Communal Sin in the Bible

[Loran Howard Blood]

Let me ask you this W. Do you believe that Acts 4: 34-35 represents a clear doctrinal mandate for all contemporary Latter Day Saints and Christians generally, to divest themselves completely of all their material goods, including money and personal property, and distribute it to the poor? Do you further believe that Jesus' specific call to the rich young ruler in Matthew 19 to "go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor" is a broad general mandate to all Christians and Latter day Saints to do exactly this, regardless of the consequences or effects of such action?

Well, David teaches and adduces arguments for exactly this, and he has defended this proposition clearly and assertively in this forum on various occasions.

This is not true.

Is that right?

Actually, we and others, probably well over a year ago, went round and round over both these NT texts, and you were very explicit and clear in your assertions that modern Latter Day Saints should do, as a matter of fundamental Christian principle, just as the rich young ruler did and sell all that we have and distribute it to the poor, as well as follow the example of the Jerusalem Church, and sell our houses, lands, and much of what we have, and give to the Church for the use of the poor. Indeed, I remember arguing that Jesus may have been calling the rich young ruler as an apostle, and hence, the call to sell all his property and descend into personal destitution and reliance upon the alms of others was a personal call unique to him. I was quickly rebuked for such an assumption.

That argument was quite as vigorous and passionate as any in the present threads. Well, so now you claim never to have taken this position? I have no idea what the name of that thread(s) may have been, and have no time to sift through any and all possible contenders, but if and when I find it, I will post the relevant quotations here. I would like, if possible, a clear, concise clarification of this issue, however "for the record."

1. Was Jesus' call to the rich young ruler to go and sell all he has and give to the poor a template, model, type, or pattern for all contemporary LDS as members of the Lord's true Church or was it a personal challenge and requirement to him and him alone?

2. Are the members of the modern Church to sell and distribute much, or most of their excess property and give the proceeds to the Church, saving only enough for basic necessities, or is helping and assisting the poor as need arises enough, until Zion is fully established through priesthood authority?

[Loran Howard Blood]

I must be. I have a small Lenin bust, a paperweight used by the secretary of the Communist Party in Shakhty. A dear friend (LDS) gave it to me as a parting gift when I was transfered to a different city. It is back home in Israel, but I used to tap it on the head quite a bit. Not exactly an attitude of reverence and respect. This friend got it for me because he was used to getting Soviet memorabilia for the elders. The fad among missionaries in that town for Soviet stuff was actually started by Republican elders from Utah.

Anyway, I was also offered a Wahabbist flag, and I bought an icon of St. George as Napoleon, yet one would hardly call me a Muslim extremist, or Russian Orthodox. I'm really not extreme anything.

I've been engaging your here on political subjects for years volg. I'm hardly unaware of your general political orientation.

[Loran Howard Blood]

What is the deal here LHB with you and DB and Volg? Are DB and Volg on a mission to mis-lead the church?

David is not on a mission to do so. If his theories ever became influential among members, that would be the ultimate result, however.

Are they dangerous?

The ideological concepts underlying David's preoccupation with equality of income, wealth redistribution, equality of material condition, and the glorification of the poor are very, very dangerous.

You'd think the answer to both of these questions is a resounding yes if one is to believe your posts. I'm not in any way an academic, I'm a businessman but well-versed in the scriptures, and I've been active in the church for over 50 years; and I think DB and Volg are a breath of fresh air and I appreciate their unique take on things, especially the OT.

OK.

And I agree with most of what they say, if not all. Am I on the road to apostasy? Have I been deceived? I doubt even my father would say so (were he alive), and he was a religion prof at BYU for 40 years, a mission president (twice), a close associate of many GA's, and a political conservative all of his life.

Some of us may be on the Yellow Brick Road. As for the rest, who knows.

[Loran Howard Blood]

The truth regarding my position is that political parties of any form or shape are quite trivial.

I'm just wondering, who has ever mentioned political parties in this, or any other recent thread of similar theme?

[mfbukowski]

David is not on a mission to do so. If his theories ever became influential among members, that would be the ultimate result, however.

The ideological concepts underlying David's preoccupation with equality of income, wealth redistribution, equality of material condition, and the glorification of the poor are very, very dangerous.

"Very, very dangerous"?

But of course we need you to save us because we are too stupid to decide this for ourselves?

[Loran Howard Blood]

"Very, very dangerous"?

Move along...nothing to see here.

But of course we need you to save us because we are too stupid to decide this for ourselves?

Anything intellectually coherent to add to this debate bukowski? Quite a revealing statement, really.

