Lottery Winnings?

[rongo]

You are exactly right. There is a lot of folklore on this topic but nothing in the handbooks.

Not only that, but the argument some have made that the Church's stance against gambling = de facto non-acceptance of tithing off of gambling winnings is faulty. Certainly, local leaders may in some areas have added their own interpretations and add this as a temple recommend question or something (now *that* is against policy). But, there is simply no Church policy prohibiting the acceptance of tithing on gambling winnings. The handbook would contain a brief, simple, direct statement to that effect.

Nobody is arguing that the Church does not oppose gambling in any form. Accepting tithing off of it (in the rare, hypothetical cases that exist) does not mean we are not opposing gambling. But, income is income, and increase is increase.

[Freedom]

Tithing is not about the church benefiting from anything. The benefit runs to the individual donating.

Exactly. It comes down to the principle of sacrifice and consecration.

[Freedom]

Is investing in stocks gambling?

Is owning a business which might fail gambling?

Is working for an employer who's business might fail gambling?

Every time you get out of bed, you take on a risk

There is a huge difference between gambling and taking a risk. I do not know of any time the church leaders have spoken out against investments or breathing. Investments are not gambles, it is the only way to grow your money. Some to gamble with their investments but investing is a sound and proven method to grow wealth.

[mfbukowski]

There is a huge difference between gambling and taking a risk. I do not know of any time the church leaders have spoken out against investments or breathing. Investments are not gambles, it is the only way to grow your money. Some to gamble with their investments but investing is a sound and proven method to grow wealth.

Poker is a skill. It is a calculated risk, just as any investment is, especially those who make their living day trading.

I see no difference. What do you think?

[Cobalt-70]

The current interpretation by the church defines 'increase' as 'income'. Unless you gamble for a living (a profession that would likely prevent you from holding a temple recommend and also likely keep you away from activity in the church) I do not see how lottery winnings could be interpreted as income. The instruction I have received in the past as a local leader was not to accept tithing on lottery winnings. This is not the purpose of tithing. One is free to donate to other categories, however. Of course, if you do not tell anybody where the money came from, nobody would know or care.

There's no temple recommend question that asks whether or not you make a living from gambling.

[Calm]

Sadly I am not able to tell this faith-promoting story in sacrament meeting.

My dad decided to teach my older brother a lesson when he was a young kid (about 6 or 7 probably since I don't remember it) when they were driving through Nevada by stopping and showing him how one just is throwing money away gambling, worthwhile investment for just a buck in his view. Unfortunately that slot machine was a winner that time, the investment return was $25ish IIRC and the wrong lesson learned...... Can't remember if Dad was willing to spend the money won on teaching the principle that gambling was a loser's game in the long run, if not the short run.

[guitarist]

I find it interesting the direction this topic has gone--I'd always heard from just about every bishop I'd ever had that you were not supposed to tithe lottery winnings (& hearing it from a 70 tends to make it quasi-authoritative, at least when he's directed my current stake in that manner), so I just assumed it as a given in this thread. So it is of particular surprise to hear bishops here chiming in in the opposite direction, even CFRing it.

Things such as investments do make the scenario even murkier than before, since those are in a loose sense, a form of "gambling". Although, investments do have good uses to them--they provide capital funds to a business, benefiting the business itself, and customers the business has. Things like lotteries are there for the sole benefit of taking from many, and giving to one, or a few. So I do see a difference there, even if it's small one.

Nehor, I like your story. You might get funny looks from the congregation, but I don't see why you couldn't tell it in Sacrament meeting--I've heard much worse from the stand.

My dad decided to teach my older brother a lesson when he was a young kid (about 6 or 7 probably since I don't remember it) when they were driving through Nevada by stopping and showing him how one just is throwing money away gambling, worthwhile investment for just a buck in his view. Unfortunately that slot machine was a winner that time, the investment return was $25ish IIRC and the wrong lesson learned...... Can't remember if Dad was willing to spend the money won on teaching the principle that gambling was a loser's game in the long run, if not the short run.

I do find the irony in this. Several times in life, my folks have taken vacations at, or going through Vegas. Every time, my dad's stressed the importance of not treating gambling seriously, but as a fun game. He'd give me (since my siblings weren't old enough at the time to gamble) $25. And he'd say, "This is your gambling money. If you win money, you're welcome to do whatever with it, including putting it towards more gambling, but if you lose the $25, you're done. Just enjoy the games themselves, and not worry about the money." For me, it worked. I just looked at the games as not much different than playing arcades, and ended up $40 ahead by the time I was done. No stressing about whether I would get that money back, just assumed it was gone like in an arcade machine. It makes playing them different.

