Is wealth a sin?

[selek]

Is this a two for one deal, now? Thank you for you opinion, as well. I think it's about as valuable as mine is, or at least pretty close.

Except of course, that I have not exalted my opinion as the standard by which all are to be judged.

You have.

Oh, sure.

In principle, I'm simply saying that it's better for people to have all things in common, rather than some being "rich" while some others are "poor", because sharing to the point of having all things in common is the only ethically fair way to distribute all of the good things God has provided for all of us here on this Earth.

Sometimes it's just too easy to shoot this nonsense down.

So you're saying that if I work my tail off, and Jim Johnson sits on his butt doing nothing, then he has equal right to the fruits of my labor because "that's the only ethically fair way to distribute all of the good things God has provided"?

This approach is both contrary to the Scriptures and is practically and logistically unsound.

Doctrine and Covenants 42:42 42 Thou shalt not be idle; for he that is idle shall not eat the bread nor wear the garments of the laborer.

Historically speaking, this brand of "logic" is why the Plymouth colonists nearly starved to death that first few years after landing.

They, too, had this "all things in common" philosophy written into their charter- and too many of their brethren either flat failed to work or failed to otherwise develop their stewardships. It was only after that particular nonsense was removed- and a proper work ethic restored- that the colony began to flourish.

As a practical matter, this arrangement has NEVER worked in a practical, historical setting.

No, it's not arbitrary. As you say, it's been informed by "progressive" group-think. (nice tag, btw, I like it)

On the contrary, it meets all four classical definitions of arbitrary:

1. based on whim: based solely on personal wishes, feelings, or perceptions, rather than on objective facts, reasons, or principles

2. random: chosen or determined at random

3. authoritarian: with unlimited power

4. law not according to rule: based on the decision of a judge or court rather than in accordance with any rule or law

Your threshold measurement of "too much" money was chosen at random, is authoritarian in its scope and intent, is based solely upon your decision rather than in accordance with any rule or law, and Done deal. See above, and is based solely upon your personal wishes, feelings, and perceptions.

It ignores objective facts, reasons, and principles which might (or might not) be germane to the discussion, and has neither historical nor Biblical precedent.

Well, yeah, but this planet and all things on it belong to God, rather than to any of us.

A philosophical theory not in evidence. One might just as easily say that "What I am is God's gift to me. What I become is my gift to God."

Clearly that which I create through my own invention or by the skill of my hand is not God's, but my own.

It is, however, an irrelevant digression- we are entrusted with all things here on Earth. It is not your place to quibble with how I conduct my stewardship.

What makes someone else (other than God) think they have a right to give land to someone else, or to try to compel someone else to pay them for anything else God has provided on this planet?

There is ample Biblical precedent, whether you choose to admit it or not. Irregardless, the Scriptures are clear that you are not to covet my properties nor achievements, nor have you any claim upon them.

We should be sharing all of this, rather than acting like we are entitled to any of it.

Really? CFR. The Scriptures are quite clear that you are not entitled to the fruit of my labor, nor can you compel me to labor on your behalf.

What labor? What did YOU* do to create any wealth on this planet?

Answered above.

If I toil and sew and plow, water, and weed, I have earned the fruits of my field and vineyard. You have neither claim to them, nor the right to dictate how I use them.

What makes YOU* think that money YOU* have entitles YOU* to anything?

Money is a mere unit of exchange. It represents the value society places upon my time, labor and effort. It is therefore the fruit of my labor- every bit as much as a bushel or corn would be.

If the product is legal to purchase and to own, and I have the means to purchase it, my AGENCY gives me the right to purchase and posses it.

By what right do you intend to deny me the fruits of my labor?

Do YOU* really think that money is power?

Not only do I consider money to be equivalent to power, but so does every government and legal charter on the planet.

YOU* may be able to fool some people, for now, but YOU* won't fool them for long, and God will hold YOU* accountable for what YOU* did NOT share with others.

Then your quarrel is with God- not with me.

As I stated (and you just admitted), that so long as i am right with God and with the Church, your arbitrary and capricious standards of "too much" are utterly meaningless- as you have no right to judge me, nor any authority to lecture me, nor any claim upon that which is mine.

Thank you for conceding the argument.

I am someone who understand that God intends all of us to share what we have with all others ], so that we will have all things in common,

What a strange and contra-Scriptural God you worship. God intends us to care for the poor and needy. Under the Law of Consecration and the United Order, he commands that we donate our surplus. He does not expect us to take bread from the mouths of our children to feed the idle and the slothful.

Contary to your posturing, the Law of Consecration and United Order are by covenant only.

http://institute.lds.org/manuals/doctrine-and-covenants-institute-student-manual/dc-in-200-j-l-l.asp

[Doctor Steuss]

What are your thoughts.

Acres of Diamonds

[staccato]

Two words.

Alpine Utah.

[cinepro]

So, what would happen if LDS leaders started emphasizing that wearing costly clothes was just as bad as wearing immodest clothes?

[Droopy]

Droopy, the scriptures teach it. You may have missed this lesson in Sunday School:

Could you demonstrate from a church published source where the gospel teaches that prosperity qua prosperity is causal in the descent from righteousness into wickedness?

Um, no, but then again, I didn't say that either.

You didn't? But you said earlier:

You mean the scriptures don't teach the poor --> humble --> blessed ---> rich ---> prideful ---> cursed ---> destroyed ---> poor cycle?

