Is wealth a sin?

[steelyray]

I'll throw $0.02 in here.

Now, let's say, for the sake of argument, that a certain man is in the position, by his own efforts and work, to own 90% of the arable land in a region, but he does not use this land to socially improve the welfare of his destitute neighbors. This man claims that this land is his to do with as he will. And that he earned it all by the sweat of his own brow and so he has a right not to care about their success. At what point is his wealth a serious sin?

But let's look at the background of his claims:

He was likely educated by a public education system.

He benefited from the protection of a public defense system, staffed by his poor neighbors.

He had ancestors who benefited either directly or indirectly from the work of slaves. Perhaps he was the child of immigrants during an immigration policy that became selective about whom it would let into the country and whom it would not.

His ancestors settled their home in land that they had no legal claim to, because matters of law did not matter much back then.

The earth has limited resources.

Imagine this hyperbole: let's say we have a bunch of rats in a cage, too many for it perhaps, and a certain one of them has invented a means, say a rat-forcefield, to keep the other rats from moving in on his turf, his side of the cage, his food, etc. How much of a percentage of the cage does he have to take over before his selfishness starts imposing hardship on the other rats? And how much would he have to take over before an outside observer would start to think it very odd? At what point is the rat's imposition 'sin?'

Now granted, the earth is a lot bigger than a cage, and we are not at the crowding limitations of it yet. But if we were under those conditions, then how does that affect your philosophy? Just something to think about.

[Ahab]

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

So you want me to explain my idea, instead of you explaining what you were saying?

Okay, I'll give it another shot. Maybe the more I do it the better I'll get at explaining what I have in mind.

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

First of all, there are a lot of natural resources that could be shared without anyone needing to create anything, because God has already provided lots of good things on this planet that could be enjoyed by all of us, instead of just some of us with some money.

Land, for example, and the plants that can be grown on land, such as grass, and trees, including fruit trees, and vegetables, and even livestock as long as you have 2 good ones of the same kind but of the opposite sex.

And then, on top of all that, there are the things we can make with our own hands, by doing what most people call "working".

I think that answers that question.

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?

Try really hard to get past the idea that we need to use money for anything, because I can already see how we could all get by very well without it, as long as nobody expected us to give them any money. All we need to do is share what we have while producing things the same way we produce things now, while leaving money out of the picture. And yes, we would still need to use accounting methods to keep track of things, except that instead of keeping track of money we would be keeping track of the things we produce and can produce things with and where those things are located, as in any inventory management control system, while also keeping track of the time it takes to produce what we produce, so we can manage our labors.

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?

Collectively, all of us would still work to produce whatever we wanted to produce, so when we ran short of something we would either make more or find an alternative product to fill that market, just as we do now, except without any need to use any money.

And sure, there would still be some people who wouldn't produce any products, themselves, and who would only be consumers of those products, but that wouldn't be any different than the situation we have right now where there are also some people who don't produce any products, themselves, and we would still solve those problems the same way we solve them now, which is through charity and by trying to teach them to be contibuting members in a productive society, instead of just living off the labors of others... which, btw, is what people with money do now when they have enough to no longer need to "work" any more for money.

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?

I envision the working class in the collective society doing what the working class does now, except without getting paid with money. And while at first that may seem like a bad thing, as if it is some kind of slave labor, the point to keep in mind is that money would no longer be used by anyone in the collective society, which would totally change the dynamics we use now for so-called "rich" people in the world who get by because they have something called money when their money would no longer be considered to be of any value. Thus, to get anything, people would have to either work to produce something and trade whatever they produce with others who also produce something, or people would have to live off the charity of others while producing nothing in exchange for what they are given, and personally, I'm in favor of everybody working to produce something good instead of anyone living off of the charity of others without producing anything.

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

I've already got the design in mind, and I believe it's very close to the way things will be in heaven.

All we really need now, in this world, is for people to disregard their love of money as the basis for their economic system.

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?

Do you remember how this conversation got started?

I gave an example of me giving a cow to the collective of all in society, and that was just one example of something I could give.

Nobody is really stopping me from giving something else to that collective, in addition to that one cow, so I could give 2 cows, or even 20 cows, while making sure that at least 2 of them are of the opposite sex so that they could reproduce to make more cows, and I could even give some land for those cows to live on, and graze on, to make them fat and productive. Or, even if I only had one cow to give, I could also give my labor, or something else, in addition to that one cow.

And btw, you and other people could also give something to the collective, too, instead of expecting me to be the only one to give something to the collective society. I am talking about a collective, after all, instead of only one person.

