Material Wealth

[MikeUpton]

This is something I've been thinking over, questions concerning material wealth and luxury. Take a hypothetical example. Here's a car, the Rolls Royce Phantom. The cost of the car is one million dollars.

I've been reading ensign articles about how the church feels about material wealth, and materialism. I've read the scriptures about it. I have an opinion, but I want to hear yours.

Can a one million dollar Rolls Royce Phantom and a strong testimony of the church, humility, and obedience and worshipfulness to God coexist? Can your eye be single to the glory of god? Or if you're super wealthy, do you really need to stick with a middle class car? Your thoughts? If you know of any good articles, post them here.

Edited July 1, 2009 by MikeUpton

[a-train]

If a one million dollar car is an asset, meaning the owner's wealth actually increases by virtue of ownership, then it is worth having and could easily be owned by one with a testimony of the LORD. However, if it is a mere liability, meaning the owner's wealth decreases by virtue of ownership, then it is vanity.

Which of the LORD's servants, having talents, was greedy? It was the one that did not allocate his resources toward growth, but sought to bury those resources.

A vehicle like the one you've noted would be a great thing to rent for the weekend so you can have a hot date with the love of your life. No matter my wealth, I don't intend to ever own a vehicle like that, not even one half as expensive. I would only rent one.

-a-train

[MikeUpton]

If a one million dollar car is an asset, meaning the owner's wealth actually increases by virtue of ownership, then it is worth having and could easily be owned by one with a testimony of the LORD. However, if it is a mere liability, meaning the owner's wealth decreases by virtue of ownership, then it is vanity.

what aspect of the car causes it to be vanity in this manner? would it be the price? is it vanity for all, or is it relative vanity for those who cannot afford it? I agree one million dollars is a great deal of money. It would be vanity for me. I couldn't pay for insurance on the thing, let alone California taxes. I suppose I am not so sure when it comes to someone like Bill Gates, at one point he made one million dollars by his lunch break (at 2 million per day.)

Edited June 20, 2009 by MikeUpton

[a-train]

what aspect of the car causes it to be vanity? would it be the price? is it vanity for all, or is it relative vanity for those who cannot afford it? I'll agree one million dollars is a great deal of money. For someone like Bill Gates, at one point he made one million dollars by his lunch break (at 2 million per day.)

A $2000 car would be vain if it was not an asset. That is the issue. Price means nothing.

-a-train

[MikeUpton]

anybody else?

[MikeUpton]

A $2000 car would be vain if it was not an asset. That is the issue. Price means nothing.

-a-train

following this definition, I would feel that a Rolls Royce Phantom would not be a vanity for many who were super rich if the following were true for them: the car inspired them a lot to do a better job, similar to the thought that putting on a suit and tie for work helps you to act more professional, since their decisions and actions are weighed in at a higher dollar value.

Edited June 20, 2009 by MikeUpton

[MikeUpton]

A $2000 car would be vain if it was not an asset. That is the issue. Price means nothing.

-a-train

following this definition, I would feel that a Rolls Royce Phantom might not be a vanity for many who were super rich if the following were true for them: the car inspired them to do a better job, similar to the thought that putting on a suit and tie for work helps you to act more professional, since their decisions and actions are weighed in monetarily at a larger scale.

Edited June 20, 2009 by MikeUpton

[skippy740]

Would the owner of such a car still be a full tithe payer?

Would they willingly give up such a car if called to do so by the Lord?

Does the car make the man? Is the man who he is because of what he drives?

Then the practical questions:

- How would you feel doing your home teaching in such a car?

- How about a temple trip?

If you own such a car, you'd probably own other cars in addition to it. You wouldn't use such a car as your "daily driver".

BTW, if it takes a car to feel "inspired to do a better job", then you never earned the car to begin with.

Try reading "The Millionaire Next Door" sometime.

[MikeUpton]

BTW, if it takes a car to feel "inspired to do a better job", then you never earned the car to begin with.

