Is wealth a sin?

[Ahab]

It's not how much you give, but how much you keep that determines how well you live the law of sacrifice and consecration."

I don't know if my bolded statement is a true principle, but I bet there's some truth in it.

The truth is that it is both how much you give and how much you keep that determines how well you live the law of sacrifice and consecration, so without the "not" you would have been totally right.

Each man may judge for himself how to manage his financial stewardship. And I'm happy to relieve myself of being anyone's judge, and hope that they would do the same for me.

How about if I help you to learn, as one of your teachers, rather than being your judge, or your Master Teacher?

Will that work? I hope so, and I hope you'll also try to teach me all of the good that you know, too.

Here's to fine Italian leather cap-toe lace ups!

Here's to a good pair of shoes for under $100 while giving the rest of the money you could have spent if you could have afforded to spend $700 to some "poor" people!

Hooray!

[Lamanite]

Here's to a good pair of shoes for under $100 while giving the rest of the money to help some "poor" people!

Hooray!

Why didn't you buy a $10 pair of shoes?

Or, look for some shoes for free at your local mission. Then you could have given it all away.

Big UP!

Lamanite

edit to add: I did like your restructuring of my "give" and "keep" statement.

[LDSToronto]

When we view things from an external vantage point we can look at something silly like buying shoes and say.

(This is a real example. I do this kind of crap all the time.)

I bought a pair of Ferragamo lace ups for $700.

Then I thought, "Why didn't I just buy a pair of Floorsheim wingtips for $200, and give the $500 to fast offerings?"

Then I imagined that I owned the wingtips and thought, "Surely I could have bought some Steve Maddens, and gave the difference to fast offerings and the missionary fund", but then I know I would still feel bad.

So, it's obvious the Lord wants me to buy some flip flops from Old Navy and give all the extra money to the Church. Oh wait, I can't wear flip flops to church!

Where do I draw the line? Why don't I give away all my money until I can say, "I have sufficient, AND ONLY SUFFICIENT for my needs!"

Lamanite, would you read this post and comment, in the context of what you just described?

I wrote it (and admit to not following it), but find it provokes some thought and would be interested in hearing what you think, given what you've just said about acquiring material things.

H.

BTW, I love fine things - clothing, yes, but especially gourmet ingredients and a few other things, the love of which I can't justify.

[Ahab]

Why didn't you buy a $10 pair of shoes?

Or, look for some shoes for free at your local mission. Then you could have given it all away.

I said under $100, and I do try to spend as little as I can on shoes, so if I did find a "good" pair for $10, I would buy them and then either give the money away to some other financially poor person or use it to help my own financially poor self.

And btw, the last time I bought shoes I spent about $100 for 3 pairs at a factory outlet retail store, including a nice pair of black shoes to wear to Church,

edit to add: I did like your restructuring of my "give" and "keep" statement.

Truth does have a certain nice ring to it, doesn't it.

[elguanteloko]

Peter Singer created a scenario similar to the following - I'm going by memory, hope I don't screw it up:

You are leaving your house for a fancy event, for which you've already purchased tickets. Wearing your best shoes, clothes, and other trappings, you proceed towards your car and just as you are about to get into the car, you hear urgent cries coming from your neighbours backyard. You rush to see what's happening, and you recognize the young 14 year old daughter of your neighbour, frantic - "Help my brother, he's just fallen in the pool and can't get out!' You turn to see the 4 year-old going under the surface. Now, if you jump in and save the boy, you will permanently ruin your shoes, and will miss the event for which you have tickets, thus sacrificing a lot of money. Nonetheless, you jump into the pool, and save the drowning child.

Singer

[mercyngrace]

I think the idea of being or becoming RICH implies that some people have more than some others, but in the Book of Mormon we're told that the people got to the point where there were no rich or poor among them, because they had all things in common:

And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift. - 4 Nephi 1:4

We're also told that to have eternal life is to be rich, and that not everyone will make it, but for those who make it there will no longer be any rich or poor among them, either, because they will also have all things in common, with all of them having everything our Father in heaven has.

