The Law of Consecration and Stewardship

I am currently reading the excellent book Building the City of God, which is a study of early communitarian efforts by the saints.  Though I'm obviously no historian, I thought it might be interesting to write a few posts about what I'm reading as I go along.  I just finished the section on the Law of Consecration and Stewardship, which was Joseph's early attempts in Kirtland and Missouri to get the saints to live a more perfect economic system.

The basic gist of the plan went something like this:  First, all members deeded their real and personal property to Edward Partridge, the presiding bishop.  In the earliest iterations of the Law the person would completely forfeit all property if they left the church, i.e. the church had full rights to the property.  Later, when civil courts eroded that away, the person could get real property back, but not personal property and not any of the yearly consecrations.  Second, Partridge would lease and loan back those respective properties to the individual, depending on their needs.  Third, the individual, though a steward over the land, would have the control to do with the property whatever he or she desired.  Finally, at the end of the year the individual would consecrate to Partridge any excess gains above what they needed.

The Law of Consecration and Stewardship struck a balance between individualism and communalism by giving each individual the choice of what to do with his or her property and encouragement to be creative and industrious, while also requiring the pooling of resources above any person's needs for the benefit of the poor.  This was different than "common stock" communities like the Shakers where literally all possessions were owned by everyone, including clothing and household items, which led to a certain anarchist free-for-all in practice.

The authors gave five reasons why the Law of Consecration and Stewardship didn't last, and they contend that number five is overemphasized at the expense of numbers one through four:

1) Most of the converts to the early church were poor and had nothing to consecrate. Yet inheritances had to be provided for them.  2) Most of the consecrations that were made were in kind, while most of the church's investments (in real estate and so on to provide stewardships for those who needed them) required liquid resources. Conversion of the former into the latter was difficult on the Missouri frontier.  3) Constant persecution made property accumulation almost impossible.  4) The opposition of the courts to the Mormons, and to cooperative (and communal) ventures generally, made it easy for apostates who had made gifts to the church to disrupt the financial affairs of the system by demanding and securing the return of all their consecrated properties.  5) The converts were not faithful in making their initial and annual consecrations.

Those first four factors are no longer true, so the question I have is, could this system work today?  If President Monson announced in General Conference that the church was reinstating the Law of Consecration and Stewardship as revealed to Joseph Smith would it 1) work and 2) be embraced?

I think it would have to look something like this:  Every member would deed over all their real and personal property to the church.  The church would then lease and loan back that property according to needs and the individual or family would be a steward over those properties.  Each member would be expected to continue to work and be productive.  At the end of the year all income above what was strictly needed would be consecrated back to the church for the support of the poor and the building of the kingdom.

In practice it would mean that members living in huge homes and driving expensive cars, and the like, that exceed their needs would probably have to sell them and find more modest accommodations and consecrate the excess to the church.  How many members would be willing to do that?  I live in a stake that is probably 80% super rich and I wonder how many would support a modern Law of Consecration and Stewardship with a full heart, without reservations, knowing that they would have to move out of their McMansions or legitimate mansions, sell their Porches and yachts, and give away the rest.

But it isn't just the rich that would have to make uncomfortable decisions.  Would each of us be willing to forfeit, at the end of each year, any assets that otherwise would have been accumulated in savings accounts, retirement accounts, educational accounts, and investments acting on faith that those things would be taken care of by the church?  It would take real faith to not save for the future believing that the church would take care of you in your old age or in emergencies.  It would take real faith to not save for your children's college believing that the church would pay for that in the future.

The argument against such an economic system is that it stifles the drive to be successful and innovative.  If you never tasted the fruits of you hard work (to put it more starkly: if you never got to enjoy all the money you would earn from being successful), why would you even try?  Why would a person go through all that work and school to become a doctor if they didn't get paid like a doctor?  Why would a person put so much blood and sweat into an innovative and successful business if they didn't have the chance to earn that huge return on investment in the end?  Why should we work hard and then just give our money away to the poor?

The answer is faith, I think.  Such a system could only work if the saints had faith enough to become successful and industrious and then consecrate the excess to the church to support the poor and build up the kingdom.  It cannot work if greed is the only motivator, it could work if faith replaced that greed.  Should we not expect that of ourselves as members of the true church?  Thoughts?

Gross National Happiness

French President Nicolas Sarkozy is proposing that nations drop their fixation on gross domestic product as the leading indicator of economic progress and instead try to measure quality of life aspects such as availability of health care and education, protection of natural resources, and amount of leisure time.

