The Sermon on the Mount and the LofC

[David Bokovoy]

I am not sure it implies "without strings"...at least not without strings in regards to the recipient, I would say instead that it is to be given without strings in regards to the giver. That individual is to give wholeheartedly, without reservation, with pure charity, etc....it is speaking of his level of commitment to sharing,his willingness to share his all. But it doesn't necessarily attach to the 'how' of his giving and I see that as possibly have conditions attached to it as this is the way God does things---he is willing to give us everything, share his all and his glory, BUT we have to be prepared to receive it by accepting certain conditions, such as being repentant, having faith, etc.

I don't see our stewardship over our resources ending once we've decided to share them with others fully, rather we are instructed imo to be faithful and thoughtful stewards by using our resources wisely and that may mean sometimes withholding them until certain conditions are fulfilled.

Translation: "Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Unless of course you believe the person doesn't meet certain conditions" (Matthew 5:42; revised version)

God will give and/or withhold his blessings in accordance with his infinite love/wisdom. As illustrated, however, by D&C 64, without such love/wisdom, humanity must live a different standard:

"I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men" (v. 10).

[BCSpace]

Translation: "Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Unless of course you believe the person doesn't meet certain conditions" (Matthew 5:42; revised version)

The original version doesn't tell us to be stupid either. Feel free to come and give to every beggar and homeless person in LA or NYC. Follow them around for a bit and see what they do with the money. 10 to 1 they go into a cheap liquor store, buy drugs, or if you give them food, they throw it away.

So what I'd do is follow the example of Luke 16:1-12. I daresay that if you give to everyone without some sort of accountability, the Lord will not trust you with the true riches.

[volgadon]

Quite. Indeed, it is precisely within socialist systems of economics and governance that one is forced to work for others and for the state, without the benefit of competitive bidding in a dynamic, varied free market for labor.

Yet it is precisely in the Soviet Union that people had a strong work ethic, stronger than in today's capitalistic society over there. It goes to show that a common goal or ideal is just as important as any competitive bidding in a dynamic, varied free market for labor. That is the secret to successfuly living the LoC.

BTW, the miners' wives in the town of Shakhty during the 70s all had fine crystal, that kind of went away in the competitive bidding of a dynamic, varied free market for labor that followed. It was replaced by 95% unemployment and a pronounced spike in drinking, drugs, and violence. This is not intended to say how wonderful the USSR was (there was plenty wrong with it), but it goes to show that what you listed above is no closer to ensuring the ideal society of the LoC than a socialist, or a communitarian system.

One's "free" agency dissipates and one becomes, for all intents, a serf, without choice as to either the kind of employment one has, or the level of economic independence one can attain.

I can provide plenty of examples showing that your statement is overtly generalised and often erroneous.

There are some in the Church - astoundingly - who revel in the thought.

Please let us know who.

[David Bokovoy]

The original version doesn't tell us to be stupid either.

True enough, the Savior does not mention stupidity. Much like Benjamin's sermon, the Savior's mandate to give to those who ask of us does not feature any reference to conditions. We are to learn to love and give unconditionally. The word of the Lord is clear: We are never to judge how a person chooses to use our mercy and withhold our substance: "And if ye judge the man who putteth up his petition to you for your substance that he perish not, and condemn him, how much more just will be your condemnation for withholding your substance, which doth not belong to you but to God, to whom also your life belongeth; and yet ye put up no petition, nor repent of the thing which thou hast done" (Mosaiah 4:22).

Feel free to come and give to every beggar and homeless person in LA or NYC.

Obviously, I could not afford to do so and support my family. Hence, I apply the scriptural mandate provided in Benjamin's sermon:

"And again, I say unto the poor, ye who have not and yet have sufficient, that ye remain from day to day; I mean all you who deny the beggar, because ye have not; I would that ye say in your hearts that: I give not because I have not, but if I had I would give. And now, if ye say this in your hearts ye remain guiltless, otherwise ye are condemned; and your condemnation is just for ye covet that which ye have not received" (Mosiah 4:24-25).

