Internet Tax

hawkwing wrote:
I would be interested in seeing some scriptural basis for the idea that ownership of wealth and property is part of God's plan. I can think of several of examples of the opposite but none for it.

Perhaps a shortcut here would be to ask yourself if you can obey the laws of sacrifice or consecration if you do not own anything? If you do not own you cannot consecrate for you cannot consecrate that which is not yours. It makes the act illegal as well as useless.

In this dispensation (at least prior to Utah), when the Church practiced fully the Law of Consecration, the participant gave the Bishop of the Church all of his property. The Bishop then deeded back to the member what he needed. So there was a form of private property ownership throughout and this, among other things, distinguishes the Law of Consecration from various forms of socialism where, in its purest form, the government owns the property and doles it out as it sees fit. That said, I do not see in the Law of Consecration something eternal about private property ownership. In Third Nephi 26:19 and Fourth Nephi, verse 3 it states that "they had all things common among them." That does not sound like private property ownership to me. The early Saints in Jerusalem did things quite similarly. It seems when we get closer to God's standards and His laws, personal private ownership dissipates....

This topic is interesting but I am not following some of the logic here. It seems to me there are only three positions to take on this. The ownership of property can only be God, man, or government. Which is it? If God owns it then man is a steward only and government certainly can make no rightful claim on God for taxes because government performs no service to which God stand in need.

tww wrote:

I would be interested in seeing some scriptural basis for the idea that ownership of wealth and property is part of God's plan. I can think of several of examples of the opposite but none for it.

Perhaps a shortcut here would be to ask yourself if you can obey the laws of sacrifice or consecration if you do not own anything? If you do not own you cannot consecrate for you cannot consecrate that which is not yours. It makes the act illegal as well as useless.

It is much more than your property. It is your time your talents your opportunities we are being asked to consecrate

tww wrote:

I would be interested in seeing some scriptural basis for the idea that ownership of wealth and property is part of God's plan. I can think of several of examples of the opposite but none for it.

Perhaps a shortcut here would be to ask yourself if you can obey the laws of sacrifice or consecration if you do not own anything? If you do not own you cannot consecrate for you cannot consecrate that which is not yours. It makes the act illegal as well as useless.

Except the command to consecrate is given by the true Owner of the property--it is one of the parameters of our stewardship. If we fail to consecrate, we violate the terms of our stewardship. We are then "slothful servants."



I think you also misunderstand the term "consecrate." It does not mean to give something away or to yield title. It means to dedicate or to make holy. It is more about use than ownership. You can consecrate something without giving away title to it--the manner in which you use property you retain can be an act of consecration.

tww wrote:
This topic is interesting but I am not following some of the logic here. It seems to me there are only three positions to take on this. The ownership of property can only be God, man, or government. Which is it? If God owns it then man is a steward only and government certainly can make no rightful claim on God for taxes because government performs no service to which God stand in need.

Unless God tells you to pay taxes....in which case paying taxes becomes part of your stewardship.

tww wrote:
That is just it, God makes no general claim to property.

D&C 104:14

tww wrote:
Stewardship is a concept, a way of thinking, not a law unto itself.

You might want to revisit the Elder Cook talk I cited earlier.

BoiseBYU wrote:
In this dispensation (at least prior to Utah), when the Church practiced fully the Law of Consecration, the participant gave the Bishop of the Church all of his property. The Bishop then deeded back to the member what he needed. So there was a form of private property ownership throughout and this, among other things, distinguishes the Law of Consecration from various forms of socialism where, in its purest form, the government owns the property and doles it out as it sees fit. That said, I do not see in the Law of Consecration something eternal about private property ownership. In Third Nephi 26:19 and Fourth Nephi, verse 3 it states that "they had all things common among them." That does not sound like private property ownership to me. The early Saints in Jerusalem did things quite similarly. It seems when we get closer to God's standards and His laws, personal private ownership dissipates....

You seems to have contradicted yourself. You are correct that consecration required legal ownership of private property but then you conclude that it is not eternal when God himself says that it is in saying that ,"it cannot be broken." I do not follow.



