Agency and Wealth

[Meadowchik]

I wrote this a few years ago and still agree with it:

This morning I came across a notion that the poor have a better chance at learning wisdom and love because of their economic and social position.

I would like to respond to that idea and welcome your thoughts:

As much as the idea of the noble, happy poor is appealing to me and as much as I hope for the happiness of the vast majority of the world's population living in relative poverty, I think the idea that having no social or material capital helps us misses the fundamentals.

On the contrary, it is agency that opportunes us to choose wisdom and love, and in many cases poverty has a strong inverse relationship with agency.

Think about the majority of impoverished globally, who wash their own clothes by hand: what happens to the mother who can use a machine? She has more time, her family has more time. Maybe she can read and then change her world with what she reads.

Before she has a machine she has less choice and after she has a washing machine she has more choices. She now has to trade off less of material advantages and necessities if she chooses to spend time reading, to herself or anyone else.

Thus material advantages allow a person the chance to make more decisions, to exercise power in more ways, for good or bad. And the fruitful exercise of agency produced more opportunities for fruit-bearing agency.

In other words, without agency, the righteous exercise of power--or in other words, virtue--is impossible.

I believe that Christ would expect us to love "the least" because, in part, He would want all of us to experience opportunities of power and thus develop virtuous personal qualities grown from righteous exercise of power, virtues by virtue of virtue.

Edited October 1, 2019 by Meadowchik

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Think about the majority of impoverished globally, who wash their own clothes by hand: what happens to the mother who can use a machine? She has more time, her family has more time. Maybe she can read and then change her world with what she reads.

This depends on whether or not along with the machine comes more clothes and other things that need to be washed, ironed, folded, stored somewhere, repeat forever as well as the labor required to pay for it all.

There is a level of struggle for basic survival that once no longer needed to engage in as well as access to new ideas through education and exposure to a diverse community that can increase agency imo, but I think it is very easy to get locked into habits that come with wealth and greater social opportunities that end up removing agency.

Looks like plumbing may have the greatest impact:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090312150735.htm

Quote

In 1890, 25 percent of American households had running water and eight percent had electricity. In 1950, 83 percent had running water and 94% had electricity. According to Cardia, in 1900, a woman spent 58 hours per week on household chores. In 1975, it was 18 hours.

So the question is what is done with the extra 40 hours.  If it is just a different type of labor, is it all that freeing?

Edited October 1, 2019 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

This depends on whether or not along with the machine comes more clothes and other things that need to be washed, ironed, folded, stored somewhere, repeat forever as well as the labor required to pay for it all.

There is a level of struggle for basic survival that once no longer needed to engage in as well as access to new ideas through education and exposure to a diverse community that can increase agency imo, but I think it is very easy to get locked into habits that come with wealth and greater social opportunities that end up removing agency.

Looks like plumbing may have the greatest impact:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090312150735.htm

So the question is what is done with the extra 40 hours.  If it is just a different type of labor, is it all that freeing?

Yes, there are some estimates that some households have as much laundry work as they did before machines! But I would say that such work is more discretionary.

Hans Rosling was a statistician who inspired my washing machine example. He uses the washing machine as an economic marker, where motor vehicles and airplane travel are higher economic markers.

The salient point to me is that I can do much more work in less time, and also have more mobility, thanks to machines including kitchen appliances and airplanes. Our family uses them all to function regularly.

Plumbing is of course another vital technology, as are vaccines, fertilizer, and the internet, etc... They all create massive opportunities that people would otherwise not have.

Edited October 1, 2019 by Meadowchik

[Amulek]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

This morning I came across a notion that the poor have a better chance at learning wisdom and love because of their economic and social position.

I think it greatly depends on how one defines "the poor."

If you're talking about those living in abject poverty, who are struggling just to stay alive - then I think you have a point. It's difficult for these people to focus on the spiritual when their most basic temporal needs aren't being met. I'm reminded of the story shared in Conference fairly recently where the poor woman asked the missionary if what he was offering could buy her any bread. 

 

[Stargazer]

This leads me to the thought: where much is given, much is expected.  Those who find themselves in wealthier circumstances have a certain responsibility to help others in lesser circumstances.

[smac97]

10 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I wrote this a few years ago and still agree with it:

This morning I came across a notion that the poor have a better chance at learning wisdom and love because of their economic and social position.

"Better chance" as compared to whom?

And could you provide the source for this "notion?"

Also, "the poor" is a very relative term.  See, e.g.,

Here:

Quote

JULY 9, 2015
How Americans compare with the global middle class
BY RAKESH KOCHHAR

By some key measures, the typical American household has slipped behind economically since the beginning of the 21st century.

In 2013, the median income of U.S. households was $51,939, down substantially from $55,562 in 2001 (figures in 2013 dollars). In addition to two recessions – in 2001 and from 2007 to 2009 – longer-run trends such as globalization, the decline of unions, technological change and the rising cost of benefits such as health care are factors that limit prospects for many Americans.

But how does the well-being of the American family compare with the well-being of people in other countries?

The U.S. still fares very well on that score. On a global scale, the vast majority of Americans are either upper-middle income or high income. And many Americans who are classified as “poor” by the U.S. government would be middle income globally, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis.

The analysis includes 111 countries, which account for 88% of the global population. We divided people into five income groups: People who are poor (living on $2 or less daily), low income ($2.01-10), middle income ($10.01-20), upper-middle income ($20.01-50) and high income (more than $50). The global middle-income range translates to an annual income of $14,600 to $29,200 for a family of four.

The U.S. stands head and shoulders above the rest of the world. More than half (56%) of Americans were high income by the global standard, living on more than $50 per day in 2011, the latest year that could be analyzed with the available data. Another 32% were upper-middle income. In other words, almost nine-in-ten Americans had a standard of living that was above the global middle-income standard. Only 7% of people in the U.S. were middle income, 3% were low income and 2% were poor.

Compare that with the rest of the world, where 13% of people globally could be considered middle income in 2011. Most people in the world were either low income (56%) or poor (15%), and relatively few were upper-middle income (9%) or high income (7%).

This is not to say that the U.S., along with other advanced economies, does not struggle with issues of income inequality and poverty. But given the much higher standard of living in the U.S., what is considered poor here is a level of income still not available to most people globally.

And here:

Quote

The Poorest 20% of Americans Are Richer on Average Than Most European Nations
The privilege of living in the US affords poor people more material resources than the averages for most of the world’s richest nations.
Friday, August 30, 2019

A groundbreaking study by Just Facts has discovered that after accounting for all income, charity, and non-cash welfare benefits like subsidized housing and food stamps, the poorest 20 percent of Americans consume more goods and services than the national averages for all people in most affluent countries. This includes the majority of countries in the prestigious Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), including its European members. In other words, if the US “poor” were a nation, it would be one of the world’s richest.

Americans have a per capita income of $62,606.  Brits have a per capita income of $46,781.

A few months ago my parents returned from a mission in Zimbabwe (per capita income: $1,424). 

My sister and her husband (an MD) recently moved to Vanuatu (per capita income: $2,850).

My brother spent many years living in Samoa (per capita income: $5,962).

Quote

I would like to respond to that idea and welcome your thoughts:

As much as the idea of the noble, happy poor is appealing to me and as much as I hope for the happiness of the vast majority of the world's population living in relative poverty, I think the idea that having no social or material capital helps us misses the fundamentals.

What "fundamentals" are you referencing here?

Also, what are your thoughts about the Church's self-reliance courses, which are designed to help people improve their economic circumstances?

Quote

On the contrary, it is agency that opportunes us to choose wisdom and love, and in many cases poverty has a strong inverse relationship with agency.

To an extent, yes.  But then, there can also be an inverse relationship between wealth and religious observance.  See, e.g., this graph:

America aside, the trend is that more money tends to lessen religiosity (to the extent that daily prayer is indicative of religiosity).

Quote

Think about the majority of impoverished globally, who wash their own clothes by hand: what happens to the mother who can use a machine? She has more time, her family has more time. Maybe she can read and then change her world with what she reads.

