Lottery

[Windseeker]

I have never played the lottery in my life.

But 590 million!? wow

Winning ticket for $590.5 million Powerball lottery sold in Florida

I know the Church doesn't take tithing from the winnings but is playing the lottery a sin?

[pam]

Taken from lds.org

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is opposed to gambling, including lotteries sponsored by governments. Church leaders have encouraged Church members to join with others in opposing the legalization and government sponsorship of any form of gambling.

[Anddenex]

I won't deny it, I am tempted...I could do a lot of good with 380 Million after taxes :)

[Dravin]

I'm not particularly tempted, it's kinda like the joke:

Man: Would you sleep with me for $100,000,000?

Woman: I'm not that kinda of person, but that's a lot of money... I suppose I would.

Man: Would you sleep with me for $10?

Woman: What do you think I am? A whore?

Man: We've established that, we're just haggling over price now.

I'm not calling those who are tempted by the lottery whores so if your hackles were raised you can lower them. It's just if there is a moral imperative not to gamble it remains regardless of the payout.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Dravin

[Letrell]

Although I burst out laughing at the $100k joke, fact is plain and simple.... It's none of our business if someone plays the lottery. The Church posts its position and everyone chooses for himself/herself if he/she is going to play.

That said, it's not a wise thing to judge others because their sins are different from ours

I'm just sayin......

[Dravin]

That said, it's not a wise thing to judge others because their sins are different from ours

I'm just sayin......

It's also not wise to gargle battery acid.

I'm just sayin'...

Edited May 20, 2013 by Dravin

[Letrell]

LOL. I needed that this morning! LOL. Thanks!!!

[NeuroTypical]

I often dream about how cool it would be to get hit by lightning and survive. I would have a cool scar to show people.

I've got a far, far, far better chance of realizing my dream, than you people do. Like 5000% better chances, or something like that.

[Anddenex]

And yet, how many people who have won the lottery have actually been hit by lightning? I say there odds have been better to win the lottery than being struck by lightning. :)

@Dravin,

Better to compare the lottery to cursing than to whoredoms. The Church strongly encourages its members to avoid any language which isn't good, yet I know plenty of S.P.s and Bishops who curse.

Whoredoms will affect the worthiness of an individual membership, purchasing a ticket for the lottery will not.

[Dravin]

@Dravin,

Better to compare the lottery to cursing than to whoredoms. The Church strongly encourages its members to avoid any language which isn't good, yet I know plenty of S.P.s and Bishops who curse.

Whoredoms will affect the worthiness of an individual membership, purchasing a ticket for the lottery will not.

The point was not the compare the consequences of sin, what an inane comparison that would have been. The point was that if it is immoral to do something that it doesn't suddenly become moral because you might make more money off it. I've seen people attempt to justify playing the high payout games because, "It's a lot of money." That justification just doesn't fly and is the same thought process as seen in the joke, that somehow if the money is good enough that fundamentally changes the nature of the action.

[pam]

Just to keep all of the rest of you pure and innocent..I'll be glad to take on the role of winner. Just looking out for you all.

[NeuroTypical]

And yet, how many people who have won the lottery have actually been hit by lightning? I say there odds have been better to win the lottery than being struck by lightning. :)

Well, it depends on the type of lottery. The ones with low payouts (like "get your dollar back" low) can pay off almost 50% of the time.

But the big multimillion dollar ones? Well, something like 4-500 Americans get hit by lightning every year. How many stories like that get people so excited we make a thread about it here?

[Anddenex]

But the big multimillion dollar ones? Well, something like 4-500 Americans get hit by lightning every year. How many stories like that get people so excited we make a thread about it here?

Well... I would much rather talk about winning $380 million dollars which I could do so much good with, than being struck by lighting.

Being struck by lightning is a one time event, well, except for some people...poor souls. Winning the lottery, I would continue to receive the benefits long after I won.

[Anddenex]

The point was not the compare the consequences of sin, what an inane comparison that would have been. The point was that if it is immoral to do something that it doesn't suddenly become moral because you might make more money off it. I've seen people attempt to justify playing the high payout games because, "It's a lot of money." That justification just doesn't fly and is the same thought process as seen in the joke, that somehow if the money is good enough that fundamentally changes the nature of the action.

