Is wealth a sin?

[Ahab]

Covetousness, jealousy, and envy are just as wrong as selfishness and greed and all of those feelings undermine our ability to create Zion.

So what do you recommend that poor people do when they see the inequity there is in this world?

Just ignore what you see, and just be thankful for what you do have?

I think most of the poor in the Church are thankful for what they do have, but because they're not blind they can see that others have a lot more than they do, so what do you recommend to them then?

Just ignore what you see, again, while also trying to reassure them that God will make it up to them someday?

I think most of the poor in the Church do feel assured that God will make up for what they lack and set everything right, someday, but what about the poor who also feel there may be something they can do to try to teach the rich that they should share more of what they have with others?

Do you then advise that they not try to teach what they can see as a very obvious solution to all of this inequity, while leaving all of that teaching to others?

I think we all should be doing whatever we can to bring about Zion, as soon as possible, and I think one of the things we can do is try to teach the rich to share more of what they have with the poor, until the poor are just as rich as the rich are, so that's what I'm doing, even though some of the rich would just like me to shut up.

I think I've said enough for now, though. Good day!?!

[mercyngrace]

So what do you recommend that poor people do when they see the inequity there is in this world?

...snip...

I think we all should be doing whatever we can to bring about Zion, as soon as possible, and I think one of the things we can do is try to teach the rich to share more of what they have with the poor, until the poor are just as rich as the rich are, so that's what I'm doing, even though some of the rich would just like me to shut up.

I think I've said enough for now, though. Good day!?!

I would advise them to follow the laudable example of the widow who did not let the hypocrisy of the scribes inhibit the practice of her religion.

Absolutely we can teach! But we can teach principles without embracing feelings that are out of harmony with a God who is love.

[Ahab]

edit: Withholding forgiveness from those who have wronged us is the greater sin.

So it's the fact that poor people feel upset or their feelings are hurt by seeing the selfishness of the rich that you don't agree with?

Well, while I empathize with the poor who get upset with the selfishness of the rich, I also forgive the rich for what they are doing, and I would even go so far to say that I pity the rich, because I know they're hurting themselves more than they're hurting the poor by being selfish.

[Ahab]

I would advise them to follow the laudable example of the widow who did not let the hypocrisy of the scribes inhibit the practice of her religion.

Absolutely we can teach! But we can teach principles without embracing feelings that are out of harmony with a God who is love.

When I used the word "upset" in connection with how the poor feel when seeing the rich being too selfish, I think you may have been thinking that I was talking about being stark raving mad at the rich people, themselves, which I wasn't.

You've heard about how it's possible for people to get to the point of abhorring sin when they see it, haven't you?

Well, some people love the rich while they abhore their selfishness when they're being too selfish, which is their own sin, and not only should the poor and the unselfish rich people forgive them but we/they should also try to teach them how to get out of that sin.

Love isn't about looking the other way. Love is about trying to make everything better, for everyone.

And btw, I also don't believe there is anything wrong with noticing the good in the world, even if a person is poor and doesn't get to experience much of it because they don't have the "money" to enjoy it, or very much of it, because of how the world is set up.

[LeSellers]

The problem, as I see it, is that most people do not understand where wealth comes from.

Many think that wealth is inanimate, by which I mean that it does not grow. This is not true. Wealth is created and it does grow.

Some imagine that wealth is, ipso facto, evil. It is not. It is wholly neutral. A good man will be good with money or in poverty. A cad in wealth would be equally wicked in poverty; he is able to afford additional wickedness, that's the only difference.

Wealth, however, exists, and is created when one person makes another person economically better off (I'll call it "happier" to save space) than any other person could make him at that time.

Wealthy people make many other people much happier than poorer people. That's the summum bonum of the matter. Poorer people fail to make other happy. That's all there is to discuss.

When we say "economically better off", we mean that when the buyer evaluates all the possible ways he could spend his money (which he earned by making another person happy, earlier), the one he finally decided on was the one he, in his own mind, had determined outranked all the others as to its capacity to make him happier, all other things being equal.

When enough people decide that Marriott Hotels are a better deal than Hilton Hotels Marriott will accumulate those votes (which look amazingly like dollars), and the Marriott owners will become wealthy.

