How serious a sin is stealing?

[Twisted_Fairytales]

Is this something you'd need to speak with your bishop about? Could you take the sacrament, go to the temple etc? Or could you repent 'on your own' as it were?

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Good question since there are many degrees of stealing.  Stealing could range from a young child taking a toy, to an adult robbing a bank, and all sorts of things in-between.  For a child, I would have them return it and apologize, an adult robbing a bank should turn himself into the proper authorities, return the money and talk to the Bishop.  For the things in between...it depends.  

 

Generally speaking, I think someone who has been to the temple should be well beyond "stealing", and should talk to the Bishop to help get their life back into order.

 

If you aren't sure, just talk to your Bishop about it.  He's there to help, not punish you.  :)

[Palerider]

Years ago a TV sitcom was on called All In The Family....in that sitcom Archie Bunker always had this to say about the 10 Commandments....it must be pretty important if it's in the Top 10.

I would certainly speak with your Bishop if not sure. We don't know what you took or the circumstances. Did you bring home a pen from work...that's kinda petty and I wouldn't speak with him about something like that.

[2ndRateMind]

Stealing is generally a bad idea. You might get caught, for one, and it does your conscience no good, either. That said, there may be extenuating circumstances. You might need food for your children, and have no money. Or medicine, to save someones life. Or any number of alternative scenarios where the world's way of distributing wealth and some moral imperative clash. Whatever, the best idea is not to steal, but to seek some resolution that allows you both the thing(s) you might need, and to keep your virtue.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

[rfburn]

Theft is sin.

Sin is always serious.

[Backroads]

Stealing is generally a bad idea. You might get caught, for one, and it does your conscience no good, either. That said, there may be extenuating circumstances. You might need food for your children, and have no money. Or medicine, to save someones life. Or any number of alternative scenarios where the world's way of distributing wealth and some moral imperative clash. Whatever, the best idea is not to steal, but to seek some resolution that allows you both the thing(s) you might need, and to keep your virtue.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

This speaks of popular moral riddles. Even in those cases, stealing can't be excused. You might use stealing to fix another sin, but the crime and sin still exists.

Would I steal food if I were starving with no other recourse? Probably. But I wouldn't pretend it wasn't a sin.

[2ndRateMind]

Interesting, Backroads. Do you think then, that methods by which we allocate wealth in the world are more moral than any ethical theory justifying your method of coming by food if you were starving? I sincerely hope you never have any urgent reason to find this out, so let us discuss it now, while, I hope, you are well enough fed to be disposed towards the consideration of philosophy.

 

My own belief is that the requirement of someone to maintain their life, or someone else's life, overrides property law, which is a man-made social construct, as opposed to avoiding starvation, which is basic, natural, animal imperative. Nevertheless, except in extremis, I think democratic laws are generally worth observing.

 

I would not say, as the French anarchist Proudhon thought, that 'property is theft'. I would go further, and say that in the case of starvation, preventable disease and such, an excess of property is tantamount to murder.

 

For me, a life comes before a bank balance; and when the two are to be weighed together, the reduction of the bank balance is no sin, by whatever means, if the morality of saving a life is bought by it.

 

But that all may be too extreme a view for this forum to contemplate.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 8, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[Backroads]

I find it immoral to protect one's life at another's expense save when that other is actively harming one's life.

Perhaps current laws do not best reflect this, but the basic notion of taking what another has worked to obtain is still wrong. Justifying one version of this while condemning another is lacking moral logic.

Now, as survival is crucial, I think one is justified in a Darwinian sense to do what is necessary. But I also see man made social constructs as necessary to society. Your original post here focused entirely on how the thief might feel rather than on how the theft affects the thieved. The former might be survival of the fittest but the latter focuses on society as a whole.

Edited December 7, 2014 by Backroads

[rfburn]

Do Not Steal.

An interesting video from Dennis Prager on this.

"We cannot take ANYTHING that belongs to another person".

Property... dignity... freedom... anything.

[jerome1232]

Where I live, there are several private charities that give away food. There are several government programs that assist people with food. My church has a welfare program which gives food to those it can help.

You need not steal to be fed.

Edited December 7, 2014 by jerome1232

[Traveler]

I will take a slightly different stand.  I do not think it is that big of a deal to still from other people – just because the reality is that people really do not own stuff - unless somehow it is possible to take something that actually belonged to someone mortal. If we do not take it with us when we die – then it really is not ours.  It is, however a big deal to still from G-d and pretend that it is yours. 

[Jedi_Nephite]

I will take a slightly different stand.  I do not think it is that big of a deal to still from other people – just because the reality is that people really do not own stuff - unless somehow it is possible to take something that actually belonged to someone mortal. If we do not take it with us when we die – then it really is not ours.  It is, however a big deal to still from G-d and pretend that it is yours. 

 

If it's not that big of a deal to steal, then why is the commandment "Thou shalt not steal?"  It's a commandment, not a suggestion.

