Page 4 of 11

Re: Almost 1 BILLION Starving! What would Jesus do?

Posted: April 22nd, 2012, 2:06 pm
by Loran Blood
You can do what you want with your "tithing" but unless it's given to the Lord and Church as tithing, it is something else. And you have no right to tell others not to pay tithing. You may not recognize that you are being rebellious, but many here do. Please, please re"think" what you are doing because you will "think" yourself right out of the Church and that would be a pity.

Don't be fooled, kathyn. I've encountered and tangled with folks like Thinker on many previous occasions over a number of years. What he's really after, in all likelihood, is not the alleviation of poverty per se, but economic equality. What he wants is for all of us to give away all of our earned wealth until we, ourselves, are nearly as poor as the poor we are helping.

What comes after this, is the great question.

Re: Almost 1 BILLION Starving! What would Jesus do?

Posted: April 22nd, 2012, 2:12 pm
by Thinker
Loran Blood wrote:
You can do what you want with your "tithing" but unless it's given to the Lord and Church as tithing, it is something else. And you have no right to tell others not to pay tithing. You may not recognize that you are being rebellious, but many here do. Please, please re"think" what you are doing because you will "think" yourself right out of the Church and that would be a pity.

Don't be fooled, kathyn. I've encountered and tangled with folks like Thinker on many previous occasions over a number of years. What he's really after, in all likelihood, is not the alleviation of poverty per se, but economic equality. What he wants is for all of us to give away all of our earned wealth until we, ourselves, are nearly as poor as the poor we are helping.

What comes after this, is the great question.
Loran,
Did you know that it is rude to speak about someone in 3rd person when they are present (online in this case)?

Why do you equate the church with the Lord... when the church leaders are using money in ways Jesus never would?
Why do you want to try to justify the robbing from the poor?
What is the worst that would happen if you directed your tithes to those in need & stood up for that?
It won't hurt you at all - except maybe less shopping malls built in the name of Jesus.

What if it were you, Loran?
What if you were dying of tuberculosis, AIDS or diarrhea or respiratory problems from chronic hunger?
What if it were one that you loved who was suffering & dying this way?
They ARE our brothers and sisters, who I love as much as I can.
And I feel that I need to stand up for them, because they can't stand up for themselves.

"Open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction.
Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy."
-Proverbs 31:8-9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=526BTs_DRoE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: Almost 1 BILLION Starving! What would Jesus do?

Posted: April 22nd, 2012, 2:17 pm
by Thomas
Loran Blood wrote:
You can do what you want with your "tithing" but unless it's given to the Lord and Church as tithing, it is something else. And you have no right to tell others not to pay tithing. You may not recognize that you are being rebellious, but many here do. Please, please re"think" what you are doing because you will "think" yourself right out of the Church and that would be a pity.

Don't be fooled, kathyn. I've encountered and tangled with folks like Thinker on many previous occasions over a number of years. What he's really after, in all likelihood, is not the alleviation of poverty per se, but economic equality. What he wants is for all of us to give away all of our earned wealth until we, ourselves, are nearly as poor as the poor we are helping.

What comes after this, is the great question.
Do you mean something like this.
From the talk Socialism vs the United BY Marion G Romney Apirl 1966 confernce
The United Order

Now as to the United Order, and here I will give the words of
the Lord and not my words.
The United Order, the Lord's program for eliminating the
inequalities among men, is based upon the underlying concept that the
earth and all things therein belong to the Lord and that men hold earthly
possessions as stewards accountable to God.
Maybe he read this: D&C 49.20 But it is not given that one man should posses that which is above another, wherfore the world lieth in sin.

God has commanded us to be basicaly equal in possesions. He just wants us to do this willingly, not be forced.

Re: Almost 1 BILLION Starving! What would Jesus do?

Posted: April 22nd, 2012, 2:20 pm
by kathyn
Thinker, using your reasoning, even Jesus Christ wouldn't do "what Jesus would do". (He could end all suffering and poverty and hunger with one wave of His hand, if He chose to.) Each of us can do something to alleviate the suffering in the world, and most of us do, but it's physically impossible for us to alleviate all poverty and suffering because we just don't have the resources to do so. But we do an awful lot. The Lord doesn't require more of us than we can do. But you seem to.

I submit that your query is not honest, but is rather self-serving so that you can feel okay about tithing decisions you have made. Fine....pay your "tithing" the way you want and I'll do it the Lord's way, through the proper channels. I'm glad that we have temples, because the blessings given there are eternal, while you seem to focus only on the temporal. You have lost sight of the Plan of Salvation and have resorted to the "thinker plan". Quit "thinking" so much and humble yourself and pray, pray, pray.

Re: Almost 1 BILLION Starving! What would Jesus do?

