Our LDS culture: why does it breed such extremes, or does it?

[hyrum]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It seems that perhaps LDS culture is no better nor worse than any other culture in that we breed the best and worst of humanity.

Case in point, we have many discussions of justice versus mercy here and on CB, and yet despite what I thought was supposed to be a charitable attitude, we have very uncharitable attitudes. If the next life is as unforgiving as people like exUte or Carolina Coug, I'm not certain I want to partake.


Disagree entirely or not?

I have not been following the specific argument you are referring to, but this is a general observation from living in Utah a few years...

As an outsider I would say it stems from having such a firm set of rules (e.g. the Word of Wisdom) that go over and above the basic rules of living spelled out in Christianity (Do unto others... Love your neighbor ... ). On top of that you are repeatedly being judged whether members are "worthy" (Temple recommends, etc). So it seems to me that you have people who work real hard to keep all the rules (some to the most minute letter of law) and they get resentful and others who bend or break the rules and "get away with it" or they do all the extra volunteer work that is demanded and then get angry with or look down at those who do not as lazy "Jack Mormons". This is made worse by not having really clear evidence-based definitions of all the rules, etc, (the existence of a book called Mormon Doctrine that is written by a "general authority" but not really official, being the prime example) so all the volunteer bishops and members have different interpretations (hot drinks == all caffeine, or just coffee?, one trivial example).

Anyway that's how I see it, please don't shoot the messenger.

[8ballrollin]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Does it ever occur to Conservatives that there is not necessarily a direct correlation between sloth and poverty, and between wealth and industriousness? I know lots of poor people who work a lot harder than I do. It just so happened that I was born white, attended good schools in good neighborhoods, had parents who were able to participate in my education and could afford to send me to college. Industriousness plays a part, but most of it is just dumb luck.

I'm not so sure. I think, "parents who were able to participate in my education" has a lot to do with it and how they teach you to work.

I was born half-white, poor and went to crappy k-12 schools. My parents couldn't afford to send me to college. I went anyway. Worked in the corp world (fortune 500) and then started my own firm with a partner.

My partner was born in Vietnam. Was very poor. Went to a good school (parents could not afford). Worked in the corp world (also fortune 500). Later we started our own firm.

Last month was our fifth anniversary in business. We started with nothing and with help from no one.

I'm sympathetic to the idea we make our own luck - to an extent.

But I realize my perception on life is shape through the prism of my own experience, obviously.

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Does it ever occur to Conservatives that there is not necessarily a direct correlation between sloth and poverty, and between wealth and industriousness? I know lots of poor people who work a lot harder than I do. It just so happened that I was born white, attended good schools in good neighborhoods, had parents who were able to participate in my education and could afford to send me to college. Industriousness plays a part, but most of it is just dumb luck.

Could you please define for me what you mean by "poverty"? Do you mean poverty in the sense of a single working-mom whose income, although below the U.S. government-defined poverty threshold, is still high enough to afford electricty, a television, a VCR, and a trip to McDonalds now and then?

Or do you mean poverty in the sense of subsistance farmers in the Philippines who have none of the posessions of the single-working mom but are still healthy, happy, and not starving to death yet dream about having the live that the single working-mom has?

Or do you mean poverty in sense of famine victims in Somalia who dream of having the healthy life of a subsistence farmer in the Philippines?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Does it ever occur to Conservatives that there is not necessarily a direct correlation between sloth and poverty, and between wealth and industriousness? I know lots of poor people who work a lot harder than I do. It just so happened that I was born white, attended good schools in good neighborhoods, had parents who were able to participate in my education and could afford to send me to college. Industriousness plays a part, but most of it is just dumb luck.

That really begs the question. No one says there should be equality of result. Just because some people enjoy a nice standard of living without working hard doesn't mean the government should redistribute wealth to equalize the results of our societal systems. Moreover, working hard to live is not a negative thing. As long as you have the chance to work hard to live, you should be fine. Get off your duff and live.

My problem is that the incentive approach is a good theory except that it has no net built in for catastrophic circumstances beyond the control of individuals. IO, I have no problem that some people have little and some have a lot, but sometime the people with little, through family crisis, natural disaster, etc., are unable to meet their needs even if they adhere to a work ethic and do all the things that they can to support themselves. Under those circumstances, the gap ought to be filled. It is hard to know exactly when or where to do so, and that is the challenge to our system, but I think this is why we need to have the flexibility to address this sort of circumstance while still giving proper incentives to those able to take care of themselves.

