Vort

Is it unwise to live a united order as an expression of the law of consecration without the express command of God?

Is it unwise to live a united order as an expression of the law of consecration without the express command of God?

To answer my own question:
Our nuclear families are the basic example of living a true united order as an expression of consecration. All income into the family is pooled and then meted out according to need and desire. Families are usually as financially successful as their leaders make them, so Dad and Mom make it or break it. I have spoken with a few couples (mostly in my earlier adult years, while I and they were both still young, 20s or 30s) who chose to keep separate books, combining expenses such as rent but keeping other budgets separate. Privately, I always found this vaguely repulsive, though of course I didn't burden them with my opinion.
I believe this same system could work, and work well, in an extended family of adult brothers and sisters, perhaps even between cousins. But the larger the family generation included, the more people have to be committed to loving and helping each other and not worrying about everything being "fair". Indeed, an insistence of fairness is the death of any real united order. So while I am sure there are some family groups somewhere who successfully practice this extended united-order-style idea, I can only suppose it's exceedingly rare and probably fragile.
I think it is unwise to try to practice this sort of united order between non-relatives, even good friends, without being commanded by God and led by authorities duly set apart under Priesthood assignment for that duty. I do not believe it is immoral to do so, but I think it is almost certain to lead to a bad end.
When I was very young, I would occasionally hear my parents and relatives talk about what they called "the law of consecration", but which as an adult I recognize more precisely as the united order. I heard them say that they hoped that, when the time came, they could be monetary contributors rather than takers. I thought that was a noble thing, and I took it to heart. I was an adult before I realized that those good and virtuous intentions were misplaced. Get a group of ignorant and impoverished people who take their united order seriously, as a true expression of the law of consecration, and who are willing to work hard and care for each other, and it is almost a given that they will succeed and flourish in time, probably in a very short time. Get a group of successful, educated adults who view everything in monetary terms and are always careful to look out for freeloaders and want to police things so that everyone does their fair share, and it is absolutely a given that they will not have the Spirit, and their "united order" will quickly dissolve into bickering, finger-pointing, and disunity.

As I understand - the United Order was designed to provide a platform for a community to live under the Law of Consecration and Stewardship.  Individual families are individually responsible regardless of what is happening in their community - with the exception of socialistic states.  It is my personal belief that without freedom and liberty it is impossible to live the Law of Consecration and Stewardship.  Thus I believe a people must have desire and then G-d will provide a proctor with authority.
 
The Traveler

"Compulsory benevolence is not charity"

Side question. Could we look at callings the same way we look at property. Nothing is truly ours, we only have the illusion of ownership, God gives all and gives us stewardship over what is his. Callings are only additions to our stewardship. However, because of the illusion of ownership, we treat our property better than we treat our callings. But in reality they are equal.

Indeed, the two are inseparable. Part of our consecration is accepting and magnifying our stewardship, just as part of our stewardship is our consecration of all things to God. Obvious? Maybe, but worth considering.

That's because it included lots of promiscuous sex. What could be more utopian for the typical high schooler?

