51 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
| Saturday, May 17, 2008 |
|
- A Bird's Eye View
- A Motley Vision
- Adventures in Mormonism
- Blogger of Jared
- Blognitive Dissonance
- By Common Consent
- Don't Let's Start
- Ethesis
- Exponent II
- Face of the Other
- Faith Promoting Rumor
- Feminist Mormon Housewives
- Flooding the Earth With the Book of Mormon
- Golden Road to Samarqand
- Head Life
- Just Sayin'
- Latte Day Saints
- Messanger & Advocate
- Millennial Star
- Mormon Matters
- Mormon Mommy Wars
- New Cool Thang
- Nine Moons
- Popcorn Popping
- Proud Daughter of Eve
- Purim
- Rhapsidiom
- Segullah
- Spinozist Mormon
- Sunstone Blog
- The Cultural Hall
- Times & Seasons
- Unofficial Manifesto
- Zelophehad's Daughters
A “tool” to accomplish what, exactly? I doubt Ghandi would have been as effective had he been rich. I doubt John Huntsman Sr. would have been as effective had he been poor. |
No. If it were true, we would be saying that to be humble as a rich man is a greater virtue than to be humble as a poor man. How can that be? But really, true humility in men is rare enough, don’t you think, that we need not worry too much about who is more powerful a tool. |
I would agree with ESO - who cares, humility is important in both men and women. I assume that whoever said the quote was referring to the generic “man” to account for both men and women… |
All humbleness being equal, wouldn’t someone not burdened by financial hardship have fewer obstacles to certain opportunities to serve? |
A poor, arrogant man is a tool. A rich arrogant man is an even bigger tool. |
JKC, LOL ESO, Alma 32:14 is relevant, I think… |
A poor, ignorant man is a fool. A rich, ignorant man is an even bigger fool. |
Just imagine how much good Jesus might have done if he had been rich! |
And if I’m not mistaken, didn’t he foolishly reject just such an opportunity when he was shown all the kingdoms of the world? |
Bill, I think you’re reading the wrong thing out of that story. Jesus didn’t reject Satan’s offer because riches are inherently bad, but because 1) the world wasn’t Satan’s to give, 2) anything of virtue that the world could offer, Jesus could eventually get anyway without “selling his soul”, so to speak, and 3) (arguably) riches were incompatible with the nature of the specific work that Jesus was sent to do. I’m glad Jesus and Ghandi weren’t rich. But by the same token, as a person who has loved ones afflicted with cancer–I’m very glad John Huntsman isn’t poor. |
Bill, I think that the New Testament exaggerates the how many kingdoms Satan promised to Jesus. Seriously, it’s a bit much to hold that Satan actually showed him all the kingdoms of the world. Chances are, Satan just reviewed several kingdoms and just claimed that they were all the kingdoms. There are three good reasons to believe this. First of all, Satan is the father of all lies, and it’s a mistake to take him at his word. Second, Jesus and Satan didn’t have enough time — it takes weeks to show someone all the kingdoms of the world. Third, if Satan gave away all of those kingdoms, nothing would be left for him. Furthermore, no matter how many kingdoms Satan showed to Jesus, it’s silly to suppose that they actually discussed in any detail the wealth and riches associated with each kingdom. That would require discussing things like gross domestic product, aggregate land valuations, and leading economic indicators, none of which existed in the 1st century AD. |
At this point, I should point out that the preceding comment is a ruse. My point in making comment #8 was to show how absurd it is to believe that wealth is uniquely enabling of virtue. The doctrine that wealth contributes to virtue is an apostate one. And since it encourages people to qualify people’s faith based on social status, it leads to priestcraft. Remember the widow’s mite. |
No one has argued that wealth “is uniquely enabling of virtue”. What some of us are arguing is that in today’s world, wealth does tend to enable results. The widow’s mite probably went a long ways towards her own salvation. But had he exhibited the same degree of humility as the widow did, the wealthy young ruler who came running to Jesus could have fed, clothed, and sheltered a lot more people. |
JKC and DKL (11): LOL! I think MAC (4) and JimD (13) are getting at the real challenge of the statement. When I was in Uganda, I saw church members who were so poor that they could barely afford to get themselves to church. Then there were wealthier members who brought themselves and several others to church. This doesn’t say much about the righteousness or faithfulness of the poor member or the wealthy member, but if you want more people to have the opportunity to attend church, clearly the rich member has a greater capacity to facilitate that. Also in Uganda, I was assigned to home teach a lot more families simply because I had a car and could get around. Again, this doesn’t necessarily make me more faithful than the poor member who home teaches only one family– and, indeed, according to the widow’s mite parable, it might mean I’m less faithful if I’m not giving all I have– but having more money increased my capacity to serve. |
Tagore: …having more money increased my capacity to serve. Yes, and you pay more tithing, too. But that doesn’t make you more righteous, because the measure for righteousness is not “how many toys did I buy for God?” The same is required from everybody. The law of consecration specifies that this amount is 100% of our time, talents, and resources. The guy who doubled 2 talents received the same blessings as the guy who doubled 5. I still maintain that the notion that greater riches mean better service in God’s Kingdom is an apostate doctrine that leads to priestcraft. |
