give one-tenth to the poor. Therein is the difference between us; I am for the real act of

doing and not saying. Would I encourage free schools by taxation? No! That is not in keeping with the nature of our work; we should be as one family, our hearts and hands united in the bonds of the everlasting covenant; our interests alike, our children receiving equal opportunities in the schoolroom and the college.

[Sarah]

Brigham Young, May 1877

If I were to tell you one half of the things that I know in many particulars it would astonish the halfhearted who have but little or no faith, and who do not understand the workings of the providences of God among the children of men. But as to the persecution, it is nothing at all, neither one way nor another, only to purify the Saints and prepare the nations for the good or evil, for the Lord Almighty to send forth his judgments to cleanse the earth, to sanctify it, and to justify the righteous and condemn the guilty, and to prepare the way for the coming of the Son of Man.

John Taylor, Oct. 1879

There are many things that should be said in relation to these matters. The time is now that the Latter-day Saints should awake. These laws were given to govern the Saints. The Saints in misfortune would not obey them, and they were driven out.

We have been harassed from thebeginning unto this day, and I fear will be, until we conform to this law, and are willing that God shall rule in regard to these temporal matters.

[iWriteStuff]

Brigham Young, May 1877

If I were to tell you one half of the things that I know in many particulars it would astonish the halfhearted who have but little or no faith, and who do not understand the workings of the providences of God among the children of men. But as to the persecution, it is nothing at all, neither one way nor another, only to purify the Saints and prepare the nations for the good or evil, for the Lord Almighty to send forth his judgments to cleanse the earth, to sanctify it, and to justify the righteous and condemn the guilty, and to prepare the way for the coming of the Son of Man.

John Taylor, Oct. 1879

There are many things that should be said in relation to these matters. The time is now that the Latter-day Saints should awake. These laws were given to govern the Saints. The Saints in misfortune would not obey them, and they were driven out.

We have been harassed from thebeginning unto this day, and I fear will be, until we conform to this law, and are willing that God shall rule in regard to these temporal matters.

Thank you Sarah! Where do you find such excellent sources? J of D? Discourses of BY? I must know so I can pick up a copy

[marc]

Thank you Sarah! Where do you find such excellent sources? J of D? Discourses of BY? I must know so I can pick up a copy

You can read them all free here: http://jod.mrm.org/1

[Arenera]

"Have you any money?"

Sure, sufficient for our needs.

"That's all right, but we need more."

You don't; you don't need more than you need. More than enough is more than enough.

[Sarah]

This is kind of interesting. A brief history of the attempts at living the United Order. It should be noted that what preceded a renewed fervor by Brigham Young to get the saints living this way in 1874 was a revelation he received in 1874 (unpublished) in which he the Lord commanded His people to establish the Order of Enoch.

The United Order Movement
Dean L. May
Utah History Encyclopedia

The United Order Movement was a program of economic and moral reform begun in 1874 under Brigham Young. It drew upon earlier efforts of the Latter-day Saints to organize cooperatives in Ohio and Missouri and though of little discernible impact in the 1870s, provided the ideological underpinnings for subsequent church poor relief, especially the Welfare Plan, organized in 1936. The return to a more communal economy is still widely regarded among Latter-day Saints as an essential step in preparing for Christ's return and the principles of the United Order are central to present-day church governance.

The United Order was in large measure a response to specific problems that Young faced as leader of the Latter-day Saints in the early 1870s. The Utah economy had grown up in the 1840s, to the 1860s along essentially individualistic, capitalist lines: but tempered by strong elements of central control and communal idealism. Young and other church leaders, most notably his counselor in the First Presidency of the church, George A. Smith, and Apostle Orson Pratt, were concerned that changes attending completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869 were pushing the Latter-day Saints away from their communal ideals and towards a more individualistic and capitalistic economic model. This concern led them to cast about for means of countering the materialism and selfishness that they saw as endemic to such a system. Young also feared the railroad would bring an increasing dependence of Utah upon outside products, diminishing the control of the Latter-day Saints over the region.

A precedent in Mormonism that seemed to offer a means of meeting these problems was Joseph Smith's Law of Consecration and Stewardship, which had been practiced in Missouri in 1831-33 as the Latter-day Saints began to settle the area they called "Zion," which was in Jackson County. Under the system, communicants consecrated all their possessions to the church in exchange for a "stewardship"--a home and the resources needed to practice their chosen trade. They were then to use their initiative to manage and improve upon their stewardship. They accounted to the bishop once a year, consecrating at that time any surplus beyond family needs their efforts during the year had accrued. At the same time, Joseph Smith and other church leaders in Ohio began management of several manufacturing enterprises in behalf of the community, calling the collective management system at times the "United Order."

