Are we righteously obligated to pursue wealth and influence?

[Windseeker]

A couple of thoughts from one who holds conservative values but also has a "healthy" does of class envy.

 

I believe that most the prophets were men of "means" or probably rich. Most of the prophets from Abraham to Lehi were blessed with wealth. I don't think it's a problem to seek wealth as long as we have a higher goal of seeking the kingdom first.

 

I don't like how the world is going though. I think we live in a fascist economy where the government and corporations are one. It really isn't true capitalism anymore then what's in China is true communism. The greed demonstrated is staggering. We certainly have the means to eliminate poverty but it won't happen as long as people have free agency.

 

I like what I see in some European countries, but in each case the greater reliance on government the less generous people are. They also tend to be less religious.

 

The fact is that the more American, Conservative and Religious one is the more giving they are. http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/a-nation-of-givers

 

That also would mean that the more liberal and secular one is the less they give.

 

"Liberals, it has been said, are generous with "other people's" money, except when it comes to questions of national survival when they prefer to be generous with other people's freedom and security.
- William F. Buckley

 

 

I do believe in government and I believe in regulation. I think about it every time I deal with Comcast

 

I just don't think redistribution (socialism) is the answer.

[Backroads]

The key is we need the spirit of charity.  I worry about those that wish the rich would do more yet aren't charitable themselves.  At what dollar amount are you too poor to be charitable?  At what dollar amount are you rich enough to be charitable.  How much money do you have to give to be considered charitable?

 

You ought to be seeking to help others no matter your bank account size.  Many a financial advice plan I've seen advocate giving so much of an income to charity. 

[Lakumi]

If I became rich, like won a lotto, I'd go crazy...Like far more then I already am.

Maybe I'd build the sets to my favourite movie, maybe I'd just burn it like the Joker in Batman and watch people go nuts, I donno... I don't really wanna find out.

[andypg]

My goal in life is to follow Christ. My goals are to be more Christlike and concern myself with what I need to do in order to be more like Christ. Pursuing wealth, either righteously or unrighteously, is not part of becoming more like Christ and following in His footsteps.

 

I concern myself more about what I can do to serve others, not necessarily my own wealth.

 

(Or this could just be me justifying the fact I'm spending so much money on a journalism degree and won't be making much for the rest of my life)

[Guest]

Testing

 

Testing

Edited August 22, 2014 by paminutah

[2ndRateMind]

Backroads said: 'The key is we need the spirit of charity.'

 

I think this is right. The widow's mite, two farthings, is enough to be charitable, on a low income. A million dollars is not enough from a billionaire. It's all a matter of proportion, and conscience. Ideally, that aggregated conscience alone would be enough to end absolute poverty and hunger related deaths, and each individual would decide for themselves the right amount to sacrifice. But when it isn't, that is when social pressure and an appropriate tax regime have a place.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited August 22, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[Backroads]

Backroads said: 'The key is we need the spirit of charity.'

I think this is right. The widow's mite, two farthings, is enough to be charitable, on a low income. A million dollars is not enough from a billionaire. It's all a matter of proportion, and conscience. Ideally, that aggregated conscience alone would be enough to end absolute poverty and hunger related deaths, and each individual would decide for themselves the right amount to sacrifice. But when it isn't, that is when social pressure and an appropriate tax regime have a place.

Best wishes, 2RM.

The latter portion is where tge libertarian crowd would disagree. I see the benefit to society, but it is not charity. Expecting X % isn't charity no matter how you cut it. Social welfare and charity are two different things. Many liberals I know don't believe in charity, as they have stated, people in general are too rotten.

And I hate to be blunt, but unless one is making a point to regularly sacrifice one's resources for the good of others one has no business criticizing others.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Backroads

[2ndRateMind]

You're allowed to be blunt. I've suffered much worse than this on forums! And I agree with you about criticising other people individually. That is why I pointedly ignored the opportunity to comment on the wealth of the Mormon leadership, earlier in the thread, and would never take to task any individual in discussion. As far as I am concerned, all the points I make come under the implied heading: 'present company excepted!'.

 

But, if what I say hits home, and it is intended to, it is bound to cause people to reflect on their own level of affluence. Their feeling about that is a subjective matter. Absolute poverty, and malnutrition, and starvation, on the other hand, are objective matters. Somehow, we need to make them meet, if we are to save lives. If charitable spirit can't do the job, and the job still needs doing, then what is the libertarian alternative? I can't see one, other than to pass by on the other side.

 

Best wishes, 2RM

Edited August 22, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[estradling75]

Backroads said: 'The key is we need the spirit of charity.'

