Mormon Tycoon Wants to Build Mega-Utopia in Vermont
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
He's probably crazy to be trying it in Vermont though. He'll have to import voters before he can get anything approved.
Maybe he just needs to listen to his PR people more. Downplay the Mormon angle, talk more about environmental efficiency, and pitch the communistic aspects—he might just get more sympathy.
Go ahead and change the word Mormon to something else, and notice how repugnant everything becomes.
Historically, it's always been the other way around. Mormons have always tried to reach out to connect to their communities (vs. making an impenetrable fortress/cult community like FLDS), and were met with hostility due to differences in culture (i.e. polygamy, different bible beliefs, etc.). Most of the time it was the community that was not welcoming of the mormons.
This seems to be the case again here in this article with Vermont.
In most cases I would agree. For instance, knowing Clayton Christensen is a Mormon should have no impact on someone's opinion of disruption theory. And there are cases, like Mitt Romney, where the media placed way too much of a focus on his family being Mormon.
In this case though, the fact that the tycoon is Mormon plays a central role. His plans are literally based on drawings by Joseph Smith he found in researching mormon history. These are literally plans by the founder of Mormonism being implemented in the state where he was born (which is mentioned in the article as the reason why the tycoon is familiar with Vermont and thus chose it for his communities).
This isn't an article making fun of Mormons and "their sacred underwear" or other "let's point and laugh" material. It is an article about a man who studied Mormon history and decided to implement the vision of its founder. Mormonism is a key element to the story.
You're telling me. Four years later I'm in London and the city buses are still advertising the "Book of Mormon" musical. (admittedly that wasn't 100% a Romney thing, but the timing was no coincidence, either.)
Ignore any mention of Mormonism and talk about a planned community where to participate people must give up all of their net worth to that community, work for a 'business' that gives up all profit to that community for a 'dividend' from the shared resources, all under an explicit and rigid hierarchy and see how people react.
Do you think the community is going to give that person's net worth back so they can start a new life? Do you think someone is going to spend time building a business just to walk away with nothing? What about the friends and family left behind who will no doubt be encouraged to shun you.
Cults are completely voluntary, too, if you think only in theoreticals and ignore the practical implications of their policies.
Now, if they legalized pot (or drugs in general), prostitution, and gambling, it would be paradise for anyone who believes that adults should be able to live like adults without a meddling nanny state.
Alaska makes total sense, given that bears and moose roam populated areas. I'm surprised by the others.
Given that Wyoming has the lowest population density (of the 48 contiguous states, anyway), I sorta understand that one.
But given that a big chunk of the Arizona population is retirees, I'm surprised they haven't changed the carry laws yet.
There's no rhyme or reason or consistency to many US states' laws. I find it a bit bothersome.
However, hunting large(-ish) game like boar with large caliber handguns is a thing. I don't know how they'd fare against bear and moose. It might be easier to tote something like a .44 magnum handgun to and from work in Alaska than a rifle or shotgun.
Ultimately I was just speculating as to why Alaska might allow permit-free conceal carry. It may have more to do with the self-reliance and history of the population than anything else.
I've never lived in Alaska, never hunted anything larger than jack rabbit, and never fired anything larger than a .44-mag revolver and rifle (they are pretty powerful, though).
http://www.herald-dispatch.com/news/permitless-carry-now-law...
Some of us adults though don't like living with the other adults who indulge in these things. My current "adult" neighbors are legal drug users, and to be honest I don't really find it to be a paradise, especially when their pot smoke leaks into my condo.
I would rather move to a place where people have the same values as me.
I solved the problem by buying a house.
Freedom has it's perks and problems for all involved.
Vermont has no requirements for concealed gun carry implicitly. Meaning they have passed no laws (ever) pertaining to carrying guns one way or another apart from
1. not allowing firearms on state owned land or in state buildings (without permission) or schools.
2. laws pertaining to crimes committed with firearms
3. A law specifically disallowing local governments and municipalities from restricting gun carrying beyond what the state government has.
