United Order and distribution of wealth

[mightynancy]

I imagine this belongs in the religious forum, but being that we're discussing distribution of wealth, I put it here.

Those of you who are against resources going from the people who earned them to the people who didn't, what's your take on the United Order? I know that secular communism/socialism have their corruption problems, and that the United Order will be led by the Lord. My question for you is whether you're okay with the idea of a bishop distributing your resources as he sees fit (as inspired by the Spirit). Will you be okay, seeing your money or surplus goods going to someone who didn't "earn" it?

I don't have a huge income, but what I do "earn" is earned by using gifts that the Lord gave me...thus my earnings aren't mine alone. I feel obligated to share. I have been given the gifts of health, intelligence, supportive family. Others who lack my particular gifts can be blessed when I share what my gifts bring.

What do you think?

[Elgama]

I am entirely with you Nancy - I personally happilly pay my taxes and will continue to do so, its not as if earnings are fair anyway - personally I think ball players should be earning peanuts and nurses millions - one I can live without the other I may need from time to time. What about the people that work hours and hours propping up society but don't earn enough to keep themselves,

And yes due to bad management through a previous branch president I have seen people who don't need receive help from the church - ultimately its no longer mine and those that have stewardship and take what they don't need have their repsonsiblity to the Lord mine is to consecrate my talents, time and finance.

Something we are currently working on in our family is the phrase 'adequate for our needs' we are learning to live with less, to fix instead of replace etc

-Charley

[Starfish]

I imagine this belongs in the religious forum, but being that we're discussing distribution of wealth, I put it here.

Those of you who are against resources going from the people who earned them to the people who didn't, what's your take on the United Order? I know that secular communism/socialism have their corruption problems, and that the United Order will be led by the Lord. My question for you is whether you're okay with the idea of a bishop distributing your resources as he sees fit (as inspired by the Spirit). Will you be okay, seeing your money or surplus goods going to someone who didn't "earn" it?

I don't have a huge income, but what I do "earn" is earned by using gifts that the Lord gave me...thus my earnings aren't mine alone. I feel obligated to share. I have been given the gifts of health, intelligence, supportive family. Others who lack my particular gifts can be blessed when I share what my gifts bring.

What do you think?

IMO the entire difference is choice/agency. The United Order was voluntary. Government taxation is not. Your obligation to share is good. You will receive blessings from sharing. You are being obedient to commandments. But when your money is taken by force and you have no choice--you have not earned any blessings. You have not been obedient because you had no option. It's bondage, just as Satan wanted. FORCE them to do good.

[Starfish]

I see this as a lack of confidence in the goodness of people. As if, "Surely people won't GIVE enough so it must be forced out of them". This is very sad.

[a-train]

I agree with Church leadership on the issue. Government efforts that compel through taxation the haves to give to the have nots, both abdicate our rights to perform acts of charity and limit our liberty in economic regards. As our leadership has indicated, this approach that disregards individual rights is a Satanic counterfiet for the law of consecration.

It is an act of cowardice and unrighteousness to defer our obligation to the poor to the cold heartless halls of government. I do not ask my country to do my labor of love for me.

-a-train

Edited November 5, 2008 by a-train

[checkerboy]

The difference is that in the United Order you are still required to work for what you receive. The way the United Order works is like this. For example, I am a designer. Let's say you are a resteraunt owner. You need menus. I will design your menus. You will feed me. Any imbalances are smoothed over by the surplus that is provided after your own family is taken care of. But if I simply said hey I need food but I am not willing to work at what I can to receive it then that isn't the United Order anymore. That is socialism.

The way that Obama would have it is that those people deserve my money simply for existing. They contribute nothing to society yet they expect something from society. The United Order works because all involved are working for the greater good. There are no slackers in the United Order. It is set up that way in the church now. If you don't pay tithing you cannot receive church welfare. Although I believe it is still at the bishops discretion. I know they are counseled this way.

[Elgama]

I see this as a lack of confidence in the goodness of people. As if, "Surely people won't GIVE enough so it must be forced out of them". This is very sad.

the very evident and heartbreaking poverty a Western European witnesses in the US is testament to the lack of goodness in people. Even in our big cities whilst we have poverty it is a lot less third world in feeling to what I have witnessed and been shocked by in the US. I know my Aunty said when visiting Washington DC and New York that she hadn't seen poverty like that after 1950 and the introduction of the welfare state in the UK and she worked in the poverty stricken areas before and after - she also demanded her guardians (her husband was part of aspecial police scholarship that saw him visit all the state forces in the US at the time they visited) took her into no go areas etc

IMO the people in US have yet to show they deserve that confidence - people here still give to charity (probably those that don't are the ones that wouldn't anyway, those that do would anyway), pay tithing if LDS and pay taxes.