Consecration and Stewardship ended as the Latter-day Saints were driven from Jackson County in 1833, and only sporadic attempts were made to put its principles into operation during the rest of Joseph Smith's lifetime. The United Order in Ohio, part of the larger Consecration and Stewardship system, collapsed at the same time because of internal mismanagement and a generally unfavorable economic climate. Brigham Young, one of the first apostles chosen by Joseph Smith, was nonetheless greatly influenced by his memory of these communal endeavors under Smith. That memory helped persuade him in the 1870s to conclude that the time was right for the Saints to move in the direction of economic cooperation.

Young's wish that spiritual and temporal interests of the Mormons be combined had already found a promising model in cooperatives founded in the mid-1860s in the Utah towns of Lehi and Brigham City. Following these examples, in 1868, he founded Zion's Cooperative Mercantile Institution, a church-sponsored retail trading system that he hoped would drive out non-Mormon merchants and be profitable enough to provide the capital needed to foster local cooperative industries. With the Salt Lake City ZCMI as a central wholesaling facility, Young encouraged the establishment of some 150 retail branches in almost every Mormon town and village.

Despite the apparent short-term success of ZCMI, Young still wrestled with the problem of keeping the Saints apart culturally and economically from the incoming flood of Gentiles attracted by gold and silver strikes in Utah's mountains. The Panic of 1873 provided a particularly sharp lesson in the dangers of integration with the national economy. Those areas of Utah tied to mining suffered severely, while Brigham City, with its elaborate cooperative system, seemed relatively unaffected. Observing poverty, dispiritedness and disaffection as he traveled south to his winter home in St. George during the winter of 1873-74, the aging Mormon leader considered how best to control the situation. The previous October Lorenzo Snow, apostle and founder of the Brigham City Cooperatives, had preached a sermon which perhaps was still ringing in Young's ears: "It is more than forty years since the Order of Enoch was introduced, and rejected. One would naturally think, that it is now about time to begin to honor it."

Using the name from the cooperative manufacturing effort instituted under Joseph Smith, Young began in February urging each settlement to organize under the "United Order of Enoch." So important was the new movement that Young postponed the April general conference so he could be in Salt Lake City to introduce personally the new system of economic reform. As enthusiasm for the movement grew, many Mormons were rebaptized to indicate their commitment to the order. Church leaders replaced reluctant bishops, and sent envoys to remote areas to deal with foot dragging or problems arising from the order. The church printed broadsides of the "Rules...of the United Order," which were posted in ward meetinghouses, committing members to general moral reform as well as to living the communal order.

By the next fall, some two hundred united orders had been founded at least on paper, among both rural and urban congregations. Yet only here and there was attachment to the program sufficient to sustain the effort beyond the 1874 season. Many never got beyond the stage of electing officers. The disappointing result perhaps could have been predicted. Young was attempting at a stroke to transform a frail but functioning capitalist economy, serving some 80,000 persons into a commonwealth of communes. Aware that some would resist, he specifically ordered that no one be coerced. Moreover, he placed upon the bishop of each congregation the responsibility of determining how far his flock was willing to go in the direction of cooperation and urged bishops not to push them further than they were willing. The result was a bewildering variety of organizations and a good deal of fighting within congregations as to what form their United Order should take. In no instance was the specific form of Smith's earlier Law of Consecration and Stewardship followed.

Northern communities, such as Brigham City, a number of which already had well-developed community cooperatives, merely changed the name of their organization and continued business as usual. Many of the city congregations in Salt Lake, Ogden, and Provo, after some stumbling, attempted to found a manufacturing enterprise, contributing capital and labor to establish a community-owned meat market, hat factory, or soap factory, for example. Yet city bishops were perhaps of all Young's lieutenants most tied to the Gentile economy, and most were not eager to lead their flock into the United Order. Only two or three of the city wards formed viable organizations.

The more common orders were in the congregations of rural towns, such as at St. George, where land and farm equipment were placed under the direction of an elected committee which supervised production. The committees decided such matters as which crops to grow, who should work at which tasks, and to what extent members would be allowed to move or work outside the order. There was, however, no effort to prescribe common dress or uniform housing, to eat at a common table, or to regiment personal lives, beyond seeing that the work due the order was accomplished. Moreover, as the orders began to disband in the fall of 1874, the members seemed to have no difficulty identifying the property they had contributed.

