THE SETUP
[Story of stepdad asking for money.] “I figured you owed us because we spent so much raising you” (forget that the reason he wanted the money was to spend on a racehorse…)This statement caught me off guard. Something seemed “wrong” about it, so I asked myself some questions:
- Was it true that he made sacrifices to help raise me? (Yes)
- Was I “consenting” to the giving and or the receiving of the gifts? (I didn’t reject the gifts, I enjoyed them)
- Was there any time that the future obligation/conditions of the gift giving were made clear to me and I had the opportunity to accept/reject those conditions? (No)
- Do children “owe” their parents anything? (Maybe)
- Are parents “entitled” to anything from their children? (Maybe)
- What constitutes a gift given “with strings attached?” Is such a gift ever moral or ethical? (Maybe)
QUID PRO QUO/TRANSACTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS
In legal terms this kind of situation is referred to as a “quid pro quo” which, in Latin means “this for that” - in more modern language, we often term these arrangements as “transactional relationships” meaning they’re built around what each party “gets as a result of giving.”
In many situations a quid pro quo is immoral/unethical, but in other situations, when both parties are aware and consenting to the agreement, they are not immoral or unethical.
Examples of ethical quid pro quo:
We’ll pay for your event if you put up one of our business signs at the event to promote our business
Most legal agreements detail various give-and-takes between the parties involved (like: you get to live in this house as long as you pay rent)
Examples of unethical quid pro quo:
In the workplace: if you do x,y,z, personal favors for me (outside your job duties), I will use my power to promote you
In politics: if you change x,y,z, law or policy, I will support you financially at the next election
These 2 examples are unethical because of abuse of power to effect un-merited benefit
There is another class of quid pro quo that my step-dad situation falls into:
Late assumption of obligation: this happens when there is little or no communication of obligation or duty between the involved parties and then, at some point down the road, one party assigns obligation without the other party having been previously aware of those duties. This can be classified as the good ol’ “bait and switch” and can be made even worse if mixed with “gaslighting” or trying to convince the second party that this has “been the deal the whole time and you just forgot, ignored, mis-remembered.”
Last note on this topic: in quid pro quo or transactional relationships, there is a sense of entitlement on one or both sides
Question 1: Do God, Jesus, scriptures, or prophets teach of or require “quid pro quo” or “transactional relationships?”
Luke 6:32-35: For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.
And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
This is preaching AGAINST transactional relationships, or at least that transactional relationships are not the “best” or “highest” way to relate to others
Matthew 20: The parable of the workers in the vineyard: different workers arrive at different times and work different amounts of the day, but all receive the SAME pay. This confronts our transactional instincts and redefines divine grace as non-merit-based.
Luke 6:37: Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
This does sound more transactional, “you get what you give,” however there is not a clear “giver” here, and this can be interpreted not as “transactional between two entitled beings” (more on this idea later…)
Matthew 25: The parable of the talents - each receiver is loaned some money by a lender. They are rewarded or punished based on what they do with that money.
Again, on the surface, this story appears transactional, but because it’s a parable it can be interpreted to be teaching more about the idea and “underlying social law” that a life lived in fear reaps little good or fulfillment, whereas a life lived with courage and faith tends to lead to higher levels of fulfillment (ie: there’s not an actual “punisher” or “rewarder” feeling entitled behind the rewards and benefits, more on this later…)
Moroni 7:8: For behold, if a man being evil giveth a gift, he doeth it grudgingly; wherefore it is counted unto him the same as if he had retained the gift; wherefore he is counted evil before God.
What does giving a gift “grudgingly” mean? - a grudge is holding on to something that should be let go, so I think it’s fair to interpret this scripture as a condemnation of giving gifts with “strings attached” or a sense of obligation, ie: NOT giving a gift freely is wrong and giving a gift with strings attached is not a “gift” at all.
Question 2: Is it ethical for God to give gifts to humans with strings/expectations attached?
D&C 82:3: For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation.
Luke 12:48: “From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, more will be asked.”
Hymn: Because I have been given much, I too MUST give
Hear me out… but I do think it WOULD be unethical for God to claim obligation to himself because of the gifts he has given us.
Why? We did not ask to be born or ask for the gifts given us (yes, there’s the pre-mortal life where we presumably agreed to everything, but the veil of forgetfulness makes this a very muddy issue around consent, ethically)
Why? We did not consent (that we can remember) to a transactional obligation based on receiving these gifts
Why? The situation would be similar to my step dad’s demanding repayment for an obligation for whose specific terms I didn’t agree (made worse by saying: “you really did agree, you just can’t remember!“)
Let me re-read the scriptures, but this time, don’t think of them as God being the giver of the gifts nor being “entitled” to the service of those gifts nor the “punisher” behind the lack of their use.
