Sunday, November 30, 2008

The Establishment of Zion



I’ve thought a great deal ultimately on the establishment of Zion here on the earth. Hugh Nibley’s book “Approaching Zion” has thrown a new light on the subject for me, as did Elder Christofferson’s recent conference talk.

Nibley makes the point that Zion is a possibility and that “the instant one realizes that Zion is a possibility, one has no choice but to identify himself with the program that will bring about the quickest possible realization of its perfection.” (p. 28) I agree with this statement and believe it includes Elder Christofferson’s charge: “to care for the poor and needy with such effectiveness that we eliminate poverty among us. We cannot wait until Zion comes for these things to happen—Zion will come only as they happen” (“Come to Zion;” General Conference October 2008)

We know from Elder Christofferson’s talk and the scriptures that the establishment of Zion means the elimination of poverty. We know that in Alma’s early church, they were blessed because, “in their prosperous circumstances, they did not send away any who were naked, or that were hungry, or that were athirst, or that were sick, or that had not been nourished; and they did not set their hearts upon riches; therefore they were liberal to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, whether out of the church or in the church, having no respect to persons as to those who stood in need” (Alma 1:30). King Benjamin asks the powerful question: “Are we not all beggars?” (Mosiah 4:19). He makes it clear that we are not to judge a person for why they happen to be in poverty, but only to help them get out of it. The Lord Himself taught the Church in the early days that “it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin” (D&C 49:20). Some of the best people to walk the earth came in the generations following the Lord’s appearance to the Nephites. One of the defining passages about them describes that there were “no manner of –ites (among them); but they were in one, the children of Christ” (4 Ne. 4:17). I could go on with many other examples, but it is clear that Zion can only be established where there is equality among people.
After a brilliant discourse on the evils of wealth and coveting, Nibley states, “All my life I have shied away from these disturbing and highly unpopular--even offensive—themes (the uses of money). But I cannot do so any longer, because in my old age I have taken to reading the scriptures and there have had it forced upon my reluctant attention, that from the time of Adam to the present day, Zion has been pitted against Babylon, and the name of the game has always been money—‘power and gain’” (p. 58).

Satan taught Korihor principles of the free competitive market when he said, “every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime” (Alma 30:17). Does this not bring to mind our capitalistic society?

In 1875 The First Presidency stated in a letter to the Church that “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.”

This contrasts with President Benson’s statement (then a member of the quorum of the twelve) that, “a redistribution of wealth through the federal tax system. That, by definition, is socialism! . . . It has been fundamental to our way of life that charity must be voluntary if it is to be charity. Compulsory benevolence is not charity” (“A Vision and a Hope for the Youth of Zion;” BYU Devotional 1977). Perhaps giving taxes to help the poor does not constitute "charity," but until the day comes when we willingly live the law of consecration, it seems that the welfare system serves a decent, albeit distant, substitute.


Nibley states that "the man who devotes himself to tiring routines of business should be rewarded, but should all others be penalized who do not engage in that particular line of work?" He quotes Joseph Smith in the first chapter saying, "Here are those who begin to spread out buying up all the land they are able to do, to the exclusion of the poorer ones who are not so much blessed with this world's goods, thinking to lay foundations for themselves only, looking to their own individual families . . . now I want to tell you that Zion cannot be built up in any such way." I figure we should strive for Zion, even if it's an unlikely outcome, and that the welfare system works toward a Zion outcome more than the alternative.


It seems that whether we lift up the poor by our own free will, or whether it is mandated by the Church, or whether it is mandated by the government—it needs to happen. I hear people say that they would give more if they were taxed less. Perhaps, but that doesn’t seem to be our inclination as a collective group, at least in my personal experience. I’d rather my taxes go to the welfare system and help people by mandate, than me keep more and maybe give an additional $10 to fast offerings every month. I think our unity and our holiness (the other two pillars discussed by Elder Christofferson), are getting better and better as a church. It’s the third pillar, that of “caring for the poor” where I feel we are falling further and further behind. I saw it personally in my inner-city mission; perhaps that is why I feel so strongly on the subject.

Thoughts?

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Fire –
It is great to see the White Table on “Fire.” We have all had a very busy semester; hopefully we can be more consistent in our posts as we discuss the mysteries. I also think it would be great to invite others to comment on the Blog.

Ultimately your post is on the establishment of Zion and how we as members are struggling to fulfill the third pillar stated by Elder Christofferson, being “caring for the poor.” Along with this, there is an overall tone to your writing supporting a socialized health care system. Recently I was in a conversation about this subject and ran across a talk given by Marion G. Romney discussing the law of consecration and socialism. To get the ball rolling I would like to quote his closing remarks.