Oh, and one more point, and it's my main point: The main reason I'd like to see the world do away with money is because not everyone has money or can get money, honorably, for everything that is good in this world, BUT everyone can work to produce something good for the collective good of all in society while sharing all that is produced.

[mercyngrace]

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.

So I should give but only when it's comfortable and convenient?

[the narrator]

So I should give but only when it's comfortable and convenient?

please reread what I wrote:

While it may hurt, it is not necessary.

[mercyngrace]

please reread what I wrote:

You wrote:

sacrifice has nothing to do with pain, pinching, or death

Lewis and I hold a different opinion.

Again, greater love hath no man than this implies that we should be willing to sacrifice unto death.

Principles of priesthood also indicate that we are to love others such that "know that [our] faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death."

This implies that communion can only be achieved through personal cost on another's behalf.

Perhaps you should start a thread to discuss the role of sacrifice in terms of atonement and reconciliation so we don't derail this one.

[Ahab]

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

A sacrifice is something the person giving it would like to keep, otherwise it isn't a sacrifice for them.

For example, I enjoyed drinking coffee and tea and wine and even "strong" drinks before I became a member of the Church, and I would still be drinking all of those things now if it weren't for my desire to please God by not drinking those things.

If those things weren't something I liked, though, giving them up wouldn't be much of a sacrifice, except that I would still be giving up the choice to drink those drinks if I wanted to drink them at some point later when they became desirable to me.

So, short version: If it doesn't cost me anything to give something up, it isn't a sacrifice for me.

[the narrator]

You wrote:

Lewis and I hold a different opinion.

Again, greater love hath no man than this implies that we should be willing to sacrifice unto death.

Principles of priesthood also indicate that we are to love others such that "know that [our] faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death."

This implies that communion can only be achieved through personal cost on another's behalf.

Perhaps you should start a thread to discuss the role of sacrifice in terms of atonement and reconciliation so we don't derail this one.

Again. It can hurt, and the greater sacrifices usually do hurt (the more you give, the more it can hurt). However, pain is not necessary.

[the narrator]

A sacrifice is something the person giving it would like to keep, otherwise it isn't a sacrifice for them.

For example, I enjoyed drinking coffee and tea and wine and even "strong" drinks before I became a member of the Church, and I would still be drinking all of those things now if it weren't for my desire to please God by not drinking those things.

If those things weren't something I liked, though, giving them up wouldn't be much of a sacrifice, except that I would still be giving up the choice to drink those drinks if I wanted to drink them at some point later when they became desirable to me.

So, short version: If it doesn't cost me anything to give something up, it isn't a sacrifice for me.

Not really. Sacrifice just means "make sacred." It ancient times the sacrifice was a meal that the person shared with god. The meal was made sacred by sharing it. Not only was the sacrificial meal not given away and not hurting the sacrificer, the meal--including the better parts--was eaten by the person offering the sacrifice (or vicariously by the priest). God only "ate" the blood and unedible parts which were taken to him by the smoke. Eating a meal with God meant that the person was back in communion with God.

It wasn't about losing an animal. It wasn't about pain. It wasn't about hurt. It wasn't about loss. The sacred mean brought communion with God.

[mercyngrace]

Again. It can hurt, and the greater sacrifices usually do hurt (the more you give, the more it can hurt). However, pain is not necessary.

So then the greatest sacrifice imaginable would hurt? Maybe even unto death?

Btw, if you are suggesting that we can choose our attitude about the sacrifices we offer thus eliminating the pain, then I can agree with that. And again, this is deserving of its own thread.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Do you really think Hugh Nibley sorely misunderstood the scriptures?

In this regard, yes. That is my opinion and you don't need to accept it.

[Ahab]

Not really. Sacrifice just means "make sacred." It ancient times the sacrifice was a meal that the person shared with god. The meal was made sacred by sharing it. Not only was the sacrificial meal not given away and not hurting the sacrificer, the meal--including the better parts--was eaten by the person offering the sacrifice (or vicariously by the priest). God only "ate" the blood and unedible parts which were taken to him by the smoke. Eating a meal with God meant that the person was back in communion with God.

It wasn't about losing an animal. It wasn't about pain. It wasn't about hurt. It wasn't about loss. The sacred mean brought communion with God.

I still don't agree with you, but rather than derail this thread any further I'd rather wait until another thread pops up on this issue.

[the narrator]

So then the greatest sacrifice imaginable would hurt? Maybe even unto death?

Btw, if you are suggesting that we can choose our attitude about the sacrifices we offer thus eliminating the pain, then I can agree with that. And again, this is deserving of its own thread.

No.

Depending on how one sacrifices their life (i.e., LIVING their life), might affect pain or hurt resulting from how one LIVES.

