Are we righteously obligated to pursue wealth and influence?

[estradling75]

Estradling75, do you really have such a low opinion of your fellow humans? It is a general fault of Christianity, I find, to be convinced that people are inherently evil. I think we need to get beyond that, and appreciate and celebrate people for what they can be, for what God intended them to be, and for what, with a little encouragement, they might become. Saints, after all, are not 'inherently lazy', or inevitably corrupt. The nature of Man (and Woman) has a lot to do with nurture, as well as nature. If the world had given me nothing, as a youngster, I think I would be entitled to conclude that I owed it nothing, as an adult. But the world gave me everything, and I owe it everything, back.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

My opinion (like everyone else's) is formed by my experiences.  I've met individuals that are awesome.  I've met individuals that are horrible and met people all the ranges in-between.  My experiences also tell me that groups and organization need to be able to handle the whole range of humanity or they fail.  Thus if you want to put together a group you need to plan for the worst.  This doesn't mean you can't hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

 

There has been something about your setup that has been nagging at me.  Then it hit me.  Your idea of taxes to feed the hungry is already being done.  Where I live it is call 'Food Stamps.'  Every pay check taxes come out of my check.  Everyday those hurting can turn to the government for help getting food based on me paying taxes. Now I don't know about the rest of the 1st world nations but I doubt the USA is leading the pack in this matter.

 

The program you are advocating already exists.  So either the program works like you are trying to say it will, or it doesn't.  Either way more of the same is not the right answer. 

[2ndRateMind]

There are a billion malnourished people around today. Ask them if food stamps work for them, or if the program exists to lift them out of absolute poverty.

 

The question is, do we keep our brother, or condemn him into starvation by indifference? And is that a religious decision, or a political one, or, as I maintain, a matter of basic morality?

 

Best wishes, 2RM

Edited August 22, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[estradling75]

There are a billion malnourished people around today. Ask them if food stamps work for them, or if the program exists to lift them out of absolute poverty.

 

The question is, do we keep our brother, or condemn him into starvation by indifference? And is that a religious decision, or a political one, or, as I maintain, a matter of basic morality?

 

Best wishes, 2RM

 

But that is just it... the only answer you have given to 'solve' the problem is already in place. By your own post you clearly do not think that it works

[2ndRateMind]

No, I just think that voluntary charity, social pressure to increase voluntary charity, and our current social justice programs have not *yet* proved sufficient. I think more is being asked of us, by the world, and by the God who built the world, than we are yet morally sufficient to give. So, I think there is work to do, on the ground, and in our characters.

 

I need to sleep. Good night, and may your God go with you. 2RM.

Edited August 22, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[estradling75]

No, I just think that voluntary charity, social pressure to increase voluntary charity, and our current social justice programs have not *yet* proved sufficient. I think more is being asked of us, by the world, and by the God who built the world, than we are yet morally sufficient to give. So, I think there is work to do, on the ground, and in our characters.

 

I need to sleep. Good night, and may your God go with you. 2RM.

 

 

That is a perfect valid opinion to have...  But when you go from having an opinion to trying to formulate answers to problem that involve people other then yourself... you will need more then just opinions. 

[Backroads]

Dear Backroads, I am not sure we can so neatly divide the political from the religious. The common thread is neither, but moral. As long as a church wants to be relevant, it needs to have ethics, and so it needs to be political.

I appreciate that can get difficult, even messy, but life is like that, and I think that complexity to be inevitable.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Sure we can separate the two. A church either tells its congregation to vote a certain way or it doesn't. Simple. I think you are saying a church is obligated to be specific and fervent in its politics-I just dont agree. A church can encourage love and charity, but it goes too far when it spouts political. At least in my view. Separation of church and state is a good thing.

Now if you want to debate this from a purely moral or political view, sure. But a religion should not dictate such things.

I also see morality more as action than result. If I'm feeding the hungry stuff I pillaged, that's not moral even if people are no longer starving.

[2ndRateMind]

I really am going to bed real soon now!

 

But I think we can distinguish between trivial party politics, and deep ideological politics. I would agree that a church would be well advised to avoid details like how many rubbish collections are to be made each week, and the appropriate wage for postmen. Matters of party affiliation are best left to the individual. But the deep, moral aspect of politics - daring to care for one's fellow humans, or failing to love enough to give a damn, supporting a tax for the amelioration of absolute poverty, or failing to love enough to give a damn, well, these kind of moral choices seem to me to be deeply religious, profoundly Christian, whole-heartedly at the root of what gives life, and therefore everything, meaningfulness.