I'm going to bring up this topic again because I've just had a change of perspective on just what the differences and similarities are here.  It was because I actually got a copy of the Priesthood manual on Church Welfare and read it.
The primary thought that has enlightened my mind is the "full title" of the law.  It isn't just "The Law of Consecration".  It was "The Law of Consecration and Stewardship."
Primarily what this meant was that, yes, we signed over the deed to our land and property to the Church.  BUT!!! then we were given an assignment to be stewards over that property.  The vast majority of the time, such stewardship simply meant that the signing the deed over was effectively nominal.  Yes, a legal procedure.  But the way it was practiced, it was "in name only."  The steward ran the farm, received profits from it and gave what he could to the Church for welfare purposes.
As a side note, there were many of the particularly wealthy who would not sign over their property.  None of them were excommunicated for that refusal (that I'm aware of).  And when the practice was discontinued, the property was all given back to the stewards.
Today, the general authorities practice the same thing.  And I wonder when George P. Lee was excommunicated, did he ask for his property back?  Was it given to him?  I don't know. But I'd suspect that if he did ask and it were not given back to him then we would have heard about it all over the news.
So, again, even though it was a legal procedure, it was apparently in name only.  So, why do they practice it?  I think that it is because when you sign on as a general authority, you have to have a physical reminder of the level of sacrifice you have to make to serve in that capacity.  Signing over the rights to all your property is a pretty big commitment.
Each of us makes a commitment to live the Law of Consecration.  But we are not asked to sign over our homes.  I think that on a practical level, it would be untenable.  A general authority will live in the same place for pretty much the rest of his life.  But I've moved into 11 different homes since I've been married.  What process would I have to do for each time I had to move?  I'm going through the process in my head and it could potentially be REALLY complicated.  Would I even be able to move? How would I have had the jobs I've had in my life? 
The reality is that I would end up unemployed most of my life if I had to stay where I was.  Instead, I make that covenant in my heart, but not on paper.  I view all my property (both real and personal) as the property of the Lord.  I am only the steward of that property.  If the Lord were to ask me for it, I'd have to oblige.  It's His.  How could I keep it from Him?
So, while some people say that we don't live the Law of Consecration today -- only the GAs do -- they are technically correct.  But on a spiritual level, I disagree.  The difference really is "just a piece of paper."  The GAs who practice it are still given stewardship over all that property.  They basically run it as if it were their own, just as I run my property as if it were my own.  But in the back of their minds, and in the back of my mind, I'm always reminded of the covenants I've made.  It isn't mine.  It is the Lord's.  And as long as I carry that thought in my mind and the principle in my heart, then I believe I am living the Law of Consecration and Stewardship -- with or without that piece of paper.

Wild guess: BLM

I didn't.... but I totally understand why you would go that direction.  What I was trying to say (and very likely poorly) is that through repeated observations that Travel tends to be off in his own world a lot.  That while I am sure his responses make perfect sense in his own head (and as he imagined it can or should go) it had repeatedly not translated well to those of us not privy to the interworkings of his mind.  This is why many of us choose not to engage him any more. 
 
I did not vote for Trump in the last election.  I did not feel he met the criteria of Good Character.  (Which is Lord's command to us.. thus a judgement I have to make about person for my personal use) and I did not trust what he would do with the powers of the Presidency (Which is a judgement I have to make as a voter).
Over the last few years, he has used the powers of the Presidency and I have to acknowledge that my fears were largely misplaced.  Sure I don't agree with everything he has done and a lot of people are complaining and screaming about it.  But largely all the complainers and screamers are people I expect to complain and scream when the job is being done reasonably like I think it should be done.
As for his character his flaws are still there.  But the correct use of power (as I see it) is a plus that was not there before.

Why is this anti nonsense being allowed on the LDS Gospel Discussion forum? For that matter, why is it (and its author) allowed on the TH forum at all?

Why is this anti nonsense being allowed on the LDS Gospel Discussion forum? For that matter, why is it (and its author) allowed on the TH forum at all?

I haven't watched this Numberphile (yet—great channel, btw), but given the assumptions that the trees extend infinitely in both directions on a perfectly Euclidian plane and that the tree trunks and the laser beam are all infinitesimally narrow (and that the tree branches, leaves, etc. aren't part of the question), I'm going to say yes, you will always hit a tree. My sense is that such a problem is like saying, "If you pick any real number at random, will you get a rational or an irrational?" The set of irrationals is so much larger than the rationals that it becomes infinitely improbable that you would end up with a rational. Similarly, I'm guessing it's infinitely improbable that you point the laser in exactly a "rational" direction such that you avoid all the infinite tree trunks.
But if it's infinitely improbable, isn't that the same as saying it's impossible? Yet we can see that e.g. if you point the laser exactly parallel to a row of trees, that it will never hit a tree trunk. So what does "impossible" mean in this case? What do probabilities mean? It becomes practically a philosophical conundrum, at least for someone as tender and innocent in the arcane ways of mathematics as am I.
EDIT: Wow. I was exactly, 180° wrong, and for exactly the reasons I discussed. I wonder how I missed that. The trees represent, in effect, the rational set of numbers, so as long as you pick an effectively "irrational" direction, you'll miss the trees. So with infinitely thin trees and an infinitely narrow laser, it is in effect impossible to point the laser in any direction on the plane and hit a tree.

