Having all things in common

[drtanner]

This seems to be the result of true conversion but my question Is what does that look like today? In your opinion is this something the leaders of the church should / will provide direction on or do you think this should be achieved as individual families council together and make commitments and decisions.

How do you think it was done in the Book of Mormon?

If the lord put you in charge and said figure it out what would you do to achieve this goal?

[marc]

In the Book of Mormon, King Benjamin was a good example of leading by example. We also get a glimpse of this in Acts 4 and also 4 Nephi 1. To answer your question, if the Lord put me in charge, I would do precisely what the Lord required me to do, no more, no less. I am nobody, but I can do what Jesus Christ has already said to do in his sermon on the Mount/Bountiful, etc. I just wrote a blog today that touched on this subject. It begins with receiving the Holy Ghost. With it comes the tendency to forsake the world and cleave unto God and godly things; to love one another as God loves us and gave everything of Himself. How does something like Zion begin? With Zion individuals forming Zion families. Eventually Zion families become a Zion community. I have observed groups of people attempt this and are attempting this. I have seen their love for one another and their continual effort to perfect themselves in their efforts. The only other group of people who might come close are the Amish.

[BruceRGilbert]

1.) The Church is not the entire "Kingdom of God."
2.) I envision a "ruling council" that comprise many religious "leaders" who are consigned to establishing a "family" society, based upon love and consecration to the society or Zion. This council would be responsible for the management of "funds" as well as "resources." They would identify among their congregations, those individuals who are capable of living a consecrated life without "money," but by serving. (The laborer in Zion shall work for Zion - the community.)

More to follow depending upon reception.

[Matchmaker]

If the Lord trusted me to decide, one of the first things I would do is find a way to make sure that every single individual, or family, had a modest safe place to live, with basic utilities, regardless of their financial situation or ability to pay. No one would be living on the street. Every adult would have an address they could call home for themselves and their children. No one would ever need to fear being cast out on the street again. All unemployed men who were able-bodied would be expected to serve on a construction crew of some kind to help build and maintain these residences and the infrastructure surrounding them. Women with children could stay at home, if they chose to.

Bishop's Storehouses and Deseret Industries would spring up in every town to provide extra food, clothing, and supplies for those in need. The women, teens, disabled, or elderly who were willing to serve in these facilities would be given vouchers enabling them to trade for whatever food, clothes, or household items their families might want or need at the time.

I will leave it to someone else to figure out what to do with any men or single adults who simply refused to work to help provide for themselves or their families.

[inho]

I like the way Orson Scott Card visioned it in his short story Consecration: A Law We Can Live With.

[BeNotDeceived]

Set prices based on the cost of consumption, rather than the cost of production i.e. harmful substances would cost more, somewhat similar to how Seattle (1/1/18) and the UK (4/6/18) are adopting excise taxes on sugar sweetened beverages. Extensive data collected as Drs Lustig and Gundry are now doing in co-operation with organizations such as AHA & WHO. Community Kitchens where every able person works a minimum of 5 hours a week, and prices are based on benefit. A counsel of 50 would play a role, and money would be based on something of real value, such as work being defined as energy applied over time. That's a few ideas, with lots of room for improvement.

[drtanner]

1.) The Church is not the entire "Kingdom of God."
2.) I envision a "ruling council" that comprise many religious "leaders" who are consigned to establishing a "family" society, based upon love and consecration to the society or Zion. This council would be responsible for the management of "funds" as well as "resources." They would identify among their congregations, those individuals who are capable of living a consecrated life without "money," but by serving. (The laborer in Zion shall work for Zion - the community.)

More to follow depending upon reception.

Thank you Bruce,
I would be interested in you expounding on your thoughts. It seems that there must be some type of organization to administer and oversee. I guess the one part to I often forget is those involved have one heart and mind which hopefully means there shouldn’t be individuals not willing to work / trying to take advantage.

A few more general questions.

What does the monetary system look like?

Would there be any incentive for technological advancements? (I see the great work that computers and technology can provide for family history and temple work for example.) Marc above gave the example of the Amish and this is one draw back I can see depending on how it is administered.

Do you think this should come from the leadership of the church or should individuals and groups start attempting to live this way?

[David13]

I think the big problem here and in the Zion thread is how easy it is for some people to confuse Zion with socialism/communism. I don't think they are the same thing.

Matchmaker and BeNotDeceived have some good nirvana ideas there, but with about a million holes in the execution thereof. Other than supporting vice or sin taxes.