So what I'd do is follow the example of Luke 16:1-12. I daresay that if you give to everyone without some sort of accountability, the Lord will not trust you with the true riches.

Please provide a scriptural analysis that supports your view that God will not trust the true riches to those who give their substance freely to the poor.

[David Bokovoy]

That's what really caught my attention. As to the original OP itself, no particular thing, except the rather odd apparent assumption that runs throughout much of David's posting on this subject, that the poor are, by virtue of their mortal poverty alone, Heaven bound, regardless of any other relevant conditions.

The poor, for David, seem to have a special get out of jail free card with regard to salvation. And yet, I am not aware of any wavier being grated them exempting them from fulfilling, the the best of their capacity, the same requirements of the gospel as are those with more of this world's goods.

In any case, this argument has a long history.

This is a gross distortion of both my views in general and of the OP. There is nothing at all redeeming in the quality of mortal poverty. Quite the contrary, it is the will of the Father to give unto all his children the riches of the world (D&C 38: 39). As taught in the scriptures, Christ's kingdom will eradicate all poverty via a redistribution of wealth. Poverty will be no more, for the Saints of God will follow the teachings regarding Zion found within the Book of Mormon, being "free with [their] substance, that the [poor] may be rich" (Jacob 2:17)

[BCSpace]

The word of the Lord is clear: We are never to judge how a person chooses to use our mercy and withhold our substance: "And if ye judge the man who putteth up his petition to you for your substance that he perish not, and condemn him, how much more just will be your condemnation for withholding your substance, which doth not belong to you but to God, to whom also your life belongeth; and yet ye put up no petition, nor repent of the thing which thou hast done" (Mosaiah 4:22).

There is a condition in that very verse; "that he perish not". So really the only time when our judgement might return to hurt us is if our refusal causes one who has supplicated us directly to die. In addition, there is no mention of government intervening to this end. The judgement for this is soley on us as individuals. As Joseph Smith revealed as scripture.....

Matt. 7: 1-2 Now these are the words which Jesus taught his disciples that they should say unto the people. Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged: but judge righteous judgment.

[Brade]

The problem here, of course, is that, for the vast majority of humanity, no such collectivist aspiration exists

Well, at least we agree on one thing...

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

[mercyngrace]

I am not sure it implies "without strings"...at least not without strings in regards to the recipient, I would say instead that it is to be given without strings in regards to the giver. That individual is to give wholeheartedly, without reservation, with pure charity, etc....it is speaking of his level of commitment to sharing,his willingness to share his all. But it doesn't necessarily attach to the 'how' of his giving and I see that as possibly have conditions attached to it as this is the way God does things---he is willing to give us everything, share his all and his glory, BUT we have to be prepared to receive it by accepting certain conditions, such as being repentant, having faith, etc.

Absolutely, Cal. I was referring to the giver when I said "without strings".

I don't see our stewardship over our resources ending once we've decided to share them with others fully, rather we are instructed imo to be faithful and thoughtful stewards by using our resources wisely and that may mean sometimes withholding them until certain conditions are fulfilled.

If you continue to have stewardship then you haven't really given a gift, you've made a loan. The recipient must have agency also or they cannot become exalted through the righteous use of the gift they've received.

Rather than withholding, how about giving the right gift?

Sometimes the right gift is cash. Sometimes it is a bag full of groceries. Sometimes, it is work for which the receiver can be compensated. And sometimes the right gift is a trip to rehab. Always the right gift exalts both giver and receiver.

[Macabus]

Meaning precisely, and in detail, what?

What does this mean?

True. However, nowhere in the scriptures, in the writings or sermons of the modern Brethren, or in the D&C itself, which sets the conditions and principles of the LoC out in basic detail, is having, controlling, utilizing, amassing, and productively employing private property condemned or proscribed to the Saints, indeed, the fundamental features of the UO requires and encourages exactly the opposite.

