Mormonism, the original prosperity gospel?

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

"If you do these things then you will prosper economically"

Besides natural disasters, one also has to deal with the corruption of others as well as the timing.  I have seen a number of people do just as you claim is needed, but end up economically worst off because they trusted people, they were powerless to stop corruption, they couldn't get make connections with the people who could make things happen, or above all else, in spite of being generous, smart, honest, hardworking people, they were rotten communicators.

Of course.  Which is why I made the conditional aside: "Barring accidents of one sort of another (earthquakes, hurricanes, disease, zombie outbreaks, and so on)." 

Another important emphasis is "productive activity".  If you work hard digging a gold mine in your back yard, and there is no gold there, then it won't matter how hard you work, you won't prosper at it.  And coming up with an innovative product, for example, but too early or too late for the market, is another example of a conditional.  The list of conditionals is bound to be large, and will vary according to circumstances, but this doesn't that the original propoundment is invalid.  And, by the way, I wasn't just looking at business activity (which is inherently risky), but especially at employment.  Most people prosper by working for other people.  If you get a degree in accounting and become a CPA you will have a good income from your service, whether you do it yourself or work for an accounting firm. 

But there's risk in everything, not just business.

By the way, why are you not using the quote function?  I might not have seen your response if I hadn't been trying to follow the thread closely.

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, pogi said:

Some of you may be familiar with prosperity theology made popular in the 1950's through healing revivals and televangelists.  Many of their ideas arise from the "New Thought" movement which began in the 19th century.  In learning about this theology, I couldn't help but see many parallels in Mormonism.  The first and most glaring parallel I found is in one of the central doctrines that it is God's will for his people to be happy. A list of notable comparisons:

1) Man are that they might have joy.

1) The atonement is interpreted to include the alleviation of not just spiritual but physical sickness.

2) The practice of faith healing.

3) A positive view of the spirit and body, rather than a negative view of the flesh.

4) Emphasis on charity and importance of giving.

5) The idea that God blesses the faithful with prosperity (this is a central theme in the BoM).

6) That true human selfhood is divine.

There are some obvious differences as well, but I did find that some of these ideas have been found in Mormonism long before they were made popular in prosperity gospels and before the "New Thought" movement.

It would be interesting to hear your perspectives on the idea of Mormonism as a type of prosperity gospel.  I think there is a real divide in Mormon interpretation on the idea of prosperity.  I know many personally who are very uncomfortable with the idea and view suffering rather than prosperity as a better indicator of faithfulness.  They view life as something to be endured and lean towards a more ascetic life.  Others view life as something to be enjoyed and lean towards a more abundant life.  What are your thoughts on the subject?  Does God have a preference for us?  Does Mormonism more closely align with modern prosperity theology or traditional Christian ascetic theology?  Or, does Mormonism offer a bridge and balance between suffering and joy, and prosperity and poverty?

Furthermore, our view is fully humanistic in the extreme- more so that the humanists even dare to speak

The idea that mankind can be turned into gods is the ultimate affirmation of what humanity could be.  You cannot get more "abundance" that to be a god.

We also have the ultimate materialism (spirit itself is material)

So at our best, we are the perfect theistic materialist humanists.

Don't tell anyone though- we might actually convert some people if they knew that-  and we are still too busy being weird to be accepted by the world.

I mean how can we hang on to our persecution complex if we actually tell people what we really believe?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

And by righteous behavior, I mean treating people fairly, being honest in your dealings, and working hard to promote your own welfare in a productive occupation or business.  If you do these things then you will prosper economically.  Barring accidents of one sort of another (earthquakes, hurricanes, disease, zombie outbreaks, and so on).

From what I have seen of life it doesn't matter if you are Mormon, Catholic, Atheist, or a Chicago Cubs fan, if you do righteously, prosperity will most likely follow.

I have seen the opposite too often to agree with this. History will also not bear it up. If you were born a Russian serf in the 1600s or a black slave in the pre-Civil War South or in hundreds of other situations even if you treat peoplefairly, are honest, and work hard your odds of economically prospering are almost nil.

The spoils of the supposed economic meritocracy of the American Dream and modern are a rare gift and even now is more an illusion then reality to many. Still better then most of human history and even most areas of the world at present but still not fair.

[Stargazer]

22 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I have seen the opposite too often to agree with this. History will also not bear it up. If you were born a Russian serf in the 1600s or a black slave in the pre-Civil War South or in hundreds of other situations even if you treat peoplefairly, are honest, and work hard your odds of economically prospering are almost nil.

The spoils of the supposed economic meritocracy of the American Dream and modern are a rare gift and even now is more an illusion then reality to many. Still better then most of human history and even most areas of the world at present but still not fair.

Yeah, if you're born a serf things suck already.  If you were born into oppressive conditions its clearly not going to help. 

Thanks for clarifying this for me.  I think I'll just go sit on my tush and kick passersby. 

On the other hand, if you were born a slave, and despite your disadvantages you treated everyone fairly and honestly, and did your best to perform all your work well, do you think you would be unrewarded?  Your fellow slaves would love you, your master might promote you to the Mansion, and heck, you might eventually be able to buy your freedom.  But if you just sat on your tush all day, all you'd garner would be lashes.  Note that I'm not praising slavery, but trying to get across the idea that those who use prosperity principles generally profit from them, even if their situations suck.  Unless Genghis Khan's hordes were coming for a visit.  Then you can kiss your tush goodbye.

If exercising the Principle of Prosperity (to give it a title) didn't work, who the heck would do it?  Yet, many people prosper simply because they do it.  If people planting seeds were consistently not rewarded by crops, would they still plant seeds?  Heck no.  Looking for and finding exceptions, and then expecting them to quantitatively overcome the rule is unwise.  But you go ahead and see where it gets you.  Maybe I'm spoiled by the fact that many people have used the principles I mentioned to build up a prosperous society here in the West, and it's all an illusion.  But allowing for a societal framework where there is rule of law and property rights are respected (including the right to own yourself), the prosperity principle is king.  Just look around you, The Nehor.  If all you can see is abject squalor and misery, perhaps you're not living in the same world I am living in.

 

[The Nehor]

28 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Yeah, if you're born a serf things suck already.  If you were born into oppressive conditions its clearly not going to help. 

Thanks for clarifying this for me.  I think I'll just go sit on my tush and kick passersby. 

On the other hand, if you were born a slave, and despite your disadvantages you treated everyone fairly and honestly, and did your best to perform all your work well, do you think you would be unrewarded?  Your fellow slaves would love you, your master might promote you to the Mansion, and heck, you might eventually be able to buy your freedom.  But if you just sat on your tush all day, all you'd garner would be lashes.  Note that I'm not praising slavery, but trying to get across the idea that those who use prosperity principles generally profit from them, even if their situations suck.  Unless Genghis Khan's hordes were coming for a visit.  Then you can kiss your tush goodbye.

If exercising the Principle of Prosperity (to give it a title) didn't work, who the heck would do it?  Yet, many people prosper simply because they do it.  If people planting seeds were consistently not rewarded by crops, would they still plant seeds?  Heck no.  Looking for and finding exceptions, and then expecting them to quantitatively overcome the rule is unwise.  But you go ahead and see where it gets you.  Maybe I'm spoiled by the fact that many people have used the principles I mentioned to build up a prosperous society here in the West, and it's all an illusion.  But allowing for a societal framework where there is rule of law and property rights are respected (including the right to own yourself), the prosperity principle is king.  Just look around you, The Nehor.  If all you can see is abject squalor and misery, perhaps you're not living in the same world I am living in.

 

I am not saying we should not try to improve ourselves. We should. It is just that economic results are not guaranteed nor are they necessarily indicative of goodness. People rise to wealth by hook and crook as well as by living good principles of economic fairness and work. Nor should anyone be discouraged if their honest efforts fail as if it means they just were not honest or good enough. It could have just been bad luck or even part of God's testing.

I also think you are romanticizing slavery a bit there. If you work hard you make the other slaves look lazy which does not make friends (and work slaves wisely worked the minimum they could get away with). The best way to get easier house service was to be unable to work in the field due to age or infirmity, not through being a star employee. As to buying freedom, that was not even an option for most though it did happen occasionally.

Edited March 15, 2017 by The Nehor

[Stargazer]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

I am not saying we should not try to improve ourselves. We should. It is just that economic results are not guaranteed nor are they necessarily indicative of goodness. People rise to wealth by hook and crook as well as by living good principles of economic fairness and work. Nor should be anyone be discouraged if their honest efforts fail.

I also think you are romanticizing slavery a bit there. If you work hard you make the other slaves look lazy which does not make friends (and work slaves wisely worked the minimum they could get away with). The best way to get easier house service was to be unable to work in the field due to age or infirmity, not through being a star employee. As to buying freedom, that was not even an option for most though it did happen occasionally.

The only guarantees are death and taxes. 

I am not romanticizing it.  I hate it and would not write positively about it at all.  Yet there were fair and kind slaveowners, and cases where slaves raised themselves by dint of diligent work to freedom.  And some who risked all by escaping and making good their escapes.  I'm just saying (as you did) that one should work to better one's situation, whatever that situation is.

As for how to avoid ticking off your fellow slaves, yes, that's an important tactic.  The same thing was done in the Soviet Union by workers.  One would work to fulfill the Norm, and marginally exceed it, but no more -- because if you consistently did more, they would just increase the norm.  In Viktor Suvorov's book "The Liberators", he describes how it was in a particular factory, where there was one machinist who was especially skilled at getting his Norm fulfilled in just two or three hours, and would spend the rest of the work day wandering around the factory floor, drinking tea, and kibbutzing with his fellow workers.  It went like this: "They pretend to pay us; we pretend to work."

[Calm]

SG, I only like to cite the part of the quote I respond to and my new iPad is finicky and won't allow me to use "select all" or other shortcuts in deleting, so long posts can take a few minutes to whittle down to a few lines.  So now I do old school because my newer tech makes editing harder, not easier.  Won't let me see Code either so .I can correct formatting.  Sticks in a period before a capital or puts names in all caps.  Very annoying, but it is tons faster and clearer to read.  Plus my old ipad can't read my mail anymore nor  can it mange decent games or videos.

[Gray]

10 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

1. Again to repeat once more blessings are not necessarily riches

2. As you yourself just noted it explicitly states they don't deserve to be poor and that all are beggars. i.e. that riches are not due to moral merit.

3. The whole thrust of the sermon by Benjamin is that Benjamin isn't rich and is the same as everyone else. If there were a prosperity gospel wouldn't Benjamin be...properous?

Blessings are connected to prosperity in verse 22.

I agree that the fact that poor people aren't seen as having been under some kind of divine curse doesn't logically fit well with the prosperity gospel elements, but I think that fits Joseph Smith's experience. He grew up very poor, and I think he would be unlikely to conclude that poverty is a sign of divine disfavor. Still, the constant running theme in the Book of Mormon is that God blesses the righteous with prosperity. Perhaps that faith is what got Joseph Smith out of bed in the morning. There are logical inconsistencies with how the prosperity gospel is taught, certainly, but it's still there.

Regarding King Benjamin, he seems to have been prosperous, but the ideal for wealth in the BOM is for it to be distributed equally. You see that among the Nephites after Jesus' visit. They're all very prosperous, and there are no poor among them because they redistribute their wealth. I wouldn't equate the prosperity in the BOM with opulence.

[Gray]

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The plain fact of the matter is this: righteous behavior yields positive results, regardless of what you believe in a theological sense. 

And by righteous behavior, I mean treating people fairly, being honest in your dealings, and working hard to promote your own welfare in a productive occupation or business.  If you do these things then you will prosper economically.  Barring accidents of one sort of another (earthquakes, hurricanes, disease, zombie outbreaks, and so on).

 

Superstitious nonsense, easily dispelled by getting to know the hard working, righteous poor.

[Gray]

9 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

 

Hello Gray... I don't agree with your absolute statement that if we obey God we will be granted material wealth... some of the most righteous in our ward struggle materially, but are blessed greatly and prosper in spiritual blessings, peaceful homes, good health, faithful children, etc.  Others prosper and are successful materially because their faith and obedience fosters positive attitudes, cheerful countenances, compassionate hearts, etc which helps them advance in their careers, daily lives, etc.  I guess what I'm trying to say is that "prospering in the land" does not necessarily mean material prosperity... Take me for example... I am not considered wealthy in any way one normally thinks of wealth, but I'm faithful and obedient, and I'm incredibly happy and blessed because in spite of being widowed for 19 years, the Lord has prospered me with inner peace and happiness, a lovely cottage by the sea (no mortgage) just a half-block to the ocean on the beautiful Oregon coast, a temple 2 hrs from me, books, music, my art, etc.  I'm able to be charitable.. have good friends...  I live on a pension and soc. sec., yet I am "rich" in spiritual blessings and comfortable in my life... that is my wealth... that is my prosperity.  And each night as I study my scriptures and say my evening prayers, I express my humble gratitude...

GG

The Book of Mormon teaches that material wealth is a blessing for righteousness. However, I agree that in real life the blessings for righteousness are actually spiritual, not material.

[stemelbow]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Furthermore, our view is fully humanistic in the extreme- more so that the humanists even dare to speak

The idea that mankind can be turned into gods is the ultimate affirmation of what humanity could be.  You cannot get more "abundance" that to be a god.

We also have the ultimate materialism (spirit itself is material)

So at our best, we are the perfect theistic materialist humanists.

Don't tell anyone though- we might actually convert some people if they knew that-  and we are still too busy being weird to be accepted by the world.

I mean how can we hang on to our persecution complex if we actually tell people what we really believe?

humanism as I understood it is not just that man has potential but that man reaches his potential through his own self-build up and effort.  That is not Mormonism though.  Mormonism posits that man's potential is only reached if man puts off himself, puts on a submissive self, and turns to God.  Only by doing as much will God magically lift man into godhood.  Man cannot become a God on his own. 

This line from Wikipedia seems to suggest the dichotomy between mormonsim and humanism:

Quote

Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and affirms their ability to improve their lives through the use of reason and ingenuity as opposed to submitting blindly to tradition and authority or sinking into cruelty and brutality.^[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

Mormonism as it turns out is all about submitting to tradition and authority at least as practiced these days  (I'll leave out the baggage that is "blindly" here).  I would suggest Joseph's version of Mormonsim in comparison to say, Oaks' of today, is much closer to humanism.  But it feels to me the Church preaches against that spirit of Joseph in many ways. 

Edited March 15, 2017 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Quoting from Wikipedia:  

• "On October 14, 2007, 60 Minutes ran a twelve-minute segment on Osteen, titled "Joel Osteen Answers his Critics", during which Reformed theologian Michael Horton told CBS News correspondent Byron Pitts that Osteen's message is heresy. Horton stated that the problem with Osteen's message is that it makes religion about us instead of about God."
• "When asked if he is a prosperity teacher, Osteen responded that if prosperity means God wants people to be blessed and healthy and have good relationships, then he considers himself a prosperity teacher, but if it is about money, he does not. He has specifically stated that he never preaches about money because of the reputation of televangelists."

Yes, Olstein lives in a outlandish size mansion and has a very high net worth, but he has also written over 13 books and sold millions of copies.  Compare him to Creflo Dollar (to quote Wikipedia again): 

• "Dollar is known for his controversial teachings regarding prosperity theology, or the gospel of wealth. He has long been criticized for living a lavish lifestyle; he owns two Rolls-Royces, a private jet, and real estate such as a million-dollar home in Atlanta, a $2.5 million home in Demarest, New Jersey, and a $2.5 million home in Manhattan, which he sold for $3.75 million in 2012."  "As of 2007, the congregation reported having around 30,000 members, and $69 million in revenue (gross cash collections) for 2006."

The difference in the two men is the lifestyle they have and how they got it.  Olstein earned the majority of this wealth through his book sales while Dollar got his wealth through the contributions of his church.  Do you see any difference or am I talking to a stone?

The article I cited did include Olsteen.  I did not link the article because it was 100% perfect information (just because it is in print does not mean it is accurate; I actually read to find supporting documentation).  Olsteen himself says he thinks it is unfair that critics will lump him in with the others, but he continues to go about his business and serving his congregation.  To clarify, I don't know him, don't listen to him, and never met him, but I do think he should not be included with the others such as Dollar.

Thanks.  That explanation sounds better.  I'm not sure I care if Olsteen or Dollar are bad in some way or not.  But there does seem to be some amount of prosperity teaching in Mormonism and in the Book of Mormon.  It's certainly not the extreme form, but it's there.  I hear it often enough to know that. 

[pogi]

12 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Money, no matter in what form it might be found, is inanimate and devoid of the power of thought, and for these reasons incapable of doing anything good or evil of its own accord. As an entity that is utterly powerless to act on its own, the potential good or evil the employment of money might accomplish will only be realized by the moral or immoral actions of men.

That is right, but my point is that our gospel does not teach that money and wealth are evil.  It teaches that money and wealth can indeed be a blessing from God to bless the lives of others.

Prosperity is not always about money, but it can be (and there is nothing wrong with that).  Prosperity can mean different things to different people depending on their circumstances.  To the Israelite's, prosperity meant being provided food where there was none.  For Nephi it meant being directed by the liahona, it meant being directed to feed his family in the wilderness when they were hungry, it meant being taught how to build a ship to cross the sea to the promised land, it meant arriving in the promised land.  These examples, while not extravagant, are examples of the Lord prospering his people.  Was Nephi free of persecution from his brothers and hardships in other ways?  No, but the Lord prospered him in ways that he would not have prospered otherwise.  Their outcomes could have been very different without the help of the Lord in prospering them.  Sometimes, the Lord does bless us more with riches that we might better serve others.  This is often seen in the Book of Mormon.  It is also seen in the Bible where the Lord blessed Abraham greatly with flocks, herds, silver, gold, menservants, maidservants, camels, and asses (Gen 24:35).  This is also seen with Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon, Jehoshaphat, and Hezekiah.

The promise is that the Lord will prosper us when we are obedient to his commandments.  If that is not a form of prosperity gospel, I don't know what is.  Men are that they might have joy!  Can anyone deny it?

[Storm Rider]

42 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Thanks.  That explanation sounds better.  I'm not sure I care if Olsteen or Dollar are bad in some way or not.  But there does seem to be some amount of prosperity teaching in Mormonism and in the Book of Mormon.  It's certainly not the extreme form, but it's there.  I hear it often enough to know that. 

I don't disagree that we hear it from some people - I tend to think of these as either misunderstanding or misspeaking by placing an incorrect emphasis on how God may or may not bless individuals.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

humanism as I understood it is not just that man has potential but that man reaches his potential through his own self-build up and effort.  That is not Mormonism though.  Mormonism posits that man's potential is only reached if man puts off himself, puts on a submissive self, and turns to God.  Only by doing as much will God magically lift man into godhood.  Man cannot become a God on his own. 

This line from Wikipedia seems to suggest the dichotomy between mormonsim and humanism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

Mormonism as it turns out is all about submitting to tradition and authority at least as practiced these days  (I'll leave out the baggage that is "blindly" here).  I would suggest Joseph's version of Mormonsim in comparison to say, Oaks' of today, is much closer to humanism.  But it feels to me the Church preaches against that spirit of Joseph in many ways. 

Good points, but I somewhat disagree, or at least see it differently- that it is by intelligence that God called together matter unorganized and indeed that is what we do as humans also.  The American frontier and the pioneers are perfect examples of that- taking wilderness and turning into a city- a perfectly humanized environment - for better or worse to the ecologists.  And then we have the ideal of "be ye therefore perfect" and the Mormon idea of personal effort in repentance on the road to perfection

Yet we understand that it is after all we can do, grace lifts us the rest of the way, and that happens a lot through service, which is also a humanist effort to lift other humans.

So service itself can be seen as humanism

As I see it that wikipedia quote in many ways mirrors Mormonism when God himself is seen as an Exalted Human.  Indeed that quote defines our idea of deity.

Think of this as a description of Heavenly Father

Quote

Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and affirms their ability to improve their lives through the use of reason and ingenuity as opposed to submitting blindly to tradition and authority or sinking into cruelty and brutality.^[

I would add to that testimony instead of blind obedience as an ideal attribute.  

Edited March 15, 2017 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Why is everyone always blasting my values and principles? It is hurtful.  

I meant it in a good way...

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Superstitious nonsense, easily dispelled by getting to know the hard working, righteous poor.

Who do you think I am?  Someone born with a silver spoon jutting from his lips?

You're suggesting that in today's society, if you're poor and hard working, you're bound to stay that way.  Well, geeze, I guess that means you're a Democrat.

Or did you think I meant they all became millionaires with a house on the hill?

By prosper, I do not mean become as rich as Bill Gates.  I was born into a lower middle class family, pretty darned normal.  My father looked kind of Mexican, because of his Northern California Indian heritage, and was subjected to some racial prejudice as a result.  He served in the US Marine Corps, worked most of his life for Douglas Aircraft Co., first as a riveter and later as an inspector, helping to build airplanes.  By the end of his life (he died young from a heart attack due to a congenital heart condition, at age 46) he owned a house in the suburbs, free and clear, that was worth twenty times what he paid for it, along with a number of other comforts and little luxuries.  All in all he was very comfortable and content, and were it not for his early death he most likely would have become even more so.  His wife, my stepmother, was able to live comfortably for the rest of her life without needing to work outside the home.  How did he accomplish this?  By doing precisely what I outlined earlier that you've labelled superstitious nonsense. 

My father's ancestors (and mine too of course) were all fairly normal specimens, too, and all of them were poor and hardworking at some point in their lives.  My grandfather died young (40) from the same heart problem my father had, but due to his work ethic, by the time he died he had also paid for his house (he built it, too).  In his youth he had served in the Navy for 6 years as a hospitalman, and he tried to re-enlist after Pearl Harbor, but they said he was too old.  So he quit his highly paid steamfitter job in 1941, to take a lower paying welding job at Todd Shipyards in Long Beach, California, helping construct Navy ships.  He died on the job, but his hard work and providential behavior permitted my grandmother to get by without great difficulty until she remarried.  One of my great great grandfathers immigrated from Germany, penniless, was almost immediately drafted into the Union Army and fought in the Civil War.  He settled in Nebraska, bought a farm, married and had six kids, eventually paid for the farm, and by the time he died was pretty well off.  One of my great grandfathers also immigrated from Germany, lost his family to an epidemic, but he followed the superstitious nonsense and concluded his life debt-free and quite well-off.