Another form of united order was urged by those who felt a fully communal life would be the only one consistent with Brigham Young's aims. Their devotion to what was called the "gospel plan" was such that in at least two instances severe strains developed between the communalists and those desiring something less than an all-encompassing cooperative. In Kanab, the bishop suspended the sacrament (communion) for several months because there was such rancor between the two camps. The breech became so great in Mt. Carmel that it could not be healed. Those favoring the gospel plan seceded from the town in 1875 and founded their own two miles away, which they named Orderville. Orderville became the symbol for the most communal United Order and a model for a number of Orders, especially in the southern portions of Mormon country.

The Orderville Saints went far beyond what Joseph Smith had envisioned in the Law of Consecration and Stewardship. The members ate together in a common dining hall, wore uniform clothing made by Orderville industries, and lived in uniform apartments. The elected board supervised all activity, including entertainment, schooling, cooking, clothing manufacture, and farming. Private property did not exist, though personal possessions were assigned as a Stewardship to each individual.

Under this regimen the order prospered, both materially and spiritually. Assets of the eighty families tripled from $21,551 to $69,562 in the first four years of operation and reached nearly $80,000 by 1883. The leaders made adjustments as time went on. In 1877 they replaced the earlier loose dependence upon willingness to contribute with an accounting system that placed uniform values on labor and commodities (the wages varying by age and sex, but not type of work). A flood in 1880 destroyed the dining facilities, ending communal meals. In 1883 Erastus Snow, a regional church official, recommended moving to an unequal wage and partial stewardship system, the latter giving each family a plot of ground to till for its own use. Evolution away from the original communal purity continued as specific enterprises were leased to their operators for a fee retained by the order.

External pressures took their toll as well. The largely polygamous leadership of the community was decimated after the U. S. Congress passed the Edmunds Act of 1882. This act stimulated a vigorous campaign to enforce federal anti-polygamy statues, leading to the imprisonment or forced exile of many local leaders. In 1885 central church leaders, eager to reduce the range of federal complaints against Mormon peculiarities (the government was hostile to Mormon economic as well as marital practices), counseled the members to disband the Order, which they agreed reluctantly to do. They retained community ownership of the tannery, woolen mill, and sheep ranch until 1889 and finally let the corporation lapse in 1904.

Although the less communal stock company system of Brigham City was at least as successful financially as was Orderville, it did not capture the imagination and live on in the collective memory of Mormons. Orderville became the symbol of the United Order for subsequent Saints, a daring and near-successful effort to build the City of God on earth. Celebrated in song and legend, Orderville is in the minds of most Mormons today a model of selflessness, devotion and future obligation. In fact few today seem to realize that the United Order of Enoch was attempted outside of Orderville.

Sporadic efforts were made in the 1880s to implement some form of the United Order, especially in the founding of new colonies, and of course some organizations, such as Orderville and Brigham City, continued for a decade or more after founding. Yet it was clear by 1876 that the mass involvement Young had hoped for would not materialize. Asked in the last year of his life if he had launched the effort on his own or through revelation, he replied that he "had been inspired by the gift and power of God to call upon the Saints to enter into the United Order of Enoch and that now was the time, but he could not get the Saints to live it and his skirts are clear if he never says another word about it."

Faced with unrematting federal pressures towards conformity, Young's successors were content to retreat from advocating an active communal life and to nourish the substance of communalism that would remain central to Mormonism. Southern Utah leader Erastus Snow advised those who regretted the demise of the Order to, "Murmur as little as possible; complain as little as possible, and if we are not yet advanced enough to all eat at one table, all work in one company, at least feel that we all have one common interest and are all children of one Father; and let us each do what we can to save ourselves and each other."

It perhaps is no surprise that the United Order experience did not turn the Mormons against the communal values that had so long been important to their identity as a people. On the contrary, the regret in Brigham Young's complaint that he "could not get the Saints to live it" and the promise in Erastus Snow's observation that "we are not yet advanced enough" resonated long in Mormon country. Mormons continued to call church assignments "stewardships" and to vow to consecrate all their energies and possessions to the church. They drew upon the idealism that was part of the United Order experience in founding their Welfare Plan in 1936, and continue to catechize themselves with the question of whether they would have the faith to live the United Order as a final step in preparing for Christ's return. A blueprint for a perfect society could be readily forgotten, but not a failed effort to build it.