[2ndRateMind]

Yes, all. I agree that stealing is a bad idea. I have already said as much. And I agree that property laws are necessary to underpin a stable society. We just cannot have a situation where anybody thinks it is everybody's right to help themselves to whatever they want, regardless of who has made it, bought it, or otherwise legally come by it.

 

Nevertheless, I am enough of a radical to observe that property laws were, generally speaking, enacted by rich people, for rich people, and (surprise, surprise) favour rich people. If property laws distributed property more equitably, I would be less inclined to advocate breaking them when a life is at stake.

 

What's more, if wealth were so distributed, perhaps that life wouldn't have been at stake, in the first place.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 8, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[estradling75]

Yes, all. I agree that stealing is a bad idea. I have already said as much. And I agree that property laws are necessary to underpin a stable society. We just cannot have a situation where anybody thinks it is everbody's right to help themselves to whatever they want, regardless of who has made it, bought it, or otherwise legally come by it.

 

Nevertheless, I am enough of a radical to observe that property laws were, generally speaking, enacted by rich people, for rich people, and (surprise, surprise) favour rich people. If property laws distributed property more equitably, I would be less inclined to advocate breaking them when a life is at stake.

 

What's more, perhaps that life wouldn't have been at stake, in the first place.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

 

Property Laws... Sure... very likely but you have a problem dismissing "Thou Shall Not Steal"  as being made by wealthy people trying to protect their stuff.  That is the Word of God.

 

Now look at it this way... God claims original ownership of everything.  Everything we have, that we like to call our own even our bodies...  Belong to him.  If we take something that God has given to someone else and claim it as our own we are stealing not only from them but from God.

 

Now God has commanded us to share what we have...  Many don't...  But I don't see many time where God really justify us taking what we want/need, from someone that has failed to obey his commands

[2ndRateMind]

Yes, I think you have a point. If one regards the 10 commandments as adamantine rules that should govern our lives, then clearly that individual should not steal, and feel the better for his/her forbearance.

 

But, two issues concern me here.

 

The first is the idea that any moral rule can be regarded as absolute.

 

The second is the notion that societies have not progressed since these commandments were issued to a bunch of wandering Jews some 4000 years ago.

 

So, let's take this step by step. Take 'thou shalt not kill'. As far as society is concerned, this commandment is obsolete (and rightly so, in my opinion). One can kill animals, to eat them. One can kill in self-defence. One can kill if one is a soldier at war. In some places, one can even kill just to protect one's property. In short, this most absolute of absolute commandments has been found wanting, and been adapted, to make society workable. And it will be adapted more, doubtless, to accommodate societies eventual conclusions concerning abortion and euthanasia. I see no reason why the prohibition of theft should not be similarly adapted, as we eventually realise that life is always more sacred than property.

 

As for the idea of the ancients governing my behaviour, well, I think they provided a basis for moral discussion, a foundation, a good, solid, first attempt at morality. But, I do not think that they are the last word, and I am quite persuaded that more recent thinkers are closer to ethical perfection than they were, if only because that foundation was there for them to build on.

 

As for God's word, well, I think His will is that we live moral lives. Indeed, I don't find any difference between His will for us and what is moral. If there is a conflict between scripture and morality, then I have no hesitation in choosing morality, as best we have discerned it, to date.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 8, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[Guest]

Yes, I think you have a point. If one regards the 10 commandments as adamantine rules that should govern our lives, then clearly that individual should not steal, and feel the better for his/her forbearance.

 

But, two issues concern me here.

 

The first is the idea that any moral rule can be regarded as absolute.

 

The second is the notion that societies have not progressed since these commandments were issued to a bunch of wandering Jews some 4000 years ago.

 

So, let's take this step by step. Take 'thou shalt not kill'. As far as society is concerned, this commandment is obsolete (and rightly so, in my opinion). One can kill animals, to eat them. One can kill in self-defence. One can kill if one is a soldier at war. In some places, one can even kill just to protect one's property. In short, this most absolute of absolute commandments has been found wanting, and been adapted, to make society workable. And it will be adapted more, doubtless, to accommodate societies eventual conclusions concerning abortion and euthanasia. I see no reason why the prohibition of theft should not be similarly adapted, as we eventually realise that life is always more sacred than property.

 

As for the idea of the ancients governing my behaviour, well, I think they provided a basis for moral discussion, a foundation, a good, solid, first attempt at morality. But, I do not think that they are the last word, and I am quite persuaded that more recent thinkers are closer to ethical perfection than they were, if only because that foundation was there for them to build on.

 

As for God's word, well, I think His will is that we live moral lives. Indeed, I don't find any difference between His will for us and what is moral. If there is a conflict between scripture and morality, then I have no hesitation in choosing morality, as best we have discerned it, to date.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

This is one of those that a really good understanding of the Bible becomes important because of the nuances...

 

The 10 Commandments is a gospel principle.  That is - it applies to the people in Moses' time just as much as it applies to us today and it will continue to apply to everybody thereafter until the end of time.  It doesn't become "obsolete".  The 10 Commandments was simplified to 2 great commandments - Love God and Love Others as Yourself.  Only 2 commandments that encompasses everything in the 10.

