56667 - Something really long

[bismark]

Can I get a tl;dr on 56667? Thanks.

[bobtheenchantedone]

I actually read most of that! As far as I know the summary is: do donate to charity, but don't feel guilty for buying some luxury items for yourself.

Cue everyone telling me how much I missed!

[Giovanni Schwartz]

What was the part about running over people with trains?

[bobtheenchantedone]

Do you let your life savings (which you used to buy the car) be destroyed to save a life, or do you keep your extra money (what you have after health, food, and shelter) and let others die? That was the story the question was asking. I mean, that was the question the story was asking.

[vorpal blade]

I thought this was an interesting discussion. It is hard to summarize because CPM, Queen Alice, and CK made statements, and Sauron disagreed with what he thought they were saying, but CPM said he was misinterpreted by Sauron. Lenin/McCartney took the point of view that the bourgeoisie should share more with the worthy poor.

In the end I think everyone agreed that those who have more than they need should be more generous to the poor, and probably all of us should be giving more. Exactly how much we need to give before we can sleep at night and not feel “guilty, guilty, guilty” was left in dispute, and no one seemed to have a clear cut answer anyway.

[NerdGirl]

Yeah, it was an interesting discussion. I think the train analogy is pretty ridiculous, though. It's incredibly contrived, and the comparison to donating money to the poor does not follow very naturally from it. I get the point he's trying to make, but the story just has too many problems and I think it detracts from the message. I feel the same way about that other train analogy, where the guy has to either kill his son or let a whole train full of people die and that's supposed to be about Jesus. I think that story is really absurd and I wish people would stop telling it and focus on the actual story of Jesus instead. I just hate those train stories. They're so manipulative.

But I agree that donating to charity is an important thing, and everyone would do more of it (as well as working on eliminating the causes of poverty), the world would be a very different place.

[Gimgimno]

People don't realize this, but if we just discovered that we weren't the only intelligent beings in the universe, it would unify mankind and put an end to war, race, hunger--everything bad in the world. Star Trek said so.

[bobtheenchantedone]

Haters of train stories unite!

What I hate the most about them: why don't the children notice the huge, loud, rattling, smoking, whistle-blowing machine bearing down on them? Even supposing they were deaf, they would surely feel the rattling! So lame.

[Marduk]

What if they were invalid? Or stuck between the tracks?

Anyway, I think the analogy, as well as the responses, ignore the fundamental nature of our existence and purpose, or at least, have it a bit befuddled. I could go on a long rant about it, and tell you what I think they got wrong, but since I'm pretty sure no one but Vorpal ever reads my long rants, I will leave it at that. Unless, of course, someone wanted to hear what I thought, then I'd say.

[Dragon Lady]

I think it's a really intriguing question, actually. I'm a firm believer in the moral obligation to take care of the poor and the needy. I believe that we should all be charitable. Probably a little more than we feel like we need to be. I live in a nice (though semi-small, relatively speaking) place with heat and A/C and running water, with plenty of food to eat (in fact, I throw away produce because it goes bad when I don't use it fast enough.

There are people who would gladly eat that rotting produce I throw out because it's more food than they've had to eat all day. It's easy to forget those people when I don't see them. I think that's Sauron's point. We should be doing something. Anything. Something more than you're doing right now. We have a moral responsibility to help those people.

CPM's point is also valid. If you just give out handouts, people won't learn how to work and provide for themselves. It can also destroy existing economies. Think, for example, of a village somewhere that is starving. There is a small bread shop and small market place where people can buy fresh produce. It's small. There's not enough for everyone to eat bountifully. And people don't have enough money to buy a lot anyway. Now, if you go in and provide food for the people as a handout, you have fed a lot of people, but you have also just destroyed the livelihoods of the breadmaker and the fresh produce guy. Who would pay them for food when you had it out for free? When you pull out (as you eventually will), no one will be there to pick up the slack. People ate, sure. But no one grew in skills. An interesting display of this is shown in the book Elantris by Brandon Sanderson. Sometimes free handouts of food, though done with good intentions, can cause much more harm than good.

Now how does it applies to me? No idea. Organizations that help people help themselves (LDS Philanthropies, KIVA, etc.) are fantastic in that they are basically "teaching a man to fish." Donating to Fast Offerings is also fantastic.

