Zion ≠ Socialism

[Silver]

Once Zion is established, will the people who dwell there pay duties on the goods that enter their economy from the outside? A stack of lumber, a bushel of apples, whatever.

I say 'no way.'

[Arenera]

" have not sought gold nor silver, nor any manner of riches of you" (Mosiah 2:12). "I, myself, have labored with mine own hands. . . . I can answer a clear conscience before God this day. . . . Learn that when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God" (Mosiah 2:14- 15, 17). "I, whom ye call your king, am no better than ye yourselves are" (Mosiah 2:26).

He is setting the keynote, which is absolute equality. And that follows naturally from the proposition that we owe everything to God, to whom we are perpetually and inescapablyin debt beyond our means of repayment: "In the first place, . . . ye are indebted unto him . . . and will be forever and ever" (Mosiah 2:23-24). Let no one boast that he has earned or produced a thing: "Therefore, of what can ye boast? . . . Can ye say aught of yourselves? I answer you, Nay," right down to the dust of the earth, it all "belongeth to him who created you" (Mosiah 2:24-25). It is his property, not yours!

What is more, no one can even pay his own way in the world, let alone claim a surplus: "If ye should serve him who . . . is preserving you from day to day . . . and even supporting you from one moment to another—I say if you should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants," in other words, consuming more than you produce, unable even to support yourselves (Mosiah 2:21).


And what do we do, then, to qualify for his blessings? "Behold, all that he requires of you is to keep his commandments; and he has promised you that if ye would keep his commandments ye should prosper in the land" (Mosiah 2:22). It never fails, says Benjamin, "if ye do keep his commandments he doth bless and prosper you" (Mosiah 2:22) and in return, "ye are eternally indebted to your heavenly Father, to render to him all that you have and are" (Mosiah 2:34), which is simply the law of consecration.

[marc]

Those are good passages, Silver! The Sermon on the Mount provides valuable information. For example, in Luke's Gospel, we read:

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

Is there nuance to this? Or should this be taken straight literal? Did Jesus ever say no?

(Just questions, thinking out loud)

Those are good questions. I have spent more time asking the Lord questions than receiving answers. I talk to Him every day. And sometimes, He replies!

I don't believe there is a nuance. I genuinely believe Jesus meant what He said. Did Jesus ever say no? Well, he did heal one man of devils and when the man desired to follow Jesus wherever He went, Jesus forbade him. Jesus also requires us to forgive everyone, while He reserves the right to forgive whom He will forgive. The more I ponder His teachings, the more I see how they all reveal our own hearts to us. This is important.

[h_p]

A "capitalist" really can't be wealthy unless he takes others interests in account. He must be able to provide goods and services others want. I've never know a rich capitalist who only provided for himself. Now this doesn't mean he is virtuous or righteous, only that in the market, he is providing goods and services that others want or need.

Oh, absolutely. The nice thing about capitalism is that both people in the transaction are benefited, since they're trading something they've produced for something they want.

I think I worded my post poorly. What I was meant was that capitalism is not motivated by altruism. A capitalist produces what someone else wants because he can trade it for something he himself wants. It's not necessary for him to care about the welfare of his trading partner. Neither is he required to care whether a third party is suffering from lack of resources. Capitalism works if there's inequality of wealth.

Maybe a Zion society can be established on top of a capitalist underpinning, I don't know. But there would have to be something else factoring in for the "fair" distribution of resources.

[Michelle]

Some have tried to describe Zion. Here is Snuffer's attempt:

I thought about writing a fictional account of this curious city where those people who have several children live in big houses, while those who have no children live in small houses. In the place, no one has a job or schedule, but everyone works. One day the lead character gets up, walks outside, and notices that the lawn needs to be mowed. So he goes and finds a lawn mower and starts mowing. He mows at his house, then the next, then finds he has spent days mowing grass and is across the city to the other side. Everywhere he has been he found grass needing mowing, and he took care of it. He finishes after a couple of weeks, then returns to his house and says, ―Hey, look at that the grass has grown again.‖ So he starts mowing again. He does this because he feels like mowing the grass at the time. He just wants to.

Then after the season, he notices there is only one person working in the local bakery. He had never worked in a bakery, but he decides to go see what it is like to work in a bakery—and he rather likes that. So he spends the next seasons in the bakery doing that. The following year he wonders whatever happened to the lawns. They have been cut since the spring, but he doesn‘t know who has been cutting them. He goes on his way to find out who has been cutting the lawn because he liked doing that and he has something in common with whoever is now mowing the grass. He would like to know how they like it and what their pattern for taking care of the work has become. He wants to ask them: ―How did you do that?‖ On his way, he gets distracted by the orchard needing harvesting, so he spends that fall harvesting there.

So the story just ends, with what appears to be total chaos. A completely ungoverned society, where oddly enough everyone is at peace, but no one is in control. No one has a job, but everyone works, and the only thing that motivates any resident is what needs to be done. ―Hey, let‘s take care of this‖ is the only motivation. And they do it for as long as they feel like doing it, and then they do something else. It is a story I‘ve considered writing, but have never done so. But now the idea for the story is in this talk, so you can write it in your own mind.
http://russellyanderson.com/DenverSnuffer/Elijah.pdf

It sounds nice and dandy, but it ignores the essentials. It ignores the earliest stages of production. How did he get the lawnmower? Who is mining the ore? Engineering the parts? Refining the oil and gas? All these require specialized knowledge and skill. I can't just walk into a fabrication plant and do engineering work, or a refinery and do chemistry. And I haven't said anything yet about how many lawnmowers should be built, and where they should be distributed.

It sounds very Marxian:

"In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind." (Karl Marx - German Ideology)

I don't disparage Snuffer or anybody else who tries to describe Zion. We've all done it. But I think we all end up with pretty pie in the sky versions.

I think we'd all to well to at least familiarize ourselves with Mises Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth
https://mises.org/system/tdf/Economic%2 ... e=document

The idea does sound great on paper.