'All things in common" is also a very misunderstood when taken out of context. "All things in common" means equality not socialism.

snoscythe wrote:

hawkwing wrote:
I would be interested in seeing some scriptural basis for the idea that ownership of wealth and property is part of God's plan. I can think of several of examples of the opposite but none for it.

Perhaps a shortcut here would be to ask yourself if you can obey the laws of sacrifice or consecration if you do not own anything? If you do not own you cannot consecrate for you cannot consecrate that which is not yours. It makes the act illegal as well as useless.

Except the command to consecrate is given by the true Owner of the property--it is one of the parameters of our stewardship. If we fail to consecrate, we violate the terms of our stewardship. We are then "slothful servants."



I think you also misunderstand the term "consecrate." It does not mean to give something away or to yield title. It means to dedicate or to make holy. It is more about use than ownership. You can consecrate something without giving away title to it--the manner in which you use property you retain can be an act of consecration.

You are correct and I agree about consecration. That seems to make my point. I contest that to make something holy we must hold title first.

snoscythe wrote:

That is just it, God makes no general claim to property.

D&C 104:14

Yes and therefore God may transfer title as he did to Israel.

tww wrote:

In this dispensation (at least prior to Utah), when the Church practiced fully the Law of Consecration, the participant gave the Bishop of the Church all of his property. The Bishop then deeded back to the member what he needed. So there was a form of private property ownership throughout and this, among other things, distinguishes the Law of Consecration from various forms of socialism where, in its purest form, the government owns the property and doles it out as it sees fit. That said, I do not see in the Law of Consecration something eternal about private property ownership. In Third Nephi 26:19 and Fourth Nephi, verse 3 it states that "they had all things common among them." That does not sound like private property ownership to me. The early Saints in Jerusalem did things quite similarly. It seems when we get closer to God's standards and His laws, personal private ownership dissipates....

You seems to have contradicted yourself. You are correct that consecration required legal ownership of private property but then you conclude that it is not eternal when God himself says that it is in saying that ,"it cannot be broken." I do not follow.



'All things in common" is also a very misunderstood when taken out of context. "All things in common" means equality not socialism.

How have I taken the scriptural statements out of context? BTW, the earlier Saints parctice of having all things in common does not mean socialism, at least as I understand that term. The Law of Consecration did NOT require legal ownership, it certainly provided for it in Ohio and elsewhere. I am not certain what you mean about not eternal? I noted that in some instances all things were in fact held in common. That is fact not a conclusion about what that means....In the end the Law of Consecration is much more than just private property....it is about who we are and what we have to offer, willingly, to God.

tww wrote:
I contest that to make something holy we must hold title first.

And I absolutely disagree. If God 'loans' us something, and tells us "Hey, this is still mine, but you're in charge of it for a while, and while you have it, make it holy," how then are we prevented from making it holy by the fact that we don't hold title?



If your conceptualization of ownership is true, when the Lord gave D&C 104:14, was he revoking title? If we truly held naked title, could He revoke it?



I think you and I are on the same page, but you just have a hard time with the concept that we don't "own" something. I believe that we own things, but not with allodial or fee simple Absolute (capitalized intentionally as a divine reference). Rather, I believe we hold some quantum of feudal or fee simple determinable (or fee simple subject to re-entry) title where we do in fact hold a degree of ownership, but with certain conditions and duties that, if not met, may lead to the one holding a higher quantum of title exercising his Lord's rights (if feudal) or his right of re-entry (if fee simple determinable). In such a conceptualization, we hold title, but on the condition of good stewardship with God having the right of re-entry and repossession.



I think much of this back and forth is just about the vaguery of what "own" means--I'm talking absolute ownership, in which God owns everything. I think you are talking about a right to possession, use, and divestiture, which God has granted to us, with certain conditions.

BoiseBYU wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:
In this dispensation (at least prior to Utah), when the Church practiced fully the Law of Consecration, the participant gave the Bishop of the Church all of his property. The Bishop then deeded back to the member what he needed. So there was a form of private property ownership throughout and this, among other things, distinguishes the Law of Consecration from various forms of socialism where, in its purest form, the government owns the property and doles it out as it sees fit. That said, I do not see in the Law of Consecration something eternal about private property ownership. In Third Nephi 26:19 and Fourth Nephi, verse 3 it states that "they had all things common among them." That does not sound like private property ownership to me. The early Saints in Jerusalem did things quite similarly. It seems when we get closer to God's standards and His laws, personal private ownership dissipates....

