By Virtue of Agency and Righteous Power

[Calm]

20 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

 

Thanks, we were out of the hospital in less than three days.  Now she's almost done with the home-treatment and it looks like she's adjusting to the weaning down.  But we had fun in the hospital, tried not to laugh too much beating each other in UNO and Connect Four.

It is rare that a good game of Uno can't drag my daughter out of her depression for a few hours, at least if she is playing with her brother and his wife.  They are cutthroats and that ups the enjoyment level apparently.  Playing with .Mom and .Dad isn't quite so thrilling.

[Calm]

15 hours ago, rongo said:

 

Another thing my wife and I were talking about this week is to what extent anxiety and depression may be a disease of the well-to-do (a luxury that the poor can't afford). I'm sure that this view makes some gasp in outrage, but if you think about it, this may be a factor in Utah's embarrassing per capita anti-depressant usage that isn't discussed --- alongside the usual "LDS don't self-medicate and are more apt to seek professional help." In many ways, Utah is a prosperous pocket that was largely immune to the high unemployment during the recession. 

None of this is to say that poverty should be sought out and coveted . . .  

 

Treatment for mental illness certainly is a privlege of the wealthy.

That doesn't mean there is less mental illness among the less rich.  Make less than $34,000 and the suicide rate goes up by 50%.

Though some proportion of that may be the feeling of deprivation from comparing yourself to those who have more as suicide rates go up for classes that are living among richer neighbors:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/suicide-rate-rich-neighborhoods_n_2102777.html

Reported mental illness amount the poor is 8.7% while among the rich, it is 1.2%:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/28/mental-health-coverage_n_7456106.html

Edited October 12, 2016 by Calm

[rongo]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Treatment for mental illness certainly is a privlege of the wealthy.

That doesn't mean there is less mental illness among the less rich.  Make less than $34,000 and the suicide rate goes up by 50%.

Though some proportion of that may be the feeling of deprivation from comparing yourself to those who have more as suicide rates go up for classes that are living among richer neighbors:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/suicide-rate-rich-neighborhoods_n_2102777.html

Reported mental illness amount the poor is 8.7% while among the rich, it is 1.2%:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/28/mental-health-coverage_n_7456106.html

This is all for western, 1st world countries. Places where running water, electricity, etc. are a given, no matter how poor you are. 

What I'm wondering is if one is further down on Malsow's hierarchy of needs, the presence of anxiety and depression decreases. It seems to me that not only the treatment, but also the presence of anxiety and depression is a luxury of the relatively wealthy.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

This is all for western, 1st world countries. Places where running water, electricity, etc. are a given, no matter how poor you are. 

What I'm wondering is if one is further down on Malsow's hierarchy of needs, the presence of anxiety and depression decreases. It seems to me that not only the treatment, but also the presence of anxiety and depression is a luxury of the relatively wealthy.

Some data that demonstrates both claims (only in Western countries and anxiety and depression is a luxury of the relative wealth) would be useful.  It has been awhile since I studied this, but I am pretty sure suicide and other forms of mental illness higher among the poor) is consistent worldwide.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

16 hours ago, Rain said:

Things have been extremely tight for us at times and quite comfortable at other times.  I've found you can have just as much or more pride when you don't have money as when you have it.  You can have just as many disractions either way,  but the distractions are different.  The love of money is a problem for both the poor and the rich.  Rich and poor families both vary on time spent together.

Agency is just as much there for the woman who washes her clothes by hand as it is for the woman who has a machine. Both choose to wash or not.  Both choose whether to have a good attitude about it or not.  The woman who uses the machine chooses what activities she will do while the machine is running. The woman who does it by hand chooses what she will think about as she washes the clothes.  

The number of possible opportunities may expand for the wealthy, but the amount of time and ability to do something does not.

True, I do think that doing what we can with what we have is at the essence of character, especially our intentions, humility and level of contrition to the knowledge we've gained.

About the underlined, I still think there's something to be said of the availability of resources, including time, and number of choices. While Christ taught that it is better to humble oneself rather than be compelled to do so, and that there is obviously a parallel between that and choosing to be righteous being better than being compelled to do the right "thing," God is still a merciful God and has fashioned life so that we generally learn line upon line. He loves us and is merciful.