 

I do not mean to preach at you, simply to pose a counter viewpoint you may be unfamiliar with.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited August 22, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[estradling75]

I really am going to bed real soon now!

 

But I think we can distinguish between trivial party politics, and deep ideological politics. I would agree that a church would be well advised to avoid details like how many rubbish collections are to be made each week, and the appropriate wage for postmen. Matters of party affiliation are best left to the individual. But the deep, moral aspect of politics - daring to care for one's fellow humans, or failing to love enough to give a damn, supporting a tax for the amelioration of absolute poverty, or failing to love enough to give a damn, well, these kind of moral choices seem to me to be deeply religious, deeply Christian, whole heartedly at the root of what gives life, and therefore everything, meaningfulness.

 

I do not mean to preach at you, simply to pose a counter viewpoint you may be unfamiliar with.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

The implication you are making though is if we don't think like you.... we must not love enough, care enough, or be good enough.

 

But really though... if I see someone starving the moral thing to do is to use what I have to help.  If that is not enough it is not moral for me to pull a handgun on my neighbor and demand they do to.  I can ask them to but I can not compel them to.

[Backroads]

I really am going to bed real soon now!

But I think we can distinguish between trivial party politics, and deep ideological politics. I would agree that a church would be well advised to avoid details like how many rubbish collections are to be made each week, and the appropriate wage for postmen. Matters of party affiliation are best left to the individual. But the deep, moral aspect of politics - daring to care for one's fellow humans, or failing to love enough to give a damn, supporting a tax for the amelioration of absolute poverty, or failing to love enough to give a damn, well, these kind of moral choices seem to me to be deeply religious, deeply Christian, whole heartedly at the root of what gives life, and therefore everything, meaningfulness.

I do not mean to preach at you, simply to pose a counter viewpoint you may be unfamiliar with.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I agree, those are deep Christian values--save for the "support this tax" one. That is political. There is no way around it. It is not a high-minded value, it's a tax. Good or bad, it's a tax.

You're right, I'm not used to churches following through on my political choices. That is foreign in the states. Churches here will preach values and morals and some even get into specific political topics. They will organize groups for charity and goodwill. But never would a church enforce a political vote or ideology on its members.

[Backroads]

Look, I don't think anyone is saying its wrong to help the impoverished. Yes, we hold that to be a cherished and venerable commandment.  No one is saying "Gasp! Look at that formerly impoverished person who is now on his way to sustainable independence!"

 

What we might complain about is the means of this happening. 

 

Every choice we make has consequences. In our religion, we put personal accountability and free will on a very high shelf.  We believe each person is responsible for his or her own morality.  For some of us, this makes us more conservative in our political views.

 

While I certainly understand the liberal tendency of public welfare, I personally don't fully support it.  No, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the people deciding en mass to use taxes to help the poor and I"m sure there are still many very generous people doing this.  But I do think it can have bad consequences of "letting government handle it" instead of individuals helping their neighbors in times of need.  Not saying this is the ruling result, but when I way my views, feelings, and experiences, I tend to be a little more libertarian.

[estradling75]

2ndRateMind,

 

It occurred to me that you really don't understand how the LDS church helps the poor and the needy.  So let me share with you

 

First the church teaches the scriptures to the members.  This includes the bible passages to help the poor and needy but also the additional scriptures on the subject that are from books that only we claim as scripture. This is motivational at the personal level

 

Then once a month it holds what we call a Fast Sunday.  All members are asked to pray for 24 hours and then donate the cost of the food they would have eaten (generosity is encouraged) as a Fast Offering dedicated to helping the poor and needy.

 

This offering goes to the local bishop who is then directed to distribute all of it to the poor and the needy.  The bishop has discretionary authority on whom gets it but 100% of it goes to helping.  There is no overhead that takes a bite out of it.  The Bishop and all leaders involved  are volunteers.  And other resources are what is already in place for basic church functions payed by different donations.

 

The Church also has farms, and processing plants, which means it creates food.  Food which the bishops are allowed to give away. And that is mostly where it does, although Church does sale some.

 

And this does not include the humanitarian aid it gives out.  All of which is possible because it members act on Christan principles and on the business side the Leaders have been wise in building the church's worldly assets.

 

So when you talk to people of the LDS faith you are talking to people who have been doing and living the faith they claim (generally speaking after all no one is perfect).

 

So when you start talking taxes it sound to me like you want to take more and accomplish less then the methods I have already chosen. And using a method I find at best a necessary evil.

 

You want to find a way to do even more.  Great try building of what works well rather then what works poorly and full of inefficiencies.

[yjacket]

There are a billion malnourished people around today. Ask them if food stamps work for them, or if the program exists to lift them out of absolute poverty.