I'm a pretty frugal person. I'm working rather hard to pay off my mortgage quickly and pay in cash for everything else. (Yes, everything. Including a future car.) Yellow and I still try to donate to charities, but for the most part, savings and mortgage debt is taking all of our extra cash.

That raises the question, Where do I draw the line between self-reliance and charity?

My current answer is to initially work on self-reliance while consistently contributing a small amount to charity. As self-reliance grows, increase the amount to charity. Once self-reliance is firmly established (including retirement), greatly increase the amount to charity. I know it's a very broad answer, but honestly I don't know how to make it more specific.

How much you spend on personal luxuries? No idea.

What are all of your thoughts on frugality, charity, and luxury as they relate to moral responsibility and living a guilt-free life? Where does enjoying life factor in?

(Sorry bismark for writing a long answer to your complaint of a question with long answers. )

[vorpal blade]

I do read all the posts, even the long ones. I suspect only Marduk reads my longer posts.

In the Law of Consecraton and Stewardship we will want to give as much as possible to help out the needy, yet at the same time we will keep enough for our needs and wants. Under that law we will discuss with our bishop how much we should be giving. You could ask the bishop now for his counsel on how much you should be spending on yourself, saving for the future, and giving to the poor. My guess is that he will tell you to study it out in your mind and pray about it. When you give as much as the Lord thinks you should you have no need to feel guilty.

[Dragon Lady]

I do read all the posts, even the long ones. I suspect only Marduk reads my longer posts.

As of about a month ago when I started reading the Board MB again, I read most long posts (even yours, Vorpal and Marduk!), unless they're super political or about other topics that generally do not interest me.

If I didn't, I'd be very much a hypocrite indeed.

[wired]

I took second half of D&C from a fantastic (to be unnamed) professor at BYU. It was his personal opinion (and he gave it as such) that as part of the law of consecration which temple attending members of the Church are under that you should evaluate all of your needs (including the need of savings, education, entertainment, dating, etc.) then donate the rest of your paycheck back to the Church. (He also openly wondered how stake and temple presidents rolling around in $60,000 cars could bring themselves to do that. He was probably my most liberal professor at BYU in terms of social and monetary policy, aside from Church matters.) I appreciated his insight and I have done my best to live that way. That being said, I still eat out at restaurants despite the fact that I could save $10 by eating at home. I do not see those as being incompatible.

However, I think the approach espoused by W&S poses far more problems than it does solutions. I think the only thing one could gain from taking that stance is a feeling of self-superiority for trying to take an unpopular moral stance that sounds great on paper. In reality, I think, as has been adequately pointed out here, there are far more practical problems with it than a first glance reveals.

I think FAR more important than donating all of your excess money to charitable causes is to actively support groups that seek institutional reform of places that struggle. For instance, no matter how much money the U.S. provides in foreign aid to struggling African countries, there will continue to be poverty and starvation so long as they do not have solid legal or property systems that allow the industrious to accumulate wealth.

[Wisteria]

This is a topic that has also concerned me for a long time. I remember being really frustrated at the disparity in the world when I was a teenager but not knowing what on earth I could do about it. Since my health problems prevented me from having a job most of my teenagehood, I didn't donate money because I really didn't have any. I did volunteer work around the community, but it still bugged me.

Now that I am not a student and, as a single girl with no mortgage, live on less than half of my gross income each month, it's a little more feasible to donate money to charities. But I am also in a prime position to financially give myself an amazing boost against the day when I do have a mortgage, small children who I want to have college funds for, and all those great things that everyone says you should have like a 401(k) and a rainy day fund. And I also happen to be very interested in a wide variety of interesting things, like going to the symphony and musicals, taking classes, and traveling, that take a lot of money.

My balance for now is fairly similar to what Dragon Lady concluded, except I think I have more expendable income now that I may in a few years. I have a checking account for my strict needs, or things that I know I'll pay for every month, including tithing. I have separate accounts for long-term savings (hello, mortgage), short-term savings (hello, Brazil), and monthly money for fun things. I hadn't thought of it this way before, but not only is my tithing built in to my "needs" account, but so is the other money that I've elected to donate to charities. The rationale was that if it's in there, it's not even a possibility to not spend it on its intended purpose. Meanwhile, I am working on making sure that me and my future family will be able to be as self-sufficient as possible. But I do still periodically wonder if I couldn't push the line a little farther and put a little less in savings and a little more in my charities money . . . I don't know that I'll ever be perfectly happy with my system.

