LDS Church and redistribution of wealth ....

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I saw this over on Joanna Brooks's site, and found it interesting, particularly in today's political climate when it comes to Romney and his multitude of Republican TBM supporters.

On July 10, 1875, the FP and Quorum of the 12 issued what was described as an "apostolic circular," which discussed the reasons for creating Z.C.M.I. and the general philosophy behind the Church's social and co-operative systems. It's a very long statement, so (in the interest of saving bandwidth) I will only post excerpts. The earliest version of the full statement I found online was in Edward W. Tullidge's 1886 History of Salt Lake City, at pages 728-32, which I found among Google digital books at the following link:

http://books.google.com/books?id=fNkBAA ... &q&f=false

Here are the excerpts I found interesting (all bold mine for emphasis):

To the Latter-day Saints:

The experience of mankind has shown that the people of communities and nations, among whom wealth is the most equally distributed, enjoy the largest degree of liberty, are the least exposed to tyranny and oppression and suffer the least from luxurious habits which beget vice.
...

One of the great evils with which our own nation is menaced at the present time is the wonderful growth of wealth in the hands of a comparatively few individuals. The very liberties for which our fathers contended so steadfastly and courageously, and which they bequeathed to us as a priceless legacy, are endangered by the monstrous power which this accumulation of wealth gives to a few individuals and a few powerful corporations. By its seductive influence results are accomplished which, were it more equally distributed, would be impossible under our form of government. It threatens to give shape to the legislation, both state and national, of the entire country. If this evil should not be checked, and measures not be taken to prevent the continued enormous growth of riches among the class already rich, and the painful increase of destitution and want among the poor, the nation is liable to be overtaken by disaster; for according to history, such a tendency among nations once powerful was the sure precursor of ruin.

...

Years ago it was perceived that we Latter-day Saints were open to the same dangers as those which beset the rest of the world. A condition of affairs existed among us which was favorable to the growth of riches in the hands of a few at the expense of the many. A wealthy class was being rapidly formed in our midst whose interests, in the course of time, were likely to be diverse from those of the rest of the community. The growth of such a class was dangerous to our union and of all people, we stand most in need of union, and to have our interests identical. Then it was that the Saints were counseled to enter into co-operation. In the absence of the necessary faith to enter upon a more perfect order revealed by the Lord unto the church, this was felt to be the best means of drawing us together and making us one.

It was not for the purpose alone, however, of making money, of declaring large dividends, that Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution was established. A higher object than this prompted its organization. A union of interests was sought to be attained. At the time co-operation was entered upon, the Latter-day Saints were acting in utter disregard of the principles of self-preservation. They were encouraging the growth of evils in their own midst which they condemned as the worst features of the systems from which they had been gathered. Large profits were being concentrated in comparatively few hands, instead of being generally distributed among the people. As a consequence, the community was being rapidly divided into classes, and the hateful and unhappy distinctions which the possession and lack of wealth gave rise to, were becoming painfully apparent. When the proposition to organize Zion's Co-operative Mercantile Institution was broached, it was hoped that the community at large would become its stockholders; for if a few individuals only were to own its stock, the advantages to the community would be limited. The people, therefore, were urged to take shares, and large numbers responded to the appeal. As we have shown, the business proved to be as successful as its most sanguine friends anticipated. But the distribution of profits among the community was not the only benefit conferred by the organization of co-operation among us.
...

Does not all our history impress upon us the great truth that in union is strength? Without it, what power would the Latter-day Saints have? But it is not in the doctrines alone that we should be united, but in practice and especially in our business affairs.

As you can see, the more equal distribution of wealth among the many is mentioned no less than 4 times in the above excerpts. And this document was signed by ALL members of the FP and Quorum of the 12, so it carries some weight. I'd bet that Romney has never read it, nor most TBM's. But perhaps they should ....

[_Yahoo Bot]

This is really old news. Arrington discussed this in his doctoral thesis which was published in a highly regarded book, Great Basin Kingdom. He tries to dance around the early communism of the church by calling it communitarianism, which I don't think is a real word.

There is little doubt that the modern Church members do not realize that 19th Century church leaders leaned toward a communal form of socialism that, in the later decades, withered away. Once Brigham Young lost political power in 1857, it wasn't socialism any more but voluntary communism with elements of private ownership. In the time period you mention, Brigham Young and then John Taylor were most exercised about the emergence of the mining interests and mining wealth in Salt Lake, and railroad wealth elsewhere. In the decade before, Brigham Young took offense to the way he perceived that Gentile and former Saints jacked up prices for eastern merchandise.

Romney is a brilliant guy and I'm fairly sure he has a working knowledge of early Mormon economic experiments. Most Mormon intellectuals or well-read Mormons would know about these stuff.

But, the Church's early views about wealth and its redistribution should not be confused with some sort of call for government intervention and confiscation of private property. Libertarianism teaches that men and women can combine in economic units to wield power, but government should have not role in that process.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

This is really old news.

Wasn't for me; ergo, the reason for my post.

Romney is a brilliant guy and I'm fairly sure he has a working knowledge of early Mormon economic experiments.

I doubt it. The guy doesn't seem to remember positions he took last week, let alone what the Brethren said in 1875.

Most Mormon intellectuals or well-read Mormons would know about these [sic] stuff.

Romney is neither, in my opinion.

[_sock puppet]

Thanks, Rollo, for posting.

I had not previously read the explanatory statement for ZCMI's establishment. I knew that BY thought that Gentile merchants were 'scalping' the Utah Mormons, and for that reason, ZCMI was set up. I did not however know of the distribution of wealth notions behind ZCMI's creation, i.e., to keep wealth from concentrating in the hands of a few.