Becoming wealthy cannot be a sin because it, by its very existence, means the wealthy person has made more people happier than they were previously. The idea of "giving back" is incredibly unbalanced because the wealthy person has already given back

[mercyngrace]

So it's the fact that poor people feel upset or their feelings are hurt by seeing the selfishness of the rich that you don't agree with?

Well, while I empathize with the poor who get upset with the selfishness of the rich, I also forgive the rich for what they are doing, and I would even go so far to say that I pity the rich, because I know they're hurting themselves more than they're hurting the poor by being selfish.

It's the judging people that bothers me.

When I read He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone, I am reminded that I am not without my sins.

I don't see the gospel as a sledgehammer with which to beat others into submission or as a gavel with which to condemn others because they are imperfect - even when that imperfection directly causes me injury. I see it as an invitation to lay down my stones and live a merciful and forgiving life. And I believe that as I do that, I can have a profound impact for good in the lives of others, possibly even inspiring them to join me on the path of discipleship. After all, the Savior's willingness to love me in spite of myself is what inspires my loyalty to Him.

[Droopy]

First of all, there are a lot of natural resources that could be shared without anyone needing to create anything, because God has already provided lots of good things on this planet that could be enjoyed by all of us, instead of just some of us with some money.

Land, for example, and the plants that can be grown on land, such as grass, and trees, including fruit trees, and vegetables, and even livestock as long as you have 2 good ones of the same kind but of the opposite sex.

And then, on top of all that, there are the things we can make with our own hands, by doing what most people call "working".

I think that answers that question.

It answers at least one question (although not hardly the one it claims to be answering), and that is that your ideal is somewhere between a hunter-gatherer and medieval village level of technology and living standards.

At least you've clarified that much.

Try really hard to get past the idea that we need to use money for anything, because I can already see how we could all get by very well without it, as long as nobody expected us to give them any money. All we need to do is share what we have while producing things the same way we produce things now, while leaving money out of the picture.

Now could you attempt a rational argument that answers my fundamental questions of how is wealth created in your society and, without money prices in free competitive markets through which to determine how to allocate resources and and what should be produced and in what variety and quantity, how is an economy anything above subsistence barter to be achieved?

Or is it to be achived?

Collectively, all of us would still work to produce whatever we wanted to produce, so when we ran short of something we would either make more or find an alternative product to fill that market, just as we do now, except without any need to use any money.

How would they know what to produce, in what quantity and what the value of anything produced actually was to the consumers of that which is produced?

I envision the working class in the collective society doing what the working class does now, except without getting paid with money.

With rice and beans then? And who decides how much rice and beans they shall receive? You see, without free markets and money prices, there is no way to know how much rice and beans should be produced, if it should be produced, or in what mix relative to other food items (fresh vegatables, canned vegatables, frozen vegatables, meat and dairy produces, and other grains and legumes).

This is why the Soviet people waited in day long lines on market days on the slight chance that there might be meat, poultry, milk or eggs available that day, and why rice and beans are rationed in small quantities in Cuba to this day. Without free markets and the information conveyed by the phenomena of price, there is only one other way to produce and distribute: commissars, bureaucrats and functionaries setting arbitrary quotas and guessing in the wind.

This is all very, very rudimentary economics and social history, and yes, Nibley missed it blind just as much as has Ahab.

And while at first that may seem like a bad thing, as if it is some kind of slave labor, the point to keep in mind is that money would no longer be used by anyone in the collective society

Just what is this "collective society" you envision, and what would its political characteristics be?

, which would totally change the dynamics we use now for so-called "rich" people in the world who get by because they have something called money when their money would no longer be considered to be of any value. Thus, to get anything, people would have to either work to produce something and trade whatever they produce with others who also produce something, or people would have to live off the charity of others while producing nothing in exchange for what they are given, and personally, I'm in favor of everybody working to produce something good instead of anyone living off of the charity of others without producing anything.

A socialist subsistance barter society. I just can't wait...

I've already got the design in mind, and I believe it's very close to the way things will be in heaven.

Marx, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Rousseau, Comte, and many other gods walked like men were also consumed by this kind of hubris. We know the consequences of their efforts, as the bodies are buried all around us.