4. Laws pertaining to children using and possessing guns.
It's also worth noting that, despite the purported focus on 'sustainability', the corporation/cult ironically plans to rely upon drilling for fossil fuels and mining to remain profitable. Which is, by definition, not sustainable.
Vermont's Act 250 also likely precludes this development. http://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/permit-handbook/sheet...
However, you don't need complete independence, I think energy independence and protecting the environment with a family and pedestrian friendly layout are the best achievable goals
Vermonters are VERY resistant to people trying to change their landscape or way of life, and as you might expect, they (myself included) are not thrilled with this plan.
The leadership of the Church will not acknowledge or encourage the project in any official capacity, and will definitely not 'dispatch' members to live there.
The only exception being if there are actually 20k people, there may be a single pair of missionaries assigned to visit every now and then.
That's the story, but in the same breath he says:
'A plat, says Hall, will be subject to state and regional laws, but will also be overseen by a board and heirachries of leaders with, it appears, strong Mormon Family values.'
That's not exactly nothing.
It's interesting, Mormonism originally encouraged its members to move to a central place, but around 1950 then prophet (i.e. leader) David O. McKay told people it was fine to remain at home [1]. There are some interesting pockets out there as a result of this "gathering attitude", though, like (AFAIK) a fairly substantial group of Polynesian Mormons in and around Independence, Missouri (a key area in Mormon theology)[2].
[1] https://www.lds.org/manual/presidents-of-the-church-student-...
(search the term "where they live" in the article)
[2] https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/06/saints-in-independence?la...
Joseph's Smith's communal utopia, finally realized? Oh yeah, there are people who will go for this.
Edit: As for farming, yes mormons will be fine with it. Google "mormon food storage" and you'll be amazed. They are taught to be ready for disasters at all times.
http://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/permit-handbook/sheet...
I imagine most resistance to this scheme is based in pragmatism. What's being discussed is essentially a paternalistic, religious company town. There is no way that a development of this size will be in any way self-sustaining; it will have significant impacts on the local infrastructure, culture and environment.
Such a meta typo. So often, when people want things the same way they've always been[1], that means they want people to think the same way they always have[1], which they don't (because the new generation never does).
1: "always" generally being a short 10-20 year period the person vaguely remembers from their youth, but fondly, because they didn't have much responsibility as they were young and didn't actually have to pay much attention to anything outside their limited social circle.
Politically, Vermont went from being staunchly Republican to being staunchly Democratic. They're also much more open to changing norms, like embracing gay rights.
Vermont was the first state to adopt same sex marriage by statute without a court-issued mandate, so I think "resistant to change" and "like things just the way they have always been" seems likely to be an overly simplistic view of their culture.
Within the constraints of zoning, which are very strict both at the state level (Act 250 would certainly come into play for a development this large) and often at the town level also (don't know about Sharon). Vermont's zoning is partially oriented towards keeping as much green space and working farmland available as possible... maybe there are places where you can just buy up hundreds of acres farmland and turn it into strip malls and high density housing but Vermont is thankfully not one of them.
As another example of what you cannot do with your land in Vermont - you cannot put up a billboard on it. There was a case recently where a mural painted on a barn wall within sight of the highway was declared a roadside ad and had to be removed. You don't realize how just ugly and tacky billboards are until you live in a place without them for a few years...
I recently visited San Francisco and was appalled by the billboards. There's something very jarring about seeing internet memes on a billboard.[1]
[1] http://i0.wp.com/digiday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/bill...
I would guess not.
I was pretty surprised by the quality of thought going into the project. This guy probably has a lot in common with the HN crowd so I can see why the article was submitted. He's a type of visionary/intuitive/big-picture thinker, someone who is concerned about the quality of systems, sustainability, things like that.
The end of the article outlines the problem nicely though; there's a real conundrum--do we trust the guy who seems to know what he's doing and addresses the exact problems we complain about, or do we trust our fears that something always seems to go wrong?