 

One problem is that you are not taking into account where those malnourished people are located.  They are located in countries and in societies that are dysfunctional.  The foundation of society (besides family) is property rights, the idea that whatever I create or improve upon is rightfully mine.  I may choose to voluntarily give it to others, but inherently I have no natural obligation to do so.  To take what I have created and give to another without my consent is theft.  It doesn't matter if we call it a "tax" or a "penalty", it is theft plain and simple.  Legalized theft.

 

Those billion people are in societies that do not respect property rights, they are in societies that basically say, if I want it and I can get enough of my friends together I can take it from you.  Implementing a tax and giving people money or food in those areas does not work.  The thugs will come and take it from those who really need it.

 

It is a simple fact of human nature that in cases where someone else provides continuous and regular gifts, the receiver will not value those gifts as much as they would if they worked for it and earned it on their own.  A continuous and regular gift, no longer becomes a gift it becomes an expectation and an obligation.  At that point, the benefits of voluntary charity become extremely diminished, the spiritual component of it is taken away and it simply becomes a transaction.

 

Ultimately, I don't believe people are inherently evil, but that everyone is motivated by their own self-interest.  There is an ultimate truth when Christ says that those who lose their life for His sake shall find it.  The beauty of the Gospel is that by giving of ourselves we actually gain everything.

Edited August 23, 2014 by yjacket

[notquiteperfect]

Just to add to estradling and yjacket - 

 

The LDS church also has missionaries.  Again - volunteers who pay their own way (though some get help - from donations from other members - imagine that!).  Why do I bring this up and how does it fit into the above posts?  Because we don't just write checks or just hand out supplies and wish them the best.  We show up.  Case in point: My in-laws went to S. Africa for 18 months. While they were there, one thing they did was to help the locals figure out a way to get water. The agreement was that the Church would cover the costs if the people provided the labor.  This way they got what they needed for basic living but they were invested in it since they did what they could themselves.  This is the system that I personally can get behind and feel that the money I give is spent in the wisest possible way --- that actually helps the poor and needy rather than continue unhealthy cycles that I see as way to prevalent now-a-days.

Edited August 23, 2014 by notquiteperfect

[2ndRateMind]

Thank you all for enlightening me. I am sorry if my posts provoked you, but to get those replies was worth it. You all obviously have a well worked out position, which is better than I expected.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Lakumi]

i found this the other day

"It is easier for a camlel to go through the eye of a needle, then for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God"

Mark 10:25

[mordorbund]

For what it's worth, 2RM, what you're getting is not "the LDS position", as the Church has opted not to make a political stand on the redistribution of wealth one way or the other (as Backroads was saying, although the Church has stepped in politically for other moral issues that it found to be fundamental to societal stability). In the absence of a clear teaching on the subject, members of the Church are free to stand wherever they want and still be in good standing. Many LDS Americans tend to lean on the conservative side of the political spectrum, but a good number do not. Estradling pointed out the balance that has to be struck between freedom (sometimes heralded as "agency", but theologically the terms are different) and equality. The other side would point out the principles of sacrifice - specifically consecration - espoused in LDS scripture highly encourage the wealthy giving their surplus to be redistributed to the poor to get the desired equality.

[2ndRateMind]

Thanks for that clarification, mordorbund. 

 

I do not think I am advocating the equality of outcome, merely the equality of opportunity. Poverty stunts people and their lives, restricts the capacity for moral development and spiritual growth, and generally turns the world from the celebration of the good it ought to be to an arduous ordeal of entirely preventable evils. But I do not think I need to persuade anyone here of that; the discussion seems to be around the best way to end poverty. And I am quite comfortable for some to be obscenely rich, but only once nobody is absolutely poor. Having established that position, I am content to leave the thread to our various individual consciences.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Pa Pa]

This is inspired by another thread that is probably derailed as it is, so I'm branching off.

The question was raised if we ought to be financially stable before starting a family. Which led me to wonder, if so, how much?

As a matter of self-reliance, does it behoove us to make as much money as we can? Can this be a righteous pursuit and if so, is it a matter of righteousness to try to pursue wealth? Do the more righteous seek wealth after more spiritual pursuits as opposed to those satisfied with low- to moderate-paying jobs?

On that note, is it equally righteous to pursue high-profile jobs?

Barring worship of wealth and power, they ate useful. They allow self-sufficiency, greater ability to help others, and ways to share the gospel. Not to mention they are evidence of hard work of talents and labor.

Disclaimer:These are just musings for discussion with no real opinion of my own attached.

If I had waited to be stable before having a family, I still would not have one. :)