Lottery Winnings?

[Cobalt-70]

Not many know the difference between "Marxian" and "Marxist". Good for you. As a good former commie, I am up on this stuff.

I took an honors Book of Mormon class at BYU, and the professor asked us to write an essay on Marxian class struggle issues in the Book of Mormon. (This was after one of my other BYU professors was essentially promoting the Adam-God doctrine. As you can probably tell, this was back when BYU professors had a bit more academic freedom.)

[mnn727]

I don't live in Lost Wages, but my understanding is that you can be an accountant/Cook/Hotel staff in a casino with no problem. But if you actually work on the casino floor as say, a pit boss, obtaining a TR is going to be a problem.

My former HT companion was a dealer in Vegas for 5 years and always had a TR during his time there, in fact he was married in the Temple in Vegas while he lived there.

[mnn727]

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.

Everyone is at different spiritual levels.

[Sophocles]

That the church will not accept tithes on gambling winnings is a beloved and persistant myth. I have no doubt that there are bishops and stake presidents who believe to their core that this is an official policy of the church, but it is not. It is nowhere to be found in any church handbook.

However, I have met many members who prefer to believe what they have been told by their leaders for generations on end over what is actually in the handbook, and I believe this is one of those things.

(One of my favorite stubborn beliefs regarding policy is that, during an ordinance such as confirmation or priesthood ordination, the person giving voice to the ordinance places both hands on the recipient's head, while everyone else in the circle places only one. The temple is fertile ground for such beliefs, as they are usually passed on by word of mouth from temple leadership (especially matrons, it seems) to new initiates, and there is no accessible handbook or other written source to verify. But I digress...)

The first clue that this policy against accepting tithing on gambling winnings is hogwash is that there is no mechanism for enforcement. At no point in the normal process of donating to the church is a member asked how the tithed income was earned, nor are they given any real chance to volunteer that information. Furthermore, if a member were to confess to their bishop voluntarily, there is no way to report to the church that $X amount of a recent tithe payment represents gambling gains, and should be returned. Even if there were, the church would never honor such a request. What would stop endless claims from apostates and others who had changed their minds about past donations?

The second clue is that tithing is clearly accepted on all manner of other income that stems from activities the church opposes. All the tithing paid by Bill Marriott from the sale of pornography in his hotels is perhaps the most high profile example. But there are hundreds of others. The church's own businesses can be found to transact in goods and services the church opposes. Or do you suppose that it won't be possible to buy a two-piece bathing suit at City Creek—let alone alcohol?

[Brian 2.0]

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 really like this. It's the best explanation I've heard against gambling (poker specifically). I want to try and poke holes in it, but understand I'm not doing so antagonistically.

It is inherently mean-spirited and hostile.

I agree with this to a point. Both parties have agreed to this action. Boxing or UFC, for example, is hostile, and some would argue "mean-spirited". But it doesn't have to be mean-spirited. Mean-spirited is up to the individual. You can be mean-spirited in trying to win a game of Ticket to Ride (look it up and buy it if you don't know what it is, it's great), but that doesn't mean the game is to blame. You can instead just be playing the rules of the game and want to win while not being mean-spirited. Poker can go the same way. I can really want to win the other person's money, and they could want to win mine, but I think we can be non-mean-spirited about it. Mean-spirited is a personal choice not inherent or necessary within the game. Hostile is inherent in the game, but there are plenty of sports where hostility is an agreed upon part of the game.

I know of nothing else that better fits the concept of covetousness.

Boxing again comes to mind. The champion has his title belt, and the challenger wants it. They fight and the winner gets the title belt that they both want. Depending on how you define covet, most often times it's included with desiring something "without due regard for the rights of others". I think in boxing or the game of poker, the players understand the rules of the game, and if they are not cheating, they have regard for the rights of others. They may want each others money, but they agree to the rules, and respect the other player's rights during the game.

Immorality is immorality, even when consent is involved.

This is an interesting quote that can apply to a lot of different scenarios, and I think there are a lot of people that would not agree to this, basically asking, "Why is it immoral? Both parties agree to the rules of the game?" You could point out the harmful effects of the the act, but one would agrue back that "yes those exist, but they have been consented to by willing adults." Boxing has harmful effects, but since it's agreed upon, it's not immoral when the one fighter punches the other in the face. The answer always seems to come back to faith that God says it's immoral so that's why it is. Basically, this is not an assumption that can be universally agreed upon.

[Brian 2.0]

Are there any LDS folks around here that don't see a game of poker for money as "gambling"?

I didn't see poker for money as "gambling", so I played. But I did see Pres. Hinkley's comments in Priesthood session about poker as being about poker, so I stopped.

But now I play again.

I just really like it.

[Scott Lloyd]

That's why I used question marks. It's sorta of like gambling. Nephi and his brothers were potentially betting with their lives. Of course, casting lots to divine the will of God raises a different issue, too, because it is an occult practice (See Bible Dictionary--Sorcery). Not that that's a bad thing, with all of our seer stones, divining rods, Urim & Thummim, etc.

