179 replies to this topic

[zerinus]

Ahab, on 15 December 2010 - 03:55 PM, said:

Um hmm.  So, do you think the requirements are different from us now than they were for those other disciples?  If they should do that, why not us?

I don't think I commented on that adequately.

In the days of Jesus, His missionary messengers were commanded to preach the gospel "without purse or scrip," meaning that they should not take any money with them, or food stuffs of any kind, but to rely on the mercy of the world, and faith in God to feed or clothe them (Mark 6:7-10; Luke 10:3-7). In this dispensation too the Lord initially commanded the missionaries to preach the gospel without purse of scrip (D&C 24:18; 84:78, 86). But now the rules have changed. They do take with them purse and scrip. That suggests to me that those kinds of rules may not always be applicable at all times, or under all circumstances. Luke 22:35-36 also suggests that those kinds of rules may not always be applicable under all circumstances. My understanding of the situation is that the Church now operates under the law of tithing, not consecration; and as long as someone fulfills that requirement, and is otherwise generous with his means towards the poor or the Church, if he has the means to spare, he has fulfilled all that God requires him to do. If the situation changed, and law of consecration became the norm, something different might be expected of him.

[Jeff K.]

zerinus, on 16 December 2010 - 03:33 AM, said:

Come on now, don't be so harsh. The man has an opinion, and his opinion deserves to be heard.

If I might disagree.  Not all opinions deserve equal status.  Opinions that condemn an entire group with strawman stereotypes and establish some sort of materialist level that allows the denouncement of people one has never met and apparently never known beyond the chariature some angry person tossed his way.  As Mormons we often are characterized by generalities that we know are simply untrue and without merit for describing who we are.  It is human nature to do so, or rather the nature of the natural man.  To easily catagorize a whole religion, race, or class of people (trailer trash, rich parasites, etc), is wrong and an opinion based on such is not equal to opinions as neutrally acceptable.

The opinion suffers from several disturbing shortcomings.

1- It condemns an entire class or group of people as somehow being unworthy of the Lord's blessing.
2- It has a sliding scale, ie "because I say so, I am not rich" (even though it has been shown easily that one is rich relative to others) and as middle class no responsibility exists and therefore no condemnation for "my" kind of people.
3- It subsumes the doctrine of salvation and uses materialistic possessions as a guide to entrance into Heavenly Father's kingdom (if being rich is required to be in heaven, and such a view is wrong, the opposite side of the same coin should apply).

These things alone make the opinion as dangerous today as it was duirng the era when Nephites began catagorizing people economically.  One wonders at the level of condemnation that seethes below the surface towards a "rich" stake president called by an apostle, how this pattern plays itself just as it did with the betrayer Judas Iscariot.

So in my view the opinion is indeed a dangerous one, because it is being proclaimed by those inside the church and it is never the outside that can hurt our church, only those within who betray it for 30 pieces of silver, or 30 pieces of poverty points in this case.  

As an alternative I believe that looking towards the riches of others does nothing for the general welfare and spiritual well being of a people beyond allowing us to indulge is some sort of class covetousness.  Shielding it under the veneer of "well I want it for other people" does not change the stripes of that beast.

[USU78]

Jeff K., on 16 December 2010 - 08:42 AM, said:

If I might disagree.  Not all opinions deserve equal status.  Opinions that condemn an entire group with strawman stereotypes and establish some sort of materialist level that allows the denouncement of people one has never met and apparently never known beyond the chariature some angry person tossed his way.  As Mormons we often are characterized by generalities that we know are simply untrue and without merit for describing who we are.  It is human nature to do so, or rather the nature of the natural man.  To easily catagorize a whole religion, race, or class of people (trailer trash, rich parasites, etc), is wrong and an opinion based on such is not equal to opinions as neutrally acceptable.

The opinion suffers from several disturbing shortcomings.