[Droopy]

According to the scriptures, having a big house is a sin if it is not fully occupied, preferably by poor folk who cannot find a place to stay elsewhere.

And according to the same scriptures, having more money than necessary to supply one's basic needs is similarly a sin, at least as long as there are poor people in the world.

I don't like it, but that's what the scriptures plainly teach, no matter how we may try to wrest them to satisfy our unholy marriage of the gospel with capitalism.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Incredible, isn't it; the sudden proliferation of Latter Day Saints with mantels of authority to reveal new, binding doctrine, to interpret the scriptures for the Saints, and call the entire middle class to repentance by virtue of nothing other than its being middle class.

There is one, and only one decisive proper answer to the purveyors of class warfare, resentiment, and collectivism among the members of the Church who have ordained themselves to this calling:

Gal. 1: 8-9

[Droopy]

I don't like it, but that's what the scriptures plainly teach, no matter how we may try to wrest them to satisfy our unholy marriage of the gospel with capitalism.

Consig, please - please - don't intimate here that you have even the slightest idea whatsoever what this term means or what its attributes and salient features are, let along the actual history of its application among human beings.

I'm quite sure that your knowledge of the principles and history of free market capaitalism is roughly on the same level as Ahab's or Nibley's (or Brother Bokovoy's).

Or Paul Krugman's.

Of course, the gospel teaches, as a system, nothing of the kind, among any of the examples Consig mentioned.

Love is hate. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. The laws and principles of economics are myths. Words do not mean things. Logical thought and critical reasoning are the inventions of dead white European males to preserve their dominance in the social power structure.

Poverty is romantic. Poverty is noble. Affluence is low, base, mean and vulgar.

Why should a middle class child be allowed to take ballet, or have piano lessons, or do gymnastics, or Karate, when one child goes to bed hungry?

Why should anyone be allowed to progress, materially, temporally, personally and individually unless all can share equally in such progression.

A society grounded in this mentality can end in several ways, all of them unpleasant, and some of them horrific.

[Droopy]

Wealth, however, exists, and is created when one person makes another person economically better off (I'll call it "happier" to save space) than any other person could make him at that time.

This is central to an understanding of just what a free market society is and how it functions. In a truly economically free society, No one (save the political class) gets rich or becomes affluent save in one way, and that is by serving his fellow beings. To the degree he does so, he prospers. If he does not, his business will fold and he will have to try something else.

"Capitalism" is a system in which everyone who contributes to the productive process is serving others, and serving them according to their own interests, desires and decisions as to what is best for themselves and their families. No grand schemes of social design mediate this system, but the self interest and personal choices of hundreds of millions (and billions, on a global scale) of individual human beings each making what they consider the best economic choices on a day by day basis based upon the unique features and conditions of their own lives.

"Capitalism" in an unimaginably complex system of social cooperation in which the left hand knows not what the right hand does, and hence, what is actually produced and consumed represents the wants and valuations of countless millions of individuals rather than of a few Humpty Dumpty philosopher kings or economic commissars making baseless, arbitrary decisions as to resource allocation and capital investment. Hence, the endless variety, abundance and innovation in capitalist economies, and the economic decrepitude, stagnation and endless downsizing of expectations, potential and living standards in socialist economies.

Wealthy people make many other people much happier than poorer people. That's the summum bonum of the matter. Poorer people fail to make other happy. That's all there is to discuss.

This is exactly correct. "The rich", whatever one thinks of them, and however any one of them may live his personal life, are the job and opportunity creating class. The poor don't create jobs, engage in entrepreneurial activity, or invest saved capital in new technologies or productive processes.

Becoming wealthy cannot be a sin because it, by its very existence, means the wealthy person has made more people happier than they were previously. The idea of "giving back" is incredibly unbalanced because the wealthy person has already given back

[Vanguard]

Why shouldn't wealth be considered anything but neutral?

I dunno I just think wealth is like a light or a car or a gun or any number of other things.

IMO, wealth subsumes those items listed. Any one of those (i.e., a light, car, or gun) can be considered a man's wealth and therefore tools used toward the betterment of another. The question is why aren't we using them for this purpose as much and as often as our faculties allow?