I was speaking of it on a term that was not quite as absolute as you assumed. There also do happen to be many very good singers who refuse to listen to the work of those they consider mediocre for that reason. Many others are like that, filling their lives with things with things they consider to be of nobler value in an effort to be inspired towards that value. It doesn't mean they lack character to back it up. One more example of this: the LDS.

Would the owner of such a car still be a full tithe payer?

Would they willingly give up such a car if called to do so by the Lord?

Does the car make the man? Is the man who he is because of what he drives?

those are good questions.

How would you feel doing your home teaching in such a car?

Assuming I were that wealthy, it would depend upon who I would be visiting, and how well I knew them. many people don't care. however, some people might feel uncomfortable.

How about a temple trip?

Myself, I wouldn't care, or think that it mattered. I don't feel the Lord cares what kind of car you drive. Who is that in your avatar?

Edited June 20, 2009 by MikeUpton

[a-train]

following this definition, I would feel that a Rolls Royce Phantom might not be a vanity for many who were super rich if the following were true for them: the car inspired them to do a better job, similar to the thought that putting on a suit and tie for work helps you to act more professional, since their decisions and actions are weighed in monetarily at a larger scale.

Perhaps one could get into such justifications. But I would ask this: Do you get paid to own this car? No? Sell it and buy something that you get paid to own.

One could use $950,000.00 to buy rental properties, bonds, stocks, or inventory in a business, etc. The remaining $50,000.00 could be used for a car. In fact, you could probably rent a different car every week with that $50,000.00 (almost $1000 a week for a year). The gains from the invested $950,000.00 would cover the $50,000.00 at a 5.3% yield.

The goal of this philosophy is to avoid holding resources which you cannot use productively. In plain terms, if holding them does not make you money, doing so is not productive. This, believe it or not, is a philosophy of efficiency. Resources are not wasted, if they are not productive, they are quickly turned over to someone who can make them productive without care or attachment. It is that care and attachment to such material that God wants us to overcome and which causes so many to stay poor.

Many see cars like this as a symbol of wealth, I would say it is only so if it is an asset. Otherwise, it shows only that the owner has more dollars than sense and he is on his way to less wealth.

-a-train

Edited June 20, 2009 by a-train

[Misshalfway]

I don't think there is anything wrong with money or having nice things. I think with everything of this world it is a matter of how we think about it. If we define ourselves by it or elevate ourselves by thinking we are better than or some other such nonsense, then I think we might have been seduced by the fools gold of "stuff". But if someone is able, thru hard work or even luck, to obtain riches and to hold that stewardship in balance and service, then more power to them.

Being obsessed/seduced by money can happen at ANY level of wealth.

[Elgama]

most people I know with Rolls Royce's have them for a whole lifetime and pass them onto the next generation - during that time I may have spent #1million pounds on cars that have broken down and gone to the scrap heap in the sky.

Same with clothes I can spend 40 on a skirt that will last a few years or a 100 on a skirt that will out last me there is a balance. Our Queen has a lot of money but in many ways she is more frugal and less wasteful than many of her subjects on a much lower income.

-Charley

[Just_A_Guy]

Our Queen has a lot of money but in many ways she is more frugal and less wasteful than many of her subjects on a much lower income.

No kidding! She divested herself of quite possibly one of the loveliest private yachts ever built. (Thankfully, I understand it has been preserved and put on public display.)

[pam]

Is the person buying the car because they want to show off how much money they have? Or just buying the car because they like it and they can afford it?

[Elgama]

No kidding! She divested herself of quite possibly one of the loveliest private yachts ever built. (Thankfully, I understand it has been preserved and put on public display.)

err her government did that sure it was not the Queen's decision - its a naval ship..... herself she uses the latest biotechnology to heat her houses, restyles clothes, grows her own veg, shoots her own food, she can mend her own car, and travels around sometimes in transport that is several hundred years old, her family jewels some are nearly 1000 years old

-Charley

[pam]

I wouldn't mind having some of her jewels that are nearly 1,000 years old.

[Elgama]

I wouldn't mind having some of her jewels that are nearly 1,000 years old.

lol me neither and we must not forget some of her homes are nearly that old now those i would turn down couldn't afford the heating bills

-Charley

[mightynancy]

I like A-train's thinking.