You seem to be making wealth and affluence the salient aspects of the cycle here, which has already been pointed out is known as the pride cycle, not the wealth and affluence cycle. Wealth and affluence are not the cause of the spiritual decline (if so, the manner in which the Book of Mormon repeatedly portrays wealth and affluence as among the consequences and blessings of righteousness is going to have to be explained), but variables upon which the primary cause - pride - works.

[staccato]

So, what would happen if LDS leaders started emphasizing that wearing costly clothes was just as bad as wearing immodest clothes?

Before we even reach the clothes, lets talk about the excessive use/expense of cosmetic surgery (most predominantly breast enhancement/liposuction) of the wealthy mormon women. If this isn't a prime example of unhealthy personal pride, I don't know what is.

[Droopy]

I think the key words are "like unto us", and yes, I'd rather think we all become rich or richer as we share our things with each other to the point that we have all things in common, rather than thinking we are neither rich nor poor when we do that.

There is one, and only one possible outcome of "sharing" until we have "all things in common" by which I understand you mean all things in common in a literal sense (which is nowhere taught in the scriptures or by our modern oracles), and that is an equality of poverty. If that is your desire and ideal, then I would have to respectfully say that you simply do not understand the revelations and teachings of the prophets upon the subject of temporal matters as they have been revealed.

For example, if I had a cow, and I gave that cow to everyone so that everyone could enjoy the benefits of that cow, everyone would then have one more cow than they had before, and to that extent everyone would then be more prosperous than they had been without it. And one cow can make another cow, too, so that the one cow would become many cows, regardless of how many cows there were before that.

I'm not sure how the first cow would make any other cows, as you apparently chopped up the first one so that everyone else could have a piece.

In any case Ahab, your economic system would end in nothing more than abject subsistence living, as it features utterly no wealth creation, only sharing. Charity is an act of Christian love and compassion, but one thing it is not is the creation of wealth, and the creation of wealth is the only ultimate answer to poverty.

(which is also to say, in other words, that the only answer to poverty is wealth, or, the only answer to poverty is work; or a contribution to productive economic activity).

The real crux of the matter here, as I attempted to clarify for David Bokovoy in an earlier thread, is that the restored gospel of Jesus Christ nowhere teaches or requires literal egalitarianism as salient or necessary to the successful and valiant living of the gospel, or to the preparation of a Zion society for the Second Coming of the Savior.

It teaches an attitude of mind and heart toward property and wealth, but leaves class envy and the all consuming desire to level in Babylon where it originated and properly belongs.

[Droopy]

Thank you for your opinion. It is worth precisely what we paid for it....

Other than reiterating the standard Marxist "politics of envy" mantras, can you defend the items on your list on moral or ethical grounds?

You see- what you've offered us is merely your arbitrary opinion, informed by "progressive" group-think.

I, for one, want you to defend your position logically, ethically, and morally.

Almost without exception, wealth is the product of someone's toil, sweat, and effort.

Who are YOU* to tell us that we do not have the right to enjoy the fruits of that labor?

My tithing is a matter between me and the Church.

My efforts toward the poor are between myself and God.

So long as I am right with God and with the Church- who are YOU* to tell me I have too much?

*As a point of clarification, this refers to the collective "you", rather than to Ahab personally.

Which all goes to point out that people like Ahab are primarily concerned with the economic conditions and choices of others, if there own as well, and as benign as this attitude and posture may seem in a theoretical debate on a message board, it is precisely this kind of mentality, when given the power and arbitrary authority to act upon these sentiments and ideas, that is capable of wreaking the most fearful and relentless devastation against its fellow beings and of overturning and brushing aside every principle of morality and civilizational values in pursuit of the one, shining, overarching goal of all human existence - equality - and the moral and social purity that is thought to inhere in the configuration of society along these lines.

This was, in very point of fact, the rallying cry of Lucifer to all those in the preexistence who felt that the mortal probationary state as presented in the plan of salvation by Jesus Christ was unfair, inequitable and undemocratic. "Come, listen to my plan", we can almost here him saying. "My plan is called the "no child of God left behind" plan. All will have their salvation in common. No one will be saved unless all are saved. I'm going to socialize the plan of salvation, so that salvation and exhalation will be distributed equitably among the children of men."

What is "socialism" and "communism" and "communitarianism"? Nothing really, once one understands the nuances of the various schools of thought, other than the continuation of this aspect of the war in Heaven here upon this earth (among its other aspects) over the fundamental premises of our mortal experience - free agency and individual responsibility for the talents we receive in this life.

One third of the Father's children thought they could negotiate for themselves a risk free mortality. Of course, a risk free world is also a personal responsibility free world (because it is an agency free world), and this was alluring to many there, as it continues to be here.

[Ahab]

Except of course, that I have not offered my opinion as a standard by which all are to be judged.

Or more precisely, I offered by opinion as a standard of what I believe all people are going to be judged by, with my opinion being what I believe God has given to me or helped me to develop through his personal revelation to me during my personal experiences here on this planet.

You cannot say the same thing.

I'm sure I feel just as strongly about my "opinion" as you feel about yours, selek, with neither of us being wishy-washy.

So you're saying that if I work my tail off, and Jim Johnson sits on his butt doing nothing, then he has equal right to the fruits of my labor because "that's the only ethically fair way to distribute all of the good things God has provided"?