See: Edward J. Allen, The Second United Order among the Mormons (1936); Leonard J. Arrington, Great Basin Kingdom: An Economic History of the Latter-day Saints, 1830-1900 (1958); Leonard J. Arrington, Feramorz Y. Fox, and Dean L. May, Building the City of God: Community and Cooperation Among the Mormons (1976); Lyndon W. Cook, Joseph Smith and the Law of Consecration (1985); Joseph A. Geddes, The United Order Among the Mormons (Missouri Phase) (1924); Robert B. Flanders, Nauvoo: Kingdom on the Mississippi (1965); Dean L. May, "Brigham Young and the Bishops: The United Order in the City." New Views of Mormon History: A Collection of Essays, ed. By Davis Bitton and Maureen Ursenbach Beecher (1987); Wallace Stegner, The Gathering of Zion: the Story of the Mormon Trail (1971); Evon Z. Vogt, Ethel M. Albert, eds. People of Rimrock: A Study of Values in Five Cultures (1966).

[Sarah]

Brigham Young, May 1877

If I were to tell you one half of the things that I know in many particulars it would astonish the halfhearted who have but little or no faith, and who do not understand the workings of the providences of God among the children of men. But as to the persecution, it is nothing at all, neither one way nor another, only to purify the Saints and prepare the nations for the good or evil, for the Lord Almighty to send forth his judgments to cleanse the earth, to sanctify it, and to justify the righteous and condemn the guilty, and to prepare the way for the coming of the Son of Man.

John Taylor, Oct. 1879

There are many things that should be said in relation to these matters. The time is now that the Latter-day Saints should awake. These laws were given to govern the Saints. The Saints in misfortune would not obey them, and they were driven out.

We have been harassed from thebeginning unto this day, and I fear will be, until we conform to this law, and are willing that God shall rule in regard to these temporal matters.

Thank you Sarah! Where do you find such excellent sources? J of D? Discourses of BY? I must know so I can pick up a copy

Yes, thank you marc. That is exactly where I am finding these quotes.

[Sarah]

I apologize for taking over the thread. This has always been a subject that has interested me and I'm finding lots of good stuff to share.
I'm trying to get an idea of what was going on during those years the saints were giving this a push, and it seems that the Church was not able to be deeded all property because of the laws at that time, and so the Church encouraged smaller groups to organize their own formal groups and cooperatives. The result being less enthusiasm for the order as a whole, and different groups all coming up with different rules and ways of living.

Orson Pratt, Nov. 1879

Perhaps there may be some persons, numbered among this community, who may have a feeling something like this; “that we are not living according to the law that is given in the Doctrine and Covenants, in all respects.” And they have drawn the conclusion, that perhaps the Lord would forsake us in consequence of our not carrying out the laws so clearly defined and explained in that record. These things were clearly set forth before the people, this forenoon, in regard to wherein we have not entered into all the fulness and perfection of that order of things. But the question is, can we do much better, under the present circumstances? This is a great question to be considered. And in the consideration of it, we have to enquire into a number of other things, such as can we lay aside the present order of things that is not consistent with the Doctrine and Covenants; and can we begin anew here in these valleys, and carry out the law of the Lord in all its perfection? I do not know but what there may be a bare possibility of our doing it; but whether the Lord requires this at our hands under the present circumstances is another thing. We are very imperfect, and yet we try to do right. We want to keep the commandments of the Lord; we desire to be members of his Church; we desire to have his Holy Spirit resting upon us, and we desire to be guided by it. We wish to know what the counsel of the servants of God is concerning us; and yet, hardly know which way to turn. We see a united order established in one place, according to one principle; we go to another part of the land, and we find an order established on a little different principle; and we hear of another, all differing somewhat. And so on until we visit nearly all the settlements of these mountains. And as was stated this forenoon, they differ as do the elders themselves in their views.