1- It condemns an entire class or group of people as somehow being unworthy of the Lord's blessing.
2- It has a sliding scale, ie "because I say so, I am not rich" (even though it has been shown easily that one is rich relative to others) and as middle class no responsibility exists and therefore no condemnation for "my" kind of people.
3- It subsumes the doctrine of salvation and uses materialistic possessions as a guide to entrance into Heavenly Father's kingdom (if being rich is required to be in heaven, and such a view is wrong, the opposite side of the same coin should apply).

These things alone make the opinion as dangerous today as it was duirng the era when Nephites began catagorizing people economically.  One wonders at the level of condemnation that seethes below the surface towards a "rich" stake president called by an apostle, how this pattern plays itself just as it did with the betrayer Judas Iscariot.

So in my view the opinion is indeed a dangerous one, because it is being proclaimed by those inside the church and it is never the outside that can hurt our church, only those within who betray it for 30 pieces of silver, or 30 pieces of poverty points in this case.  

As an alternative I believe that looking towards the riches of others does nothing for the general welfare and spiritual well being of a people beyond allowing us to indulge is some sort of class covetousness.  Shielding it under the veneer of "well I want it for other people" does not change the stripes of that beast.

Brilliant!  Would I had your gift.  I'm a poor epigrammist at best.  That's pure poetry.

[Vance]

Jeff K., on 16 December 2010 - 08:42 AM, said:

. . .  or 30 pieces of poverty points in this case.

I have known people who were as proud of and gloried in their poverty as any rich person I know are of their condition.

[T-Shirt]

Who gets to decide, for the purpose of salvation, how we define rich?  The typical American welfare mother is rich when compared to most of the population of Ethiopia.  Are we to condemn all rich people (whatever that means) regardless of the fact that we have no idea what they do with their money in helping the poor?  Wasn't giving alms openly, for all to see, condemned by the Lord, and if so, wouldn't we be guilty of the greater sin by condemning someone we deem to be rich for not giving to the poor just because we didn't see them do it?

T-Shirt

[thesometimesaint]

Luke 14: 12-14

    "When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your kinsmen or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return, and you be repaid.

    But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just."

[Jeff K.]

Luckily that does not reflect the condemnation of an entire class of people.  Indeed, how does a man afford a banquet for the poor?  Is he less righteous?  Or is the material aspect unimportant but the idea of doing good without return the key virtue expressed?

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

I'm not against the rich. I am against the Gospel of Prosperity.

[Ahab]

Jeff K., on 16 December 2010 - 08:42 AM, said:

If I might disagree.  Not all opinions deserve equal status.  Opinions that condemn an entire group with strawman stereotypes and establish some sort of materialist level that allows the denouncement of people one has never met and apparently never known beyond the chariature some angry person tossed his way.  As Mormons we often are characterized by generalities that we know are simply untrue and without merit for describing who we are.  It is human nature to do so, or rather the nature of the natural man.  To easily catagorize a whole religion, race, or class of people (trailer trash, rich parasites, etc), is wrong and an opinion based on such is not equal to opinions as neutrally acceptable.

The opinion suffers from several disturbing shortcomings.

1- It condemns an entire class or group of people as somehow being unworthy of the Lord's blessing.
2- It has a sliding scale, ie "because I say so, I am not rich" (even though it has been shown easily that one is rich relative to others) and as middle class no responsibility exists and therefore no condemnation for "my" kind of people.
3- It subsumes the doctrine of salvation and uses materialistic possessions as a guide to entrance into Heavenly Father's kingdom (if being rich is required to be in heaven, and such a view is wrong, the opposite side of the same coin should apply).

These things alone make the opinion as dangerous today as it was duirng the era when Nephites began catagorizing people economically.  One wonders at the level of condemnation that seethes below the surface towards a "rich" stake president called by an apostle, how this pattern plays itself just as it did with the betrayer Judas Iscariot.

So in my view the opinion is indeed a dangerous one, because it is being proclaimed by those inside the church and it is never the outside that can hurt our church, only those within who betray it for 30 pieces of silver, or 30 pieces of poverty points in this case.  