[_Drifting]

Most Mormon intellectuals or well-read Mormons would know about these stuff.

Aren't these type of people, according to BKP, a threat to the Church...?

[_Yahoo Bot]

Most Mormon intellectuals or well-read Mormons would know about these stuff.

Aren't these type of people, according to BKP, a threat to the Church...?

I don't know one way the other, really, and don't care. I like some of them and detest others. The ones I detest I do so because of the foolishness of the things they say, like Blake Ostler, and not because they support or oppose the church. By contrast, I read, use and quote from in my own publications Mike Quinn, so don't assume that everybody you hate who is affiliated with the church agrees that intellectuals threaten the Church. They don't.

[Guest]

As you can see, the more equal distribution of wealth among the many is mentioned no less than 4 times in the above excerpts. And this document was signed by ALL members of the FP and Quorum of the 12, so it carries some weight. I'd bet that Romney has never read it, nor most TBM's. But perhaps they should ....

But it carries no doctrinal weight whatsoever, which can be seen by the fact that in my entire life I have never seen this reprinted or used in a single church, Institute, seminary, or any other official published Church source, ever.

I suspect there is a great deal of missing context here, as well. Various levels of economic attainment and living standards will persist so long as there is free agency, and only in the removal of that can economic equality even be contemplated. "Class" is another thing altogether, and is something much more in the eye of the beholder. In economically free societies, large masses of people move up and down within economic categories throughout their lives (and sometimes drastically), and whatever may have been the case in the 19th century in the Salt Lake Valley, the actual history of democratic capitalism has been one of the destruction of class barriers and the creation of a dynamic, fluid movement of substantial numbers of people into and out of higher and lower economic income levels.

Ironically, it is the persistent fixation on "class" by the Left that has wrought so much human damage and degradation over the last century and threatens human felicity and prosperity in the future. For the Left, as always, individual liberty is the unruly danger that must be crushed in the name of the "common good."

The "intellectuals," of course, get to decide just what that common good is and who gets more or less of it. The D&C itself makes no such claims about the purpose and meaning of the UO or its economic elements, and Enrichment Section L of the D&C Institute Manuel provides and extensive overview of the doctrinal aspects of the UO and LoC as the Church understands and has taught it during the 20th century, as well as some of the uninspired mistakes that were made and misconceptions that were indulged in by some of the Brethren in mid to late 19th century.

Indeed, after all the Saints had been through that had forced them to flee the United States into outlying territories, it is odd that the primary concern of these brethren here would be wealth concentrated in a few hands and not the power of unaccountable, rogue government (populated, by the way, precisely by a tiny class of politicians with vastly disproportionate financial means concentrated in a few hands, the difference being that those in the private sector having such wealth earned it by serving their fellow men in a free, uncoerced market, while the political class has confiscated the wealth it possesses from those who created it, and who's own livelihood is dependent upon the productive labor of others).

There's a great deal of economic illiteracy on display here, as well. With all due respect to the 19th century Brethren who signed this document, in an open, free market economic order, wealth concentrates in the hands of those who tend to serve their fellow beings - through the creation of goods and services they want to buy and which make life easier and more pleasant - in a relative way based upon the contribution of each to the productive processes of society. The burger-flipper makes less than the auto mechanic, who makes less than the mechanical engineer, who makes less than the skilled heart surgeon, for very obvious reasons. People become millionaires (and prolific philanthropists) because they served their fellow citizens better, or more efficiently, than others who served them less so, and in a free, open, market social order, their are few barriers to upward mobility save those that are self imposed.

As has been rehashed over and over and over again here, "equality" in the Zion sense means equal claims on the blessings of the welfare system if needed, not a standardized equality of temporal condition placed upon all as a structural component of the system. We know, indeed, from long historical experience, what this accomplishes, which is the institutional establishment of equal poverty and want across the population as a whole and the destruction of incentives to work, save, invest (risk) and of capital formation - the prerequisites of economic productivity and the only way poverty can truly ever be alleviated.

No work, no savings, no investment, no profit - no capitalism, then no Bishop's storehouse, and yes, in this scenario, there will be no rich or poor...just poor.

[_3sheets2thewind]

When dogma is challenged deny the Prophets who challenged the dogma.

[_Droopy]

None of this is doctrinal in any recognized sense. An "apostolic circular" discussing the personal opinions of the Brethren in the late 19th century for forming ZCMI has no binding weight for the Saints. Officially published Church doctrinal texts do, as do the scriptures themselves.

That an academic socialist ideologue like Brooks would dig something like this up in a desperate attempt to, as is her wont, continue her fatuous project of synthesizing church teachings with contemporary leftist utopian fantasies of a redeemed, transformed humanity (with the Platonic anointed such as herself as guardians and ministers of the progressive golden calf) is hardly a shocking revelation.

[_sock puppet]

None of this is doctrinal in any recognized sense. An "apostolic circular" discussing the personal opinions of the Brethren in the late 19th century for forming ZCMI has no binding weight for the Saints. Officially published Church doctrinal texts do, as do the scriptures themselves.

That an academic socialist ideologue like Brooks would dig something like this up in a desperate attempt to, as is her wont, continue her fatuous project of synthesizing church teachings with contemporary leftist utopian fantasies of a redeemed, transformed humanity (with the Platonic anointed such as herself as guardians and ministers of the progressive golden calf) is hardly a shocking revelation.

How do you dismiss it as the personal opinions of the Brethren when the word "apostolic" is used?