Matthew, in chapter 19, wrote:Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
Same old tired shibboleths. Same old prese- 70p97ntist bibilical prooftexting. Same old threadbare projecting of contemporary modern leftist (primarily 19th and 20th century German and continental generally speaking) political ideologies upon the scriptures. At the very least, this verse - who's context is one individual - cannot possibly be used to extrapolate a larger doctrinal point, at least one having global social and economic significance. The very fact that Jesus challenged this person in this manner is not, logically, a basis from which to extract a body of doctrine justifying a collectivist or egalitarian social order (which, if Jesus had wished to actually teach, could very well have done so).
From an LDS perspective, the likely scenario is that Jesus was challenging the rich man's heart - he was asking whether or not this man was
capable ("A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation.") of selling all he had and giving to the poor, as a condition of discipleship. That he was actually asking him to physically do so, unless he was inviting him into the apostleship, is wholly outside established LDS doctrine and wholly outside the concepts and rules governing the LoC as restored in this dispensation, and hence, can be easily dispensed with.
Its also irrational and preposterously stupid, as a general mandate regarding human economic life. God is the most intelligent of all beings, says the PofGP. So is God stupid or intelligent? Shall we make up our minds? NOM and apostate liberal Mormons should also make up their minds as to precisely what they mean when they speak of "abolishing" poverty or beating their breasts over the "no rich and no poor" statements regarding the UO. The argument you've made (and many other LDS "progressives") have made here is that, for Jesus, poverty is a virtue, and should be actively sought. On the other hand, you claim to want to abolish poverty and somehow see to it that there is plenty for all.
Now, if this statement to the rich young man is a
general doctrinal mandate to all Christians, and by extension, all people, then what this logically amounts to is a call to a global vow of poverty among the world's people generally. At the very least, it amounts to a call to a vow of self-inflicted poverty by all those who call themselves Christians (about two billion people, at present).
Yet, a global, or mass, if not global, call to divest ourselves of all our property and cash by transferring it to the poor, would appear to be grossly inconsistent with the ideal of there being "no poor among us." How then does making hundreds of millions of affluent people poor either
1. Ultimately help the poor.
2. Harmonize with gospel doctrine relative to Zion communities that
there will be no poor?
Other first principles questions also need to be answered:
1. How is wealth created?
2. Do the poor have any responsibilities or participation in the wealth creation process?
3. What is the
ultimate answer to poverty on an individual and societal basis, state
distribution of produced wealth, or individual
creation of personal wealth over the expanse of a normal lifetime?
4. Is economic dependence or economic independence the better state of affairs? Which is both economically and morally the more viable condition?