How much is too much?

Your chance to pontificate on the subject of your choice. (Please keep it PG-rated.)
Post Reply
User avatar
Marduk
Most Attractive Mod
Posts: 2995
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:15 pm
Location: Orem, UT
Contact:

How much is too much?

Post by Marduk »

So, this question was spawned by our other discussion, and I thought it better to ask here.

In our current economic system, unlike almost any in the world, one has the potential to become astronomically wealthy. Assuming, through some stroke of luck (or genius, or whatever) you suddenly made billions of dollars. Would you feel comfortable keeping it? Would you donate some of it? All of it? Ostensibly, this money wasn't earned by fraud or in some illegal manner, so would you feel comfortable buying lots of nice things with it? A huge house? A boat? Travel the world? How much luxury is ethical or moral?

Your thoughts here.
Nanti-SARRMM
Posts: 1958
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:02 pm
Location: Beyond the Mountains of the Copper Miners into the Desert of Absolute Boredom
Contact:

Post by Nanti-SARRMM »

If I legally obtained a fortune? Why not? Give some to charities, pay tithing, put some away in savings and buy some nice stuff. Why not?
This site, and the opinions and statements contained herein do not necessarily reflect on my sanity, or lack thereof.
Waldorf and Sauron
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:37 pm

Post by Waldorf and Sauron »

I don't mean this to be preachy or judgey. I was actually studying this very topic today before I saw this and came across many scriptures that really stood out.

D&C 49:19-20:
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 70:7-14
7 Nevertheless, inasmuch as they receive more than is needful for their necessities and their wants, it shall be given into my storehouse;
8 And the benefits shall be consecrated unto the inhabitants of Zion, and unto their generations, inasmuch as they become heirs according to the laws of the kingdom.
9 Behold, this is what the Lord requires of every man in his stewardship, even as I, the Lord, have appointed or shall hereafter appoint unto any man.
10 And behold, none are exempt from this law who belong to the church of the living God;
11 Yea, neither the bishop, neither the agent who keepeth the Lord’s storehouse, neither he who is appointed in a stewardship over temporal things.
12 He who is appointed to administer spiritual things, the same is worthy of his hire, even as those who are appointed to a stewardship to administer in temporal things;
13 Yea, even more abundantly, which abundance is multiplied unto them through the manifestations of the Spirit.
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.

D&C 78:5-6
5 That you may be equal in the bonds of heavenly things, yea, and earthly things also, for the obtaining of heavenly things.
6 For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things;

D&C 104:18
18 Therefore, if any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart not his portion, according to the law of my gospel, unto the poor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment.

Jacob 2:17-19
17 Think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free with your substance, that they may be rich like unto you.
18 But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God.
19 And 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.

1 Tim 6:9-10, 17-18
9 But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
...
17 Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;
18 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;

Luke 18:22-25
22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.
24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.


Now, there is provision made for both needs and wants, and I think each person has to determine for themselves what that entails. Asceticism is not the goal; rather the eventual enrichment of everyone. But luxury seems to be a realm beyond our needs and wants, especially when so many people suffer. The Lord has not repealed the Law of Consecration.
User avatar
Damasta
Posts: 361
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:14 am
Location: Provost, UT

Post by Damasta »

But then consider Elder Oak's talk ("Good, Better, Best") and ask yourself: which is the best use of extra money? Donating to charity (e.g. Operation Smile)? Or buying stuff to stimulate the economy? At the amounts of money we're talking about, it would probably be feasible to buy stuff and still donate tons to charity. In American Heritage (with Latimer) we watched a clip of 20/20 done by John Stossel. He concluded that Michael Milken saved more people from poverty by selling junk bonds than Mother Teresa did in India. Now, Michael Milken's intent wasn't to save people from poverty, but that was the result. Mother Teresa was a much better and more compassionate person, but she impacted far fewer people. So which is better? I, personally, don't know.
Waldorf and Sauron
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:37 pm

Post by Waldorf and Sauron »

This is a rather fair-headed, profound, far-reaching response to Stossel's assessment.
http://www.thegolemspeaks.com/articles/ ... ilken.html

Here's my own response. Which stimulates the economy more: spending $2 million on building schools in Africa, or spending $2 million on a mansion for yourself? Either way, wealth is created, and money is put into the economy in paying for wages and building materials, which will then circulate through the economy. Yet, one has more use-value than the other.
User avatar
Damasta
Posts: 361
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:14 am
Location: Provost, UT

Post by Damasta »

Thanks for that link. It's certainly true that Michael Milken went to jail and Mother Teresa (in my opinion) went to heaven.
Cuddlefish
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:53 am

Post by Cuddlefish »

My good friend, the dentist, has spent his long life amassing a large personal fortune through the work that he loves. He spends that fortune by travelling to poor countries for about two months every year and providing free dental care to those that need assistance.

That is, in my opinion, more Christlike than even sending a lump sum to a good charity. The donation of time and talents as well as money is the best form of charitable giving, if you have the means to do it.
Post Reply