The idea is that by fixating on GDP we are encouraging nations to engage in overly-risky behavior and to degrade the environment, which destroy the quality of life of the people and work to their detriment. The counter argument is a happiness index will not help countries decide how to allocate their resources and that, while it is important to attempt to track something subjective like happiness, it is not in order to replace a purely economic standard like GDP.

GDP is the total value of goods and service produced in a nation during a year. I won't pretend to understand it much deeper than that, but it is basically the standard measure of a nation's economic strength and, therefore, of its population's standard of living.

The question the French are asking, I think, is whether or not we should even be focusing on raw economic data, as opposed to focusing on the happiness and contentment of the people. Which nation is better off, the one with a high GDP but a demoralized and unhappy citizenry, or the nation with a moderate GDP but a happy and optimistic citizenry? The former conjures up images of a coldly efficient industrial nation-complex where management lords over labor. The latter conjures up, well, France. A nation of sidewalk cafes, 35-hour work weeks, and a lot of college graduates with degrees in philos0phy.

Joseph Smith said that:

Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God.

So are we focusing on the wrong priorities? Shouldn't we really be living our lives in order to find happiness and security, as opposed to finding the highest paying job and accumulating the most stuff at the expense of our happiness and the happiness of our families. I am about to find out on a personal level. I am taking a massive pay cut to take a job that I think I will like a whole lot more than my current job. This isn't entirely voluntary or premeditated, but I'm kind of excited to find out how we deal with it. I will work fewer hours, make less money, work towards a cause I believe in, make less money, and spend more time with my family. And make a lot less money. We'll see how we handle it.

Now, I've spent quite a bit of time in France and I know what their quality of life is like. I know what their pace of life is like. Frankly (no pun), I find it appealing. I understand that not everyone in France is happy, but I would say that the French are generally happier and live a better quality of life than Americans. Perhaps I am going to channel a little of that French in me.

But here in America we look down our noses on the French as lazy and socialist, we scoff at their work habits and high unemployment. But shouldn't be also be envious of their quality of life? Should we strive to be a more happy nation as opposed to a more efficient nation? I don't even think those two ideas are mutually exclusive, but perhaps one follows the other.

I believe that we would be a more optimistic and happy nation if we cut down on our pollution, grant access to affordable health care to every citizen, give every citizen a free, world-class education, all while providing physical and economic security. I think this is what the French are trying to emphasize, what I am going to attempt to live with my new career, and that this is the hope that President Obama sold us.

The Constitution Hanging By A Thread

Ever since Mitt Romney came onto the political scene as a serious (ahem) presidential candidate it seems like we've heard a lot more talk about the famous White Horse prophesy of Joseph Smith. There is no exact quote from the Prophet, but the jist of it is that one day the Constitution will hang by a thread, and the nation itself will be in peril, and will be saved by the elders of the church.

With Pres. Obama now in charge of the nation there has been no shortage of idle chatter that the Constitution will soon, if not already, be hanging by the thread and need saving by someone like brave Mitt Romney. I enjoy the mental picture of hero-esque Mitt Romney on a valiant white steed, hair perfectly coiffed, sword in hand, riding in from the East to save the Constitution.

But I don't want to make the impression that it is a silly prophesy, or that there is no need to be vigilant in protecting the Constitution. In fact, these last few years we've come closer than ever before. We just learned that in 2002 the Bush administration, at the urging of (surprise!) Dick Cheney, considered sending the military to Buffalo, New York to make domestic arrests of suspected terrorists.

The Bill of Rights, which is part of the Constitution, protects us from "unreasonable searches and seizures," which has been universally interpreted to ban the use of military for domestic purposes, like making arrests. There is also the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 which prohibits the military from acting as law enforcement. There is also the very spirit of Democracy and Freedom itself which informs normal Americans' fear of tyranny and unrestrained executive power.

Now, I've been to Buffalo and I consider it to be part of America. I also think that if the military showed up in my neighborhood to arrest a neighbor I might have some serious doubts about the health of our Constitution and our nation. For once we can praise the good sense of Pres. Bush who nixed the idea and sent the FBI.

As far as recent Constitutional thread-hanging, lets not forget the holding of American citizens in Guantanamo without charges or trial (Fifth and Sixth Amendments), or Richard Cheney claiming that the vice president is not part of the executive branch (Article II) or really the legislative branch (Article I) with the implication that the Constitution does not apply to him (seriously, gasp), or warrantless wiretaps (Fourth Amendment), or any of a number of other offenses against our core document.