Covetousness is an individual trait, and has nothing to do with property being either private or collective. Our stewarships in the UO will be private and individual, while our attitude toward our property will be that all of it belongs to the Lord and can be used as he sees fit at any time. That is the covenant relationship; that is "having all things in common".

Note: there is a vast abyss between the statement, "All property belongs to the Lord", and "All property belongs to the community". The first states that all property may be private in practice, while being understood to be a stewardship in which the Lord's property is transferred to us (talents) by covenant to be employed and increased in productive ways.

The second claims that all property belongs to everybody; it is a claim that all property is public. No concept of stewardship exists in the second situation, because stewardships cannot be collective. Stewardships cannot be collective because accountability for them to the Lord cannot be collective.

For a definition of the phrase "all things in common," refer to 4 Nephi 1:3:

"And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift."

When an individual lives the law of consecration, they individually live a covenant; when a society is built around practices surrounding and including covenants, this makes the society a covenant society. A society living the law of consecration is a covenant society. Assuming a covenant is voluntarily entered into, the covenant society as a whole is also a voluntary society.

I never addressed the principle of private or communal property. I have not condemned the existence of private property. I merely stated that when property is coveted over God, whereby it becomes the focus of our attention rather than God being that focus, those who covet property are no longer living according to their covenant and therefore cannot be part of the society practicing the Law of Consecration.

The whole premise of a society living the law of consecration lies in a combination of individual and community stewardship. The goal of the community is to provide responsible stewardship. An individual not living according to this ideal is not permitted to remain part of the community until they repent. With the existence of private property, a person expelled from a community living the law of consecration retains their property. The key to understanding the Law of Consecration is that whether or not there is privately or commonly held property, the ultimate authority determining appropriate stewardship is God, who knows who is and who is not keeping their covenants. It's about the covenants more than the property. The illustration found in 4 Nephi shows that when people began to be proud and sought after the fine things of the world, things were no more common among them. When their property preceded their covenant, the society quickly degraded. If you have a variant reading of 4 Nephi, I would be interested in your opinion.

[Senator]

This is a gross distortion of both my views in general and of the OP.

Yes, I too felt that way. His rich use of hyperbole to describe your position was a giveaway.

[Droopy]

Yet it is precisely in the Soviet Union that people had a strong work ethic, stronger than in today's capitalistic society over there.

What utter nonsense. The Soviet Union was a society thoroughly riddled with graft, bribery, theft, avarice, chronic work absenteesim, and the "tragedy of the commons". Without the pervasive black market underground economy, the Soviet Union would have collapsed in chaos long before it actually did.

To call the present Russian Federation "capitalistic" isn't saying much, as what capitalism is present is not grounded in an environment of the rule of law, equality under the law, or a clear foundation of political liberty.

It goes to show that a common goal or ideal is just as important as any competitive bidding in a dynamic, varied free market for labor. That is the secret to successfuly living the LoC.

You've got to be freakin' kidding me? Please tell me that the above statement is an attempt at low comedy just to lighten things up a bit here.

There was never any "common goal" among the Russian people under socialism, except, for most, to physically, emotionally, and psychologically survive life within it. That "goal" of which you speak was imposed by the force of law, the firing squad, the psychiatric hospital, and the gulag, from Lenin through the height of the Cold War by a tiny oligarchy of ruling elites in one party police state.

You've got to be kidding me. We know the history here. We know what happened. The historical facts and evidence have long been in. You have just got to be kidding me...

BTW, the miners' wives in the town of Shakhty during the 70s all had fine crystal, that kind of went away in the competitive bidding of a dynamic, varied free market for labor that followed. It was replaced by 95% unemployment and a pronounced spike in drinking, drugs, and violence.

The above is utterly meaningless, especially as you clearly have no idea what any of it actually means, economically speaking, with respect to why it happened (assuming all of this isn't simply propaganda, passed on credulously as some are wont to do in this area).

This is not intended to say how wonderful the USSR was (there was plenty wrong with it), but it goes to show that what you listed above is no closer to ensuring the ideal society of the LoC than a socialist, or a communitarian system.