Why wouldn't anything that would encourage one to keep wealth be considered bad?

I don't understand this question. Can you clarify it. Thanks.

If wealth is considered the sum total of our possessions that can be used for the betterment of another wouldn't it be considered "bad" if we didin't use these possessions toward that end?

____________________

Almost by definition, if it is considered wealth then it's something that can be shared, isn't it? Why wouldn't anything that would encourage one to keep wealth be considered bad?

You can keep wealth and share it at the same time. It's simply a matter of allowing others to enjoy your wealth with you.

Why wouldn't one want to share all his wealth and not keep any of it?

And btw, while I'm thinking about it, our Lord's command to a rich person telling him to sell all that he had and give to the poor wouldn't necessarily leave the rich man out in the cold, because if he sold everything he had and started giving it away he would come to a point where he would be poor (in this world's goods) and thus he could justifiably give some to himself, or keep it, because he would then be among the poor folk Jesus told him to give his wealth to.

That's fine. I would imagine keeping a little porridge for yourself for another day's work would not be considered hoarding inappropriately. Is that the standard you think the Lord expects us to keep? How many Chrisitan folks do you think are literally doing just that?

[Ron Beron]

I was recently in a discussion about this very topic. I thought that it had some merit and wanted to open this up to more of a debate. What are your thoughts.

And if having a big house is a sin and having a lot of money is a sin at what point does it become a sin to have a big house? What too much money and what is to big of a house?

Yes! Wealth IS a sin so send me all your money. I'll get rid of it for you.

[Nathair/|\]

I once read that Andrew Carnegie (a good Scotsman) believed that the only reason to amass wealth was to give it away. (Can't CFR this, sorry.) Of course, he has a lot of libraries and a major music hall named after him.

Yours under the benefited oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Ahab]

Why wouldn't one want to share all his wealth and not keep any of it?

Why not enjoy it yourself while you are also sharing it with others, equally?

For example, if you're wealthy enough to own a house, outright, which you bought and paid for over the course of 15-30 years, why not go ahead and keep your house and use the money you were using for mortgage payments to help others pay off their mortgages too, so they can become as wealthy as you are, rather than using the money to buy a RV or something else, AND, while you are giving your money away to help others pay off their mortgages, why not throw a big party while inviting all of your friends over so they can enjoy your house with you?

If one gives ALL of his/her wealth away, without keeping any of it, that person who had some wealth would then be a poor person who needed some help from someone else who had some wealth, which s/he just had, so rather than being a burden to someone else why not just do what you can to help yourself while also trying to help someone else to be as rich as you are?

The problem is not with being rich, you know. The problem is being richer than someone else when you have the power to help them to be as rich as you are, so that everyone is on a level playing field.

I would imagine keeping a little porridge for yourself for another day's work would not be considered hoarding inappropriately. Is that the standard you think the Lord expects us to keep? How many Christian folks do you think are literally doing just that?

Yes, and rather than look at how many Christians keep just a little porridge for later, what pops out at me is when I see Christians who have a TON of wealth which they otherwise wouldn't have anymore if they lived more frugal lives so that they could give more of their wealth to the poor.

Nobody can justify keeping a $10,000,000.00 house, or even a $1,000,000.00 house, for one small family, when there are plenty of nice $250,000 houses on the market, and anyone who has a house worth that much money should sell it to buy a cheaper house while using at least most of the remainder to help some poor people who don't even have a house to live in.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

IMO, wealth subsumes those items listed. Any one of those (i.e., a light, car, or gun) can be considered a man's wealth and therefore tools used toward the betterment of another. The question is why aren't we using them for this purpose as much and as often as our faculties allow?

Who is to say that we are not already using them for this purpose? I see lots of people giving to the poor and needy and giving of what they can.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes! Wealth IS a sin so send me all your money. I'll get rid of it for you.

Ha, good one.

[Ahab]

The rich", whatever one thinks of them, and however any one of them may live his personal life, are the job and opportunity creating class. The poor don't create jobs, engage in entrepreneurial activity, or invest saved capital in new technologies or productive processes.

That's true, except for the poor who become rich, and I don't have any problem with someone being rich as long as they are using their wealth while trying to be as fair to everyone s/he is "helping" as s/he is to himself/herself, under the "love thy neighbor as you love yourself" principle.