Posted: April 22nd, 2012, 2:22 pm
by Loran Blood
"Pure religion is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction."
James 1:27

So yes, I believe that the primary and #1 purpose of religion is to teach people to take care of the needy around them, and the church can only teach this 'by example'.
The threefold mission of the Church is:

1. Perfect the Saints
2. Preach the gospel
3. Redeem our dead

A fourth was added, which is to alleviate poverty and help those in need. I see no official doctrine in the Church placing temporal assistance of this kind, on a mass scale, above the other three, or of subsuming the other three under temporal welfare.
Some people, like widows and the fatherless, often need to be financially supported and cared for the rest of their lives by others and the Church. Others can eventually get back on their feet.
Yes, I know all of this. So does everybody else. The point is that temporal welfare, and righting all temporal, mortal vicissitudes in mortality is not the primary mission of the church. Welfare, at least on a mass, collective scale, must also be done, as with all other things in the gospel with "wisdom and prudence." Our economic/welfare house must be, in other words, "house of faith, a house of learning, a house of glory, a house of order...

Welfare and care for the poor must not just be compassionate, it must be intelligent and must follow the laws and principles of economics that allow the most efficacious use of such help, as well as ensure both the continued wealth creation necessary to the very existence of welfare, but the principles that will eventually lead to most of the poor not needing welfare at all.

Re: Almost 1 BILLION Starving! What would Jesus do?

Posted: April 22nd, 2012, 2:23 pm
by Thinker
Thomas wrote:
Loran Blood wrote:
You can do what you want with your "tithing" but unless it's given to the Lord and Church as tithing, it is something else. And you have no right to tell others not to pay tithing. You may not recognize that you are being rebellious, but many here do. Please, please re"think" what you are doing because you will "think" yourself right out of the Church and that would be a pity.

Don't be fooled, kathyn. I've encountered and tangled with folks like Thinker on many previous occasions over a number of years. What he's really after, in all likelihood, is not the alleviation of poverty per se, but economic equality. What he wants is for all of us to give away all of our earned wealth until we, ourselves, are nearly as poor as the poor we are helping.

What comes after this, is the great question.
Do you mean something like this.
From the talk Socialism vs the United BY Marion G Romney Apirl 1966 confernce
The United Order

Now as to the United Order, and here I will give the words of
the Lord and not my words.
The United Order, the Lord's program for eliminating the
inequalities among men, is based upon the underlying concept that the
earth and all things therein belong to the Lord and that men hold earthly
possessions as stewards accountable to God.
Maybe he read this: D&C 49.20 But it is not given that one man should posses that which is above another, wherfore the world lieth in sin.

God has commanded us to be basicaly equal in possesions. He just wants us to do this willingly, not be forced.
Interesting perspective, thanks for sharing this, Thomas.

Re: Almost 1 BILLION Starving! What would Jesus do?

Posted: April 22nd, 2012, 2:28 pm
by kathyn
Thomas, I do believe that soon we will once again live the United Order....just waiting for that time....but it is not time yet. It behooves all of us to become a Zion people...that was the ultimate goal of the United Order, but we weren't yet ready. It will most likely take the weeding out of the tares before we can actually do it. In the meantime, we are to be as generous with our offerings as possible. We are not required to run faster than we have strength.

Re: Almost 1 BILLION Starving! What would Jesus do?

Posted: April 22nd, 2012, 2:37 pm
by Thomas
kathyn wrote:Thomas, I do believe that soon we will once again live the United Order....just waiting for that time....but it is not time yet. It behooves all of us to become a Zion people...that was the ultimate goal of the United Order, but we weren't yet ready. It will most likely take the weeding out of the tares before we can actually do it. In the meantime, we are to be as gener.

us with our offerings as possible. We are not required to run faster than we have strength.
Kathyn, I very much agree with what you have said. I just think many misunderstand why the United Order is different from socialism and assume we have the right to grab as much as we want for ourselves.
Marion G romney Socialism vs The United Order
The following are similarities: Both (1) deal with production
and distribution of goods; (2) aim to promote the well-being of men
by eliminating their economic inequalities; (3) envision the elimination
of the selfish motives in private capitalistic industrial system.
We are still accountable for our stewardship over the earth's resources. We haven't been given a green light to ignore the poor and exhalt ourselves.

I 'm not going to be critical of church leader's use of tithing funds. I hope they are being devinely inspired to use them. They don't have enough to eliminate poverty and the causes of poverty or many and varied.

Re: Almost 1 BILLION Starving! What would Jesus do?

Posted: April 22nd, 2012, 3:15 pm
by awar_e
The Lord did remove poverty, hunger and many other problems, for a time. Ask Noah how it worked.

Re: Almost 1 BILLION Starving! What would Jesus do?