That said, I'd probably "invest" that kind of money in helping people - job training, food & shelter, modest but reliable transportation so a job can be kept, etc.

That car is really pretty, but my liberal guilt would make it less enjoyable to own!

Recommended reading: Consecration: A Law We Can Live With by Orson Scott Card. It's in A Storyteller in Zion, a collection of short stories and essays.

[MikeUpton]

Perhaps one could get into such justifications. But I would ask this: Do you get paid to own this car? No? Sell it and buy something that you get paid to own.

One could use $950,000.00 to buy rental properties, bonds, stocks, or inventory in a business, etc. The remaining $50,000.00 could be used for a car. In fact, you could probably rent a different car every week with that $50,000.00 (almost $1000 a week for a year). The gains from the invested $950,000.00 would cover the $50,000.00 at a 5.3% yield.

The goal of this philosophy is to avoid holding resources which you cannot use productively. In plain terms, if holding them does not make you money, doing so is not productive. This, believe it or not, is a philosophy of efficiency. Resources are not wasted, if they are not productive, they are quickly turned over to someone who can make them productive without care or attachment. It is that care and attachment to such material that God wants us to overcome and which causes so many to stay poor.

Many see cars like this as a symbol of wealth, I would say it is only so if it is an asset. Otherwise, it shows only that the owner has more dollars than sense and he is on his way to less wealth.

-a-train

I don't see it as necessarily being that way for many, especially when it comes to the super rich. you don't have to lose money in order to purchase such a car if you're super wealthy. Simply invest enough money until you have at least 1 million dollar return on interest in a year(after tax), don't touch the principle. keep it :) Same thing as the situation you mentioned, just on a larger scale.

Edit: I'm also debating using your frame of return or loss, though I don't necessarily subscribe to it as the prerequisite for righteousness.

Edited June 21, 2009 by MikeUpton

[MikeUpton]

Lets give another example, again using the super rich (because I think they were the intended market for the car anyways.)

Here's Bill Gates' home:

Bill Gates House

its worth 150 million dollars.

Is he being wasteful? Now consider his non profit charitable organization. Its valued at 30 billion dollars, which is over half of his net worth. How many of you live in houses they'd have to pay on for 15-30 years in order to complete the purchase? Again before you judge him, who is giving well over half their net worth to charity? Billionaire or no? Is he using his money to a good purpose?

I would think so. I think on this thing, his heart is in the right place. I wouldn't begrudge him a nice home when he spends well over half his net worth of billions on charity. 150 million dollars hasn't put much of a dent at all in his ability to help others.

Edited June 21, 2009 by MikeUpton

[MikeUpton]

I don't think there is anything wrong with money or having nice things. I think with everything of this world it is a matter of how we think about it. If we define ourselves by it or elevate ourselves by thinking we are better than or some other such nonsense, then I think we might have been seduced by the fools gold of "stuff". But if someone is able, thru hard work or even luck, to obtain riches and to hold that stewardship in balance and service, then more power to them.

Being obsessed/seduced by money can happen at ANY level of wealth.

This is what I believe.

[MikeUpton]

Perhaps one could get into such justifications. But I would ask this: Do you get paid to own this car? No? Sell it and buy something that you get paid to own.

One could use $950,000.00 to buy rental properties, bonds, stocks, or inventory in a business, etc. The remaining $50,000.00 could be used for a car. In fact, you could probably rent a different car every week with that $50,000.00 (almost $1000 a week for a year). The gains from the invested $950,000.00 would cover the $50,000.00 at a 5.3% yield.

The goal of this philosophy is to avoid holding resources which you cannot use productively. In plain terms, if holding them does not make you money, doing so is not productive. This, believe it or not, is a philosophy of efficiency. Resources are not wasted, if they are not productive, they are quickly turned over to someone who can make them productive without care or attachment. It is that care and attachment to such material that God wants us to overcome and which causes so many to stay poor.

Many see cars like this as a symbol of wealth, I would say it is only so if it is an asset. Otherwise, it shows only that the owner has more dollars than sense and he is on his way to less wealth.

