The Morality of Wealth

[Jeff K.]

Let me get back to the way I originally intended to ask the question. If I offered you a deal where you would give me $100 now and I would give you $1 billion when Christ came, would you accept the deal and be happy about it?

My response would still be one of the three.

[mbh26]

My response would still be one of the three.

It's an offer Jeff, would you take it or not? It's a yes/no question. $100 for me now, $1 billion for you when Christ comes? Would you do it?

[mbh26]

If other people rape, it does not mean you have the right to rape.

I think even you would agree that defending one's property is not raping. How do you expect to not let me take your stuff if you don't resort to violence? You said you wouldn't let me right? Your ancestors must have been pretty fierce warriors. You wouldn't have had an inheritance if they weren't.

There is nothing morally superior about the passive aggressiveness that exists in the workplace today and an outright fight to the death that existed before. I think the fight had more clear rules.

[Jeff K.]

It's an offer Jeff, would you take it or not? It's a yes/no question. $100 for me now, $1 billion for you when Christ comes? Would you do it?

No, its not an offer. An offer requires much more than simply "give me a hundred dollars". An offer includes details which you haven't provided.

[mbh26]

No, its not an offer. An offer requires much more than simply "give me a hundred dollars". An offer includes details which you haven't provided.

What detail do you want? Would you take it or not?

[Jeff K.]

I think even you would agree that defending one's property is not raping. How do you expect to not let me take your stuff if you don't resort to violence? You said you wouldn't let me right? Your ancestors must have been pretty fierce warriors. You wouldn't have had an inheritance if they weren't.

There is nothing morally superior about the passive aggressiveness that exists in the workplace today and an outright fight to the death that existed before. I think the fight had more clear rules.

Then you have missed the point.

If everyone as you arbitrarily assume, steals does that mean you can steal? Or commit violence?

Of course not.

And violence is not the only way to protect property. To a hammer the rest of the world is a nail. Do you really want to be limited to the mentality of a hammer? In chess one of the most satisfying moves is a "discovered check". Think about it.

As to my ancestors, I wish in a sense Christ were one of them. Would you say that Christ's approach to the Sadduccees and Pharisees was passive aggressiveness? Or did He, as so many Jews wanted, raise of a maccabean army to free Israel?

Finally, does all property have equal value? Or should one be "the hammer" and respond equally to all "takings" of property in the same way ("nail the guy")? Those are subjective issues that need to be thought out.

[mbh26]

Joseph Smith saw an economy being run by competing government ideologies and reacted as the need arose,

Do you think Joseph Smith saw capitalism as a better system than his United Order? Let's assume that everyone converted to Mormonism, the United Order never left, and Bill Gates was born Mormon. How much do you think the bishop would be appropriating Bill and his family for their needs? Would they have just as much money under this arrangement as they have now? And what happened if Bill were to say, "Hey I earned that money." Would the bishop then excommunicate him for not complying? How voluntary is that?

[Jeff K.]

A member of my ward was robbed in Brazil (went to pick up his son from a mission). Should he have used violence and risked his family for a few hundred dollars?

I have been robbed in Mexico and Peru.

Justice will eventually come to all who commit wrong acts, whether when Christ will come or in the final judgement.

My point, if I cannot stop you, or find a way to stop you, I am not going to let such a thing run or ruin my life, if you take things from me. And the options need not include violence nore do they need to be limited to violence.

[Jeff K.]

Do you think Joseph Smith saw capitalism as a better system than his United Order? Let's assume that everyone converted to Mormonism, the United Order never left, and Bill Gates was born Mormon. How much do you think the bishop would be appropriating Bill and his family for their needs? Would they have just as much money under this arrangement as they have now? And what happened if Bill were to say, "Hey I earned that money." Would the bishop then excommunicate him for not complying? How voluntary is that?

Joseph Smith didn't see capitalism so your point isn't really valid since capitalism was not strictly practiced as provided in the Wealth of Nations.

So you can assume Joseph Smith "saw" capitalism when he didn't, and I can assume he spoke with the Pope, when he didn't.

Let us assume that Bill Gates voluntarily gave all he had to the church under the United Order. The question you might want to ask yourself is this, would the bishop do as you seem to want him to, and move the money away to others, or would the bishop look upon the efficiency of the servant and his use of talents and make him Lord of many things?

Try not to conflate personal use with corporate.