If your point is that the Republicans are liars and hypocrites, then I grant your point. The fact (and it is a fact) that the Democrats are far worse doesn't justify the Republican hypocrisy. But this is nothing beyond political gamesmanship. You can bet that the Democrats, in this position, would do exactly the same thing. Their pearl clutching on this matter is political theater, nothing more.
Consider: The Supreme Court has had a leftist majority for the entirety of our lifetimes. The political left sees a leftist Supreme Court as their inherent right. And that is what is really at stake here. Why shouldn't the Supreme Court take a conservative bend? The Left sees this as unacceptable and will thus do everything in their power to prohibit it. Meanwhile, the Republicans are 100% within their right to nominate and confirm the justice of their choosing. How does the Left respond? With a threat to burn the entire house down by packing the court under a Biden presidency.
Rail all you want against Republican hypocrisy. I might even join you. But don't lose sight of what's really going on here. As is almost always the case, the real, deep evil being done here is being done by the Democrats. The Republicans are mostly garden-variety fools and jackasses. The Democrats are something far more sinister.

If your point is that the Republicans are liars and hypocrites, then I grant your point. The fact (and it is a fact) that the Democrats are far worse doesn't justify the Republican hypocrisy. But this is nothing beyond political gamesmanship. You can bet that the Democrats, in this position, would do exactly the same thing. Their pearl clutching on this matter is political theater, nothing more.
Consider: The Supreme Court has had a leftist majority for the entirety of our lifetimes. The political left sees a leftist Supreme Court as their inherent right. And that is what is really at stake here. Why shouldn't the Supreme Court take a conservative bend? The Left sees this as unacceptable and will thus do everything in their power to prohibit it. Meanwhile, the Republicans are 100% within their right to nominate and confirm the justice of their choosing. How does the Left respond? With a threat to burn the entire house down by packing the court under a Biden presidency.
Rail all you want against Republican hypocrisy. I might even join you. But don't lose sight of what's really going on here. As is almost always the case, the real, deep evil being done here is being done by the Democrats. The Republicans are mostly garden-variety fools and jackasses. The Democrats are something far more sinister.

If your point is that the Republicans are liars and hypocrites, then I grant your point. The fact (and it is a fact) that the Democrats are far worse doesn't justify the Republican hypocrisy. But this is nothing beyond political gamesmanship. You can bet that the Democrats, in this position, would do exactly the same thing. Their pearl clutching on this matter is political theater, nothing more.
Consider: The Supreme Court has had a leftist majority for the entirety of our lifetimes. The political left sees a leftist Supreme Court as their inherent right. And that is what is really at stake here. Why shouldn't the Supreme Court take a conservative bend? The Left sees this as unacceptable and will thus do everything in their power to prohibit it. Meanwhile, the Republicans are 100% within their right to nominate and confirm the justice of their choosing. How does the Left respond? With a threat to burn the entire house down by packing the court under a Biden presidency.
Rail all you want against Republican hypocrisy. I might even join you. But don't lose sight of what's really going on here. As is almost always the case, the real, deep evil being done here is being done by the Democrats. The Republicans are mostly garden-variety fools and jackasses. The Democrats are something far more sinister.