Nobody does "nothing", selek, not even Seinfeld who devoted a whole sitcom series to doing nothing.

Suppose you want something, like land for example, and there are 32 other people who also want it.

Don't all of you have equal rights to the same piece of property, even if you have no rights?

If you think you've got a right to something on this planet that someone else doesn't have any right to, I'd like to hear about what you think you have which entitles you to own it or take possession of it to the exclusion of anyone else.

This approach is both contrary to the Scriptures and is practically and logistically unsound. Historically speaking, this brand of "logic" is why the Plymouth colonists nearly starved to death that first few years after landing.

They, too, had this "all things in common" philosophy written into their charter- and it was only after that particular nonsense was removed that the colony began to flourish.

As a practical matter, this arrangement has NEVER worked in a practical, historical setting.

I'm talking about sharing everything there is on this Earth without asserting any right to exclude anyone from the sharing.

What makes you think that approach wouldn't work?

It already has, and I think it would, again, with a little coaxing, and even if we had to lock up all of the greedy bastards.

On the contrary, it meets all four classical definitions of arbitrary:

1. based on whim: based solely on personal wishes, feelings, or perceptions, rather than on objective facts, reasons, or principles

2. random: chosen or determined at random

3. authoritarian: with unlimited power

4. law not according to rule: based on the decision of a judge or court rather than in accordance with any rule or law

As I said, my "opinion" isn't arbitrary, because it's based on "collective" group-think (to use your own term, and again I thank you for it).

Your threshold measurement of "too much" money was chosen at random, is authoritarian in its scope and intent, is based solely upon your decision rather than in accordance with any rule or law, and Done deal. See above, and is based solely upon your personal wishes, feelings, and perceptions.

Yes, but it's also based on the fact that one person's needs/desires shouldn't overrule the needs/desires of the many, with everyone having an equal right if any right to all good things on this planet.

It ignores objective facts, reasons, and principles which might (or might not) be germane to the discussion, and has neither historical nor Biblical precedent.

You seem to be ignoring Biblical and Book of Mormon precedents involving collective societies who shared everything in common, as well as prophecy stating that such will and should be the case again in the future.

A philosophical theory not in evidence. One might just as easily say that "What I am is God's gift to me. What I become is my gift to God."

Clearly that which I create through my own invention or by the skill of my hand is not God's, but my own.

Are you just looking for someone to argue with, or do you really believe all of that tripe, as a Mormon?

You and everything you have belongs to God, even if you are a rebel.

It is, however, an irrelevant digression- we are entrusted with all things here on Earth. It is not your place to quibble with how I conduct my stewardship.

Bologna, again. What you do affects me, and what I do affects you. None of us is an island unto himself, and I have every right to complain both to you and to God about the fact that you aren't sharing what you could be sharing with me and everyone else on this planet.

You're not a 2 year old, selek, so please stop acting like one by claiming that it is, how you would say, MINE!

There is ample Biblical precedent, whether you choose to admit it or not. Irregardless, the Scriptures are clear that you are not to covet my properties nor achievements, nor have you any claim upon them.

I'm not coveting them. I'm saying all you have belongs to God and you should be sharing all you have, voluntarily, as I should, with all other people, so we can all have all good things in common.

Money is a mere unit of exchange. It represents the value society places upon my time, labor and effort. It is therefore the fruit of my labor- every bit as much as a bushel or corn would be.

Money is like wampum. It's only valuable if you or someone else thinks it is, and only to the extent that you both think it is.

If the product is legal to purchase and to own, and I have the means to purchase it, my AGENCY gives me the right to purchase and posses it.

Agency is a worn out excuse used by people to explain why they do lots of things, selek, and rather than doing something simply because you can choose to do it I think you should focus more on what you should do in order to receive God's approval.

By what right do you intend to deny me the fruits of my labor?

Again, I'm not, but I'll ask you this. By what reasoning do you refuse me the fruits of your labor?

Or, if you would do something for me if I gave you some money, why not do it without me needing to give you any money?

Why not just do everything you do with charity in your heart as you try to make my life, and everyone else's life, as enjoyable as possible?

Not only do I consider money to be equivalent to power, but so does every government and legal charter on the planet.

Yeah, I know, but we could have just as much if not more power without it.

*** quote limit exceeded, switching to bold text for your (selek's) comments) ***

Then your quarrel is with God- not with me.

As I stated (and you just admitted), that so long as i am right with God and with the Church, your arbitrary and capricious standards of "too much" are utterly meaningless- as you have no right to judge me, nor any authority to lecture me, nor any claim upon that which is mine.

Well, sure, with that qualifier... so long as you are right with God and with the Church.

By the same standard, though, my standards are not arbitrary or capricious... so long as I am right with God and with the Church.

What a strange and contra-Biblical God you worship.

By advocating that all of us should share all that we have with all other people?

How in your mind that is contra-Biblical is beyond me.

Contary to your posturing, the Law of Consecration and United Order are by covenant only. They do not apply to all people, nor do they abolish private property rights- a point the Church's lessons and spokesmen have made AMPLY and EXPLICITLY clear.

The covenant to DO that applies only to the people who have made a covenant with God to DO that, but everybody SHOULD do that, even if they haven't already made a covenant to do it.