Well, I suppose I should be gratified that you found it in your heart to at least admit that there was "plenty wrong with" a country and social system that murdered, throughout its 70 year history, some 50 million of its own people (some 7 to 10 accounted for by Stalin alone), imprisoned millions more as political prisoners in forced labor camps, Joined the Nazis in an Imperial Axis of conquest against the West and helped to foment WWII, enslaved many millions of Eastern Europe's people through proxy and client states it hosted and maintained when it expanded its empire after the end of WWII, imprisoned, enslaved and helped cause the deaths of millions more in client states it helped create in Asia at the end of WWII, including North Vietnam and North Korea, and was the primary fountainhead/aider and abettor the lion's share of imperial military adventurism, Third World destabilization and chaos, terrorism, and the threat of nuclear annihilation in the last half of the 20th century.

Oh, it was also a totalitarian police state. Just so you know.

I can provide plenty of examples showing that your statement is overtly generalised and often erroneous.

Please do.

[Droopy]

Yes, I too felt that way. His rich use of hyperbole to describe your position was a giveaway.

As Paul stated:

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

That is really where the proverbial rubber hits the proverbial road here, my little Morlock

You, David Bukovoy and the rest of the "liberation" theologists who are his clear intellectual influences in this matter, wrest the scriptures at your own peril.

[Droopy]

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

No man has seen God at any time (John 1:18)

[Brade]

No many has seen God at any time (John 1:18)

And my father dwelt in a tent. (1 Nephi 2:15)

[CV75]

As taught in the scriptures, Christ's kingdom will eradicate all poverty via a redistribution of wealth. Poverty will be no more, for the Saints of God will follow the teachings regarding Zion

I would like to clarify that the scriptures show that Christ's kingdom distributes from all that God has, and does not redistribute what has always been His and will yet remain His. He condemns our taking and not imparting our portion (D&C 104:18) because doing so assumes it is ours to take, keep or give, disregarding a stewardship of what is His at the expense of the poor and needy. The law of His gospel, in summary, is that all things are His, and that ultimately, poverty will be no more because of the resurrection, and each inheritance in a kingdom of glory is the ultimate stewardship.

[David Bokovoy]

There is a condition in that very verse; "that he perish not". So really the only time when our judgement might return to hurt us is if our refusal causes one who has supplicated us directly to die.

Come on! You don

[Mansquatch]

I believe that we should not take care of the poor, because there should be no poor among us. It is true that the world lieth in sin. Capitalism has inherent flaws rooted in selfishness.

With all of that said, capitalism is the best we have on earth now. Coercing others to care for the poor is just wrong, wrong, wrong. Communism, socialism, collectivisms and other isms that force people into doing "right" by their neighbor or force everyone to have all things equal are rooted in the original plan of Lucifer. Government enforcement of such things is an abomination and is almost always for purposes of gaining power, money and control. I find it disturbing that so many today, especially any LDS, would defend, admire or seem to want governmental systems based on Lucifer's plot. We have been commanded by the Lord to not build up groups who want power and gain. Yet there are many who are not awake for one reason or another and push for coercion, force and government rather than teaching good principles and letting people govern themselves.

What will please God is if we decide on our own that we will give of what we have been given to help others. My dream system is one in which individuals have chosen to work for the good of others because they love them. The farmer wants to feed others and grows food without expecting money for it. The tractor maker gives and maintains the equipment to the farmer for free in order to help. Grocers stock the shelves for people to come take what has been provided. The people taking groceries take only what is needed because they love and think of others. The grunt worker under your car changes your oil and checks your vehicle for free because he cares for your safety and the operation of your vehicle. Scientists do not need to worry for funding and are able to get what they need to find truth. etc. etc. We do not need to worry about ever having recessions or depressions, inflation or deflation. We will make it work. That is Zion. That is the Law of Consecration which is a covenant taken by your own free will and choice.