I wouldn't be able to take the job. I'm committed elsewhere at this time. Maybe next year.

dc

[gardener4life]

This would be a family based government in my opinion. The reason for this is ultimately this kind of system would only work by love and service. Imagine a society where people's jobs everyday are to go out and do service projects everyday instead of a traditional job. It might be something like that I think. If you think about it like that wouldn't that be the ultimate freedom? I think people would be excited to do it this way because of feeling so free but also being able to feel like they were doing missionary work everyday but it would be more open and less confining than a mission we think of like today's missionaries do. They would be able to do all kinds of temporal welfare projects of different types from day to day based on what's needed. It would be pretty exciting actually! But also when you say family based government it would be a broader view of family expanding more than just our immediate family but of trying to include rather than exclude.

In my opinion this type of government can't really exist while Satan is raging among the kingdoms of the Earth. It would be too hard. Even though there IS people willing to do a type of all things in common like in 4 Nephi 1...in other words, I do think there are people righteous enough to sacrifice for it today, it would be too hard for them because it's like the world and society have inclined the ramp of adversity so high that it's like trying to run up a mountain to do even anything good now.

And yes, the verses on this are in 4 Nephi 1, and in King Benjamin's reign. There are also parts of it in D&C 42, and 78 about things relating to it. Also D&C 104 has the section on the United Order.

Don't we sustain the church by our sustaining vote? And don't we sustain leaders when they are called? There's a reason for that. And we listen when they activate the priesthood keys to activate or adjust gospel programs or things in the Lord's plan for this Earth. It would probably be better to wait to do this when asked, but there's always some benefit by trying to live closer to God. Also programs that mirrored the United Order in the past, even though people will say they failed, those people really benefited and created people that were very strong and committed to Jesus. So did they really fail? I suspect that the people of Jershon in the Book of Mormon were trying to also mirror this. Their type of strong commitment helped the church in the Nephite era survive near collapse. And this I think why they were so strong. This is my opinion, but I do believe that Alma Chapter 35 and particularly verses 8, 9, 13, 14 show that the converts of the Lamanites led by Ammon and his brethren in Jershon were living a similar or very close system to the United Order. (Adam, Enoch, and Melzhizedek were also practicing a family and service through love system similar to the United Order too)

So if we are ever asked to go this way again, which I don't really know if it will happen anytime soon. You can see that there are actually many examples of this.

[BruceRGilbert]

1.) The Church is not the entire "Kingdom of God."
2.) I envision a "ruling council" that comprise many religious "leaders" who are consigned to establishing a "family" society, based upon love and consecration to the society or Zion. This council would be responsible for the management of "funds" as well as "resources." They would identify among their congregations, those individuals who are capable of living a consecrated life without "money," but by serving. (The laborer in Zion shall work for Zion - the community.)

More to follow depending upon reception.

Thank you Bruce,
I would be interested in you expounding on your thoughts. It seems that there must be some type of organization to administer and oversee. I guess the one part to I often forget is those involved have one heart and mind which hopefully means there shouldn’t be individuals not willing to work / trying to take advantage.

A few more general questions.

What does the monetary system look like?

Would there be any incentive for technological advancements? (I see the great work that computers and technology can provide for family history and temple work for example.) Marc above gave the example of the Amish and this is one draw back I can see depending on how it is administered.

Do you think this should come from the leadership of the church or should individuals and groups start attempting to live this way?

The "Multi-Religious" Council, akin to the Council of Fifty, would administer and oversee the "community." There would be no "money" other than that which is utilized by the Council for "importing" resources into the community from other "like" communities consisting of their "excess" beyond what was deemed necessary surplus. The members of the community would not be compensated for their labors other than the rewards of "satisfaction and joy" in working to provide for the community "family" in seeing that their services contributed to the "needs" base and eventually "wants." Initially, a core set of skills would need to be identified to provide for a self-sustaining community wherein the inhabitants would "freely" share their services and staple goods would be distributed to all. The only "personal" property that would exist would be clothing, items of hygiene, pertinent "personal" religious items and "immediate family." The "Community" would provide food, shelter, transportation, and technology. The eventuality would be that technology - robotics, etc. would lighten the work-load to the point that other endeavors could be pursued extant of "labor intensive, repetitive" tasks allowing for "apprenticeship" training and development as directed by "personal" choice. The communities would be of limited size to allow for very close "social" interaction. Disciplinary actions would be consigned to 1.) the ruling council for jurisdictional "governmental" issues and /or 2.) the religious jurisdiction for "moral" issues.

More to come.

[drtanner]

I think the big problem here and in the Zion thread is how easy it is for some people to confuse Zion with socialism/communism. I don't think they are the same thing.

Matchmaker and BeNotDeceived have some good nirvana ideas there, but with about a million holes in the execution thereof. Other than supporting vice or sin taxes.

I wouldn't be able to take the job. I'm committed elsewhere at this time. Maybe next year.

dc

Haha, well assuming you take the job next year I’d love to hear your thoughts on how to execute to patch up any holes you see. Thanks for the comment.