Your position is neither Biblical nor sustained by the Church.

It is simply YOUR opinion, arbitrary, capricious, and historically untenable.

But thank you for trying.

Thank you for offering your opinion, as well. I appreciate knowing all I can about who I hear from.

[Ahab]

There is one, and only one possible outcome of "sharing" until we have "all things in common" by which I understand you mean all things in common in a literal sense (which is nowhere taught in the scriptures or by our modern oracles), and that is an equality of poverty.

I don't think so, and if you can support your assertion through logic I would appreciate it.

If that is your desire and ideal, then I would have to respectfully say that you simply do not understand the revelations and teachings of the prophets upon the subject of temporal matters as they have been revealed.

Says you, and I say otherwise. Shall we race to see who can CFR who first?

I'm not sure how the first cow would make any other cows, as you apparently chopped up the first one so that everyone else could have a piece.

I didn't say anything about chopping up the cow. We could decide to use it for milk, and by extension butter and cheese and other good things like that, which I think we should do if all we have is one cow now. Or, if you someone else has a cow of the opposite sex, too, and gives that cow to the collective, then maybe we can get them to make some babies. What do you think? Worth a try?

In any case Ahab, your economic system would end in nothing more than abject subsistence living, as it features utterly no wealth creation, only sharing. Charity is an act of Christian love and compassion, but one thing it is not is the creation of wealth, and the creation of wealth is the only ultimate answer to poverty.

I'm fine with using things to make other things, but at some point we need to have something to start with and all good things come to us from God.

[cinepro]

Before we even reach the clothes, lets talk about the excessive use/expense of cosmetic surgery (most predominantly breast enhancement/liposuction) of the wealthy mormon women. If this isn't a prime example of unhealthy personal pride, I don't know what is.

Well, as long as the counsel is spare enough to be ignored, it shouldn't be a problem.

[Droopy]

In principle, I'm simply saying that it's better for people to have all things in common, rather than some being "rich" while some others are "poor", because sharing to the point of having all things in common is the only ethically fair way to distribute all of the good things God has provided for all of us here on this Earth.

1. In other words, you have admitted that it is better for all to be poor equally than for some to be affluent and some to be poor. You would, in point of fact, take this kind of society over a dynamic free market capitalist society in which the vast majority were relatively affluent, and the poor themselves were relatively poor compared to poverty under other social systems.

2. If all are economically equal, the concept of charity and compassion vanishes. How do you explain this, as these are fundamental aspects of the gospel?

3. Sharing per se, (or as it is normally called, redistribution of wealth) creates no wealth, and hence, as such sharing expands to an ever greater degree, the scarcity of resources and goods increases proportionally with the expansion of the sharing.

4. Why is it ethical to expand scarcity and poverty to the point that it encompasses virtually everyone? If poverty is really such an evil, why is it "ethical" to make it the standard of human economic life?

Well, yeah, but this planet and all things on it belong to God, rather than to any of us.

As I've pointed out umpteen times before, it does not logically follow from the assertion that all things belong to God that my things belong to you, or that everyone's things belong equally to everyone else.

What makes someone else (other than God) think they have a right to give land to someone else, or to try to compel someone else to pay them for anything else God has provided on this planet?

As I stated before when you made similar assertions in another thread, this is the mentality of a carjacker. This is the mentality of a common thief who sees what he wants and then takes it. That is called "criminality" in most societies, and it is called the vary same thing in the gospel (which is why there are commandments against it).

The reason we pay for that which we have, in most cases, is that it is only through the medium of money prices in a free market that anyone can know what the value of anything really is. Free markets and value expressed as a money price are the only means of creating wealth and affluence and hence of alleviating poverty. There is one alternative, and that is Ahab, or someone like him, making arbitrary decisions as to how resources should be allocated, what everyone "needs" and "should" want, and what the value of things "should" be to those within society.

Need I say the world has already been down this road?

We should be sharing all of this, rather than acting like we are entitled to any of it.

We are entitled to what we earn through our own honorable labor, which is one reason the gospel contains so much regarding honest and ethical dealings with our fellow beings regarding property (such as not stealing and coveting, returning what we borrow from others, and avoiding envy, of which the Book of Mormon is particularly explicit).

What labor? What did YOU* do to create any wealth on this planet?

You're not going to like this Ahab, not one bit, but God didn't create any wealth on this planet. What he created were raw, natural resources.

What makes YOU* think that money YOU* have entitles YOU* to anything? Do YOU* really think that money is power?

Money, and its use in a free market, tells others in that market what you value, and extended to a vast degree, determines how resources are allocated, capital invested, and what businesses thrive and which do not.

It can also be power, when it is used that way, which it can, because money is a commodity and a good like any other.

YOU* may be able to fool some people, for now, but YOU* won't fool them for long, and God will hold YOU* accountable for what YOU* did NOT share with others.

I see. Selek is evil by definition because he does not give 90% of his yearly earnings to charity, and live in poverty himself as a sign of solidarity with the poor.

You have just damned to Hell pretty much everyone in the West (as well as Japan and other places outside the West), including many of the Lord's anointed.

By what authority Ahab?

I am someone who understand that God intends all of us to share what we have with all others, so that we will have all things in common,

New doctrine, and I'd like to know what mantel you posses by which you have revealed it.

and I also see people who don't want to share what they have equally with all others as people who seek to uphold the rich and poor class distinctions, which God abhores.

