Consecrating all we have and capitalism are at odds. On one hand, we see that capitalism rewards individual efforts and motivates us. On the other, we are to share everything we have. If we ever did have to combine all our material assets at a ward or stake level, how much easier will it be for the Yugo driver versus the Beemer owner?

Our ward was formed into companies once and told in a Sacrament meeting to live the next week off their food storage. If they didn’t have enough or any at all, the other company members were to provide. It was a fiasco. Serious inability to work together. In a real emergency, I wonder what would happen. We made plans after 9/11 of where to meet and what to do as a ward. I wonder how it would really work out if needed.

When I was in high school, I was quite the idealist. Communism seemed like a fine idea. It is a fine idea. Except that it can’t work without a common goal and understanding uniting everyone. Religion provides that goal and understanding but has failed with pride overriding the word of God. The Branch Davidians come to mind here.

So, um, what’s my point? Good question. LOL Maybe that there is room for both capitalism and consecration but stewardship is desperately relevent and should considered in how we operate as capitalists. There’s other reasons, of course, for responsible stewardship but keep in mind that consecration of our material goods really *could* happen. How will we handle that call?

Anyway, I’d say that Nibley does have a real practical philosophy. It could probably be reduced to a kind of intellectual focus. i.e. that ethically we ought to be focused in on *ideas* and not *material*. You can see this in his goods of first and second intent. The idea is ultimately that *any* intellectual endeavor ought to be looking for the ultimate eternal forms of existence. Thus even a lot of “fun” activities I think he’d be against.

When you try and bring this into the traditional economy all sorts of problems result. Consider, for instance, people “less educated.” How do they fit in? Are their activities, which tend to be more materialistically oriented, bad? What about if someone doesn’t want to spent thousands of dollars on books, but wants to spend it on, say, a suit or an expensive car?

This is the classic problem in any united order. What if someone wants to “waste” their resources on slightly more expensive meals (although no better) and spend time with their friends. Others decide to work an hour longer but takes that sacrifice and buys a Porsche with it. Who is right?

This isn’t an insignificant point. I have numerous friends who spend their 20’s going to parties and not exactly working hard. Suddenly they are 30 and are still makign $10 an hour. Then the guys who didn’t date much, lived on ramen, and studied (i.e. didn’t have fun) suddenly are making $75 – $90,000 a year. Now, how are the resources allocated? How do we decide the place of prior sacrifice?

The old parable of the grasshopper and the ants is quite apt.

For Nibley, the entire focus is different. Afterall the focus by both groups is wrong. Who cares about anything but ideas? What both should do is change their desires.

Now I think Nibley is wrong, on the ultimate desires we ought to have. I think things of beauty, fun, and so forth have innate value. I enjoy philosophy, physics and so forth, but I’m not sure I view them as different from my love of hiking, climbing, skiing or the like. I wouldn’t say that my expensive skis are really different from my collection of physics text in value. Nibley would, perhaps justifying the philosophy and physics in terms of both innate ideas and their utility to others. (The Good)

I’m not criticizing Nibley’s charity. I know that he paid the entire welfare for various people in his ward who truly disliked Nibley – all without them knowing about it.

I just think that ther is some big intellectual inconsistencies in his views.

I should add that he has donated his book collection recently to BYU and it is being cataloged.

Only if he wasn’t interested in following the criminal laws of man. ;)

On Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-titleid=865677&ve-field=none/qid=/002-1124011-8678404

One of my goals with my website is to start reviewing my favorite books and then post the reviews to Amazon as well.