Oh, I wanted to ask you regarding Davis, what was it like having a Stalinist as a professor at university?

[mfbukowski]

Move along...nothing to see here.

Anything intellectually coherent to add to this debate bukowski? Quite a revealing statement, really.

Oh, I wanted to ask you regarding Davis, what was it like having a Stalinist as a professor at university?

She was certainly far far kinder than you and far more "Christlike" in her way, though she was of course an atheist, as was I at the time.

And if anything is "dangerous" on this thread, it is your vitriol and bigotry.

You condemn elitism, while your condescension betrays your monumental intellectual insecurity.

[volgadon]

I've been engaging your here on political subjects for years volg. I'm hardly unaware of your general political orientation.

And honestly, you couldn't be more wrong on the particulars. Of course, you are too busy villifying positions I don't hold to pay much attention to that.

[zerinus]

Maybe YOU can explain the phrase "blood and sins of this generation" if generations don't have sins.

I think it is very important that we are accurate in our use of theological terms and expressions. The expression

[zerinus]

Where in this thread do you successfully and conclusively demonstrate that ancient Israel did not believe in collective guilt/salvation? I don't care how absurd you think the concept is. I want to know where you've demonstrated that they didn't believe it.

Nobody has successfully demonstrated that they did. Have you read my post #6 in this thread by any chance? What did you think of the scriptural references I gave in that post? Do you have an opinion to express about them? I am all eyes and ears to hear it.

[zerinus]

"Of this generation" doesn't necessarily mean that the generation has collective sins, but that these sins are committed broadly.

Not sure if you are following me completely.

Then why must we be personally cleansed from them through our personal faithfulness?

We are baptized for our own sins, no one else's, if you catch my drift.

Where does it say in the scriptures that we must be "personally cleansed" of somebody else's sins, or a group's sins, if we have not been guilty of personally committing, or sanctioning those sins?

[mercyngrace]

A position, by the way, that I understand and respect. The truth regarding my position is that political parties of any form or shape are quite trivial. I have completely bought into the notion of building Zion and the theological view that our purpose here on earth is not to prepare to live with God, but prepare the world for God to come and live here. If one feels fully vested in this objective then all political parties and governments, while temporarily important to a degree, eventually fade into sheer insignificance.

That's my honest perspective.

This is exactly how I feel also. Zion is where my heart lies.

Like mfb said, I have no faith in institutions to bring this state about and so I am, if anything, a libertarian, but political parties are so far beneath the lofty ideals I hold that even talking about them in the same context seems blasphemous.

[zerinus]

What is, could you tell us, at all that difficult about interpreting the statement that one can be free of the "blood and sins of this generation" not as "generations having sins", thus personifying and reifying the term "generation" the way David and leftists in general do with terms such as "group,' "society," and "community," but as being free of the blood and sins that exist among a critical mass, or the vast majority individuals within a specific generation, such that the generation takes on a certain general coloration, even though all individuals within it do not partake of its common values and attitudes?

Why then do we need personal redemption from these based on our own personal worthiness, beyond personal baptism?

"Personal redemption" from what, and based on whose teaching? Half of the time I really don't know what it is you are talking about.

[zerinus]

This is exactly how I feel also. Zion is where my heart lies.

Like mfb said, I have no faith in institutions to bring this state about and so I am, if anything, a libertarian, but political parties are so far beneath the lofty ideals I hold that even talking about them in the same context seems blasphemous.

Very touching.

[Loran Howard Blood]

She was certainly far far kinder than you and far more "Christlike" in her way, though she was of course an atheist, as was I at the time.

It occurred to me that you might respond to that comment with an example of flowery, self righteous moral posturing, and guess what? Here's a little "truth to power" regarding your "Christlike" (in her own way, of course) ex-prof.

http://discoverthene....asp?indid=1303

http://discoverthene...arry%20Cott.pdf

http://visualrian.co...6854?print=true

http://www.spartacus.../USAdavisAN.htm

And if anything is "dangerous" on this thread, it is your vitriol and bigotry.

You mean like what you just posted above?

You condemn elitism, while your condescension betrays your monumental intellectual insecurity.

I don't recall any condescension in any of my posts, anywhere on these threads, let alone any vitriol and bigotry (save one example of personal rancor aimed at volgadon, for which I apologized openly, and not like anything I've received here, continuously, including presently from you), but don't worry, after avoiding the copious quantities of calm, rational, critical argument I've put up for consideration here for a couple of days now, none of which you have bothered to respond to, preferring to grandstand and posture regarding your moral superiority to those who disagree with you, it appears that you'll find some way to avoid serious discourse on the subjects at hand, whatever I say.