In short, Capitalism = bad (one caveat, that it is bad only so long as people are bad. If people are good then it is good, but with good people my dream scenario works), everything else on earth = worse. Loving your fellow man = 1,000 years of peace without money.

If you think about it, everything that people do for money can be done without money as long as we all choose to love one another. But alas, I cannot make decisions for everyone else in the world. That would be evil.

[mercyngrace]

David,

I had some more thoughts on spiritual and temporal consecration today and wanted to get them down before I get too distracted and forget.

In Matt 18, the Lord presents the parable of the unmerciful servant. He sums it up with these words:

Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:

Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?

And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

What caught my eye is that the the unforgiving are relegated to a telestial glory in the spirit world. We see the unmerciful are handed over to the tormentors (our accuser, Satan) until their debt is satisfied. D&C 76:106 outlines this as the path of telestial beings - they suffer in hell and are the last redeemed. D&C 19:17 obviously applies also.

Now go to Luke 16:23-24 - the parable of Lazarus and the rich man - similar language is used.

And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments...I am tormented in this flame...

So The rich man who refused to deal mercifully with Lazarus is in hell.

Now Revelation 18 where the destruction of Babylon is described.

5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.

6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.

7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.

8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.

9 And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning,

10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.

vs 7 "lived deliciously" refers to living in a luxurious manner per my GR translation software.

Babylon is also cast into hell (vs 10 "torment").

So if the celestial law is complete consecration, both spiritual and temporal, then the telestial law is obviously to live without mercy (and gratitude as those virtues are inexorably bound) since these are they (the unforgiving, the rich man who ignores Lazarus, and those who live luxuriously among other sins) who are cast into hell prior to redemption.

It's also interesting to note that when Babylon is cast down, she suffers famine and her mighty city is burned. In other words, she becomes hungry and impoverished. Going back to Luke 16, this is exactly what is foretold of the rich who succor not the poor - the poor (Lazarus) live comfortably and the rich can not quench their own thirst.

Hope that makes some sense to you. I'm typing while I'm cooking dinner and feeding the kiddos before heading off to a fireside...

[mercyngrace]

Coercing others to care for the poor is just wrong, wrong, wrong.

Just to be clear - to my understanding, no one here is suggesting coerced charity or forced redistribution.

[Droopy]

So again, as I have done on multiple occasions, I invite you to justify your assertions via scriptural analysis. There's a reason you have never been able to do so.

Yes, because it can be a waste of time with someone who's interpretation of key scriptures is so personally revisionist and eclectic as to make agreement on fundamental premises difficult if not impossible.

I do find it very, very interesting, that you concern yourself primarily with scriptural analysis, while assiduously avoiding confrontation with your longstanding Achilles heel here, which is and continues to be that no body of modern teaching by the contemporary living oracles in our day supports your contentions here, and much of it is in clear contradiction to your core thesis regarding the UO and the scriptures teachings on the nature of poverty and its place in LDS theology.

You have nothing whatsoever in the 20th century to support your theories here, and a great deal - especially since the New Deal era, in direct contradiction to it. What you do have is an arsenal of highly idiosyncratic scriptural exegesis (that I would dare say owes significant dependence upon the Liberation Theology movement among the Catholic Left), Hugh Nibley, who had no authority to interpret for the Church what was and what was not the correct interpretations of key scriptures regarding poverty and economics, and an elitist, academic hubris with which I am quite familiar and which lives parasitically within the hallowed, ivy covered walls of academe at the expense of the society that supports and maintains it.

I find this state of affairs deeply troubling, but far more troubling when its rhizomes are found to have worked their way into the Church.

Hat tip to bc for the following:

(L-4) The Fundamentals of Stewardship

Receiving a stewardship. Once consecration of all things was made to the Church, the individual was ready to receive a stewardship and accept complete accountability for it. President Romney described this process:

[Droopy]

As taught in the scriptures, Christ's kingdom will eradicate all poverty via a redistribution of wealth. Poverty will be no more, for the Saints of God will follow the teachings regarding Zion

This is false doctrine, and that is the end of the story. It is wholly and indeed, brazenly false, and is contrary to the entire body of revealed teaching within the restoration regarding welfare principles and the Law of Consecration as applicable to both individuals and a larger society.