 

I think this is right. The widow's mite, two farthings, is enough to be charitable, on a low income. A million dollars is not enough from a billionaire. It's all a matter of proportion, and conscience. Ideally, that aggregated conscience alone would be enough to end absolute poverty and hunger related deaths, and each individual would decide for themselves the right amount to sacrifice. But when it isn't, that is when social pressure and an appropriate tax regime have a place.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

 

I was with you right up until the last.  Government is ultimately the threat of Force.  It is ultimately the biggest bully in town.  You don't pay the fine or tax you go to jail, you fight going to jail Force escalates until you submit or get killed.  Now don't get me wrong I am a big fan of Government being there to protect a person's rights and liberty, from those people who would use their rights and liberty to trample on the rights of others.

 

I don't see the collection and maintaining of wealth (assuming done without fraud) to be a violation of anyones rights.  Without that having the Government force-ably removing wealth is a violation of the wealth holders rights.

 

Now in LDS theology we learn of two plans... Christ's which would give everyone the right to choose... knowing that some would choose poorly and fail...  And the offer of Satan to compel everyone to do the right thing.

 

I see both plans on the issue of charity.  Christ's plan is to teach and encourage each individual person to become more christ-like and developed charity.  As this happen the poor and the needy are dealt with by those who are becoming more and more christ-like.  The down-side is that it has to be a individual choice and people can choose differently.  And because of this some of the poor and needy are not dealt with.

 

Satan's plan is for there not to be any poor an needy.  Instead of letting people have the choice to be christ-like and develop charity he wants to rip the wealth away.  This pretty much guarantees the individual people will not develop charity because the government will handle it.

 

We can't fulfill the plan of God using the Tools of Satan.  You can't compel righteousness and attempts to do so will fail.

[yjacket]

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.

 

I'm sorry, but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.  It is all fine and dandy to make these complaints and accusations when you live in the absolute most abundant time in history.  Never before in human history has there been so much plenty, so much food, time, energy, leisure, etc.

 

And all of this has come about because of capitalism (which I hate to use that word b/c so many have a complete misunderstanding of economics and of this word).

 

This utopia world where the rich are only righteous because they give away all their money is ridiculous.  Do you have any idea or clue how the world has come into such abundance in this time period?

 

The only world in which your idea could even possibly come true is in a world where food, water, items of luxury, etc. come about by the snap of a finger, when it is as easy to get as by breathing air.  Until that occurs, there will always be rich, and there will always be poor and being rich or poor has nothing to do with being righteous.  Those who are poor can be just as unrighteous as those who are rich.

 

It is why socialism, communism and all other variants of it will ultimately fail, simply because they do not take human nature into account.  We all act in our own self-interest, it is inherent to being human.  If I see some rich guy giving out millions to the poor, i.e. that I don't have to work to earn my daily bread, there will be much less incentive for me to actually work.  I will become angry, frustrated that so and so gets money and I don't.  Now I might not become like that, but the natural inclination is to do so.  

 

I could write a book on how wrong you are . . . but all I should say is that you really need to read and study.

The massive factories and innovation used to build cars, to design the ipad, to design and deploy computers, to the common things of super-markets have all come about through wealth.  It costs millions of dollars to build, design and deploy any number of common household items in today's modern society.  The only way that wealth is acquired is through a lot of very hard work.

 

If you want to complain about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, you are barking up the wrong tree of the free market.  If you want to complain about it, get to the root of the problem . . . . the Federal Reserve System or Central bank, which creates money and gives it to the well connected (not necessarily rich, but the well connected) who then buy up everything at cheap prices before the inflation has occurred. . . . they get the spoils of buying things cheaply and get richer while the poor have to wait to get the new money so they can then buy things that are more expensive and they get poorer. 

[2ndRateMind]

@Estradling75.

 

Hmmm. I think we are getting a true LDS perspective here, for which I thank you, because I joined the forum with the humble intention of learning. So, if I unwrap the consequences of this line of thinking, I hope you will not think me hostile. I am not. Just curious.

 

So, we are discussing, essentially, a proposal of compulsion to be 'good'.

 

I think I agree with you, that any such compulsion destroys the virtue inherent in a charitable act. How can one be virtuous, which requires that one be autonomous, if one is compelled to do good? I don't think one can.

 

On the other hand, (assuming a benign authority), even if one is compelled, the objective of worldly good will be achieved. I can only think that, in this example, a little compulsion to contribute to global social justice is to make temporal goodness manifest, which is 'a good thing', indeed, may be our true human calling in this life.

 

So here we have the rub. To leave goodness voluntary, especially the realistic expectation that voluntary goodness will not eradicate absolute poverty, leaves the evil of hunger evident in the world. On the other hand, to cause compulsion by taxation with all the power of government enforcing it, may solve our hunger problem but removes our autonomy, and any personal virtue from the equation. So, heads we lose, tails Satan wins. Your position would seem to depend on the idea that the opportunity for an individual to exercise his charitable instinct, whether instantiated or not, is more important than the life of, say, a malnourished child.

