All Things Common

From “The Fullness” Blog:

One of the primary markers of a true Zion community is the sharing of both spiritual and physical resources. As the title of this post suggests, the church of Christ founded after the visit of the Messiah to the Nephites treated the material possessions of the members as ‘common property.’ We read in Fourth Nephi of the establishment of this community:

…behold the disciples of Jesus had formed a church of Christ in all the lands round about. And as many as did come unto them, and did truly repent of their sins, were baptized in the name of Jesus; and they did also receive the Holy Ghost.

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.

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. (4 Nephi 1:1-3)

This community, more than any other in the scriptures, enjoyed the ‘fruits of the Spirit’ and the bounty of the Lords blessings. In the description of their ‘continued peace in the land’ we read of the following attributes:

• All manner of miracles…among the children of men (verse 5)
• Rebuilt the great cities that were burned (verse 7)
• No longer followed the law of Moses (verse 12)
• Continued fasting and prayer (verse 12)
• Meeting together often to pray and hear the word of the Lord (verse 12)
• No contentions among all the people (verse 16)

Consecration or the United Order?

Mormon Heretic considers the differences and similarities between the United Order and Cosecration:

I always thought the United Order and Consecration were the same thing.  I’ve been reading a book called Great Basin Kingdom by Leonard Arrington (former church historian) and learned they are actually different.  The basic difference to me seems to be that with Consecration, one gave all they owned to the church, and then were given back “what they needed.”  With the United Order, it seems to have originated out of various economic cooperatives established to give fair, reasonable prices and jobs to the Mormons.  In some cases, saints could choose to consecrate all their possessions to the United Order, but usually it worked more in an economic cooperative, where fair prices were established for Mormons.  If they sold to gentiles, often the gentiles paid more.

The United Order movement was an extension of cooperatives.  These cooperatives began principally around 1868-1884, and were set up as a response to how current trading was accomplished.  In chapter 10 (page 193-194), Arrington says,

Structurally, most Mormon “cooperatives” were nothing more than joint-stock corporations, organized under the sponsorship of the church, with a broad basis of public ownership and support.  Functionally, however, most Mormon cooperatives appear to have been motivated principally by welfare rather than profit; patronage was an act of religious loyalty; the church participated  in the organization, operation, and financing of most o the important establishments; and the whole cooperative movement was permeated with an unmistakable pietistic zeal and feeling of religious obligation…

…most merchandising was in the hands of non-Mormons because of the stigma attached to “profiteering Saints,” and because of the inability of Mormon traders to refuse credit to their “brethren” and force payment of debts.

Sacrificing Principle for Profit?

“To what degree should the principle of ‘respect for life” be extended to bird and animal creations? What do the scriptures, Joseph Smith, and other early Church leaders teach about the grand design and purposes of God’s non-human creations? Does having “dominion” over the kingdom of creatures mean we are their predators and exploiters or does it suggest a “stewardship” relationship in which we become their caretakers in order to help them “fulfill the full measure of their creation?” If the scriptures teach, “woe be unto man that sheddeth blood or wasteth flesh and have no need,” and “the blood of every beast will I require at your hands,” what rationale could be used to explain Church-owned, revenue-generating enterprises such as Deseret Land and Livestock and the Westlake Hunting Preserve? Do these operations constitute sacrificing principle for profit?”

I recently learned about the two Church-owned and sanctioned hunting preserves mentioned above and was stunned by what amounts to be the killing of animals for profit by the LDS Church.

Tithing, Charity & the Poor

Having heard that if tithing is left out of the equation then Utah is the least charitable state, I thought this letter to the Salt Lake Tribune made an interesting point -

LDS relief efforts – Public Forum Letter – 10/07/2009

Peggy Fletcher Stack’s story “This mission’s focus: save lives, not souls” ( Tribune , Oct. 3) reports that since 1985, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has “provided $1.1 billion in cash and goods to 167 countries.”

Let’s take a closer look at these numbers: $1.1 billion divided by 24 years comes out to an average of $45.8 million per year. By the LDS Church’s own numbers, it had approximately 6.2 million members in 1985 and 13.6 million in 2008, for an average membership of 9.9 million members over the last 24 years. Therefore, the church has donated, on average, $4.63 per member per year to its relief efforts.

Instead of being proud of this accomplishment, Latter-day Saints should be ashamed.

