“When Christ comes to rule on Earth again, most rich people will be wiped out already. So we get to divide up their stuff among the righteous survivors of the Second Coming. In case rich people do survive the Second Coming, their stuff will be confiscated anyway. (Is there such a thing as the Eternal Revenue Service?) Then I can finally share in the bounty of the Earth like I deserve. The only reason we’re not all prosperous now is that rich people are hoarding the riches of the world. But they’ll be forced to hand it over to the rest of us soon enough.”

I used to be confused when the scriptures said that the earth was full, with enough to spare, and there was “abundance.” Greed and entitlement seem to be at odds with that idea of abundance. Now, I think I see the abundance and the opportunities around me but the present economic and political conditions are still based on scarcity.

When I was a full-time missionary in South America, people there thought that everyone in the United States was rich. I started to believe it too, until I got home and realized that my parents weren’t ready to take me on a shopping spree… and the blessings they received for supporting me on my mission weren’t measured in vast amounts of material wealth. Meanwhile, I heard righteous poor people in South America saying things like, “It’s too dangerous to have a lot of money. It’ll just make you wicked.” Were they just talking themselves into complacency?

So I look around myself today and I have a lot of friends here who are strong in their testimonies but who have very little financial security. I worry about what will happen when my generation reaches retirement age and we won’t be able to afford to miss work to serve as temple workers or full-time, senior missionaries. Will the Lord dismiss my “foolish virgin” friends and condemn them as if they were the guy who only had one talent? “Sorry you can’t afford to serve in the temple, but it’s your own fault.”

(These thoughts are still rather random. I guess I’m still clouding the issue.)

-It’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into Heaven.
-We can look forward to the day when the poor are exalted in that the rich are made low.
-In Zion, there are no poor people.
-When the Saints are righteous, they will prosper in the land.
-It’s okay to have riches as long as you use your riches “the right way.”
-God is not a respecter of persons.
-Everyone has a gift of the Spirit but nobody has all of the gifts.
-Our ultimate reward for righteousness is “all that the Father has.”
-God’s “wealth” is infinite.
-Infinity divided by any number is still equal to infinity.
-Unfortunately, the scriptures don’t tell us enough about day-to-day life in the City of Enoch or among the people in Fourth Nephi (when they were prosperous and righteous).
-God doesn’t see things as either spiritual or temporal. Things are always both temporal and spiritual to God.

Have I clouded the issue too much already? Personally, I have some trouble with looking forward to the poor being exalted in that the rich are made low. It sounds like “spread the misery” more than “spread the wealth.” Is that really the Lord’s plan? Is that really what happened in the City of Enoch? So I’ll assume that my understanding of the words “rich” and “poor” are faulty. The Book of Mormon acknowledges that righteous people can be wealthy but the New Testament pretty-much condemns “the rich” universally.

I’ve met a lot of wealthy people in the church who seem to be doing just fine when it comes to righteousness. These “rich” people won’t have trouble getting into Heaven, as far as I can see. And I’m sure any of them could easily point to others whom they consider much wealthier than themselves. So, who’s really rich?

And as the all powerful Oz said to the scarecrow, you don’t need a brain my friend, just a diploma! I assume you have one… a diploma that is.

I am an optimist and I think that we can achieve these things. The founder of cooperativism, Robert Owen, met with Thomas Jefferson and he expressed interest in the idea. However, Jefferson expressed similar doubts that it would work on a wide scale in a country.

You say the members in your ward and nice people but resist Obama style change. I empathize with them, when I see the corruption and deceit of the government, I don’t want to give them a penny of my tax money. On the other hand, I think this is going to be the real step in the United Order, when we just say….”Let go and let God” with our economic situations.

HOWEVER…I hope that the United Order will not be a voluntary communism with a centralized ecclesiastical politburo. I hope we will focus on voluntary cooperation at every step through the use of cooperatives, trade unions, worker’s councils, and credit unions. This to me would be heaven on earth if we were able to achieve this on a large scale. But then I am an idealist and a believer in democracy.

A farmer goes down to the local casual labor market at 6:00 a.m. He hires 10 men to work for 10 hours for $65. Later, he realizes he needs more men, so at 10 o’clock, he hires 5 more. By 1 o’clock, he realizes he could use more men, so he hires another 5. At 3 o’clock, he happens to drive by the labor market and sees 5 more guys standing there. He asks, “What are you guys still doing here?”