If you go back and read the line from Jacob, he specifically says that when we impart of our substance others become rich like unto us. The implication that we are all "rich".

The reason I posted this particular point is because a few weeks ago, while discussing the law of consecration, a question kept coming up was about how wealth is created. The underlying assumption being that simply giving away one's wealth depletes it rather than generating more. Perhaps, Jacob and President Kimball have some insight into God's laws of economy when they say that imparting and consecrating actually increase prosperity.

Just sayin'.

[Ahab]

BTW, I love fine things - clothing, yes, but especially gourmet ingredients and a few other things, the love of which I can't justify.

What kind of gourmet ingredients? Have you tried growing them in your own garden, or orchard, or pasture (if from an animial)?

My wife and I save a lot of money by making and growing a lot of the finer things, ourselves.

[Ahab]

If you go back and read the line from Jacob, he specifically says that when we impart of our substance others become rich like unto us. The implication that we are all "rich".

I think the key words are "like unto us", and yes, I'd rather think we all become rich or richer as we share our things with each other to the point that we have all things in common, rather than thinking we are neither rich nor poor when we do that.

The reason I posted this particular point is because a few weeks ago, while discussing the law of consecration, a question kept coming up was about how wealth is created. The underlying assumption being that simply giving away one's wealth depletes it rather than generating more. Perhaps, Jacob and President Kimball have some insight into God's laws of economy when they say that imparting and consecrating actually increase prosperity.

It increases prosperity by making more people that prosperous, because more people have those things in common, instead of only some people hoarding those riches for themselves while other people without those resources are the poor folk.

For example, if I had a cow, and I gave that cow to everyone so that everyone could enjoy the benefits of that cow, everyone would then have one more cow than they had before, and to that extent everyone would then be more prosperous than they had been without it. And one cow can make another cow, too, so that the one cow would become many cows, regardless of how many cows there were before that.

[mercyngrace]

It increases prosperity by making more people that prosperous, because more people have those things in common, instead of only some people hoarding those riches for themselves while other people without those resources are the poor folk.

For example, if I had a cow, and I gave that cow to everyone so that everyone could enjoy the benefits of that cow, everyone would then have one more cow than they had before, and to that extent everyone would then be more prosperous than they had been without it. And one cow can make another cow, too, so that the one cow would become many cows, regardless of how many cows there were before that.

I think there is more to it than this. But I appreciate what you are saying.

[Ahab]

I think there is more to it than this. But I appreciate what you are saying.

Feel free to share more, if you have it.

I'm simply throwing what I have into the mix to try to do what I can to help all of us.

[Droopy]

You mean the scriptures don't teach the poor --> humble --> blessed ---> rich ---> prideful ---> cursed ---> destroyed ---> poor cycle? I must be reading them wrong. Especially the stories of the Nephites and Lamanites, and I think a house called Israel....

No, the scriptures teach no such thing except in a hyperbolic manner intended to show general tendencies within mortality. Were the rampaging mobs throughout the France of 1789 "righteous"? Are the mobs of "the poor" grasping for the fruits of the labor of their neighbors that they have not earned at the behest of "community organizers" "righteous"? Do you actually understand the scriptures to be teaching that poverty is an inherent good, giving the poor, by virtue of their poverty, a passport to Heaven?

Jacob 2:17, my friend, Jacob 2:17...

Jacob 2:17 isn't a teaching about the inherent or intrinsic attributes of wealth, but of generosity and charity.

But you are right, I should disregard the counsel of the Lord's servant in favour of man-made economic theories.

None of the teachings of the Lord's servants in our day are out of harmony with the laws of economics. At least, I haven't yet seen any that are. Those ideas that are incongruent with sound economic principles come, exclusively it would seem, from among the LDS intellectual community, not from his oracles (which is not to say that the oracles may not also be intellectuals).

I wonder if I could disregard the Lord's counsel in favour of other man-made theories -

Theories are man-made yes...but theories are better or worse depending upon the degree to which they - imperfectly of course - reflect reality. The laws and rules of economics themselves are not theoretical, they are verities which history and experience have shown repeatedly are violated according to other theories of men (such as those attempting to graft essentially secular philosophical/ideological/psychological concepts relating to the nature of wealth) at out peril.

imagine the world if I started buying into some of the social theories out there... oh, wait...