I can think of some other problems: what about the jobs no one wants to do? What if no one wants to keep the sewers functioning? Or be the mortician without compensation. I can think of a lot of jobs no one wants, or at least not enough people. Do we the give an extra reward to those who do those jobs? How is that not reverting back to capitalism?

True story: In "The History of Plimoth Plantation" you can see that some pretty amazing people, the pilgrims, failed at sharing the work for the good of all. Bradford says that people pretty quickly found reasons they couldn't work. Reasons that sound reasonable. The man who was old, the woman with lots of little kids, the healthy young guy who had done "more than his fair share." Funny thing. Once he gave them each their own piece of land the excuses disappeared and they didn't go hungry again.

And they still managed to have charity and care for true needs.

There are moments when everyone is tired and thinks they can't go on, but necessity allows us to push ourselves and find new limits of endurance and skill.

The other problem, alluded to in the pilgrim story, is that it is easy to judge our own efforts as sufficient, but hard to see the actual effort put in by others. Its called "scorekeeping" and its killed as many marriages as it will the society that tries true socialism.

Stewardship is part of a Zion and consecrated society. It was Satan who tried to usurp the stewardship and blessings of Christ by offering an alternate plan. A plan where the decision to choose right or wrong was controlled by a central power: him. It was a plan of "equality" but not fairness. A plan of force, not agency.

I do not dispute there are problems with capitalism, but far fewer than socialism, and the best we can hope for until the wicked are subdued and the truly righteous are gathered under the government of God where Christ is King.

[drtanner]

What a great discussion. We have two sections that outline the law of consecration and give us a preview of the economy of Zion / United Order and how it may be different from socialism. Section 42 and 51 of the Doctrine and Covenants. I have outlined the verses I felt were pertinent for this discussion and highlighted some interesting facts about these verses.

Did you know that if you don’t work you will not automatically get a portion? See below

Did you know that the bishop and those who may help him are commanded to receive compensation for their work in administrating this law? See below

Section 42
30 And behold, thou wilt remember the poor, and consecrate of thy properties for their support that which thou hast to impart unto them, with a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken.
31 And inasmuch as ye impart of your substance unto the poor, ye will do it unto me; and they shall be laid before the bishop of my church and his counselors, two of the elders, or high priests, such as he shall appoint or has appointed and set apart for that purpose.
32 And it shall come to pass, that after they are laid before the bishop of my church, and after that he has received these testimonies concerning the consecration of the properties of my church, that they cannot be taken from the church, agreeable to my commandments, every man shall be made accountable unto me, a steward over his own property, or that which he has received by consecration, as much as is sufficient for himself and family.
33 And again, if there shall be properties in the hands of the church, or any individuals of it, more than is necessary for their support after this first consecration, which is a residue to be consecrated unto the bishop, it shall be kept to administer to those who have not, from time to time, that every man who has need may be amply supplied and receive according to his wants.
34 Therefore, the residue shall be kept in my storehouse, to administer to the poor and the needy, as shall be appointed by the high council of the church, and the bishop and his council;
35 And for the purpose of purchasing lands for the public benefit of the church, and building houses of worship, and building up of the New Jerusalem which is hereafter to be revealed

--

Property is given to the bishop, his counselors and others he designates to help. It is redistributed according to wants and needs and under the direction of the bishop and the individual then becomes a steward over the things they are given by the bishop. If they consecrate more then they get back as a steward the leftover is given to the bishop for those who are in need.

42 Thou shalt not be idle; for he that is idle shall not eat the bread nor wear the garments of the laborer.

They will not get much from the bishop if they are not actively working. (Withholding goods from some may be necessary to help them work)

53 Thou shalt stand in the place of thy stewardship.
54 Thou shalt not take thy brother’s garment; thou shalt pay for that which thou shalt receive of thy brother.
55 And if thou obtainest more than that which would be for thy support, thou shalt give it into my storehouse, that all things may be done according to that which I have said.

According to verse 54 after the initial consecration to the bishop takes effect a free market with money or some type of exchange can exist to cover basic needs. I have several thoughts / unanswered questions on how this will take place, but will leave it with just the scripture for now.

71 And the elders or high priests who are appointed to assist the bishop as counselors in all things, are to have their families supported out of the property which is consecrated to the bishop, for the good of the poor, and for other purposes, as before mentioned;
72 Or they are to receive a just remuneration for all their services, either a stewardship or otherwise, as may be thought best or decided by the counselors and bishop.
73 And the bishop, also, shall receive his support, or a just remuneration for all his services in the church.

Is this saying that the bishops and those who assist him should be supported by what is consecrated so they can focus on the administration of the church? Surely that’s not what this means (said tongue and cheek) What of all those who would say that goes against what king Benjamin taught in the Book of Mormon?

Section 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.
4 And let my servant Edward Partridge, when he shall appoint a man his portion, give unto him a writing that shall secure unto him his portion, that he shall hold it, even this right and this inheritance in the church, until he transgresses and is not accounted worthy by the voice of the church, according to the laws and covenants of the church, to belong to the church.

There will be written agreements for the portion you are given to be a steward over. Read the chapter to
Understand why.

8 And the money which is left unto this people--let there be an agent appointed unto this people, to take the money to provide food and raiment, according to the wants of this people.

13 And again, let the bishop appoint a storehouse unto this church; and let all things both in money and in meat, which are more than is needful for the wants of this people, be kept in the hands of the bishop.

Again signifying that money may be an acceptable exchange.

14 And let him (the bishop)also reserve unto himself for his own wants, and for the wants of his family, as he shall be employed in doing this business.

Another verse of scripture stating that a stipend for a leader for church administration is acceptable by the Lord.

[Michelle]

What a great discussion. We have two sections that outline the law of consecration and give us a preview of the economy of Zion / United Order and how it may be different from socialism. Section 42 and 51 of the Doctrine and Covenants. I have outlined the verses I felt were pertinent for this discussion and highlighted some interesting facts about these verses.