If your point is that the Republicans are liars and hypocrites, then I grant your point. The fact (and it is a fact) that the Democrats are far worse doesn't justify the Republican hypocrisy. But this is nothing beyond political gamesmanship. You can bet that the Democrats, in this position, would do exactly the same thing. Their pearl clutching on this matter is political theater, nothing more.
Consider: The Supreme Court has had a leftist majority for the entirety of our lifetimes. The political left sees a leftist Supreme Court as their inherent right. And that is what is really at stake here. Why shouldn't the Supreme Court take a conservative bend? The Left sees this as unacceptable and will thus do everything in their power to prohibit it. Meanwhile, the Republicans are 100% within their right to nominate and confirm the justice of their choosing. How does the Left respond? With a threat to burn the entire house down by packing the court under a Biden presidency.
Rail all you want against Republican hypocrisy. I might even join you. But don't lose sight of what's really going on here. As is almost always the case, the real, deep evil being done here is being done by the Democrats. The Republicans are mostly garden-variety fools and jackasses. The Democrats are something far more sinister.

Once again, you've fallen for the media's penchant for taking things out of context.
While a few of them really did mean what you say, the great majority of them all included the condition: when the Senate majority and the Presidency were of opposite parties (or those quoted were speaking against the backdrop of such conversation).  
Think about NT's post above.  100% of the time when a vacancy occurred in an election year when the President and Senate majority were of the same party, the nominations went forth and were confirmed.  80% of those where opposing parties controlled their respective offices, the nominations did NOT go forward to confirmation.
Think about it.  100% of the time when they were of the same party (any party) they went forward,  And you think this is something worth getting into a stink about?  Check your facts before you jump on the bandwagon of "Demonize the Republicans."

If your point is that the Republicans are liars and hypocrites, then I grant your point. The fact (and it is a fact) that the Democrats are far worse doesn't justify the Republican hypocrisy. But this is nothing beyond political gamesmanship. You can bet that the Democrats, in this position, would do exactly the same thing. Their pearl clutching on this matter is political theater, nothing more.
Consider: The Supreme Court has had a leftist majority for the entirety of our lifetimes. The political left sees a leftist Supreme Court as their inherent right. And that is what is really at stake here. Why shouldn't the Supreme Court take a conservative bend? The Left sees this as unacceptable and will thus do everything in their power to prohibit it. Meanwhile, the Republicans are 100% within their right to nominate and confirm the justice of their choosing. How does the Left respond? With a threat to burn the entire house down by packing the court under a Biden presidency.
Rail all you want against Republican hypocrisy. I might even join you. But don't lose sight of what's really going on here. As is almost always the case, the real, deep evil being done here is being done by the Democrats. The Republicans are mostly garden-variety fools and jackasses. The Democrats are something far more sinister.

I haven't watched this Numberphile (yet—great channel, btw), but given the assumptions that the trees extend infinitely in both directions on a perfectly Euclidian plane and that the tree trunks and the laser beam are all infinitesimally narrow (and that the tree branches, leaves, etc. aren't part of the question), I'm going to say yes, you will always hit a tree. My sense is that such a problem is like saying, "If you pick any real number at random, will you get a rational or an irrational?" The set of irrationals is so much larger than the rationals that it becomes infinitely improbable that you would end up with a rational. Similarly, I'm guessing it's infinitely improbable that you point the laser in exactly a "rational" direction such that you avoid all the infinite tree trunks.
But if it's infinitely improbable, isn't that the same as saying it's impossible? Yet we can see that e.g. if you point the laser exactly parallel to a row of trees, that it will never hit a tree trunk. So what does "impossible" mean in this case? What do probabilities mean? It becomes practically a philosophical conundrum, at least for someone as tender and innocent in the arcane ways of mathematics as am I.
EDIT: Wow. I was exactly, 180° wrong, and for exactly the reasons I discussed. I wonder how I missed that. The trees represent, in effect, the rational set of numbers, so as long as you pick an effectively "irrational" direction, you'll miss the trees. So with infinitely thin trees and an infinitely narrow laser, it is in effect impossible to point the laser in any direction on the plane and hit a tree.

mordorbund mulls math mysteries.

