Why do we Impart of our Substance?

I think about what motivates people to do what they do. I listen to what people have to say about what brings about about the greatest prosperity. And I conclude that man must have the inherent right to own what he produces. Nobody has the right to take away another's substance. Now these fundamental beliefs will always create inequality. Some become rich while others remain poor. What is to be done? Some will say that there's nothing to be done, that this is the way of our natural dog eat dog world. Others will want to break the cardinal law above and force others to involuntarily give (government enforced redistribution). If one believes that substance ought to be shared, the only honest answer to the problem is what the Lord teaches in the following story.

Alma has been teaching a group of people the gospel. They believe in Alma's words and want to unite in living the way believers would live. Their actions are a result of this love they feel in their hearts toward God and each other. They know where happiness is found.

Where is happiness found? The people already expressed their willingness to mourn with those that mourn and comfort those that stand in need of comfort. They have made a covenant with God through baptism to follow Jesus Christ. They desired this way of life more than anything else.

After the people were baptized, the Lord has Alma organize His church. As part of this organizing, Alma does the following in Mosiah 18: 27-29:

And again Alma commanded that the people of the church should impart of
their substance, every one according to that which he had; if he have more
abundantly he should impart more abundantly; and of him that had but little, but
little should be required; and to him that had not should be given.

And thus they should impart of their substance of their own free will and good
desires towards God, and to those priests that stood in need, yea, and to every needy, naked soul.

And this he said unto them, having been commanded of God; and they did walk uprightly before God, imparting to one another both temporally and spiritually according to their needs and their wants. (italics added)

So, what is the answer to the rich and poor question? How does the wealth get redistributed? Of our own free will and good desires towards God. Do we desire the same thing that Alma's people desired? If these doctrines of Christ feel foreign to us, why do they? Mormon asks a question along the same lines:

Why do ye adorn yourselves with that which hath no life, and yet suffer the
hungry, and the needy, and the naked, and the sick and the afflicted to pass by
you, and notice them not? (Mormon 8:39)

Mormon answers his question:

37For behold, ye do love money, and your substance, and your fine apparel, and the adorning of your churches, more than ye love the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted

Mormon ask another question:

38 ...Why are ye ashamed to take upon you the name of Christ? Why do ye not think that greater is the value of an endless happiness than that misery which never dies—because of the praise of the world?

Isn't it interesting that Mormon ties being ashamed to take upon ourselves the name of Christ and endless happiness to using our substance (our prosperity) for our enjoyment as we walk by the needy and the poor and notice them not? This may have been what Alma meant when he said, " ...can ye lay aside these things, and trample the Holy One under your feet...?"(Alma 5:53).This tenet of Christian faith is everywhere in the scriptures yet we want to avoid it. I think it makes us feel uncomfortable. Or, perhaps its too disruptive to our prosperous lives. It really is an inconvenient doctrine.

If we don't have these good desires in our hearts, what hangs us up? Jacob says that we first need to obtain a hope in Christ. (Jacob 2:19) We need to believe that these teachings are true and work on ourselves (faith, repentance, service, etc.) until we have the same desires that the true believers in all ages had - from Adam to the present. When we unite this way, we walk uprightly before God (Mosiah 18:29).

Can One Contend Righteously?

In Mosiah 2:32-33, King Benjamin warns his people of a specific sin to beware of: contention. Since he is talking to his people, he may be referring particularly to political and religious contention. He pronounces a wo upon those who contend and tells them that they are following the evil spirit.

32But, O my people, beware lest there shall arise contentions among you, and ye list to obey the evil spirit, which was spoken of by my father Mosiah.

33For behold, there is a wo pronounced upon him who listeth to obey that spirit; for if he listeth to obey him, and remaineth and dieth in his sins, the same drinketh damnation to his own soul; for he receiveth for his wages an everlasting punishment, having transgressed the law of God contrary to his own knowledge.

I wonder how we as American measure up individually as well as in politics with our American way of contending with each other about everything. Is being contentious really listing to obey the evil spirit?

I guess I should define the word, contention before I get too far:

1. Strife; struggle; a violent effort to obtain something, or to resist a person, claim or injury; contest; quarrel.
2. Strife in words or debate; quarrel; angry contest; controversy.
3. Strife or endeavor to excel; emulation.
4. Eagerness; zeal; ardor; vehemence of endeavor.

Is there healthy contention or is it always bad? Alma 2:5 speaks of "wonderful contentions" one with anther to vote whether or not to have a king once again. Can one debate politically without contention? Since strife is used often in the above definition of contention, let's look that up:

Strife: 1. Exertion or contention for superiority; contest of emulation, either by intellectual or physical efforts. 2. Contention in anger or enmity; contest; struggle for victory; quarrel or war.

I believe one can discuss or debate politics or religion without contending. But, I don't think it is easy. Human nature seems to cause us to slip in strife and contention.

A 'discussion' (in 1828 Webster's Dictionary) is defined as follows:

2. Debate; disquisition; the agitation of a point or subject with a view to elicit truth; the treating of a subject by argument, to clear it of difficulties, and separate truth from falsehood.

I like the idea of clearing truth from falsehood. It must take a person of sufficient character to choose not to contend with others. It takes discerning listeners to realize when a discussion has turned to contention and strife. Is it better to fight with words to the end or find points of compromise? It seems like the American political and religious fronts are full strive and contention. We get caught up in our 'rightness' and fall into temptation. What is the temptation? To contend. When we contend or agree with the contention at hand (mobs do this), we fall into the hands of the devil. To conclude, let's look at one last scripture. Jesus says the following in 3 Nephi 11:29:

For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is
not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth
up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.