[mbh26]

As to my ancestors, I wish in a sense Christ were one of them. Would you say that Christ's approach to the Sadduccees and Pharisees was passive aggressiveness? Or did He, as so many Jews wanted, raise of a maccabean army to free Israel?

To feel good about Jesus story, I'd have to believe that He will return one day dressed in RED. And yes there will be some violence. There certainly was the last time he came to this continent. His kingdom was not of this world. He wasn't conniving to get the kingdom of Israel the way people climb the corporate ladder today. In fact he seemed to have a legal claim to the throne that he didn't really pursue. He was just calling out some hypocrites on what they were doing. That's all I'm doing in this Morality of Wealth thread.

[mbh26]

sorry pointless statement

[mbh26]

Let us assume that Bill Gates voluntarily gave all he had to the church under the United Order. The question you might want to ask yourself is this, would the bishop do as you seem to want him to, and move the money away to others, or would the bishop look upon the efficiency of the servant and his use of talents and make him Lord of many things?

I think Bill would be given less money to live on. What do you think would happen? Would he still be living in the same size house or would he be living in a bigger house?

And by the way, is my offer of $100 now for me and a $1 billion for you when Christ comes something you'd like to sign up for?

[Jeff K.]

To feel good about Jesus story, I'd have to believe that He will return one day dressed in RED. And yes there will be some violence. There certainly was the last time he came to this continent. His kingdom was not of this world. He wasn't conniving to get the kingdom of Israel the way people climb the corporate ladder today. In fact he seemed to have a legal claim to the throne that he didn't really pursue. He was just calling out some hypocrites on what they were doing. That's all I'm doing in this Morality of Wealth thread.

Well yes, odds are Jesus will be a Ute, but that has nothing to do with violence (mass suicides by BYU students perhaps?).

I have seen violence and have even taken part in violent action. But because I have, I also tend to prefer peaceful means if possible. Do you know there are over 221 000 different ways to order a Whopper from Burger King (have it your way), if there are that many ways to approach a hamburger, think of what you could do with a more complicated situation.

[Jeff K.]

I think Bill would be given less money to live on. What do you think would happen? Would he still be living in the same size house or would he be living in a bigger house?

Joseph Smith had a nicer home than some. So the possibility exists yes.

And by the way, is my offer of $100 now for me and a $1 billion for you when Christ comes something you'd like to sign up for?

Depends on what you use it for, and what you plan to do with it. And of course how much faith I would have in you, faith being something you cannot see, touch or feel but is true. So if those clauses were fulfilled I would give it to you without a second thought (see my tithing statement) or concern of being repaid.

[mbh26]

Joseph Smith had a nicer home than some. So the possibility exists yes.

You're saying the same disparity that exists between Bill Gates house and mine under the current system would be the same disparity that would exist under the United Order?

Depends on what you use it for, and what you plan to do with it. And of course how much faith I would have in you, faith being something you cannot see, touch or feel but is true. So if those clauses were fulfilled I would give it to you without a second thought (see my tithing statement) or concern of being repaid.

It wasn't a request for charity. I was just asking if it was an investment you would like to make? It's not an investment I would freely make. My point is that I can't quite see what the Lord could possibly give some of us to make up for yesterday. I lived for tomorrow to get through yesterday without killing people for what they did to me. Now yesterday is over and if compensation were there it wouldn't be worth it because it was just too long ago. I needed it then not now. Why did it have to happen and why did I have to suffer it? I may never know. That's almost as troubling as everything that happened. Could it have been more peaceful to have just fought and died right then and there? Lights out, over.

[Jeff K.]

When you say investment, the logical question is "how" you are going to invest it.

My point is that I can't quite see what the Lord could possibly give some of us to make up for yesterday.

Adam, yesterday, the Atonement makes up for yesterday, today and tomorrow.

[staccato]

And what happens when the person gives everything away and doesn't have that rainy day fund and when bad times come they are the ones in need of help but because everyone gave away their rainy day funds there's no one left to help.

The story of Joseph in Egypt is a good example of setting aside the rainy day fund so that when bad times came they could actually survive and in the process help others.

Then perhaps those who he gave the money away to will take care of him because of his generosity. Wouldn't that be something.

[staccato]

That says a lot. I wonder how many others here are so avidly in favor of taking from someone else's wealth because of a family member they feel didn't treat them fairly. Interesting you use the word "hoard" instead of save. Funny how the whole intent changes with a word.