Bush's snippings of the proverbial fibers from which the Constitution is suspended are just the latest in a long line of anti-Constitutional laws passed in times of war from the Alien and Sedition Acts to the suspension of habeus corpus; from the oppression of freedom of speech to the internment of Japanese Americans.

Here is the difference I see, though. In the previous cases (we're talking the War of 1812, the Civil War, the World Wars) the wars were discrete engagements with clear goals and obvious starting and ending points. The war on terror, as defined by the Bush administration, was open-ended and poorly defined. Bush was not the political equivalent of the Anti-Christ, intent on destroying America, but he, and more overtly Cheney, laid the blueprint for how it could be done.

First, identify a legitimate threat of terror or some other nefarious non-state actor. Second, exploit Americans' fear of this threat. Third, declare a war against it with poorly defined boundaries, goals, and strategies. Fourth, enact tyrannical anti-Constitutional laws in the name of protecting Americans from this threat. Fifth, pour a martini, sit back, and enjoy the fruits of unfettered power.

We are still at a point where we see unconsitutionality and call it out and fix it. We are still vigilant. I have no doubt that the day will come when the Constitution and the nation are threatened from within, but we are nowhere near that point now, we are further away from that point than we were in the previous eight years, and Mitt Romney will not be riding in on a White Horse any time soon.

Term Limits

"We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion."

The Washington Post recently posted a funny story about Senator Orrin Hatch test driving a hybrid Hummer for the media. First of all, I applaud the good Senator for trying to take the lead on the issue of increased fuel economy and technologies. The story, however, is about Sen. Hatch's basic incapability of driving a car. He could not distinguish between the brake pedal and gas pedal, he did not know how to start a car or even know if it was on or not, and he could not perform basic maneuvers.

I don't think I'm going out on a limb here in suggesting that perhaps Senator Hatch has it a little too cushy in his position as Senator which he has held since 1977, a total of 31 years and counting. Hatch is notorious for campaigning against the incumbent, Frank Moss, in part because 18 years in office was too long and he, Moss, had lost touch with his constituency. I have no doubt that Sen. Hatch meant what he said, but it is all too clear that Joseph Smith was right: once a person gets what they think is a little power and authority, they find it suits them rather well and they'd just as soon hold on to it by any means necessary, thank-you-very-much.

One very obvious exception to this is the Father of our country, George Washington, who would easily have been reelected for the rest of his life had he so chosen, but instead was hesitant to even be elected for a second term, and was adamant that two terms were enough for any President. This set a precedent that was only broken once, by FDR, who was elected to four terms (though he died shortly after the fourth term started). Soon thereafter we got the Twenty-Second Amendment which official limits the president to two terms.

There was a major push for a Constitutional Amendment requiring term limits in Congress in the mid-90's. The limits would have been six two-year terms in the House and two six-year terms for the Senate. The Amendment was voted down 227-204, short of the two-thirds majority needed to keep the Amendment process going.

So system we get instead is one of Congressional Stagnation. Incumbents are re-elected to Congress more than 90% of the time. Most never face a primary challenge, many do not face any opponent at all, and those incumbents that are challenged are challenged by under-funded candidates without any really support (Pete Ashdown, anyone?). This is a vaguely democratic system, but not by much.

And the American people suffer. We don't get fresh, new ideas out of Congress. We don't get varying ideas and healthy debate out of Congress. We don't get leaders who are willing to take risks on important new ideas. We don't get representatives who are accountable to their constituencies. Instead we get entrenchment. We get leaders who are only interested in getting re-elected. We get status quo, no matter what the status quo happens to be. Change happens a a glacial pace (which is good in some areas and very, very bad in others). We get intellectual dishonesty passed off as cool-headedness. We get cliques. We get increased pork spending because that is why people keep sending their ineffective representatives back to Washington, seniority alone. We get more and more influence from special interests.

I firmly believe that federal term limits would revitalize our government. I think such a system would attract interesting new voices and ideas to the national debates we have on important issues. It would attract talented leaders who are more interested in progress and innovation as opposed to power-mongers who are only looking for a life-time gig. I actually find it fascinating that there is not a more sustained and organized push for federal term limits because I can't think of a single good reason to not limit terms. If our greatest leaders can achieve so much good in eight years as President, I certainly think that our greatest leaders in Congress could achieve great things in twelve years.

But the catch is: how do you get a bunch of men and women who are, by definition, power-hungry to limit their own power?