Rather, think of the speaker as highlighting an eternal principle that is woven into the fabric of social existence. Think of God as a teacher about the nature of reality rather than the entitled receiver of the principle’s outcome. This idea is similar to the idea that God doesn’t give commandments because he is a narcissist needing our obedience and compliance for HIS sake, but is a guide highlighting principles that will lead to long-term fulfillment, happiness, and connectedness with others.
D&C 82:3: For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation.
Luke 12:48: “From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, more will be asked.”
These are statements about reality, the way things ARE, not transactional statements of entitlement or obligation to God Himself.
I love languages, so my next thought was to try understanding this idea from a linguist’s perspective:
In Italian, and similarly in other latin-based languages, there is a word: Potere (Poder in Spanish)As a verb, it means “to be able to”
As a noun, it means “power”
You can see “potere” in English words like “potential” “potent” “despot” even “potion.”
This word and its underlying idea are connected to agency. Or rather, “pre-agency” - To be able to…
To have POWER, is morally and ethically agnostic, what you CHOOSE TO DO with power is where ethics and morality enter the picture.
Agency is tied to, but follows power or ability.
We can do good with power, or harm, or nothing.
I believe the scriptures teach us, not that God is guilting us into doing good because we “owe” Him, but rather that:God has helped create conditions of potential or “potere,” perhaps so that we have opportunities to exercise agency
The nature of power is potential
It’s good to think about and understand our current potential/power/potere
It’s good to develop our potential/power/potere
Potere is NOT dovere (duty or obligation) to God, but it does, inherently, by the nature of reality itself, lead to CHOICE and our choices around our use of power are important… those choices matter
If we choose to use our potential for good, we will be happier, and more fulfilled, and the world will be a better place
By nature, the wood in trees grows like tiny straws so that nutrients can flow up and down the tree.
When we harvest a tree for woodworking the boards maintain this straw-like structure.
The side of the straws is called “side grain” and it is often highlighted in furniture with sanding and staining.
If you build an axe target with the side grain facing the axe impacts, it will quickly splinter apart and the target will need to be replaced.
However, if you build a target with the end grain facing the axe impacts, the grain’s straw ends will actually move apart and grip the axe point to not only help the axe stick easier, but when you pull the axe out, the grain will actually “heal” back together making targets last up to 10x longer than a side-grain target.
If I’m ever helping someone build an axe target, I will always recommend it be built with “end grain out.”
I don’t recommend this because I’m entitled to the benefits that come from such a construction, or because the builder of the target “owes me something” … it’s just the “nature of the grain.”
In many situations a quid pro quo is immoral/unethical, but in other situations, when both parties are aware and consenting to the agreement, they are not immoral or unethical.
Examples of ethical quid pro quo:
We’ll pay for your event if you put up one of our business signs at the event to promote our business
Most legal agreements detail various give-and-takes between the parties involved (like: you get to live in this house as long as you pay rent)
Examples of unethical quid pro quo:
In the workplace: if you do x,y,z, personal favors for me (outside your job duties), I will use my power to promote you
In politics: if you change x,y,z, law or policy, I will support you financially at the next election
These 2 examples are unethical because of abuse of power to effect un-merited benefit
There is another class of quid pro quo that my step-dad situation falls into:
Late assumption of obligation: this happens when there is little or no communication of obligation or duty between the involved parties and then, at some point down the road, one party assigns obligation without the other party having been previously aware of those duties. This can be classified as the good ol’ “bait and switch” and can be made even worse if mixed with “gaslighting” or trying to convince the second party that this has “been the deal the whole time and you just forgot, ignored, mis-remembered.”
Last note on this topic: in quid pro quo or transactional relationships, there is a sense of entitlement on one or both sides
GOSPEL-RELATED QUESTIONS:
My next questions were gospel-related:Question 1: Do God, Jesus, scriptures, or prophets teach of or require “quid pro quo” or “transactional relationships?”
Luke 6:32-35: For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.
And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
This is preaching AGAINST transactional relationships, or at least that transactional relationships are not the “best” or “highest” way to relate to others
Matthew 20: The parable of the workers in the vineyard: different workers arrive at different times and work different amounts of the day, but all receive the SAME pay. This confronts our transactional instincts and redefines divine grace as non-merit-based.
Luke 6:37: Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
This does sound more transactional, “you get what you give,” however there is not a clear “giver” here, and this can be interpreted not as “transactional between two entitled beings” (more on this idea later…)
Matthew 25: The parable of the talents - each receiver is loaned some money by a lender. They are rewarded or punished based on what they do with that money.