They say, “Nobody’s hired us all day, so we’re just hanging out.”

The farmer says, “Well, come down to my farm and get a couple hours work anyway,” and he hires them.

At 5 o’clock, the farmer pays each of the 25 guys he hired $65. The ones who worked for 10 hours are angry. “We’ve been working here for 10 hours, and those guys just got here. How come they get as much as we do?”

The farmers says, “Hey, it’s my money. I paid you what I said I would. How does it hurt you if I pay these other guys as much as I pay you?”

Ignore #17, everyone. I need to get new glasses – or a new brain.

(Yes, Doug, that’s a great opening for you.)

So what is the Lord’s real concept of “equality” in a gospel sense? Is it worth noting that the “earthly” rewards to each servant (the increase in talents) were nothing more than what they’d each achieved through their own work? (…not including the “bonus” talent taken from the unproductive servant.)

In other words, I have my doubts about whether the politicians in Washington are seeing “equality” and wealth distribution the same way the Lord sees these things (and I assume Joseph is on the same page as the Lord). Jeff Spector traces our world’s current economic crisis to “GREED.” The political right wants to make an issue out of “entitlement” programs. But aren’t Greed and Entitlement based on the same problem? That is: The desire to receive more than what you deserve based on the effort/work you’re doing. If a man is very wealthy, it might not mean he’s a greedy crook. It might actually mean that he worked his tail off, created “value” for a lot of other people and earned the earthly reward associated with his accomplishments.

It doesn’t matter if we’re talking about a nation, a company, a household or an individual. An economic system cannot sustain itself if it’s consuming more than it produces. Or, as I often hear myself say these days: Math doesn’t lie. Math doesn’t spin the facts.

So, why did attempts to live The United Order fail? I’m not an expert on any of the specific attempts but I think the failure must have been very simple. Production wasn’t able to keep up with consumption. Can it be any more complicated than that? Yes, the details may point to wickedness, greed and/or entitlement, all of which are just going to be factors in the balance between production and consumption.

#4 – Greg, absolutely. My Stake President and Bishop insist on it and have done everything possible to reduce and consolidate meetings. I know that’s not happening everywhere, but I see it here.

I really like the attachment of the idea of stewardship to the idea of consecration. It holds individuals accountable for what they do with their consecrated properties.

I have the opportunity to work extensively with the Native American community. They, I believe, are a case study why government run communalism will always be a failure. Traditionally, they were very communal. Sharing was a fundamental value and requirment for survival. Leadership was determined by who possessed the judgement and skill to best provide for the welfare of the community. “Don’t pray for yourself” was the leadership philosophy. Everything you did was a reflection of your tribe and family. Working with them has helped me realize how tribal Mormons are.

Now, the fundamental value is often entitlement and there is no limit to the needs (this comes from conversations with frustrated Native leaders). Government run communalism/wealth redistribution will not work when layered over an entitlement culture. The unintended consequence of foolish wealth re-distrubution systems is literally individual destruction and intergenerational instruction.

“As Saints of God, we must be prepared and willing to live the law of consecration in its fullness. But we do not need to wait for a future day to consecrate our lives to the Lord. As we do all we can to live the law of consecration today, we will be better prepared to live the fullness of the law when the Lord asks us to do so.”

Also, a quote from Elder Maxwell also indicated that there are other ways to consecrate ourselves other than property and wealth. We always think of the money aspect while discussing this law.

The same reasons why it failed back then are the same reasons it would fail today. GREED. The same reason we are in the financial situation we are in as well. The irony to me is that many LDS supported the systems that created the overt greed that has us in the fix we are in rather than live the principles of self-reliance as taught by the Church.

The real irony is that Joseph Smith was a lot more like Barack Obama than he was like George W Bush and Rush Limbaugh.

To Bruce in Montana: Since when did anything the government do effect a person’s heart and their own willingness to serve others?????

“In His way, there are two cardinal principles: (1) consecration, and (2) stewardship. To enter the united order, one consecrated all his possessions to the Church by a ‘covenant and a deed which [could not] be broken.’ That is, he completely divested himself of all his property by conveying it to the Church. Having done so, the consecrator received from the Church a stewardship by a like conveyance. This stewardship could be more or less than the 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.)

“This procedure 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, 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.”

How many in the church assume that “United Order” is synonymous with both “Law of Consecration” and “communal life”?

…just sayin…my 2 cents etc.