Good points.  Again, this is why I appreciate the Church's Self-Reliance courses.

Quote

Before she has a machine she has less choice and after she has a washing machine she has more choices. She now has to trade off less of material advantages and necessities if she chooses to spend time reading, to herself or anyone else.

Thus material advantages allow a person the chance to make more decisions, to exercise power in more ways, for good or bad. And the fruitful exercise of agency produced more opportunities for fruit-bearing agency.

In other words, without agency, the righteous exercise of power--or in other words, virtue--is impossible.

I think poverty can limit agency in some ways.  But then, so can wealth.  Consider these various quotes from Brigham Young:

Quote

• “The worst fear that I have about this people is that they will get rich in this country, forget God and his people, wax fat, and kick themselves out of the Church and go to hell. This people will stand mobbing, robbing, poverty and all manner of persecution, and be true. My greater fear for them is that they cannot stand wealth; and yet they have to be tried with riches, for they will become the richest people on this earth.” (quoted in Preston Nibley, Brigham Young: The Man and His Work [1936], 128).
• "We cannot trust to the certainty of mortal possessions; they are transitory, and a dependence upon them will plunge into hopeless disappointment all those who trust in them (DBY, 306).
• "How the Devil will play with a man who so worships gain! (DBY, 306).
• "I am more afraid of covetousness in our Elders than I am of the hordes of hell." (DBY, 306).
• "Those who are covetous and greedy, anxious to grasp the whole world, are all the time uneasy, and are constantly laying their plans and contriving how to obtain this, that, and the other." (DBY, 306).
• "Men are greedy for the vain things of this world. In their hearts they are covetous. It is true that the things of this world are designed to make us comfortable, and they make some people as happy as they can be here; but riches can never make the Latter-day Saints happy. Riches of themselves cannot produce permanent happiness; only the Spirit that comes from above can do that." (DBY, 306).
• "The Latter-day Saints who turn their attention to money-making soon become cold in their feelings toward the ordinances of the house of God. They neglect their prayers, become unwilling to pay any donations; the law of tithing gets too great a task for them; and they finally forsake their God, and the providences of heaven seem to be shut from them—all in consequence of this lust after the things of this world, which will certainly perish in handling, and in their use they will fade away and go from us." (DBY, 315).
• "What are riches for? For blessings, to do good. Then let us dispense that which the Lord gives us to the best possible use for the building up of his Kingdom, for the promotion of the truth on the earth, that we may see and enjoy the blessings of the Zion of God here upon this earth." (DBY, 307).
• "If, by industrious habits and honorable dealings, you obtain thousands or millions, little or much, it is your duty to use all that is put in your possession, as judiciously as you have knowledge, to build up the Kingdom of God on the earth." (DBY, 313–14).
• "If we possessed hundreds of millions of coin and devoted that means to building up the Kingdom of God and doing good to his creatures, with an eye single to his glory, we would be as much blessed and as much entitled to salvation as the poor beggar that begs from door to door; the faithful rich man is as much entitled to the revelations of Jesus Christ as is the faithful poor man." (DBY, 314).
• "We must watch and pray, and look well to our walk and conversation, and live near to our God, that the love of this world may not choke the precious seed of truth, and feel ready, if necessary, to offer up all things, even life itself, for the Kingdom of Heaven’s sake." (DBY, 314).
• "Look out, ye men of Israel, and be careful that you love not the world or the things of the world in their present state, and in your loftiness and pride, forget the Lord your God. We ought to care no more for the silver and the gold, and the property that is so much sought for by the wicked world, than for the soil or the gravel upon which we tread." (DBY, 314).
• "Though I possessed millions of money and property, that does not excuse me from performing the labor that it is my calling to perform, so far as I have strength and ability, any more than the poorest man in the community is excused. The more we are blessed with means, the more we are blessed with responsibility; the more we are blessed with wisdom and ability, the more we are placed under the necessity of using that wisdom and ability in the spread of righteousness, the subjugation of sin and misery, and the amelioration of the condition of mankind. The man that has only one talent and the man that has five talents have responsibility accordingly [see Matthew 25:14–30]. If we have a world of means, we have a world of responsibility." (DBY, 315).

Different vectors, but the risk - distance from God and obedience to the Gospel - is apparently present in the absence or presence of wealth.

Quote

I believe that Christ would expect us to love "the least" because, in part, He would want all of us to experience opportunities of power and thus develop virtuous personal qualities grown from righteous exercise of power, virtues by virtue of virtue.

I agree we should love our fellow man, with no attention paid to economic conditions.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 1, 2019 by smac97

[rpn]

Why does it matter?    God measures each of us against our selves, and His Law.   We are perfect in Christ, at each moment we are doing our personal best, and quickly repent of actual sin.   Personal best is uniquely equal for every one.

[Storm Rider]

Agency is not lessened by degree of wealth. It seems you are referring to opportunity rather than agency as taught in the Church. Who will get into heaven? I will bet on the poor by a wide margin rather than those with enough wealth to choose to attend college and focus on personal self-actualization so revered by most "..ists". 

I suspect each of us could list a great number of scriptures that condemn the wealthy, fine clothes, etc. Also, the saints are commanded to succor those in need. Being in poverty does not equate to starvation - those who are starving demand our assistance and attention. 

Reviewing the success of secular world charities and UN actions about assisting the poor can be rather dismal. Throwing money at a location or bringing in free foods does not ameliorate the local long term condition. Often, it is just the reverse and damages the local economy. 

 

[Ahab]

9 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I wrote this a few years ago and still agree with it:

This morning I came across a notion that the poor have a better chance at learning wisdom and love because of their economic and social position.

I would like to respond to that idea and welcome your thoughts:

As much as the idea of the noble, happy poor is appealing to me and as much as I hope for the happiness of the vast majority of the world's population living in relative poverty, I think the idea that having no social or material capital helps us misses the fundamentals.

On the contrary, it is agency that opportunes us to choose wisdom and love, and in many cases poverty has a strong inverse relationship with agency.

Think about the majority of impoverished globally, who wash their own clothes by hand: what happens to the mother who can use a machine? She has more time, her family has more time. Maybe she can read and then change her world with what she reads.

Before she has a machine she has less choice and after she has a washing machine she has more choices. She now has to trade off less of material advantages and necessities if she chooses to spend time reading, to herself or anyone else.

Thus material advantages allow a person the chance to make more decisions, to exercise power in more ways, for good or bad. And the fruitful exercise of agency produced more opportunities for fruit-bearing agency.

In other words, without agency, the righteous exercise of power--or in other words, virtue--is impossible.

I believe that Christ would expect us to love "the least" because, in part, He would want all of us to experience opportunities of power and thus develop virtuous personal qualities grown from righteous exercise of power, virtues by virtue of virtue.

Prayer and actually talking with other people offer the best advantages to help us learn and gain knowledge.  And while I mention talking with other people, other than God, I should point out that talking with God is the most important advantage because he knows everything about everything and can inspire us to have all of the best kinds of ideas.  Talking with other people is useful too, though, or at least it can be, like when talking with missionaries from our Church or to other people who can help us to prepare to join the true church of Jesus Christ.  I was a member of another church before I found the true church of Jesus Christ and I learned a lot of good things that helped to get me ready to find and join the true Church.  And I didn't have much money, although I did own a Holy Bible.  That was probably my best advantage over other people who don't own a Bible, or a Book of Mormon, or a book of Doctrine and Covenants, or any magazines like the Ensign or the Liahona.  And now, wow, we have websites where all you need is a smart phone to gain access to pretty much everything that is available from God to everyone on this planet, in text form at least.  But prayer is still important, and so is being able to talk with other people.  Talking with God is still the very best though and we can all learn a lot of good things just by talking with him about everything.  And prayer is something that even the most poor among us can do.

[bluebell]

Hardships, including poverty, can lead to humility but I don't know that poverty makes it easier to learn wisdom and love than wealth does.  Like someone has already mentioned, if someone's basic needs aren't being met, it can make it much harder, not easier, to put energy into anything else.

Having said that though, poverty and hardship do not have to be impediments to personal growth, even in the extreme.  Anyone who has ever read The Hiding Place by Corrie ten Boom has read examples of people who were deprived of almost everything (sometimes right up to death) but still managed to grow more Christlike (more loving, more merciful, more wise, more patient, etc.) during that time, not less.

[Meadowchik]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

I think it greatly depends on how one defines "the poor."

If you're talking about those living in abject poverty, who are struggling just to stay alive - then I think you have a point. It's difficult for these people to focus on the spiritual when their most basic temporal needs aren't being met. I'm reminded of the story shared in Conference fairly recently where the poor woman asked the missionary if what he was offering could buy her any bread. 

 

Generally, I would be referring to global levels of poverty and extreme poverty, which might be comparable to homelessness in the United States, for example.

[Meadowchik]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

This leads me to the thought: where much is given, much is expected.  Those who find themselves in wealthier circumstances have a certain responsibility to help others in lesser circumstances.

Yep! Well said.

[Ahab]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Anyone who has ever read The Hiding Place by Corrie ten Boom has read examples of people who were deprived of almost everything (sometimes right up to death) but still managed to grow more Christlike (more loving, more merciful, more wise, more patient, etc.) during that time, not less.

I've never read it.  Should I feel deprived now?  I am so so so very very deprived.  Oh well.  I'll get through it somehow, I suppose.

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Better chance" as compared to whom?

A better chance than if they were wealthy.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

And could you provide the source for this "notion?"

Since it was a few years ago that I wrote this, I don't remember the specific example. I imagine it was some notion along the lines of "poverty builds character."

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Also, "the poor" is a very relative term.  See, e.g.,

Here:

And here:

Americans have a per capita income of $62,606.  Brits have a per capita income of $46,781.

A few months ago my parents returned from a mission in Zimbabwe (per capita income: $1,424). 

My sister and her husband (an MD) recently moved to Vanuatu (per capita income: $2,850).

My brother spent many years living in Samoa (per capita income: $5,962).

Is there a reason you compare the US to other countries? Are you attempting a contrasting remark or an agreement? I ask because I explicitly describe a global perspective of poverty in my OP. Anyways, yes, Americans are relatively wealthy, and it can be hard to imagine what life is like in extreme poverty, specifically, that of global standards.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

What "fundamentals" are you referencing here?

The "fundamentals" are what follow that part. Restated: mortality would be the opportunity to more fully exercise agency, for example, and conversely, the ability to survive associated with wealth also positively impacts one's ability to fully exercise agency.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Also, what are your thoughts about the Church's self-reliance courses, which are designed to help people improve their economic circumstances?

I agree that teaching a person to fish is preferable to just giving them fish. So I admire programs that encourage self-reliance, and also laws that enable it. As a woman, I appreciate the ability to work and seek an education, which hasn't in living memory been as legally supported as it is now. Indeed, as I understand it, the enormous shifts in recent decades of global populations exiting extreme poverty to poverty, or poverty to better, are associated to women having better access to education.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

To an extent, yes.  But then, there can also be an inverse relationship between wealth and religious observance. 

America aside, the trend is that more money tends to lessen religiosity (to the extent that daily prayer is indicative of religiosity).

Good points.  Again, this is why I appreciate the Church's Self-Reliance courses.

I think poverty can limit agency in some ways.  But then, so can wealth.  Consider these various quotes from Brigham Young:

Different vectors, but the risk - distance from God and obedience to the Gospel - is apparently present in the absence or presence of wealth.

Regarding your graph of prayer versus income, do you equate daily prayer to choosing wisdom and love? I imagine that a religious person in a very desperate situation would be much more likely to pray, but that does not necessarily correllate to making wise or loving choices. I would say that, when comparing the impoverished and wealthy, the wealthy have more opportunities and choices, not that wealth is a predictor of choices. 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I agree we should love our fellow man, with no attention paid to economic conditions.