Interesting that you term vitriolic and bigoted arguments that you cannot refute and positions that, quite clearly, since they are different from David's, must simply be denounced and excoriated as unworthy of your intellectual respect.

How like your mentor Angela (speaking of which, a Latter day Saint defending an unalloyed totalitarian ideologue who spent her life seeking the destruction and overthrow of the constitutional liberties of the American people and defending Stalinist political system around the world "Christlike," is rather...perverse, don't you think?)

[Loran Howard Blood]

And honestly, you couldn't be more wrong on the particulars. Of course, you are too busy villifying positions I don't hold to pay much attention to that.

What's wrong with vilifying positions if they, indeed, lend themselves to vilification, so long as persons are not villified in an ad hominem sense? Socialism is a postion that deserves, not only intellectual refutation, but villification because of its core premises and beliefs about human nature, the human condition, and the proper role and scope of the state, and therefore, I see nothing wrong with "vilifying" it -- or National Socialism, or fascism, or any other similar belief system.

[Loran Howard Blood]

"I shouted out who killed the Kennedys when after all it was you and me.

Serious question: do you take seriously the sociological and philosophical implications of this statement, bukowski?

[Loran Howard Blood]

Perhaps you could respond to the following, which I posted earlier in this thread and which was directly pertinent to a question you, yourself asked and which you received at least two substantial responses to, one from me, and another from LeSellers, neither of which you have bothered to respond to up to this point.

The scriptures are replete with clear statements that each of us, as unique, individual sons or daughters of God, will one day stand before Jesus Christ to be judge of our works, whether they be good, or whether they be evil. Nowhere, in any sense and in any context, and nothing the Brethren have ever taught, indicates that I can be judged and saved for another, another for me, or that my community can be judged in a manner such that my presence within it, irregardless of my own personal spiritual condition before God, could determine my judgment through my association with the group, whether for good or ill.

Salvation is for the free agency bearing, choosing, discerning, acting, deciding individual within a social context. It is not for communities per se...

Despite David's odd metaphysical musings in another post, a community is not an entity with independent life, motives, desires, will, or moral characteristics. The personification of "society" or of collectives is a gross misuse of both language and a flight from rational thought.

Groups do not choose. Groups do not weigh alternatives. Groups do not believe or disbelieve, exercise faith, sin, repent, or receive the grace of Christ. Groups do not receive the gospel. Groups are not baptized. Groups do not receive the priesthood. Groups do not have thoughts and intents of the heart. Collectives do not think, feel, have emotions, perceive, reflect, contemplate, or ponder. A community is a collection of unique, individual, individuated selves, each of whom is an individual spirit intelligence who chooses, weighs alternatives, acts, believes, disbelieves, exercises faith, sins, repents, thinks, feels, ponders, and is saved, damned, or exalted.

Note: the "odd metaphysical musings" mentioned here refer to David's statement that "The community is very much a living entity capable of accumulating collective guilt from a biblical perspective.

http://www.mormondia...le/page__st__60

I also pointed out the following:

What is, could you tell us, at all that difficult about interpreting the statement that one can be free of the "blood and sins of this generation" not as "generations having sins", thus personifying and reifying the term "generation" the way David and leftists in general do with terms such as "group,' "society," and "community," but as being free of the blood and sins that exist among a critical mass, or the vast majority of individuals within a specific generation, such that the generation takes on a certain general coloration, even though all individuals within it do not partake of its common values and attitudes?

In other words, we don't need to go anywhere near David's reification of these terms to understand their symbolic meaning.

[volgadon]

What's wrong with vilifying positions if they, indeed, lend themselves to vilification, so long as persons are not villified in an ad hominem sense? Socialism is a postion that deserves, not only intellectual refutation, but villification because of its core premises and beliefs about human nature, the human condition, and the proper role and scope of the state, and therefore, I see nothing wrong with "vilifying" it -- or National Socialism, or fascism, or any other similar belief system.

The problem is that more often or not it does turn into ad hominem. You could spare most of the time and rancour you expend if you bothered to understand what it is a person believes and why.

In my case, you have made a pile of assumptions, nothing more.