You seems to have contradicted yourself. You are correct that consecration required legal ownership of private property but then you conclude that it is not eternal when God himself says that it is in saying that ,"it cannot be broken." I do not follow.



'All things in common" is also a very misunderstood when taken out of context. "All things in common" means equality not socialism.

How have I taken the scriptural statements out of context? BTW, the earlier Saints parctice of having all things in common does not mean socialism, at least as I understand that term. The Law of Consecration did NOT require legal ownership, it certainly provided for it in Ohio and elsewhere. I am not certain what you mean about not eternal? I noted that in some instances all things were in fact held in common. That is fact not a conclusion about what that means....In the end the Law of Consecration is much more than just private property....it is about who we are and what we have to offer, willingly, to God.

First of all, I mean no offense. I make no claims to be particularly eloquent, especially when trying to multitask, which is something else I have not mastered.



I just cannot imagine how someone can consecrate property he does not own. If I am wrong then show me how it can be done.

snoscythe wrote:

I contest that to make something holy we must hold title first.

And I absolutely disagree. If God 'loans' us something, and tells us "Hey, this is still mine, but you're in charge of it for a while, and while you have it, make it holy," how then are we prevented from making it holy by the fact that we don't hold title?



If your conceptualization of ownership is true, when the Lord gave D&C 104:14, was he revoking title? If we truly held naked title, could He revoke it?



I think you and I are on the same page, but you just have a hard time with the concept that we don't "own" something. I believe that we own things, but not with allodial or fee simple Absolute (capitalized intentionally as a divine reference). Rather, I believe we hold some quantum of feudal or fee simple determinable (or fee simple subject to re-entry) title where we do in fact hold a degree of ownership, but with certain conditions and duties that, if not met, may lead to the one holding a higher quantum of title exercising his Lord's rights (if feudal) or his right of re-entry (if fee simple determinable). In such a conceptualization, we hold title, but on the condition of good stewardship with God having the right of re-entry and repossession.



I think much of this back and forth is just about the vaguery of what "own" means--I'm talking absolute ownership, in which God owns everything. I think you are talking about a right to possession, use, and divestiture, which God has granted to us, with certain conditions.

I can live with that. I feel a sense of accomplishment in just wrestling with these finer points. I think this is great stuff and I feel a sense of brotherhood with all who are willing to take such a topic seriously. Some would consider such a discussion to be nerdy.



Perhaps what actually concerns us both is not so much the razor thin differences but a feeling that they could be the beginning to a fork in the road that could draw us farther apart or lead to a different destination.



I have to confess that the mere mention of "feudal" makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. Ha!



But in my defense, it may be in my DNA. I do not know if the story of "Brave Heart" has any factual basis but if it does then that would make (as near as can be determined) me related to William Wallace.



It is not just tyranny that I am allergic to but the very power to be tyrannical.



Thanks,



I have to sign off for a bit but if anyone responds I will try to get back to it in a day or so.

tww wrote:

tww wrote:

In this dispensation (at least prior to Utah), when the Church practiced fully the Law of Consecration, the participant gave the Bishop of the Church all of his property. The Bishop then deeded back to the member what he needed. So there was a form of private property ownership throughout and this, among other things, distinguishes the Law of Consecration from various forms of socialism where, in its purest form, the government owns the property and doles it out as it sees fit. That said, I do not see in the Law of Consecration something eternal about private property ownership. In Third Nephi 26:19 and Fourth Nephi, verse 3 it states that "they had all things common among them." That does not sound like private property ownership to me. The early Saints in Jerusalem did things quite similarly. It seems when we get closer to God's standards and His laws, personal private ownership dissipates....

You seems to have contradicted yourself. You are correct that consecration required legal ownership of private property but then you conclude that it is not eternal when God himself says that it is in saying that ,"it cannot be broken." I do not follow.