The frequent comment is that God deals with mortals on their own intellectual or cultural level.

But that's a topic for a separate thread.

[Scott Lloyd]

I didn't see poker for money as "gambling", so I played. But I did see Pres. Hinkley's comments in Priesthood session about poker as being about poker, so I stopped.

But now I play again.

I just really like it.

For your and others' benefit, here's a refresher on that general conference sermon from President Hinckley.

And here's a pertinent passage:

If you have never been involved in poker games or other forms of gambling, don’t start. If you are involved, then quit now while you can do so.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I really like this. It's the best explanation I've heard against gambling (poker specifically). I want to try and poke holes in it, but understand I'm not doing so antagonistically.

I agree with this to a point. Both parties have agreed to this action. Boxing or UFC, for example, is hostile, and some would argue "mean-spirited". But it doesn't have to be mean-spirited. Mean-spirited is up to the individual. You can be mean-spirited in trying to win a game of Ticket to Ride (look it up and buy it if you don't know what it is, it's great), but that doesn't mean the game is to blame. You can instead just be playing the rules of the game and want to win while not being mean-spirited. Poker can go the same way. I can really want to win the other person's money, and they could want to win mine, but I think we can be non-mean-spirited about it. Mean-spirited is a personal choice not inherent or necessary within the game. Hostile is inherent in the game, but there are plenty of sports where hostility is an agreed upon part of the game.

Boxing again comes to mind. The champion has his title belt, and the challenger wants it. They fight and the winner gets the title belt that they both want. Depending on how you define covet, most often times it's included with desiring something "without due regard for the rights of others". I think in boxing or the game of poker, the players understand the rules of the game, and if they are not cheating, they have regard for the rights of others. They may want each others money, but they agree to the rules, and respect the other player's rights during the game.

Boxing and other sports don't have as their inherent object to deprive another of his money without providing anything of value in return -- that is unless wagering is superimposed upon them as it is in horse racing.

In a subsequent iteration of my argument I used the word predatory in place of hostile. That better articulates my meaning. While wagering may not seem outwardly hostile, it is predatory by nature. Even governments that sponsor lotteries unavoidably prey upon a portion of the citizenry, those who are foolish or addicted; they cannot avoid doing so. That is why the Church opposes government-sponsored lotteries.

This is an interesting quote that can apply to a lot of different scenarios, and I think there are a lot of people that would not agree to this, basically asking, "Why is it immoral? Both parties agree to the rules of the game?" You could point out the harmful effects of the the act, but one would agrue back that "yes those exist, but they have been consented to by willing adults." Boxing has harmful effects, but since it's agreed upon, it's not immoral when the one fighter punches the other in the face. The answer always seems to come back to faith that God says it's immoral so that's why it is. Basically, this is not an assumption that can be universally agreed upon.

i acknowledge that some people are not apt to consider gambling -- or illicit sex, for that matter -- to be immoral. But I was under the impression the context of our discussion here is the values of believing Latter-day Saints.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

Personally I find any sport that requires significant protection to avoid getting hurt by another player who is intentionally trying to attack you and would hurt you if you weren't protected as problematic considering the idea we are supposed to regard our bodies as temples and not forts. Even worse sports that the winner is the one that causes the most harm.

However, I am perfectly open to the idea that my belief is culturally defined and I could be wrong and there really might be something socially redeeming about sports like boxing and football that can render their players senile through repeated trauma to the brain, etc.

Edited March 24, 2012 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

Personally I find any sport that requires significant protection to avoid getting hurt by another player who is intentionally trying to attack you and would hurt you if you weren't protected as problematic considering the idea we are supposed to regard our bodies as temples and not forts. Even worse sports that the winner is the one that causes the most harm.

However, I am perfectly open to the idea that my belief is culturally defined and I could be wrong and there really might be something socially redeeming about sports like boxing and football that can render their players senile through repeated trauma to the brain, etc.

I might have said earlier that I'm uncomfortable with any contest that has as its object to beat one's opponent senseless.

However, I'm not inclined to argue that position just now, and particularly not on this thread.

[Log]

Scott, inasmuch as any business activity seems to proceed with the intent, on both sides, of getting as much as possible while giving as little as possible, I find it difficult to agree with you on the intrinsic problem with gambling.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, inasmuch as any business activity seems to proceed with the intent, on both sides, of getting as much as possible while giving as little as possible, I find it difficult to agree with you on the intrinsic problem with gambling.

I find your conception of "any business activity" to be extremely misguided and cynical. Any prudent and honest business deal has as its object to benefit both parties or all parties to the transaction. It's the proverbial "win-win" scenario. While Smith might be deriving greater benefit from the deal than Jones, that shouldn't be of great concern to Jones so long as Jones is getting the benefit he seeks, a benefit he otherwise might not have, and the cost or investment seems reasonable and affordable.

And unlike gambling, Jones benefitting from the deal is not dependent upon Smith being the loser.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

If a business does not offer a "win-win" it will not survive. That means fair value for the consumer and reasonable profit for those who put their capital or effort at risk.

