In reflecting on a post by Dave from about a week and a half ago, along with an email from avid reader Paul Mortensen, the question arises: is poverty a moral or a natural evil? I’ve previously argued that poverty is evil, indeed a universal, collective sin (see here, here, and here). This argument seems to presuppose that poverty is a moral, rather than a natural, evil.
The distinction between natural and moral evil is drawn from moral philosophy; in Sterling McMurrin’s words (see pages 96-97 of the Signature Books edition of his essay on Mormon theology), natural evil is “the evil that the world does,” while moral evil is “the evil that men do.” Wikipedia offers a somewhat more legalistic definition, suggesting that moral evil “is the result of any morally negative event caused by the intentional action or inaction of an agent, such as a person,” whereas natural evil arises when “a bad event occurs without the intervention of an agent.” This post will ask: 1) Is poverty a natural or a moral evil? 2) Is inequality a natural or a moral evil? 3) When is inaction against evil justifiable?
Poverty is a natural evil if it does not result from human actions, but rather is a consequence of the simple workings of nature. For example, in a community on a desert island with no means of communication with the outside world, poverty is a natural evil; it simply results from a paucity of resources, not from human decision-making. However, when turning to the globally integrated community of humans, it is implausible for Latter-day Saints to argue that poverty is a natural evil rather than a product of human decision-making. After all, we have a canonical text which tells us that “the earth is full; and there is enough and to spare” (D&C 104: 17). If this revealed statement is correct, then resource shortages can never be blamed on nature. Instead, they must be the product of human institutions–i.e., poverty must necessarily be a moral, rather than a natural evil.
A major component of poverty in the modern world involves the distribution of wealth; while the world as a whole certainly has enough economic production to lift most people out of poverty, the resulting wealth is instead often directed to other purposes: leisure goods, military expenses, space exploration, entertainment, etc. These latter goods are overwhelmingly enjoyed by those who have resources and not by the poor. (This generalization even includes military protection; most poor people live in countries with relatively weak militaries, where borders are generally insecure and intervention by more powerful countries cannot be prevented.) Is economic inequality of this kind evil? Joseph Smith’s revelations define it as such:
But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin (D&C 49:20).
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 70:14).
Also of note in this context is the fact that 4 Nephi defines the end of the period of social bliss after Christ’s visit among the Nephites in terms of the reemergence of economic inequality:
And now, in this two hundred and first year there began to be among them those who were lifted up in pride, such as the wearing of costly apparel, and all manner of fine pearls, and of the fine things of the world. And from that time forth they did have their goods and their substance no more common among them. And they began to be divided into classes; and they began to build up churches unto themselves to get gain, and began to deny the true church of Christ. (4 Nephi 1:24-26)
So economic inequality is clearly evil. Furthermore, it immediately follows that inequality is a moral, rather than a natural evil. After all, inequality can be remedied by human action; something as simple as the rich giving a lot of resources to the poor can be sufficient, or more complex social institutions have also proven effective in reducing inequality and–simultaneously–eliminating poverty. (While there are exceptions such as Cuba, for the most part, there is a strong cross-national correlation between lower levels of inequality and lower levels of poverty.) Hence, at the very least, human inaction is responsible for inequality, which is therefore a moral evil. However, it is also true that human economic institutions undergird the existing system of inequality, meaning that human actions–and not just inaction–produce this evil.
In light of my conviction that both poverty and inequality are moral evils, which can be remedied by changes in human institutions, why am I an academic and not a revolutionary? Am I justified in pursuing this life, rather than trying to organize some kind of global movement to overthrow the current system?
In fact, I think I am justified, for the simple reason that I can’t find anything more productive to do. In my current life, I can raise these issues online and (in specific ways) with students; I can also give to church charities and other development efforts. But, more importantly, I can’t think of another way I could currently act to the evils of poverty and inequality that wouldn’t create other evils. At the end of the day, the fact that something is evil does not immediately justify any and all possible actions to resolve that evil; only if the action would resolve the evil in question without producing other, larger evils, is it justified. If the hearts and minds of a sufficient number of people can be won over, poverty and inequality can certainly be resolved without violence and without totalitarianism; the best role I can see for myself at present is in that struggle to win hearts and minds.
Nice post. You have obviously thought about this more than I have. May I make some comments that are somewhat unprepared? The speed of the blog world sometimes require top of the head stuff for me.
