Filthy Lucre

[Jojo Bags]

In looking at the Deseret Book's, Gospel Link while researching things regarding debt, it brought up filthy lucre in relation to debt. I was intrigued and did a little more digging thinking I knew what “filthy lucre” meant. I was only partially correct. Elder Spencer W. Kimball gave a conference talk regarding it. Here are a few selected passages from it.

Quote

 

I wondered about the term. I went to the dictionary to see just what Webster would say, and found that lucre, itself, has a bad connotation, and filthy lucre is worse; and to be "greedy of filthy lucre" is, of course, still worse.

* * * * *

And I began to think of many of our people whose minds are upon their wealth; who are increased with goods; who though clothed elegantly are naked and not in white raiment; who with eyes wide open see not; who are "greedy for filthy lucre."

* * * * *

Now, all money is not lucre—all money is not filthy. There is clean money—clean money with which to buy food, clothes, shelter, and other necessities and with which to make contributions toward the building of the kingdom of God.

Clean money is that compensation received for a full day's honest work. It is that reasonable pay for faithful service. It is that fair profit from the sale of goods, commodities, or service. It is that income received from transactions where all parties profit.

Filthy lucre is blood money; that which is obtained through theft and robbery. It is that obtained through gambling or the operation of gambling establishments. Filthy lucre is that had through sin or sinful operations and that which comes from the handling of liquor, beer, narcotics and those other many things which are displeasing in the sight of the Lord. Filthy lucre is that money which comes from bribery, and from exploitation.

Compromise money is filthy, graft money is unclean, profits and commissions derived from the sale of worthless stocks are contaminated as is the money derived from other deceptions, excessive charges, oppression to the poor and compensation which is not fully earned. I feel strongly that men who accept wages or salary and do not give commensurate time, energy, devotion, and service are receiving money that is not clean. Certainly those who deal in the forbidden are recipients of filthy lucre.

* * * * *

And to me that means, woe unto them who will rationalize, who will explain away their errors in these matters, who justify their oppressions. Farm hands, domestic help, and unprotected people are often oppressed, when economic circumstances place them in the position where they must accept what is offered or remain unemployed. And we sometimes justify ourselves in underpaying and even boast about it:

* * * *

And then there are those of us who require excessive compensation for services and who fail to give "value received" and who give no loyalty with their insufficient and inefficient service.

* * * * *

And I wonder if many of us are not hasting to be rich. Are we making compromises in order to accumulate? I wonder if money earned upon the Sabbath, when it is unnecessary Sabbath earning, might not also be unclean money. I realize that some people must work on the Sabbath; and when they do, if they are compelled, that is, of course, a different situation. But men and women who will deliberately use the Sabbath day to develop business propositions, to increase their holdings, to increase their income, I fear for them. I think the Lord was speaking to them when he said: "Woe unto them that call evil good, . . . " (Isa. 5:20.) Sometimes we salve our consciences by saying that the more we get the more we can give to the worthy causes, but that, of course, is a subterfuge. There are people who work on the Sabbath not through compulsion but because the income is attractive, and others who work voluntarily to get the "time and a half" that Sabbath work gives them.

* * * * *

The Savior knew that the ox gets in the mire on the Sabbath, but he knew also that no ox deliberately goes into the mire every week;

Conference Report, Oct 1953, Pgs. 51-56

 

This got me to thinking about my own line of work. I drive a forklift for Coke in Sydney and at least half of what I load and unload consists of grog, spirits, plonk, booze, beer, in other words: alcoholic beverages. Of course, I also load Coke products, but not as much as you would think. Coke is really hurting and in a major down turn. It is the bulk sales of alcohol that is keeping my particular warehouse in the black.  I have nothing to do with the sale of alcohol, but this talk has me wondering if I'm accepting filthy lucre. I load and unload the stuff, but is that accepting blood money?

Next, I got to thinking about what is clean money. Food stamps. AFDC, WIC, SSDI, Social Security, and all forms of government welfare to private persons and corporations are all elements of socialism, and socialism has been identified as the end time secret combination that would enslave all nations. All of these programs are funded with money taken at the barrel of a gun and given to other people. All of these programs eliminate self-reliance and the concept of work. None of the money given away is worked for and thus “clean money.” So, are food stamps and other such stuff filthy lucre?