I have been in some highly competitive business in my time- stockbrokerage, the mortgage business, real estate, insurance, and it applies to each one. In each of these businesses I have heard even the most competitive business people use the same slogan- "Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered".

That translates to "It's ok to make a fair profit, but leave something for the other guy or you will be out of business".

Edited March 24, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

any business activity seems to proceed with the intent, on both sides, of getting as much as possible while giving as little as possible

I disagree with this very much. Not only personal experience (customers will keep coming back when they feel they are getting more than their money's worth out of customer service for example), but my husband is a business prof who specializes in entrepreneurship and I have never heard him list that as one of the fundamental rules of good business.

Edited March 24, 2012 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

If a business does not offer a "win-win" it will not survive. That means fair value for the consumer and reasonable profit for those who put their capital or effort at risk.

I have been in some highly competitive business in my time- stockbrokerage, the mortgage business, real estate, insurance, and it applies to each one. In each of these businesses I have heard even the most competitive business people use the same slogan- "Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered".

That translates to "It's ok to make a fair profit, but leave something for the other guy or you will be out of business".

I never got an MBA, but I find this to be Common Sense 101.

[mfbukowski]

I never got an MBA, but I find this to be Common Sense 101.

Yes, me too!

[Scott Lloyd]

I disagree with this very much. Not only personal experience (customers will keep coming back when they feel they are getting more than their money's worth out of customer service for example), but my husband is a business prof who specializes in entrepreneurship and I have never heard him list that as one of the fundamental rules of good business.

This works in both directions. When our family was delivering newspapers, the circulation company (in this case playing the role of consumer) kept cutting our pay and increasing its demands. Ultimately, we decided the return was not worth our effort to produce the service, so we terminated our business arrangement with the company. It ceased to be win-win, so it failed.

[Log]

You may label it cynical, but, alas, it is the way of the world. Maximizing profit is the name of the game, folks.

Strange - am I the only one who has read Approaching Zion?

Also, Scott, one last hard question - though you may not see it that way - what's the significant difference between slots and arcade games?

Edited March 24, 2012 by Log

[Stargazer]

As I recall, the wording before was such that one wasn't explicitly told that gambling winnings were not accepted, but the meeting I attended made mention that some of the changes specifically prohibited taking gambling winnings. At least, that's what I remember. But that was 2 years ago, so I might be getting a detail or two wrong. But I do know that the 70 that was speaking to us about it (was the same one that headed up the rewrite), said that bishops were not to accept tithing on gambling/lottery. Over time, I may have translated that in my head to mean that it was in the CHI.

Yeah, but even bishops recognize when your tithing amounts have jumped significantly from their normal levels, or upwards of 100 fold if you take the lump sum option.

Oh, come on. If you donate that lottery-won tithing anonymously, then they will never know. Of course, you'd not be able to claim it as a charitable donation, since there'd be no receipt with your name on it, but I am reminded that true charity does not care if it's tax deductible.

[Stargazer]

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.

One of my daughters, Angela, is a gambling worker. A number of years ago she was working the evening shift at the local Indian casino, working a blackjack table, when a woman came in, "rented" her table (meaning, she paid to have exclusive use of it), and proceeded over the next two or three hours to lose $20,000. Angela was quite frankly appalled, even though the woman tipped her generously. The lady ran out her money, cheerfully paid my daughter her tip, and left, apparently without a bit of regret.

I've proven to myself that I would be a good blackjack player, even without being a card-counter. In play games, I consistently win large over many hands. I just play conservatively, win small bets, and eventually dominate the table. But I've never played cards for real money, and I don't intend to ever do so, regardless of whether it would be gambling in reality. Well, once in awhile I've toyed with the idea. But never succumbed. The vision of that 20 Grand is a good lesson, not to get started.

[Stargazer]

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

Statistically, starting a new business is a definite gamble. And the stats are against success. After 5 years, 1 out of 5 new businesses will fail. Yet the Church does not discourage entrepreneurship.

It isn't the risk, per se, it is the desire to get something for nothing, and at the expense of others, that makes gambling a less than moral activity.

[Stargazer]

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.

The position of the Church on same sex marriage is also clear, yet in questions touching that subject you argue as if you oppose the Church's stance. It is not that I wish to argue with you about SSM, frankenstein, but I am bringing this up only because I wonder: why the selectivity on what you agree or disagree on? No offense intended in the question; just curious about an apparent inconsistency.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

I didn't see poker for money as "gambling", so I played. But I did see Pres. Hinkley's comments in Priesthood session about poker as being about poker, so I stopped.

But now I play again.

I just really like it.

Yuck. Blackjack is better than poker any day.

Maybe BJ takes less skill, but to me at least, it is more fun.

[Log]

I think SG has something when he speaks of "the desire to get something for nothing." Originally I was trying to think up a counter-example by appealing to the gifts of God, but I realized that the gifts of God are given on the one hand in proportion to the heed and diligence one pays Him, and on the other hand according to his good will and pleasure for the benefit of mankind.

Lady Luck generally blesses the biggest rascals.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Log