I think that loving others would include concern for their material, including economic, well-being.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Agency is not lessened by degree of wealth. It seems you are referring to opportunity rather than agency as taught in the Church. Who will get into heaven? I will bet on the poor by a wide margin rather than those with enough wealth to choose to attend college and focus on personal self-actualization so revered by most "..ists". 

I suspect each of us could list a great number of scriptures that condemn the wealthy, fine clothes, etc. Also, the saints are commanded to succor those in need. Being in poverty does not equate to starvation - those who are starving demand our assistance and attention. 

Reviewing the success of secular world charities and UN actions about assisting the poor can be rather dismal. Throwing money at a location or bringing in free foods does not ameliorate the local long term condition. Often, it is just the reverse and damages the local economy. 

 

Wealth is not the same as not being in poverty. That is a wide gap, and poverty can be severely limiting.

[Meadowchik]

40 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Hardships, including poverty, can lead to humility but I don't know that poverty makes it easier to learn wisdom and love than wealth does.  Like someone has already mentioned, if someone's basic needs aren't being met, it can make it much harder, not easier, to put energy into anything else.

Yup. Also, trauma can sometimes be inherent to poverty, and that can create more barriers to agency.

40 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Having said that though, poverty and hardship do not have to be impediments to personal growth, even in the extreme.  Anyone who has ever read The Hiding Place by Corrie ten Boom has read examples of people who were deprived of almost everything (sometimes right up to death) but still managed to grow more Christlike (more loving, more merciful, more wise, more patient, etc.) during that time, not less.

I love that book! What made it possible for Corrie and her family to help their Jewish neighbors? They had a home in which to hide them. Still, I agree with your point about ultimate choices. And maybe Corrie and Betsie were more prepared to transcend their suffering in the ways that they did, in part due to faith building opportunities they had during their lives of relative affluence before the war.

Edited October 1, 2019 by Meadowchik

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Is there a reason you compare the US to other countries? Are you attempting a contrasting remark or an agreement?

I'm suggesting that "poverty" and "wealth" and other descriptors are fairly relative.  Most Americans living in "poverty" today have a higher standard of living than Rockefeller and Carnegie did a hundred years ago.  By almost every metric.

In contrast, places like Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Samoa, Vanuatu, Bangladesh, etc. have genuinely impoverished people.

In sum, we should count our blessings.

18 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Regarding your graph of prayer versus income, do you equate daily prayer to choosing wisdom and love?

I think daily prayer is an imprecise, generalized indicator of religiosity.

My larger point is that the proper use of agency can be affected by both poverty and wealth.

18 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I imagine that a religious person in a very desperate situation would be much more likely to pray, but that does not necessarily correllate to making wise or loving choices. I would say that, when comparing the impoverished and wealthy, the wealthy have more opportunities and choices, not that wealth is a predictor of choices.

Poverty affects how we allocate our time, money and efforts.  Wealth also affects such allocations, albeit in different ways.

18 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I think that loving others would include concern for their material, including economic, well-being.

I agree 100%  So does the Church, hence the self-reliance courses and its other efforts (both as an institution, and also as a result of the teachings of the Church being implemented by individuals and local groups) being so commendable.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I wrote this a few years ago and still agree with it:

This morning I came across a notion that the poor have a better chance at learning wisdom and love because of their economic and social position.

I would like to respond to that idea and welcome your thoughts:

As much as the idea of the noble, happy poor is appealing to me and as much as I hope for the happiness of the vast majority of the world's population living in relative poverty, I think the idea that having no social or material capital helps us misses the fundamentals.

On the contrary, it is agency that opportunes us to choose wisdom and love, and in many cases poverty has a strong inverse relationship with agency.

Think about the majority of impoverished globally, who wash their own clothes by hand: what happens to the mother who can use a machine? She has more time, her family has more time. Maybe she can read and then change her world with what she reads.

Before she has a machine she has less choice and after she has a washing machine she has more choices. She now has to trade off less of material advantages and necessities if she chooses to spend time reading, to herself or anyone else.