-Charley

[countrygirl66]

I wish I could say I could live the united order, but I am not really sure. I sometimes think it would be easy if there was more than enough for everyone, but what if there if very little. I know I struggle with pride and that is probably why i am not sure. I love to pay my thithing, have no problem paying my taxes and I enjoy donating (but usually only through the church). I think maybe it is hard to comprehend because I look around and look at me and wonder how my neighborhood would do it. There are a lot of very wealthy righteous people where I live, I am in the middle. I wonder how I would feel to take from them what isn't mine. To think of taking everything I have, giving it to the bishop and wait to see what he would give me back for my needs? A big test of faith. I know we have so much more that our ancestors and more than people in other countries, and maybe that is the stumbling block.

[a-train]

the very evident and heartbreaking poverty a Western European witnesses in the US is testament to the lack of goodness in people. Even in our big cities whilst we have poverty it is a lot less third world in feeling to what I have witnessed and been shocked by in the US. I know my Aunty said when visiting Washington DC and New York that she hadn't seen poverty like that after 1950 and the introduction of the welfare state in the UK and she worked in the poverty stricken areas before and after - she also demanded her guardians (her husband was part of aspecial police scholarship that saw him visit all the state forces in the US at the time they visited) took her into no go areas etc

IMO the people in US have yet to show they deserve that confidence - people here still give to charity (probably those that don't are the ones that wouldn't anyway, those that do would anyway), pay tithing if LDS and pay taxes.

-Charley

For your information, the sum of charitable donations put to use in the United States each year through non-profit, non-government organizations is LARGER than all the government welfare programs combined. And, the rhetoric you are using is the same used by the Marxists, the NAZIs, and other european socialists who used false accusations and bigotry to implement tyranny.

-a-train

Edited November 5, 2008 by a-train

[funkymonkey]

With greater blessings, come greater responsibility.

[john doe]

I see it as the difference between Satan's plan and God's plan in the Council in Heaven. Satan wanted compulsory righteousness, which in reality is not true righteousness. God wants us to want to be righteous, which is true righteousness. Socialists want compulsory charity, the United Order is designed for us to voluntarily act with true charity. Compulsory charity is the opposite of true charity as far as I'm concerned.

[funkymonkey]

I see it as the difference between Satan's plan and God's plan in the Council in Heaven. Satan wanted compulsory righteousness, which in reality is not true righteousness. God wants us to want to be righteous, which is true righteousness. Socialists want compulsory charity, the United Order is designed for us to voluntarily act with true charity. Compulsory charity is the opposite of true charity as far as I'm concerned.

If this is the case then we have long since slipped into Satan's plan....since taxation in general is not a voluntary thing but rather required. (no matter how small or how big our individual contribution may be)

[mustang90]

I'm sorry but somehow I don't think social programs can be really compared to Satanic plans or Nazi regimes. The first seems a tad ridiculous the latter insulting to those who really did live and die under such an evil regime.

Or maybe I missed something?

[john doe]

Another thing I have a problem with, is does anyone have the exact numbers of voluntary charitable contributions of those who just won the election? I have been hearing less than 5% for Obama and less than 1% for Biden. If those are accurate numbers, that is extremely bothersome to me. Seems to me that charity begins at home. Maybe they just mean that us normal people should be giving, not the elite politicians.

[john doe]

Or maybe I missed something?

Yep, you did. I never said anything about Nazi's. Godwin's Law prevails here. And thanks for playing.

Edited November 5, 2008 by john doe

[mustang90]

Other members have made Nazi and Communist regime comparisons.

[Elgama]

For your information, the sum of charitable donations put to use in the United States each year through non-profit, non-government organizations is LARGER than all the government welfare programs combined. And, the rhetoric you are using is the same used by the Marxists, the NAZIs, and other european socialists who used false accusations and bigotry to implement tyranny.

-a-train

It does not change what I see everytime I visit, to someone not used to seeing such poverty its heart wrenching and the difference between the Western European Cities I have visited over those in the US is startling. I know at least in the UK we still donate both to deal with poverty in the UK and abroad, despite paying taxes.

And I have to say I do not find my country or others I have visited in Western Europe to be even close tyrannical, far from it.

-Charley

[bytor2112]

The problem with government run, tax payer funded, social programs is that they rarely ever accomplish the desired result. The solution to a failed social program.....expansion and more money. It's just like education.....the problem is always....not enough money or we need government funded pre-k. Government cannot solve social ills. The breakdown of the family has more to do with poverty and lack of education than anything else. Our culture.....the secular world is so permissive and promotes moral relativism and offers endless excuses for human failings. Maybe, it's time to hold people accountable for their own actions and stop rewarding bad behavior.