'All things in common" is also a very misunderstood when taken out of context. "All things in common" means equality not socialism.

How have I taken the scriptural statements out of context? BTW, the earlier Saints parctice of having all things in common does not mean socialism, at least as I understand that term. The Law of Consecration did NOT require legal ownership, it certainly provided for it in Ohio and elsewhere. I am not certain what you mean about not eternal? I noted that in some instances all things were in fact held in common. That is fact not a conclusion about what that means....In the end the Law of Consecration is much more than just private property....it is about who we are and what we have to offer, willingly, to God.

First of all, I mean no offense. I make no claims to be particularly eloquent, especially when trying to multitask, which is something else I have not mastered.



I just cannot imagine how someone can consecrate property he does not own. If I am wrong then show me how it can be done.

TWW, you are one great guy! We probably disagree on about everything and yet there you have it. I appreciate talking about things and your considering them. Today what we are asked of The Lord when it comes to property is to give 10 percent, pay generous offerings and give our time and talents. In times past we were asked to give it all the Church and then receive back that which we need. Then as we worked the property, the surplus goes to the Lord's church to provide for the needy. Did we own what we produced or merely develop and possess it? Either way the Law of Consecration asks us to give it to the Lord's Church willingly. In the end, my point is whatever we have or obtain we might want to think of it as God's and the need for there to be privately held property or private ownership to make the Law of Consecration work--well it does not exist. Cheers

BoiseBYU wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:
In this dispensation (at least prior to Utah), when the Church practiced fully the Law of Consecration, the participant gave the Bishop of the Church all of his property. The Bishop then deeded back to the member what he needed. So there was a form of private property ownership throughout and this, among other things, distinguishes the Law of Consecration from various forms of socialism where, in its purest form, the government owns the property and doles it out as it sees fit. That said, I do not see in the Law of Consecration something eternal about private property ownership. In Third Nephi 26:19 and Fourth Nephi, verse 3 it states that "they had all things common among them." That does not sound like private property ownership to me. The early Saints in Jerusalem did things quite similarly. It seems when we get closer to God's standards and His laws, personal private ownership dissipates....

You seems to have contradicted yourself. You are correct that consecration required legal ownership of private property but then you conclude that it is not eternal when God himself says that it is in saying that ,"it cannot be broken." I do not follow.



'All things in common" is also a very misunderstood when taken out of context. "All things in common" means equality not socialism.

How have I taken the scriptural statements out of context? BTW, the earlier Saints parctice of having all things in common does not mean socialism, at least as I understand that term. The Law of Consecration did NOT require legal ownership, it certainly provided for it in Ohio and elsewhere. I am not certain what you mean about not eternal? I noted that in some instances all things were in fact held in common. That is fact not a conclusion about what that means....In the end the Law of Consecration is much more than just private property....it is about who we are and what we have to offer, willingly, to God.

First of all, I mean no offense. I make no claims to be particularly eloquent, especially when trying to multitask, which is something else I have not mastered.



I just cannot imagine how someone can consecrate property he does not own. If I am wrong then show me how it can be done.

TWW, you are one great guy! We probably disagree on about everything and yet there you have it. I appreciate talking about things and your considering them. Today what we are asked of The Lord when it comes to property is to give 10 percent, pay generous offerings and give our time and talents. In times past we were asked to give it all the Church and then receive back that which we need. Then as we worked the property, the surplus goes to the Lord's church to provide for the needy. Did we own what we produced or merely develop and possess it? Either way the Law of Consecration asks us to give it to the Lord's Church willingly. In the end, my point is whatever we have or obtain we might want to think of it as God's and the need for there to be privately held property or private ownership to make the Law of Consecration work--well it does not exist. Cheers

Hmmm, I am still confused about your point. I am pretty sure that if I use my neighbor's property to pay a fast offering or for the mission fund that he might object, as well as the judge that I would be talking to. I don't think the bishop would accept it either.