It may be a fine point, but the Book of Mormon only mentions class distinctions as pertinent when they become distinctions in the minds of a people. The very fact of varied levels of economic wealth and attainment are not, in themselves, an issue, until the concept of class arises. It is, in other words, class consciousness, a mental set that appears to have come to positively consume you, Ahab, that is the problem, not the raw existence of various levels or degrees of economic condition.

Irony of ironies then, LDS leftists, thoroughly imbued with consciousness of class, would appear to be representative of the very sin of class consciousness they so claim to abhor.

[selek]

Part 1 of 2

Or more precisely, I offered by opinion as a standard of what I believe all people are going to be judged by, with my opinion being what I believe God has given to me or helped me to develop through his personal revelation to me during my personal experiences here on this planet.

I'm sure I feel just as strongly about my "opinion" as you feel about yours, selek, with neither of us being wishy-washy.

And where your opinion differs from the teachings of the Church, I'm quite happy to point that out.

Suppose you want something, like land for example, and there are 32 other people who also want it.

Don't all of you have equal rights to the same piece of property, even if you have no rights?

Not according to God and to the Church.

Abraham and his children were given the land of Israel for an inheritance. Nephi and his descendants (and faithful among the Gentiles who would follow) were given this land (America) for an inheritance.

Clearly, God believes certain peoples have greater right to given lands than do others.

Further, as I pointed out before, even under the Law of Consecration and the United Order, our portions remain an inheritance. They are ours- and no other can claim them from us.

If you think you've got a right to something on this planet that someone else also doesn't have the right to, I'd like to hear about what you think you have which entitles you to own it or take possession of it to the exclusion of anyone else.

Asked and answered.

Repeatedly.

I'm talking about sharing everything there is on this Earth without asserting any right to exclude anyone from the sharing.

Certainly, everyone is free to covenant to share through the United Order and the Law of Consecration. That does not however, give them any claim upon what is mine, nor upon the fruits of my labor.

What makes you think that approach wouldn't work?

Ample historical precedent.

It already has, and I think it would, again, with a little coaxing, and even if we had to lock up all of the greedy bastards.

First and foremost, your statement reveals a staggering ignorance (or stunning indifference) to historical fact- either of which disqualifies you from speaking with any authority.

Note, also, your bias slipping through. In your neo-Marxist mindset, the problem is the "greedy bastards"- not the "covetous bastards", nor the "envious bastards", nor the "lazy bastards".

In your opinion, as revealed in the last several posts, the problem is "the haves" and they must be robbed in order to appease "the have-nots". This is classical Marxism at its finest- but it is NOT Christian, and it is NOT the position of the Church.

As I said, my "opinion" isn't arbitrary, because it's based on "collective" group-think (to use your own term, and again I thank you for it).

Whether pulled kicking and screaming from your rectum, or merely vomitted up from the maw of psuedo-socialist talking points, it still meets all four of the classical definitions of "arbitrary". Deny it all you like- the fact remains.

Yes, but it's also based on the fact that one person's needs/desires shouldn't overrule the needs/desires of the many,

More classical Marxism.

CFR- please demonstrate anywhere in Scripture that the needs or desires of the many trump my rights as an individual.

Please demonstrate anywhere in the Scriptures that "the many" can appropriate my goods, services, land, or property.

Until you do so, you're blowing smoke.

with everyone having an equal right if any right to all good things on this planet.

And yet the Scriptures and eternal law both indicate that there is no such thing as "an equal right to all good things on this planet."

You have no right to the bread or garments of the laborer unless you yourself labor.

You have no right to the property of others.

You have no right to a land set aside as an inheritance to others.

You have no right to the excess of someone save that both you and he are covenanted to share it.

Your premise is wholly and inescapably false, and is contrary to both the laws of God and the teachings of the Church.

You seem to be ignoring Biblical and Book of Mormon precedents involving collective societies who shared everything in common, as well as prophecy stating that such will and should be the case again in the future.

This is false. Not only have I not ignored them, but I provided direct statements from both the Church and Scripture detailing how those societies will work.

Are you just looking for someone to argue with, or do you really believe all of that tripe, as a Mormon?

Not only do I believe it, but I have provided both Scriptural and doctrinal support for it. I encourage you to do the same.

You and everything you have belongs to God, even if you are a rebel.

CFR.

Bologna, again. What you do affects me, and what I do affects you. None of us is an island unto himself, and I have every right to complain both to you and to God about the fact that you aren't sharing what you could be sharing with me and everyone else on this planet.

Not according to either the Church or the Scriptures, you don't.

CFR- please demonstrate anywhere in Scripture that you have the right to appropriate my goods, services, land, or property.

Please demonstrate anywhere in Scripture that you have the right to harass me or petition others to appropriate my goods and services on your behalf.

Please demonstrate anywhere in Scripture that my stewardship is between anyone but myself, the Church, and God.

[selek]

Part 2 of 2

I'm not coveting them.

But you are. You want them and are demanding that I share them with you- even though you've done none of the labor to produce them.

covet; verb

1. transitive and intransitive verb want somebody else's property: to have a strong desire to possess something that belongs to somebody else

2. transitive verb yearn to have: to want to have something very much

I'm saying all you have belongs to God and you should be sharing all you have, voluntarily, as I should, with all other people, so we can all have all good things in common.

