Money: The Root Of All…Good?
Posted on July 28th, 2006 by Kevin Burtt (The Baron)
Here’s an interesting article/book review from Megan McArtle (aka Jane Galt) about the positive aspects of being wealthy. (Positive aspects other than…you know, having more money)
Can wealth make one more ‘moral’? The basic thesis makes sense: money provides security. And the more one feels secure with one’s own life–financially or emotionally–the easier it is to focus one’s attention on others’ needs. If one has pressing needs in their own life–if they live in uncertainty from day to day as to how to make ends meet or put food on the table–then they are almost certainly less likely to be donating a lot of money or time to the local homeless shelter, for example.
The book by Benjamin Friedman reviewed in the article presents the idea that financial security is inversely proportional to racism as well. While it’s easy to find racists among all social classes, it’s also easy to comprehend how a century ago white blue-collar workers insecure about their current employment and future finances might be more susceptible to KKK-inspired thoughts of “The Blacks Are Coming To Take My Job!â€, just like that same group might be more likely to think “The Mexicans Are Coming To Take My Job!†today. The more satisfied you are with your own life, the easier it is to be charitable (defined through money or general caring and love) without falling prey to jealousy, resentment, or fear.
I would love to one day be…prepare to be shocked…very wealthy. Not because I need a boat or a gold-encrusted Rolex to feel good about myself, but because money brings security and fewer worries about sudden medical expenses, bouts of unemployment, or my children’s education. Fear is a powerful motivator, but of course it primarily motivates us to find a place without fear…
“The Baroness†and I would like to be prepared to be senior missionaries one day–or perhaps accept a call to be mission presidents somewhere. That can only be done if we have a firm financial foundation such that we can afford to take volunteer time off for any reason. Indeed, right now “The Baroness†doesn’t need to work outside the home because our finances with one income are very stable–how many other couples in the world would love to have that option if only they had more money?
If this principle is true, though–if more money provides greater opportunity and incentive to provide service and be charitable towards others–then doesn’t that imply that we should be “seeking riches first, before the kingdom of Godâ€, contrary to Jacob 2:18? How do we reconcile the idea of richer people being more charitable with the idea that a camel will pass through an eye of a needle faster than a rich man will enter heaven? Can being wealthy make us both more charitable AND selfish?
From a relative standpoint, perhaps… When remarking upon the widow who cast her two mites into the temple treasury, the Savior said she had contributed more than the richer patrons who had given larger amounts. Perhaps it’s true that the rich may contribute more in absolute dollars, but less from a percentage basis. Being charitable in an absolute sense while still greedily withholding more than they needed.
(Of course, let’s not forget the value of absolute giving as well. A poor widow who shares $1 may contribute a greater percentage than a millionaire who contributes $500 to a charity, but the latter is still 500 times greater a gift than the former, and can accomplish 500 times more good in the community. If everyone was like that widow, we’d have a lot of very Christ-like, humble people…but a lot of starving people as well. Percentages don’t fill stomachs–contributions in absolute dollars do, and the fact of the matter is those increase only as personal wealth increases…)
It is interesting that for all the benefits of obtaining security through money, the principle of tithing seems to be purposely aimed at stripping away that security blanket…at least a little. By coldly demanding a fixed percentage regardless of any financial fears of being unable to put food on the table, tithing seems to force us to live a little less securely than we’d like to be. Or, at least, force us to find our security in other areas…
Perhaps the point is we’re not supposed to look upon money as the source of security–the firm foundation to support our lives. Perhaps we’re supposed to, at least a little, live with some financial uncertainty–relying on the Lord and the Church for comfort and security instead of those few extra dollars in the bank account. Are we at all afraid that after paying a full tithe, we won’t be able to support ourselves and our loved ones with everything we need? Tithing makes us confront that fear directly…
So, is money the root of all evil, the catalyst for good, or an amoral tool of both? Regardless of the answer, I–like most people–will probably still be like the guy who prayed, “Lord, please give me the opportunity to show that great riches won’t corrupt me…â€
» Filed Under Any
Comments
46 Responses to “Money: The Root Of All…Good?”
Leave a Reply
Sometimes money is a good thing. See here:
http://www.worldonfire.ca/
Money isn’t bad, greed is. I think a lot of the money hating talk that goes around in the bloggernaccle is really about jealousy.