Pain/pinching/hurt. etc are not a necessary component of sacrifice. They are a circumstantial possible result of sacrifice.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No.

Depending on how one sacrifices their life (i.e., LIVING their life), might affect pain or hurt resulting from how one LIVES.

Pain/pinching/hurt. etc are not a necessary component of sacrifice. They are a circumstantial possible result of sacrifice.

What does this have to do with this thread?

[consiglieri]

And if having a big house is a sin and having a lot of money is a sin at what point does it become a sin to have a big house? What too much money and what is to big of a house?

According to the scriptures, having a big house is a sin if it is not fully occupied, preferably by poor folk who cannot find a place to stay elsewhere.

And according to the same scriptures, having more money than necessary to supply one's basic needs is similarly a sin, at least as long as there are poor people in the world.

I don't like it, but that's what the scriptures plainly teach, no matter how we may try to wrest them to satisfy our unholy marriage of the gospel with capitalism.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[the narrator]

What does this have to do with this thread?

mng said sacrifice (giving to others) needed to hurt in order for it to be a sacrifice.

[Ahab]

According to the scriptures, having a big house is a sin if it is not fully occupied, preferably by poor folk who cannot find a place to stay elsewhere.

And according to the same scriptures, having more money than necessary to supply one's basic needs is similarly a sin, at least as long as there are poor people in the world.

I don't like it, but that's what the scriptures plainly teach, no matter how we may try to wrest them to satisfy our unholy marriage of the gospel with capitalism.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Then are times when I love you, Consiglieri, and then there are times when I really like you.

You just received another rep point.

[yesucan2]

I was recently in a discussion about this very topic. I thought that it had some merit and wanted to open this up to more of a debate. What are your thoughts.

And if having a big house is a sin and having a lot of money is a sin at what point does it become a sin to have a big house? What too much money and what is to big of a house?

3

2

1

Debate!!

The title to this thread is supposed to be big not bog. Thanks for your consideration.

It depends on where one's head is. We are not the way, the truth and the life; Christ is. If we want wealth in hopes of gaining the praise, we are off track. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with wanting to bless and provide well for our families.

[mercyngrace]

So sacrifice is really just about a meal that invites communion. Doesn't have to hurt.

That's great for those partaking of the feast but if you are the lamb, this happy luncheon comes at painful personal expense.

When I look up "sacrifice" in the OT, I see Hebrew words like ???, a word specifically referring to the slaughter of an animal or ?? referring to the "victim" of an offering. Then there's ????, the holocaust or burnt offering. Are these words wrongly interpreted? My Hebrew lasted all of two semesters, so I have to rely on others for help here.

[the narrator]

So sacrifice is really just about a meal that invites communion. Doesn't have to hurt.

That's great for those partaking of the feast but if you are the lamb, this happy luncheon comes at painful personal expense.

When I look up "sacrifice" in the OT, I see Hebrew words like ???, a word specifically referring to the slaughter of an animal or ?? referring to the "victim" of an offering. Then there's ????, the holocaust or burnt offering. Are these words wrongly interpreted? My Hebrew lasted all of two semesters, so I have to rely on others for help here.

it's referring to the sacrificial meal.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't like it, but that's what the scriptures plainly teach, no matter how we may try to wrest them to satisfy our unholy marriage of the gospel with capitalism.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Please don't turn this into a political thread.

[mercyngrace]

it's referring to the sacrificial meal.

And so I repeat:

That's great for those partaking of the feast but if you are the lamb, this happy luncheon comes at painful personal expense.

[the narrator]

And so I repeat:

That's great for those partaking of the feast but if you are the lamb, this happy luncheon comes at painful personal expense.

So did the pig that provided my pork chops last night. I doubt you would call that a sacrifice though.

You see the death of the animal as some big thing because perhaps we mostly don't live in a world where you kill your animals daily for food. We don;t witness the killing and slaughter so it becomes something gruesome and violent.

To ancient cultures it was just a part of cooking.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

According to the scriptures, having a big house is a sin if it is not fully occupied, preferably by poor folk who cannot find a place to stay elsewhere.

And according to the same scriptures, having more money than necessary to supply one's basic needs is similarly a sin, at least as long as there are poor people in the world.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I will now issue a CFR that if we have more than necessary for our basic needs that that is a sin as long as there are poor in the world.

[consiglieri]

Please don't turn this into a political thread.

Sorry, Old Bean.

Not my intent.

It is just that, in America, sometimes the politics is the elephant in the living room even when the gospel is supposedly what is being discussed.

I'll put down my stick and just slowly back away now . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

I will now issue a CFR that if we have more than necessary for our basic needs that that is a sin as long as there are poor in the world.

See the New Testament, particularly the Gospels.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri