Are we righteously obligated to pursue wealth and influence?


Backroads
 Share

Recommended Posts

Not accurate for me.

 

I cannot speak for leaders and their weaknesses.  I don't know how their wealth contribute (or not contribute) to their righteousness.

 

What I am saying is that - Affluence does not cause nor hinder Righteousness.  They're not directly related.

Thank you for clarifying.

 

I wonder if you wouldn't mind commenting on how you view two of the scriptures I quoted earlier. I keep seeing people saying "don't judge" (and we shouldn't judge people--we should, however, weigh the spirits and judge principles) and neglecting to even touch the material I've mentioned, which is taken directly from scriptures given to our dispensation and deal with the interrelation between affluence and righteousness.

 

D&C 49:19-21:

19 For, behold, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of the earth, is ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance.

20 But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.

 

D&C 70:14:

14 Nevertheless, in your temporal things you shall be equal, and this not grudgingly, otherwise the abundance of the manifestations of the Spirit shall be withheld.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the argument is quite simple.

 

The Lord has clearly and repeatedly said he would support the gaining of Wealth for those that will use it wisely.

Source(s)? And what are the "wise" uses that the Lord approves of wealth for?

(I don't disbelieve you. I'm just curious as to how you would back that up with the word of the Lord.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Source(s)? And what are the "wise" uses that the Lord approves of wealth for?

(I don't disbelieve you. I'm just curious as to how you would back that up with the word of the Lord.)

 

In Jacob 2

18 But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God.

 

1And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted.

 

We see that once we have a Hope In Christ (which I classified as Righteous)  Then the promise of Riches if we seek them.

 

Then the Lord explains the purpose of the Riches  (the intent to do good).   Many of us read that last bit and work backwards judging how others spend their money.  That because if it was not used to clothe the naked etc  it must not have been acquired with the intent to do good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Source(s)? And what are the "wise" uses that the Lord approves of wealth for?

 

 

estradling75 can answer but thought I'd throw out a couple examples - 

- The Lord needs enough saints to be well off enough to be mission presidents

- It also helps that those who are more affluent pay into the PEF, the Humanitarian Aid Fund, the Missionary Fund, etc.

- I also remember Pres. Hinckley mentioning a private airplane made available to assist him in visiting the members worldwide (thus not an expense for the church)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for clarifying.

 

I wonder if you wouldn't mind commenting on how you view two of the scriptures I quoted earlier. I keep seeing people saying "don't judge" (and we shouldn't judge people--we should, however, weigh the spirits and judge principles) and neglecting to even touch the material I've mentioned, which is taken directly from scriptures given to our dispensation and deal with the interrelation between affluence and righteousness.

 

D&C 49:19-21:

19 For, behold, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of the earth, is ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance.

20 But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.

 

D&C 70:14:

14 Nevertheless, in your temporal things you shall be equal, and this not grudgingly, otherwise the abundance of the manifestations of the Spirit shall be withheld.

Easy it's called context

 

D&C 49 was a revelation given in response to a religious group called Quakers this religious is still active today verse 19-21 is in response to the belief of some Quakers that they should not consume meat. 

 

D&C 70:14 again context this revelation was given in the very first years of the formation of the church Joseph was trying to form Zion and part of that idea was the law of consecration (a failed attempt). This verse refers directly to that law and the need to donate/give/consecrate all goods to the bishop.

 

Since we do not live the law of consecration this is not applicable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Jacob 2

18 But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God.

 

1And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted.

 

We see that once we have a Hope In Christ (which I classified as Righteous)  Then the promise of Riches if we seek them.

 

Then the Lord explains the purpose of the Riches  (the intent to do good).   Many of us read that last bit and work backwards judging how others spend their money.  That because if it was not used to clothe the naked etc  it must not have been acquired with the intent to do good.

I appreciate the clarification (although I'd say that one passage of scripture doesn't count as "repeatedly"--I thought you were aware of more than this).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

D&C 49 was a revelation given in response to a religious group called Quakers this religious is still active today verse 19-21 is in response to the belief of some Quakers that they should not consume meat.