Thus material advantages allow a person the chance to make more decisions, to exercise power in more ways, for good or bad. And the fruitful exercise of agency produced more opportunities for fruit-bearing agency.

In other words, without agency, the righteous exercise of power--or in other words, virtue--is impossible.

I believe that Christ would expect us to love "the least" because, in part, He would want all of us to experience opportunities of power and thus develop virtuous personal qualities grown from righteous exercise of power, virtues by virtue of virtue.

Happiness and wealth are independent variables but you need some bucks to understand that

 

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm suggesting that "poverty" and "wealth" and other descriptors are fairly relative.  Most Americans living in "poverty" today have a higher standard of living than Rockefeller and Carnegie did a hundred years ago.  By almost every metric.

I think if those guys had the internet and cell phones they would make Bill Gates look like a piker. 

 

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

I've never read it.  Should I feel deprived now?  I am so so so very very deprived.  Oh well.  I'll get through it somehow, I suppose.

You shouldn't feel deprived, but it'll probably strengthen your faith in God, and strengthen your faith in how faith impacts God's ability to work in our life, if you do read it.

Edited October 1, 2019 by bluebell

[katherine the great]

The notion may come from attempts to interpret scriptures such as  

“And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”

[Duncan]

I heard years ago that poverty leads to mental illness, depression etc. Mumsie has a member friend who is now in her late 80's and she was born in the depression and pretty much her entire life has been in poverty and she tried and tried to get herself out and it just has never happened for her and her kids and so I hope in the next life it'll be better for her. I know she was ridiculed by some in the Church for being poor and most of her kids have left the Church except for two. She is kinda bitter and can't says I blame her , if this idea is true. 

[Storm Rider]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Wealth is not the same as not being in poverty. That is a wide gap, and poverty can be severely limiting.

Is poverty severely limiting spiritually or are you talking about something else? It appears you are making the spiritual accomplishments to be secondary to other things. 

[Glenn101]

17 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I wrote this a few years ago and still agree with it:

This morning I came across a notion that the poor have a better chance at learning wisdom and love because of their economic and social position.

I would like to respond to that idea and welcome your thoughts:

As much as the idea of the noble, happy poor is appealing to me and as much as I hope for the happiness of the vast majority of the world's population living in relative poverty, I think the idea that having no social or material capital helps us misses the fundamentals.

On the contrary, it is agency that opportunes us to choose wisdom and love, and in many cases poverty has a strong inverse relationship with agency.

Think about the majority of impoverished globally, who wash their own clothes by hand: what happens to the mother who can use a machine? She has more time, her family has more time. Maybe she can read and then change her world with what she reads.

Before she has a machine she has less choice and after she has a washing machine she has more choices. She now has to trade off less of material advantages and necessities if she chooses to spend time reading, to herself or anyone else.

Thus material advantages allow a person the chance to make more decisions, to exercise power in more ways, for good or bad. And the fruitful exercise of agency produced more opportunities for fruit-bearing agency.

In other words, without agency, the righteous exercise of power--or in other words, virtue--is impossible.

I believe that Christ would expect us to love "the least" because, in part, He would want all of us to experience opportunities of power and thus develop virtuous personal qualities grown from righteous exercise of power, virtues by virtue of virtue.

I don't think I totally agree with that concept. Of course you are "forcing" me to indulge in a bit of philosophy, which I do very poorly since my brain is wired more for the concrete than the abstract. It is true that wealth opens up more opportunities to do good (or evil) on a greater scale than those in impoverished conditions. However, I believe that the comments that Jesus made about the widow and her mite may find an application in this case. Say a man with a four wheel drive vehicle goes around pulling people out of floods, etc. after a hurricane on a Saturday when he does not have to work. Then compare that to a farmer in a third world country who takes a day off his farm to help a neighbor that had been flooded out. Is this an apt comparison?

Glenn (By the way, I have had a few people note that the concrete of which I speak in my brain may be found throughout my head and not in the abstract.)

 

[Meadowchik]

23 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Happiness and wealth are independent variables but you need some bucks to understand that

 

Lol