[Loran Howard Blood]

I think something needs to be made mention of here, just in the interest of general fairness and to make, again, the point that David, despite his continual cries of foul over the criticisms he has historically received in these threads that he is importing his personal political ideology into gospel teachings on the coattails of biblical scholarship, and that his critics, in pointing this out and dissenting from the implied ideology, are breaking board rules or, in some other way, avoiding the real issues, is himself his own worst enemy in this regard, as long ago, when his preoccupation with the whole economics of Zion subject began, he was rather open and assertive about the larger context and subtext of his concerns.

Just a couple of quotes from a thread David initiated on December 6, 2010 will be apropos in showing just why David has brought upon himself the heat he has attracted through his relentless banging of this particular drum for well over a year now.

The first of two representative examples, both from the "Acts 4: 32-35: Must Christians Forsake Private Ownership" thread, is this:

Honestly, I have no idea how anyone could possibly assume that Jesus

[Loran Howard Blood]

The problem is that more often or not it does turn into ad hominem. You could spare most of the time and rancour you expend if you bothered to understand what it is a person believes and why.

In my case, you have made a pile of assumptions, nothing more.

We've had years of political debates in this forum, in which I've done exactly what you claim you desire here. Stop the posturing and let's move on.

[volgadon]

We've had years of political debates in this forum, in which I've done exactly what you claim you desire here. Stop the posturing and let's move on.

Honestly, you have not. it always turns into ad hominem. So please, give it a break.

[Loran Howard Blood]

Honestly, you have not. it always turns into ad hominem. So please, give it a break.

Yes, it usually turns into an ad hominem-fest against Droopy, Vance, ErayR, bc, Wade, or anyone who tries to give a balanced perspective from a conservative/libertarian perspective and anyone else the leftists here feel free to dogpile when there are enough of them here to tag team the conservatives. Glenn Beck gets burned in effigy even when a post has nothing whatever to do with him. . When I respond, I get tagged as the problem. That's OK, because that's the way the world works, and the Left runs the world, and will, until the very end. Its a double standard and that's accepted and a given, and its been a given since before I was around. We deal with this in the media, in our entertainment, throughout academia (I've encountered in numerous times over the last several years at University here, though fortunately not to the really ugly extent many others have in many other academic institutions), public education, indeed, most of the institutions of society.

I'm used to it.

Now, let's move on.

[Deborah]

Words have meaning and it's interesting how words get interpreted.

Take "wealth distribution" as an example. In our current society this has a very leftist, negative connotation. Yet what is selling all that one has and giving it to the poor other than distribution of one's wealth. Interesting how turning the words around changes the meaning. Wealth distribution implies a third party coming in and arbitrarily taking and giving. Distributing wealth implies willing imparting to those to whom one sees need.

I think we need to be very careful how we interpret the words someone else uses. I think we also need to be very careful not to dismiss context when discussing ancient practices and modern day policies. When we read the OT we are reading about peoples who were under God's law and who were of one faith. Certain things were required of them because if this.

I really think the issue is with the term "communal" because of modern day connotations of Communism and communes. Another word that comes to mind that caused a great deal of hullabaloo a few years ago is "niggardly". A professor was censured by his peers for his use of this word in a discussion. Those of us who knew what the word meant were astounded that ignorance was allowed to prevail and the professor lost his position. The word of course means stingy or grudging. But because of the closeness to the pejorative often used against a certain race a charge of racism issued with no one attempting to correct the ignorant student who started the whole fiasco. This article explains sadly the results of that misunderstanding: offended for a word

The point is I think that some are jumping to conclusions that are unwarranted because of the connotation of certain words which sound like words which have a significantly different meaning. Having disagreed with and discussed issues with DB I think I finally understand where he is coming from, and I think he has clearly said he thinks governments have the responsibility to "teach" people to be generous and help the poor. He would like to see more people giving more freely of their wealth. I have to agree with this. We may have a disagreement on how much government involvement there should because as others have expressed I only trust politicians to do what is in their best interest, not the people's.

As a Zion people we are expected to be of one heart and one mind and we are obviously far from that. This to me represents "communal" sin. Does that mean that those who are doing their part to consecrate all that they have will suffer individual guilt? Of course not. But we all know that even the righteous suffer when wickedness prevails. How long did it take Enoch to bring his people to a state of righteousness. We have a long way to go and I expect there will be many humbling experiences for the church members as a whole before we get to that point.

[volgadon]

Volgadon is teaching another gospel (a kind of Mormonized socialism or communism with a gospel smiley face). Others are trying to pass of such as LDS doctrine here as well, and heaven knows we have been warned, both from the scriptures and from our contemporary special witnesses, to be aware and wary of such teachings.

If anyone preaches any other gospel...

Shall I let Nehor know that he isn't the only Born-Again?