Interestingly enough, some of the greatest doctrine of scripture comes in response to completely unrelated questions. Hence a query about the practice of eating meat returns a principle that touches on the basic rules of human existence: "it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another", and that excess is a cause of woe. "Excess", as in "exceedingly rich".

I should clarify that I think there are at least three broad categories of economic well-being and this principle touches on them:

Poor- Unable to provide for one's own temporal needs. If they're really, really poor, they're "Exceedingly poor".

Rich- Able to provide for one's own temporal needs with some to spare. In our modern world, virtually every single American is "rich" and has a little excess they could give to others.

Exceedingly Rich- One has riches to excess. They have much, much more than they actually need to survive.

Being "exceedingly rich" wouldn't be bad if everyone were "exceedingly rich". But, when you have the "exceedingly rich" who continually use their riches on vain and trifling tasks or material things and don't give that money to a better cause--and I think the Lord makes it clear that the best cause is to feed the naked, clothe the hungry, liberate the captive, etc.--you have someone who doesn't abide by scriptural principles and isn't justified in their actions.

 

By the way, I've used the example of the $50k watch because it's relevant to this thread. I don't know the 70 who owned it, nor do I care to find out who it is or cast aspersions or judgment. I've always referenced it as an example of egregious wealth that, as far as we know, was used for an unjustified purchase that went against the principles found in the scriptures.

 

D&C 70:14 again context this revelation was given in the very first years of the formation of the church Joseph was trying to form Zion and part of that idea was the law of consecration (a failed attempt). This verse refers directly to that law and the need to donate/give/consecrate all goods to the bishop.

 

Since we do not live the law of consecration this is not applicable.

Did you or did you not covenant to live the law of consecration in the temple?

Just because the Church at large doesn't practice the principles of consecration, doesn't mean you and I, as individuals, can't. In fact, if we're ever to establish Zion, it would require us to be able and willing to abide by the law of consecration--and that would require us to put these principles into practice in our own lives, and recognize that they're valid principles, to prepare our hearts and minds.

 

I'm not saying go and give everything you don't need to survive to the poor or the bishop--I'm not advocating that (although Jesus did, and still can, command someone to do that). I am saying there's a need to recognize these principles are true, and to begin putting them into practice in our own lives (and be wise and careful about doing it). If we don't, we won't ever make it to Zion, in this world or the next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate the clarification (although I'd say that one passage of scripture doesn't count as "repeatedly"--I thought you were aware of more than this).

 

 

Then there is the whole Nephi Cycle...  When they are righteous they get blessed in all things including riches...  Then they forget, become prideful etc and fall.

 

The cycle happens repeatedly...   Jacob simply clarifies that the Riches were not necessary wrong or bad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have all decided that riches mean material wealth, I would say this is not the case which is why a poor person can be righteous and still wealthy although not in temporal things. I can be as righteous as anyone but if I am unwilling to  put in the hard work I will never be temporally wealthy and even if I do work hard there are no guarantees in life. It's life I do not think that God gets that involved in the temporal side of things.

 

Matthew Bennett and TFP need to face reality our leaders are wealthy in general, our passing judgement on how they spend their hard earned money is small and petty. 

 

How big of a house is to big? how much should they spend on a car? Is a BMW or Mercedes out of line? Wait what if they own 2 homes one for vacation is that out of line?

 

Jealousy is a terrible thing guys

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly enough, some of the greatest doctrine of scripture comes in response to completely unrelated questions. Hence a query about the practice of eating meat returns a principle that touches on the basic rules of human existence: "it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another", and that excess is a cause of woe. "Excess", as in "exceedingly rich".

I should clarify that I think there are at least three broad categories of economic well-being and this principle touches on them:

Poor- Unable to provide for one's own temporal needs. If they're really, really poor, they're "Exceedingly poor".

Rich- Able to provide for one's own temporal needs with some to spare. In our modern world, virtually every single American is "rich" and has a little excess they could give to others.