And yet the Church's explicit statements contradict yours.

As for me and mine, we shall follow the Lord.

Agency is a worn out excuse

I'm sure the Adversary used the same line while trying to get people to do things his way, too. Of course, the irony is that both you and he are trying to force YOUR judgement onto eithers.

In this attempt, you are no more righteous than he.

I think you should focus more on what you should do in order to receive God's approval.

Thank you for the sanctimony- but I've got plenty of my own to deal with. Now about that log in your eye....

Again, I'm not, but I'll ask you this.

But you ARE. By demanding that I give you part of the fruits of my labor, and by insisting that you are somehow entitled to them, you are denying them to me.

Each peach that you appropriate from me is one that I might have stored up against times of famine, or given to my son, or fed to my horse. You have denied me the right to use that peach as I see fit- and thus denied me the fruits of my labor.

By what reasoning do you refuse me the fruits of your labor?

By both historical precedent, eternal law, and by the teachings of the Church.

Or, if you would do something for me if I gave you some money, why not do it without me needing to give you any money?

Perhaps I have a better, more productive use of my time in mind?

Why not just do everything you do with charity in your heart as you try to make my life, and everyone else's life, as enjoyable as possible?

There's that unwarranted sanctimony again.

Who are YOU to declare how I should spend my time, my money, or my means?

So long as I am right with the Lord and with the Church, it's none of YOUR business.

Yeah, I know, but we could have just as much if not more power without it.

This statement is illiterate on its face.

You have been trying to sell this wash-water for weeks now, without success.

Well, sure, with that qualifier... so long as you are right with God and with the Church.

You have just conceded the argument.....again.

By the same standard, though, my standards are not arbitrary or capricious... so long as I am right with God and with the Church.

On the contrary, your standards exceed those of the Church and of God- and are therefore an attempt at unrighteous dominion.

What a strange and contra-Biblical God you worship.

By advocating that all of us should share all that we have with all other people?

Precisely- and for the reasons I mentioned above.

How in your mind that is contra-Biblical is beyond me.

Because your standards contradict those established by both Scripture and the Church.

The covenant to DO that applies only to the people who have made a covenant with God to DO that, but everybody SHOULD do that, even if they haven't already made a covenant to do it.

In your opinion- fortunately, your opinion is neither binding nor authoritative, and is wholly arbitary.

[Ahab]

And where your opinion differs from the teachings of the Church, I'm quite happy to point that out.

I understand that is the premise you are operating under when you try to correct my understanding, and I do appreciate it, because that is also the same premise I work under when it seems that you don't agree with what God has taught me.

Not according to God and the Church.

... in your perspective, again.

Abraham and his children were given the land of Israel for an inheritance. Nephi and his descendants (and faithful among the Gentiles who would follow) were given this land (America) for an inheritance.

Well, yes, but I'm thinking of that as something I will get later, otherwise I would feel entitled to receive an equal right to all of the land in America now.

Clearly, God believes certain peoples have greater right to given lands than do others.

Okay. So how much land in America do you think I'm entitled to right now, as long as I'm someone who is entitled to all that God has given to Nephi and his descendants and the faithful among the Gentiles who would follow?

As I said, I think of that as something I will get later.

Further, as I pointed out before, even under the Law of Consecration and the United Order, our portions remain an inheritance. They are ours- and no other can claim them from us.

The key word, I think, is ours, meaning they belong to all of us, even though we have different stewardships.

You don't really think God gives up his right to all that he has, do you?

He doesn't. He simply shares ALL that he has with us, or at least someday he will, if we are faithful.

First and foremost, your statement reveals a staggering ignorance (or stunning indifference) to historical fact- either of which disqualifies you from speaking with any authority.

... in your perspective, which doesn't agree with mine and what God has given to me. Ergo, you lose.

CFR- please demonstrate anywhere in Scripture that the needs or desires of the many trump my rights.

I suppose I should first clarify which "many" I was referring to.

According to scripture, which I think you know as well as I do, only those who become Celestial will ultimately inherit this Earth.

Now add to that thought the fact that to become Celestial we must have and excercise Charity, which is all about serving others, and you should then be able to see that your rights when it comes to receiving anything in the Celestial kingdom are contingent upon how well you serve others, with Charity, rather than thinking your rights trump the rights of others.

Please demonstrate anywhere in the Scriptures that "the many" can appropriate my goods, services, land, or property.

My point was that rather than seeking your own self interests, you should be concerned with how your actions affect many others, and that rather than not caring about how your actions affect others, that should be your primary concern as you seek to do what God would have you do for the benefit of all involved.

I'm cutting this short now. If you have something in particular you'd like me to respond to, please bring it to my attention again, specifically.

[selek]

I understand that is the premise you are operating under when you try to correct my understanding, and I do appreciate it, because that is also the same premise I work under when it seems that you don't agree with what God has taught me.

And when did God proclaim you the arbiter of truth?

I've replied with statements from the Church and Scripture.

What, then, is the source of your authority?

And when are you going to answer the CFR's issued?

... in your perspective, again.

As informed by the explicit statements of the Church. What, then, is the source of your authority?

Well, yes, but I'm thinking of that as something I will get later, otherwise I would feel entitled to receive an equal right to all of the land in America now.

Ah...so you do acknowledge then that not everyone has an equal right.

