consiglieri wrote:bcspace wrote: Looking at the Law of Consecration we see that agency is preserved along with the notion, as taught in the scriptures, that God is a free market capitalist.
This is perhaps the most egregious case of presentism I have ever seen.
I believe it was God who said that unless his people are equal in earthly things, they cannot be equal in heavenly things.
Or is the Doctrine and Covenants no longer doctrine?
Based upon your previous eclectic and idiosyncratic thrashing you gave Church doctrine in your initial post in this thread, in which you made as clear as you ever have your rather tenuous grasp of LDS doctrine, at least in this area, for you to be grilling anyone else on what is doctrine and what is not is a bit much.
Now the scripture you quote above is an old, old canard, beloved of LDS egalitarian collectivists who have succumbed to the undertow of fashionable political correctness within the academic environment in which they have such a personal intellectual and psychological investment and are just as capable as any Protestant fundamentalist of cherry picking proof texts, pulling them out of context, and deploying them in a more-spiritual-and-moral-than-thou Kulturkampf, something they've picked up within academia and transferred to their ideas of the Gospel.
To be equal in any sense, as to the living of the gospel in mortality is to have equal claims on all of its blessings grounded in worthiness and faithfulness, both as to temporal and spiritual blessings. It has nothing - and a number of General Authorities, in official Church published venues, have been crystal clear for generations on the proper interpretation of such verses - to do with any concept of a literal leveling, or averaging, of all people as to temporal things. It is egalitarian only in the sense that faithful members of a Zion community have equal claim on the Bishop's storehouse in time of need, as well as to all spiritual blessings of the gospel.
Literal temporal equality would, by definition, violate the entire concept of free agency and of the magnifying of one's talents, abilities, gifts, and capacities. You are now speaking of an "outcome based" social system in which the more skilled, talented, and even brilliant must be either held back (by some "handicapper general") or punished for being better at something, or creating something people value more, than someone else, while those of less ability are artificially raised to a higher position not by actual personal achievement but by the lowering of others to their level. The brightest must be restrained lest their greater specific abilities offend those of less ability in certain areas, while the slowest and dullest hold the entire group back until all can advance at the same time.
This kind of equality being impossible, the end result of any such society is stagnation and decline - economic, social, psychological, and spiritual. The gospel of Jesus Christ raises all who will be faithful and obedient to its covenants and commandments at their own pace, in their own unique way, and based on their inherent aptitudes and capabilities. Where there is one spirit, there is another more intelligent, and another more intelligent still, and another, and another. Literal temporal equality, or anything approaching it, is not possible in the presence of freedom. Hence, the gospel eliminates the most extreme poles of wealth disparity (vast wealth and indigence) and creates a society where there are no rich or poor. Nothing here implies a classless society, but the D&C itself, and the teachings of the Brethren upon it in the 20th century, delineate a society of various levels of wealth, prosperity, and material capacity, but within much less expansive limits as to the lower and higher extremities of each.
Free agency is completely retained in Zion, and this, by definition, implies many levels or degrees of economic outcome within the parameters given, as well as a market in which any number of goods and services are valued by consumers to different degrees at different times. A janitor in Zion will still not be valued as much as a skilled heart surgeon or manager of a large factory, but he will not be devalued as a human being or member of the Zion community simply because of his lower skills and abilities in an economic sense, and he will have equal claim upon the storehouse to make up any deficit, as to temporal things.
As there will be no rich or poor in Zion, and as wealth creation is the basis of all welfare, socialism or egalitarian collectivism of any kind is precluded, as these are not economically viable systems, as we have long known from both a theoretic and historical perspective. That is to say, if Zion is prosperous, then it is an open, competitive free market economic system, and no other.
In another sense, the gospel exalts; it does not level anything except the wicked, the proud, and the rebellious. If one wishes milk and honey, free market economic relations are the only means by which this can occur. If one wishes crusts of bread and water, there are various theories and schools of egalitarian socialism from which to choose, all abject failures, and some of the major ones, catastrophically so.P.S. I think this quote should be added to the list of accumulating evidence that the LDS position must be that people are saved in communities, not individually.
This is not LDS doctrine. We are saved as individuals and only as individuals "in spite of earth and hell," as Pres. Young said. That we are ultimately saved in community is not in question. However, we are not saved as communities. Collectives cannot be saved. Collectives cannot accept the gospel. Collectives cannot be baptized. Groups cannot receive the Holy Ghost, receive the priesthood, take the sacrament, do missionary work, do home teaching, give blessings, raise families, go to church, be sealed in the temple, live righteously, or commit sins. Communities have no will, motives, desires, goals, thoughts, or beliefs. Communities are not entities with a will and teleology independent of and containing the wills, motives, and desires of the individuals within it.
We are accountable for our own sins, and not Adam's transgression, and if so, we are not accountable for the transgressions of others, nor can the righteousness of others be transferred to us by our simply proximity to the righteous within a broader community.
If so, then the parable of the wise and foolish virgins is reduced to rubble.