Money, used wisely, can create great blessings in the lives of others. Money can give you the power to make a real difference. Look at Bill Gates, etc. They are accomplishing tremendous things.
My husband and I are in the middle of selling the company we started two years ago to a larger national company for around five million dollars. This will be, obviously, life changing. We both came from poverty, and we’ve done fairly decently well for ourselves so far, but never dreamed of this. Beyond paying off our house, making investments, and paying taxes and tithing, we’ve been talking about what to do with the money, and we are both incredibly excited about all of the incredible things we will be able to do charitably. We have both always been very inclined towards humanitarian service and are involved in a lot of different charitable endeavors, but this money will make it possible for us to help on a scale we never anticipated before, and I almost cry with happiness everytime I think about it.
Money can be a great blessing. Money itself is neutral - it’s the hearts of the people who have it that determine it’s effect on the world.
I think the key is to put God first in your life. God may then see fit to have you become wealthy so your wealth can be used to build up His kingdom, either directly through tithes and offerings or indirectly because your wealth allows you to spend time in His service.
The big problem with wealth is it leads to an unhealthy sense of pride, independence, and self-sufficiency that is highly contrary to the spirit of the gospel, so contrary in fact that it is difficult for wealthy people to adopt the necessary humility to be saved - where by humility I mean the attitude that one does whatever God asks, no holds barred.
Money only allows you to magnify the person you already are. If you are a generous, dedicated, righteous person, money will allow you to help many more people than you currently are capable of helping. If you’re an arrogant, selfish, and greedy s.o.b, money will allow you to be even more so. Who a person is dictates how they are affected by money rather than money dictating who a person is. That’s why I believe Jacob 2:18 to be right on the money, pardon the pun.
Hugh Nibley must be rolling over in his grave hearing your justifications to embrace Babylon in the name of doing “good”.
Go home immediately and read “Approaching Zion” until you have it memorized.
Hugh as awesome as he was is not a Prophet.
Money clearly is a mixed bag of plusses and minuses
Thats the problem with wanting wealth. You don’t just want it to help others, as honestly as you may want to do that…you want wealth so you can have all the stuff you want… and help others too. We use “but think of all the great humanitarian work we can do” to justify our desire for lots and lots of money. How many of you if you suddenly had millions would stay in the same house, with the same cars, same clothes, etc…
I think I’ll just worry about having ’sufficient for my needs’ and let the Lord take care of the rest.
“Give us this day our daily bread.” Only one day’s worth of manna came at a time, and there was a reason for that.
We should rely on the Lord for security, not money. The security of wealth can make one more charitable, better enabling obedience to the second greatest commandment. But it also tends to make one more proud, and less dependent on the Lord, thus undermining obedience to the greatest commandment of all.
I don’t want to be a hypocrite, though. I truly believe what I just said, but that doesn’t change the fact that I hope that the Lord blesses me with financial security.
I personally don’t have any problem with being rich. There certainly are some methods that I don’t intend on following to get that way. Considering the current amount of humanitarian aid granted today versus the past. It appears to me that trend of helping others has certainly grown as our wealth has grown. Which really isn’t surprising, people one step from starvation are really not in a position to help others. Certainly as rising tide lifts all boats a society that is growing wealthier will results in the average individual growing more weathly and more comfortable.
If you look at wealth in a different light it loses a lot of it’s sinister aspects. Wealth is not a pile of gold under a table. Gold is merely a medium of exchange. True wealth is industry(work)/capital. Money is just a way of keeping score, and easing the exchange of capital and services. When we are wealthy we are fostering industy the creation of goods, services, and the comforts of life. This is a good thing. It allows us to live far longer, healthier, happier, and more fufilled lives.
My wife is alive today because we live in a wealthy nation. She would have died in child birth 200 years ago. But today a C-Section is routine. I likely would have died as a child because of a double hernia, but today it’s routine surgery. But if we lived an impoverished nation this wouldn’t be true. I would like to be even more wealthy one day than I already am. I work hard to make this happen. I believe that in doing so I’m serving mankind the best way I can, and that I’m storing blessings in heaven as well.
It’s an amoral tool of both.
The morality among the rich that McArtle describes seems, to me, to be purely situational and no great cause for crowing.
As a sunday school teacher of mine once said:
“Being rich can be a great temptation to do evil, as the scriptures tell us. So, of course, we all turn to the Lord and say ‘tempt me, lord, please tempt me!’”