Although I understand your point, let me see if I can throw a rock into this pool and ripple the water.

Abraham when first meeting a king told the king his wife was actually his sister. We have a moral imperative to not lie, but to be honest, yet Abraham lied. Now some say, well Sarah was actually his sister. Truth, Abraham deceived this king, such that he was given more, and the Lord blessed Abraham.

Was the nature of this action changed, our moral imperative not to lie?

[Anddenex]

Just to keep all of the rest of you pure and innocent..I'll be glad to take on the role of winner. Just looking out for you all.

pam, you are an I knew it!

[Dravin]

Although I understand your point, let me see if I can throw a rock into this pool and ripple the water.

Abraham when first meeting a king told the king his wife was actually his sister. We have a moral imperative to not lie, but to be honest, yet Abraham lied. Now some say, well Sarah was actually his sister. Truth, Abraham deceived this king, such that he was given more, and the Lord blessed Abraham.

Was the nature of this action changed, our moral imperative not to lie?

Are we considering straw-men clever now?

[Anddenex]

Are we considering straw-men clever now?

If you consider truth "straw-men" arguments.

[Dravin]

If you consider truth "straw-men" arguments.

No, I consider 'rebutting' a position I did not argue to be a straw-man. If this is the quality of discourse, and I'm interpreting your "winks" as a sign that you think you're being clever, I can expect from you in this thread there isn't much point in further interaction.

[Anddenex]

No, I consider 'rebutting' a position I did not argue to be a straw-man. If this is the quality of discourse, and I'm interpreting your "winks" as a sign that you think you're being clever,

Your position: The point was that if it is immoral to do something that it doesn't suddenly become moral because you might make more money off it.

My Rebuttal: Abraham who profited from a moral imperative he disobeyed. The moral imperative, "tell no lie...be honest."

It appears, my rebuttal was inline with your point, doing something immoral doesn't become moral because you make money...yet Abraham profited from an immoral act and the Lord blessed him.

My "winks" are me jesting with you, as I mentioned, "let me see if I can throw a rock into this pool and ripple the water."

I can expect from you in this thread there isn't much point in further interaction.

I'm interpreting this comment as if you are saying "you are above me", if so, then please feel free to no longer interact in this thread.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Anddenex

[MarginOfError]

I can expect from you in this thread there isn't much point in further interaction.

Your position: The point was that if it is immoral to do something that it doesn't suddenly become moral because you might make more money off it.

My Rebuttal: Abraham who profited from a moral imperative he disobeyed. The moral imperative, "tell no lie...be honest."

It appears, my rebuttal was inline with your point, doing something immoral doesn't become moral because you make money...yet Abraham profited from an immoral act and the Lord blessed him.

My "winks" are me jesting with you, as I mentioned, "let me see if I can throw a rock into this pool and ripple the water."

I'm interpreting this comment as if you are saying "you are above me", if so, then please feel free to no longer interact in this thread.

If you don't want to call it a straw-man, then you can call it a red herring argument. Abraham didn't lie in order to make a profit. That is, he didn't make the lie because the money was so good that it was worth lying. Abraham lied because he was worried that if he told the truth, he would be killed so that another could take his wife.

The intent of the immoral activity is extremely important in this discussion. And the intent in the two examples provided have nothing to do with each other.

[MarginOfError]

I rarely think about lotteries and gambling in terms of morality. These are just activities for people who either don't understand the math or don't care that they are throwing money away.

It all comes down to expected value. In most casino games and scratch off tickets, the expected value is fixed. And the expected value is always lower than the amount you pay to play (meaning that you are bound to lose money in the long run).

Lotteries are slightly different animals. The expected value of a ticket is less than the price of the ticket when the jackpot is low; but the expected value of the ticket is more than the price of the ticket when the jackpot is large. Mathematically, you can say it makes sense to play the lottery when the jackpot is large because your expected return is greater than the cost of playing.