DKL:
Agreed. I specifically said that it doesn’t make me more faithful. And I hope that’s not what Elder Moyle (or whoever made the original statement) meant. I’d be interested if anyone here thought that. |
Tagore, I think that my citation of the Parable of Talents is relevant to that. Besides, I just don’t see a hard and fast distinction between being “a more powerful tool in the hands of the Lord” and being more righteous. Why would one care how powerful a tool they are in the hands of the Lord unless it impacted, in some sense, their status in this world or the next? I don’t see any concrete difference between this righteousness status and the measure of which factors make us better tools in the hands of the Lord. And I don’t see any difference between the priestcraft of the Zoramites measure and the belief in worldly factors that make us better tools in the hands of the Lord. But if having more money makes one a more powerful tool in the hands of the Lord, then so does having more children (I’ve had as many kids as a missionary in Boston is likely to baptize — and my kids are statistically more likely than her converts to be active in 20 years). So does being better looking, because people trust better looking people more. So does being slender, because people take thin people more seriously. I could go on and on. How good of a tool we are in the hands of the Lord is a not measurable in worldly terms. |
DKL, I think you’re twisting the question. I don’t quite agree with your comment #17 equating “more powerful tool” with “more righteous” in the question Tagore put forth. Would you have been happier if Tagore had said “more versatile” ? But I would agree that the question dances too closely to “prosperity theology.” And I would agree that there is too much “prosperity theology” in the church. |
I think the word that is troubling everyone is the word “powerful”. If you think in worldly terms of power as in I am more powerful, therefore better, then it gets all goobered up. Both men are humble men, both men are tools. It is the difference between a shovel and a backhoe. Both will work to do the job. One is more effective at some jobs is all. And will get the work done quicker. The humility factor of both men is assumed to be equal, not their righteousness or how they will look in the eyes of the Lord. |
Hey, anyone heard from Annegb lately? |
If anyone wants to perform this as an actual experiment, I would be willing to accept the challenge/adversity of possessing riches. |
Oops–that didn’t work. Let me try again:
Umm . . . maybe because they love the Lord, and want to be as useful to Him and His work as they possibly can? |
Bookslinger: Would you have been happier if Tagore had said “more versatile” ? I thought that I was perfectly clear on this front, but in case I wasn’t: Any notion that worldly status correlates to any kind of rank, status, or measure of effectiveness in God’s Kingdom is apostacy. JimD: maybe because they love the Lord, and want to be as useful to Him and His work as they possibly can? If you love the Lord so much, then ask Him yourself how you can better serve Him. Your answer will, of course, be personal. Even so, I’m pretty certain He won’t say, “Earn more money” (provided that you’re already able to support your family and meet your basic financial obligation). |
Really, DKL? You don’t think part of the answer might be “contribute more to the Red Cross” or “take some time off of work to volunteer in a soup kitchen” or “serve a mission”–all of which require a greater or lesser reserve of cash? |
a random john–RE: Alma 32:14–the way we generally use this scripture assumes that people without money are “compelled to be humble”–I would argue that not all poor ARE humble; also, like Bookslinger, I am concerned at the prosperity theology that I think people attribute to this idea MontanaMuse–but the shovel is much better for some jobs than the backhoe–I would say their value is equal but uses are different. I suspect there are some ways that people would accept my service over Mitt Romneys. If money were actually a powerful tool, I think the Church would not have so many problems–why can’t we use that money to gain converts? Because money is good for some things, but not for bringing souls to Christ. |
Bookslinger - I love that term “Prosperity Theology” as I have heard that theory propogated so often in the Church, usually by young people aspiring for riches. I agree completely with DKL (something we completely agree on!) that to equate money with being more righteous is idiotic and silly. DKL - I would argue that your beautiful children will bring additional converts into the Church as they will likely cause many a boy to join the Church in the ensuing years |
Tagore, #16,
No, but you did ask “Is it better to be rich?” You can do more things, but being rich, in and of itself, even with all its additional avenues opened, does not make you “better.” It just gives you more avenues to pursue. |