[Damasta]

People don't realize this, but if we just discovered that we weren't the only intelligent beings in the universe, it would unify mankind and put an end to war, race, hunger--everything bad in the world. Star Trek said so.

Until we atomize their home planet. Then we'll go back to squabbling over our own world. The Ender series said so.

[Tao]

If you have to choose between a train killing a child and destroying your life savings, you save the child and take the loss knowing you were dumb enough to park your life savings on a train track.

I think the Rand quote brings up an intriguing facet. I admire Ayn Rand's ability to establish and follow logical steps that expose the inherent weakness of socialistic thought, but I feel her views all too often produce a false dichotomy. I don't care how much logical evidence you build against socialism or its cognates, morality and economics are not biconditional entities. (Proving Socialism causes problems does not imply it's opposite is problem free.)

That being said; charity is a crutch, and as all crutches, it weakens those who would rely on it. And yet, if something is broken, such weakening is a worthwhile price to pay until such a time as one can sustain oneself.

I appreciate the organizations that invest in the "teach a man to fish" philosophy W&S linked, as I find it extremely difficult to trust 'charitable organizations' as I would not trust a doctor unable to remove a cast or take away a crutch.


If you would have a thing shrink,
You must first stretch it;
If you would have a thing weakened,
You must first strengthen it;
If you would have a thing laid aside,
You must first set it up;
If you would take from a thing,
You must first give to it. (XXXVI, 1-8 )

**Edited out insta-emoticon in reference.

[krebscout]

...I'm not sure I follow the charity=crutch=weakening force logic. I can see how that can happen - quite easily - but I don't think it's inevitable or universal. I also think that charity can strengthen. Does Christ's charity to us make us weaker?

[Marduk]

Ok, fine, long rant time. You guys asked (well, not really) for it.

The fundamental problem with any approach that we've seen is that it examines our behavior in terms of external change, as opposed to internal. I personally believe that our duty to care for the poor has far less to do with them being cared for, and far more that we do the caring. In other words, I think the purpose of all charitable acts in the Lord's eyes is primarily twofold: it teaches us to value less material wealth, and two, it teaches us to be concerned for the temporal welfare of our brothers and sisters. Far more critical is that we be concerned with their spiritual well being, but how could anyone be expected to have the Christ like love necessary to understand intimately the internal struggles of his fellow man (or woman) when they refuse to care for even the basic and obvious temporal needs?

This changes our perspective considerably. It breaks us of the inevitably intransigent pragmatism that plagues this new form of humanism, since it refuses to consider intrinsic changes. When we consider it in this way, and look at all human behavior in terms of existentialist self interest (which is a bit of a mis-nomer, but hopefully it is clear what I mean) it breeds a new morality, one less concerned with temporal state, or at least, less concerned with our perceptions of what "suffering" or "charity" is.

NON PHILOSOPHY HEADS START READING HERE! In less philosophical terms, God is more concerned that we help others, than that they be helped. We always have the poor with us, because we need to learn to help our fellow man. In a very real sense, the poor are tried and strengthened by struggling with temporal needs, and we are tried and strengthened by learning to help them fill those needs. When we refuse to help the poor, it isn't the poor that are hurt, their trials have not left, and they still have opportunities for growth. But we are left alone.

In the week before the Savior's crucifixion, a woman anointed his head with oil. She was rebuked, saying that the oil could have been sold for much and given to the poor. The Savior taught a valuable lesson here in chastising her rebukers, teaching us that service, wherever rendered, is the important event, not that that service be rendered in the most efficient way possible. In the same way, we do ourselves and those we serve a disservice when we criticize others in their service, saying that it is making people dependent, or whatever argument is given not to give service. I think we can draw this to a conclusion that examines behavior in terms of how it affects us, instead of whether or not it is good for others.

So when we question what material wealth we accumulate, or how we use it to help others, I think we should ask the question "what kind of person is this making me?" And be less concerned with if we are helping others in a perfect manner or not.