Posted: April 22nd, 2012, 3:27 pm
by Loran Blood
Do you mean something like this.

From the talk Socialism vs the United BY Marion G Romney Apirl 1966 confernce
The United Order
Now as to the United Order, and here I will give the words of
the Lord and not my words.
The United Order, the Lord's program for eliminating the
inequalities among men, is based upon the underlying concept that the
earth and all things therein belong to the Lord and that men hold earthly
possessions as stewards accountable to God.

God has commanded us to be basicaly equal in possesions. He just wants us to do this willingly, not be forced.
He has done no such thing. Now, as an antidote to Thomas' rather brazen intellectual dishonesty here with regard to Elder Romney's teachings relative to the United Order, let's take a look at Enrichment Section L of the D&C Student Manual:

The expressions in the revelations describing the portion or stewardship as “equal” (D&C 51:3; see also D&C 70:14) does not mean equality in the sense that all are exactly the same. President J. Reuben Clark Jr. explained: “One of the places in which some of the brethren are going astray is this: There is continuous reference in the revelations to equality among the brethren, but I think you will find only one place where that equality is really described, though it is referred to in other revelations. That revelation (D. & C. 51:3) affirms that every man is to be‘equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.’ (See also D. & C. 82:17; 78:5–6.) Obviously, this is not a case of ‘dead level’ equality. It is ‘equality’ that will vary as much as the man’s circumstances, his family, his wants and needs may vary.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1942, p. 55.)
Further, each stewardship is private, and is not collective or socialized:
The stewardship is private, not communal, property.

The consecrator, or steward, was to be given a “writing,” or deed, that would “secure unto him his portion [stewardship]” (D&C 51:4). Although it has been acknowledged that all things belong to the Lord, a stewardship represents a sacred entrustment of a portion from God to
the individual. The stewardship is given with a deed of ownership so that individuals, through their agency, are fully responsible and accountable for that which is entrusted to them. The deed protects individuals if they are disqualified from participation as stewards (see D&C 51:4). For legal purposes, the stewardship was private property, even though the stewards themselves understood that it ultimately belonged to God.

President Marion G. Romney explained: “This procedure [of providing deeds] preserved in every man the right of private ownership and management of his property. Indeed, the fundamental principle of the system was the private ownership of property. Each man owned his portion, or inheritance, or stewardship, with an absolute title, which, at his option, he could alienate [transfer], keep and operate, or otherwise treat as his own. The Church did not own all of the property, and life under the united order was not, and never will be, a communal life, as the Prophet Joseph himself said.

“The intent was, however, for him to so operate his property as to produce a living for himself and his dependents.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1977, p. 119; or Ensign, May 1977, p. 93.)
The United Order is in no sense a socialistic, communistic, or "communitarian" social and economic order:
“They had all things common.”

The phrase “they had all things common” (Acts 4:32; see also Acts 2:44; 3 Nephi 26:19; 4 Nephi 1:3) is used to characterize those who lived the law of consecration in ancient times. Some have speculated that the term common suggests a type of communalism or “Christian
Communism.” This interpretation is in error. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught the true nature of having all things common: “I preached on the stand about one hour on the 2nd chapter of Acts, designing to show the folly of common stock [holding property in common]. In Nauvoo every one is steward over his own [property].” (History of the Church, 6:37–38.) Each stewardship is considered private property (see Reading L-4), and the residues and surpluses consecrated for the storehouse became the “common property of the whole church” (D&C 82:18). It is referred to as the “common property” because the covenant members of the order had access to it, according to their just “wants” and “needs,” including the need to improve their stewardship (see D&C 82:17–18). The word equal is frequently used in the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants: “In . . . temporal things you shall be equal” (D&C 70:14); “for if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things” (D&C 78:6); “appoint unto this people their portions, every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs” (D&C 51:3).

The Lord gave His definition of the term equal: “And you are to be equal, or in other words, you are to have equal claims on the properties, for the benefit of managing the concerns of your stewardships, every man according to his wants and his needs, inasmuch as his wants are just” (D&C 82:17). Equal claims by all members in the covenant were upon the common property or resources for the administering of stewardships. Through these mutually shared rights or claims all became “alike” (D&C 51:9) or, in other words, had equal standing. The procedure for determining whose claim should be satisfied was established through the approval
and consent of all who participated in the order (see D&C 104:70–71).
The Brethren expand upon this theme further:
(L-6) The Lord’s Way Versus the World’s Way

Some have suggested that the practice of the law of consecration and the system of the united order are only a religious kind of socialism or communism. Others assert that it was a development either from the economic philosophies of Joseph Smith’s day or from communal experiments within the new religion. Such assumptions are false. The Prophet Joseph Smith attended a presentation on socialism in September 1843 at Nauvoo. His response was to
declare that he “did not believe the doctrine” (History of the Church, 6:33). In more recent times Elder Marion G. Romney outlined the differences between the revealed system of the united order and the socialistic programs:

“(1) The cornerstone of the United Order is belief in God and acceptance of him as Lord of the earth and the author of the United Order. “Socialism, wholly materialistic, is founded in
he wisdom of men and not of God. Although all socialists may not be atheists, none of them in
theory or practice seek the Lord to establish his righteousness.