[marc]

I think the big problem here and in the Zion thread is how easy it is for some people to confuse Zion with socialism/communism. I don't think they are the same thing.

They are definitely not the same. Socialism/Communism, to begin with, are corrupt, Telestial constructs. Zion is a Terrestrial one, a city of peace, where all are indeed equal and do have all things common, but because all are one heart and one mind of their own volition because of the Love of God, which is in them.

[drtanner]

In the Book of Mormon, King Benjamin was a good example of leading by example. We also get a glimpse of this in Acts 4 and also 4 Nephi 1. To answer your question, if the Lord put me in charge, I would do precisely what the Lord required me to do, no more, no less. I am nobody, but I can do what Jesus Christ has already said to do in his sermon on the Mount/Bountiful, etc. I just wrote a blog today that touched on this subject. It begins with receiving the Holy Ghost. With it comes the tendency to forsake the world and cleave unto God and godly things; to love one another as God loves us and gave everything of Himself. How does something like Zion begin? With Zion individuals forming Zion families. Eventually Zion families become a Zion community. I have observed groups of people attempt this and are attempting this. I have seen their love for one another and their continual effort to perfect themselves in their efforts. The only other group of people who might come close are the Amish.

Do you think that receiving the Holy Ghost is a prerequisite for this type of living to work? What of individuals who desire to live in common but may not be members of the Lords church yet?

[Rand]

This seems to be the result of true conversion but my question Is what does that look like today? In your opinion is this something the leaders of the church should / will provide direction on or do you think this should be achieved as individual families council together and make commitments and decisions.

How do you think it was done in the Book of Mormon?

If the lord put you in charge and said figure it out what would you do to achieve this goal?

If we had perfect love in common, we would have all things in common. But, if we try to redistribute wealth until we have all things in common, we have Russia 3 years ago.
When we have all things in common, there will be those that live in larger homes than others, and those who produce more and some less than others, but our desires for each others well being will be "common". Others interests become as important if not more important than our own. The great over riding commonality is that we all will want to do the will of the Father more than anything else.

[marc]

In the Book of Mormon, King Benjamin was a good example of leading by example. We also get a glimpse of this in Acts 4 and also 4 Nephi 1. To answer your question, if the Lord put me in charge, I would do precisely what the Lord required me to do, no more, no less. I am nobody, but I can do what Jesus Christ has already said to do in his sermon on the Mount/Bountiful, etc. I just wrote a blog today that touched on this subject. It begins with receiving the Holy Ghost. With it comes the tendency to forsake the world and cleave unto God and godly things; to love one another as God loves us and gave everything of Himself. How does something like Zion begin? With Zion individuals forming Zion families. Eventually Zion families become a Zion community. I have observed groups of people attempt this and are attempting this. I have seen their love for one another and their continual effort to perfect themselves in their efforts. The only other group of people who might come close are the Amish.

Do you think that receiving the Holy Ghost is a prerequisite for this type of living to work? What of individuals who desire to live in common but may not be members of the Lords church yet?

I cannot "authoritatively" answer this question, but I do know that it fits the pattern of events in scripture by those who went before us. Receiving the Holy Ghost comes after a mighty change of heart and it is that mighty change, which inspires a person to move forward in this direction. Here is how I would categorize people and their potential progress, and this is my own observation/opinion:

1. Hardness of heart (and blindness of mind)
2. Broken heart (and contrite spirit)
3. Mighty change of heart (eyes to see/ears to hear)

Those who have hard hearts, who do not pray/inquire of the Lord never receive what they do not ask for. They question things because of their ignorance, which breeds doubt. Book of Mormon prophets describe this as unbelief. Those whose hearts are broken inquire. They experiment. They poke and prod and feel after the Lord. They are willing to believe and exercise faith to obtain hope. There is still some degree of unbelief. But not the kind of unbelief that doubts as Zechariah did, but are willing to believe though they don't understand such as Mary who was visited by the same angel as Zechariah, yet questioned the angel. What a juxtaposition of two events! Then there are those who have received because they asked. They found because they sought and the Lord opened because they knocked. They understand what it means to sing the song of redeeming love (Alma 5) as Lehi did, who praised the Lord immediately after his mighty change:

1 Nephi 1:14 And it came to pass that when my father had read and seen many great and marvelous things, he did exclaim many things unto the Lord; such as: Great and marvelous are thy works, O Lord God Almighty! Thy throne is high in the heavens, and thy power, and goodness, and mercy are over all the inhabitants of the earth; and, because thou art merciful, thou wilt not suffer those who come unto thee that they shall perish!
15 And after this manner was the language of my father in the praising of his God; for his soul did rejoice, and his whole heart was filled, because of the things which he had seen, yea, which the Lord had shown unto him.