Exceedingly Rich- One has riches to excess. They have much, much more than they actually need to survive.

Being "exceedingly rich" wouldn't be bad if everyone were "exceedingly rich". But, when you have the "exceedingly rich" who continually use their riches on vain and trifling tasks or material things and don't give that money to a better cause--and I think the Lord makes it clear that the best cause is to feed the naked, clothe the hungry, liberate the captive, etc.--you have someone who doesn't abide by scriptural principles and isn't justified in their actions.

 

By the way, I've used the example of the $50k watch because it's relevant to this thread. I don't know the 70 who owned it, nor do I care to find out who it is or cast aspersions or judgment. I've always referenced it as an example of egregious wealth that, as far as we know, was used for an unjustified purchase that went against the principles found in the scriptures.

 

Did you or did you not covenant to live the law of consecration in the temple?

Just because the Church at large doesn't practice the principles of consecration, doesn't mean you and I, as individuals, can't. In fact, if we're ever to establish Zion, it would require us to be able and willing to abide by the law of consecration--and that would require us to put these principles into practice in our own lives, and recognize that they're valid principles, to prepare our hearts and minds.

 

I'm not saying go and give everything you don't need to survive to the poor or the bishop--I'm not advocating that (although Jesus did, and still can, command someone to do that). I am saying there's a need to recognize these principles are true, and to begin putting them into practice in our own lives (and be wise and careful about doing it). If we don't, we won't ever make it to Zion, in this world or the next.

So by your explanation, anyone who is "exceedingly rich" should not spend their riches on vain and material triffling things?

 

 What if that "exceedingly rich" individual is so wealthy that they donate in tithe more than you make in a year?

 

 Is that enough? oh, and by the way they still have enough to purchase a $50K watch.  Or should they give away their money to the point that they can no longer afford a $50K watch?  Thereby making them equal to someone who hasn't either worked as hard, or been as materially blessed?  If that is the case, then why pursue the riches?

 

The law of consecration is based upon everyone getting sufficient for their needs/ability to use.  That means all will be different, not equal.  Some will by definition have more because they are more able stewards, others will have less, because maybe they aren't good at managing their allotment.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The poor righteous the Lord simply blesses in other ways.  After all the promise is to the righteous that seek after wealth.  Not all the righteous will seek that

 

The seeking is the key, I think.

 

We are commanded to seek after the Kingdom of God and build up the church and live the gospel, etc. etc.  After that, well, there doesn't seem to be a strongly tiered list of priorities (though I think of that good, better, best)

 

Could valuing material things and wealth, as long as that value is still second to the aforementioned stuff, be just fine?  People like beautiful things.  People like quality things.  Other people like living on next to nothing bonding with nature.  All values inbetween.

 

I suppose we are perfectly welcome to seek riches or influence or some minimalist lifestyle and more power to us... as long as the ultimate priorities are in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've noticed some posts and disagreement, earlier in the thread.

 

There was an event where a woman anoints Jesus's feet, which is criticized instead of giving it to the poor. I think that good acts should not be solely condemned just because something else that is good was done instead. (Just another thought to add)

 

Matthew 26:6-13
 
Mark 14:3-9
 
Luke 7:36-50
 
John 12:1-8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not believe it is possible to be both wealthy and righteous. Indeed, I do not believe it is possible to be both wealthy and in any way moral. This is a tough position for Americans to take on board, I know. I just don't understand how one might be, say, a millionaire, and simultaneously ignore the plight of the fully one third of the world's population, some 2 billion people, who eke out meagre lives on less than $1 per day, and then claim to be 'righteous'. I know I am not particularly righteous, or moral, but I know also that if I ever had that sort of money, it would very quickly be spent to improve the lot of the hungry, and my scant knowledge of the Gospels leads me to believe that this would be what Jesus would do, too.