Did you know that if you don’t work you will not automatically get a portion? See below

Did you know that the bishop and those who may help him are commanded to receive compensation for their work in administrating this law? See below

Section 42
30 And behold, thou wilt remember the poor, and consecrate of thy properties for their support that which thou hast to impart unto them, with a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken.
31 And inasmuch as ye impart of your substance unto the poor, ye will do it unto me; and they shall be laid before the bishop of my church and his counselors, two of the elders, or high priests, such as he shall appoint or has appointed and set apart for that purpose.
32 And it shall come to pass, that after they are laid before the bishop of my church, and after that he has received these testimonies concerning the consecration of the properties of my church, that they cannot be taken from the church, agreeable to my commandments, every man shall be made accountable unto me, a steward over his own property, or that which he has received by consecration, as much as is sufficient for himself and family.
33 And again, if there shall be properties in the hands of the church, or any individuals of it, more than is necessary for their support after this first consecration, which is a residue to be consecrated unto the bishop, it shall be kept to administer to those who have not, from time to time, that every man who has need may be amply supplied and receive according to his wants.
34 Therefore, the residue shall be kept in my storehouse, to administer to the poor and the needy, as shall be appointed by the high council of the church, and the bishop and his council;
35 And for the purpose of purchasing lands for the public benefit of the church, and building houses of worship, and building up of the New Jerusalem which is hereafter to be revealed

--

Property is given to the bishop, his counselors and others he designates to help. It is redistributed according to wants and needs and under the direction of the bishop and the individual then becomes a steward over the things they are given by the bishop. If they consecrate more then they get back as a steward the leftover is given to the bishop for those who are in need.

42 Thou shalt not be idle; for he that is idle shall not eat the bread nor wear the garments of the laborer.

They will not get much from the bishop if they are not actively working. (Withholding goods from some may be necessary to help them work)

53 Thou shalt stand in the place of thy stewardship.
54 Thou shalt not take thy brother’s garment; thou shalt pay for that which thou shalt receive of thy brother.
55 And if thou obtainest more than that which would be for thy support, thou shalt give it into my storehouse, that all things may be done according to that which I have said.

According to verse 54 after the initial consecration to the bishop takes effect a free market with money or some type of exchange can exist to cover basic needs. I have several thoughts / unanswered questions on how this will take place, but will leave it with just the scripture for now.

71 And the elders or high priests who are appointed to assist the bishop as counselors in all things, are to have their families supported out of the property which is consecrated to the bishop, for the good of the poor, and for other purposes, as before mentioned;
72 Or they are to receive a just remuneration for all their services, either a stewardship or otherwise, as may be thought best or decided by the counselors and bishop.
73 And the bishop, also, shall receive his support, or a just remuneration for all his services in the church.

Is this saying that the bishops and those who assist him should be supported by what is consecrated so they can focus on the administration of the church? Surely that’s not what this means (said tongue and cheek) What of all those who would say that goes against what king Benjamin taught in the Book of Mormon?

Section 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.
4 And let my servant Edward Partridge, when he shall appoint a man his portion, give unto him a writing that shall secure unto him his portion, that he shall hold it, even this right and this inheritance in the church, until he transgresses and is not accounted worthy by the voice of the church, according to the laws and covenants of the church, to belong to the church.

There will be written agreements for the portion you are given to be a steward over. Read the chapter to
Understand why.

8 And the money which is left unto this people--let there be an agent appointed unto this people, to take the money to provide food and raiment, according to the wants of this people.

13 And again, let the bishop appoint a storehouse unto this church; and let all things both in money and in meat, which are more than is needful for the wants of this people, be kept in the hands of the bishop.

Again signifying that money may be an acceptable exchange.

14 And let him (the bishop)also reserve unto himself for his own wants, and for the wants of his family, as he shall be employed in doing this business.

Another verse of scripture stating that a stipend for a leader for church administration is acceptable by the Lord.

Thanks. I was surprised by so many people being offended by the stipend. Even in the Old Testament the Levitical priests were given sustenance from the offerings.

[David13]

A "capitalist" really can't be wealthy unless he takes others interests in account. He must be able to provide goods and services others want. I've never know a rich capitalist who only provided for himself. Now this doesn't mean he is virtuous or righteous, only that in the market, he is providing goods and services that others want or need.

Oh, absolutely. The nice thing about capitalism is that both people in the transaction are benefited, since they're trading something they've produced for something they want.

I think I worded my post poorly. What I was meant was that capitalism is not motivated by altruism. A capitalist produces what someone else wants because he can trade it for something he himself wants. It's not necessary for him to care about the welfare of his trading partner. Neither is he required to care whether a third party is suffering from lack of resources. Capitalism works if there's inequality of wealth.

Maybe a Zion society can be established on top of a capitalist underpinning, I don't know. But there would have to be something else factoring in for the "fair" distribution of resources.

I want to disagree with you on just one aspect of what you have there.
That it isn't necessary for the capitalist to care about the welfare of his trading partner.
In a sense it is. And in an important sense they do. They want repeat business.
I have described it as a dichotomy. On the one hand the mafia business man wants to do away with his competition. But when word gets out, he gets done away with. Eliminate the competition, but the plan backfires.

The other way is what you might call the Chamber of Commerce way. If you and your business thrive, it will indirectly and directly benefit me. Our community benefits and you now have the resources to partake of my services. The mutual benefit idea I think is an essential and ever present part of a capitalist, free economy.
dc

[gclayjr]

David13, h_p

cap·i·tal·ism
[ˈkapədlˌizəm]
NOUN

an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Capitalism is agnostic. I am sure that there are plenty of capitalists that are as greedy and selfish as Marxists describe them. There are a lot of capitalists who in their own self interest, and supported by some basic good character are honest, generous, and perform a great good for society.

It is so common to assume that if one idea is wrong, then the other must be completely right. Just because Karl Marx got it wrong doesn't mean that Ayn Rand got it right. I found the assumptions behind such works as "Atlas Shrugged", unrealistic, and very uncharitable.