Thank you for conceding the argument.

The key word, I think, is ours, meaning they belong to all of us, even though we have different stewardships.

Which is an egregious mis-reading of the statement.

The stewardship belongs to the steward, and the property is his to do with as he pleases.

There is no collective right implied in that statement, nor in the Church's teachings.

... in your perspective, which doesn't agree with mine and what God has given to me. Ergo, you lose.

There's that unwarranted sanctimony again.

Please tell us- precisely when and where did God make it known to you that your opinion trumps Scripture and the explicit teachings of the Church?

We do know that when a man begins teaching things in direct contradiction to both Scripture and the Church that that man's priesthood has been lost.....

I suppose I should first clarify which "many" I was referring to.

According to scripture, which I think you know as well as I do, only those who become Celestial will ultimately inherit this Earth.

Now add to that thought the fact that to become Celestial we must have and excercise Charity, which is all about serving others, and you should then be able to see that your rights when it comes to receiving anything in the Celestial kingdom are contingent upon how well you serve others, with Charity, rather than thinking your rights trump the rights of others.

This is false. We have no right to any inheritance in any kingdom. Not the Celestial, nor the Terrestrial, nor the Telestial. We are entitled to nothing.

Our presence in any of the Kingdoms of Heaven hinges solely upon the mercy of the Savior- after that we are judged by how well we kept the law as we understood it.

Not by arbitrary and capricious standards set up by men such as you.

We will be rewarded by the Lord according to our faithfulness and to our desire and intent- not according to some checklist of things that you must do.

My point was that rather than seeking your own self interests, you should be concerned with how your actions affect many others, and that rather than not caring about how your actions affect others, that should be your primary concern as you seek to do what God would have you do for the benefit of all involved.

This is a false dichotomy (and more classical Marxism).

We are not required to choose between "our own self-interests" and "not caring about others".

The two are not mutually exclusive.

I'm cutting this short now. If you have something in particular you'd like me to respond to, please bring it to my attention again, specifically.

I'd like answers to the various CFR's that were tossed out, and I'd be very interested in some Scriptural justification for your claims- as opposed to "cuz I sayd sew".

[LDSToronto]

Could you demonstrate from a church published source where the gospel teaches that prosperity qua prosperity is causal in the descent from righteousness into wickedness?

I've got to admit to being completely stumped here, Droopy. I thought I showed something along the lines of prosperity q..something something in the cycle of pride that the Sunday School manual taught... You are like, stratospheric in your use of the language, Droopy, so maybe you need to bring it back down to at least an undergrad level so that I can see if maybe we are saying the same thing.

You didn't? But you said earlier:

[insert my lame attempt at illustrating the cycle of pride - refer to it no more, infidels! Look only to the Sunday School manual, where the truth lies!]

You seem to be making wealth and affluence the salient aspects of the cycle here, which has already been pointed out is known as the pride cycle, not the wealth and affluence cycle. Wealth and affluence are not the cause of the spiritual decline (if so, the manner in which the Book of Mormon repeatedly portrays wealth and affluence as among the consequences and blessings of righteousness is going to have to be explained), but variables upon which the primary cause - pride - works.

Droopy, you come across as one who is super-smart, at least linguistically, but if you'd refer to my posts a few back, you'd see that I absolutely and unequivocally agree with you.

I might suggest, however, that you have quite possible labeled me a Leftist, and are letting that cloud your view of the world - even when I agreed with you, you seem to find something to attack in my posts. Perhaps you are just trying to purge me of my remaining sin, I don't know, but I think it would be nice if it appeared as though I at least agreed with someone as lofty and intelligent as you, Dr.Oopy.

Your Leftist Love,

H.

[LDSToronto]

sorry, double post (weird stuff happening)

[Droopy]

I don't think so, and if you can support your assertion through logic I would appreciate it.

Its quite simple, really. In the world of endlessly extended sharing you envision:

1. How is wealth created, such that there is anything to share?

2. If there are no money prices for or attached to anything, how do we know what the value of anything actually is, and hence how much, and what kinds of things should be produced?

3. In a world of scarce resources with alternative uses, how is abundance, and hence, alleviation of poverty, to be achieved? Who is going to create the wealth and upon what principles?

4. We can share equally in a simple, primitive barter economy (poverty), but this cannot be extended to a modern industrial, technologically advanced society. Which do you envision?

These would be, at bottom, the basics we must answer before we begin designing new social orders.

Says you, and I say otherwise. Shall we race to see who can CFR who first?

Ezra Benson said it all when he said "The law of consecration is a celestial law, not an economic experiment."

Indeed, we should look at this quotation at length:

Much has been written about this law and its attempted implementations in the early history of the Church; and much deception has taken root, even among some of our members, because of misinformed opinion or misguided interpretations. Some view it as merely an economic alternative to capitalism or the free enterprise system, others as an outgrowth of early communal experiments in America. Such a view is not only shortsighted but tends to diminish in importance a binding requirement for entrance into the celestial kingdom. The law of consecration is a celestial law, not an economic experiment.

I didn't say anything about chopping up the cow. We could decide to use it for milk, and by extension butter and cheese and other good things like that, which I think we should do if all we have is one cow now. Or, if you someone else has a cow of the opposite sex, too, and gives that cow to the collective, then maybe we can get them to make some babies. What do you think? Worth a try?