Lehi fit the third category, where Nephi seemed to fit the second, but was willing to believe and his heart was softened because of it. Then there are Laman and Lemuel who fit in the first category, who considered themselves just as righteous as the people back in Jerusalem because they "kept the statutes and judgments of the Lord" (1 Nephi 17). But their hearts were far from Him. So they did not receive anything according to the lack of desires in their hearts. But it was Lehi, who had that mighty change, who readily left all his wealth behind to depart into the wilderness. And that is what people today fear. They don't want to get out of their comfort zone and step out into their "wilderness" of faith. They ask "how" and "why" and they murmur and and dispute because they are not led by the Spirit, which they have not received because of their unbelief. The people in Acts 4 and 4 Nephi 1 probably figured it out as they went along. You can see the progression of events where they stripped themselves of contentions and so on. They were already changed by the reception of the Holy Ghost. That seems to be the pattern.

[Original_Intent]

The problem is, too many see only one side of the problem (the wealthy having their hearts set on their riches) but the other side is what we call the poor are often greedy, envious, covetous, and in some cases lazy.

Anyone who is capable of any level of work, should do so before getting an outright handout. The church welfare system is a good pattern.

People without skills need to be willing to be trained. They need to be willing to do unskilled work in the meantime.

Many who consider themselves poor are only poor relative to the people they are surrounded by (here in the U.S.) Most of these poor live a standard of living that globally makes them part of the 1%. Certainly there are some people with real and serious need, and incapable of providing for themselves. Of course they need to be compassionately taken care of.

A lot of the ideas I have seen envision some central church committee to take in and redistribute goods, money, whatever. We don't need central planners, even religious ones.

We are not ready to live "having all things in common" by a long shot. Again, I think the primary hindrance is not the selfish rich, but too many people who would see it as an opportunity to live off of others' labor. Such a system without virtuous people is doomed to collapse.

[brianj]

With 323 million people in the US and 7.6 billion in the world, the US population is about 4.25% of the world population. And there are several countries that are wealthier than us, so I suspect that Americans are in the top 15% globally but absolutely not in the top 1%.

When I contemplate the United Order, I am impressed by the value of wants.
Mosiah 18:29: They did walk uprightly before God, imparting to one another both temporally and spiritually according to their needs and their wants.
D&C 51:3: Wherefore, let my servant Edward Partridge, and those whom he has chosen, in whom I am well pleased, appoint unto this people their portions, every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.
D&C 70:7: Nevertheless, inasmuch as they receive more than is needful for their necessities and their wants, it shall be given into my storehouse;

There are other quotes regarding wants, but I will skip them for brevity.

I conclude that if I don't have the opportunity to take one of my dream vacations, which aren't terribly expensive and are things that have been done by everybody I know who has wanted to do them (except me), then in a United Order environment I believe that I would be able to have the money to take such a trip. People who really want a big house, for the right reasons, will be able to have bigger houses. Of course I expect those who have been given bigger houses to do more with those big houses to bless lives than people in small condominiums.

As I think about this, I wonder about the collapse of Nephite equality. I wonder if people whose needs and wants caused them to have more than others are the ones who became prideful and brought on the collapse of having all things in common. One day I will find out.

[ajax]

We don't need central planners, even religious ones.

Amen.

[ajax]

First world nations really don't have any poor among them anymore. The poor today in said country's live better than the rich 100 yrs ago. And who can really help someone who wants to be poor. People are pretty much free to choose that and we ought to be free to just let em alone.

What does "all things common" mean anyway? Interestingly the Book of Moses doesn't reference the phrase when describing the city of Zion. Only that there were no poor among them. I can imagine having "no poor among them" without having all things common (assuming it means constant and continued wealth distribution - which I'm not wholly convinced it means). Perhaps it is nothing more than a society that values the individual, his freedom and rights, where all men are on equal grounds(see below), which is perfected by voluntary charity.

Here's what the BoM says about equality:

And there was a strict command throughout all the churches that there should be no persecutions among them, that there should be an equality among all men;

-----

Therefore they relinquished their desires for a king, and became exceedingly anxious that every man should have an equal chance throughout all the land; yea, and every man expressed a willingness to answer for his own sins.

-----

For there was a law that men should be judged according to their crimes. Nevertheless, there was no law against a man’s belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on equal grounds.

-----

And when the priests left their labor to impart the word of God unto the people, the people also left their labors to hear the word of God. And when the priest had imparted unto them the word of God they all returned again diligently unto their labors; and the priest, not esteeming himself above his hearers, for the preacher was no better than the hearer, neither was the teacher any better than the learner; and thus they were all equal, and they did all labor, every man according to his strength.

These have nothing to do with leveling material goods. I tend to think we have our heads in the clouds when we think about this stuff rather than dealing with real flesh and blood realities of real human beings: their agency, rights, diversity of interests, opinions and personalities etc. We tend to mentally fit people into the molds of our liking.