"And now in line with these remarks, for three things I pray:

(1) That the Lord will somehow quicken our understanding of the
difference between socialism and the United Order and give us a vivid
awareness of the awful portent of those differences.

(2) That we will develop the understanding, the desire, and the
courage born of the Spirit, to eschew socialism and to support and
sustain, in the manner revealed and as interpreted by the Lord, those
just and holy principles embodied in the Constitution of the United States
for the protection of all flesh, in the exercise of their God-given agency.

(3) That through faithful observance of the principles of
tithing, the fast, and the welfare program, we will prepare ourselves to
redeem Zion and ultimately live the United Order, in the name of Jesus
Christ. Amen."

You can either download his whole speech here: http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=480
or
Read it here: http://members.tripod.com/~runwin/socialism.html

Fire, I have had similar debates with myself as to how I should be most charitable. Some of this personal debate has led to me establishing a non-profit organization. I strongly agree with you that there are many that need our help. Conversely to your point of view, I feel that our money can be best spent through the church and organizations that we can control. Similar to Romney’s final remark about supporting the church welfare program, I too pray that, “ through faithful observance of the principals of tithing, the fast, and the [Church] welfare program, we will prepare ourselves to redeem Zion.”

Regardless of the future of our country’s welfare system, charity is an individual response to accepting our Lord as our Savior, NOT being taxed by and outside entity (Federal Gov.) Charity comes from the heart not from bureaucracy. If you only have ten dollars to give and you humbly give it through fast offerings, I feel that you would be in a much-blessed state…more than simply paying your taxes.

- Light

P.S. – I enclosed a little story about taxation. ENJOY

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
· The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
· The fifth would pay $1.
· The sixth would pay $3.
· The seventh would pay $7.
· The eighth would pay $12.
· The ninth would pay $18.
· The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80 total.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
· The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
· The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
· The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
· The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 ( 25% savings).
· The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
· The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that’s right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That’s true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Andrew and Ariel said...

Thanks for the comments Light. I agree, charity comes from the heart. I agree that we can be confident our money is well spent when donated to tithing, fast offerings, and other church programs. I don't, however, equate the federal welfare system with socialism. Welfare is to provide the minimum level of income and services to the poor, while socialism asks for collective ownership of goods and equality across the board. This clearly cannot work while corrupt leaders continue to rise throughout the world (as evidenced with Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales). In my observation, with both refugees and immigrants, the welfare program gives people a necessary head start when passing through the difficult cultural and geographical transition. I think contributing willingly to taxes that benefit the poor and disabled can be a form of charity. We did elect the leaders that implemented those reforms, and sometimes voted to implement them. So, in a sense, it's not mandatory, but voluntary that those programs exist, and therefore contributing to them is a voluntary act, or charity.
I guess what gets me is the idea of captilism, feeding the fat and stripping the poor of the little they have. The Lord and His prophets never indicate (in my studies) that wealth to a few is a good thing, or that wealth to any is a good thing. The only place that wealth is talked about in a positive context is where Jacob says, "And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good--to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted" (Jacob 2:19). I suppose I'm okay with wealth in under those conditions, but I don't think our society promotes wealth in that sense at all.
Now, I'm not one of those people who will starve my children because I think money is evil. No, I plan to work hard, make money, support my family, and hopefully support many others through fast offerings, donations to charities, foundations, and if it helps, I'll also gladly donate to the welfare system.
I don't know if I'm being very clear. I've been sick today, and my mind's a little foggy.
Always good to hear your thoughts Light and Rev. Look forward to more.

White Reverence said...

Fellowship of The White Table,

Wo is me for the great gap between my last post/comment and now. I apologize. I think my delay is partly due to a hesitation to address this current issue (welfare, socialism, political ideology and the United Order) because it is one of my most favorite subjects, but also one of great frustration. Here are some of my basic thoughts.

The scriptures indicate, at multiple times, that 1.) Caring for the needs of the poor is a correct principle/commandment. And 2.) Communities that were fully acceptable before God were usually a collective, organic, holistic communities.

The best example of this that comes to mind is 4 Nephi 1: 3, which states:

“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.”

Then, after turning against God, it states in verses 25-26

“And from that time forth they did have their goods and their substance no more common among them. And they began to be divided into classes; and they began to build up churches unto themselves to get gain, and began to deny the true church of Christ.”

However, a second point is this: Agency is an eternal law, and has important implications to determining “what is fair” and must be accounted for. An important and clear example of this is the parable of the 10 Talents where the Lord has harsh words (sent to outer darkness) for the “unprofitable servant” that did nothing with his talent instead of using it to gain more, such as the servant that made is 5 into 10.