[john doe]

Other members have made Nazi and Communist regime comparisons.

I have not, but you replied to me as if I had. Please put away your broad brush and take smaller strokes in the future.

[bytor2112]

If this is the case then we have long since slipped into Satan's plan....since taxation in general is not a voluntary thing but rather required. (no matter how small or how big our individual contribution may be)

Ok .......FunkyMonkey......your avatar is killing me....so funny.

[mustang90]

And maybe its time we began lending a helping hand to people who need it.

Everyday unforseen medical emergencies land people in bankruptcy.

Everyday people are born into poverty.

Everyday people are turned away from hospitals because lack of insurance or money to pay for medical expenses.

Everyday, a child goes to a school that can't afford decent text books, classrooms, and teachers, let alone the finer things like athletics and fine arts.

Everyday someone on the street dies from a curable disease or condition.

Not everyone is a selfish screw up who only wants government assistance to buy another Wild Turkey bottle.

Not everyone deserves the tough love treatment, children come to mind.

Edited November 5, 2008 by mustang90

[mustang90]

I have not, but you replied to me as if I had. Please put away your broad brush and take smaller strokes in the future.

Actually I neither quoted you or posted directly after you.

I apologize if you felt singled out, it was not my intention.

[deseretgov]

I imagine this belongs in the religious forum, but being that we're discussing distribution of wealth, I put it here.

Those of you who are against resources going from the people who earned them to the people who didn't, what's your take on the United Order? I know that secular communism/socialism have their corruption problems, and that the United Order will be led by the Lord. My question for you is whether you're okay with the idea of a bishop distributing your resources as he sees fit (as inspired by the Spirit). Will you be okay, seeing your money or surplus goods going to someone who didn't "earn" it?

I don't have a huge income, but what I do "earn" is earned by using gifts that the Lord gave me...thus my earnings aren't mine alone. I feel obligated to share. I have been given the gifts of health, intelligence, supportive family. Others who lack my particular gifts can be blessed when I share what my gifts bring.

What do you think?

I have no problem sharing the things I "earn" under the United Order. Because under the United Order everyone is working their hardest with what they have. It's like what I see around here Not everyone in the neighborhood needs their own boat. Why not just have one neighborhood boat and everyone share it. Everyone contribute to it's maintenance.

But until we live under the United Order led by the Lord I have a right to the fruits of my labor.

[bytor2112]

And maybe its time we began lending a helping hand to people who need it.

Americans are the most charitable people on earth and we give more than any other people to charity....especially Republicans/Conservatives. Liberals give the very least. That is a fact.

Everyday unforseen medical emergencies land people in bankruptcy.

The rain falls on the just and unjust alike. I wonder how many people that don't have medical insurance have cable tv, or cell phones or smoke ciggarettes or ......? The solution is not for the Government......tax payers to provide medical insurance. More affordable health insurance....sure. A safety net.....oh wait a minute, that's called Medicaid.

Everyday people are born into poverty.

Anyone born in America hit the lottery of life. People risk life and limb to come to America. Those who work and take advantage of the opportunities provided by this great land....do well. Get rich? Maybe...maybe not. Struggle to earn a living...sometimes. Poverty is an abused term in this great land of plenty......

Everyday people are turned away from hospitals because lack of insurance or money to pay for medical expenses.

Not true. County hospital have to take patients in the ER regardless of ability to pay. Bleeding heart rhetoric.

Everyday, a child goes to a school that can't afford decent text books, classrooms, and teachers, let alone the finer things like athletics and fine arts.

Where?? Schools provide text books.....other countries perhaps, but not here.

Everyday someone on the street dies from a curable disease or condition.

Agreed. Alcoholism and drug use claim the lives of many living on the "streets". Bad choices often lead to bad consequences.

Not everyone is a selfish screw up who only wants government assistance to buy another Wild Turkey bottle.

Agreed........I believe in helping those who would help themselves if they could..but can't. I am not for helping those that can help themselves but won't. People living on the dole is suffocating this country. People need to grow a backbone and get of there lazy rears and quit feeling entitled.....time to earn.

Edited November 5, 2008 by bytor2112

[Elgama]

Personally I'd rather pay for thousands of screwups if it meant one in need got what they needed. People on the dole mean that those who want the jobs get a better chance.

But because we pay higher taxes here - we don't notice them go, everyone else does so the economy fits round it. The United Order is similar in that it only works if everyone is involved, because otherwise the discrepancies and corruption happen.

-Charley