Capitalism does have the advantage that it allows individuals the freedom to use their stewardship in a Christlike way, and under Capitalism a Zion society is possible, but but not necessarily the result.

Socialism, in the name of love and Charity, takes away the ability to make Christlike choices, by an all powerful benevolent government, who theoretically makes it unnecessary for individuals to develop a Christlike love and therefor is not a platform upon which a Zion society can be built.

Regards,

George Clay

[h_p]

Oh, so THAT'S how you pronounce capitalism.

[ajax]

Note: we should distinguish between capitalism proper and crony capitalism, state corporatism, interventions, government-business partnerships, mercantilism and rent-seeking (obtaining benefits for themselves through the political arena). These are often lumped in with capitalism by the anti-capitalists, which is why I prefer to use the term market economy or free economy or free enterprise.

"I champion an economic order ruled by free prices and markets ... the only economic order compatible with human freedom."
- Wilhelm Ropke, A Humane Economy
https://mises.org/system/tdf/A%20Humane ... e=document

"Such an economy, if perfected by charity, truly promotes “economic and civil progress.”
- Guido Hulsmann, The Ethics of Money Production

At it's foundation must be honest natural money("remove the dross from the silver") and property:

We may call any kind of money that comes into use by the voluntary cooperation of acting persons “natural money.” To cooperate voluntarily in our definition means to provide mutual support without any violation of other people’s property, and to enjoy the inviolability of one’s own property.

The role of private property as a fundamental institution of human society is of course a staple of historical experience and social science. It is also a staple of Christian social thought, rooted in the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. Within the Catholic Church, the popes emphasized that private property must be held inviolable, not out of any juridical dogmatism in favor of the well-to-do, but because they perceived such inviolability to be the first condition to improve the living standards of the masses. They upheld this notion knowing full well that property owners are often bad stewards of their assets. They upheld it even in the cases in which the owners do not, as a matter of fact, use their private means to promote the good of all of society. And they upheld it in those cases in which the owners did not even have the slightest intention to pursue the common good. In short, the popes championed the distinction between justice and morals— between the right to own property and the moral obligation to make good use of this property. A violation of one’s moral obligation could not possibly justify the slightest infringement of property rights. Private property is sacred even if it is abused or not used:

That justice called commutative commands sacred respect for the division of possessions and forbids invasion of others’ rights through the exceeding of the limits of one’s own property; but the duty of owners to use their property only in a right way does not come under this type of justice, but under other virtues, obligations of which ‘cannot be enforced by legal action.’ Therefore, they are in error who assert that ownership and its right use are limited by the same boundaries; and it is much farther still from the truth to hold that a right to property is destroyed or lost by reason of abuse or non-use.

In the case of a society in which private property is inviolable, we may speak of a “completely free society” and its economic aspect may then be called a “free market” or a “free economy.” Such an economy, if perfected by charity, truly promotes “economic and civil progress.”8 The monetary corollary of such a society is, as we have said, natural money—or rather all the different natural monies that would exist in such a society, for there are good reasons to assume that a free society would harbor a variety of different monies, which would all be natural monies in our sense. Notice that natural money is an eminently social institution. This is so not only in the sense that it is used in interpersonal exchanges (all monies are so used), but also in the sense that they owe their existence exclusively to the fact that they satisfy human needs better than any other medium of exchange. As soon as this is no longer the case, the market participants will choose to discard them and adopt other monies. This freedom of choice assures, so to speak, a grass-roots democratic selection of the best available monies—the natural monies.
https://mises.org/sites/default/files/T ... tion_2.pdf

Could not a Zion people be one who act within a free enterprise / stewardship (property) environment, perfected by the charity of said people?

[gclayjr]

ajax,

Could not a Zion people be one who act within a free enterprise / stewardship (property) environment, perfected by the charity of said people?

Yes it is true that there is virtually no true capitalist economies exist on the earth today. It is also true that crony capitalism, despite having the name capitalism in is not capitalism.

However, that doesn't mean that simply living in capitalism is good, any more than living in a free society such as found in a representative republic is necessarily good. capitalist societies can be brutal to those who are less able to compete, and a representative republic can be a brutal dangerous society where, if you don't fit in, you could die (Think of some Islamic based societies).

The difference between Jesus' plan and Satan's plan is the idea that we are free to Choose good or evil. A representative republic with a Capitalist economy is the best platform to provide the right amount of freedom, and structure for good people to have the opportunity to make those choices. However, history has shown that when a society in general slides far enough down into the gutter, that freedom becomes a living hell, and if society falls far enough, then a totalitarian society (to possibly include Socialism) , may be less hellacious than a democratically elected government, and people will flock to it to avoid the pain.

Bottom Line: A capitalist economy within a free society is the best platform to build a ZIon society, but Capitalism doesn't guarantee a zion society. To state this mathematically Capitalism is necessary to build a Zion society, but not sufficient.

Regards,

George Clay

[ajax]

George, please note that I said if perfected by charity.

[gclayjr]

Ajax,

Noted!

Regards,

George Clay

[Finrock]

What a great discussion. We have two sections that outline the law of consecration and give us a preview of the economy of Zion / United Order and how it may be different from socialism. Section 42 and 51 of the Doctrine and Covenants. I have outlined the verses I felt were pertinent for this discussion and highlighted some interesting facts about these verses.