There are good examples of people humble enough that when the Lord blessed them with wealth, they remained righteous. Abraham and Job are excellent examples.
Well, as a matter of fact, we ARE staying in our house Another Julie. We love our neighborhood, our kids are happy here, we have enough space… Some people don’t aspire to great wealth, it just happens, and then you use it the best you can. Striving after money and wealth, that’s a different story. I don’t think that’s what we’re talking about. There are lots of rich GAs. Are they evil because they are rich?
And I’m curious, how do you differentiate between “sufficient for your needs” and “all the stuff you want?” Isn’t that sort of subjective? Lots of people in other countries think that a hut close to the community well is sufficient for their needs. Are you selfish for wanting indoor plumbing then? You ARE wealthy compared to most of the people in the world. Are you evil? Everything is relative.
Because of the money, I will be able to accomplish far more in my life than I ever could have before. Can’t see how that’s a bad thing.
And I do agree with a lot of McArtle’s ideas, actually. In my neighborhood book club, we often end up discussing a lot of the humanitarian problems in the world, and end up in a lot of discussions of “what can we do to help,” etc., but most of the time, nothing ends up happening, because of the realities of all of the other day-to-day things that take up our time. What a great blessing it would be to be able to devote ourselves to service in the same way others are required to devote themselves to jobs.
Actually, if everyone were like that widow, there would be no starving people. That’s the whole point of the law of consecration.
Brigham Young once said that the mind of a covetous man is not fit to be written upon by the pen of revelation. One of the reasons Hugh is so adamant against the accumulation of wealth is because we can only have one thought contained within our heads each instant. The more time spent on accumulating wealth, the less time seeking after the kingdom of God. Thus, the two pursuits are mutually exclusive of each other.
The Security provided by wealth is called, “carnal security,” in the scriptures.
2 Ne. 28:
21 And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.
As much as I love Hugh Nibley, he was also in the rare position of being paid to seek after the kingdom of God. (Not get rich by it, obviously, but enough to make a living). It’s easy for him to talk about never thinking about making money. I’m no scholar, so to provide for my family, I must think about making money at least some of the time.
What really hit home in this post is that it gets at the entire reason why I want to be financially successful. I don’t have dreams of mansions and designer clothes and sports cars. I just want security in case I lose my job, the ability to get medical care in case of a severe illness, a secure retirement where I’m not a burden on my children, and the ability to provide a good education for my children, including help with college/graduate school (that being even more expensive when you consider that we want to have several children). And I want my wife to be able to stay at home with the children all the while.
That kind of security in America requires wealth. So when I think about making money, it’s not Babylon I’m seeking. But I suppose the danger is that if I get my wish, then Babylon is where I’ll end up.
anon for this - I wasn’t trying to direct my comments specifically to you or anyone else (well, maybe the original poster), hope I didn’t give you that impression. I do believe there are righteous people who have sought the kingdom of God first, had some of the temporal stuff added to them after, and use it to righteous purposes. Many of the GAs are a good example. You may be another good example, and if so, more power to you. I hope you get to do lots of great things and serve many missions
AMEN CURTIS. That scripture is exactly what I was thinking of when I read this post. Sorry to be blunt, but this post articulates exactly what 2 Nephi tells us Satan will tempt the saints with. You can justify why you want wealth, for all those great things for your family. Thats great, and sure, thats why we work…to support our families. The point of it is, you should SEEK FIRST the Kingdom, and God will take of you. We are to rely on him, not ourselves. Just because you want money (obstensibly) for great things, even the Kingdom…doesn’t mean you should make your first priority seeking wealth. The scriptures are quite clear on that.
A few posters talked about how living in this wealthy nation is a blessing and the wealth helps us help others more. Well, all I can say to that is, this country is so wealthy fewer people can afford college, afford healthcare, afford a place to live…we’ve become so ‘wealthy’ that we can no longer afford to support our children without two incomes, we work more than any other country…leaving less time for family and building the kingdom. IF thats what wealth brings, I don’t want it. I think our country was better off when we valued family over money, and our nations ‘wealth’ will most assuradly lead to our destruction. Its a foundation of sand. We’d be much better off with smaller salaries, affordable health care, smaller homes, and more time with our family. Our inflated wealth has done nothing more for us then require more time away from home.