[ERayR]

Poker is a skill. It is a calculated risk, just as any investment is, especially those who make their living day trading.

I see no difference. What do you think?

You are correct and one could also add commodities trading to the list.

[ERayR]

My dad decided to teach my older brother a lesson when he was a young kid (about 6 or 7 probably since I don't remember it) when they were driving through Nevada by stopping and showing him how one just is throwing money away gambling, worthwhile investment for just a buck in his view. Unfortunately that slot machine was a winner that time, the investment return was $25ish IIRC and the wrong lesson learned...... Can't remember if Dad was willing to spend the money won on teaching the principle that gambling was a loser's game in the long run, if not the short run.

It happens every time. Try to teach an object lesson and it backfires.

[mbh26]

Dating was certainly a case of having to play against the odds.

[frankenstein]

Is investing in stocks gambling?

Is owning a business which might fail gambling?

Is working for an employer who's business might fail gambling?

Every time you get out of bed, you take on a risk

A person who advocates such a stance tends to show that they must be commanded in all things.

The position of the Church on gambling is clear.

[Scott Lloyd]

Is investing in stocks gambling?

Is owning a business which might fail gambling?

Is working for an employer who's business might fail gambling?

Every time you get out of bed, you take on a risk

At its heart, gambling is behavior in which one person proposes to enrich himself by depriving another of his means. It is inherently mean-spirited and hostile. I know of nothing else that better fits the concept of covetousness. And it doesn't matter that both parties consent to the activity. Immorality is still immorality, even when consent is involved.

On the other hand, a prudent business agreement, in theory at least, has as its intent to benefit both or all parties to the transaction. The things you list, therefore, are fundamentally unlike gambling.

Added:

Playing slots or casinos is not fundamentally different in concept, because it involves the intent to enrich oneself off the misfortune of the losers who are in the establishment playing as well. The casino or gambling house is not one of the losers; it guarantees itself a profit; that's built into the structure of what it does.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

At its heart, gambling is behavior in which one person proposes to enrich himself by depriving another of his means. It is inherently mean-spirited and hostile. I know of nothing else that better fits the concept of covetousness. And it doesn't matter that both parties consent to the activity. Immorality is still immorality, even when consent is involved.

On the other hand, a prudent business agreement, in theory at least, has as its intent to benefit both or all parties to the transaction. The things you list, therefore, are fundamentally unlike gambling.

Added:

Playing slots or casinos is not fundamentally different in concept, because it involves the intent to enrich oneself off the misfortune of the losers who are in the establishment playing as well. The casino or gambling house is not one of the losers; it guarantees itself a profit; that's built into the structure of what it does.

I think you are right. That is the difference. That was the conclusion I drew with the poker player in fact. He was counting on being more skilled than those against whom he was playing.

I was just trying to stir things up a bit

[KevinG]

My mother asked me if she had to share her lottery winnings with me if she hit the "big one" since I don't play. I told her I'd find plenty of good uses for her filthy lucre if she ever had more than she knew what to do with.

[Stormin' Mormon]

It comes down to the principle of tithing. You are to pay on what you earn as an honest laborer.

I always thought that the principle of tithing was eloquently stated in D&C 19:26 when the Lord told Martin Harris not to covet his own property. Tithing allows us to show that we love the Lord more than we love our money. If I ever won the lottery, I would want to be able to pay tithing on it to show that, despite the new found wealth, I was still cognizant of the fact that all I have and every day I live is a gift from the Lord.

Why would the Church want to deny such an exercise in humility to anyone?

[Scott Lloyd]

I always thought that the principle of tithing was eloquently stated in D&C 19:26 when the Lord told Martin Harris not to covet his own property. Tithing allows us to show that we love the Lord more than we love our money. If I ever won the lottery, I would want to be able to pay tithing on it to show that, despite the new found wealth, I was still cognizant of the fact that all I have and every day I live is a gift from the Lord.

Why would the Church want to deny such an exercise in humility to anyone?

Because gambling winnings are ill-gotten gain, and it seems like mockery to call them a "gift from the Lord."

Edited March 22, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[sweetpotatoh]

My cousin won 80K in a lottery and paid tithing on it. I mentioned that I had heard that the church didn't want the money and he said to bad they got it.

[cinepro]

You are correct and one could also add commodities trading to the list.

The reason gambling is "bad" isn't because it involves risk or "chance". Gambling is bad because it doesn't involve any effort or productivity. If I take $10,000 and start a frozen banana stand, I am risking that money, but I am also providing goods and services to the community. If I give the $10,000 to someone else so they can start a frozen banana stand, my money is still at risk, but it is still "working."