 

Best wishes, 2RM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly enough, some of the greatest doctrine of scripture comes in response to completely unrelated questions. Hence a query about the practice of eating meat returns a principle that touches on the basic rules of human existence: "it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another", and that excess is a cause of woe. "Excess", as in "exceedingly rich".

I should clarify that I think there are at least three broad categories of economic well-being and this principle touches on them:

Poor- Unable to provide for one's own temporal needs. If they're really, really poor, they're "Exceedingly poor".

Rich- Able to provide for one's own temporal needs with some to spare. In our modern world, virtually every single American is "rich" and has a little excess they could give to others.

Exceedingly Rich- One has riches to excess. They have much, much more than they actually need to survive.

 

I think these are useful distinctions to make. I would be tempted though, to divide the poor into two groups; the relatively poor, and the absolutely poor. The relatively poor being those who have sufficient to meet immediate needs, but aren't doing quite so well as their contemporaries. The absolutely poor being those who cannot meet their immediate needs, and suffer hunger. Clearly we have a moral duty to succour the absolutely poor, so far as we are able, but no such duty to the relatively poor.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a teen, I attended a lecture by Petey Greene, a DC activist (look him up). He said something I never forgot - you cant help anyone if you don't have any money yourself. Now obviously there is 'help' that doesn't require an outlay of money, such as babysitting for a sister in RS while she goes to the doctor. What Greene was talking about was the tendency of many people with an activist mindset to think that money is evil, to not want to work for 'the man,' etc. In those cases, if you are barely surviving, there's not much you can do for anyone else.

 

 

 

This is the classic defence of the wealthy when called to task on the nature of greed or sin of avarice. Our conservative lady prime minister, the late unlamented Margaret Thatcher, once confused her economics with theology by pointing out that, had the Good Samaritan no money, he would have been unable to help the needy traveller.

 

The problem here is a matter of action, not status. If the wealthy were demonstrably becoming less wealthy by their succour of the poor, the sick, the marginal, the oppressed, - blimey, even neutering stray cats, whatever it is they might think most wrong with the world - I might have some sympathy with this position. But the figures show that the wealthy are becoming wealthier, and the poor, poorer. That is the way capitalism works. It sucks wealth out of the 'have-nots', and deposits it with the 'haves'. Those that have advantages, exploit them. Those that don't, can't begin to compete. That is why we need governments to tax and redistribute in our own societies, and, hopefully, spend a little in foreign aid. Because the rich have proven, time and again, that they aren't easily going to be parted from their wealth, and that they are not 'Good Samaritans'.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the classic defence of the wealthy when called to task on the nature of greed or sin of avarice. Our conservative lady prime minister, the late unlamented Margaret Thatcher, once confused her economics with theology by pointing out that, had the Good Samaritan no money, he would have been unable to help the needy traveller.

 

The problem here is a matter of action, not status. If the wealthy were demonstrably becoming less wealthy by their succour of the poor, the sick, the marginal, the oppressed, - blimey, even neutering stray cats, whatever it is they might think most wrong with the world - I might have some sympathy with this position. But the figures show that the wealthy are becoming wealthier, and the poor, poorer. That is the way capitalism works. It sucks wealth out of the 'have-nots', and deposits it with the 'haves'. Those that have advantages, exploit them. Those that don't, can't begin to compete. That is why we need governments to tax and redistribute in our own societies, and, hopefully, spend a little in foreign aid. Because the rich have proven, time and again, that they aren't easily going to be parted from their wealth, and that they are not 'Good Samaritans'.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

 