Seems to me that Megan McArtle’s choice of “Jane Galt” as her Nom de Blog is a reference to Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” whose protagonist is named John Galt. Anybody else catch that?
Certainly makes sense in light of Jane’s views, which sound a lot like Rand’s. Don’t have time to dig into it further and find out myself, but does Jane ever acknowledge that she’s re-hashing Objectivism?
Yes, yes, it’s so nice that Buffett and the Gateses are doing all of these wonderful things with their money. But go research some of the sorts of programs Buffett and Gates support, and it might give you a bit of a chill (it’s not all malaria and immunizations). I don’t think suddenly giving millions of dollars to anti-family, anti-life, and pro-SSM.
A recent article on Slashdot raised the question of — can Bill’s money ever atone for the evil his company has done?
Re: Bill Gates. To a degree, yes. However, as I see it the evil that Microsoft has done has been most manifest in the economic waste it has caused, the externalities of the single minded, if not vicious, pursuit of its own pecuniary interests. Just the cost in security and rather superfluous system administration alone probably is double or three times Microsoft’s net historical revenues.
Giving away every single penny would not make up for that, unless one can successfully argue that Microsoft’s regime was the best of all possible worlds, which I myself think is a laughable proposition.
This is correct, although not because she’s an objectivist or a Ayn Rand disciple. The story behind it is here.
#1: I think a lot of the money hating talk that goes around in the bloggernaccle is really about jealousy.
Or, conversly, all the defense of being rich that goes around the bloggernacle is really about justification. Not that I think that, but casting aspersions like that is a cheap rhetorical trick that allows us to easily dismiss viewpoints we don’t want to admit might be correct.
Interesting, there was a time in the BoM when both the Lamanites and the Nephites were rich - yet the Nephites were condemned and the Lamanites blessed. The difference - there were no poor among the Lamanites.
Also:
D&C 49: 20
20 But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.
I think, though, that that scripture doesn’t just condemn the rich (though it does that) but it pretty much condemns all of us who live in “richer” first world nations. “The whole world lieth in sin” that includes me as well as the millionaries.
also, Claiming that investing (which is designed to enrich the pockets of the investor primarily) is a better way of helping the poor (because it might create a few more jobs) than paying fast offering - well, to my mind that’s just justification for lining your own pockets and trying to feel good about what is generally an explotative venture (besides, my fairly conservative friend with a Master’s in Economics tells me that investing only really creates jobs if it’s on an IPO - after that, it’s generally just rich people trying to become richer).
It is a gross oversimplification to say that investing is worse than a fast offering. While on a dollar for dollar basis, I agree, it is also true that investment is necessary to improve the economy, which is the rising tide that lifts all boats. If the richest half of the world’s population gave away everything above the world’s average per capita wealth and it was redistributed either to the poor individuals directly, or to nonprofit organizations, the poor would benefit greatly. But the world’s economy would be destroyed. Ooops!
There is a place for both. And ignoring any specific causes the Gates Foundation has chosen to support, it is a fact that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have done more for the poor by investing (or holding on to stock, in Gates’ cse) for decades then giving what they have earned, than they could have possibly done if they had never invested at all and then given the same portion of their (then meager) wealth.
My point is that there is a need for both. It’s the same idea that minute for minute, reading the scriptures is probably a better way to spend your time than reading anything else, but that doesn’t mean the only thing one should ever read is the scriptures.
But I wholeheartedly agree that anyone who doesn’t give to the poor because they help them by investing is as deluded as someone who claims to help the poor by excessive consumption (which also creates jobs). It is probably a justification for enriching oneself while ignoring the needs of others.
By the way, your conservative friend with a Master’s in Economics is wrong. Investing in stock can directly create jobs when a company sells additional stock. Investing in corporate bonds can also directly create jobs. Venture capital and private equity funds (which only the rich invest in) are some of the most powerful means of directly creating jobs. Investing in CDs or other opportunities at banks can directly create jobs (since banks lend to small businesses). And lastly, if you look at indirect job creation, then pretty much all forms of investing play a role.