It seems to me that there is a contradiction between economic freedom and economic equality. Is it not possible that many who are in poverty where there is economic freedom are in poverty because they have chosen to be either directly or indirectly?
Is poverty always a bad thing? Particularly with an eternal perspective? Is it better to give to the poor or try to create a environment where the poor can improve their lot if they choose to? Should we give when they have taken no thought but to ask?
Is life not more than the pursuit of wealth?
Sorry for the rambling questions. Thought provoking posts do that.
The same sorts of questions as Eric asks comes to mind.
You give an example;
“in a community on a desert island with no means of communication with the outside world, poverty is a natural evil”
Why would this be considered an evil at all?
Also, why are you only considering inequality and poverty evil. What about wealth?
Jesus said “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”
Can wealth not be considered evil as well?
Perhaps I missed the whole point of your post.
Eric, thanks for your kind words about the post. Questions and ideas, unprepared and rambling or otherwise, are always welcome!
The question of economic freedom and economic equality is an interesting one. Of course, if there is a conflict, it’s noteworthy that we have more scriptures commanding us to be economically equal than economically free. But I think it’s also important to think about the fact that much–perhaps even most–of the poverty in the world doesn’t result from choice. If a person is born into a family, a community, and a broader society that is lacking in resources, that person will not have educational opportunities or chances for economic self-improvement; child labor in a sweatshop in order to help feed the family tends to foreclose those kinds of options. Do the many millions of poor people in developing countries choose to be born there, rather than in the U.S. or Canada? Clearly not, so it’s hard to blame them for their poverty, I think.
With respect to the question about giving vs. creating an environment of opportunity, I’m entirely in favor of the second (while making sure nobody starves to death). Institutional changes that level the playing field so that everybody has a chance to earn a decent living are a great idea. A first place to start on this would be a massive expansion of educational opportunities in the third world, which will necessarily entail economic assistance so that parents will be able to feed their children without the children working. Once we reach the point where everyone has equal access to educational training, then we can start worrying about fixing third world credit markets and ensuring property rights against warlords and rapacious rulers. And we can devote the relatively modest amounts of money necessary to end endemic diseases of poverty. And we’ll then have gone a long way toward creating an environment in which people born into poverty can have a fair chance of escaping.
From an eternal perspective, economics are crucial for us in mortality, I think. Our scriptures contain reams of economic commandments; this wouldn’t be true if economic issues weren’t of some eternal consequence. In my view, the scriptures discuss economic issues at length because managing our collective wealth fairly and equitably is a central part of our mortal probation.
OK, I think these thoughts are less well put together than they might have been, but as you point out, that’s the nature of discussion threads…
Ian, thanks for your comments, and I hope I can help clarify the post a little bit. As I pointed out in the post, poverty on the isolated desert island isn’t a moral evil. It’s a natural evil, which roughly speaking just means a bad thing that happens but it’s nobody’s fault. It’s unfortunate that people on the hypothetical desert island are starving, and I’m sure they wish they weren’t–but nobody is culpable. That’s what natural evil is, for philosophers.
The morality of wealth is, of course, entailed in consideration of poverty and inequality. If there are poor people, then there can’t be wealthy people without inequality. As we have seen, the scriptures condemn inequality; therefore, wealth in a world of poverty is cause for concern. But wealth doesn’t kill children like poverty does; so I typically emphasize what I see as the more urgent half of the puzzle.
If I need to do additional explanation to make the purpose of the post clearer, please ask. As they say, for every person who asks the question, there are 103,883 or something who don’t say a word…
I felt despair after listening to an interview with LA Times reporter Sonia Nazario as she recounts the story of a 16 year old Honduran boy who ran away to look for the mother he hasn’t seen since he was 5. His mother left him and his sister to come to the US to find work when she found herself left alone to fend for herself and her children. Thousands of these women leave their babies with relatives and come here to work sometimes 3 or 4 jobs at a time to send money home. Meanwhile, their children miss them, and thousands head north every year to try to find their mothers.
They cross Mexico clinging to the sides and tops of freight trains. Gangs control the tops, and everyone is robbed, beaten, and raped and many are killed along the way.
I don’t know where to place blame for the cause of this kind of misery, but it is certainly evil.
I also feel frustration at my own inability to do much (or anything) to help ease this kind of suffering.