[Guest MormonGator]

It's also the name of a great live album. 

Edited February 27, 2016 by MormonGator

[omegaseamaster75]

Question: If I own a restaurant and alcohol is served are sales derived from the sale of said booze filthy lucre?

[Traveler]

The first requirement for true wealth is to learn to love hard and difficult labor – especially that labor that benefits others.  I believe that to pursue wealth with the idea or intent to avoid hard and difficult labor – is by intent; the desire for filthy lucre. 

Thank you for your input.

 

The Traveler

[omegaseamaster75]

Define hard and difficult labor? The heaviest thing I lift all day is a pencil...sometimes

[Vort]

9 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Question: If I own a restaurant and alcohol is served are sales derived from the sale of said booze filthy lucre?

Question: If Jesus Christ owned a restaurant today, would he serve alcohol?

Question: If Jesus Christ owned a retail outlet in Washington or Colorado, would he sell marijuana?

[omegaseamaster75]

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

Question: If Jesus Christ owned a restaurant today, would he serve alcohol?

Question: If Jesus Christ owned a retail outlet in Washington or Colorado, would he sell marijuana?

Nice straw man come back.

I'm not biting, if you don't want to express a real opinion that's fine.

[The Folk Prophet]

9 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Nice straw man come back.

I'm not biting, if you don't want to express a real opinion that's fine.

What the what?

Straw man? Aren't we supposed to do as Jesus would do? Aren't we supposed to take His name upon us in all things? Where's the straw man?

[omegaseamaster75]

TFP your a smart guy come on now.

[Jojo Bags]

20 minutes ago, Vort said:

Question: If Jesus Christ owned a restaurant today, would he serve alcohol?

Question: If Jesus Christ owned a retail outlet in Washington or Colorado, would he sell marijuana?

1.  No.  It would be against his own commandments.

2.  No.  It would be against his own commandments.

 

[Jojo Bags]

27 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Question: If I own a restaurant and alcohol is served are sales derived from the sale of said booze filthy lucre?

I would say yes.  It would be assenting to or facilitating someone else committing sin.  "Ye cannot serve God and mammon."

[Traveler]

15 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Nice straw man come back.

I'm not biting, if you don't want to express a real opinion that's fine.

It is my opinion that one should not serve alcohol as a means to take advantage of and exploit others just to make an easy buck.  If the expression of “exploit” seems like a straw man argument – I am not sure you understand what is being communicated – especially the quotes from a prophet to begin this thread.

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

13 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

TFP your a smart guy come on now.

omega, I see three possible reasons why you might honestly claim that my questions constitute a strawman argument:

1. You do not know what a strawman argument is.
2. You do know what a strawman argument is, but you have muddled thinking in this case (perhaps emotion, perhaps something else) that causes you to misperceive this as a strawman argument.
3. You are somehow misunderstand the nature of my argument, such that it appears to you to be a strawman.

So instead of trying to analyze which of these might be the case, please just answer TFP's questions. Equivalently, please explain very carefully which aspects of my questions constitute a strawman characterization.

[Guest MormonGator]

31 minutes ago, Vort said:

Question: If Jesus Christ owned a restaurant today, would he serve alcohol?

 

Didn't He drink wine? 

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Didn't He drink wine? 

He did indeed. If he lived today (as my question stipulated), do you believe he would drink wine in defiance of his own revelation to Joseph Smith?

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

He did indeed. If he lived today (as my question stipulated), do you believe he would drink wine in defiance of his own revelation to Joseph Smith?

I don't know. I find it very uncomfortable when people claim to know what Jesus would do in 2016 though. 

[Guest MormonGator]

42 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Question: If I own a restaurant and alcohol is served are sales derived from the sale of said booze filthy lucre?

 I buy alcohol and cigars for my friends all the time. I don't use them personally. To me I don't want to damage friendships or seem like I'm suddenly pious or better than them. 