I could go on, but I am descended from a long line of men and women going back well over a hundred years in this country who followed the superstitious nonsense and had pretty much the same results by the end of their lives.  The only exception I can think of was my mother's father, who chose to reject the superstitious nonsense, became an alcoholic, and died as a hobo, riding the rails, and thus made his children's starts rather difficult -- but again, because of the superstitious nonsense, all of them ended their lives in far better condition than they began them in.

Everyone whom I have ever known who have followed the superstitious nonsense, have improved their lives thereby.  Some more than others, of course.  And every bloody one of them was hard working, righteous and poor, at least once in their lives.  You know some exceptions?  Sad, but they're exceptions, Gray.  They happen.  Doesn't prove that the superstitious nonsense is superstitious nonsense.

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Yet there were fair and kind slaveowners

Kind of an oxymoron unless by this you mean those who practiced manumission.

[Calm]

http://economy.money.cnn.com/2013/11/13/making-it-into-the-middle-class/

Quote

 

It's nice to think one can easily go from being dirt poor to filthy rich, but it doesn't usually work that way.

Of people born into lower income households, few will ever make it into the middle class, according to a recent study from Pew Charitable Trust. Only a tiny percentage rise into the highest income bracket.

Of those that did move into at least the middle class, they had these traits in common:

[table here with four categories:  college grads, two income family, white, were never unemployed]

The report noted a strong correlation between those able to move up the income ladder and family wealth -- having things like home equity, stocks, vehicles and other assets.

Median family wealth of those who made it to middle class was $94,586, while the median wealth of those stuck at the bottom was just $8,892.

While this might seem obvious -- of course people with a higher income will have more wealth -- the report said the two actually feed each other. The higher a family's wealth, the greater ability they have to invest in things like education or job training, which in turn boosts their income.

"Building savings is a tremendous tool for promoting upward mobility but it is largely ignored by policymakers," said Justin King, policy director of the Asset Building Program at the New America Foundation.

King said that while the government promotes wealth building for some -- largely through the mortgage tax deduction and other tax loopholes used mainly by the middle and upper class -- it actually discourages wealth building for the poor. Many government assistance programs take wealth into account when determining eligibility.

"They have to trade their long-term well-being for short-term assistance," he said.

The Pew data is from a study that has followed families since 1968. It uses 2009 numbers.

 

 

Edited March 15, 2017 by Calm

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

The Book of Mormon teaches that material wealth is a blessing for righteousness. However, I agree that in real life the blessings for righteousness are actually spiritual, not material.

No, it teaches it as a potential blessing. Alma the Elder's refugees were the most righteous remnant of the Nephite colonization attempt but their reward was initially captivity. In general terms though a righteous people do prosper. A Zion people are all wealthy together via sharing their wealth freely but we have not tried that lately.

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, it teaches it as a potential blessing. Alma the Elder's refugees were the most righteous remnant of the Nephite colonization attempt but their reward was initially captivity. In general terms though a righteous people do prosper. A Zion people are all wealthy together via sharing their wealth freely but we have not tried that lately.

It seems to be an inevitable blessing in the BOM, despite some trials of faith for some to begin with. I don't see how you can make any real claim that the righteous prosper materially more than the unrighteous, except by retroactively declaring the prosperous to have been righteous. 

Edited March 15, 2017 by Gray

[clarkgoble]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

It seems to be an inevitable blessing in the BOM, despite some trials of faith for some to begin with. I don't see how you can make any real claim that the righteous prosper materially more than the unrighteous, except by retroactively declaring the prosperous to have been righteous. 

At the community level not necessarily the individual level. That's a very significant difference.

[Calm]

Upward mobility is highly dependent on the local culture, India for example, likely has much lower upmobility for their lower castes than in our society that has the "American dream".  There is a stigma here attached to the poor, but not so much the 'past poor'.  However, upward mobility in the States is lower than many European countries, contrary to popular perception.