This debate is not entirely rooted in the gospel either. It seems that there are some purely political elements to this topic, ones that the Church (and I assume the Lord also) does not have a stance on and are left to us as citizens to decide and pursue. One of these elements is our personal perspective on the role and purpose of elected government. Should government be the source of welfare and economic relief, or the private sector? I find it noteworthy that the Church feels inclined to maintain a robust welfare program, despite the presence of the American programs that exist. Is this because of inefficiencies within the U.S. welfare system, or just support and bolstering up a worthy cause? I think its the former. I agree with Fire that immigrants, minorities, and those born into poverty do indeed require supplemental help. But I’d suggest a “jump start” to get going, not a “head start” and certainly not long-sustained help. The church’s welfare system has critical differences than the U.S. welfare system, which allow it to be infinitely more successful. The biggest of these is stricter qualifications, stronger emphasis on training and education, and limits to the support provided. U.S. welfare is a worthy cause, one I support, but wow does it need cleaning up. I believe that in many cases, welfare is the problem, not the solution, for families. The become dependent upon it, and dis-incentivized to work. A mother of 3 without work will receive more than a mother of 3 with some for of income. Clearly it can promote dishonesty concerning one’s income, or teaches them to just stay home and wait for the check to come. Short-term, limited, welfare would be so much more efficient.

Another issue disscussed was taxation. I am going to not comment too much on taxes right not, due to the length of this post, but I will say that the taxation system is fundamentally broken in this country. 82% of all taxes are paid by those who make over $100,000 annually, that is incredible and unjustifiable. Some people pay 50% of their income to Uncle Same, who is broke himself, and those who’s incomes are too low to pay taxes will collect tax-refund checks under Obama’s new tax policy. Im not yet sure where I stand on taxes, but this just seems fishy.

Fire had some strong criticism of capitalism. I do not share his fervor on the matter, however I can echo that I do recognize that capitalism does indeed have an intrinsic and inevitable battle between “the haves and the have-nots.” That is to say that those who “have” certain things i.e. land, capital, or access to labor can indeed leverage and maximize their income much more easily than those who “have not” or who have simply enough for themselves. This disturbs me. It creates genuine argument that we do not all start from the same starting point, and that peoples’ “hard earned money” is not indeed “earned” but simply leveraged. There is 1 real-world example of my capitalism dilemma that I’d like to share that really frustrate me, though I still believe capitalism to be the best system currently possible.

First example is my old boss Mr. Earl Holding, owner of Sinclair Oil Corp. in Salt Lake City. His story is, to some extent, one of “rags-to-riches”. He is now worth multiple billion (yes, with a B, not an M). His big bucks come from oil in Wyoming, which he aquired by astute investment in an oil well that at the time was comparably nothing to what he has turned it into. I credit his smart decision, and respect the impressive story of how hard of a worker he was at first. I have no problem with him being rewarded for those early decisions. However, with his billions of dollars, he now has the opportunity that most do not to invest his money so that it keeps on coming in. He has built hotels, ski-resorts and ranches to keep that money flowing. He has not “earned” that money, he has created a perpetual source of income. His hotels are 90% immigrants, mostly eastern european and mexican. They all work for an average of, lets say $10 an hour (being very more generous then their actual wages). These immigrants would GROSS around 21,000, working 40 weeks, doing very unappealing work. I would disagree strongly that Mr. Holding, or his billionaire son, have such incredible skills or such inexpensible value to justify an hourly wage of $480 an hour. Oh, by the way, that $480 an hour would generate only a single million dollars annually. This family is worth around 10 billion, so maybe multiply that hourly wage by 10,000. Does my dillema seem clear? I want people to work hard, and incentives are the way to ensure that. Also, I want people to be able to keep their money so they create more jobs by investing into new businesses. But, on the other hand, I have a hard time understanding the wage differences between the executive-level people and the labor-level people. I don’t think that the immigrants should be paid millions for unskilled labor, but why are their wages not more like $15-$20? Sure, it would cut into profit margins, but when the top executives are worth 10-digits (billions), does it matter if they make a little less so others can make more? By the way, Mr. Earl Holding is an active LDS member, so I guess 10% of his income does actually go to a non-profit organization, which is good.

Okay. Im done. I cant believe how long I wrote. This has been 3 days in the making, and it will likely take 3 days to read. Im so sorry. This is obviously a point of interest to me, and one that requires much discussion to get deep into.

But, this is what the White Table is all about.

White. Forever.