My conclusion is similar in a way to RT’s. I can try to raise my own children with a social conscience, and I can encourage them to serve missions, where the gospel can change lives from the inside, and perhaps have some effect on the future lives of those who suffer from physical (and spiritual) poverty.
RT,
Without disagreeing with you, I want to ask more questions.
1. When the scriptures use the word equality, how are we to understand it? We can put almost any definition we want on it. There were even differences in the early church as to how the United Order was to be practiced, with some groups opting for a very literal definition, everybody wearing the same style clothes, eating the same meals, etc. I think it is hard to have a worthwhile discussion about equality when the definition is so elastic.
2. How do we account for individual differences in ability, motivation, and preferences? One of the happiest couples I know lives in a mobile home out in the country. They both work about 20 hours a week. Although they are living simply and happily, could we not also think of them as selfish, because they could work harder and contribute the excess to the poor?
Nice post. And something that I often think about.
I am firmly in the poverty and inequality 95% of the time is a moral evil camp, particularly now that we do have the technology to provide basics, like food, to every person on this earth. Most people truly in poverty when compared to those who are wealthy become that way by the lottery of into what circumstances they were born. Americans are too quick to think lives are a preference and to slow to acknowledge the initial choice constraints. There is no way in my mind to justify saying that children born in the 3rd world by choice in this life or the life before (or in an impoverished area of one of our own inner cities) and that is a condition is their problem. Thats just ignoring your role as a human sibling of all those on this earth.
Some days, I too think I should be doing something more as I toy around in a very acadmeic-like environment. I’m even contemplating even more education so I can get back into the social part of the social sciences. I just want to remind you, though, that there is a continum between of revolutionary and doing nothing. You can teach others via blog and class. You can make sure you don’t buy from the likes of walmart. You can plant your own garden or join a CSA. You can ride your bike to work. Or you can do all 4. If you do enough, I believe you can make a real difference that nearly approaches that of revolutionary. I’d like to think, however, that if things got bad enough, I’d rise with my fellow humans in poverty rather than sit back and passively (or worse yet actively) accept the status quo in order to maintain a standard of living for myself.
My personal goal in life is to make sure I do all I can not to contribute to the poverty of people and this earth as a whole by making concious efforts to educate myself about issues that are uncomfortable. Before I buy something, before I say no to a charity or a person on the street, I ask myself “do I really need this?” and “is there a better allocation of my time and money?” Does that mean I never go out to dinner or buy fun electronics? No. But it does mean that I think long and hard about whether I could live in a smaller apartment or give more of my income away (and for me, I usually give to non-LDS charities). And over time, all of those things add up… you live more simply and use your free time to help out others rather than working for more stuff.
I think this is a tricky philosophical problem.
Let’s say that there are two people starving on a desert island. You define this condition as a natural evil. Then let’s say one of the people uses his initiative to figure out how to climb a tree and get some coconuts. He eats the coconuts, but does not share them with his neighbor on the island. (Let’s say the neighbor is somehow unable to get his own cocunuts…maybe he’s too feeble, or just too lazy.) According to your definition, this then becomes a problem of moral evil, because the climber didn’t share the coconuts with his neighbor.
But if you believe in God, you have to ask why HE didn’t give the poor guy something to eat. So it seems you’re back to a problem of natural evil all over again. You could say that the climber’s refusal to help the neighbor is evil but God’s is not, but this seems arbitrary; it’s simply so because God say’s it’s so. I don’t really understand how your model would distinguish categories of evil in such a situation.
To clarify: the fact that the guy is starving doesn’t become any more or less “natural” just because the other guy climbed a tree.
RT,
I think I understand your point a little better now. When we are talking poverty, we are talking about those who are literally starving to death correct?
I have personally lived under the poverty line for years. We had no money to spare, we were on government welfare at one point and off and on we got help from church welfare. I honestly never thought that we were in poverty. That was the perspective I was coming to this post from. I had never viewed our situation as “evil” only as a trial.
There are people in the world who don’t have anything, the pictues of starving children in Ethiopia come to mind. From that point of view, I can truly see how poverty can be viewed as an evil situation.
C Jones,
I heard the same interview of the LA Times reporter. It is a sad thing indeed.
Mark IV,
your example of the happy couple living in a mobile home in the country sounds like an ideal to me. I hope to be in a similar situation at some point in my life. I am hoping that one wouldn’t consider them living in “sin” because they live humbly.
CJones, thanks for your heartfelt remarks. I agree that the system of international immigration and inequality produces unbelievable misery.