Now what has the Lord said in this parable of the vineyard? “And they did keep the root and the top thereof equal.” In what respect were they made equal? The next part of that same sentence declares that they were made equal “according to the strength thereof.” Now there is a great deal expressed in those few words. They were not made equal all at once, as the inhabitants of a celestial world are, without any improvements being introduced; but they were to keep the root and the top of the great tree equal, according to the strength thereof; that is according to the condition and circumstances in which the people are placed. Now I consider, that notwithstanding all our deviations from the perfect law that God has given, notwithstanding the condition of things pointed out so clearly in the Doctrine and Covenants in regard to holding stewardships and inheritances, and giving an account of those stewardships and inheritances, according to the perfect order—I consider we are doing pretty well, in a great many respects. We have progressed; we have made improvements; we are in a more united condition than we were 45 years ago. Hence there has been an improvement among the Latter-day Saints; and this improvement has been for the better; it has been pointing all the time towards equality, though we have not succeeded, according to the perfect law. But we have succeeded according to the strength of the people—according to the circumstances with which they are surrounded. We have succeeded in a great measure to instill into their minds the great principle of unity and oneness, not only in spiritual things, but in temporal things also. The day will come when this will be fulfilled to the very letter, in accordance with words which say, “they became like unto one body; and the fruit were equal.” That is the destination of the Latter-day Saints in the future. The fruit is to be equal; the roots and the branches are all to be kept in their perfect order, and the whole tree kept in a thriving condition. Then we shall have learned the great principle of the celestial order, that must be carried out among the children of men. During that long period called the Millennium, this people will see the importance of attending to that perfect order when our strength shall warrant. At present we have no perfect example before us. Where has there been either in this Territory or in Arizona an instance where the perfect law of God has been carried out, as laid down in the Doctrine and Covenants? I know of no such instance. I know of a great many improvements upon the old condition of things which has existed among our fathers—the Gentile notion and idea of each one holding separate and individual interests, without being accountable to anyone. That is the old system. We have made many improvements, but we have not carried out in any one solitary instance in any settlement I am acquainted with, the order of things laid down in the revelations, contained in the Book of Covenants.

There has been a great deal said at different times upon the subject of families being united as one—eating at the same table, for instance, and having one large field, where their farming operations might be carried on, all who are farmers going forth into the same field to labor; and the same principle carried out in regard to other branches, all taking hold unitedly, having the common interest at heart. Is there anything in the revelations given in these latter days requiring this order of things, or is it something we ourselves have considered as being a little ahead of what our fathers have been practicing? I do not know anything laid down in the revelations, requiring us to take this particular method. Yet, is it right? Yes. Why it is right according to the circumstances with which they are surrounded; it points forward to unity and tends to instruct us in the preliminary ideas of being united together. And hence, those that can enter into this order, who are willing to unite in this way, are doing well and will be blessed for it. But let no person set any stakes, in regard to this matter, that because he may have entered into a special order, introduced in one settlement, that all others are wrong, because they do not do likewise; they should not find fault with their brethren, neither be discouraged in welldoing.

There are a great many different ideas among the Latter-day Saints, in relation to these matters. But then, we have a standard given in the Book of Covenants, by which we should be governed. By and by, I expect we will be in different circumstances, in which stewardships or inheritances can be issued, for all families of the Saints, some in one kind or branch of business, and some in another; and the full law of consecration will take place.....

....the Lord our God will take this people back, and will select from among this people, a sufficient number, to make the army of Israel very great. And when that day comes, he will guide the forces of those who emigrate to their possessions in those two states, that I have mentioned. And the land thus purchased will be no doubt, as far as possible, located in one district of country, which will be settled very differently from the way we now settle up these mountain regions. You may ask, in what respect we shall differ in settling up those countries when we go there to fulfil the commandments of the Lord? I will tell you. No man in those localities will be permitted to receive a stewardship on those lands, unless he is willing to consecrate all his properties to the Lord. That will be among the first teachings given. When this shall be done, the people will be, as the parable says, like unto one body—all equally poor, or all equally rich; in other words, they will be persons that can claim no property as their own, everything being consecrated. And the land being purchased, will be held on a different principle, from what it is now. Today fifty thousand dollars worth of real estate property is the most that can be held by a religious organization; but in that day the whole of our properties, amounting a very much larger sum, will be held in trust. For whom? For the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and for all this great company that will be gathered together. And there will be such a change in governmental affairs, that the trustee, whoever he may be, will only act as such as long as he is faithful; and if he becomes unfaithful it will be transferred to another.

[Michelle]

I apologize for taking over the thread. This has always been a subject that has interested me and I'm finding lots of good stuff to share.
I'm trying to get an idea of what was going on during those years the saints were giving this a push, and it seems that the Church was not able to be deeded all property because of the laws at that time, and so the Church encouraged smaller groups to organize their own formal groups and cooperatives. The result being less enthusiasm for the order as a whole, and different groups all coming up with different rules and ways of living.

