179 replies to this topic

[Analytics]

According to Robert Millet, "Jesus said what he meant and meant what he said when he taught that 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 heaven. There is no metaphor intended. No softening of this hard saying by linguistic or cultural traditions is justifiable. The Savior said what he said. "Who then can be saved?" the apostles asked. "With men that trust in riches, it is impossible; but not impossible with men who trust in God and leave all for my sake, for with such all things are possible" (JST, Mark 10:22-26; compare JST, Matt. 19:26;JST Luke 18:27)."

The apostles found this doctrine quite difficult to accept.  Do you guys accept it?  Just curious.

[ELF1024]

Analytics, on 10 December 2010 - 08:31 AM, said:

According to Robert Millet, "Jesus said what he meant and meant what he said when he taught that 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 heaven. There is no metaphor intended. No softening of this hard saying by linguistic or cultural traditions is justifiable. The Savior said what he said. "Who then can be saved?" the apostles asked. "With men that trust in riches, it is impossible; but not impossible with men who trust in God and leave all for my sake, for with such all things are possible" (JST, Mark 10:22-26; compare JST, Matt. 19:26;JST Luke 18:27)."

The apostles found this doctrine quite difficult to accept.  Do you guys accept it?  Just curious.

With men that trust in riches, it is impossible;

Being rich, and having a your heart set on the things of the world is not the same thing. You can be poor and still pine for things of the world. I would not equate being rich, with trusting in riches.

Edited by ELF1024, 10 December 2010 - 08:40 AM.

[CV75]

Trusting in riches is not the same as being materially wealthy. It is equally easy for everyone, regardless of material wealth alone, to enter the kingdom of God. Trusting in eternal life, and having eternal life (or a hope in Christ) is what makes one rich in this regard.

[USU78]

We, all of us, must unburden ourselves of the trappings of mortality.  If the heart is right, the unburdening is not onerous.  If the heart is not right, hoooboy.

[Brenda]

I think it all depends on a person's attitude, not his wealth.  Wealth can create a huge stumbling block of pride, yet it can also be a tremendous resource for helping others. I voted for the last option, except that I'd change the wording to "unless they trust in God and (be willing to) leave all for His sake".

Edited by Brenda, 10 December 2010 - 09:40 AM.

[David Bokovoy]

Oh no!  Not another thread on wealth vs. poverty!!  



Bob Millet is of course correct.  A rich person cannot enter into heaven, only a consecrated man or woman who has given everything the Lord has blessed them with to the building of his kingdom can enter therein.  At least that is what the NT teaches from start to finish.

Edited by David Bokovoy, 10 December 2010 - 09:47 AM.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

David Bokovoy, on 10 December 2010 - 09:46 AM, said:

Oh no!  Not another thread on wealth vs. poverty!!  



Bob Millet is of course correct.  A rich person cannot enter into heaven, only a consecrated man or woman who has given everything the Lord has blessed them with to the building of his kingdom can enter therein.  At least that is what the NT teaches from start to finish.

HAS given everything, or WOULD give everything if called upon to do so?

[David Bokovoy]

BookofMormonLuvr, on 10 December 2010 - 09:55 AM, said:

HAS given everything, or WOULD give everything if called upon to do so?

For Latter-day Saints, the Law of Consecration is absolutely in full force and has never been revoked.  The United Order is not in effect, but the LofC is very much a part of God's expectations for the righteous.  So the answer is has given everything.  A camel could never fit through the eye of a needle.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

David Bokovoy, on 10 December 2010 - 10:00 AM, said:

For Latter-day Saints, the Law of Consecration is absolutely in full force and has never been revoked.  The United Order is not in effect, but the LofC is very much a part of God's expectations for the righteous.  So the answer is has given everything.  A camel could never fit through the eye of a needle.

You just condemned an awful lot of people to non-CK status, since the LofC is not being practiced.

I challenge you to go this Sunday to the Bishop and deed over everything you own, allowing him to only give back what you need.

[David T]

BookofMormonLuvr, on 10 December 2010 - 09:55 AM, said:

HAS given everything, or WOULD give everything if called upon to do so?

Has covenentally deeded it back to the Lord, acknowledging that nothing of substance is truly his own, and all his time, talents, and substance must be being used to further the Lord's will and purposes, and not merely his own personal desires.

[David Bokovoy]

BookofMormonLuvr, on 10 December 2010 - 10:05 AM, said:

You just condemned an awful lot of people to non-CK status, since the LofC is not being practiced.

I challenge you to go this Sunday to the Bishop and deed over everything you own, allowing him to only give back what you need.