I think perhaps a major difference between wealth and poverty is perhaps the frequency of life circumstances inviting us to sacrifice when we have less, or at the very least how being involuntarily deprived teaches us about our ability to be happy regardless of those conditions. I do think that those who enjoy wealth the most are those who've been deprived or who are able to voluntarily deprive themselves to seek higher goals and purposes.

In any case, what I want to challenge is the idea of fetishising and something akin to emasculation of the poor as automatically more good, NOT that I'm actually trying to say that they cannot be as good.

Perhaps having less has more of some opportunities and having more has more of other of a different nature. Intuitively, I would think that poverty may help us simplify life to its top priorities, while having more may be better at teaching us--if we want to learn, that is-- the intricacies of applying the gospel onto complexities extending beyong most peoples' experience.

I do apologize if I've made anyone feel attacked for the richness they've learned from sacrifice and deprivation, that isn't my intent. Perhaps my intent can be summarized by considering all the good a very, very poor person might imagine to do if they had an abundance of resources, to respect their desire to want to do good and working hard toward that end.

Just talking it through, maybeto myself more than anybody I guess! 

 

[Meadowchik]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

It is rare that a good game of Uno can't drag my daughter out of her depression for a few hours, at least if she is playing with her brother and his wife.  They are cutthroats and that ups the enjoyment level apparently.  Playing with .Mom and .Dad isn't quite so thrilling.

I'm sorry she is struggling with depression! May she and your whole family be lifted up even if just a bit today.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I think perhaps a major difference between wealth and poverty is perhaps the frequency of life circumstances inviting us to sacrifice when we have less, or at the very least how being involuntarily deprived teaches us about our ability to be happy regardless of those conditions. I do think that those who enjoy wealth the most are those who've been deprived or who are able to voluntarily deprive themselves to seek higher goals and purposes.

From a school teacher's standpoint, I think a big difference between wealth and poverty is cultural enrichment and experiences, not the wealth itself. In other words, it isn't money or means per se that creates a huge academic performance advantage for the wealthy, it's how the wealthy spend their leisure time compared to the poor. These enrichment items supplement learning in ways that can't be replicated or replaced by schools, programs, etc. There are exceptions (my family is one), and this is due to the quality of the home. Dr. Ben Carson would be another example. 

My own definition of wealth is how much leisure time one has to use as one pleases. I know many people with large incomes who work long hours for those long incomes, and spend every bit of their large incomes. I don't consider them to be wealthy, even though the IRS does. 

Quote

 

In any case, what I want to challenge is the idea of fetishising and something akin to emasculation of the poor as automatically more good, NOT that I'm actually trying to say that they cannot be as good.

Thanks for bringing that up. I have to look at my notes and get back (I have more in this vein), but I was worried that I had fed into "worship" or romanticizing of the noble poor. I think many people's poverty, pride, etc. can make it just as hard for them to be saved as it is for the wealthy to go through the eye of a needle.   A favorite saying of Brigham Young is that the poor is split into three categories: "the Lord's poor, the devil's poor, and poor devils." Some poor people are more miserly, covetous, entitled, and vindictive than most wealthy could ever be. There are, in my experience, very few of "the Lord's poor." 

Quote

 

I do apologize if I've made anyone feel attacked for the richness they've learned from sacrifice and deprivation, that isn't my intent. Perhaps my intent can be summarized by considering all the good a very, very poor person might imagine to do if they had an abundance of resources, to respect their desire to want to do good and working hard toward that end.

I think you've done a great job stating your thoughts, and discussing here!  

Edited October 12, 2016 by rongo

[Rain]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

True, I do think that doing what we can with what we have is at the essence of character, especially our intentions, humility and level of contrition to the knowledge we've gained.

About the underlined, I still think there's something to be said of the availability of resources, including time, and number of choices. While Christ taught that it is better to humble oneself rather than be compelled to do so, and that there is obviously a parallel between that and choosing to be righteous being better than being compelled to do the right "thing," God is still a merciful God and has fashioned life so that we generally learn line upon line. He loves us and is merciful.