Orson Pratt, Nov. 1879

Perhaps there may be some persons, numbered among this community, who may have a feeling something like this; “that we are not living according to the law that is given in the Doctrine and Covenants, in all respects.” And they have drawn the conclusion, that perhaps the Lord would forsake us in consequence of our not carrying out the laws so clearly defined and explained in that record. These things were clearly set forth before the people, this forenoon, in regard to wherein we have not entered into all the fulness and perfection of that order of things. But the question is, can we do much better, under the present circumstances? This is a great question to be considered. And in the consideration of it, we have to enquire into a number of other things, such as can we lay aside the present order of things that is not consistent with the Doctrine and Covenants; and can we begin anew here in these valleys, and carry out the law of the Lord in all its perfection? I do not know but what there may be a bare possibility of our doing it; but whether the Lord requires this at our hands under the present circumstances is another thing. We are very imperfect, and yet we try to do right. We want to keep the commandments of the Lord; we desire to be members of his Church; we desire to have his Holy Spirit resting upon us, and we desire to be guided by it. We wish to know what the counsel of the servants of God is concerning us; and yet, hardly know which way to turn. We see a united order established in one place, according to one principle; we go to another part of the land, and we find an order established on a little different principle; and we hear of another, all differing somewhat. And so on until we visit nearly all the settlements of these mountains. And as was stated this forenoon, they differ as do the elders themselves in their views.

Now what has the Lord said in this parable of the vineyard? “And they did keep the root and the top thereof equal.” In what respect were they made equal? The next part of that same sentence declares that they were made equal “according to the strength thereof.” Now there is a great deal expressed in those few words. They were not made equal all at once, as the inhabitants of a celestial world are, without any improvements being introduced; but they were to keep the root and the top of the great tree equal, according to the strength thereof; that is according to the condition and circumstances in which the people are placed. Now I consider, that notwithstanding all our deviations from the perfect law that God has given, notwithstanding the condition of things pointed out so clearly in the Doctrine and Covenants in regard to holding stewardships and inheritances, and giving an account of those stewardships and inheritances, according to the perfect order—I consider we are doing pretty well, in a great many respects. We have progressed; we have made improvements; we are in a more united condition than we were 45 years ago. Hence there has been an improvement among the Latter-day Saints; and this improvement has been for the better; it has been pointing all the time towards equality, though we have not succeeded, according to the perfect law. But we have succeeded according to the strength of the people—according to the circumstances with which they are surrounded. We have succeeded in a great measure to instill into their minds the great principle of unity and oneness, not only in spiritual things, but in temporal things also. The day will come when this will be fulfilled to the very letter, in accordance with words which say, “they became like unto one body; and the fruit were equal.” That is the destination of the Latter-day Saints in the future. The fruit is to be equal; the roots and the branches are all to be kept in their perfect order, and the whole tree kept in a thriving condition. Then we shall have learned the great principle of the celestial order, that must be carried out among the children of men. During that long period called the Millennium, this people will see the importance of attending to that perfect order when our strength shall warrant. At present we have no perfect example before us. Where has there been either in this Territory or in Arizona an instance where the perfect law of God has been carried out, as laid down in the Doctrine and Covenants? I know of no such instance. I know of a great many improvements upon the old condition of things which has existed among our fathers—the Gentile notion and idea of each one holding separate and individual interests, without being accountable to anyone. That is the old system. We have made many improvements, but we have not carried out in any one solitary instance in any settlement I am acquainted with, the order of things laid down in the revelations, contained in the Book of Covenants.

There has been a great deal said at different times upon the subject of families being united as one—eating at the same table, for instance, and having one large field, where their farming operations might be carried on, all who are farmers going forth into the same field to labor; and the same principle carried out in regard to other branches, all taking hold unitedly, having the common interest at heart. Is there anything in the revelations given in these latter days requiring this order of things, or is it something we ourselves have considered as being a little ahead of what our fathers have been practicing? I do not know anything laid down in the revelations, requiring us to take this particular method. Yet, is it right? Yes. Why it is right according to the circumstances with which they are surrounded; it points forward to unity and tends to instruct us in the preliminary ideas of being united together. And hence, those that can enter into this order, who are willing to unite in this way, are doing well and will be blessed for it. But let no person set any stakes, in regard to this matter, that because he may have entered into a special order, introduced in one settlement, that all others are wrong, because they do not do likewise; they should not find fault with their brethren, neither be discouraged in welldoing.

There are a great many different ideas among the Latter-day Saints, in relation to these matters. But then, we have a standard given in the Book of Covenants, by which we should be governed. By and by, I expect we will be in different circumstances, in which stewardships or inheritances can be issued, for all families of the Saints, some in one kind or branch of business, and some in another; and the full law of consecration will take place.....