There's many a good thought here, but there's also a screaming libertarian in me.  I do agree the gospel commands us to service, but with our imperfect world governments being what they are... where would we draw the line between the wealthy becoming demonstrably less so in helping the poor and the poor becoming forever dependent on the wealthy? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that is a fair point to make. You know that saying, about giving a man a fish and teaching him to fish. Well, seems most NGO's have taken it to heart, and are doing some really good work around sustainable development. Dishing out rations, except in emergencies, is really old fashioned thinking. The trick is to supply the hardware (tools, equipment, etc) and the software (business know-how, banking services, access to modern communications etc) that help people help themselves. I am optimistic, because I think the world is gradually making progress towards eradicating poverty. But until we have done that, I just don't think getting to be rich is a Godly ambition.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not believe it is possible to be both wealthy and righteous. Indeed, I do not believe it is possible to be both wealthy and in any way moral. This is a tough position for Americans to take on board, I know. I just don't understand how one might be, say, a millionaire, and simultaneously ignore the plight of the fully one third of the world's population, some 2 billion people, who eke out meagre lives on less than $1 per day, and then claim to be 'righteous'. I know I am not particularly righteous, or moral, but I know also that if I ever had that sort of money, it would very quickly be spent to improve the lot of the hungry, and my scant knowledge of the Gospels leads me to believe that this would be what Jesus would do, too.

 

Best wishes, 2RM

I am not sure if you are a member of the LDS faith or not, but I have to assume that you must take real issue with our wealthy leadership in the church. Your line of thought is very idealistic "if I had millions i'd give it all away" Easy to say not so easy to do. Make your millions and get back us on that.

 

I read through your posts and it is evident that you are from or live in the UK. Redistribution of wealth is a foreign/not socially popular policy in general in th US. Unless your poor...

 

I like to think that we should help the helpless not the hopeless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The problem here is a matter of action, not status. If the wealthy were demonstrably becoming less wealthy by their succour of the poor, the sick, the marginal, the oppressed, - blimey, even neutering stray cats, whatever it is they might think most wrong with the world - I might have some sympathy with this position. But the figures show that the wealthy are becoming wealthier, and the poor, poorer. That is the way capitalism works. It sucks wealth out of the 'have-nots', and deposits it with the 'haves'. Those that have advantages, exploit them. Those that don't, can't begin to compete. That is why we need governments to tax and redistribute in our own societies, and, hopefully, spend a little in foreign aid. Because the rich have proven, time and again, that they aren't easily going to be parted from their wealth, and that they are not 'Good Samaritans'.

 

 

I have to disagree with the bolded above.  I believe a case can be made for sustainability.   After all if you give away all your wealth then you become poor and need someone to help you out.  And I don't think that is ever intended.  It seems to me that the scriptures are quite clear we need to take care of ourselves first so that we can be in a position to help another.

 

That takes us back to the question of what is the dollar amount to be considered wealthy?  It adds to it what is the dollar amount to be considered wisely taking care of your own needs and being able to help?  And experience has shown that people are going to answer 'more then what I have currently'.

 

Lets face certain facts... If you are able to get on-line and spend time posting in forums then chances are when compared to everyone living in third world countries that don't have running water that you are fabulously wealthy.  But you don't feel that way because you don't compare yourselves to them... you compare yourself to those that have more you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, actually, I am well aware of my good fortune to be born in my country, in this time, to my background. But, I am no stranger to hardship, either, and that is what determines my attitude towards the complacent wealthy. It is no argument to suggest that no help should be extended towards the hungry because the wealthy do not want to beggar themselves. They do not need to, and I am not asking of them that they should. A sensible compromise can be arrived at, and a compromise that will be different for each individual and family according to their circumstances and moral stature.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, actually, I am well aware of my good fortune to be born in my country, in this time, to my background. But, I am no stranger to hardship, either, and that is what determines my attitude towards the complacent wealthy. It is no argument to suggest that no help should be extended towards the hungry because the wealthy do not want to beggar themselves. They do not need to, and I am not asking of them that they should. A sensible compromise can be arrived at, and a compromise that will be different for each individual and family according to their circumstances and moral stature.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

 

Which is all well an good.... Even truly spoken.   But experience shows it doesn't end there.  Experience shows that people are going to disagree with the compromise and choices that one individual/family makes.  They will say they can and should do more.  They will try to shame them, belittle them, imply that they are unworthy and going to hell, because they didn't do what others thought they should.  They might even go so far as to try to get the government to mandate a wealth re-distribution to impose their definition of what others should be doing.  And I see that as also being very unChrist-like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share