Mark, the questions you’re asking are useful ones, although in my opinion, they’re really mainly relevant at the margins of the overall problem. Various definitions of equality may be acceptable, but I think no plausible definition of equality includes a situation in which many millions of people live in danger of starvation while others have economic excess.
Differences in innate ability are a problem; there seems to be no scriptural license for economic inequality on the basis of the fact that some are born more capable than others. Differences in motivation are less problematic; some scriptures support the idea that the lazy should suffer economically. However, until the world system is changed in such a way that the global poor have opportunities that equal those of the global wealthy (a group that almost certainly includes your friends who live in the mobile home), it’s impossible for us to distinguish between the lazy and the motivated but unfortunate.
NE, thanks for your thoughts–you sound very much like my kind of person.
ed, you’ve raised a useful set of further questions. You conclude, in analyzing the desert island hypothetical, that “the fact that the guy is starving doesn’t become any more or less “natural” just because the other guy climbed a tree.” I partly agree and partly disagree. The man’s starvation is a natural evil if the island simply has no food, and it is also a natural evil if there is food but humans are incapable of obtaining it. In these circumstances, the man dies not because of any human action or inaction, but rather as a simple result of the way the non-human world works.
But, if there is food that humans can obtain and the man starves anyway, then his starvation is clearly the result of either human action or human inaction–and therefore fits the standard definitions of moral evil.
The question of why God doesn’t provide the man food is difficult; it raises the problem philosophers call theodicy. Specifically, if God is all-powerful and good, then why doesn’t he prevent evil from happening? If the problem of theodicy interests you (as it does me–but it isn’t the subject of this post), I recommend reading the post of Dave’s that I linked above, and then also reading the book by McMurrin.
Ian, when I speak of poverty, I don’t only mean those who are literally starving to death, but also those who are in chronic danger of falling into starvation. But, generally speaking, I think you have the right idea; I’m not really talking about the poor in the developed world, but the much worse off poor in the developing world.
Any thoughts on how D&C 51:10-11 fits into this?
RT, I’ve been lurking for some time and you are definently my kind of person.
One other question I’ve been thinking about while attempting to work on a Friday afternoon is how do I know I’ve struck the right balance between helping those in my immediate circle (family and ward members), those down the street (literally becasue I choose to live inside the city of the metro area I currently reside in), and those across a border? Perhaps it comes down to talents and access? But then do we run the risk of only doing what is comfortable (immediate circle) instead of what is most needed or most usefull?
Going down Mark’s train of thought about accounting for differences….I always find it interesting that many times people “compare” two people relatively close in their “station” in life. This seems to increase the likelihood that the conclusion is that “it is a choice.” When you look at vast differences (which is really the case in my opinion… even in the US the inequality gap is huge… leave the country and it only gets worse), the immorality, or “sin”, of not doing more becomes very apparent to me. So while it may be an interesting question (it seems the feild of economics as a whole finds it the best question these days), I’m not sure its the right question.
RT: I have also been a lurker for sometime, and enjoy reading your thoughts. As an LDS physician involved in global health (www.careforlife.org, www.gorgas.org) and interested in social justice, I think that this type of dialogue is refreshing and needed. I haven’t taken the time to carefully read all of the above posts, but hope to soon. For now, I just thought I’d let you and others know that there are at least a few of us out here who value your comments without commenting. Thanks.
RT:
I appreciate the post and happy that I had a small little role. I used to think we were diametrically opposed when it came to economic issues but based on the last paragraph in this post I realized that our approaches are not all that different and, as Martha Stewart might say, that’s a good thing. I think we have some common ground to build upon.
I think the argument for classifying poverty and inequality as natural evils is fraught with logical problems for a couple of reasons. First, I think that the burden of proof for making the argument that poverty and inequality exist as moral, rather than natural, evils rests with those seeking to assert the affirmative and that the standard for such an assertion is extremely high. In essence, any identifiable evil is a natural evil unless a proof can be made that said evil should be classified as a moral evil. In addition, any successful argument for any evil being included as a moral evil must apply universally—any identifiable exception invalidates the argument. Now, granted there exist individuals in the world who have had poverty thrust upon them by the willful decisions of others but conversely there also exist individuals who suffer in poverty due entirely from decisions taken of their own volition. I could choose tomorrow to be poor. Hence, the burden of proof is not met. Second, Mormon theology teaches that humankind comes to earth with diverse talents and aptitudes and that those talents are not divvied out equally (and scientific data have pretty much confirmed that teaching). As people employ their varying and unequally endowed talents inequalities in the outcomes of those endeavors will inevitably occur. Therefore, humankind exists in a natural state of inequality. If humankind exists in a natural state of inequality then inequality, in and of itself, cannot exist as a moral evil. These two “institutions” exist as conditions under which people live no different than climate or geography.