Michael Mirabile, West Jordan

My thoughts -

By way of contrast – in 1993 the average American gave $880 that year (2.1% of average income – which included religious donations).  If we look just at charitable giving a group like the Lutherans still give 6.7 times as much as Latter-day Saints on average.  That certainly does seem like it would have King Benjamin turning in his grave.

It is hard to say what the figure of $1.1 billion includes, as the Church reported much lower humanitarian aid expenditures of $30.7 million in total from 1984 to 1997 (Mormon America, p. 128), so the larger figure may include its own welfare program for its own members.  Interestingly, the smaller Salvation Army gives that much every single year.

Even at $1 billion some claim that the LDS Church may have given is less than 1% of its presumed income during that time period.  Thats less than Walmart, Ford or UPS.  Its almost a  quarter of what Avon, the cosmetics company gives.

It is noticable that a study shows that the poor (under $10k p.y.) pay more to charity than the rich (twice as much as those on $50k).  See http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarecharity.htm

As for where the tithing goes – see http://mormoninquiry.typepad.com/mormon_inquiry/2004/10/lds_revenues_an.html

The way I read the scriptures it seems that the majority of the tithe was intended for the poor.  (However, the LDS Church in England used only 0.214% of the tithing towards that purpose)

At least a third was set aside specifically for that:

At the end of every third year you shall bring out all the tithe of your produce in that year, and shall deposit it in your town. And the Levite, because he has no portion or inheritance among you, and the alien, the orphan and the widow who are in your town, shall come and eat and be satisfied, in order that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hand which you do (Deuteronomy 14:28-29)

See http://davidagrant.blogspot.com/2008/09/malachi-3.html & http://www.relationaltithe.com/

& http://www.geocities.com/hotsprings/3658/tithing.html for some other interesting info

& http://www.mormonthink.com/tithing.htm which gives a (somewhat antagonistic) overview of some LDS tithing issues & here is a very negative appraisal – http://www.salamandersociety.com/foyer/budget/

See previous posts on these subjects here and here.

The Flute & Justice

I couldn’t help but laugh at some of the comments made in response to a question on By Common Consent’s Different models of justice :

I recently listened to a podcast featuring Amartya Sen, a Nobel prize winning economist and philosopher. (If you want to hear it, here it is.) He has a new book about justice, in which he argues that a universal or idealized concept of justice should not be our goal: rather, we should focus on the obvious injustices and eliminate them.

The interviewer mentioned a parable Sen uses in his book that I found intriguing. I will paraphrase:

Imagine a flute. Three children each have a claim on the flute.

The first child should have the flute because she can play it well, and the others cannot.

The second child should have the flute because he has no other toys with which to play, and the others do have toys.

The third child should have the flute because she made it.

Of course, the purpose of the parable is to show the competing definitions of justice. But I wonder: according to contemporary Mormon Christianity, who should get the flute?

Establishing a Gift-Based Society

The Anarchist Mormon makes a suggestion that may seem radical to modern Mormon readers, but which wouldn’t seem out of place in Joseph or Brigham’s day:

UNITED EFFORTS

A United Effort:

• is the organization of individual Latter-day Saints into a mutual beneficial society (a gift society)
• is based upon voluntarily giving, sharing, co-operation, free agency, common consent and variety
• is not based upon the Babylonian principles of buying and selling, that everything has a price, the profit-motive, selfishness, the spirit of competition, force and homogenization
• has as its purpose: to advance the cause of, and prepare the way for the establishment of, Zion, and to reduce or eliminate the influences of, and ties to, Babylon, performed via their own free agency and not by way of commandment through the proper priesthood channels

GIFT SOCIETIES

A Gift Society:

• is one in which every member seeks the interest of the members of the Society
• is one in which members donate time, labor (services), ideas, resources and money to other members of the Society
• has the express purpose of providing for the NEEDS of the individual members of the Society by making them all independent from Babylonian suppliers, self-sufficient producers and engaged in actively developing their talents as opposed to slaving away their lives in meaningless mundane tasks working for Babylon, so that a surplus may eventually be generated by every member of the Society
• may operate on the principle of open-ended monetary loans, meaning that they are gifts with the expectation of paying them back, if possible, so that the Society may reuse the funds for further gifting, but without any time limits, contracts or requirements
• may operate on the principle of donations of surplus or may have a preferred minimum donation, as each Society decides
• may have a decentralized treasury in which each member keeps their funds until a group donation is authorized by the Society

Tithing – A Regressive Tax?

A regressive tax is one which places a greater burden on the poor than the rich.  Tithing (on gross or net) could be seen as one such type of tax.