“(2) The United Order is implemented by the voluntary free-will actions of men, evidenced by
a consecration of all their property to the Church of God. “. . . Socialism is implemented by external force, the power of the state.

“(3) . . . The United Order is operated upon the principle of private ownership and individual
management. “Thus in both implementation and ownership and management of property, the United Order preserve to men their God-given agency, while socialism
deprives them of it.

“(4) The United Order is non-political. “Socialism is political, both in theory and practice. It is thus exposed to, and riddled by, the corruption that plagues and finally destroys all political governments that undertake to abridge man’s agency. Enrichment L 425

United Order.

“Socialism argues that it as a system will eliminate the evils of the profit motive. “The United Order exalts the poor and humbles the rich. In the process both are sanctified. The poor, released from the bondage and humiliating limitations of poverty, are enabled as free men to rise to their full potential, both temporally and spiritually. The rich, by consecration and by imparting of their surplus for the benefit of the poor, not by constraint but willingly as an act of free will, evidence that charity for their fellowmen characterized by Mormon as ‘the pure love of Christ.’ [Moroni 7:47.]” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1966, p. 97.)
Notice that in the United Order, the profit motive is preserved, allowing gospel welfare to alleviate the needs of the poor while at the same time preserving the individual wealth creation that is the necessary precondition for the existence of the welfare system itself.
President J. Reuben Clark Jr. said: “The United Order has not been generally understood. . . . [It] was not a communal system. . . . The United Order and communism are not synonymous. Communism is Satan’s counterfeit for the United Order. There is no mistake about this and those who go about telling us otherwise either do not know or have failed to understand or are willfully misrepresenting.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1943, p. 11.)
As to modern notions of welfare statism:
President Marion G. Romney warned about the continuing imitations of the adversary: “In this
modern world plagued with counterfeits for the Lord’s plan, we must not be misled into supposing that we can discharge our obligations to the poor and the needy by shifting the responsibility to some governmental or other public agency. Only by voluntarily giving out of an abundant love for our neighbors can we develop that charity characterized by Mormon as ‘the pure love of Christ.’ [Moroni 7:47.]” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1972, p. 115; or Ensign, Jan. 1973, p. 98.)

President Romney noted:
“I suggest we consider what has happened to our agency with respect to . . . government welfare services. . . . “The difference between having the means with which to administer welfare assistance taken from us and voluntarily contributing it out of our love of God and fellowman is the difference between freedom and slavery. . . .

“When we love the Lord our God with all our hearts, might, mind, and strength, we will love our brothers as ourselves, and we will voluntarily, in the exercise of our free agency, impart of our substance for their support. . . .

President [J. Reuben] Clark, . . . referring to government gratuities, said:

“. . . Both history and prophecy—and I may add, common sense—bear witness to the fact that no
civilization can long endure which follows the course charted by bemused manipulators and now being implemented as government welfare programs all around the world. “Babylon shall be destroyed, and great shall be the fall thereof. (See D&C 1:16.) (In Conference Report, Apr. 1976, pp. 164–66, 169; or Ensign, May 1976, pp. 120–21, 123.)
Now, let's not use the Lord's anointed to bolster our own agendas by isolating and carefully cherry picking selected statements.

http://www.ldsces.org/inst_manuals/d_cI ... 000_57.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: Almost 1 BILLION Starving! What would Jesus do?

Posted: April 22nd, 2012, 3:39 pm
by Loran Blood
Why do you equate the church with the Lord... when the church leaders are using money in ways Jesus never would?
According to whom?
Why do you want to try to justify the robbing from the poor?
How much of my personal property would you say belongs to "the poor?'
It won't hurt you at all - except maybe less shopping malls built in the name of Jesus.
Your skin is turning green, Thinker.

Re: Almost 1 BILLION Starving! What would Jesus do?

Posted: April 22nd, 2012, 3:42 pm
by marc
Thinker wrote: What scares me is that some like you, equate church leaders with God.
THEY ARE NOT GOD!!!