[Tao]

A few clarifying questions before I attempt to answer:

Do you feel that we will still need the atonement after resurrection and exaltation?

Do you feel that the commandment to be perfect is still in effect, mitigated only by the grace of Christ's actions? Or do you view it as a misunderstanding of a much different commandment?

If the former, do you feel the task to be entirely impossible, or merely situationally so (technically possible, but odds so long as to have all appearance of impossibility)?

Forgive me if this seems a sidetrack, but some very viable views differ enough from mine that my conclusions would not hold, and I'd rather not get off on the wrong foot.

[Tao]

Since we all know bismark loves the long posts.....

...I'm not sure I follow the charity=crutch=weakening force logic.

Attempting to remain brief, forgive me if I fail.

Couple of C's that share traits I'll try to expound:

Crutch- n. ... 1) A staff or support used by the physically injured or disabled as an aid in walking
- ... 3) A device used for assistance or support; a prop
Charity- n. ... 2) Something given to help the needy; alms.

and perhaps a lesser-known one:

Callus- n. ... 1b) The hard bony tissue that develops around the ends of a fractured bone during healing.


I would say charity as is most often considered by the word is a crutch by definition 3, it is a device used for assistance or support. A man shatters his femur; it would be charity to give him something to lean on, as he is in need of assistance. This crutch assists in walking, taking the burden from the disabled limb. Everybody's happy. The problem is, life is constantly in flux; that which is not growing is dying, that which does not see use sees atrophy. In the weeks and months that the leg is supported and supplanted by the crutch, the muscles will wither. If allowed to continue, they will be rendered completely beyond repair, merely vestigial remnants of what they could have been.

From the use and misuse of a support, a temporary disabling became a permanent disability.

I would posit that all crutches suffer from this inherent flaw. Am I then anti-crutch? Not in the least. If our casualty had no one to assist him, he would build a splint, crutch and/or some other method of assistance to mobilize himself. It is either that or die. (This is where charity could be said to strengthen, when it's actions have their costs outweighed by staving off even worse losses.) The inevitable weakening of a limb is small price to pay for survival. The body itself understands this and has it's own crutches built in to assist in just such a necessity. One of them, the callus, perhaps can give insight into understanding how to minimize the damage done by working under borrowed strength.

To keep things simple, a callus is a patch or sheath of temporary bone matter formed from the dead tissue surrounding a fracture. When the callus is fully formed and in place, it can carry loads as well as the original bone. Once the fracture is repaired and revasculated, the callus is torn down by osteoclasts and reabsorbed as the bone is remodeled and regains strength.

On a macro scale we have doctors and physical therapists to act as our 'osteoclasts', taking away the crutch and forcing us to walk under our own power. Without this impetus (whether from within or from professionals), dependency sets in and the temporary setback soon becomes chronic.

I can see how that can happen - quite easily - but I don't think it's inevitable or universal.

While bones may be a given considering the phrasing in question, the healing process of any living system follows similar patterns and has corresponding 'crutches'. In many cases, the crutch is a chemical often in the form of a drug that allows for temporary normal posturing (analgesics would make a good parallel study).

I cannot see any way to avoid the conclusion that removing the opportunity of self action will at best cease forward progression, and at worse, atrophy past achievements. Inevitable seems as good a word as any. As for universal, I'm not sure there's much I can do to address that, save going over some extremes. Which, thankfully, I'll not do at this time.

I also think that charity can strengthen. Does Christ's charity to us make us weaker?

If you use Charity as agape, you'll get no argument from me. If you are referring to the Atonement as " A device used for assistance or support; a prop" for man's weakness, I'd agree again; claiming that qualifies as an extreme I'd be willing to cover later, if needed. If you want to call throwing money at the impoverished 'Charity/agape', I'd say that's your right, just as you can call child support 'love, support, and providence from Daddy' if you so desire. The basics are covered, and while it is more than some, key elements are missing that are far more important in my eyes.

Atrophy- n. 1) Pathology A wasting or decrease in size of a body organ, tissue, or part owing to disease, injury, or lack of use: muscular atrophy of a person affected with paralysis. {definitions from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved April 08, 2010, from Dictionary.com}