However, there is something extremely important in this discussion that few really talk about. The expected value of the ticket is a population-based value. That means that the expected return is distributed over every ticket purchaser. No matter what the expected value of your ticket is, you're more likely to lose money than you are to make money. I consider playing lotteries with such knowledge to be an imprudent and wasteful use of my money. And I choose not to do it.

Having said that, though, a coworker once bought me a ticket for a lottery as a thank you for some programming assistance I had given him. If I had won the jackpot, I would have split the winnings with him and unapologetically used my share to pay off my debts and invest the rest to ensure my children would be able to make it through college/university without the debts I incurred in the process. Moral or immortal, I don't know. But, if Babylon is going to give me a nest egg, I'm not going to turn it down.

[Anddenex]

If you don't want to call it a straw-man, then you can call it a red herring argument. Abraham didn't lie in order to make a profit. That is, he didn't make the lie because the money was so good that it was worth lying. Abraham lied because he was worried that if he told the truth, he would be killed so that another could take his wife.

The intent of the immoral activity is extremely important in this discussion. And the intent in the two examples provided have nothing to do with each other.

I assume I am not looking at the "intent" of the position. I am looking at the position, "If something is immoral then it doesn't become moral just because....[you will save your life and not be killed]."

Whether a person implants "payout -- money earned" or "to save ones life" the moral imperative should remain the same... do not lie.

Abraham lied in order to save his life; his lie's payout was his "life."

Edited May 20, 2013 by Anddenex

[Vort]

My Rebuttal: Abraham who profited from a moral imperative he disobeyed. The moral imperative, "tell no lie...be honest."

I think your rebuttal is wrong, and not primarily because, technically speaking, Sarah was indeed Abraham's sister, so he wasn't "really" lying. Rather, God commanded Abraham to instruct Sarah (Sarai) to tell the Egyptians she was his sister. It was this commandment, not some technical by-the-way, that justified Abraham in this action, much as Nephi was justified in killing a drunken and defenseless Laban by the fact that he had been commanded so to do.

[Anddenex]

I think your rebuttal is wrong, and not primarily because, technically speaking, Sarah was indeed Abraham's sister, so he wasn't "really" lying. Rather, God commanded Abraham to instruct Sarah (Sarai) to tell the Egyptians she was his sister. It was this commandment, not some technical by-the-way, that justified Abraham in this action, much as Nephi was justified in killing a drunken and defenseless Laban by the fact that he had been commanded so to do.

Understood. Sarah was both Abraham's sister and wife. I, honestly, have not understood why we try at times to make it appear Abraham didn't lie?

Abraham lied, in other words, Abraham withheld information from the king in order to save his life.

If Abraham, were in our courts of law, and was asked the question by the prosecutor, "Who is Sarah (Sarai)?" and Abraham answered, "She is my sister."

If the knowledge of Sarah (Sarai) also being his wife would have changed the final verdict, would Abraham then be tried for withholding evidence?

I understand Abraham told the truth. I also understand Abraham withheld the truth in order to save his life, albeit commanded to do so.

Which takes us back to the point that at times an immoral act is justified as a moral act.

[Vort]

Understood. Sarah was both Abraham's sister and wife. I, honestly, have not understood why we try at times to make it appear Abraham didn't lie?

Abraham lied, in other words, Abraham withheld information from the king in order to save his life.

If Abraham, were in our courts of law, and was asked the question by the prosecutor, "Who is Sarah (Sarai)?" and Abraham answered, "She is my sister."

If the knowledge of Sarah (Sarai) also being his wife would have changed the final verdict, would Abraham then be tried for withholding evidence?

I understand Abraham told the truth. I also understand Abraham withheld the truth in order to save his life, albeit commanded to do so.

Which takes us back to the point that at times an immoral act is justified as a moral act.

God is a God of truth and cannot lie (Ether 3:12). In the same way, I am convinced that God cannot command dishonesty or lying.

God commanded Sarai to tell the Egyptians that she was Abram's sister.

Therefore, what Sarai said was not a lie.

Which part of this logical construct do you think fails?