Why imagine? Just look at the 20th century Toronto.

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.toronto.ca/?sess=4899f401aa37514a9f1bdbe461c61f2d

[LDSToronto]

No, the scriptures teach no such thing except in a hyperbolic manner intended to show general tendencies within mortality.

Droopy, the scriptures teach it. You may have missed this lesson in Sunday School:

Purpose

To help class members recognize the cycle that leads from righteousness to wickedness and back to righteousness.

Were the rampaging mobs throughout the France of 1789 "righteous"? Are the mobs of "the poor" grasping for the fruits of the labor of their neighbors that they have not earned at the behest of "community organizers" "righteous"? Do you actually understand the scriptures to be teaching that poverty is an inherent good, giving the poor, by virtue of their poverty, a passport to Heaven?

Um, no, but then again, I didn't say that either.

Why imagine? Just look at the 20th century Toronto.

Toronto is a great place to live and raise a family.

H.

[Lamanite]

I said under $100, and I do try to spend as little as I can on shoes, so if I did find a "good" pair for $10, I would buy them and then either give the money away to some other financially poor person or use it to help my own financially poor self.

And btw, the last time I bought shoes I spent about $100 for 3 pairs at a factory outlet retail store, including a nice pair of black shoes to wear to Church,

Perhaps if you removed the giant "I AM OVERLY PEDANTIC" sign from your forehead you might begin an attempt at a mutual understanding. (see how the wink minimizes the rude comments before it)

To be more specific, you may substitute anything you want for "shoes", and you would still end up like something akin to a Franciscan. Where does minimalism end, and greed begin?

Answer: In your heart.

Truth does have a certain nice ring to it, doesn't it.

See how your smiley face attempts to undo your arrogance and condescension? It's like magic! Emoticon's have a way of making it all better.

I'm just kidding....ooops- I did it again!

Big UP!

Lamanite

[the narrator]

just noticed the thread, and it looks like all I would have wanted to say has mostly been said.

1. To sum it my thoughts, it is not wealth in itself that is condemned in the scriptures, but rather the disparity between the rich and the poor that is repeatedly condemned.

2. King Benjamin instructed that we not reject the beggar/poor. If we know of those in need (just turn on the TV and you will know who they are), and instead spend what could have helped them on luxuries we can hardly justify, then we are under condemnation according to King Benjamin.

3. Solomon was approached and blessed by God AFTER he took Pharoah's daughter to wife.

4. Solomon did not begin the expensive building of the temple until after he saw that all of Israel had plenty to eat and were happy.

5. Solomons creation of property by the building of the temple and his own homes led to his downfall and the breaking up of Israel.

6. http://snltranscripts.jt.org/96/96cheyward.phtml If anyone knows of a link to the actual video, I will be much thankful.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

just noticed the thread, and it looks like all I would have wanted to say has mostly been said.

And here I thought you were just ignoring me. Lol.

[rpn]

I think this is individualized and has to do with a person's intentions. If I were wealthy enough to do so, after putting away sufficient retirement funds, and buying a house outright (no debt on the home), I would donate up to half of it to charity to address the food, shelter, educational issues that exist. I don't think a big house (and what do you mean by big, and does this mean cost or value, so that you can't live on New York's Fifth Avenue where the townhouses go for $16 million, but you can buy a townhouse that looks the same if you buy it somewhere it sets you back $500K?)

I do think that at some point THINGS become IDOLS.

[Lamanite]

True, money has the ability to change other lives in a way good looks can't; I think the principle is the same. But let's explore money for a minute, because it is the easiest.

