Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

David Bokovoy

Acts 4:32-35

Recommended Posts

D&C 49:20

But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.

Share this post


Link to post

The topic of this thread has nothing to do with any specific American political figure. We're exploring whether or not the primitive church existed as a community without private ownership and if so, what this perspective might reveal regarding early LDS attempts to eradicate poverty by restoring the early Christian order.

You are the one that keeps doing it David. Anyway I will for go trying to post about that aspect as I agree it has nothing to do with this thread.

The best way to eradicate poverty is by production. If every one produces that is able to produce then every one has something. There will be surplus, natrually, for those that are not able to fend for themselves they will be able to rely on the bishop's store house.

Redistribution of wealth will not play a major roll in eradicating poverty. I hope we can atleast agree on these points.

Share this post


Link to post

It presupposes a world where people are property and where the economy must be greased by investment and not hoarding: remember, it's only the guy who hoards his master's cash who gets condemned; the guy who ventures and loses is blameless, since everybody knows that sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.

The world works in certain ways, and there are always going to be poor among us. If there are poor, there will be those with wealth. How both react to this is the measure of what they are.

The parable about the good Samaritan assumes that people in the world will be beaten and robbed. That isn't an endorsement of the practice.

Share this post


Link to post

You are the one that keeps doing it David. Anyway I will for go trying to post about that aspect as I agree it has nothing to do with this thread.

The best way to eradicate poverty is by production. If every one produces that is able to produce then every one has something. There will be surplus, natrually, for those that are not able to fend for themselves they will be able to rely on the bishop's store house.

Redistribution of wealth will not play a major roll in eradicating poverty. I hope we can atleast agree on these points.

That's blatantly dishonest. CFR him bringing up a political figure in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post

Have you by chance read what Benjamin F. Johnson believed that Joseph Smith implied about that parable?

Nope. He's most famous, of course, for being a JSJr brother-in-law (his sister was a plural wife/sealee of JSJr). He also was a secretary/scribe/sometimes go-fer for JSJr as well.

Share this post


Link to post

It presupposes a world where people are property and where the economy must be greased by investment and not hoarding: remember, it's only the guy who hoards his master's cash who gets condemned; the guy who ventures and loses is blameless, since everybody knows that sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.

The world works in certain ways, and there are always going to be poor among us. If there are poor, there will be those with wealth. How both react to this is the measure of what they are.

Amen Brother.

Share this post


Link to post

D&C 49:20

But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.

D&C 56:17 Wo unto you poor men, whose hearts are not broken, whose spirits are not contrite, and whose bellies are not satisfied, and whose hands are not stayed from laying hold upon other men

Share this post


Link to post

Vance:

The parables are an allusion, your agency in financial matters is an illusion.

Ha, what a silly post.

Share this post


Link to post

It presupposes a world where people are property and where the economy must be greased by investment and not hoarding: remember, it's only the guy who hoards his master's cash who gets condemned; the guy who ventures and loses is blameless, since everybody knows that sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.

The world works in certain ways, and there are always going to be poor among us. If there are poor, there will be those with wealth. How both react to this is the measure of what they are.

"It's no great shame to be poor, but it's no great honor either." -Tevye Fiddler on the Roof

The shame is not in being poor; the shame is in not doing something to fix it.

My Ex-Son in Law (he would be my son in law if my wife's daughter hadn't disowned my wife), was unemployed for over a year. I allowed them to live with us for a time. I felt that it was reasonable even in this economy to get a job of some sort in 4 months.

He was a lazy good for nothing who did very little around the house, mostly played video games. He spent maybe half an hour a day, online, looking for a job. Then returned to playing games on the Xbox or on the computer.

After 9 months passed we finally got them to leave, dispite them still being unemployed. They hadn't applied for welfare, they wasted months of time before getting on medicade. In short, both my wife and I felt they wasted the gift we gave them, the gift of time, and support.

I do not think that Christ wanted us to take care of the poor in a fashion that requires no effort on their part. After all, if you give a man a fish, he will eat tonight; if you teach a man to fish, he will eat the rest of his life.

Share this post


Link to post

Vance:

The parables are an allusion, your agency in financial matters is an illusion.

I will refrain from mentioning the over intrusion of (negative political philosophy)istic unconstitutional trending government nanny state ism into personal financial matters that make it so.

Edited to add,

In other words, if it wasn't for the GREEDY government confiscating and WASTING so much of my personal wealth, I would have more to give to charity.

Share this post


Link to post

The parable about the good Samaritan assumes that people in the world will be beaten and robbed. That isn't an endorsement of the practice.

Against a backdrop of the real world and what happens in it (sometimes bad guys hurt the innocent), the Master praises him [the Samaritan] who reacts properly to others' undeserved suffering.

Against a backdrop of buying, selling, owning, vesting, and lending, those who invest and lose receive laud as much as those who invest/lend and win. Only the fearful hoarder is condemned.

The lesson is, from one perspective, the same: He who reacts to outside stimuli in the real world with diligence and kindness is worthy of laud; he who reacts with fear and coldness is condemned.

Share this post


Link to post

Mola Ram Suda Ram:

The pun was intended. But the post was serious. Unless you too are saying that you used YOUR agency to be born(assuming you were born in the US, or came as small child) in the richest country this world has ever seen.