They are human beings, that daily make mistakes, like you & I do.
Don't put your trust in the arm of flesh! It WILL fail.
"All things must fail - But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever." -Moroni 7:46-47

Did Jesus ever command offerings in exchange for salvation and "worthiness"?
No!
Don't you see?
This is of the adversary, as is trying to force unquestioning obedience!
You are making assumptions, brother, and using the subtlety of Zeezrom. Never have I equated or even implied that President Monson was God. Never have I even so much as remotely alluded to this either. You and I both know that neither President Monson nor any of our leaders instituted the law of tithes and offerings. Instead of putting words in my mouth, please reread what I wrote in the spirit it was intended. Furthermore, I sustain my leaders and I do not wish to be contentious so I am done for now.

Re: Almost 1 BILLION Starving! What would Jesus do?

Posted: April 22nd, 2012, 4:41 pm
by Mark
Loran Blood wrote:
"Pure religion is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction."
James 1:27

So yes, I believe that the primary and #1 purpose of religion is to teach people to take care of the needy around them, and the church can only teach this 'by example'.
The threefold mission of the Church is:

1. Perfect the Saints
2. Preach the gospel
3. Redeem our dead

A fourth was added, which is to alleviate poverty and help those in need. I see no official doctrine in the Church placing temporal assistance of this kind, on a mass scale, above the other three, or of subsuming the other three under temporal welfare.
Some people, like widows and the fatherless, often need to be financially supported and cared for the rest of their lives by others and the Church. Others can eventually get back on their feet.
Yes, I know all of this. So does everybody else. The point is that temporal welfare, and righting all temporal, mortal vicissitudes in mortality is not the primary mission of the church. Welfare, at least on a mass, collective scale, must also be done, as with all other things in the gospel with "wisdom and prudence." Our economic/welfare house must be, in other words, "house of faith, a house of learning, a house of glory, a house of order...

Welfare and care for the poor must not just be compassionate, it must be intelligent and must follow the laws and principles of economics that allow the most efficacious use of such help, as well as ensure both the continued wealth creation necessary to the very existence of welfare, but the principles that will eventually lead to most of the poor not needing welfare at all.

This point seems to be totally lost on those like Thinker who continues to pound on their one key on the piano in exclusion of all the others. He needs to read Elder Oaks talk on the danger of our strengths becoming our downfall in the worst way. Just one tidbit for reflection from this excellent talk:
Some persons have a finely developed social conscience. They respond to social injustice and suffering with great concern, commitment, and generosity. This is surely a spiritual strength, something many of us need in greater measure. Yet persons who have this great quality need to be cautious that it not impel them to overstep other ultimate values. My social conscience should not cause me to coerce others to use their time or means to fulfill my objectives. We are not blessed for magnifying our calling with someone else’s time or resources. We are commanded to love our neighbors, not to manipulate them, even for righteous purposes.

In the same way, we should not feel alienated from our Church or its leaders when they refrain from using the rhetoric of the social gospel or from allocating Church resources to purposes favored by others. We should remember that the Lord has given his restored Church a unique mission not given to others. The Church must concentrate its primary efforts on those activities that can only be accomplished with priesthood authority, such as preaching the gospel and redeeming the dead.
Loran brought this out in his earlier post. Isn't it interesting that Thinker never comments about the first 3 missions of the church to any extent whatsoever but spends all his time calling the prophets to repentance because they don't do things the way he would like them to when it comes to caring for the poor.

He has now entered the second phase of open rebellion toward the prophets by advocating that people should stop paying their tithing to the church until the Brethren do what he wants them to do with the tithing funds. Why would anybody on this forum who has a testimony of the church and the Prophets even begin to take this thinker character or anyone else who actually thinks like him seriously? Zeezrom indeed marc. @-)

Re: Almost 1 BILLION Starving! What would Jesus do?

Posted: April 22nd, 2012, 5:15 pm
by jonesde
Loran Blood wrote:
Do you mean something like this.

From the talk Socialism vs the United BY Marion G Romney Apirl 1966 confernce
The United Order
Now as to the United Order, and here I will give the words of
the Lord and not my words.
The United Order, the Lord's program for eliminating the
inequalities among men, is based upon the underlying concept that the
earth and all things therein belong to the Lord and that men hold earthly
possessions as stewards accountable to God.

God has commanded us to be basicaly equal in possesions. He just wants us to do this willingly, not be forced.
He has done no such thing. Now, as an antidote to Thomas' rather brazen intellectual dishonesty here with regard to Elder Romney's teachings relative to the United Order, let's take a look at Enrichment Section L of the D&C Student Manual:
I'm just commenting on this part, but the rest of your email was great Loran. Thanks for putting all of that together. Those seem to be the main misunderstandings of united order and consecration concepts.

Even the quote above from Marion G. Romney was simply interpreted badly. The law of consecration is the Lord's program for eliminating inequality, and it is a really good one. It distributes excess resources in a voluntary and mutually beneficial way. It provides far greater equality of opportunity than our current system. It allows for cooperation and growth without the need for debt.