Peter Singer created a scenario similar to the following - I'm going by memory, hope I don't screw it up:

You are leaving your house for a fancy event, for which you've already purchased tickets. Wearing your best shoes, clothes, and other trappings, you proceed towards your car and just as you are about to get into the car, you hear urgent cries coming from your neighbours backyard. You rush to see what's happening, and you recognize the young 14 year old daughter of your neighbour, frantic - "Help my brother, he's just fallen in the pool and can't get out!' You turn to see the 4 year-old going under the surface. Now, if you jump in and save the boy, you will permanently ruin your shoes, and will miss the event for which you have tickets, thus sacrificing a lot of money. Nonetheless, you jump into the pool, and save the drowning child.

Singer

[Ahab]

Perhaps if you removed the giant "I AM OVERLY PEDANTIC" sign from your forehead you might begin an attempt at a mutual understanding. (see how the wink minimizes the rude comments before it)

No, I don't. I can believe that you might think it does, though.

Do you understand me now?

To be more specific, you may substitute anything you want for "shoes", and you would still end up like something akin to a Franciscan. Where does minimalism end, and greed begin?

Answer: In your heart.

I think that's a pretty good answer. Well done.

See how your smiley face attempts to undo your arrogance and condescension? It's like magic! Emoticon's have a way of making it all better.

I wasn't being arrogant or condescending. You said you liked what I said when I responded to your comment, and I said something about how truth has a certain ring to it because I thought that was the reason you liked what I said.

Oh, well. Maybe we're not meant to understand each other right now.

[Lamanite]

No, I don't. I can believe that you might think it does, though.

Do you understand me now?

I think that's a pretty good answer. Well done.

I wasn't being arrogant or condescending. You said you liked what I said when I responded to your comment, and I said something about how truth has a certain ring to it because I thought that was the reason you liked what I said.

Oh, well. Maybe we're not meant to understand each other right now.

Sorry man. I know we haven't talked much before and I didn't see that you had just joined in January, so I'm sure you don't know me that well. I was just bustin your chops.

Accept my apologies kind sir.

The real answer is: 42- Or if you are in Australia, it's - 24

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Ahab]

Sorry man. I know we haven't talked much before and I didn't see that you had just joined in January, so I'm sure you don't know me that well. I was just bustin your chops.

Accept my apologies kind sir.

No problem. I forgave you before I met you.

The real answer is: 42- Or if you are in Australia, it's - 24

Hmm. I thought the real answer was one.

Oh, well.

[selek]

I'll describe what I think it's like to have too much money for yourself and the people in your household before I think you need to give some away to some other people who have less than you do, and I'll try to do it faux-Jeff Foxworthy style just to try to keep the atmosphere a little bit light.

1) If you have enough money to pay someone else to wash and style and color/tint you or your spouse's hair and do his/her fingernails and toenails every week, in addition to paying cash for all of your other bills while having no financial burden at all, then you either have too much money or not enough expenses to worry about.

2) If you have more than two children and each of them has their own bedroom with everything they want in it while your spouse also has a separate room he/she uses exclusively as a craft room with everything he/she wants in that, then you either have too much money or too big of a house, or a spouse and children who really don't want very much.

3) If you have two children who constantly ask you for things and you have no trouble at all giving them everything they ask for, then you have too much money, or not enough children.

4) If you have every material object you truly desire in your house and on your property/land and you also have no trouble at all paying cash for anything else you desire, then you either have too much money or you really don't want very much.

5) If you have a vacation home in addition to your "regular" home, with everything you want in both of them, then you have too much money, or one too many houses.

6) If you have enough money to pay cash for a new luxury car every few years without needing to trade in the old one, and your spouse also keeps up with his/her own new car/truck too, then you have too much money, in the form of your vehicles.

7) If you have enough money to take your whole family on a vacation every year where you do anything other than "roughing" it, then you have too much money, or not enough of a vacation.

8 ) If you have enough money to pay cash more than once a week when taking your family out to eat to anything other than a fast-food restaurant, then you have too much money, or you don't get enough food.

9) If you have enough money to have a very nice boat, and also a very nice camp trailer/motor home, and also a very nice 4-wheeler for every member of your family, and you still have no trouble paying for all of your "regular" expenses every month, then you either have too much money or not enough concern for the "poor" people, like me, in this world.