I should also point out that when considering the good and evils of wealth, paper wealth and investments are meaningless. I believe none of the scriptural condemnations of the wealthy would apply to paper wealth. Paper wealth/investments are, in fact, doing much to help others while not benefitting the owner in the slightest. Is is only when paper wealth/investments are cashed in for purposes of consumption that the owner must beware. It is one’s lifestyle, and not the balance in one’s bank account, that matters. Paper wealth/investments are potential, either for good or evil. Investing is not consumption because the money is not used up; it still exists, and the choice of how to dispose of it has not yet been made. Once the individual chooses to consume it, that is the moral choice of whether to do good with it or evil.
This economy that we are so fond of protecting will end someday. The earth is given to man to be Lord over, and Satan took it away and expects you to buy it back on his terms. The book of Revelation has this to say about the demise of the economy:
Revelation 18:
11 And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more:
12 The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble,
13 And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.
14 And the fruits that thy soul alusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all.
15 The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing,
16 And saying, Alas, alas, that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls!
17 For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off,
18 And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city!
19 And they cast adust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.
JR - interesting comments, 90% of which I agree with (such as there in no either/or - both investing and fast offerings are needed. My beef is with those who pay no fast offerings, but invest so they can retire rich and then claim they don’t need to pay FO because they are helping the poor through investments).
i asked my friend, and he said he didn’t tell me it was IPOs - that was my faulty memory. He said that he told me investing only really created jobs when it was the initial offering of the stock (which includes ‘additional stock’ as you pointed out). He also said that the “indirect” effects are at worst non-existent or at best, slight.
However, I don’t go for the “paper money” distinction beacause much of that money could have been used for something else, and I doubt most people who have lots of that paper money are thinking “as soon as I cash this in, I’m going to spend it all on direct job creation in the third world.”
First, you forgot to mention that Sarah M. is from a Social Democracy which feeds off of the fact that everyone has been taught that the government owes them something and so they sit there and preach this nefarious doctrine to the rest of the world that we just plain well owe the poor money and not to actually volunteer time and effort to allowing the poor to see that there is something better than what they have and in short that doctrine spcial democracy teaches is completely contadictory to the welfare program of God’s church, or in other words, it is false doctrine. It would be good to ask Sarah when the last time it was tha she actually sat and taught some of the poor how to sing and play guitar like she can!!
It seems like a really good idea, but to simply give them $$$ and not actually teach them what to do with the $$$, is complete insanity and as someone pointed out above, would ruin the society in which these people live. People like Bono and Sarah don’t actually do anything for these people, the simply petition others with false concepts to give $$$. “I will buy up armies and navies, and false priests who opress!!”, I think is how it goes.
I really hope for the sake of real charity, Kevin, that you give of your time, talents, and all that the Lord has blessed you with to building of the kingdom, and not simply ‘give at the office!’, as afterall, those are the covenants you made, not simply to give the $$$, but to give of yourself to building up of the kingdom!
Social Democracy,
After studying the Church’s teachings on Communism etc. I still haven’t been able to find good scriptural backing for this opposition to socialism. I see nowhere where it says that governments are not allowed to make laws regarding the distribution of wealth in their land. The USA certainly has its share of those sorts of laws.
I don’t like the sentiment that says that giving money to the poor is teaching them to expect handouts from the government without having to do anything for it. Remember, man has been made the Lord over the earth. Because some men have taken more than is allowed by the Lord, does that mean that others must suffer? Socialism tends to equalize things. I’m not saying its the best economic system, but its not all evil. Men are judged according to how they respond to their situation and free agency cannot be taken away by an economic system.
By the way, those buying up the armies of the earth so that Satan can reign with blood and horror on this earth, are mostly from the capitalist side of things.
Nope. As many problems as I have with capitalism, it’s the best we’re gonna get until the Millenium. Socialism is exactly the wrong solution to the problem. Socialism is not only far from perfect, it has proven to be a failure time and time again. Even in Europe, where is has a little more hold, the economies of mostly socialist nations (France for example) are much more unequal than ours and constantly on the verge of collapse.
#29 — wrong, wrong, and wrong…
#30 is absolutely right, and what his comment more relevant is that when there are dictatorships that run a country into the ground it is usually surrounded by far too many social policies that hurt the country in the first place. Any of the Central American countries where there exist revoluionary organizations, come based upon their perception of what is fair and ufair within a socialist regime. Chile in the 70s and 80s is another example of this and so on and so on.
Socialism may equalize things in the short term, but in the long it always represses and creates ridiculous long term senses of entitlements and in effect impoverishes everyone!