Did you know that if you don’t work you will not automatically get a portion? See below

Did you know that the bishop and those who may help him are commanded to receive compensation for their work in administrating this law? See below

Section 42
30 And behold, thou wilt remember the poor, and consecrate of thy properties for their support that which thou hast to impart unto them, with a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken.
31 And inasmuch as ye impart of your substance unto the poor, ye will do it unto me; and they shall be laid before the bishop of my church and his counselors, two of the elders, or high priests, such as he shall appoint or has appointed and set apart for that purpose.
32 And it shall come to pass, that after they are laid before the bishop of my church, and after that he has received these testimonies concerning the consecration of the properties of my church, that they cannot be taken from the church, agreeable to my commandments, every man shall be made accountable unto me, a steward over his own property, or that which he has received by consecration, as much as is sufficient for himself and family.
33 And again, if there shall be properties in the hands of the church, or any individuals of it, more than is necessary for their support after this first consecration, which is a residue to be consecrated unto the bishop, it shall be kept to administer to those who have not, from time to time, that every man who has need may be amply supplied and receive according to his wants.
34 Therefore, the residue shall be kept in my storehouse, to administer to the poor and the needy, as shall be appointed by the high council of the church, and the bishop and his council;
35 And for the purpose of purchasing lands for the public benefit of the church, and building houses of worship, and building up of the New Jerusalem which is hereafter to be revealed

--

Property is given to the bishop, his counselors and others he designates to help. It is redistributed according to wants and needs and under the direction of the bishop and the individual then becomes a steward over the things they are given by the bishop. If they consecrate more then they get back as a steward the leftover is given to the bishop for those who are in need.

42 Thou shalt not be idle; for he that is idle shall not eat the bread nor wear the garments of the laborer.

They will not get much from the bishop if they are not actively working. (Withholding goods from some may be necessary to help them work)

53 Thou shalt stand in the place of thy stewardship.
54 Thou shalt not take thy brother’s garment; thou shalt pay for that which thou shalt receive of thy brother.
55 And if thou obtainest more than that which would be for thy support, thou shalt give it into my storehouse, that all things may be done according to that which I have said.

According to verse 54 after the initial consecration to the bishop takes effect a free market with money or some type of exchange can exist to cover basic needs. I have several thoughts / unanswered questions on how this will take place, but will leave it with just the scripture for now.

71 And the elders or high priests who are appointed to assist the bishop as counselors in all things, are to have their families supported out of the property which is consecrated to the bishop, for the good of the poor, and for other purposes, as before mentioned;
72 Or they are to receive a just remuneration for all their services, either a stewardship or otherwise, as may be thought best or decided by the counselors and bishop.
73 And the bishop, also, shall receive his support, or a just remuneration for all his services in the church.

Is this saying that the bishops and those who assist him should be supported by what is consecrated so they can focus on the administration of the church? Surely that’s not what this means (said tongue and cheek) What of all those who would say that goes against what king Benjamin taught in the Book of Mormon?

Section 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.
4 And let my servant Edward Partridge, when he shall appoint a man his portion, give unto him a writing that shall secure unto him his portion, that he shall hold it, even this right and this inheritance in the church, until he transgresses and is not accounted worthy by the voice of the church, according to the laws and covenants of the church, to belong to the church.

There will be written agreements for the portion you are given to be a steward over. Read the chapter to
Understand why.

8 And the money which is left unto this people--let there be an agent appointed unto this people, to take the money to provide food and raiment, according to the wants of this people.

13 And again, let the bishop appoint a storehouse unto this church; and let all things both in money and in meat, which are more than is needful for the wants of this people, be kept in the hands of the bishop.

Again signifying that money may be an acceptable exchange.

14 And let him (the bishop)also reserve unto himself for his own wants, and for the wants of his family, as he shall be employed in doing this business.

Another verse of scripture stating that a stipend for a leader for church administration is acceptable by the Lord.

Thanks. I was surprised by so many people being offended by the stipend. Even in the Old Testament the Levitical priests were given sustenance from the offerings.

When I was younger I wasn't wise enough or "sophisticated" enough to understand that the statement "No paid ministry" doesn't mean what it plainly means. As a young missionary I was "proud" of the fact that we could distinguish ourselves from pretty much every other major religion in the world because all of our leaders (as I supposed) were serving the Lord without compensations/paid/stipend of any sort. I naively believed that all of our leaders just "loved the Lord" and had no monetary motivation whatsoever for their service.

It shocked me to discover that the statement "no paid ministry" is actually legalese and not plain at all but you need to have a "sophisticated" understanding of language to correctly interpret the statement and that we do indeed, by definition, have a paid ministry and the only motivation for our higher up leaders is not just "I love the Lord".

-Finrock

[David13]

What a great discussion. We have two sections that outline the law of consecration and give us a preview of the economy of Zion / United Order and how it may be different from socialism. Section 42 and 51 of the Doctrine and Covenants. I have outlined the verses I felt were pertinent for this discussion and highlighted some interesting facts about these verses.

Did you know that if you don’t work you will not automatically get a portion? See below

Did you know that the bishop and those who may help him are commanded to receive compensation for their work in administrating this law? See below

Section 42
30 And behold, thou wilt remember the poor, and consecrate of thy properties for their support that which thou hast to impart unto them, with a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken.
31 And inasmuch as ye impart of your substance unto the poor, ye will do it unto me; and they shall be laid before the bishop of my church and his counselors, two of the elders, or high priests, such as he shall appoint or has appointed and set apart for that purpose.
32 And it shall come to pass, that after they are laid before the bishop of my church, and after that he has received these testimonies concerning the consecration of the properties of my church, that they cannot be taken from the church, agreeable to my commandments, every man shall be made accountable unto me, a steward over his own property, or that which he has received by consecration, as much as is sufficient for himself and family.
33 And again, if there shall be properties in the hands of the church, or any individuals of it, more than is necessary for their support after this first consecration, which is a residue to be consecrated unto the bishop, it shall be kept to administer to those who have not, from time to time, that every man who has need may be amply supplied and receive according to his wants.
34 Therefore, the residue shall be kept in my storehouse, to administer to the poor and the needy, as shall be appointed by the high council of the church, and the bishop and his council;
35 And for the purpose of purchasing lands for the public benefit of the church, and building houses of worship, and building up of the New Jerusalem which is hereafter to be revealed

--

Property is given to the bishop, his counselors and others he designates to help. It is redistributed according to wants and needs and under the direction of the bishop and the individual then becomes a steward over the things they are given by the bishop. If they consecrate more then they get back as a steward the leftover is given to the bishop for those who are in need.