As an alternative I believe that looking towards the riches of others does nothing for the general welfare and spiritual well being of a people beyond allowing us to indulge is some sort of class covetousness.  Shielding it under the veneer of "well I want it for other people" does not change the stripes of that beast.

Look, bro.  The point I made is very simple to grasp, and even if you think I am rich, by worldly standards, you should be agreeing with me rather than thinking my point isn't valid or that I am a menace to society.

My point very simply is:  The rich should give to the poor because it's the rich who have most of this world's resources.  The poor people may have "some" riches, and the "middle-class" may have some "riches" too, but it's the people who our U.S. government classifies as the "rich" who have MOST of this world's resources, BY FAR, and in fact, the "rich" have more of this world's resources than the poor class and the middle-class, COMBINED, which is just not fair, at all, by any standard.

Now, since you seem to want to make this personal against me while accusing me of not giving as I should give, I'll just take a moment to say you are wrong about that, and if I had more, I would give more.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

Look, bro. The point I made is very simple to grasp, and even if you think I am rich, by worldly standards, you should be agreeing with me rather than thinking my point isn't valid or that I am a menace to society.

My point very simply is: The rich should give to the poor because it's the rich who have most of this world's resources. The poor people may have "some" riches, and the "middle-class" may have some "riches" too, but it's the people who our U.S. government classifies as the "rich" who have MOST of this world's resources, BY FAR, and in fact, the "rich" have more of this world's resources than the poor class and the middle-class, COMBINED, which is just not fair, at all, by any standard.

Now, since you seem to want to make this personal against me while accusing me of not giving as I should give, I'll just take a moment to say you are wrong about that, and if I had more, I would give more.

Your point is one that has been clearly outlined in my post.  It is covetous, judgemental, and reflects a disdain based on materialistic rather than spiritual quantities.  Your point that the "rich" control the worlds resources reflects a shallowness.  Rather than judge your neighbor you should ask yourself what "YOU" are doing for the poor.  I am not a respecter of persons, rather rich or poor or middle class.  You shouldn't be either.

You apparently are not giving well enough since you still have more than the poor.  At least based on your absolutist judgement of others.

Edited by Jeff K., 16 December 2010 - 12:40 PM.

[Ahab]

Jeff K., on 16 December 2010 - 12:39 PM, said:

Your point is one that has been clearly outlined in my post.  It is covetous, judgemental, and reflects a disdain based on materialistic rather than spiritual quantities.

You need to think again about what my point actually is, because you're still not getting it right.

The fact that I recognize the fact that most of this world's resources are in the hands of the rich does not mean I am covetous, and it doesn't mean that I don't give what I should give.   I'm simply saying the rich should give to the poor because they should.  Do you disagree that the rich should, whoever they are?

If you agree with me on that point, then it seems the only point we don't agree on is whether or not I am rich.  You think I am, and yet you don't know how much income I have, while I do know that about me and I also know that I am not rich according to the parameters I use to define who is rich.

Quote

Your point that the "rich" control the worlds resources reflects a shallowness.

Your idea that they don't shows me that you are very naive.

Quote

Rather than judge your neighbor you should ask yourself what "YOU" are doing for the poor.

I already know what I'm doing for the poor, and I also know that the "rich" can give more than I am now able to give considering what I now have to work with.

Wouldn't you like to live in a world where things were spread out a lot more equally, instead of the rich having so much more than those who are poor?

What do you think when you know a government is going to be spending $40 million on a wedding ceremony while so many people are actually "poor".

Or what do you think when you know someone has already spent $4 million on a big fancy boat, while so many people are actually "poor".

Don't you get even a wee bit outraged at that kind of injustice, or do you consider yourself to be privileged if you can participate in some way, perhaps even while wishing you could do the same thing as those "rich" people ?

If I had millions of dollars to work with, or even only $120,000 a year in annual income, I wouldn't spend it that way while knowing there are so many people who are actually "poor" in the world, and I am outraged that so many people actually do.