RE: wanting to save up so you can go on a senior mission–
I am on a senior mission right now. To be financially ready to go on a senior mission–stay out of debt or get out of debt.
Then– desire to serve!
Look at the listing that hangs on the ward’s bulletin board. It doesn’t cost all that much money to go on a mission. It mostly takes desire. I know of both wealthy and very poor who are serving in this mission. I also know of wealthy who are too busy looking after their investments to be able to serve and poor who have decided that they are too poor without ever investigating how much it does cost. Just as in your youth, a mission requires sacrifice and, just as in your youth, it is worth it.
#31 Don’t quite understand what you were trying to say about Central American revolutionary organizations. Chile is not a good example for your arguements against socialist democracy though. The US placed an economic stranglehold on Chile and apparently had something to do with Allende’s assassination. Then we supported the terrible Pinochet whose policies were more towards a capitalistic way of doing things (i.e. privatization of Social Security etc.).
Venezuela is a good example of the good effects of a sort of Neo-socialist policy currently. Lots of good going on down there with support of the masses (i.e. no dictator).
I have read all of your comments, and many good points have been made. However, I had the feeling that maybe none of you had actually lived in a third-world country and thus cannot fully understand what this nation is to the world.
I believe that there is a reason why the Lord has blessed this nation with wealth. 2 Ne v.7 reads, “Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.
Being wealthy and obtaining wealth seems to be a way by which the Lord accomplishes many of his purposes on earth. Without wealth, there would be no building of temples, meetinghouses, or anything. There are physical reasons that may limit someone’s spirituality. Back in the early 1980s, even Mexico did not have a Temple. Thus, the Temple blessings were limited only to those members who had enough wealth to obtain a Visa to the US and make the trip. Is it selfish to want those blessings?
In likewise manner, it is the blessing of wealth that provides for a better education and helps people break poverty cycles. That is the reason the church instituted the Perpetual Education Fund. I have family members who are not living in a hut or anything, but have to rely on that bit of extra wealth in order to better the living conditions for themselves and their families.
The United States has been blessed for a reason. It has been talked much about the divine purpose for the Founding Fathers and the laws that make this nation great. One cannot possibly entertain the thought of socialism and communism as the way of the Lord. True, the scriptures mention a time when ‘there was no poor among them,’ but that is much different than ‘everyone was poor’ which is what happens in a communist state. Anybody seen living conditions in Cuba lately??? As children of God we aspire to become better beings, to reach higher and higher in life and in purpose. A communist state suppresses that divine nature in us. In other words, the reason why a United Order would work and is NOT communism/socialism, is because faith in a higher power provides a sense of purpose. Faith is an incentive for production and order. In communism, there is no incentive.
By putting God in our lives first, He is able to direct the choices we make and bless us to live with a greater purpose.
#5: Go home immediately and read “Approaching Zion” until you have it memorized.
One of my favorite Nibley quotes from “AZ” is “More than enough is more than enough.” Woe unto those to whom the Savior one day says, “I think that during mortality, yours was a case of having had ‘more than enough’.”
The Book of Mormon makes it clear: if we are to seek for riches, the only way to righteously handle them is to “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.”
The temptation to do otherwise is surely comparable to possessing Sauron’s One Ring, and promising only to wield it in righteousness.
Do tell, Boromir.
re: 30
I know it’s de rigeur to hate France here in the Bloggernacle, but to assert that France is “constantly on the verge of collapse” is just absurd. It’s also incorrect to state that their economy is “more unequal than ours.” I certainly wouldn’t trade the American economy for theirs, but the reality is they have a system that on the whole works pretty well. So do the Brits, so do the Japanese, so do the Canadians. All different, for sure, but it’s pure hubris when Americans slip into triumphalism. It may also prove to be our downfall.
When you can’t really support your point….point to France!
Why can’t a communist state take the economic policy only and allow religious freedom to remain? Why must communism be necessarily godless? Can there not be an economic system separate from a system restrictive of one’s religious devotions?
The thought that there is no incentive to produce or innovate in a socialist economy doesn’t hold water with me. Some of the greatest innovations in history were made under the utopian societies of early Greece. The Spartans, Pythagorus etc. Very communistic.
Why can’t a communist state take the economic policy only and allow religious freedom to remain? Why must communism be necessarily godless?