I haven't watched this Numberphile (yet—great channel, btw), but given the assumptions that the trees extend infinitely in both directions on a perfectly Euclidian plane and that the tree trunks and the laser beam are all infinitesimally narrow (and that the tree branches, leaves, etc. aren't part of the question), I'm going to say yes, you will always hit a tree. My sense is that such a problem is like saying, "If you pick any real number at random, will you get a rational or an irrational?" The set of irrationals is so much larger than the rationals that it becomes infinitely improbable that you would end up with a rational. Similarly, I'm guessing it's infinitely improbable that you point the laser in exactly a "rational" direction such that you avoid all the infinite tree trunks.
But if it's infinitely improbable, isn't that the same as saying it's impossible? Yet we can see that e.g. if you point the laser exactly parallel to a row of trees, that it will never hit a tree trunk. So what does "impossible" mean in this case? What do probabilities mean? It becomes practically a philosophical conundrum, at least for someone as tender and innocent in the arcane ways of mathematics as am I.
EDIT: Wow. I was exactly, 180° wrong, and for exactly the reasons I discussed. I wonder how I missed that. The trees represent, in effect, the rational set of numbers, so as long as you pick an effectively "irrational" direction, you'll miss the trees. So with infinitely thin trees and an infinitely narrow laser, it is in effect impossible to point the laser in any direction on the plane and hit a tree.

Yes, this is what I had heard about before.  I understand Aleph0.  I don't get what comes next.
I see you had the same problem I had.
I was actually told differently.  I was told that all those things I spoke of were all Aleph0. And there were more things in Aleph1.  But as I said, I have no idea what that means.  The person telling me all this struggled to explain it himself. And the example he gave me was something I disproved in a couple minutes.  Maybe he didn't know either.
I'm essentially saying something along the lines of...
That is what I was saying about the various infinity^n.  I don't know how it could be ineterpreted any other way.
This is how I was describing achieving perfection in this life, where x = time in mortality.  Some argue that this is also how we progress eternally through the Telestial and Terrestrial.  I'm toying with the idea that this notion is not correct, hence, my three dimensions and infinite dimensions pradigm. I did not realize that McConkie agreed with me.
I don't see this as much different than the original 3-d and infinite-D model.  Sure there is a numerical difference.  But conceptually, they're pretty much the same.
BTW, I liked the Numberphile link you provided.  I've been a fan of that channel. But I never saw that video before.  One thing that he brought up, but didn't get into much: Something I believe to be at the root of why sealing is so important.
When you add dimension to the trees or the laser, it really doesn't really matter how much dimension it is.  The original analysis was based on the trees and laser being of zero dimension.   But once you give both of them any measurable dimension at all, then anywhere you point will eventually hit a tree.
I believe that this concept is why we need to be sealed.  I believe sealing is the "dimension" of eternity.  I know that makes no sense as a point-for-point allegory.  But conceptually interpreting the math, that is the closest thing to where sealing falls into eternity (off the top of my head postulate).
***********
The orchard problem also brings up another interesting point.The fact that the zero dimensions will only hit on rational numbers says something.  We mortals try to fit everything into neat little rational boxes.  We have a mind, we therefore must be able to understand all the things of God with using our intellect alone.
Ha-hah.
Compared with the Lord, our intellect is infinitesimal (i.e. has zero dimensional width).  So, we limit ourselves when we depend entirely on our rational mind alone.  Certainly the rational mind focuses and provides some framework.  But if we are to understand eternity and infinity, we must look at and make use of the irrational numbers.  By the orchard analogy, we know there are infinitely more irrational numbers than rational numbers.  And some of the most important numbers like pi and e are irrational. And they govern the design and intent of so much in this universe alone.
Why do we limit ourselves when the Spirit is right there waiting for us to simply listen?  Listen, and we had some dimension to our being.

I found a reference that explains an example demonstrating that the rationals are countably infinite, and thus aleph-naught. It's not mathematically rigorous, so if you want to use it on your Math Ed Master's thesis, you're out of luck. But it's convincing. I admit I chuckled out loud when I saw it. Clever.
https://www.homeschoolmath.net/teaching/rational-numbers-countable.php#:~:text=A set is countable if you can count its elements.&text=In mathematical terms%2C a set,the set of natural numbers.