Quote

  I am not a respecter of persons, rather rich or poor or middle class.  You shouldn't be either.

I'm not, and while I'd rather live in a world where there is no such thing as money, with people doing things they do just because they want to out of the charity of their own hearts, I respect what money can do in the world we now live in and I'd simply like to see it being put to better use than it usually is by those who have most of it along with most of the world's other resources.

Quote

You apparently are not giving well enough since you still have more than the poor.  At least based on your absolutist judgement of others.

My "middle-class" status is based upon how much money I make in annual income, not upon how much I give of my resources, and since you really have no idea how much of my income I give to other people, you should simply think about the "principles" I am sharing with you.

Point of fact:  The rich should give to the poor until the poor are no longer poor... regardless of whether or not I am one of the rich.

Edited by Ahab, 16 December 2010 - 01:58 PM.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

thesometimesaint, on 16 December 2010 - 11:10 AM, said:

Jeff K.:

I'm not against the rich. I am against the Gospel of Prosperity.

So being prosperous is a bad thing? Who knew?

I take it that you desire all to live in cardboard boxes?

[Jeff K.]

Shrug

You fail to see how wrong you are.

Tell us, if your Stake President were "rich" would you contend that somehow he was less righteous than you because you are not "as rich" as he is?  

If so, how can he be in judgement of your temple recommend you are so obviously more concerned with righteousness.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Your point that the "rich" control the worlds resources reflects a shallowness.

Your idea that they don't shows me that you are very naive.

Who buys the computers they don't need?  The cell phones that are unnecessary and voluntarily gives of their wealth to the rich?  

No, you view is shallow.  Mine tends to understand and know the flow of money and affluence, indeed, I tend to understand how things work.  The naivete is "well give it all away and everything will be better".


Now that is naive.

You make the rich what they are.  And then you curse them because you gave them your money for things that aren't necessary.  But wait.... you aren't rich (or so you contend even though you are indeed much richer than those in many nations), but you really haven't answered that have you?  

You may not wish to admit it, but that is the flaw you have to deal with.  Your wealth is incredible compared to what I have seen for poverty in Peru and other places.  I suggest that you apply to yourself the same rules you wish to apply to others.  

I think you could do much more to help the poor than what you are doing now.  I might suggest you clean up your own neighborhood before you judge the neighborhood of others, especially when you don't know the people.

A thought.

Hugo Chavez lives a simple life in the government.  And yet he has imprisoned many people for imagined crimes.  Mao lived very simply, and yet almost 50 million died as he was trying to "help the poor".

Some very righteous men out there, at least by your criteria.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

Don't you get even a wee bit outraged at that kind of injustice, or do you consider yourself to be privileged if you can participate in some way, perhaps even while wishing you could do the same thing as those "rich" people ?

I don't think about the rich.  I have my own soul to look after.  I don't wonder about the money they spend since I don't think it is my business to covet their wealth.  It shouldn't be yours either.

Frankly, if you wanted to be a fault finder you could argue that any wedding party beyond the temple ceremony is a assult upon the poor, since the spiknard could have been given to the poor instead of to the couple being married.  Tell me, when and if you married, did you have or plan to have a wedding party?

If so, shouldn't you be ashamed when there are so many people in the world poorer than you?

[Ahab]

Jeff K., on 16 December 2010 - 02:02 PM, said:

Shrug

You fail to see how wrong you are.

Heh, yeah, sure bro.   Keep telling yourself, and me, that I am the one who is wrong.

Quote

Tell us, if your Stake President were "rich" would you contend that somehow he was less righteous than you because you are not "as rich" as he is?

No, but I would hope he was giving to the poor, as he should, and just as all other rich people should, while knowing that he had more to give than I did.

Quote

If so, how can he be in judgement of your temple recommend you are so obviously more concerned with righteousness.

N/A.