Let's be clear. I do not want my father's wealth. I have not asked or expected it, and even requested he remove me from his will because he is so conditional with his family financial support. And I don't need it.

But yes, I use the word hoard. When one saves excessively, far more than they will ever use or need, I call it hoarding.

[staccato]

I think its quite rude of you to imply that I'm "hoarding" money when I was simply doing what the prophets have advised us to do. We work very hard for what we have and have never been given or inherited anything. I'm glad you were able to move in to a smaller house. I would like to do that at the appropriate time. For us to attempt to sell our house right now would be a financially irresponsible thing to do and would not put us in a financial position to help anyone--least of all our own children who are our primary stewardship. I think some of you guys are being unfairly harsh to those of us who are doing everything that our leaders ask of us but don't share your particular vision of "redistributing the wealth".

I was not calling you a hoarder, Katherine. I called my father a hoarder.

[elguanteloko]

Well Ahab, I must say that throwing out some random number and insisting that virtually all families must never use more than that and must give the rest away in order to be moral just sounds frankly immature or na

[mbh26]

Let's be clear. I do not want my father's wealth. I have not asked or expected it, and even requested he remove me from his will because he is so conditional with his family financial support. And I don't need it.

With some people it does get to the point that you're better off working a job rather than doing what they say in hopes of being included in their will. My Dad made that mistake with his stepmother. But blood is thicker than service. When he was left out of her will, it enraged him so much he pissed on her grave. If that's the worst she ever gets for the number she pulled on him over the years, I'd say she got off easy.

Of all the evil I've faced in life, I sure am thankful I have better parents than he had.

[elguanteloko]

With some people it does get to the point that you're better off working a job rather than doing what they say in hopes of being included in their will. My Dad made that mistake with his stepmother. But blood is thicker than service. When he was left out of her will, it enraged him so much he pissed on her grave. If that's the worst she ever gets for the number she pulled on him over the years, I'd say she got off easy.

Of all the evil I've faced in life, I sure am thankful I have better parents than he had.

With all due respect, your father seems like a very interesting person.

[Deborah]

Then perhaps those who he gave the money away to will take care of him because of his generosity. Wouldn't that be something.

Not if they were already in the hole and the help they got was just to keep their heads above water. Then everyone is poor and no one is in a position to help anyone.

I also think those who keep bringing up the story of the rich young man are not understanding the point. It wasn't about wealth, or even giving to the poor, but about what one is willing to give up to follow Christ. Christ did not ask everyone to sell everything and follow him. Even his disciples had to earn a living.

When we read there were no rich or poor among the early Christians it meant that none did without those things that they needed. It didn't mean some didn't have bigger houses or more clothes. Not everyone has the same needs or wants, and when one thinks he needs what his neighbor has when he has a home, clothes and food that is coveting.

Example, Joseph Smith lived in the mansion house while many of the saints lived in smaller more humble homes. But why did Joseph have the mansion house? Because he entertained travelers and it doubled as a boarding house. A great deal of church business was carried on there. So when someone is looking just on the outside and not seeing what is really going on he has no right to criticize or condemn.

[katherine the great]

Tell that to Christ. You are attacking Christian doctrine as naive and immature. Though I obviously can't answer for Ahab (and I don't feel like going back and track his words down), I think the point is NOT about being "moral" but following Christ. Talking about what is "moral" is kind of irrelevant on this issue; the point is following Christ (regardless of considering that "moral" or "immoral").

Sure it doesn't work but that's because God won't support you as Christ said He was going to. You are not following Christ in this matter (fortunately, btw).

Really? Would you please show me which Christisn doctrine says that all Christian families worldwide must spend no more than 120,000 dollars per year? I've never heard of one and I don't think you have either. It doesn't exist. If you would bother reading the thread, my post was about the absurdity of assigning a blanket, random number to every family's yearly expenses. Christ said no such thing. There were wealthy people among His disciples. We only have one example of Him telling someone to give EVERYTHING they own to the poor. For us, it is required (as I've now stated numerous times) it is required we give 10 percent and a generous fas offering. I believe that the more we have, the more we should give but there is NO random, blanket number of income that magically becomes unrighteous.

[Jeff K.]

To blithley ignore giving and helping in the best way possible is the fastest way to squander the Lord's blessings in our lives, thus ignoring his parable for us to use our blessings wisely. In effect rejecting God's word in order to appease man.