Or a clear mark that new residents to Salt Lake County affiliated with the church were strongly encouraged to move there.
Given the ties I expect that is much more likely than some indication of quality.
" On October 1, 2005, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced the construction of the Oquirrh Mountain Utah Temple, which was built in a prominent location in the Daybreak development. Ground was broken for the temple on December 16, 2006, and the temple was dedicated on August 23, 2009. "
If the fact that a temple was built in a prominent location in the community doesn't convince you there was a push/bias from the church I don't know what would. Certainly more evidence than "must be quality".
Second, while only active members of the LDS Church in good standing can attend the Temple, anyone who can attend the Temple may attend any Temple within the Church at any time and for any reason. The Oquirrh Mountain Utah Temple is not exclusive to Daybreak.
Finally, Temples are split into "Temple Districts" which is where most of the volunteers for running a Temple are selected from. The Oquirrh Mountain Temple District runs from Magna and the Salt Lake City International Airport in the North to Herriman and Bluffdale in the South. Daybreak is a tiny dot on that map. It serves a lot of people outside of Daybreak and is anything but exclusive.
Now, I can safely say I don't believe that people move to Daybreak because of quality but they also don't move there because the Church endorsed it. They move there because of good, old fashioned, marketing. Daybreak has huge signs all over the place offering "affording living with amazing amenities". They send out mailers and even people door to door inviting whole neighborhoods to come to open houses, have a BBQ in Daybreak, enjoy the lake and pools, shopping, and entertainment. It's all very enticing. But that's all it is, marketing.
There are very specific numbers used to determine where temples should be built. It is only an endorsement that there were enough nearby members to justify building one, not that members should move there.
It felt a little creepy, things were just a little too uniform.
I think they could have used some "reinterpretation" of Victorian, cape, colonial, etc... rather than replicate en-masse. But, like I said, lots of places are cookie cutter developments; it's not unique in that way.
Even if you had a perfect, walkable, sustainable, 22nd century community with chi and all that, if it seems like Commune 2A, people won't be as crazy about it as say, a flat in NYC or a cobblestone street in Europe. Not that everyone can afford such places (I can't), but something near a sense of place probably is 80% of people's desires.
Had my wife translate it (while watching - me being German).
There are lots of nice movies from that time in the CCCP.
We are so saturated with american (popular) culture that it is quite refreshing to get into contact with Russian culture.
As noted in the article, we engineers love to plan solutions to problems but in reality people like randomness, cities that grew over time, and the illusion of choice
I confess I don't know other sources of inspiration, though I'm certain he's very familiar with other engineering efforts of similar kind. The reporting in this article is pretty sound; he's drawing much of his inspiration from an abstract document.
I'm certain someone has done a study on this, and if not it'd be interesting to see one done.
https://www.relativefinder.org
It uses information from https://www.familysearch.org/ (sponsored by the LDS church, but widely used by those interested in genealogy). To get started, you'd need to enter some data to get back to your deceased ancestors.
My wife and I are "9th cousins once removed" (common ancestor 10-11 generations back).
(Possibly not the question you had in mind, but...)
It sounds like he's been trying to license technology to finance the venture. There's also a mention of other nearer-term real estate developments. Has any of this worked, or is he basically just spending his fortune down?
He's said it himself (in other articles), though tongue in cheek, he plans to die broke.
But he's simultaneously investing in multiple technology innovations, hoping to forward the cause. (My words, not his.)
But again, he has no intentions of transplanting 20,000 Mormons into Vermont and thinks that would be a failure of the project.
As to the feasibility of transplanting 20,000 people from all walks of life? Completely different matter. In his grand vision, they would all eat, live, play, and work in the community. Is that possible? There are larger cities, some planned, some more organically grown from immigration.
See: The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri and the subsequent failed attempt to do the same thing in Illinois that eventually lead to their founder's murder.
https://www.ted.com/talks/astro_teller_the_unexpected_benefi...
I think that mentality has passed through generations and it's really exciting to see this kind of advanced utopian dream come to life, even if it pisses off neighbors and if it ultimately fails.