Again, on the surface, this story appears transactional, but because it’s a parable it can be interpreted to be teaching more about the idea and “underlying social law” that a life lived in fear reaps little good or fulfillment, whereas a life lived with courage and faith tends to lead to higher levels of fulfillment (ie: there’s not an actual “punisher” or “rewarder” feeling entitled behind the rewards and benefits, more on this later…)
Moroni 7:8: For behold, if a man being evil giveth a gift, he doeth it grudgingly; wherefore it is counted unto him the same as if he had retained the gift; wherefore he is counted evil before God.
What does giving a gift “grudgingly” mean? - a grudge is holding on to something that should be let go, so I think it’s fair to interpret this scripture as a condemnation of giving gifts with “strings attached” or a sense of obligation, ie: NOT giving a gift freely is wrong and giving a gift with strings attached is not a “gift” at all.
Question 2: Is it ethical for God to give gifts to humans with strings/expectations attached?
D&C 82:3: For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation.
Luke 12:48: “From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, more will be asked.”
Hymn: Because I have been given much, I too MUST give
Hear me out… but I do think it WOULD be unethical for God to claim obligation to himself because of the gifts he has given us.
Why? We did not ask to be born or ask for the gifts given us (yes, there’s the pre-mortal life where we presumably agreed to everything, but the veil of forgetfulness makes this a very muddy issue around consent, ethically)
Why? We did not consent (that we can remember) to a transactional obligation based on receiving these gifts
Why? The situation would be similar to my step dad’s demanding repayment for an obligation for whose specific terms I didn’t agree (made worse by saying: “you really did agree, you just can’t remember!“)
MAKING SENSE
So how do we make sense of this, apparent, contradiction where God’s ask appears to be unethical?Let me re-read the scriptures, but this time, don’t think of them as God being the giver of the gifts nor being “entitled” to the service of those gifts nor the “punisher” behind the lack of their use.
Rather, think of the speaker as highlighting an eternal principle that is woven into the fabric of social existence. Think of God as a teacher about the nature of reality rather than the entitled receiver of the principle’s outcome. This idea is similar to the idea that God doesn’t give commandments because he is a narcissist needing our obedience and compliance for HIS sake, but is a guide highlighting principles that will lead to long-term fulfillment, happiness, and connectedness with others.
D&C 82:3: For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation.
Luke 12:48: “From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, more will be asked.”
These are statements about reality, the way things ARE, not transactional statements of entitlement or obligation to God Himself.
LINGUIST PERSPECTIVE
I love languages, so my next thought was to try understanding this idea from a linguist’s perspective:In Italian, and similarly in other latin-based languages, there is a word: Potere (Poder in Spanish)As a verb, it means “to be able to”
As a noun, it means “power”
You can see “potere” in English words like “potential” “potent” “despot” even “potion.”
This word and its underlying idea are connected to agency. Or rather, “pre-agency” - To be able to…
To have POWER, is morally and ethically agnostic, what you CHOOSE TO DO with power is where ethics and morality enter the picture.
Agency is tied to, but follows power or ability.
We can do good with power, or harm, or nothing.
I believe the scriptures teach us, not that God is guilting us into doing good because we “owe” Him, but rather that:God has helped create conditions of potential or “potere,” perhaps so that we have opportunities to exercise agency
The nature of power is potential
It’s good to think about and understand our current potential/power/potere
It’s good to develop our potential/power/potere
Potere is NOT dovere (duty or obligation) to God, but it does, inherently, by the nature of reality itself, lead to CHOICE and our choices around our use of power are important… those choices matter
If we choose to use our potential for good, we will be happier, and more fulfilled, and the world will be a better place
AXE THROWING ANALOGY
In recent years I’ve gotten into axe throwing and made a few axe throwing targets. One thing I’ve learned is that there are 2 main approaches to axe or knife throwing targets: “side grain” and “end grain.”By nature, the wood in trees grows like tiny straws so that nutrients can flow up and down the tree.
When we harvest a tree for woodworking the boards maintain this straw-like structure.
The side of the straws is called “side grain” and it is often highlighted in furniture with sanding and staining.
If you build an axe target with the side grain facing the axe impacts, it will quickly splinter apart and the target will need to be replaced.
However, if you build a target with the end grain facing the axe impacts, the grain’s straw ends will actually move apart and grip the axe point to not only help the axe stick easier, but when you pull the axe out, the grain will actually “heal” back together making targets last up to 10x longer than a side-grain target.
If I’m ever helping someone build an axe target, I will always recommend it be built with “end grain out.”
I don’t recommend this because I’m entitled to the benefits that come from such a construction, or because the builder of the target “owes me something” … it’s just the “nature of the grain.”