42 Thou shalt not be idle; for he that is idle shall not eat the bread nor wear the garments of the laborer.

They will not get much from the bishop if they are not actively working. (Withholding goods from some may be necessary to help them work)

53 Thou shalt stand in the place of thy stewardship.
54 Thou shalt not take thy brother’s garment; thou shalt pay for that which thou shalt receive of thy brother.
55 And if thou obtainest more than that which would be for thy support, thou shalt give it into my storehouse, that all things may be done according to that which I have said.

According to verse 54 after the initial consecration to the bishop takes effect a free market with money or some type of exchange can exist to cover basic needs. I have several thoughts / unanswered questions on how this will take place, but will leave it with just the scripture for now.

71 And the elders or high priests who are appointed to assist the bishop as counselors in all things, are to have their families supported out of the property which is consecrated to the bishop, for the good of the poor, and for other purposes, as before mentioned;
72 Or they are to receive a just remuneration for all their services, either a stewardship or otherwise, as may be thought best or decided by the counselors and bishop.
73 And the bishop, also, shall receive his support, or a just remuneration for all his services in the church.

Is this saying that the bishops and those who assist him should be supported by what is consecrated so they can focus on the administration of the church? Surely that’s not what this means (said tongue and cheek) What of all those who would say that goes against what king Benjamin taught in the Book of Mormon?

Section 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.
4 And let my servant Edward Partridge, when he shall appoint a man his portion, give unto him a writing that shall secure unto him his portion, that he shall hold it, even this right and this inheritance in the church, until he transgresses and is not accounted worthy by the voice of the church, according to the laws and covenants of the church, to belong to the church.

There will be written agreements for the portion you are given to be a steward over. Read the chapter to
Understand why.

8 And the money which is left unto this people--let there be an agent appointed unto this people, to take the money to provide food and raiment, according to the wants of this people.

13 And again, let the bishop appoint a storehouse unto this church; and let all things both in money and in meat, which are more than is needful for the wants of this people, be kept in the hands of the bishop.

Again signifying that money may be an acceptable exchange.

14 And let him (the bishop)also reserve unto himself for his own wants, and for the wants of his family, as he shall be employed in doing this business.

Another verse of scripture stating that a stipend for a leader for church administration is acceptable by the Lord.

Thanks. I was surprised by so many people being offended by the stipend. Even in the Old Testament the Levitical priests were given sustenance from the offerings.

When I was younger I wasn't wise enough or "sophisticated" enough to understand that the statement "No paid ministry" doesn't mean what it plainly means. As a young missionary I was "proud" of the fact that we could distinguish ourselves from pretty much every other major religion in the world because all of our leaders (as I supposed) were serving the Lord without compensations/paid/stipend of any sort. I naively believed that all of our leaders just "loved the Lord" and had no monetary motivation whatsoever for their service.

It shocked me to discover that the statement "no paid ministry" is actually legalese and not plain at all but you need to have a "sophisticated" understanding of language to correctly interpret the statement and that we do indeed, by definition, have a paid ministry and the only motivation for our higher up leaders is not just "I love the Lord".

-Finrock

I certainly disagree with that.
I don't think any of them would be there if they didn't love the Lord Jesus Christ.

Do you think any of them are there for the money? First, who of them needed the money? Most all of them have been very successful in business or their occupation or profession. Second all of them are just generally successful people, and probably have and would always have had many an opportunity open to them in business or their occupation or profession.

Were any of them hurting financially in the slightest way before they were called?

I don't believe so. So I think you are 100% wrong on that one.
dc

[drtanner]

What a great discussion. We have two sections that outline the law of consecration and give us a preview of the economy of Zion / United Order and how it may be different from socialism. Section 42 and 51 of the Doctrine and Covenants. I have outlined the verses I felt were pertinent for this discussion and highlighted some interesting facts about these verses.

Did you know that if you don’t work you will not automatically get a portion? See below

Did you know that the bishop and those who may help him are commanded to receive compensation for their work in administrating this law? See below

Section 42
30 And behold, thou wilt remember the poor, and consecrate of thy properties for their support that which thou hast to impart unto them, with a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken.
31 And inasmuch as ye impart of your substance unto the poor, ye will do it unto me; and they shall be laid before the bishop of my church and his counselors, two of the elders, or high priests, such as he shall appoint or has appointed and set apart for that purpose.
32 And it shall come to pass, that after they are laid before the bishop of my church, and after that he has received these testimonies concerning the consecration of the properties of my church, that they cannot be taken from the church, agreeable to my commandments, every man shall be made accountable unto me, a steward over his own property, or that which he has received by consecration, as much as is sufficient for himself and family.
33 And again, if there shall be properties in the hands of the church, or any individuals of it, more than is necessary for their support after this first consecration, which is a residue to be consecrated unto the bishop, it shall be kept to administer to those who have not, from time to time, that every man who has need may be amply supplied and receive according to his wants.
34 Therefore, the residue shall be kept in my storehouse, to administer to the poor and the needy, as shall be appointed by the high council of the church, and the bishop and his council;
35 And for the purpose of purchasing lands for the public benefit of the church, and building houses of worship, and building up of the New Jerusalem which is hereafter to be revealed

--

Property is given to the bishop, his counselors and others he designates to help. It is redistributed according to wants and needs and under the direction of the bishop and the individual then becomes a steward over the things they are given by the bishop. If they consecrate more then they get back as a steward the leftover is given to the bishop for those who are in need.

42 Thou shalt not be idle; for he that is idle shall not eat the bread nor wear the garments of the laborer.

They will not get much from the bishop if they are not actively working. (Withholding goods from some may be necessary to help them work)

53 Thou shalt stand in the place of thy stewardship.
54 Thou shalt not take thy brother’s garment; thou shalt pay for that which thou shalt receive of thy brother.
55 And if thou obtainest more than that which would be for thy support, thou shalt give it into my storehouse, that all things may be done according to that which I have said.