I'm obsessed with cities and I would love to see this turn into the vision that Joseph smith had in mind, even if all his other visions are laughable loads of whatever.
Hall's practices are immediately suspect because he's advertising his affiliation with the Mormon Church as a major part of this endeavor. It's extremely common for scammers to try to exploit religious people by falsely claiming some sort of sanction or approval from religious bodies.
I also wish Hall luck in building a sustainable, walkable, high-end development, and in reading other articles about his clashes with neighbors in Provo I was even kind of rooting for him, but I'm really put off by the insinuation that either the Mormon Church or Mormon doctrine has anything to do with it.
Of course, yes this is an entrepreneur wanting to do a grandiose thing, but to say there's no connection is silly.
(I'm not a Mormon, and have no horse in this race.)
Smith's early drawings are good as far as they go, but they are non-canonical. They are of only historical interest to the Church. It is fine that Hall has drawn inspiration from them, but it is not fine to imply that there is any connection between Zion the Mormon Concept and Hall's NewVistas project.
A copy of an old drawing isn't the distinctive characteristic of Zion. The distinctive characteristic is that a group of people within a specific geographic region are so completely realizing their religious precepts that divine beings make a home there.
Joseph Smith's teachings re: Zion are meaningless outside of that context, and invoking Zion in any other way is sacrilege (doubly so when it's to promote a commercial endeavor).
(I'm not up on my eschatology enough to get into this further.)
Source: I was raised mormon and my family used to go visit the location where Zion was to be created.
If someone was making a serious attempt at building Zion, they would do so by committing themselves to teaching the pure doctrine, engaging in as much service as possible, helping other people fix their economic woes in a self-sufficient, sustainable manner that doesn't necessitate a patron (which basically means supplying the basics while they learn an in-demand skill), and so on. In short, they would do all the things the Church is already doing. All an individual can do is seek to augment that.
So, again, while Hall's project is admirable, it has no relation to Zion, because Zion is Zion only once a heavenly people inhabit it. It's not about building a city out to a certain spec.
[0] https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/105.5?lang=en...
Edit: I guess I partially disagree. In order for you to be a 'True Believing Mormon' you would not be able to embark on a project as large as creating Zion/New Jerusalem without the express permission/mandate from the first presidency. Anything outside of this would make you an apostate in their eyes. I don't necessarily subscribe to all of that but the rules are clear within the church proper.
I don't think this is correct. Everyone is a participant in creating the New Jerusalem insofar as they working to make themselves and those around them more heavenly.
The physical buildings and structure are practically an afterthought. They'll come into being once the people who can live there exist. I don't believe that there will be a call out or a "project" embarked upon per se; I know a lot of Mormons expect the prophet to say "We're going to Missouri" out of the blue one day, but I don't think it will happen that way. Even in Joseph Smith's day, when proclamations along those lines did occur, the process was long and gradual, and ultimately used to facilitate the journey out to the Saints' settling place in Utah. Saints who expected immediate redemption were quickly and repeatedly disappointed. It will be the same way with the New Jerusalem. It will be built gradually, almost without being noticed.
I believe the people will continue improving, begin by happenstance to converge in the appointed place, and the city will spring up around it (this is especially plausible if you believe other End Times revelation that indicates people will be forced to flee most populated places). Temples will be built to accommodate the population. Eventually the Church will move HQ there. Around this time there may be a formal call or encouragement for people to come out to the center place in a reasonable, orderly manner, as they're able.
Yes, the Priesthood has to be involved to a certain extent, but that part will occur automatically as the people qualify. We already see that with temple building; the First Presidency designates places for new temples if they believe the Saints are qualified to care for one. The same pattern will be followed here. As the people in this place improve, the Law of Consecration will begin to be practiced, the people's hearts will be prepared, and the Church will facilitate it within its existing structure by expanding the relevant bishopric's responsibilities to the full breadth of their scriptural mandate.