However, even here:

http://www.nccp.org/publications/pub_911.html

"The findings in this brief are consistent with a wide body of research documenting limited economic mobility in the United States and the significant risks associated with child poverty. Children who grow up in poverty are more likely to be poor as adults, while those who grow up in more affluent families are more likely to be affluent later in life. While even a few years in poverty can have a significant impact on children’s economic trajectories, the risks are particularly severe for the small number who experience many years of poverty. Finally, this study highlights the country’s persistent racial disparities. For African-American children, not only is poverty far more common than among whites, the experience of childhood poverty is associated with a far greater chance of being poor as an adult."

Edited March 15, 2017 by Calm

[Gray]

27 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Who do you think I am?  Someone born with a silver spoon jutting from his lips?

You're suggesting that in today's society, if you're poor and hard working, you're bound to stay that way.  Well, geeze, I guess that means you're a Democrat.

Or did you think I meant they all became millionaires with a house on the hill?

By prosper, I do not mean become as rich as Bill Gates.  I was born into a lower middle class family, pretty darned normal.  My father looked kind of Mexican, because of his Northern California Indian heritage, and was subjected to some racial prejudice as a result.  He served in the US Marine Corps, worked most of his life for Douglas Aircraft Co., first as a riveter and later as an inspector, helping to build airplanes.  By the end of his life (he died young from a heart attack due to a congenital heart condition, at age 46) he owned a house in the suburbs, free and clear, that was worth twenty times what he paid for it, along with a number of other comforts and little luxuries.  All in all he was very comfortable and content, and were it not for his early death he most likely would have become even more so.  His wife, my stepmother, was able to live comfortably for the rest of her life without needing to work outside the home.  How did he accomplish this?  By doing precisely what I outlined earlier that you've labelled superstitious nonsense. 

My father's ancestors (and mine too of course) were all fairly normal specimens, too, and all of them were poor and hardworking at some point in their lives.  My grandfather died young (40) from the same heart problem my father had, but due to his work ethic, by the time he died he had also paid for his house (he built it, too).  In his youth he had served in the Navy for 6 years as a hospitalman, and he tried to re-enlist after Pearl Harbor, but they said he was too old.  So he quit his highly paid steamfitter job in 1941, to take a lower paying welding job at Todd Shipyards in Long Beach, California, helping construct Navy ships.  He died on the job, but his hard work and providential behavior permitted my grandmother to get by without great difficulty until she remarried.  One of my great great grandfathers immigrated from Germany, penniless, was almost immediately drafted into the Union Army and fought in the Civil War.  He settled in Nebraska, bought a farm, married and had six kids, eventually paid for the farm, and by the time he died was pretty well off.  One of my great grandfathers also immigrated from Germany, lost his family to an epidemic, but he followed the superstitious nonsense and concluded his life debt-free and quite well-off.

I could go on, but I am descended from a long line of men and women going back well over a hundred years in this country who followed the superstitious nonsense and had pretty much the same results by the end of their lives.  The only exception I can think of was my mother's father, who chose to reject the superstitious nonsense, became an alcoholic, and died as a hobo, riding the rails, and thus made his children's starts rather difficult -- but again, because of the superstitious nonsense, all of them ended their lives in far better condition than they began them in.

Everyone whom I have ever known who have followed the superstitious nonsense, have improved their lives thereby.  Some more than others, of course.  And every bloody one of them was hard working, righteous and poor, at least once in their lives.  You know some exceptions?  Sad, but they're exceptions, Gray.  They happen.  Doesn't prove that the superstitious nonsense is superstitious nonsense.

It is superstitious nonsense, Stargazer. And it's the opposite of what Jesus taught. The rain falls equally on the righteous and unrighteous.

There are millions of people in the world with out adequate food, housing or clothing. Without access to gainful employment. If only they were more righteous, they'd have enough to eat.  

[Gray]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

At the community level not necessarily the individual level. That's a very significant difference.

Do you mean righteous communities are more prosperous?