It's really a great system when understood and managed properly, and I appreciate your understanding and descriptions of it.

More than any other system of economics or charity, it really would solve the problem of starvation and depravation in general.

Re: Almost 1 BILLION Starving! What would Jesus do?

Posted: April 22nd, 2012, 5:32 pm
by Thomas
Loran Blood wrote:
He has done no such thing. Now, as an antidote to Thomas' rather brazen intellectual dishonesty here with regard to Elder Romney's teachings relative to the United Order, let's take a look at Enrichment Section L of the D&C Student Manual:
This is a direct quote from Elder Romeny. How is that intellectually dishonest? BTW, do you really think this is not a commandment?
The United Order, the Lord's program for eliminating the
inequalities among men


In fact, Romney said it was the lords' words not his. Please note I said basically equal, not equal. We are to be equal but take into consider our indvidual wants and righteous needs. This does not mean if want an expensive car to appear better than youur neighbor, you will get it.
Further, each stewardship is private, and is not collective or socialized:
Agreed, but all property will be owned and distributed by the church according to need and wants, like wanting more children, not wanting to be richer than everyone else.

Now, let's not use the Lord's anointed to bolster our own agendas by by isolating and carefully cherry picking selected statements.

Can you explain this statement? When have I advocated a government solution? I have simply pointed out that just because we don't believe in forced socialism, we dont' have the right to grab up everything for ourselves. We should be moving towards this standard not away from it.

Re: Almost 1 BILLION Starving! What would Jesus do?

Posted: April 22nd, 2012, 5:34 pm
by Loran Blood
More than any other system of economics or charity, it really would solve the problem of starvation and depravation in general.

And someday, it will indeed be instituted by priesthood authority, by the Lord's modern servants, but not by the self anointed utopian social reformers amongst us, or by any other.

They and others like them have done far too much damage already.

Re: Almost 1 BILLION Starving! What would Jesus do?

Posted: April 22nd, 2012, 5:36 pm
by jonesde
Thomas wrote:
Loran Blood wrote:
He has done no such thing. Now, as an antidote to Thomas' rather brazen intellectual dishonesty here with regard to Elder Romney's teachings relative to the United Order, let's take a look at Enrichment Section L of the D&C Student Manual:
This is a direct quote from Elder Romeny. How is that intellectually dishonest?
The interpretation was wrong, that's not what Elder Romney meant. See my comments above.

To sum it up, it is the best system for producing and maintaining long-term equality, not for forcing any sort of equal property. In fact, the very system of stewardship is counter to the idea of equal property, but producing more equality of opportunity and social position than any system in history, including our current system.

Re: Almost 1 BILLION Starving! What would Jesus do?

Posted: April 22nd, 2012, 5:44 pm
by jonesde
Loran Blood wrote:
More than any other system of economics or charity, it really would solve the problem of starvation and depravation in general.

And someday, it will indeed be instituted by priesthood authority, by the Lord's modern servants, but not by the self anointed utopian social reformers amongst us, or by any other.

They and others like them have done far too much damage already.
Do you think the same concepts could not work outside of governance under priesthood authority?

Are the concepts useless in our modern secular society?

Re: Almost 1 BILLION Starving! What would Jesus do?

Posted: April 22nd, 2012, 5:48 pm
by Loran Blood
This is a direct quote from Elder Romeny. How is that intellectually dishonest?
The United Order, the Lord's program for eliminating the
inequalities among men
Did you not read my lengthy post above, quoting liberally from Enrichment Section L of the D7C student manual?
In fact, Romney said it was the lords' words not his. Please note I said basically equal, not equal. We are to be equal but take into consider our indvidual wants and righteous needs. This does not mean if want an expensive car to appear better than youur neighbor, you will get it.
It is not up to you or me or anyone else to decide who drives what car in Zion. The entire idea of stewardship is a covenant between the individual and the Lord through local ecclesiastical leaders, based on unique circumstances, including wants, providing, as the scriptures say, those wants are "just." Is a Lincoln Towncar just in Zion? I don't know, neither do you, and I don't care.