So yes, the Priesthood has to be there to provide some of the edifices and oversee some of the practices. But it will be there once the people are ready, and it's not going to happen all at once.
The only way that anyone can actually work to build Zion is to make themselves, and work to influence those around them to be, worthy to live there.
I'm as TBM as they come, so if you have contradictory evidence, I'd be interested in reviewing it.
However, look at what he's proposing. Edit: lots of people moving to a state of 600,000 people, with the first locations built up around areas with strong connections to Joseph Smith.
It probably won't work. However, should he get only 60,000 people and the majority of them Mormons, yeah, Vermont changes completely. Mormons tend to vote along church lines, they outbreed everyone else, as you said, they know how to colonize.
I don't want to cast a wet blanket over all Mormons, but you can see why this would make people unhappy. Vermont with its socialist senator could became East Utah in a generation.
edit: Vermont may be a metropolis someday, but I hope it doesn't happen this way.
So many of these grand plans do not appreciate the manpower necessary to harvest crops. If you want to do everything by hand, in tiny batches without the advantages of large mechanized devices, 90+% of the people are going to be engaged primarily in cultivation. That might have been fine 200+ years ago, but not today.
The problem with implementation is not one of planning, but of wants and needs. Does everyone here, or at least 90% of you, want to be a farmer? Growing your own tomatoes on the balcony is fine when you are a 20-somthing kid. Try growing enough for you, your partner, three kids, gran and grandpa, the dog ... suddenly those big greenhouses and giant JohnDeer harvesters are looking a little less evil.
There are things that are highly concerning:
'A plat, says Hall, will be subject to state and regional laws, but will also be overseen by a board and heirachries of leaders with, it appears, strong Mormon Family values.'
'Families and individuals who wish to join must invest their net worth...'
'Those who start Vista Bizzes will be given startup funds by thte community but must surrender their IP rights. They also must agree to put nearly all their profits back into the community in exchance for what Hall calls "dividends" -- payouts from overall wealth earned by the plat businesses.'
I don't say this lightly, but how is this not a plan for building a Communist cult with an explicit plan to centralize power of the plats, presumably to Hall himself?
Doesn't it help that they are set up under a government built on Jewish law?
From the paragraph you quoted:
> But everyone is also free to leave and take their companies with them, if dissatisfied. "Competition and the freedom to walk is crucial," he says.
And, even in the case of a digital business, how can they just walk without their IP?
It doesn't add up.
I think it is just a writing device for tying the story to the real world and building character. Bloomberg does that quite often, "oh it's the type of person who drives a Toyota".
Also, if you're a Mormon, you probably see some other very Mormon things come through in the description of Mr. Hall. The endeavor itself seems pretty characteristic not only of Mormonism but a whole variety of faith, social, and industrial experiments from the 19th century. California entrepreneurs aren't the first hackers/disrupters. :)
And I think that's the point of the article, really. This isn't a "those crazy/weird Mormons" thing. This is an "Ambitious Guy is Ambitious" and "Humans Be Utopian-ing" thing.
And also a reminder that San Francisco isn't the only place where people are resistant to having the character of the community they live in changed.
Seems like a fairly strong case of resurrecting and updating some of old plans just like if someone wanted to build a Greek city based on some old writings.
(Not a Mormon and don't have any horses in this race, just find the push to distance these plans from Mormonism odd.)
I want to distance these plans from Mormonism simply because the project has no meaningful relationship to it. There is no problem whatsoever with Hall drawing inspiration from an old document drawn out by Joseph Smith et al, I take no umbrage with that. The issue is the attempt to pretend that it is some realization of Joseph's intent or visions, some significant step forward in the creation of the Zion of scripture (which, for the record, is mostly defined in the Bible).
NewVistas is one man's plan for a city he thinks will work well. He may even believe the plan has some divine sanction over it, which is fine. I wish him luck in his attempts to lawfully build his ideal city.