-a-train

Pertaining to "it shows only that the owner has more dollars than sense and he is on his way to less wealth.": I don't see it as necessarily being that way for many, especially when it comes to the super rich. you don't have to lose money in order to purchase such a car if you're super wealthy. Simply invest enough money until you have at least 1 million dollar return in interest in a year(after tax), don't touch the principle. keep it :) Same thing as the situation you mentioned, just on a larger scale. As you can see, I'm trying to get you to think outside of the box.

I'm also debating using your frame of return or loss, though I don't necessarily subscribe to it as the prerequisite for righteousness.

For the thread in general: Here's another example, again using the super rich (because I think they were the intended market for the car anyways.)

Here's Bill Gates' home:

Bill Gates House

its worth 150 million dollars.

Is he being wasteful? Now consider his non profit charitable organization. Its valued at 30 billion dollars, which is over half of his net worth. How many of us live in houses they'd have to pay on for 15-30 years in order to complete the purchase? Again before you judge him, who is giving well over half their net worth to charity? Billionaire or no? Is he using his money to a good purpose?

I would think so. I think on this thing, his heart is in the right place. I wouldn't begrudge him a nice home when he spends well over half his net worth of billions on charity. 150 million dollars hasn't put much of a dent at all in his ability to help others.

I don't think there is anything wrong with money or having nice things. I think with everything of this world it is a matter of how we think about it. If we define ourselves by it or elevate ourselves by thinking we are better than or some other such nonsense, then I think we might have been seduced by the fools gold of "stuff". But if someone is able, thru hard work or even luck, to obtain riches and to hold that stewardship in balance and service, then more power to them.

Being obsessed/seduced by money can happen at ANY level of wealth.

This is what I believe.

Is the person buying the car because they want to show off how much money they have? Or just buying the car because they like it and they can afford it?

that's exactly right.

Edited June 21, 2009 by MikeUpton
avoiding multiple posts.

[MikeUpton]

most people I know with Rolls Royce's have them for a whole lifetime and pass them onto the next generation - during that time I may have spent #1million pounds on cars that have broken down and gone to the scrap heap in the sky.

Same with clothes I can spend 40 on a skirt that will last a few years or a 100 on a skirt that will out last me there is a balance. Our Queen has a lot of money but in many ways she is more frugal and less wasteful than many of her subjects on a much lower income.

-Charley

The queen is one very good example of this: Classics.com - Queen Elizabeth II new Bentley State Limousine

Her new Bentley is "scheduled to stay in service until the year 2027"

The link mentions her previous car was a Rolls-Royce Phantom.

[Misshalfway]

I wouldn't mind having some of her jewels that are nearly 1,000 years old.

I thought you were a jewel that was 1000 years old.

(Heeheeeheee. I love you Pam.)

[Moksha]

Then the one who had received the one talent came and said, ‘Sir, I knew that you were a hard man, harvesting where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed, so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.’ But his master answered, ‘Evil and lazy slave! So you knew that I harvest where I didn’t sow and gather where I didn’t scatter? Then you should have deposited my money with the bankers, and on my return I would have received my money back with interest! Therefore take the talent from him and give it to the one who has ten. For the one who has will be given more, and he will have more than enough. But the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. And throw that worthless slave into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth’”

This was from the Parable of the Talents. The servant who returned the one talent was the the protagonist of the parable: The truly holy man. The merchant is a businessman, whose sole interest is maximizing his financial gain. Only the third servant refuses to participate in the game of increasing his lord's financial wealth at the costs of the poor, thus committing usury which was proscribed in Jewish law. The servant who was faithful to God, rather than serve the materialism of his master would no doubt be dealt with harshly - even to be thrown into outer darkness. He suffered for righteousness sake.

Of course Jesus wasn't talking about money. Money after all, as He had pointed out, was an impediment to entering the Kingdom of Heaven since the measures of gold along with the man would not fit through the narrow way of Jesus. The only passport that could fit though with man was love.

Sorry Rolls Royce Phantom, it will be weeping, wailing and gnashing to teeth time for you.

:)

Edited June 21, 2009 by Moksha