Real World Communism has little to do with economic policy. And a lot to do control of the masses. Hence the ban on religion.
Re: #37
Communism simply doesn’t work. We have the Soviet Union, Cuba, pre-economic reform China, and more as examples. How many case studies do you need? The fear of starving to death is the only real world incentive that motivates people to be productive. Centrally planned economies also don’t work because of the massive complexity involved. Most well run and efficient companies can barely keep on top of planning their own business needs, and you expect the government to be able to plan the entire economy? It has never and will never work.
Folks, we need to separate out the two separate issues.
1)How do people deal with money on an individual basis and in their families and
2)What kind of governmental and economic system is most equitable and in line with the scriptures.
While 2) is an interesting discussion, it was not the point of the Baron’s post. I would also point out that discussing socialism and communism with Curtis is likely to be one of the most frustrating experiences of your lives. So, my advice is: don’t even try. Curtis, we love you but I would ask you to stay on-topic.
So, to return to 1), which was the Baron’s original point, we have significant evidence from the scriptures that money causes a lot of problems. We have the perfect man, our model, the savior, who couldn’t care a whit about money and lived at a near subsistence level. We have continued warnings about money from the BoM and elsewhere. And then we have the significant quotation from you-know-where in which it appears to me that we are told that the perfect model is to only have enough money that is “sufficient for our needs.”
Then, on the other hand, we have demands, especially as patriarchs and priesthood holders, to maintain and support our families. I am not saying that women do not have these demands also, and I’m not judging negatively other family models in which, for example, women are the primary bread winners, but I am saying that there is a special demand put on men as patriarchs of their families to maintain their families in a certain level of comfort. And as a man, this creates a dilemma for me: I must bring in a certain amount of money to “do the right thing” and support my family, but at the same time, I can’t care too much about money because then I am succumbing to caring more about mammon than the kingdom of God.
So, I would agree it’s a terrible thing to balance these two demands correctly. Here’s how I sleep at night:
I ask myself constantly, “am I putting the kingdom of God first?” And the answer is that I do my Church callings, I pay my tithing, I pay my fast offerings generously, I volunteer often to help the poor and the sick and the afflicted, and AT THE SAME TIME I also work hard to maintain my family in a level of comfort that is safe and secure but not rich. In addition, I am saving for my retirement and thinking of ways to pay for a mission in 25 years or so.
So, it seems, for me that I have reached a good balance and I am comfortable with the balance. I sleep well at night and have no warnings from the Holy Ghost that I’m doing it the wrong way.
Geoff,
I wasn’t the one that got off topic. I was answering Social Democracy’s comment. Of course it is my fault for getting off topic though isn’t it. Frustrating talking to me is it? Geoff we love you but your opinions on politics and economics are very frustrating to deal with. How do you like the shoe on the other foot?
Shouldn’t it be: “The Love of Money: The Root of All Evil…” (Did someone already make this point?)
Curtis, your #26 was what started us on the threadjack while your #16 was right on-target, so let’s stick to the points you were making in #16 (some of which I agree with). Curtis, I just like to concentrate on the part where you say you love me, so I’ll stop reading there….:)
Mike - I was thinking exactly the same thing… it is the love of money, not money itself.
Now, just a thought. Consider the parable of the good Samaritan. Luke 10 v.33 reads, ‘But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him.’
Was it enough that the Samaritan had compassion on the man who had been robbed? Could he had compassion and done nothing and still be a meaningful parable? Possibly, but what makes it more powerful is that the Samaritan did do something.
He ‘went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
The Samaritan had the money to buy the inn and take care of him. It is not stated that the Samaritan was wealthy, but it is obvious he had some money.
As much as we are commanded to clothe the naked and feed the hungry, I believe we not only must have a desire, but also the means to do so.
Geoff,
My comment #26 was in response to comment #24 in regards to the economy. Why do you like to argue with me about the littlest things?
Mike InWeHo #36
Go ahead and attribute motives to me I don’t have. I have no hate for France, and if you peruse my bloggernacle comments, I’m fairly sure that I have never said another negative thing about France.
But I’ve read the economic reports and seen the riots. The high unemployemnt in France is merely one problem there are others. France’s economy is not healthy.
But I am not a French basher. When all else fails, accuse your opponents of anti-Frenchness. Easier than thinking.