Yeah, funny how we frequently end up on opposing sides of an issue. But if we agreed about everything then what would we talk about. You are welcome to counter my positions anytime. I appreciate your opinions. Keep them coming.

tww wrote:

tww wrote:

tww wrote:

In this dispensation (at least prior to Utah), when the Church practiced fully the Law of Consecration, the participant gave the Bishop of the Church all of his property. The Bishop then deeded back to the member what he needed. So there was a form of private property ownership throughout and this, among other things, distinguishes the Law of Consecration from various forms of socialism where, in its purest form, the government owns the property and doles it out as it sees fit. That said, I do not see in the Law of Consecration something eternal about private property ownership. In Third Nephi 26:19 and Fourth Nephi, verse 3 it states that "they had all things common among them." That does not sound like private property ownership to me. The early Saints in Jerusalem did things quite similarly. It seems when we get closer to God's standards and His laws, personal private ownership dissipates....

You seems to have contradicted yourself. You are correct that consecration required legal ownership of private property but then you conclude that it is not eternal when God himself says that it is in saying that ,"it cannot be broken." I do not follow.



'All things in common" is also a very misunderstood when taken out of context. "All things in common" means equality not socialism.

How have I taken the scriptural statements out of context? BTW, the earlier Saints parctice of having all things in common does not mean socialism, at least as I understand that term. The Law of Consecration did NOT require legal ownership, it certainly provided for it in Ohio and elsewhere. I am not certain what you mean about not eternal? I noted that in some instances all things were in fact held in common. That is fact not a conclusion about what that means....In the end the Law of Consecration is much more than just private property....it is about who we are and what we have to offer, willingly, to God.

First of all, I mean no offense. I make no claims to be particularly eloquent, especially when trying to multitask, which is something else I have not mastered.



I just cannot imagine how someone can consecrate property he does not own. If I am wrong then show me how it can be done.

TWW, you are one great guy! We probably disagree on about everything and yet there you have it. I appreciate talking about things and your considering them. Today what we are asked of The Lord when it comes to property is to give 10 percent, pay generous offerings and give our time and talents. In times past we were asked to give it all the Church and then receive back that which we need. Then as we worked the property, the surplus goes to the Lord's church to provide for the needy. Did we own what we produced or merely develop and possess it? Either way the Law of Consecration asks us to give it to the Lord's Church willingly. In the end, my point is whatever we have or obtain we might want to think of it as God's and the need for there to be privately held property or private ownership to make the Law of Consecration work--well it does not exist. Cheers

Hmmm, I am still confused about your point. I am pretty sure that if I use my neighbor's property to pay a fast offering or for the mission fund that he might object, as well as the judge that I would be talking to. I don't think the bishop would accept it either.



Yeah, funny how we frequently end up on opposing sides of an issue. But if we agreed about everything then what would we talk about. You are welcome to counter my positions anytime. I appreciate your opinions. Keep them coming.

But you are not using your neighbors' property! You are using the Lord's, who in His wisdom and mercy has given it to you as a steward to do His will. Some day, He will ask for an accounting of your stewardship--I'm thinking of the Parable of the Talents here.

Too theoretical for Mongo. Mongo likes potato chips with ridges.

BoiseBYU wrote:



But you are not using your neighbors' property! You are using the Lord's, who in His wisdom and mercy has given it to you as a steward to do His will. Some day, He will ask for an accounting of your stewardship--I'm thinking of the Parable of the Talents here.

Speaking of that parable, doesn't it seem like giving as much as we do to the government may qualify as slothful? We are basically punting our duties as a society to take care of one another. We (society, especially those who believe that higher taxes helps the poor) would rather pay some taxes and have programs for the poor and needy which are as helpful as just burying your money in the ground. We want the government to teach our kids, we want the government to take care our our widows, we want the government to give us jobs, we want our government to do EVERYTHING. We have built up the government to basically be God in these last days.



President Uchtdorf spoke at a stake conference broadcast recently. He said the gospel has all the solutions for today's problems. I find it discouraging that so many people want to see the continual building of our central government as the solution to our problems. I guess this is why I would much rather see less taxes, more accountability and more involvement in our local communities rather than more taxes, less responsibility and a belief that the government will always be there to protect and guide us as long as we are willing to pay more taxes (bondage).