What I do not wish to see is the false association, the false significance, ascribed to this project, merely based on Hall's assertion that he drew inspiration from a document authored by Smith. It creates the false impression that Mormons will accept this as religiously significant, and they don't and won't, because it isn't.
Also, if you have a minute, I'd love to hear your understanding of what the real Zion will be. (Honest curiosity.)
Mormon eschatology is pretty thin but the core beliefs are that the people are of "one heart and one mind" and that "there are no poor among them".
Specifically this mean that Zion can only be built from "within" and not by force of arms and an economic system not based on self interest but on "love thy neighbors as thyself".
Early Mormon's made attempts in Kirtland Ohio and Far West Missiouri which mostly failed due to rampant speculation and broader economic panics. Some of the ideas were adopted in Nauvoo, Illinois and later is small communities in Utah by Brigham Young.
Some of these experiments yielded later economic benefits because it allowed the Mormon's to divorce their economic system somewhat from gold (which was I short supply). While trades with non-Mormons would need to be settled with gold trade between Mormons could be settled with script that could be exchanged for goods at the "bishop's storehouse." Tradesmen and famers would sell items to the storehouse and get back script which they could then use to buy finsished good or services.
This created a currency that was functionally backed by finished goods and commodities and was immune to speculation and banking system panics that were common at the time.
There is certainly a subgroup of mormons that would see religious significance in him using Joseph's plat of Zion document for the layout.
If he were doing this in Independence MO, then you'd really have something.
There was the main meeting building with movable floors and walls that were justified by the ability to use it as a chapel, and a gym, and that it could also be sectioned off into individual meeting rooms. The underground monorail system with individual autonomous cars is supposed to be the main transportation... No cars allowed. The size of the living quarters is very small. It's supposed to be all mixed use, with one main boulevard that all the shops are on. Living space would all be on level 2, and gardens on the top floor. Lots of farm area right out back, but communal.
It's odd, but if he's got the money to try it, more power to him.
That's about the size of Beijing proper...
One Vista Biz, called Medic, is developing a water-efficient toilet that also measures blood pressure, weight, and overall health by using sensors and sampling what passes through it. Hall hopes insurance companies will eventually cover the costs of installing such toilets at companies to track worker health.
This seems like a blatant invasion/abuse of privacy. Not to mention requiring people to give up their net worth and surrender all IP to live at the place.
The state is very far from being a utopia, and new development does get routinely approved (though it can be controversial). We do tend to oppose giant chains or people trying to push systems onto the state.
Utah became a state only after Mormons agreed to stop practicing polygamy.
For more info, look up Mormon Pioneers.
Humans benefit from living among trees. The value of trees can be seen of property prices in New York where central park is highly valued. http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/what-is-a-tree-worth
First of all, in my area, people who talk like Mr. Hall generally scare the daylights out of us. I work with some rather wealthy Mormon investors (Peterson's, Sorenson's, Marriott's, Romney's) in a technical capacity and I have never run into Mr. Hall. But I have met plenty of people who believe they are resurrecting some idea from Joseph Smith. They generally use these sorts of ideological fallacies to attempt to extract investment money from well meaning but less than experienced middle class Mormon "investors" (read: retirees with 401k's and pensions). It's sad but in Utah one of the best places to find a crook or a fraud is in your church congregation.
Second, there was a time early in church history when Mormon's had a really hard time finding a safe place to live. There are a few reasons for this (in the world according to me, again take it with a grain of salt). In the early days of the church, Mormon's would ALL move together. Look at Nauvoo, IL, as a good example. It started out as a single road village that was in essentially the swamp lands along the Mississippi River and in no time grew to tens of thousands of people who all thought very similar to one another, and more importantly controlled politics together. That had to be scary for the residents of villages, counties, and states that we would move into. So people fought back against the Mormons. Of course there were also some horrible massacres against Mormons [1] [2]. Nevertheless, moving together, planning communities, and sustaining ourselves was a big deal at the time.