According to verse 54 after the initial consecration to the bishop takes effect a free market with money or some type of exchange can exist to cover basic needs. I have several thoughts / unanswered questions on how this will take place, but will leave it with just the scripture for now.

71 And the elders or high priests who are appointed to assist the bishop as counselors in all things, are to have their families supported out of the property which is consecrated to the bishop, for the good of the poor, and for other purposes, as before mentioned;
72 Or they are to receive a just remuneration for all their services, either a stewardship or otherwise, as may be thought best or decided by the counselors and bishop.
73 And the bishop, also, shall receive his support, or a just remuneration for all his services in the church.

Is this saying that the bishops and those who assist him should be supported by what is consecrated so they can focus on the administration of the church? Surely that’s not what this means (said tongue and cheek) What of all those who would say that goes against what king Benjamin taught in the Book of Mormon?

Section 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.
4 And let my servant Edward Partridge, when he shall appoint a man his portion, give unto him a writing that shall secure unto him his portion, that he shall hold it, even this right and this inheritance in the church, until he transgresses and is not accounted worthy by the voice of the church, according to the laws and covenants of the church, to belong to the church.

There will be written agreements for the portion you are given to be a steward over. Read the chapter to
Understand why.

8 And the money which is left unto this people--let there be an agent appointed unto this people, to take the money to provide food and raiment, according to the wants of this people.

13 And again, let the bishop appoint a storehouse unto this church; and let all things both in money and in meat, which are more than is needful for the wants of this people, be kept in the hands of the bishop.

Again signifying that money may be an acceptable exchange.

14 And let him (the bishop)also reserve unto himself for his own wants, and for the wants of his family, as he shall be employed in doing this business.

Another verse of scripture stating that a stipend for a leader for church administration is acceptable by the Lord.

Thanks. I was surprised by so many people being offended by the stipend. Even in the Old Testament the Levitical priests were given sustenance from the offerings.

When I was younger I wasn't wise enough or "sophisticated" enough to understand that the statement "No paid ministry" doesn't mean what it plainly means. As a young missionary I was "proud" of the fact that we could distinguish ourselves from pretty much every other major religion in the world because all of our leaders (as I supposed) were serving the Lord without compensations/paid/stipend of any sort. I naively believed that all of our leaders just "loved the Lord" and had no monetary motivation whatsoever for their service.

It shocked me to discover that the statement "no paid ministry" is actually legalese and not plain at all but you need to have a "sophisticated" understanding of language to correctly interpret the statement and that we do indeed, by definition, have a paid ministry and the only motivation for our higher up leaders is not just "I love the Lord".

-Finrock

So do the Bishops and those would help him that are mentioned in section 42 and 51 of the D&C who are commanded to recieve compensation also have alterior motivations other than Loving the Lord? Seems odd that the Lord would command this as part of a celestial law and yet your saying those involved automatically have alterior motives?? Did Jospeh Smith who was compensated have alterior motives other than his Love for the Lord?

(Maybe need to start a new thread so as not to distract from the intent of distinguishing the differences of Zion and socialism)

[Jamescm]

A. There are no poor in Zion.
B. It is the common experience of mankind that communism and socialism inevitably create poverty and "poor-ness".
C. Therefore, Zion not only is not, but can not, be communism, socialism, or anything like it.

That was easy. The tension comes because there are some who like the sound of being given something from someone who has more. Ironically, not coveting the goods of one's neighbor is one of the ten commandments, but receiving the goods of one's neighbor is what they imagine that Zion will be when they are finally privileged to live it. Although capitalism also falls far short of Zion in a world of telestial mortals and cronyism-breeding government, it has done more to elevate the education, efficiency, and comfort of people across the entire social and economic spectrums than any financial system we've ever experienced, save that which has been taken from the Earth.

The key is agency. Zion can only be the "pure in heart", and coercion invariably replaces charity and gratitude with enmity and entitlement. In Zion, those who receive are sacrificing no less than those who give, and those who give do so willingly. Indeed, their property will deeded to them-it is theirs, and not accountable to the Kingdom of God or the Church beyond what they submit to their bishop. The Law of Consecration will be as willingly entered into and willingly left as the Church itself is and will be.

[shadow]

It shocked me to discover that the statement "no paid ministry" is actually legalese and not plain at all but you need to have a "sophisticated" understanding of language to correctly interpret the statement and that we do indeed, by definition, have a paid ministry and the only motivation for our higher up leaders is not just "I love the Lord".

-Finrock

So I guess if you keep the commandments you only do it for the promised blessings and not because you love the Lord.

[Ezra]

A few quotes on socialism.

The threat of communism is sinister, and its dangers are imminent. Hundreds of millions of our fellow beings are being relentlessly imbued with the satanic ideology that religion is nothing but a tranquilizing opiate. They seek to deprive men of physical, mental, and spiritual freedom while endowing the state with monstrous supremacy. This relentless indoctrination is but a continuation of the war that began when Satan’s plan of force was rejected by the Father. We live in THE MOST DANGEROUS period of history. THE CHURCH IS THE MAIN BULWARK
AGAINST COMMUNISM (SOCIALISM). The entire concept and philosophy of (socialism) is diametrically opposed to everything for which the Church stands. It destroys man’s God-given free agency. No member of this Church can be true to his faith, nor can any American be loyal to his trust, while lending aid, encouragement, or sympathy to any of these false philosophies; for if he does, they will prove snares to his feet.
Pres. Hugh B. Brown - CR Apr 63 & Imp. Era June 66

Let us instill into the hearts of our children the love of freedom. Teach them that to be free is as precious as life itself. Fight every influence——Socialist, communist, whatever it may be—that would deprive an American citizen of the liberty vouchsafed by the Constitution. Liberty is truth, in truth we find liberty. You teachers, feel it in your hearts; instill it into the hearts of these precious children. May the Church of Jesus Christ ever stand true to the ideals of freedom.
Pres. David O. McKay


Zion cannot be socialist and be good.

This quote explains it for me.