Further, each stewardship is private, and is not collective or socialized:
Agreed, but all property will be owned and distributed by the church according to need and wants, like wanting more children, not wanting to be richer than everyone else.
Incorrect. Read the scriptures and the words of our modern prophets that I provided.
No property will be owned and distributed by the church save the "residue" and "surplus" created (profit) from the productive economic activities of each stewardship. Personal stewardship property (your and my personal property and wealth (our personal stuff)), although understood explicitly to belong to the Lord (not to the community, a critical distinction), is effectively personal and "private" in the sense of being individual and demarcated as such with respect to other personal stewardships. All personal property is deeded to the church upon entering the UO. Then, that deeded property is returned to the one giving it as a personal stewardship in Zion to improve, manage, and increase. The surplus above "needs and wants" of each family or individual, depending upon circumstances, is turned over to the Bishop's storehouse for the care of the poor. All in Zion have equal access to this property, but not to mine and yours per se (the stewardships themselves).
Now, let's not use the Lord's anointed to bolster our own agendas by by isolating and carefully cherry picking selected statements.
Can you explain this statement?
Yes. Read my lengthy post above.
When have I advocated a government solution?
No, you have not, but "government solutions" are a tiny baby step away from the "give everything you have to the poor or you're evil" mentality that I've long seen among LDS utopian leftists (and they do exist). I added all those quotes as a, let's say, prophylactic, just for good measure.
I have simply pointed out that just because we don't believe in forced socialism, we don't' have the right to grab up everything for ourselves.
This opens up a very large can of worms that is probably not going to be digestible in one thread (or even many, in my experience), but, as to the statement you make here:

1. You seem to assume that economics is a zero-sum game, in which there is a static pile of stuff (money, resources, goods etc.) that all of us "grab" and in which some of us "grab" more than our fair share.

2. Who is advocating grabbing everything and stuffing it away somewhere where the rest of us can't get to it?

Re: Almost 1 BILLION Starving! What would Jesus do?

Posted: April 22nd, 2012, 5:53 pm
by Thomas
Joneside wrote:

The interpretation was wrong, that's not what Elder Romney meant. See my comments above.

To sum it up, it is the best system for producing and maintaining long-term equality, not for forcing any sort of equal property. In fact, the very system of stewardship is counter to the idea of equal property, but producing more equality of opportunity and social position than any system in history, including our current system.
What am I missing here. Did God not command this. I have said nothing of force. We have the option of obeying God or not as with all his commands. If you have read enough of my posts you would know, I usually side for the least amount of government possible. That is what is so hypocrictical of those who bash libertarianism and want to force compliance on moral issues like drugs but want complete freedom on this matter.

Re: Almost 1 BILLION Starving! What would Jesus do?

Posted: April 22nd, 2012, 5:56 pm
by Loran Blood
jonesde wrote:
Loran Blood wrote:
More than any other system of economics or charity, it really would solve the problem of starvation and depravation in general.

And someday, it will indeed be instituted by priesthood authority, by the Lord's modern servants, but not by the self anointed utopian social reformers amongst us, or by any other.

They and others like them have done far too much damage already.
Do you think the same concepts could not work outside of governance under priesthood authority?

Are the concepts useless in our modern secular society?
I know of no socialist or utopian theory that has ever even approached the gospel's view of welfare. However, even if they had, no, I don't believe a thorough reconditioning of the economic aspects of an entire people could be carried through righteously outside of priesthood authority and the strict oversight of the Holy Ghost.

The temptations are simply too great.

Re: Almost 1 BILLION Starving! What would Jesus do?

Posted: April 22nd, 2012, 5:58 pm
by Thomas
Loran Blood wrote:
Incorrect. Read the scriptures and the words of our modern prophets that I provided.
No property will be owned and distributed by the church save the "residue" and "surplus" created (profit) from the productive economic activities of each stewardship. Personal stewardship property (your and my personal property and wealth (our personal stuff)), although understood explicitly to belong to the Lord (not to the community, a critical distinction), is effectively personal and "private" in the sense of being individual and demarcated as such with respect to other personal stewardships. All personal property is deeded to the church upon entering the UO. Then, that deeded property is returned to the one giving it as a personal stewardship in Zion to improve, manage, and increase. The surplus above "needs and wants" of each family or individual, depending upon circumstances, is turned over to the Bishop's storehouse for the care of the poor. All in Zion have equal access to this property, but not to mine and yours per se (the stewardships themselves).
Pay a little more attention next you attend the endowment session. Got to run but I want to discuss this a little more later.

Re: Almost 1 BILLION Starving! What would Jesus do?

Posted: April 22nd, 2012, 6:29 pm
by jonesde
Thomas wrote:
Joneside wrote:

The interpretation was wrong, that's not what Elder Romney meant. See my comments above.

To sum it up, it is the best system for producing and maintaining long-term equality, not for forcing any sort of equal property. In fact, the very system of stewardship is counter to the idea of equal property, but producing more equality of opportunity and social position than any system in history, including our current system.
What am I missing here. Did God not command this. I have said nothing of force. We have the option of obeying God or not as with all his commands. If you have read enough of my posts you would know, I usually side for the least amount of government possible. That is what is so hypocrictical of those who bash libertarianism and want to force compliance on moral issues like drugs but want complete freedom on this matter.
I'm confused... at the beginning of your message you said you didn't bring up force (which I brought up), and then at the end you seem to be accusing me of bashing libertarianism and forcing compliance on moral issues, which I clearly do not. I think my discussions with Jason (now Legion) show that clearly.