The subject of tithing still continues to fascinate me, as can be seen by what I’ve been reading today:

Tithing and Progressive Taxation -

http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/11/19/tithes-taxes-and-progressivity/

The opposite view -

http://www.bloggerofjared.com/2008/11/09/is-it-fair-to-tithe-the-poor/

An evangelical Christian perspective -

http://tobyneal.wordpress.com/2005/06/22/freely-you-have-received-freely-give-part-1/

A Tithing Rap -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwfMMN71xUw

A silly critique of tax cuts for the rich using Mormon tithing as an example -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104×2265072

Embracing the Law of Consecration

Thoughts of Larry Barkdull on his blog:

The Law of Consecration is the very core of the gospel, and it permeates every gospel principle. This highest law defines a Zion person. Although programs of consecration have come and gone, the template of consecration remains the same. Consequently, consecration is current; it is now. Only by living this law can we hope to obtain an inheritance in the celestial kingdom.

What is Consecration?

To consecrate something is to sanctify, purify and set it apart for a sacred use, to make it holy, to dedicate it solemnly to a special service, or to give it religious sanction as with an oath or a vow. When we make the covenant of consecration, we agree to consecrate our lives, including everything that we have, will have, are or will be. According to President Kimball, we consecrate “our time, talents and means to care for those in need-whether spiritually or temporally-and in building the Lord’s kingdom.”

Hugh Nibley asks, “And how much is one able to give? Exactly as much as the Lord has given him-all that which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he will bless you.” Lived properly, the covenant of consecration paves the way and lays the foundation for the establishment for Zion in a righteous person’s life.

Tithing – on Gross, Net, or Surplus?

What do we pay our tithing on?  The links below represent various different Latter-day Saint views (and some Christian ones) that seek to answer that question -

Four part series on Tithing from LDS Anarchist -
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

Tithing on Gross or Net?
Thoughts from the Great and Spacious Building

Tithing and the Poor
Commentary from By Common Consent
Also some Questions on Tithing they covered

Tithing, Barter & Consumption
From the Splendid Sun blog

A Modern Look at Tithable Income (Sunstone)
HTML version | PDF version

Quinn’s overview of Tithing history in Mormon Hierarchy – volume 2

Tithing and Residual Income thoughts

A renegade Mormon shares his views

An ex-Mormon perspective on Surplus

Some general Christian views -
http://cnview.com/on_line_resources/truth_about_tithing.htm
http://www.biblestudy.org/bibleref/tithe-in-bible/table-of-contents.html
http://www.bordeglobal.com/foruminv/index.php?showtopic=6578&st=0

Wealth & Worthiness

Take from Mormon Matters -

I have long believed that the Church’s reliance on a lay clergy is both one of its strongest selling points, as well as one of its greatest weaknesses. On the hand, our DIY approach to religion results, among other things, in folks having a very personal stake in building the Kingdom, which is a plus. On the other hand, following a leader who is simply plucked from the congregation, without any formal training or indoctrination, can lead to the imposition of personal, non-doctrinal strictures (e.g., Stake
Presidents banning beards and other such nonsense). This, of course, is too big a topic to cover well in a single post. So, I want to focus on one particular aspect of the lay clergy dynamic that has been on my
mind lately — the role a member’s wealth (or lack thereof) can play on his/her worthiness to serve.

Before going any further, let me define what I mean by “worthiness.” I’m not necessarily talking just about my personal relationship with God, i.e., freedom from sin. I’m using the term in the more colloquial sense we all use in a ward setting on Sunday mornings, i.e., being “worthy” to hold a calling means not only that I am striving to keep the commandments, but also that I have passed muster in an interview with a leader (”I have interviewed Brother Larsen and found him worthy to clean the restroom floors every third Sunday afternoon”). While the two concepts overlap, they are not the same, in my mind.

Here’s what I see happening with increasing frequency as the Church fully embraces a more corporate model: Priesthood leadership positions being given to those who are financially better off than most of the congregants over whom they preside. On its face, there may be nothing alarming about this phenomenon. Wealth certainly is not a sin (well, except for maybe for that whole “easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle” stuff) and should not be a barrier to an otherwise worthy person’s service in a leadership position. However, when only the wealthy are moved up the ranks, it sends a clear message to others: wealth = worthiness. This is especially pronounced in a lay clergy community such as ours, where every member, at least on paper, has an equal chance at attaining wealth and position.