WE WILL SPEND ETERNITY WITH THOSE WHO WILL ALLOW US NO MORE FREEDOM THAN WE ARE WILLING TO ALLOW THEM.
Over and over again, the scriptures emphasize that we will be judged according to our treatment of our fellowmen. If we are charitable, we will be placed with the sheep in the Lord’s kingdom rather than with the goats in outer darkness. (Matt. 25:31—46) If we forgive, we may be forgiven. (Matt.6:12) If we are just, we may rise in the resurrection of the Just: and dwell with them. (D&C Sec. 76) If we refrain from exercising compulsion unrighteously, our dominion in the hereafter may be everlasting and flow unto us forever and ever without compulsory means. (D&C Sec. 121) In short, we can expect to be treated in the next life as we treat others here.
The exact implementation of this law of the harvest will occur at the end of this life, when we will be divided into groups and each will be consigned to spend eternity with those with whom he is most like. An unjust person will dwell with those who will treat him unjustly; a kind, forgiving person will enjoy the companionship of kind and forgiving associates, etc. But the fact which is important to our discussion here is that each person will be with that group who will allow him to exercise no more freedom than he is willing to allow them.
If, during this life, we have been persuaded to believe that the force of government, or any other agency, should be used to deny our fellowmen the stewardship which God has given them over their families, their property, and their private affairs, we can be very certain that we will be placed with a group in the hereafter who will hold similar views. With such an attitude, we cannot expect to have stewardship or dominions of our own because we do not believe in them for others and neither will those with whom we will dwell believe in them for us. The poetic justice of God decrees that if we deprive our fellow of those unalienable rights which, according to the
Declaration of Independence, they have been endowed by their Creator, we will lose our free agency to the same extent.
H. Verlin. Anderson, “The Great and Abominable Church of the
Devil”

So Zion cannot use government force to compel being equal.

It has to be done by ones own free wills and desires.


A few more quotes to further explain.


Our primary purpose was to set up, insofar as possible, a system under which the curse of idleness would be done away with, the evils of the dole abolished, and independence, industry, thrift and self-respect be once more established amongst our people. . . Work is to be re-enthroned as the ruling principle of the lives of our Church membership." (1st Presidency Message - read by Pres. Heber J. Grant, Conference Report, Oct. 1936, p. 3)
What is the dole? A slang reference to government run welfare - a free-handout from government sources, that has been taken from taxpayers. This is what President Ezra Taft Benson referred to as "Legalized Plunder". He defines this as "the idea that government exists for the purpose of plundering those who work to give the product of their labor to those who do not work . . . the economic and social cannibalism produced by this communist-socialist idea will destroy any society which adopts it and clings to it as a basic principle - any society." (GC Oct 1968) Is this possibly an example of the teachings of Moroni 7:8, which states when a man gives a gift grudgingly, "it is counted unto him the same as if he had retained the gift; wherefore he is counted evil before God."?

So if Zion cannot be socialism they are opposite in nature.

[Arenera]

Zion cannot be socialist and be good.

Zion is in the heart. They share with each other.

2 And it came to pass in the thirty and sixth year, the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face of the land, both Nephites and Lamanites, and there were no contentions and disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another.

3 And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift.

[Ezra]

David O McKay may 76

I cannot help but think that there is a direct relationship between the present evil trends which I have above indicated, and the very marked tendency of the people of our country to pass on to the state the responsibility for their moral and economic welfare. This trend to a welfare state in which people look to and worship government more than their God, is certain to sap the individual ambitions and moral fiber of our youth unless they are warned and rewarned of the consequences. History, of course, is replete with the downfall of nations who, instead of assuming their own responsibility for their religious and economic welfare, mistakenly attempted to shift their individual responsibility to the government.I am aware that a university has the responsibility of acquainting its students with the theories and doctrines which are prevalent in various disciplines, but I hope that no one on the faculty of Brigham Young University will advocate positions which cannot be harmonized with the views of every prophet of the Church, from the Prophet Joseph Smith on down, concerning our belief that we should be strong and self-reliant individuals, not dependent upon the largess or benefactions of government. None of the doctrines of our Church gives any sanction to the concept of a socialistic state.


None. Not a single one.

[Ezra]

Zion cannot be socialist and be good.

Zion is in the heart. They share with each other.

2 And it came to pass in the thirty and sixth year, the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face of the land, both Nephites and Lamanites, and there were no contentions and disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another.

3 And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift.

But socialism is government force not heart.

No force is necessary when people have it in their hearts to be equal. They choose it themselves without being told to or forced by some government body.

[TheSnail]

Socialism just means being social.

Haha just kidding.

The actual practice of socialism, throughout history, has meant coercion. Usually through murder to start with, but later through terror with some murder mixed in.

The practice of all things in common in Zion is voluntary. Completely voluntary.

The scriptures quoted are fascinating, because they clearly indicate a market economy, incentives for work, etc. Those who won't work will be taken care of, but they won't enjoy it very much. Those who can't work will be given special consideration.

You can see how the law of tithing prepares us. Instead of paying 10%, we make a budget and figure out what we need, then we pay everything else. Everyone begins to do better and better as a community, and eventually this becomes easy.

Tithing prepares us as a community. Some are already prepared to live this law, but some aren't full tithe payers and need to work on that. Also, we learn to work and to care about our community.

I think if the whole church paid their tithes and offerings, we'd be close to no poor already due to the blessings we'd receive, and we'd also be ready or very close to ready to practice consecration.

We don't even do our home teaching, and that costs next to nothing. But on the positive side, I truly believe that we want to be good and are making great progress. The only problem is that it takes us so long That we get old and die before we are ready for these higher laws.

I hope and believe they are doing a lot better on the other side.

[Serragon]

Zion is not a place where there is so much charity that the poor cease being poor through handouts.

Zion is a community of those who have like mind and heart. All things are in common, including work. Those who are idle or who seek to take advantage have no place there else it would cease to be Zion.

Socialism exists precisely because people are not of like mind and heart and cannot be equated to Zion in any way.