LDS Freedom Forum

Thomas wrote:guereo

vaquero wrote:Thomas,

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "stewardship."

Let's revisit President Romney's quote. Following a conveyance to the Church, "the consecrator received from the Church a stewardship by a like conveyance. This stewardship could be more or less than his
original consecration...."

Just what do you think the foregoing means? Why do you think, as I previously noted, that President Romney said the Law of Consecration "is operated upon the principle of private ownership and individual management?" He said this because the "stewardship by a like conveyance" to the consecrator is his private property. It is not owned by the Church nor is it managed thereby.

You may wish to do a little research on what others have said about the Law of Consecration including J. Reuben Clark. They are at variance with you and your contentions that the Church remains the owner of all, that it is all about egalitarianism, and that private property has nothing to do with the Law of Consecration.

Your picking at nits here Vaquero. How could this not be egalitarianism when the lord said it is an equalization. You are saying it is not an equalization because it is not 100 percent equal. What it is, in no uncertain terms, is a redistribution of the wealth, on a voluntary basis. It is very much an egalitarian social order.

In this order God owns everything, we are stewards only. It is true you have the right to do what you want with your stewardship and transfer it or pass it on ect. In that resepect private property rights are preserved. The United Order is based on the concept that God owns everything.

Think about the endowment. Even your intellectual property belongs to the Lord.

yes but you said the church would hold all property rights, which is clearly wrong, so don't say he is nitpicking.

I suggest reading this article from president Benson where he explains why the united order is NOT socialism.

http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6162" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rensai, Do you think the United Order is not egalitarinism? Do you think things will be allowed to evlove into the siuation we have now, where those with more ambition and smarts, gain the property of the unwise, leaving them without any?

I stated earlier don't be surpised if outsiders call it socialism. If everyone but us has a different meaning for a word and the dictionary agrees with them, why should we expect them to adopt our meaning. Look at the article that started this thread.

D&C 49:20 But it is not given that one man should posess that which is above another, wherfore the world lieth in sin. A Celestial world will be without sin. That is the purpose of the United Order. To create a society without sin.

The United Order is based upon the principle that God created the world and all that's in in it, thus the stewardship. We can have a paper saying we are entitled to this stewardship but it will not be allowed to devolve into our present conditions with wealth concentrating into the hands of a few. So we may have property rights but not like we have now. The priniciple remains.

The prophet could say that red was green and green was red and most everyone in the church would follow what he said. We would start using the new names for the colors. The rest of the world would still use the old names.

When we put everything we own in a big pile and share it, we can call it anything we want but the world will call it socialism.