And finally, number 10:

If you and your spouse and your children never want for anything materially that you can't go out and pay cash for right now without causing you at least some financial difficulties, then you either have too much money or not enough concern for others to prompt you to make better use of all of that money.

There are people in this world you are financially poor, FYI, and to spend your money as if you and your household are all that matter doesn't show enough real world rubber-meets-the-road concern to try to make their life at least a little bit better by giving up some of your material desires so they can have what they truly need and maybe even some little luxuries in their life, too.

Thank you for your opinion. It is worth precisely what we paid for it....

Other than reiterating the standard Marxist "politics of envy" mantras, can you defend the items on your list on moral or ethical grounds?

You see- what you've offered us is merely your arbitrary opinion, informed by "progressive" group-think.

I, for one, want you to defend your position logically, ethically, and morally.

Almost without exception, wealth is the product of someone's toil, sweat, and effort.

Who are YOU* to tell us that we do not have the right to enjoy the fruits of that labor?

My tithing is a matter between me and the Church.

My efforts toward the poor are between myself and God.

So long as I am right with God and with the Church- who are YOU* to tell me I have too much?

*As a point of clarification, this refers to the collective "you", rather than to Ahab personally.

[Lamanite]

Thank you for your opinion. It is worth precisely what we paid for it....

I won't bother to look up Ahab's post because I read it in your quote...

I gotta tell you Selek, for once in my life I thought you were waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyy to soft on him. I could have easily come up with something more polemical and personal as a reply to Ahab's nonsense in that post.

I'm being serious. I read his post and for once got excited about the crazy Ad Hom attack that I knew was coming.... and then bupkis. *sigh*

FWIW, I think you're off your rocker on this post Ahab. If we were to approach Zion this way, we would last about as long as...

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Ahab]

Thank you for your opinion. It is worth precisely what we paid for it....

Is this a two for one deal, now? Thank you for you opinion, as well. I think it's about as valuable as mine is, or at least pretty close.

Other than reiterating the standard Marxist "politics of envy" mantras, can you defend the items on your list on moral or ethical grounds?

Oh, sure.

In principle, I'm simply saying that it's better for people to have all things in common, rather than some being "rich" while some others are "poor", because sharing to the point of having all things in common is the only ethically fair way to distribute all of the good things God has provided for all of us here on this Earth.

You see- what you've offered us is merely your arbitrary opinion, informed by "progressive" group-think.

No, it's not arbitrary. As you say, it's been informed by "progressive" group-think. (nice tag, btw, I like it)

I, for one, want you to defend your position logically, ethically, and morally.

Done deal. See above, and what follows.

Almost without exception, wealth is the product of someone's toil, sweat, and effort.

Well, yeah, but this planet and all things on it belong to God, rather than to any of us.

What makes someone else (other than God) think they have a right to give land to someone else, or to try to compel someone else to pay them for anything else God has provided on this planet?

We should be sharing all of this, rather than acting like we are entitled to any of it.

Who are YOU* to tell us that we do not have the right to enjoy the fruits of that labor?

What labor? What did YOU* do to create any wealth on this planet?

What makes YOU* think that money YOU* have entitles YOU* to anything? Do YOU* really think that money is power?

YOU* may be able to fool some people, for now, but YOU* won't fool them for long, and God will hold YOU* accountable for what YOU* did NOT share with others.

My tithing is a matter between me and the Church.

My efforts toward the poor are between myself and God.

So long as I am right with God and with the Church- who are YOU* to tell me I have too much?

I am someone who understand that God intends all of us to share what we have with all others, so that we will have all things in common, and I also see people who don't want to share what they have equally with all others as people who seek to uphold the rich and poor class distinctions, which God abhores.

*As a point of clarification, this refers to the collective "you", rather than to selek personally.

[Storm Rider]

Wealth is a terrible sin! Thankfully, I have set up a charity whereby each of the wealthy families can remove the burden of this terrible sin by sending all their assets to me, I mean to the charity. I promise you that in your resulting new found poverty you will be blest; I will even send you a bottle of snake oil, I mean holy oil. Please contact me and I will provide the address for my new charity to assuage the guilt of the truly rich.