Now, things have changed. The church actively teaches that you are to build up the church community where you are. You are to participate in local and national politics according to your own conscious and education. We should not all gather in one spot but help in our communities bother civicly and religiously. I have not heard a Church leader in public or private in my lifetime even hint at the idea of moving together to a planned community or "Utopia".
One final note. Mormon's (myself included) are generally very conservative. There is no doubt about that. With that, one of the things that really stuck out in the article was this idea that anyone moving to this community would give up all they had for the greater good in some communist style ownership and profit sharing scheme. That is nearly laughable. Many of the more wealthy church members I know are generous and knowledgable philanthropists but they are not going to suddenly wake up and say "A ha! A scroll from Joseph Smith which says we should make planned communities and turn over all of our wealth to said community!" [3] Mormon's are conservative and often unapologetic capitalists.
This is either someones delusion or someones horrible scam.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haun%27s_Mill_massacre
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Executive_Order_44
[3] Yes there is some historical precedence for a communistic Mormon idea called the United Order, aka the United Order of Enoch, which is honestly where some of Mr. Hall's ideas came from. There are some within the Church who believes we will at some point live in this way. The idea is well outside of the scope of my comment here and suffice it to say, the United Order cannot be overseen by some random guy who read a document in a library.
That said, if you have to sign your entire net worth over to the collective for the time that you are in, maybe it's still "your capital" on the year-to-year timescale, but it's socialism on the day-to-day scale.
And I would also suggest that there is still room for coercion even if you are allowed to liquidate your holding. I was heartened to see that the option to leave is a feature. But that's a value that they would have to hold throughout every design decision for the community and the contract. It's one thing to say "people should be able to leave", it's another to repeatedly sacrifice other design goals to make it easy to do so. Where there is friction, it can add up to coercion.
That's true of many scams - and it applies everywhere, not just Utah. I've seen it happen.
It's easier to get people to believe in unproven lies when they are perfectly willing to believe in other unprovable things (basically the definition of faith). And no, that doesn't apply to all people of faith, but I would be willing to bet it's higher than more rational people.
I know you added a footnote to this but how is it laughable? That is exactly what the law of consecration was/is. It has never been denounced that I know of. It was postponed due to the saints inability to follow it. Afaik, mormons still believe that the law of consecration is a divine construct and will be brought back once the saints are faithful enough to obey.
> We should not all gather in one spot but help in our communities bother civicly and religiously. I have not heard a Church leader in public or private in my lifetime even hint at the idea of moving together to a planned community or "Utopia".
Really? I was always taught that in the last days all of the saints will be called to gather in Zion (Missouri). That sounds pretty similar. In fact I used to know people in the mormon church that had 50 gallon barrels of gas stashed away for when armageddon hits and they need to b-line it for Zion.
I know that what this guy is doing doesn't fit into the Mormon structure/hierarchy because it isn't coming from the top but it isn't that these ideas are coming from left field.
If you want I can provide sources for this stuff but anyone raised in the church has heard these ideas since day one and I know that you have too.
That's a good question and you are right. I also happen to believe in the Law of Consecration (aka The United Order of Enoch). However, the fact that Mr. Hall would suggest it is the laughable part.
It is exactly for the reason you stated "I know that what this guy is doing doesn't fit into the Mormon structure/hierarchy". Exactly. People can decide whatever they would like about my faith and my deeply held beliefs, as well as those of my religion. But my faith and beliefs go far deeper than "Someday we will live the Law of Consecration". My personal faith says that the structure and hierarchy of our religion is built and managed by God himself and that he will direct the work involved with the Law of Consecration in his own time and own ways and that I will know when that time is right because of my faith and closeness to Him. A random church member cannot bring about the Law of Consecration.
> Really? I was always taught that in the last days all of the saints will be called to gather in Zion (Missouri).
This is an interesting one. I wouldn't say I was "taught" this as much as I was told this from time to time by people who were, again, rather laughable. This is such a common LDS church myth that the church itself put out an explanation with some great references [1]. There are plenty of crazy people in the world, Mormon and non-Mormon. I have a neighbor who believes a 2 year supply (another suggestion the church gives) actually means a 2 year supply of ammunition for his firearms because he believes this will be "the only currency after the great destruction". I personally keep a two year supply more in line with what is suggested by Dave Ramsey. To each their own, I guess.
