“In this light, then the idea that the poor work harder on average than the rich, should not just be dismissed.”

Don’t worry, I am not just talking about anedotes. I have a vague recollection (happy to be superceded if anybody cares to do the work and finds me wrong) that the “hours worked” numbers rise (or at least don’t decline much at all) with income. The average number of children among the LDS is close to 3. It may be slightly higher for poor families, but I doubt it gets above 4. So yes, although I didn’t provide citations, these are averages based on a rough familiarity with the data.

I am not sure what to make of the mentally ill homeless. I am pretty sure this is not a large group in the church, nor a typical one. Certainly those in this group have a high burden but I don’t think that undoes the insights I’m pointing out here.

You are worried that we can not look on the heart. This is certainly true, but that is going to mostly be a problem with individuals. Across groups, one can often do quite a bit better because the individual idiosyncracies can be averaged out.

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.

(I just felt that scripture was missing from comment #25).

I agree with you that we should make broad characterizations based on averages and probabilities rather than exceptional anecdotes. But what is your basis for asserting that the single mother with four jobs or whoever else is the exception? Really what I\’m saying is that an average is a statistical term and an \”average\” without data is not an average at all. I\’m not saying that you\’re wrong, but if you don\’t provide any data to back up your characterization of the average poor person, that that characterization is only an anecdote and carries no more weight than the \”poor mother of 12\” or any other anecdote. In this light, then the idea that the poor work harder on average than the rich, should not just be dismissed.

Another interesting idea would be to look at the incidence of mental illness among the poor. I don\’t know what that is, but I am aware that the homeless have higher rates of mental illness than the general population. That would certainly affect the \”value\” of their sacrifice when compared to the rest of the church.

But really, evaluating the value of sacrifice is problematic since it requires us to look \”on the heart\” while our natures limit us generally to only looking on \”the outward appearance.\”

“Most wealthy women in the church don’t work for their money, because they’re supported by their husbands, so a big calling isn’t a drain on scarce time.”

My wife does not earn the money in our house, but she is easily as busy as me. Perhaps you are thinking here of a woman with grown children and lots of time and money? Or somebody with a nanny? The sacrifice-gap theory suggests that they need some seriously heavy callings! On the other hand, older women may have gotten a fair bit of sacrifice in when they had three small children at home. :)

It could be a fun issue to look at, because certainly those women often are doing a lot of volunteer time in their church, community, schools, etc.

Its best to be middle class EH? Discuss….. (and no, people with expensive boats and luxury SUV’s are not middle class as much as they tell you they are)

When I’ve been poor, tithing has always been easy. What would I do with it, save up a couple weeks worth and buy a Big Mac? When I’ve had more money, tithing represented real things: a trip to Rome, a new car, a boat, etc. I could see real things in the money I spent.

So, I’d see the issue differently. When I’ve had more money, tithing always seemed like more of a sacrifice than when I had little.

Not to mention, those times I faded into magical thinking: pay tithing, God will give me more money in return; when I had little money, I could use something in return, when I’ve had a lot, I don’t really need anything. Given God has already not kept the angel of death away when I was paying tithing, there really isn’t anything else I want from him in the short term.

But, we pay tithing, because it appears to please God, though it doesn’t seem to change the way he deals with us or make that much of a difference to the Church, even when we have relatively more money, it isn’t that much in the larger picture.

Though I’d have liked that boat and my wife still wants a Porche …

RW: I think the problem you point out is exactly related to how narrowly ward and stake boundaries are drawn compared to the community. Palo Alto is pretty much full of rich people (but not East Palo Alto…). In Utah, it is hard to get wards to stretch too far across different demographics. But in many places I think it can happen.

“Also, do you think this effect only holds true for men? What about working and non-working women and the relative prestige of women’s callings?”

I don’t see why it would not hold for the wealthy women, whose tithing is almost no sacrifice. She then may land in a time-consuming calling.

Seth:

You are welcome to your prejudice that the cause is other people’s prejudice :). What I have modeled here is that, even if rich people’s lives are no more in order than poor people’s (as you claim in a reasonably convincing fashion). God may still have a reason for affirmative action for rich people, so as to provide them with the sacrifice they may not be getting in other areas.

1. The predjudices of those making the callings; and

2. The predjudices of the stake and ward memberships at large.

#1 simply references to the fact that rich people APPEAR to have their lives in order more than poor people do. The dress nicer, seem more content and don’t seem constantly on the brink of disaster.

#2 simply references the fact that, more likely than not, the membership of the ward feels the same way the stake presidency does. They want someone they can look up to sitting as bishop. That’s easier to do when he has a nice suit and a well taken-care-of family.

The fallacy is that rich homes are often no better than poor ones. Spousal abuse, for instance, cuts across all socio-economic boundaries (it’s a myth that domestic violence is mostly a “poor problem”). You don’t really know what’s going on at home.

Furthermore, the “holy image” can be just as easily provided by ease and complacency as by real righteousness. That “glow of the spirit” could be genuine. Or it could simply be botox shots, health club membership, and the peace of mind that comes from not worrying about whether you will make enough in the next paycheck to keep your family secure.

I’m exaggerating I think. I don’t think that Mormon lay leadership is infested with shallow fakers. I think the virtues are there and that they are genuine more often than not.

But I am saying that virtue is easier to see in a prosperous family than in an impoverished one.