That would be living the United Order which is not in effect.  Now, the way I use my stewardship, i.e. the wealth that God has given me to use, is between me and the Lord.  Btw,  the gate myth that you referenced in relationship to this story in a pervious thread was debunked in the Ensign.  Here is the reference:

Ensign on the Camel/Gate Myth

[David T]

BookofMormonLuvr, on 10 December 2010 - 10:05 AM, said:

You just condemned an awful lot of people to non-CK status, since the LofC is not being practiced.

I challenge you to go this Sunday to the Bishop and deed over everything you own, allowing him to only give back what you need.

That's the United Order. We deed our substance to the Lord's Storehouse when we Covenant to live the Law. The Bishop has the right to make a withdraw, such as, "Sister so-and-so, who is having terrible financial struggles, needs to visit his spouse who works in another state. I know you have accumulated $x00 in frequent flier miles. Will you use them to bring this family together?" - I know Bishops who have done that. It is their right to make that request to individuals who have covenanted to live the Law of Consecration.

"The Lord's storehouse includes the time, talents, skills, compassion, consecrated material, and financial means of faithful Church members. These resources are available to the bishop in assisting those in need" (Thomas S. Monson, “Guiding Principles of Personal and Family Welfare,” Ensign, Sept. 1986, 5).

Edited by nackhadlow, 10 December 2010 - 10:15 AM.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

David B.

Perhaps you would feel more comfortable in the Church of Jesus Christ (Alpheus Cutler)? Part of their requirements for membership are gathering to Independence and Consecrating all they own...

http://web.archive.o....cutlerite.org/

**Also, they are the only other Restoration church (besides some polygamist groups) to do the Nauvoo Era Endowment .

Edited by BookofMormonLuvr, 10 December 2010 - 10:20 AM.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

David Bokovoy, on 10 December 2010 - 10:12 AM, said:

That would be living the United Order which is not in effect.  Now, the way I use my stewardship, i.e. the wealth that God has given me to use, is between me and the Lord.  Btw,  the gate myth that you referenced in relationship to this story in a pervious thread was debunked in the Ensign.  Here is the reference:

Ensign on the Camel/Gate Myth

I don't believe I referenced anything to "the gate myth". You must be confusing me with someone else.

[David Bokovoy]

BookofMormonLuvr, on 10 December 2010 - 10:17 AM, said:

David B.

Perhaps you would feel more comfortable in the Church of Jesus Christ (Alpheus Cutler)? Part of their requirements for membership are gathering to Independence and Consecrating all they own...

http://web.archive.o....cutlerite.org/

**They are the only other Restoration church (besides some polygamist groups) to do the Nauvoo Era Endowment .

I'm quite pleased trying to live up to my temple covenants as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Thanks.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

David Bokovoy, on 10 December 2010 - 10:20 AM, said:

I'm quite pleased trying to live up to my temple covenants as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Thanks.

So when the rubber meets the road, you aren't up to the challenge?

[David Bokovoy]

BookofMormonLuvr, on 10 December 2010 - 10:19 AM, said:

I don't believe I referenced anything to "the gate myth". You must be confusing me with someone else.

You're right, I'm sorry.  It was Deborah.

[David Bokovoy]

BookofMormonLuvr, on 10 December 2010 - 10:23 AM, said:

So when the rubber meets the road, you aren't up to the challenge?

There is certainly room for quite a bit of improvement in my life, even though I feel I'm doing a pretty good job.  I've never claimed to be perfect and certainly do not expect perfection from those around me.  Fortunately, I do not believe that perfection is a requisite for eternal life.

[jadams_4242]

Analytics, on 10 December 2010 - 08:31 AM, said:

According to Robert Millet, "Jesus said what he meant and meant what he said when he taught that 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 heaven. There is no metaphor intended. No softening of this hard saying by linguistic or cultural traditions is justifiable. The Savior said what he said. "Who then can be saved?" the apostles asked. "With men that trust in riches, it is impossible; but not impossible with men who trust in God and leave all for my sake, for with such all things are possible" (JST, Mark 10:22-26; compare JST, Matt. 19:26;JST Luke 18:27)."

The apostles found this doctrine quite difficult to accept.  Do you guys accept it?  Just curious.

   the monetarliy rich are only going to see this thru the eyes of personal justification; the poor do truely get it.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

jadams_4040, on 10 December 2010 - 11:15 AM, said:

   the monetarliy rich are only going to see this thru the eyes of personal justification; the poor do truely get it.

This is a classic Liberal fallacy- placing poor people in some sort of moral authority because they are poor.