I don't agree with Loran on most things (he is highly pro-state and pro-violence, even it seems in his interpretation of the gospel... all about force), but what he wrote about consecration and the united order seems correct in the matters of private property and consecrating only surplus (ie you subsist from your own resources and consecrate the rest... you initially consecrate everything but over time you only consecrate excesses... it's not like everyone would need to go to the bishop's storehouse to pick up food, supplies, equipment, etc... most of the would happen in a free market based on private property, or more accurately based on stewardships).

As for the force part, I disagree with it totally and don't think there is any of it involved or necessary in the all-voluntary Law of Consecration. The reason I brought up force is that you cannot have a system of equal result without force.

When you wrote about equal property, how do you think that would happen under a united order?

Re: Almost 1 BILLION Starving! What would Jesus do?

Posted: April 22nd, 2012, 7:11 pm
by Thomas
jonesde wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Joneside wrote:

The interpretation was wrong, that's not what Elder Romney meant. See my comments above.

To sum it up, it is the best system for producing and maintaining long-term equality, not for forcing any sort of equal property. In fact, the very system of stewardship is counter to the idea of equal property, but producing more equality of opportunity and social position than any system in history, including our current system.
What am I missing here. Did God not command this. I have said nothing of force. We have the option of obeying God or not as with all his commands. If you have read enough of my posts you would know, I usually side for the least amount of government possible. That is what is so hypocrictical of those who bash libertarianism and want to force compliance on moral issues like drugs but want complete freedom on this matter.
I'm confused... at the beginning of your message you said you didn't bring up force (which I brought up), and then at the end you seem to be accusing me of bashing libertarianism and forcing compliance on moral issues, which I clearly do not. I think my discussions with Jason (now Legion) show that clearly.

I don't agree with Loran on most things (he is highly pro-state and pro-violence, even it seems in his interpretation of the gospel... all about force), but what he wrote about consecration and the united order seems correct in the matters of private property and consecrating only surplus (ie you subsist from your own resources and consecrate the rest... you initially consecrate everything but over time you only consecrate excesses... it's not like everyone would need to go to the bishop's storehouse to pick up food, supplies, equipment, etc... most of the would happen in a free market based on private property, or more accurately based on stewardships).

As for the force part, I disagree with it totally and don't think there is any of it involved or necessary in the all-voluntary Law of Consecration. The reason I brought up force is that you cannot have a system of equal result without force.

When you wrote about equal property, how do you think that would happen under a united order?
All who join the United Order will consecrate (transfer ownership) their property to the church, willingly. The bishop will then assign stewardship according to people's needs and wants. It will be an equalization ,roughly. Those who have no property will receive from those who have more than they need. It's not a matter of giving what you feel like. You give it all. Once again, think of the endowment. You willingly agree to this up front. That's why force is not used.
From Elder Romney's talk
Having thus voluntarily divested himself of title to all his
property, the consecrator received from the Church a stewardship by a
like conveyance. This stewardship could be more or less than his
original consecration, the object being to make "every man equal
according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants
and needs." (D&C 51:3
)



It is true that after the intial phase, you are free to use the property as you see fit. You consecrate your excess to the church and keep what you want or need.

I wasn't refering to you about supporting force. I just think it's a double standard for those who advocate force.

Re: Almost 1 BILLION Starving! What would Jesus do?

Posted: April 22nd, 2012, 7:37 pm
by Thinker
Thomas wrote:We are still accountable for our stewardship over the earth's resources. We haven't been given a green light to ignore the poor and exhalt ourselves.
Agreed.
I 'm not going to be critical of church leader's use of tithing funds.
Why would you not question darkness and secrecy regarding sacred tithes?
Why would you trust in the arm of flesh, especially when they've openly used church funds for things like shopping malls?
I hope they are being devinely inspired to use them.
Would you consider robbing from the poor to be divinely inspired?
Deut 14:28-29 states that 1/3 of TITHES are to be given to the poor, & you & I know that has NOT been happening with LDS tithes.
I'd say it's deception to purposefully not include that scripture out of LDS bible topical guides and dictionaries when searching "tithing."
They don't have enough to eliminate poverty and the causes of poverty or many and varied.
But they can share tithes with those in need, as instructed in Deut 14:28-29 & many other teachings like the parable of the good Samaritan and the parable of dividing the sheep from the goats (Matt 25).
Jesus would never spend money on materialistc endevours while so many are starving & suffering of preventable causes.
I hope & pray we all do what we can to love others as we love ourselves, & to make sure at least a major portion of our tithes go to those in need.