Devyn, I’m glad that we agree. Regarding my daughters: LOL. You’re very kind. JimD, I think that the answer would be more along the lines of “Do a better job home teaching,” or “work harder on Family Home Evening” or “spend more time preparing to teach that lesson on Sunday” or “find more people to refer to the missionaries.” It’s simply impossible to compute one’s contribution to building the Lord’s Kingdom. Were it otherwise, missionaries that went to low-baptizing missions (like Western Europe or the East Coast in the US) would be doomed to being less useful to the Kingdom. Mathematically, we’re all unprofitable servants from the Lord’s point of view, so that even if we could calculate our contributions to the Kingdom, it wouldn’t get us very far to say, “Well, I was less unprofitable than the widow who gave just one mite.” I understand that socially, it’s almost irresistible to use organized religion to gauge our righteousness vis a vis other members. But salvation is something that one works out between herself and the Lord, and the only relevant question is, “Did I do 100%?” I don’t mean to take an unduly harsh stance, but the truth is that none of us can answer that question in the affirmative, and this has nothing to do with how much we earn (so long as we provide for our family and meet our basic financial obligations)’ |
Dan: I may be misreading your #27, but it sounds as if you are assuming that I am not only asking the question “Is it better to be rich?” but that I am also implicitly answering that question in the affirmative. To be clear, while I’d probably personally prefer to not be poor, I completely agree with DKL’s #28. And I categorically reject Prosperity Theology. And while I agree with you, as well, that being rich does not make you better, your statement “It just gives you more avenues to pursue” begs the question, doesn’t it? |
Dan and Tagore–not MORE avenues but DIFFERENT avenues–there are plenty of things a rich person cannot do that a poor person can. From empathizing to advising based on being in touch with the poor and their lifestyle to actually not being a barrier in a way that wealth often is. DKL–I really appreciate your use of feminine pronouns in this thread. Seriously! |
Tagore, #29, It would depend on how you define “better.” As far as eternal life is concerned, having more avenues opened to you does not increase or decrease your chances at eternal life. That isn’t one of the qualifications of eternal life. The qualifications of eternal life have little to do with one’s standing in wealth respective to others. From what I know of President Hinckley, for example, he never made much money at all in his life. I think that he spent nearly his entire life in service to the church. Not much money to be made there, and few avenues opened. Yet his influence has been particularly acute just by simply being who he is. Previous prophets have had the same possibilities to reach out like President Hinckley has, yet they didn’t because it was not their style. Russell M. Nelson is a fairly renowned and wealthy retired doctor. But that hasn’t given him more possibilities to spread the gospel more than the much more financially poor Gordon B. Hinckley. Basically I do not see being rich as being “better” at anything related to eternal life. More avenues may be open to you with greater wealth, but also more pitfalls. I think rich and poor are both quite on par in terms of “better.” |
Dan, I would advise not to go down the path of trying to measure the financial status of the apostles. There be dragons there, the kind you really don’t want to meet. |
David, I don’t really care the financial status of the Apostles. Why should there be dragons there anyways? Are they not regular people like you or I? Or are they a people apart living in some bubble? |
“I thought that I was perfectly clear on this front, but in case I wasn’t: Any notion that worldly status correlates to any kind of rank, status, or measure of effectiveness in God’s Kingdom is apostacy.” DKL, I think we’re all in agreement about rank and status. An issue where we all seem to be at cross-definitions is whether the phrase “measure of effectiveness” equates to rank and status. Apparently you do, Tagore and some others don’t. A point illustrating you don’t need worldly goods to be more effective would be the elderly sister who shared the gospel with enough people, such that the number of “souls she brought unto Christ” (using a scriptural phrase) is over 250. Sounds like she’s being very effective to me. A second issue about your interpretation of Tagore’s question, is that we’re working for more than our own salvation. We’re also working to build the kingdom. We’re also working to, or at least have been commanded to, “build up treasure in Heaven.” So the goal for those of us who have been given many years to live on earth (as opposed to those who die in infancy, etc.) is not just to get to the CK, but to “build up treasure” there. A scripture that does point to relativity in terms of joy (not rank or status or one’s own salvation) is the one about “if you should bring one soul unto me” bringing joy to you and that person, followed by “if you should bring many souls unto me” then resulting in even greater joy. ESO: Does spending money increase converts? We don’t know. As far as I know, the church hasn’t really tried it, or has just started to. Only recently has the church started to seriously advertise in test markets. According to what I’ve read about the results so far, at least one Mission President in a test market says that baptisms are up due to the advertising campaign, because the ads (along with members giving out more pass-along cards) has increased the number of investigators, and increased number of investigators, and more lessons taught, is generally going to result in more converts. If getting the gospel message out to one family at a time (via whatever method) is good, then getting the gospel message out to many people at a time via print, tv, and radio ads should be even better. I imagine the church eventually going to a syndicated 1/2 hour tv show on Sundays, that is available for local TV stations to pick up if they want. The Public Affairs department of the church has tested the waters on YouTube, http://youtube.com/profile_videos?user=LDSPublicAffairs Imagine the church buying 1/2 blocks of time on Sundays or late nights, on local TV stations. I can see it. Imagine full page or 1/2 page ads in major metropolitan newspapers. (I’m envisioning a one-time ad in Indianapolis, just advertising the Book of Mormon in 105 languages as bilingual material.) And the church would need a lot of tithe-payers to pay for it all. |