 

For me, this is not a difficult call. But I can understand that it would be for a libertarian, self-reliant North American.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited August 22, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[estradling75]

Filling bellies is good...  But at what cost?  The souls of those that never grew in righteous because it was compelled of them?  I would call that to high a price.  Exchanging a temporary benefit for eternal damage. Who are you (generically speaking) to demand such a thing of a person?

[2ndRateMind]

I think we will all have many opportunities to exercise righteousness, and grow in moral stature, and deserve some inkling of heavenly reward, even when the prevalence of death by hunger is consigned to the judgement of history books.

 

Meanwhile there are priorities to determine, strategies to devise, tactics to conceive, and good things to be done, out of our love for humanity as a whole and for fellow humans we have never met, and never will meet, for Jesus' sake, who, in His lifetime, never knew us.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited August 22, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[yjacket]

So here we have the rub. To leave goodness voluntary, especially the realistic expectation that voluntary goodness will not eradicate absolute poverty, leaves the evil of hunger evident in the world. On the other hand, to cause compulsion by taxation with all the power of government enforcing it, may solve our hunger problem but removes our autonomy, and any personal virtue from the equation. So, heads we lose, tails Satan wins. Your position would seem to depend on the idea that the opportunity for an individual to exercise his charitable instinct, whether instantiated or not, is more important than the life of, say, a malnourished child.

 

Compulsion by taxation to solve the hunger problem will not solve the hunger problem, it will make it worse.  There is a reason why Satan's plan of compulsion was rejected, because it simply cannot and will not work- it is impossible to make it work.  Compulsion by taxation to force charity will lead to less charity.

 

For example, in the US there are umpteen social safety nets for the poor.  I will not give money when I see someone begging for a hand-out on the side of the road, simply because my taxes already go to feeding the poor.  If that weren't the case, I would absolutely help out.  Before the great society, charity hospitals were very common.  Today not so much.  We actually become less Christ-like and less generous when government forces us to contribute.  I will absolutely give money to those who need it who are ineligible for the social safety net.

 

I would also look at the countries' policies where the really poor live.  In the US, destitute poor is almost eliminated and it doesn't have much to do with taxes and social safety nets.  It has to do with the relative cheapness of food compared to incomes.  The countries' who have extreme poverty are countries who's economic policies are even more drastic than the US, countries that disencentivize hard work and saving what you earn.

[2ndRateMind]

Dear yjacket

 

If you have read the thread you will know that my preference is for:

 

i) voluntary charity

ii) social pressure to increase voluntary charity

 

and only then, and only if necessary,

 

iii) taxation at an appropriate rate

 

with the urgent intention of saving lives. For me, a human life - any human life - comes before my bank balance. I cannot believe that LDS teaching is substantially different than this, and still Christian. So, I do not think we are materially opposed in this discussion, just coming at it from different angles.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited August 22, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[yjacket]

To the OP question.

 

I think the question should be: Are we righteously obligated to pursue those activities that are within the scope of the gospel that provide benefit to our fellow man?  To that question the answer is yes.  And if we do a good enough job at doing that the outcome of those activities will be wealth and influence.

 

If a man says, I want to get rich, it will be very difficult for him to get rich.  How does one get rich (monetarily)? By providing goods or services that people want.  People will then exchange their money for those goods and services.  The better those goods and services meet the desires of the people the more successful that individual will be and the more money they will gain from those interactions.  That is how one gets rich . . . . by providing something of value to others.

 

Are we under obligation to provide something of value to others?  I would say absolutely, by providing something of value to others we are enriching their lives.  We gain something and they gain something and everybody wins.  We are under obligation to provide goods and services that are of value to others.  I would also say that we are under obligation to not provide those goods and services that would hurt others.  I think that decision is a personal one that each individual must come to terms with.

[yjacket]

Dear yjacket

 

If you have read the thread you will know that my preference is for:

 

i) voluntary charity

ii) social pressure to increase voluntary charity

 

and only then

 

iii) taxation at an appropriate rate

 

with the urgent intention of saving lives. For me, a human life - any human life - comes before my bank balance. I cannot believe that LDS teaching is substantially different than this, and still Christian. So, I do not think we are materially opposed in this discussion, just coming at it from different angles.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Very possibly and I might have mis-understood some thing and if so my apologies.

 

 

I would add though that with the Gospel knowledge there are some things that are more important than a human life.  All will live again and be resurrected, therefore life is merely a transitory process.  

 

No one gets out of here alive, we all die, it is only a matter of when, where and how.  Saving the physical body is so unimportant compared to saving the eternal soul. 