Having said all of the above I do think we have an obligation to mitigate the effects of poverty and inequality. Unfortunately, I have to run right now to be on time for a date with the MISSUS so I’ll have to deal with the rest of the discussion later.
Hey quick one.
When I was on my mission in Africa I discovered that many intelligent moral people were poor because of circumstance.
Here in the US and the US only what role does individual choice play in who is poor? I have often heard that in the US there are just a couple of things you can do to avoid poverty. No premarital childrearing and graduate from HS
How does this play into things? Just wondering
I’m not sure, but I think the key on the childrearing is as much age as marital status.
Beyond that, success in and graduation from high school is at least partly dependent on economic status–kids who have to work every moment they’re not in school, because their parents haven’t the money to feed them, are not likely to graduate. (And yes, even in the US, there are plenty of folks in such situations. I grew up with them.)
Beyond that, there’s a lot of not-so-subtle socioeconomic discrimination in the U.S. educational system. It’s much harder for ESL students, really poor students, and black students to finish school, because we tend to underfund and overburden our inner-city and rural schools. They become unpleasant–even hostile–environments, and their curricula are in practice poor to nonexistent. Since adolescents are prerational, cognitively speaking, they simply aren’t able to make the decision to stay in school based on expected future benefit when attendance is emotionally painful and/or they are aware that they aren’t learning very much.
What we’re left with are adults who made a stupid decision when they were neurologically unable to make a smart decision. We don’t hold people responsible for sins they committed when they were 6 years old and morally undeveloped, do we? I think, that holding people responsible for just plain stupid decisions they make when they’re functionally insane is a bad idea, as well. It won’t lead to any sort of fix for the problem, after all.
Following up on SV’s thoughts….
Approximately 1 in 4 African Americans in this country live below the federal poverty lines. 1 in 3 African American children live in poverty according to the US Census Bureau. Now, admittedly, many of those were/are teen mothers and/or did not graduate from high school, which mainstream member, correctly, says greatly increases the risk of being in poverty. The question is did they fall into poverty or were they never given an opprotunity to get out.
In the case of daughters of teen moms (which African Americans certainly have a lot of), they are 20-25% more likely by some estimates to also become teen moms. I’m sure I could drum up a similar statistic for graduating from HS.
So should we hold someone accountable for the rest of their life for a stupid decision at 15 to have sex or drop out of school? Some might say yes. Ok then, do we hold their children accountable? That is what happens by proxy in many cases if that cycle isn’t broken. The same story can be told as a function of class as well as other race.
I think this relates. It seems to be that no economic system works unless there is charity (in the scriptural sense) in the morals of the people participating in and administering the system. Whether it be a free market or socialism, the system will fail without underlying goodness in the majority of individuals.
RT: I agree with your sentiment at the end of the post. What can be better than to educate, discuss, and promulgate ideas while giving, sharing and serving with resources that are only a stewardship from God and not really ours anyway?
Whenever I read essays like this, I am reminded of Hugh Nibley’s essay “Approaching Zion.” Conservative American religions (LDS included) have bought entirely into the Sex as the Evil Enemy argument. While I accept that pre- and extra-marital sex can damage people badly, our consumerist, covetous society has manifested corruption of our people far beyond the ability of the “sin next to murder.”
From a society of working people striving to simply provide, we have “evolved” into some of the most voracious consumers in the world, putting down to merit and reward that which is stolen from societies not as highly “evolved” as ours. The very people we pillage are themselves subject to corrupt, amoral leadership, whose sole purpose seems to be to enrich themselves at the teat of Unistatian largesse.
The church’s obsession with chastity, modesty, and the “destruction of the family” is fiddling while Rome burns.
For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
“He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
Ann said,”The church’s obsession with chastity, modesty, and the “destruction of the family” is fiddling while Rome burns.”