If all we have is one cow, why give it to the collective, where everyone can have a small, rationed portion of cheese or butter or milk, when we can go to the supermarket with money we have earned in other productive activities in the economy and get what I need in adequate quantities from experts in cow growing who have millions of them?

[Lamanite]

A quick excerpt from Nibley's Work We Must But the Lunch is Free:

And what were the specific commandments they are thus enjoined to keep? That is what Deuteronomy is about. A large part of the law is taken up with "forms and observances" (see also Ezekiel 43:11); in particular, all the people are required to come together at regular intervals to celebrate, feasting and dancing together with great rejoicing, both to thank God for the abundance he had given them and to solicit a continuance of his bounty. Everybody was to have a good time and observe perfect equality in all things, seeing to it that nobody went hungry or neglected. With the first harvest in the new land, they were to bring a basket with samples of all the firstfruits in it, place it before the altar and say: "a Syrian ready to perish was my father" (Amorite, meaning "displaced homeless wanderer, vagrant"), dying of hunger; "and he hath brought us into this place, and hath given this land, even a land that floweth with milk and honey. And now, behold, I have brought the firstfruits of the land, which thou, O Lord, hast given me." The starving Syrian in question was Abraham the Hebrew (which also means "a displaced vagrant"). Saying this, "thou shalt set it before the Lord thy God, and worship before the Lord thy God: and thou shalt rejoice in every good thing which the Lord [Jehovah] thy God hath given unto thee, and unto thine house, thou, and the Levite, and the stranger that is among you," to show the Lord: "I have not transgressed thy commandments, neither have I forgotten them" (Deuteronomy 26:5, 9

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

A quick excerpt from Nibley's Work We Must But the Lunch is Free:

It seems that not a few of us have neglected the weightier matters of the law in regards to giving, keeping, sacrifice, and consecration.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Who has neglected the weightier matters of the law? I disagree with Nibley. Such as things like " all the people are required". He also rpeaches a whole lot of " If people don't do this they will be cut off" Which may or may not be true. The reason to live the LoC is solely because you love your fellow man and for no other reason. Not because it is manditory, or because you won't go to hevean or because some think that it is required. People that say those things sorley mis-understand the scriptures. I think Nibley's ideology has gotten in the way here.

The lunch is free only if those making the lunch desire it to be free.

[Senator]

People that say those things sorley mis-understand the scriptures.

Do you really think Hugh Nibley sorely misunderstood the scriptures?

[mercyngrace]

Financial consultants indicate that

[the narrator]

According to Lewis, validated by Christensen, our giving should cost us something. It should pinch. If not, where is the sacrifice? How can it pinch if we have accumulated wealth?

mng, as we were discussing yesterday, sacrifice has nothing to do with pain, pinching, or death. It simply means to make sacred. While it may hurt, it is not necessary.

Again, ancient sacrifice was about making a sacred meal with God. It wasn't about hurting or killing anything or anybody.

[Ahab]

And when did God proclaim you the arbiter of truth?

I claim to know the truth by the same means you claim to know the truth, selek, which is by my knowledge of what holy men of God have said or written when moved by the Holy Ghost combined with personal revelation from God to me to help me understand what they have said or written, so don't act like you're not acting under the same premise I'm acting under.

I've replied with statements from the Church and Scripture.

My words are laced with statements from the Church and Scripture, and if you knew the scriptures as well as I do, you would know that, and I think you do.

What, then, is the source of your authority?

Don't ask stupid questions, selek. You know what my answer is to that one.

And when are you going to answer the CFR's issued?

Spell out the points you'd like me to reference from scripture, specifically, and then I'll find some scripture to back up what I'm saying, but be advised that anyone can do that even when someone else will claim they aren't correctly applying the scriptures.

As informed by the explicit statements of the Church. What, then, is the source of your authority?

For the idea that we should share all the good that we have with all others?

For the idea that we shouldn't allow our own self interests to override the welfare of other people on this planet?

For the idea that everything on this Earth belongs to God, including all of us as his children, and that all of us will give an accounting for the choices we make on this planet?

God is my authority, selek, and whether God has spoken personally or though his servants the prophets, it is God who has said it.

Ah...so you do acknowledge then that not everyone has an equal right.

Thank you for conceding the argument.

If you can understand what I am saying, please try to show it. I'll let you know when you're off, and you're off now.

Which is an egregious mis-reading of the statement.

... in your perspective.

The stewardship belongs to the steward, and the property is his to do with as he pleases.

Just as you can do whatever you want to do with what you have too, selek, because God has given you the agency to make your own choices, but the fact that you can choose to do whatever you want to do doesn't mean God will approve of any choice you could make. To do the will of God, you need to act in harmony with the counsel he has given to you both personally and through his prophets, and to think you can be selfish in your stewardship choices wouldn't be in harmony with the counsel God has provided.

Now please tell you me you know you're supposed to share what you have with others, to be pleasing to God, instead of acting like it's MINE MINE MINE and I can do what I want to with it because God gave me the power to choose to do whatever I want!

I'm cutting this short, again, because I'm growing tiried of putting up with your sanctimonious attitude, and your ignorance, and the idea that I have to teach you what you should already know as a member of God's true Church on this planet.

To know the truth, all you have to do is learn from God both personally and through his prophets and apostles who speak for him through the power of the Holy Ghost, just as I've done and will continue to do.