Now, just to curb some of the comments that I might receive from this. These are my beliefs and this is my faith which I have gained over a large swath of my life. I did not gain it randomly and I understand others might not believe what I do and may think I am crazy/delusional/"a sheeple" or whatnot. I understand you might not agree. I am fine with that, my faith doesn't require you to.
[1] https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/04/missouri-myths?lang=eng
Based on that thought experiment, my opinion is that there is no way this guy is ever going to get a town of 20000 people in one square mile of Vermont and still sustain a modernized economy.
In my image, I tessellated a square mile into 9600 rectangles, each 88'x33'. 928 of those rectangles became 50'-wide arterial roads flanked by 8'-wide sidewalks. 320 of those rectangles became a 176'-wide expressway corridor with 8 double-crossover overpass interchanges to the arterial roads. (These road areas would also have utility conduits underneath the road surface.) The remaining 8352 lots have an identical access easement for 18'-wide streets, 20' on each side for perpendicular parking, and another 4' on each side for sidewalks.
I assumed 60% of building lots would be residential buildings, with average occupancy of 4 people per residential lot, for a maximum of 20045 residents, with a total of 15776 on-street parking spaces, and 223 of the 640 acres left over for parks, commercial buildings, and government buildings.
The image ignores potential geographical obstructions, so the only way you could get all 29 local access streets, all 8 arterial roads, and the expressway to go through is to build on flat, featureless land, as one might find somewhere between Wichita, Minneapolis, and Indianapolis. In Vermont, there's no way.
And if you are intending to build a city in America without reserving at least 1.8 parking spaces per household, you're going to have problems. Some of the non-residential lots would have to be dedicated parking lots or garages, because the non-residential buildings need more than 1.8 parking spaces per unit cell. About a third of your permanent "residents" are going to be cars, and half of your money-importing commercial visitors will be cars. If you plan your whole city around temples, rather than truck routes, sewers, and optical fiber backbones, you're doing it wrong.
Do you mind uploading it?
>without reserving at least 1.8 parking spaces per household, you're going to have problems
For those curious, SF has 805,235 households / 441,541 public parking spots = ~0.548. Both numbers as of 2010.
However, the actual physical layout is pretty neat. Though I prefer that there be some provisions for existing vehicles rather than rely on pod technology that hasn't been developed / deployed yet. But I would definitely want to have any motor vehicles relegated be considered secondary users and their use kept at least a little inconvenient. Rather than with current urban planning, where vehicles are the primary user, and pedestrians are an afterthought.
I would love to live in a walkable community.
Is this the modern white collar equivalent of paying for protection ?
15,000 to 20,000 people per square mile means 43.11 to 37.34 sq-feet/person. That is below the dimensions of most tiny houses.
EDIT: please correct me in a comment if I am mistaken.
5280'/mile square mile is 5280' x 5280' = 27,878,400 sq' 27,878,400 sq' / 20,000 persons = 1,393.92 sq'/person
Yup - you are right. I was off by ~2 orders of magnitude. I took the square root one more time for no reason. I ended up calculating the length of the walls of the (multistory?) box you get to live in - 37.34' to 43.11'.
Thanks.
Seems off a square mile is 640 acres an acre is 43560sf. So 640 * 43560 / 20,000 = ~1400 sf of land per person. Multi story buildings would increase it, and area not part of buildings would decrease it. But, overall it's not that crazy.
That's not always a good thing. It's funny people are impressed by facts like these.
I am thoroughly disappointed.
I think Mormonism/ LDS is possibly the most innovative social experiments in the USA in the last 200 years, even when stood up against such gems as the Land Grant Colleges, public schooling, public health, etc. You just have to see past the mystical bullshit (as you always must if you want to understand what is powerful in a religious movement).