Is it better to live to an extremely old age? Faithful unto obtaining priesthoods, renewed bodies, octagenarian prophets, Three Nephites, etc. Maybe the reason Gordon Hinckley lived seven years longer than Spencer Kimball is because Kimball was such a slacker who never reached out to people because it wasn’t his style. |
In the grand scheme of things, I think that humility is the key, wealth is not. I have an extraordinarily hard time believing that any judgment passed onto us will be in any way based on financial matters of accounting. The Lord looks upon the heart- The Ugandans mentioned earlier that were wealthier may have been a powerful tool with their cars, but their faith is no more remarkable than that of the less wealthy Ugandans who had to walk to church. Jesus put it plainly when he spoke with the rich young man who was righteous, but could not give up his riches for Christ- “The Pearl of Great Price”. It is easier for a camel pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man, or in other words, a lover of money. Thus, the statement is false and wealth and being a “tool for the Lord” should not be considered correlated in any way. |
Ok, DKL, you have me convinced. I’m going to use your arguments as my excuse to be a career-slacker and not live up to my earning potential. |
One of the more wealthy apostles shows at Walgreen’s and uses 50-cents off coupons when buying film (so says an informed source). It’s not about the bank account as it is the attitude about one’s resources. |
Kiss So it’s not about money, it’s about quality quantity time and supple lips. |
Bookslinger, that’s a great idea! Everybody knows that the only reason anyone works hard to earn a living is to please God. |
queuno (38): So maybe I’ve asked the wrong question. Perhaps the better question is, “Is it better to have supple lips?” That’s difficult. I mean, sure, supple lips can be very sensuous, but there are a lot of very faithful people out there with less-than-supple lips. Surely all are alike unto God, both supple lipped and non-supple lipped. |
Dan, I don’t really care the financial status of the Apostles. Then why in the hell did you bring it up? Why should there be dragons there anyways? Are they not regular people like you or I? Or are they a people apart living in some bubble? Dan you just hit the nail on the head but you don’t even realize it. |
David,
Because I wanted to show that it doesn’t matter how rich someone is in this life in terms of spiritual and eternal “betterness.” Russell M. Nelson is a wealthy retired doctor. Gordon B. Hinckley didn’t do much of anything in this world except serve the church. Both have served exceptionally well in the eternal realm of things. As to your second point, are you really saying that they are a people apart, living in a bubble? There is nothing different about the Apostles from you or I David. We are all the same fallible human beings. An Apostle can fall from grace (and there are examples to choose from). So can you or I. |
Dan, As to your second point, are you really saying that they are a people apart, living in a bubble? Financially, yes. If I or my family get sick and we loose everything paying for medical bills, the church might help out a little, but for the most part I am SOL. As far as I can tell none of the apostles will ever get to that point because the church will pay the expenses as long as there is $ in the tithing general fund. Not having to worry about expenses like that is living in a bubble, at least with respect to finances. If I am wrong about any of this someone please correct me. |
Queuno, The thing is, you do have to watch Dynasty to have an attitude, so I’m not sure you can trust your source. AB |
AB (44) - My source in 37 was the salesperson, who waited on Elder Nelson 3 times in a 5-day span. |
# 43 David, I suggest you find yourself employment in such a bubble as the GAs. No whining. |
nasamomdele, I suggest you find yourself employment in such a bubble as the GAs. No whining Wow, you are a genius! Please explain that to all of the saints living in Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia, you have just ended world poverty! In any case, I don’t really want to live in such a bubble, thank you very much. My point was simply that what many/most church members think about the financial position of most GA’s is probably wrong, Dan’s included. This is not to say that their financial position is wrong, but what most members THINK about the position is incorrect/wrong. |
David, As a non-critical thinking, overly trusting sap, what the heck am I supposed to THINK about the GA’s financial position? Because up until now it has been blissfully off my radar. |
MAC, My original point was that it’s best not to think about it. Carry on with what you are doing and keep it off your radar. |
I like to have lots and lots of money. However, the last few months, as I’ve been a poor separated woman living in a trailer, I’ve found it quite peaceful. I haven’t set up any foundations or anything, but life is quieter. Although frankly my first instinct, on reading your question, was “hell yes it’s better to be rich.” I didn’t go to serving others, just having lots and lots of money. |