 

Now, let's take Thou Shalt Not Kill (people.   This is not intended for any other species).  It is a commandment presented in the Old Testament.  Yet, God commanded Joshua to kill the Canaanites... and even in the Book of Mormon, God commanded Nephi to kill Laban.

 

So how can a God give a commandment not to kill and then commands Joshua and Nephi to go against these very commandments? 

 

It really is simple - The nuance of Thou Shalt Not Kill is that we are not to take upon ourselves to kill people according to our Will.  Killing is only righteous when it is done by God's commands according to His Will.  In accordance with scripture, God commands people to kill when doing otherwise would leave the Plan of Salvation in disarray.  A balance of choices - good and bad - is necessary for spirits to exercise their Free Will that they may have the opportunity to progress virtue by virtue.  So, for example, Joshua was commanded by God to kill the Canaanites so that the gospel dispensation with the Hebrews can survive.  God commanded Nephi to kill Laban so that the gospel dispensation with the descendants of Ephraim can survive.  Self-defense, which extends to war and even the death penalty, may be deemed righteous when done according to God's commands - to preserve Free Agency.

 

To understand God's commandments, we have to think of things in an eternal perspective.  Death is not the end of life.  Death is simply moving on to the next phase of our progression.  So, God commanding people to kill indicates that the ones that are to be killed have a better opportunity of progression in the next life than continuing on in the mortal one.  We do not have that vision, nor authority, to decide that for somebody else.

 

Now, stealing... same thing.  We cannot steal according to our will.  It is a sin.  But if it is God's command for us to steal - as is the case when God commanded Nephi steal the book from Laban when Laban refused to give it to him - then it is righteous.

 

But when you're in a survival situation and you bring it upon yourself to steal food to survive, it doesn't necessarily mean that God commanded that for you unless He has revealed it to you.  It may be that giving up your mortal life to stay in the path of virtue brings you to a better stage in your progression.  Remember, death is only another phase in one's progression, whereas you carry your virtue with you all the way to the eternities.

[Vort]

The second is the notion that societies have not progressed since these commandments were issued to a bunch of wandering Jews some 4000 years ago.

 

What is with the recent fad of dismissing ancient thinkers and writers as "wandering Jews" or "Bronze Age shepherds"? How is their being "wandering Jews" or from the Bronze Age (which in any case is factually incorrect -- the Bible as a history of Israel is based firmly in Iron Age culture, which is precisely the basis of our own culture and technology) relevant to the truthfulness and insights into the human condition that they had? What sort of mindless hubris convinces people that we today somehow have a better handle on what it means to be human than the ancients did?

 

I have seen this attitude a lot in the last few years, and it utterly baffles me. Are people really and honestly so blind that they think our ability to make DVDs means we understand the human mind and soul better than the ancients?

[rfburn]

I will take a slightly different stand. I do not think it is that big of a deal to still from other people – just because the reality is that people really do not own stuff - unless somehow it is possible to take something that actually belonged to someone mortal. If we do not take it with us when we die – then it really is not ours. It is, however a big deal to still from G-d and pretend that it is yours.

I labored for the money I earn, which I then use to purchase various kinds of property, or to purchase those things I need to sustain my family.

Taking those things from me is not only stealing the actual items, but stealing my labor and time as well.

[rfburn]

What's more, if wealth were so distributed, perhaps that life wouldn't have been at stake, in the first place.

Yes, "distributing" wealth, or redistributing it... that is theft.

You know, stealing.

Mandated redistribution (by Gov) is theft.

Redistribution of wealth by personal choice, we call that charity.

Robin Hood economics are theft, and harmful.

Edited December 9, 2014 by rfburn

[Twisted_Fairytales]

So is a prayer saying sorry enough if you repent and feel truly sorry? Should you confess the crime? To the victim, the bishop?

[Backroads]

So is a prayer saying sorry enough if you repent and feel truly sorry? Should you confess the crime? To the victim, the bishop?

Definitely to the victim. Reparations must be made or attempted to be made or I'd argue you're not truly sorry. Bishop confession is a good idea and necessary in many incidents.

[Saul Hudson]

It depends. Did you take something from me? IF you did, then IT'S SERIOUS!

[john doe]

I will take a slightly different stand.  I do not think it is that big of a deal to still from other people – just because the reality is that people really do not own stuff - unless somehow it is possible to take something that actually belonged to someone mortal. If we do not take it with us when we die – then it really is not ours.  It is, however a big deal to still from G-d and pretend that it is yours. 

 

 

Thanks Ned Flanders. I'm going to need your bank account info and address so I can see if you are in possession of anything I need. Since you really don't own anything I'm sure you wouldn't mind if I take what I want.

[Vort]

Horrifying avatar, john doe. Almost as frightening as mine.

[pam]

Horrifying avatar, john doe. Almost as frightening as mine.

 

Of course that really isn't a picture of john doe.  The guy in the avatar has hair.