I think perhaps a major difference between wealth and poverty is perhaps the frequency of life circumstances inviting us to sacrifice when we have less, or at the very least how being involuntarily deprived teaches us about our ability to be happy regardless of those conditions. I do think that those who enjoy wealth the most are those who've been deprived or who are able to voluntarily deprive themselves to seek higher goals and purposes.

In any case, what I want to challenge is the idea of fetishising and something akin to emasculation of the poor as automatically more good, NOT that I'm actually trying to say that they cannot be as good.

Perhaps having less has more of some opportunities and having more has more of other of a different nature. Intuitively, I would think that poverty may help us simplify life to its top priorities, while having more may be better at teaching us--if we want to learn, that is-- the intricacies of applying the gospel onto complexities extending beyong most peoples' experience.

I do apologize if I've made anyone feel attacked for the richness they've learned from sacrifice and deprivation, that isn't my intent. Perhaps my intent can be summarized by considering all the good a very, very poor person might imagine to do if they had an abundance of resources, to respect their desire to want to do good and working hard toward that end.

Just talking it through, maybeto myself more than anybody I guess! 

 

I get that and I agree. It has been interesting to me the last 3 homes we have lived in and the wards in which they are located.  

Our first ward had a lot struggling families. Over and over again I heard how it is better to be rich than poor and there often seemed to be a lot of pride in it. When we announced we were moving to different city we got comments about the Rain family moving up to a wealthy city. While there were multi million dollar homes a mile from me there were also condemned and almost condemned tiny houses. It was odd that they would judge our choice with home not seem. 

The next ward we lived in had retired condos for about 1/2 of it.  There were a lot of doctors, lawyers etc. Living there. We never heard disparaging marks against the poor and so many people helped others in less fortunate circumstances. 

Now we live in a ward where some of the people have been homeless or are constantly on the verge of being homeless.  We also live in a stake where some are very well off.  It seems to be a cross of the first 2 wards in both how much money people have and additudes towards people in the other end of the spectrum. 

So I really think it comes down to the heart.  Do the poor resent the rich or do they rejoice that someone else has it good?  Do the rich denigrate the poor or do they act in love towards them? 

[Glenn101]

On 10/11/2016 at 4:40 AM, Meadowchik said:

It is true that it is better for a person to choose to be humble than to be forced to be humble, but as you imply it is less likely.  But, the point is that it is more virtuous to choose to be humble when are not forced to do so by our circumstances than to learn the hard lesson through the school of hard knocks.

Oh, I agree with that. but a poor person is not necessarily humbled by the hard knocks. And to some, being poor is pretty much just a fact of life. I remember an article some time back by an author that had visited India for some reason I cannot remember. What he was amazed and I was struck by was that the people he had visited were living in abject poverty, yet were an incredibly happy people. I was not raised in abject poverty, but we often did not have lights because we could not afford a fifteen dollar light bill and walked to church because we had not an operation motor vehicle. That was just a fact of our life.

Glenn

[rongo]

7 hours ago, rongo said:

I have to look at my notes and get back  . . . I think many people's poverty, pride, etc. can make it just as hard for them to be saved as it is for the wealthy to go through the eye of a needle.   A favorite saying of Brigham Young is that the poor is split into three categories: "the Lord's poor, the devil's poor, and poor devils." Some poor people are more miserly, covetous, entitled, and vindictive than most wealthy could ever be. There are, in my experience, very few of "the Lord's poor." 

Here's one (in a talk about the Order of Enoch):

"Where are we going to find the greatest difficulty and obstruction with regard to this organization? In the purse of the rich? No, not by any means. I have got some brethren who are just as close, tight and penurious as I am myself, but I would rather take any moneyed man in this community, and undertake to manage him, than some men who are not worth a dollar in the world. Some of this class are too independent. " (Brigham Young, October 9, 1972. Journal of Discourses 15:226)

I have known people who demand church welfare, who live in squalor with no means of support, who don't own a car and live in the middle of nowhere, without a well or means to haul water, and who refuse to live in the city where they could have work within walking distance, city utilities, and be able to make it off of their government welfare. They refuse, and the attitude is, "You're not the boss of me! I want to live out here with no one bothering me." And they are furious when told that they won't receive any church welfare (and assistance to get them better situated is offered).  

"Manag[ing] . . . men who aren't worth a dollar in the world" definitely has challenges all its own.