[Jojo Bags]

10 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 I buy alcohol and cigars for my friends all the time. I don't use them personally. To me I don't want to damage friendships or seem like I'm suddenly pious or better than them. 

I will say the same thing I said to Omega.  It is assenting to and facilitating another person to commit sin.  If their friendship is based on you purchasing items forbidden by the WoW, or if they would terminate the friendship because you learned something new that might be offensive in the eyes of God, then they really are not friends in the first place.

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, Jojo Bags said:

I will say the same thing I said to Omega.  It is assenting to and facilitating another person to commit sin.  If their friendship is based on you purchasing items forbidden by the WoW, or if they would terminate the friendship because you learned something new that might be offensive in the eyes of God, then they really are not friends in the first place.

On the contrary. These are people I've been friends with for over ten years. They've been nothing but supportive of my conversion. So I should start demanding they live by my rules? One guy is Catholic-should I demand he converts? They wouldn't "terminate" the friendship. If I lectured them about sin and drinking, etc-they'd correctly say "Dude, converting has made you a pious jerk! Why are you acting like this?" A girl who I've been fiends with since childhood is Hindu. If she started lecturing me about Vishnu or Ganesh I'd look at her and laugh.     

[Jojo Bags]

15 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

On the contrary. These are people I've been friends with for over ten years. They've been nothing but supportive of my conversion. So I should start demanding they live by my rules? One guy is Catholic-should I demand he converts? They wouldn't "terminate" the friendship. If I lectured them about sin and drinking, etc-they'd correctly say "Dude, converting has made you a pious jerk! Why are you acting like this?" A girl who I've been fiends with since childhood is Hindu. If she started lecturing me about Vishnu or Ganesh I'd look at her and laugh.     

 

No one should demand anyone live by God's rules.  That is the antithesis of moral agency.  You, however, covenanted with the Savior at your baptism to follow him, to do as he does, to set yourself apart from the world.  You covenanted to live in the world, but not of the world.  You also covenanted to stand for truth and righteousness at all times and in all places.  The Savior wasn't a piker and never minced words.  He stood for the truth no matter what the consequences were.  We are required to do the same.  To not do so is breaking those covenants.  If they are the good friends that you believe them to be, then they will accept you no matter what.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Jojo Bags
Because

[The Folk Prophet]

43 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

TFP your a smart guy come on now.

Yes I am. So when I wonder how it is that anyone can claim that the concept of doing as Jesus would do is a straw man, perhaps it's worth consideration.

[The Folk Prophet]

30 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I don't know. I find it very uncomfortable when people claim to know what Jesus would do in 2016 though. 

You are uncomfortable that Jesus wouldn't do what He himself proclaimed that we shouldn't do?

O....kay.

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, Jojo Bags said:

  If they are the good friends that you believe them to be, then they will accept you no matter what.

They do, believe me. I'm very blessed to have them in my life, that's for sure. I also accept them no matter what. If they want to have a drink in my house, light up a cigar, go for it guys. 

[The Folk Prophet]

16 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

On the contrary. These are people I've been friends with for over ten years. They've been nothing but supportive of my conversion. So I should start demanding they live by my rules? One guy is Catholic-should I demand he converts? They wouldn't "terminate" the friendship. If I lectured them about sin and drinking, etc-they'd correctly say "Dude, converting has made you a pious jerk! Why are you acting like this?" A girl who I've been fiends with since childhood is Hindu. If she started lecturing me about Vishnu or Ganesh I'd look at her and laugh.     

You not buying other people things that you believe are sinful is forcing them to live by your rules?

O...kay.

[zil]

1 hour ago, Jojo Bags said:

...Social Security, .... None of the money given away is worked for...

I have to disagree on the Social Security - I worked for that money; they took it from me by force; it's only right that they give back what they took from me.  (I'm open to argument about whether they also owe me the profit I could have made on it had they not taken it from me - and even if I get back more than the base I paid in, I doubt I'll be getting this much from them.  I'm also prepared to let it go without a fight or (further?) complaint, should they run out by the time I get there, or should I never get back everything they took; but it still seems only right for them to give it back.)