Even if someone gives someone else some work to do, otherwise known as an employer giving an employee a job, both the employer and the employee should be as well off as each other and all of the other employees, otherwise the employer and the employee(s) are on unequal terms, and that isn't right, considering it takes both the employer and the employees to create the wealth of that business enterprise.

Too many times the owner or CEO of a company receives a really fat sum of money while they seek to pay the (other) employees as little as possible, which isn't fair, and therefore not right.

[ttribe]

Too many times the owner or CEO of a company receives a really fat sum of money while they seek to pay the (other) employees as little as possible, which isn't fair, and therefore not right.

You seem bent on applying some universal standard for "fair" that just doesn't exist. The complexities of modern business far exceed this simplified version you keep trying to sell.

[ttribe]

Why not enjoy it yourself while you are also sharing it with others, equally?

[snip]

The problem is not with being rich, you know. The problem is being richer than someone else when you have the power to help them to be as rich as you are, so that everyone is on a level playing field.

[snip]

Nobody can justify keeping a $10,000,000.00 house, or even a $1,000,000.00 house, for one small family, when there are plenty of nice $250,000 houses on the market, and anyone who has a house worth that much money should sell it to buy a cheaper house while using at least most of the remainder to help some poor people who don't even have a house to live in.

These three statements above are standing on a very dangerous precipice, below which is a slippery-slope toward forced "equalization" of wealth. I find that very frightening.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You seem bent on applying some universal standard for "fair" that just doesn't exist. The complexities of modern business far exceed this simplified version you keep trying to sell.

Don't forget that the world will pay you what they think you are worth.

[ttribe]

Don't forget that the world will pay you what they think you are worth.

Well, that's a two-edged sword. However, regardless of that, harboring a belief in which someone other than God is determining what is "fair" (and therefore "right) is a dangerous game.

[Ahab]

Well, that's a two-edged sword. However, regardless of that, harboring a belief in which someone other than God is determining what is "fair" (and therefore "right) is a dangerous game.

Oh come on now. Fair is just about things being on equal terms. Can't you tell when things are equal, or not?

I think the touchy issue here is that when talking about wealth, or money, you're getting really close to talking about someone's means of living in this world, which is just about as touchy of an issue as is religion or politics.

For some people, you can take away their God, and you can take away Politics, but it's like: Don't mess with my money!

[ttribe]

Oh come on now. Fair is just about things being on equal terms. Can't you tell when things are equal, or not?

No...not in any real sense. The fact is you will find little or no agreement on what "fair" means in a complex economic environment. Naturally, I'm not talking about the settlement of a mathematical equation. I'm submitting the argument that the number of variables makes the measurement of "fair," in the sense you are attempting to posit, nearly impossible.

I think the touchy issue here is that when talking about wealth, or money, you're getting really close to talking about someone's means of living in this world, which is just about as touchy of an issue as is religion or politics.

For some people, you can take away their God, and you can take away Politics, but it's like: Don't mess with my money!

Is this a veiled accusation along the lines of Paul's admonition regarding the love of money?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well, that's a two-edged sword.

It might be but President Hinckley spoke it from the pulpit.

[Ahab]

No...not in any real sense. The fact is you will find little or no agreement on what "fair" means in a complex economic environment. Naturally, I'm not talking about the settlement of a mathematical equation. I'm submitting the argument that the number of variables makes the measurement of "fair," in the sense you are attempting to posit, nearly impossible.

When have we ever talked about a complex economic environment? Have I been missing something?

What I see when we talk about economics is a focus on talking about money, or the lack of it, along with a few comments about how it might be good to get rid of it altogether, and when any ecomonic system is reduced to money, it's simply about whether you have it and how much you have of it and whether how much you have is as much as I or anyone else has.

It's very simple: Do we all have the same amount of money, or do some of us have more than some others?

That's all you need to see to see if things are fair under the economic systems we have now.

Is this a veiled accusation along the lines of Paul's admonition regarding the love of money?

No, it wasn't an accusation, but if the shoe fits feel free to wear it.

I was simply saying that money is a very touchy subject for some people, and even as touchy, if not more touchy, than politics or religion.