Edited August 22, 2014 by yjacket

[estradling75]

Dear yjacket

 

If you have read the thread you will know that my preference is for:

 

i) voluntary charity

ii) social pressure to increase voluntary charity

 

and only then, and only if necessary,

 

iii) taxation at an appropriate rate

 

with the urgent intention of saving lives. For me, a human life - any human life - comes before my bank balance. I cannot believe that LDS teaching is substantially different than this, and still Christian. So, I do not think we are materially opposed in this discussion, just coming at it from different angles.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

 

We agree with what we want as a end result.  We disagree with the methods used to do it once you reach step three.  Government is the use of force.   You choose not to pay taxes you go to jail etc.  Once force and threat of violence is invoked the cure becomes worst then the disease.  

[2ndRateMind]

OK, a little disagreement is no bad thing. Life would be incredibly boring without it, and we would all go our various ways completely reassured and completely wrong.

 

But, my question to Backroads remains open. What other alternative is there than taxation, once voluntary charity is exhausted and people are still dieing of hunger? What is the LDS alternative to step iii)?

 

Best wishes, 2RM

Edited August 22, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[estradling75]

OK, a little disagreement is no bad thing. Life would be incredibly boring without it, and we would all go our various ways completely reassured and completely wrong.

 

But, my question to Backroads remains open. What other alternative is there than taxation, once voluntary charity is exhausted and people are still dieing of hunger? What is the LDS alternative to step iii)?

 

Best wishes, 2RM

 

We can encourage, persuade, teach, but once you go to compel it goes to far.  There is no step beyond that is compatible with LDS teachings  Once an individual has done all they can (or will) then the rest is in the hands of God.  That means God will judge those that withheld out of greed.  And yes some people will die of hunger, their deaths will be to the condemnation of those individual who withheld depending on their motives. 

[2ndRateMind]

So, I'm sorry to flog a dieing horse, but the LDS position is to prefer the existence of hunger and deaths by hunger to a small tax (the UN estimates 4% of the total wealth on the world's 200 largest fortunes), in order to protect the wealth and the potential for the moral development of people rich enough to be able to choose whether to do good with their wealth, or squander it, or stockpile it?

 

Seems to me we could, by this small tax, save God the uncongenial task of judging deliberately the withholding of charity by countless ordinary people. It's possible that a little compulsion might do Him a favour, as well as contributing to a better world for all of us.

 

So, consider this post not as a criticism, but a constructive suggestion. There are few right-thinking folks, I propose, who would consider preserving the total wealth of the wealthy, and their potential for individual moral stature, as important as the very life of a single, hungry, innocent child.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.  

Edited August 22, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[estradling75]

So, I'm sorry to flog a dieing horse, but the LDS position is to prefer the existence of hunger and deaths by hunger to a small tax (the UN estimates 4% of the total wealth in the 200 world's largest fortunes), in order to protect the wealth and the potential for the moral development of people rich enough to be able to choose whether to do good with their wealth, or squander it, or stockpile it?

 

Seems to me we could, by this small tax, save God the uncongenial task of judging deliberately the withholding of charity by countless ordinary people. It's possible that a little compulsion might do Him a favour, as well as contributing to a better world for all of us.

 

So, consider this post not as a criticism, but a constructive suggestion. There are few right-thinking folks, I propose, who would consider preserving the total wealth of the wealthy, and their individual moral stature, as important as the life of single, hungry, innocent child.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.  

 

 

If all you see is the worldly side of the equation then that is where you have a logical case for a short term.

 

But experience teaches that taxes once allowed only get bigger as time passes.  Thus a small tax now becomes  huge tax later.  Corruption is inhertant in governments.  It would grow into a yet another slew of government employees to oversee the program.  And even more to deal with corruption within the program. Inspite of all this money, the problem does not go away.  Why because people are lazy by nature.  If someone else will provide for you, then you have no incentive to provide for yourself.  More and more people would become dependent on the system. The Number of non-workers to workers would climb costing more and more until it spirals out hand.  Because of human nature the system will collapse.  And if you ignore this your ignore your history.

 

When we look at it from the history of what has happened it seems that the best over all progress is made when individual are given control to sink or swim.  Some sink (children die) and that is a tragedy.  But the answer is not to create an unsustainable system that will in the long term fail and take everyone with it 

[Backroads]

I would advise you to step away from the notion LDS equal libertarianism. You are combining politics and religion here which is warping both.

Our Church generally avoids political instruction. When voluntary charity runs out, well, that's about it from the LDS perspective. The church doesn't tax or tell people how to vote. The Church would probably speak on charity and continue ti encourage it.

How to procede from there is now political, not religious, and would depend on one's political views.

We believe compulsion is wrong and this belief influences us politically-though not all to the same conclusions.

I am aware many Christian churches preach politically, but we are not one.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Backroads

[2ndRateMind]

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 inheritance. 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 I am, and I owe it everything, back.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited August 22, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[2ndRateMind]

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.

Edited August 22, 2014 by 2ndRateMind