Share this post


Link to post

Mola Ram Suda Ram:

The pun was intended. But the post was serious. Unless you too are saying that you used YOUR agency to be born(assuming you were born in the US, or came as small child) in the richest country this world has ever seen.

Part of my "wealth" does come from me being born in the US. However that really has not alot to do with my wealth. I am "wealthy" because I choose to be. I got to work and I work dang hard for what I have. I am blessed to live in this country. So no there is no illusion to my agency about my wealth.

The "" are used because according to US living standards I am not remotley considered weathly.

Share this post


Link to post
Part of my "wealth" does come from me being born in the US. However that really has not alot to do with my wealth. I am "wealthy" because I choose to be. I got to work and I work dang hard for what I have. I am blessed to live in this country. So no there is no illusion to my agency about my wealth.

The Master of the three slaves chooses who will get what. How each reacts is the issue. The fearful poor slave who got one talent and buried it is the only one condemned. Everybody else gets a nice reward.

Right now nobody's required to consecrate beyond a certain point. Should G-d change that by inspiring His apostles and prophets, then we'll all buckle down and comply. In the meantime, it's an academic issue

USU "It's not that complicated, really" 78

Share this post


Link to post

D&C 56:17 Wo unto you poor men, whose hearts are not broken, whose spirits are not contrite, and whose bellies are not satisfied, and whose hands are not stayed from laying hold upon other men

Share this post


Link to post

Right now nobody's required to consecrate beyond a certain point. Should G-d change that by inspiring His apostles and prophets, then we'll all buckle down and comply. In the meantime, it's an academic issue

USU "It's not that complicated, really" 78

I think that is a great point. And I agree. When that day happens I will happily comply. Right now it just feels like the bully at the play ground demanding money.

Share this post


Link to post

Against a backdrop of the real world and what happens in it (sometimes bad guys hurt the innocent), the Master praises him [the Samaritan] who reacts properly to others' undeserved suffering.

Against a backdrop of buying, selling, owning, vesting, and lending, those who invest and lose receive laud as much as those who invest/lend and win. Only the fearful hoarder is condemned.

The lesson is, from one perspective, the same: He who reacts to outside stimuli in the real world with diligence and kindness is worthy of laud; he who reacts with fear and coldness is condemned.

The difference between the two is that the Samaritan parable is actually about helping people. The talents parable isn't actually about money.

Share this post


Link to post

D&C 56:17 Wo unto you poor men, whose hearts are not broken, whose spirits are not contrite, and whose bellies are not satisfied, and whose hands are not stayed from laying hold upon other men

Share this post


Link to post

Hello USU78,

Against a backdrop of the real world and what happens in it (sometimes bad guys hurt the innocent), the Master praises him [the Samaritan] who reacts properly to others' undeserved suffering.

Against a backdrop of buying, selling, owning, vesting, and lending, those who invest and lose receive laud as much as those who invest/lend and win. Only the fearful hoarder is condemned.

The lesson is, from one perspective, the same: He who reacts to outside stimuli in the real world with diligence and kindness is worthy of laud; he who reacts with fear and coldness is condemned.

If you assume that the parable of the Talents is about the need to invest and earn money to become wealthy, how are you able to reconcile that reading with the rest of the Gospel of Luke which not only includes statements commanding the disciples to avoid earning interest, but also the parable of the Rich Fool? The only way to reconcile this problem in my mind is to recognize that Christ was not teaching about money.

In the context of Jesus

Share this post


Link to post

Mola Ram Suda Ram:

I don't know about you but I got the best education public monies could buy. I guess I used MY agency to live in California as a child in 1950's and part of 60's. It had nothing at all to do with my parents being as part of the US military being stationed here.

The list is practically endless of the advantages we have just in living in the US. That has little to nothing to do with MY agency.

http://i.imgur.com/Mpaco.png

Share this post


Link to post

Mola Ram Suda Ram:

I don't know about you but I got the best education public monies could buy. I guess I used MY agency to live in California as a child in 1950's and part of 60's. It had nothing at all to do with my parents being as part of the US military being stationed here.

The list is practically endless of the advantages we have just in living in the US. That has little to nothing to do with MY agency.

http://i.imgur.com/Mpaco.png

Why is the US so rich and affluent? Other countries have more natural resources. So what is the REAL difference?

Share this post


Link to post

Mola Ram Suda Ram:

I don't know about you but I got the best education public monies could buy. I guess I used MY agency to live in California as a child in 1950's and part of 60's. It had nothing at all to do with my parents being as part of the US military being stationed here.

The list is practically endless of the advantages we have just in living in the US. That has little to nothing to do with MY agency.

http://i.imgur.com/Mpaco.png

You could at any time leave. So yes your agency has everything to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
If you assume that the parable of the Talents is about the need to invest and earn money to become wealthy, how are you able to reconcile that reading with the rest of the Gospel of Luke which not only includes statements commanding the disciples to avoid earning interest, but also the parable of the Rich Fool? The only way to reconcile this problem in my mind is to recognize that Christ was not teaching about money.

In the context of Jesus

Share this post


Link to post

Why is the US so rich and affluent? Other countries have more natural resources. So what is the REAL difference?

Guns, germs & steel. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...