Redistribution of wealth, as a form of "charity" is morally repulsive and corrupts the very concept. As a means of alleviating poverty, it speaks not to love or compassion, but to envy.

Redistribution of wealth can only accomplish one thing, and that is the equal, or nearly equal spreading of relative poverty among all. It cannot make the poor rich, as unless the poor actually become productive economically and contribute to creation of wealth throughout the larger society, they will always remain poor, and no amount of largess given by the "rich", either by force or voluntarily, will ever provide the poor anything but a momentary respite, as in a communitarian system, the economic activity (risk, investment, entrepreneurship - the magnifying of our talents) that is the only means of providing for the maintenance of the poor will soon wilt and die on the vine.

The society of rustic subsistence that Hugh Nibley thought of as so romantic and "spiritual" is, I fear, David's ideal as well.

They are welcome to it, of course, but as for me and my house, we will follow the living oracles in our time, and the Spirit of prophecy, which is the principle of revelation that is the primary corrective to the "other gospels" that are out and about in our day.

[mercyngrace]

Secular efforts, for instance, have tried over the centuries and in many ways to redistribute wealth; it is the judgment of some historians that human systems of redistribution are temporary, for after a short period of time wealth is once again back into the hands of the few. Human systems do not seem to be able to deal very effectively with the challenge of poverty, either, for that matter. Eternalism focuses on values and behavior which, where followed, result in either enlightened use of wealth (the individual truly feels he is the concerned custodian of wealth in behalf of others and so behaves) or in those remarkable but few episodes (the City of Enoch, the small branches of Middle-East Christians in the apostolic area, and the brief but happy period, a.d. 36

[Droopy]

Just to be clear - to my understanding, no one here is suggesting coerced charity or forced redistribution.

It doesn't really matter, because the UO is not based in redistribution of wealth at all. You pose a false dilemma.

A kind of wealth redistribution will occur in the UO among the truly indigent who cannot support themselves and those who, as at present, are undergoing a season of financial hardship, but the UO is not based upon it. The UO, as our modern revelations and the teachings of the Lord's servants in our day make clear, is based upon productive work, or in other words, wealth creation (which is the only ultimate answer to poverty) not at all unlike the present "capitalist" system, the fundamental difference being the explicit covenant relationship between God's children and God regarding property.

[mercyngrace]

It doesn't really matter, because the UO is not based in redistribution of wealth at all. You pose a false dilemma.

A kind of wealth redistribution will occur in the UO among the truly indigent who cannot support themselves and those who, as at present, are undergoing a season of financial hardship, but the UO is not based upon it. The UO, as our modern revelations and the teachings of the Lord's servants in our day make clear, is based upon productive work, or in other words, wealth creation (which is the only ultimate answer to poverty) not at all unlike the present "capitalist" system, the fundamental difference being the explicit covenant relationship between God's children and God regarding property.

Why do you presume that my decision to charitably give impedes someone else from working toward self-reliance?

You pose a false dilemma, Droopy.

[Droopy]

~ Neal A. Maxwell

Personal, voluntary, redistribution of wealth already happens in the church. We call it fast offering. Now imagine if we all gave all, by choice and by covenant, our surplus. Perhaps there would be no poor among us and the Lord would call us Zion.

Have you thought about this seriously mercy? I'd invite you to do so. If you gave all of your surplus wealth, above subsistence needs, to the poor, you could do this once, at which point you would immediately become poor yourself, and in need of support from someone else who had the economic means (capital) to support you. If this conduct spread throughout an entire society, until there was no more excess capital (the evil 'profit"), the entire economy would shrink to an economy of minimal living standards, and there would be no excess anymore to bring to the Bishop's storehouse. The storehouse shelves would feature little.

What then?