Quote

Who buys the computers they don't need?  The cell phones that are unnecessary and voluntarily gives of their wealth to the rich?

No, you view is shallow.  Mine tends to understand and know the flow of money and affluence, indeed, I tend to understand how things work.  The naivete is "well give it all away and everything will be better".

You seem to see how it works from the bottom up, but you don't seem see how it should work from the top down.

Since you mentioned computers, let's consider someone who has made a ton of money by "selling" computers and/or computer software.

... and without mentioning any names, to avoid violating any board rules, and just considering the fact that there are many real people who have become "rich" that way.

So, let's say we have some guy with millions, if not billions of dollars.  What do you think he (or she) should do with it?

Give it to the poor, right?  Not all of it, of course, because he still needs some money to live on and we wouldn't want him (or her) to become poor and in need of someone else's assistance, because the goal is to eradicate poverty from the whole world, rather than to support some opulant lifestyle.

Are you with me so far, or do you still see me as a mean ole boogey man who has no right to talk about how things should work on this planet I live on ???

Quote

Now that is naive.

Uh, what is?  Did you have a valid point to make about something?

Quote

You make the rich what they are.

Well, not all by myself, but yes I do help them to become rich, and since I"m not poor, myself, I'm not really complaining about the lifestyle I am living.

I'm speaking up for the poor here while talking about what rich people should do with their money.

Quote

And then you curse them because you gave them your money for things that aren't necessary.  But wait.... you aren't rich (or so you contend even though you are indeed much richer than those in many nations), but you really haven't answered that have you?

Yes, I have, and if you didn't see that then you haven't been paying very good attention.

Quote

You may not wish to admit it, but that is the flaw you have to deal with.  Your wealth is incredible compared to what I have seen for poverty in Peru and other places.  I suggest that you apply to yourself the same rules you wish to apply to others.  

I do, bro.  I actually do practice what I preach.

Quote

I think you could do much more to help the poor than what you are doing now.

Nope, not really, and if you must know, I'm actually teetering on the edge of my limits with there being a very good possibility of me becoming poor, myself, if I don't really watch it.

Quote

I might suggest you clean up your own neighborhood before you judge the neighborhood of others, especially when you don't know the people.

A thought.

I preach the same doctrine in my own neighborhood too, bro.  Thanks for the advice, though, as if I wasn't.

Quote

Hugo Chavez lives a simple life in the government.  And yet he has imprisoned many people for imagined crimes.  Mao lived very simply, and yet almost 50 million died as he was trying to "help the poor".

Some very righteous men out there, at least by your criteria.

Just so you know, I already forgive you for all of the bad things you've been saying about me, and likely will continue to say... because I'm just a nice guy, that way.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think you could do much more to help the poor than what you are doing now.

Nope, not really, and if you must know, I'm actually teetering on the edge of my limits with there being a very good possibility of me becoming poor, myself, if I don't really watch it.

I wonder how many poor people have a computer to post on?  At your limits?  Do you realize how ironic your statement is for those of us who actually know poverty?

[Jeff K.]

Its a shame your much wealther stake president is so less righteous than you.  How do you stand it?

[Ahab]

Jeff K., on 16 December 2010 - 02:28 PM, said:

I wonder how many poor people have a computer to post on?  At your limits?  Do you realize how ironic your statement is for those of us who actually know poverty?

The goal for all of us should not be to become poor, but to find a balance between being poor and being rich while we all have all things in common.

[Ahab]

Jeff K., on 16 December 2010 - 02:29 PM, said:

Its a shame your much wealther stake president is so less righteous than you.  How do you stand it?

FYI, you're reading comprehension skills are severely lacking.

Try thinking that I'm a better person than you're currently giving me credit for.

[Jeff K.]

My reading skills and comprehension are fine.  The number of different responses to your diatribe against those with more money than you have speaks quite clearly.  The rather stumbling way in which you try to exclude yourself from your own judgment of others speaks more of your comprehension than it does my reading skills.