....the Lord our God will take this people back, and will select from among this people, a sufficient number, to make the army of Israel very great. And when that day comes, he will guide the forces of those who emigrate to their possessions in those two states, that I have mentioned. And the land thus purchased will be no doubt, as far as possible, located in one district of country, which will be settled very differently from the way we now settle up these mountain regions. You may ask, in what respect we shall differ in settling up those countries when we go there to fulfil the commandments of the Lord? I will tell you. No man in those localities will be permitted to receive a stewardship on those lands, unless he is willing to consecrate all his properties to the Lord. That will be among the first teachings given. When this shall be done, the people will be, as the parable says, like unto one body—all equally poor, or all equally rich; in other words, they will be persons that can claim no property as their own, everything being consecrated. And the land being purchased, will be held on a different principle, from what it is now. Today fifty thousand dollars worth of real estate property is the most that can be held by a religious organization; but in that day the whole of our properties, amounting a very much larger sum, will be held in trust. For whom? For the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and for all this great company that will be gathered together. And there will be such a change in governmental affairs, that the trustee, whoever he may be, will only act as such as long as he is faithful; and if he becomes unfaithful it will be transferred to another.

These are wonderful quotes! Thank you.

This quote speaks to an impression I had recently that we are something like Daniel in Babylon right now, or poor Jeremiah left in Jerusalem. There are things we cannot choose right now because of our circumstances/laws, but there are many things we can. We are to do all we can in our present circumstances to live according to all of God's laws. Those things we cannot choose to do, that are otherwise God's will for us, will be placed on the souls of those who keep us from it.

I fear though, there is so much more that we can do, than we are doing right now.

[iWriteStuff]

"Have you any money?"

Sure, sufficient for our needs.

"That's all right, but we need more."

You don't; you don't need more than you need. More than enough is more than enough.

This is what I'm talking about! When your cup is full, fill someone else's cup.

[ajax]

Interesting take on giving to beggars:

"A beggar is one who asks, for some reason or other not having what he needs: "Ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish" (Mosiah 4:16). He begs because he is hungry, and we must all eat to stay alive—to turn any beggar down, for all you know, is to sentence him to death—it has happened (Mosiah 4:16). The usual pious appeal to the work-ethic—there is no free lunch—will not do: "Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I . . . will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just"—I worked for mine! (Mosiah 4:17). Indolent and unworthy the beggar may be—but that is not your concern: It is better, said Joseph Smith, to feed ten impostors than to run the risk of turning away one honest petition. Anyone who explains why he denies help to another who needs it, says Benjamin, "hath great cause to repent . . . and hath no interest in the kingdom of God" (Mosiah 4:18), which kingdom is built up on the law of consecration. "For behold, are we not all beggars?" That is no mere rhetoric—it is literally true: we are all praying for what we have not earned."

I must confess that reading this changed the way I interact with panhandlers and beggars in general. I am less apt to judge, and swifter to charity.

I've never been able to source the ten impostor quote from JS. Hope Nibs didn't make it up.

[iWriteStuff]

Interesting take on giving to beggars:

"A beggar is one who asks, for some reason or other not having what he needs: "Ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish" (Mosiah 4:16). He begs because he is hungry, and we must all eat to stay alive—to turn any beggar down, for all you know, is to sentence him to death—it has happened (Mosiah 4:16). The usual pious appeal to the work-ethic—there is no free lunch—will not do: "Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I . . . will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just"—I worked for mine! (Mosiah 4:17). Indolent and unworthy the beggar may be—but that is not your concern: It is better, said Joseph Smith, to feed ten impostors than to run the risk of turning away one honest petition. Anyone who explains why he denies help to another who needs it, says Benjamin, "hath great cause to repent . . . and hath no interest in the kingdom of God" (Mosiah 4:18), which kingdom is built up on the law of consecration. "For behold, are we not all beggars?" That is no mere rhetoric—it is literally true: we are all praying for what we have not earned."

I must confess that reading this changed the way I interact with panhandlers and beggars in general. I am less apt to judge, and swifter to charity.

I've never been able to source the ten impostor quote from JS. Hope Nibs didn't make it up.

I've gone on a merry goose chase for that quote too. The source he cites doesn't seem clear, so part of me wonders if he's sort summarizing on it? Either way, I think the doctrine and practice are true. King Benjamin is pretty explicit in his condemnation of individuals who judge beggars and withhold their substance. Does it really make sense to try and justify yourself for withholding when it's a simple matter to give when asked?

[ajax]

Not trying to justify anything, just trying to source the quote.

[iWriteStuff]

Not trying to justify anything, just trying to source the quote.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply you were justifying. Just explaining my thoughts on King Benjamin's speech.

[Michelle]

I have to say first, I agree with a lot of what iWriteStuff is saying, but I think the Spirit still needs to be used with regard to "helping' others.