But that's not true with gambling. While there is still risk involved, and the miniscule chance of actually making money, there is no benefit to society, or the person doing the gambling.

From a certain point of view, I don't really have a problem with "recreational" gambling. If someone has $1,000 to spend on a vacation, it doesn't make much difference to me if they decide to go to Cancun for a few days and sit on the beach or play golf, or go to Vegas for a few days and gamble it away. From that point of view, gambling is no worse than any other "time-wasting" endeavor (not taking into account health benefits to rest and relaxation etc.)

The problem with gambling isn't necessarily at the micro/individual level, it's at the macro/community level. Gambling as a business has to be one of the worse things that can happen to a community, and for some individuals it is absolutely devastating.

And I would agree that there are many other ways that people try to make money (especially easy money) that aren't considered "gambling", but are just as morally corrosive. The real estate bubble and crash was a result of such thinking on the part of hundreds of thousands of people, from home buyers who thought they could have easy money (or mansions), the real estate industry who thought they were printing easy money making the transactions, and Wall Street firms that thought they had found safe, reliable ways to make huge profits based on the crap mortgages. Someone trying to make quick easy money in the real estate market was no better than someone sitting at a slot machine, and in many ways they were worse.

Edited March 21, 2012 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

My cousin won 80K in a lottery and paid tithing on it. I mentioned that I had heard that the church didn't want the money and he said to bad they got it.

Apparently like some other Church members, he hasn't come to grips with the fact that gambling is wrong and that no amount of rationalization or denial will change that fact.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Someone trying to make quick easy money in the real estate market was no better than someone sitting at a slot machine, and in many ways they were worse.

If in the process, that person were defrauding others or otherwise trying to deprive them of their means without providing anything of value in exchange, I would agree. If not, I would still contend that the gambling is worse.

[Log]

Hi Scott,

Pardon my bluntness, but don't casinos typically publicize the odds and payouts of slot machines? Is there any dishonesty or fraud involved in running a slot machine? Does not the player, who freely chooses to play, make the determination between the potential value of the payout and the fee to play?

I hope I'm asking this clearly enough.

How then is investing in the stock market, or real estate market, or any other kind of money-making game, significantly different than *gambling*?

Edited March 21, 2012 by Log

[Scott Lloyd]

Hi Scott,

Pardon my bluntness, but don't casinos typically publicize the odds and payouts of slot machines? Is there any dishonesty or fraud involved in running a slot machine? Does not the player, who freely chooses to play, make the determination between the potential value of the payout and the fee to play?

I hope I'm asking this clearly enough.

I think I already addressed this in a previous post. Consent does not make wrong behavior any the less wrong. An analogy would be an illicit sexual relationship. The act is inherently immoral, and the fact that both parties consent to it does not make it any the less immoral and harmful.

How then is investing in the stock market, or real estate market, or any other kind of money-making game, significantly different than *gambling*?

I've already answered this as well. In any prudent business arrangement, at least in theory, there is a benefit to all the parties. It is, in today's parlance, "win-win."

Not so with gambling, which always has one or more losers, people who are deprived of their means without receiving anything of value in return. It is inherently mean-spirited, predatory -- and wrong.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Cobalt-70]

The reason gambling is "bad" isn't because it involves risk or "chance". Gambling is bad because it doesn't involve any effort or productivity. If I take $10,000 and start a frozen banana stand, I am risking that money, but I am also providing goods and services to the community. If I give the $10,000 to someone else so they can start a frozen banana stand, my money is still at risk, but it is still "working."

This concern about worker productivity and his or her contribution to the social welfare might have been an issue in the LDS Church's distant communist past. But I think the reason why gambling is considered bad today is its addictive potential.

[Scott Lloyd]

This concern about worker productivity and his or her contribution to the social welfare might have been an issue in the LDS Church's distant communist past. But I think the reason why gambling is considered bad today is its addictive potential.

I think there are a number of solid reasons why gambling is unacceptable, including each of the ones suggested by Cinepro, by you and by me.

The Church certainly has not abandoned its encouragement of its members to be productive contributors to society and community.

[Freedom]

Poker is a skill. It is a calculated risk, just as any investment is, especially those who make their living day trading.

I see no difference. What do you think?

There are professional poker players that make money, and there are professional prostitutes that make money. Most loose. There is very little risk in investing unless you are a gambler and act irresponsibly. Comparing gambling to the stock market is like comparing heroine to Tylenol 3. The stock market is not the as risky as you are implying. If it was, there would be no pensions, no public companies, no bond market, no real estate. Historically, equity investments have always gone up. Historically, gamblers loose their money and end up with ruined lives.