[8ballrollin]

Originally Posted by creekster

that is the challenge to our system

Nice post and important caveat – “our system”. I suppose you mean a modern Western market economy.

Have you read "The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else" or "The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through Profits"?

I’d love for one of those titles to be the book of the month on CG sometime.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by hyrum

I have not been following the specific argument you are referring to, but this is a general observation from living in Utah a few years...

As an outsider I would say it stems from having such a firm set of rules (e.g. the Word of Wisdom) that go over and above the basic rules of living spelled out in Christianity (Do unto others... Love your neighbor ... ). On top of that you are repeatedly being judged whether members are "worthy" (Temple recommends, etc). So it seems to me that you have people who work real hard to keep all the rules (some to the most minute letter of law) and they get resentful and others who bend or break the rules and "get away with it" or they do all the extra volunteer work that is demanded and then get angry with or look down at those who do not as lazy "Jack Mormons". This is made worse by not having really clear evidence-based definitions of all the rules, etc, (the existence of a book called Mormon Doctrine that is written by a "general authority" but not really official, being the prime example) so all the volunteer bishops and members have different interpretations (hot drinks == all caffeine, or just coffee?, one trivial example).

Anyway that's how I see it, please don't shoot the messenger.

Well said. (why would we shoot you over that?)

[creekster]

Originally Posted by 8ballrollin

Nice post and important caveat – “our system”. I suppose you mean a modern Western market economy.

Have you read "The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else" or "The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through Profits"?

I’d love for one of those titles to be the book of the month on CG sometime.

I have not read either, but they sound interesting.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by hyrum

I have not been following the specific argument you are referring to, but this is a general observation from living in Utah a few years...

As an outsider I would say it stems from having such a firm set of rules (e.g. the Word of Wisdom) that go over and above the basic rules of living spelled out in Christianity (Do unto others... Love your neighbor ... ). On top of that you are repeatedly being judged whether members are "worthy" (Temple recommends, etc). So it seems to me that you have people who work real hard to keep all the rules (some to the most minute letter of law) and they get resentful and others who bend or break the rules and "get away with it" or they do all the extra volunteer work that is demanded and then get angry with or look down at those who do not as lazy "Jack Mormons". This is made worse by not having really clear evidence-based definitions of all the rules, etc, (the existence of a book called Mormon Doctrine that is written by a "general authority" but not really official, being the prime example) so all the volunteer bishops and members have different interpretations (hot drinks == all caffeine, or just coffee?, one trivial example).

Anyway that's how I see it, please don't shoot the messenger.

I can't disagree with anything you've written here.

[8ballrollin]

Originally Posted by creekster

I have not read either, but they sound interesting.

On de Soto:

"Hernando de Soto has truly revolutionized our understanding of the causes of wealth and poverty. While many scholars have pointed to and explained the importance of property rights to rising living standards, de Soto has asked the hard question of what it takes to get the state to recognize the property rights that function within the communities of the poor. Can they transform the mere physical "extralegal" control of assets into capital, a key to sustained economic development?

De Soto affirmed that they can attain legal status and developed a guide to the "capitalization process" for poor countries. In his activism and in his books The Other Path and The Mystery of Capital, Hernando de Soto has done much more than apply the lessons of economics to old problems; he has asked new questions and provided both new understanding and new hope for transforming poverty into wealth.

De Soto does not limit himself to the intellectual world. He can be seen tirelessly trudging through the impoverished streets and villages in Haiti, Peru, Egypt, and Bali, meeting with sharecroppers, black-market dealers, food stand owners, local entrepreneurs, and factory workers. His work with the ILD is pushing the governments of developing countries to simplify and streamline the process of granting property titles."

http://www.cato.org/special/friedman/desoto/

(Last post on this -sorry- didn't mean to hijack the thread.)

[non sequitur]

The point of my post was not to start a political discussion about redistribution of wealth. I was addressing a comment made about how Christians should not despise sloth. Given the context of the preceding posts, I inferred that the point of the comment was to justify lack of charity by implying that those in need of charity were somehow slothful. If that was, indeed, the implication then I think it runs counter to the basic fundamentals of Christianity. If that wasn't the implication then I apologize.