My father worked in San Francisco for years and he said nearly everyday he would invite a beggar to lunch, but no one ever took him up on the offer.

I have seen my share of panhandlers and asked if I should do anything without receiving confirmation that it was right. In fact, I can only remember one time when the Spirit clearly told me to buy a woman lunch, which I did and then I took it to her and she was so grateful. (That doesn't mean I don't help in other ways, but usually the Spirit says no to giving money to strangers like that.)

On the opposite hand, we once gave a lot of groceries (non perishables) to a family member, single mom with two kids, who was always asking for money for groceries. When she moved out of our basement a year or so later, she had my kids throw away all the food we had given her (still in the cupboards) and told them not to tell us. She was too lazy to even prepare the just-open-the-can and add-water foods we had bought for her. She preferred to eat out every meal, usually by showing up at a certain family members house, that liked to go out to eat, about dinner time.

Gotta have the Spirit in all things.

[iWriteStuff]

I have to say first, I agree with a lot of what iWriteStuff is saying, but I think the Spirit still needs to be used with regard to "helping' others.

My father worked in San Francisco for years and he said nearly everyday he would invite a beggar to lunch, but no one ever took him up on the offer.

I have seen my share of panhandlers and asked if I should do anything without receiving confirmation that it was right. In fact, I can only remember one time when the Spirit clearly told me to buy a woman lunch, which I did and then I took it to her and she was so grateful. (That doesn't mean I don't help in other ways, but usually the Spirit says no to giving money to strangers like that.)

On the opposite hand, we once gave a lot of groceries (non perishables) to a family member, single mom with two kids, who was always asking for money for groceries. When she moved out of our basement a year or so later, she had my kids throw away all the food we had given her (still in the cupboards) and told them not to tell us. She was too lazy to even prepare the just-open-the-can and add-water foods we had bought for her. She preferred to eat out every meal, usually by showing up at a certain family members house, that liked to go out to eat, about dinner time.

Gotta have the Spirit in all things.

Ah, now we have crossed the bridge into the Land of Nuance. I like where this is going.

You bring up an interesting point about giving to people who are ungrateful receivers or who refuse to use the help that is offered. Who does that reflect on: you the giver or them the receivers? Remember, King Benjamin only laid out the law for giving, not receiving. We are judged based on our willingness to give, not on their willingness to receive or to accept the type of help offered. What happens if they reject the gift or use it poorly? What if every dollar you give to a homeless person ends up in the hands of a drug dealer or liquor store owner? Are you held responsible for how they have used the gift?

Again, you are judged for your willingness to give. How they use the gift is up to them. I would like to imagine they would use it like this man did:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v07yMNXWJlc

The truth is, as David13 has mentioned, most people will not. Does that stop you from giving? Do you know with 100% certainty how your gift will be used?

I've been wondering about this as I've watched our bishop over the last month. In Ward Councils, he has discussed many of the charitable projects the Bishopric has accomplished recently. Much money and gifts of food have been given to individuals both within the church and outside of the church. Knowing some of these recipients, I know that I personally have judged a few of them in the past. Their priorities are not the same as my own and their commitment to living the gospel seems a lot weaker. They waste what is given to them, they blame others for their problems, and some of them I wonder whether they only come to church for the handouts. This caused me to think more on the matter. Doesn't the Bishop suspect these things as well? I know based on conversations with him that in some cases he knows perfectly well what is happening with donated goods because it has happened before - some of the recipients have shown this same pattern of receiving, wasting, rejecting, or leveraging their church attendance for maximum reward but nothing else.

So why does the church continue to help these individuals? What do we gain by giving to people who are unwise with what is given or who reject the gift altogether? More importantly, would I be as charitable to people I know are probably only taking advantage of my charity or may even be wasting it? What I've decided is that it comes back to what I mentioned before - it is a two-sided test: 1) for me to show my willingness to give and 2) for them to demonstrate their integrity by what they do with it. That is the sum total of the situation. I very much doubt God withholds blessings from us because He knows we will waste it or use it less wisely than He would. He even gives to ungrateful receivers. I don't think He is as happy with that outcome, but it doesn't stop Him from showering blessings upon the just and unjust.

EDIT: If you skipped over that YouTube video, please go back and watch it.

[marc]

I have learned in my own life that I don't need inspiration to do what is right, or rather what is required of me if I have it. If I have nothing to give, then I have nothing to give. I do not need the Spirit in every instance, when I already know what is right. To quote Jesus Christ:

Luke 6:30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.