Well said. This is precisely an example of why it is difficult for me to accept the LDS church has a living prophet. This is even more compelling concern for me than reconciling historical problems that appear to question the same authority. The (what I consider) misdirected attention from real problems and evils leaves me to question where moral leadership and authority resides. It is true that chastity and modesty may have their valid place in discourse, but the church is not vocal (nor active) enough on issues of poverty, war, disease, imperialism, materialism and non-partisanship to leave me with any sense that it has special authority on moral and ethical guidance.
But, Ann and Quix, isn’t it pretty clear that, at least in the U.S., family breakdown leads to poverty? Divorce almost always leads to a lower standard of living for the woman and children, even though the divorce itself may be justified. And it is also safe to say that infidelity leads to family breakup.
Mainstream member (#16) is right. It’s beyond dispute that one of the most reliable indicators for poverty in the U.S. is bearing children out of wedlock. It is clear that an emphasis on chastity and family togetherness is not the complete solution. It is also clear that it is an important and necessary part of the solution.
Ann, I spent some time last Fall in your hometown. I was in the Bishop’s storehouse several times a week for a couple of months, and I found it very moving every time I saw one of our senior missionaries sitting with someone who just came in off the street. They went through a checklist, and helped people figure out how to apply for jobs, apply for FEMA money, file an insurance claim, etc. Some of those people were absolutely at the end of their ropes, but when the left, they had hope, as well as some groceries, clothing, sleeping bags, and so on. In short, at least in Katrina, I think the church did a pretty good job of living up to the scripture you quote.
As someone who studies poverty full time, I think it’s clear that poverty is both a natural and a moral evil. The reason is that, although perhaps there are sufficient resources in the world, even well-intentioned agents have found it very difficult to actually eliminate poverty. Many genuine efforts to stimulate poverty alleviation in Sub-Saharan Africa have failed (for a great account of this, see William Easterly’s book, The Elusive Quest for Growth). Certainly, more sharing of resources is essential and more dedication: that element is definitely moral. But alleviating global poverty is - unfortunately - exceedingly difficult, perhaps even - at this point - out of our knowledge realm (and this is the natural evil element). That said, we have no excuse for not continuing to seek solutions.
And in terms of the morality, chastity, and the breakdown of the family, the directly of causality is certainly not obvious to the eye. Dedicated social scientists haven’t been able to separate out whether poverty encourages family breakdown or family breakdown encourages poverty. Likely, there are elements of both, so tackling both should be the solution.
Thanks, everyone, for the insightful comments! There are too many good ideas here for me to reply individually to each. Let me just hit a few highlights.
Ann, I feel heartfelt agreement with your remarks. The presiding bishop’s general conference talk this last weekend was good, though–a definite reminder to the people of the church that work for the poor is an expression of charity and as such a critical part of our mortal lives.
Dave, thanks for your comments. I agree that eliminating global poverty is difficult and, to date, such efforts have never been successful. However, it’s an open question whether the missing factor is knowledge or resources. Perhaps the reason we’ve failed is that adequate resources have never been available. It seems clear, at any rate, that an increase in resources could reduce poverty rates and ameliorate the misery of at least some in poverty. Hence, while a component of natural evil may remain, there’s enough moral evil to go around.
I visited your website, by the way, and it’s interesting. I especially liked the map of visited countries. I’ll try to include mine:
create your own visited countries map
or vertaling Duits Nederlands
I don’t see the problem as one of inattention, but rather one of focus.
The closest I’ve ever heard church leaders come to promoting simple living is “live within your means.” I don’t remember any GA talks at all about our rampant consumerist culture; the incessant pursuit of better, bigger, faster, newer STUFF. And if it has come up, it’s only in the context of eschewing debt.
Where your heart is, there your treasure is, also. Americans’ hearts are firmly and finely focused on “things.” It is far more dangerous to the soul than pre-marital sex. Jesus had a great deal to say about the dangers of the former, and very little to say about the latter. But to listen to the LDS leaders, the danger is exactly the opposite.
Millions and millions of adults have sex every day without being married, and without negative financial consequences for themselves or others. The same cannot be said for the millions and millions of adults who every day, day in and day out, take and take and take and spend and spend and spend and consume and consume and consume without concern for the consequences of their taking, spending, and consuming.
To be fair, I stopped listening to GA talks a couple of years ago. Maybe there has been a strong focus on simple living in the last six conferences, and I just haven’t heard anything about it.
And also to be fair, I know LDS who live modestly when they are capable of living far “larger” than they do.