Can A Rich Man Enter the Kingdom of God?

[Ahab]

zerinus,

I appreciate your response, because you're at least trying to share some good idea instead of bad-mouthing my ideas as if my ideas are bad.

What do you think of Jesus' counsel to Lazarus, though: Sell all you have and give to the poor.

He didn't say to put what he could spare into some kind of fund and then give the poor only the interest earned.

[zerinus]

zerinus,

I appreciate your response, because you're at least trying to share some good idea instead of bad-mouthing my ideas as if my ideas are bad.

What do you think of Jesus' counsel to Lazarus, though: Sell all you have and give to the poor.

I am not aware that He said that to "Lazarus" as such. Jesus said that in two separate context in the NT. The first one was to a certain rich young person who inquired to know how he could obtain eternal life, as recorded in the following verses:

Matthew 19

:

16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

21 Jesus said unto him,

If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me

.

22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

Mark 10

:

17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.

20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.

21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him,

One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me

.

22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.

Here I believe that was one of the conditions of discipleship. To be a disciple of Jesus Christ, that was one of the requirements, so that they could be totally dependent on the Lord by faith. All the disciples had to comply with that rule; except that for the poor that was an easier requirement to accept than for the rich, because for the rich they had become accustomed to putting their trust in their riches. The other instance where it occurs is the following, which I am going to quote in its larger context because it provides added meaning:

Luke 12

:

22 And he said unto his disciples, Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye shall put on.

23 The life is more than meat, and the body is more than raiment.

24 Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls?

25 And which of you with taking thought can add to his stature one cubit?

26 If ye then be not able to do that thing which is least, why take ye thought for the rest?

27 Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

28 If then God so clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and to morrow is cast into the oven; how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith?

29 And seek not ye what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind.

30 For all these things do the nations of the world seek after: and your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things.

31 But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you.

32 Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.

33

Sell that ye have, and give alms;

provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth.

34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

35 Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning;

36 And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately.

37 Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them.

38 And if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants.

39 And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through.

40 Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not.

41 Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all?

42 And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?

43 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.

This commandment might appear at first sight appear to be a general instruction to all; but I am not sure that is is. If you compare it to similar passages found in the Book of Mormon (3 Nephi 13:25-34), you will find that it was addressed to those twelve whom Jesus had chosen to minister to the people. It was one of the conditions of that kind of discipleship. The NT passage seems to be a little bit garbled, and not as perfect as it was originally delivered. It might have been addressed just to the Twelve Apostles.

He didn't say to put what he could spare into some kind of fund and then give the poor only the interest earned.

Maybe that is because world economy wasn't as sophisticated in those days as it is today!

[Ahab]

I am not aware that He said that to "Lazarus" as such. Jesus said that in two separate context in the NT. The first one was to a certain rich young person who inquired to know how he could obtain eternal life, as recorded in the following verses:

Matthew 19

:

16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

21 Jesus said unto him,

If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me

.

22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

Mark 10

:

17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.

20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.

21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him,

One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me

.

22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.

Yes, that's the instance I was referring to, and to my knowledge that rich man was Lazarus... and yes, I'm referring to the man Jesus later raised from the dead.

Here I believe that was one of the conditions of discipleship. To be a disciple of Jesus Christ, that was one of the requirements, so that they could be totally dependent on the Lord by faith. All the disciples had to comply with that rule; except that for the poor that was an easier requirement to accept than for the rich, because for the rich they had become accustomed to putting their trust in their riches.

Um hmm. So, do you think the requirements are different from us now than they were for those other disciples? If they should do that, why not us?

Maybe that is because world economy wasn't as sophisticated in those days as it is today!

Heh. You're a funny guy.

[zerinus]

Yes, that's the instance I was referring to, and to my knowledge that rich man was Lazarus... and yes, I'm referring to the man Jesus later raised from the dead.

Um hmm. So, do you think the requirements are different from us now than they were for those other disciples? If they should do that, why not us?

Heh. You're a funny guy.

Let me turn that question around to you. Have a look at this chapter in the Book of Mormon:

3 Nephi 13

:

Jesus teaches the Nephites the Lord's Prayer

[Ahab]

He gives a different set of commandments to the twelve ministers whom He had chosen among the Nephites than He does to the rest of the multitude. How do you see the difference between the two?

Look at this part of what he said to the Nephites, generally.

19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and thieves break through and steal;

20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal.

21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

22 The light of the body is the eye; if, therefore, thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If, therefore, the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

24 No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.

Now look at this part of what he said to 12 of the Nephites:

Remember the words which I have spoken. For behold, ye are they whom I have chosen to minister unto this people.

After saying that, he then basically gave them the same message he gave to the Nephites, generally, again, while adding a few more insights:

Therefore I say unto you, take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

26 Behold the fowls of the air, for they sow not, neither do they reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin;

29 And yet I say unto you, that even Solomon, in all his glory, was not arrayed like one of these.

30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, even so will he clothe you, if ye are not of little faith.

31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

32 For your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.

33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.

34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow, for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient is the day unto the evil thereof.

Do you think that such a distinction might have also existed in the NT, but has been obscured by the "plain and precious parts" that has been removed from it?

No. We have the same basic message in the NT that we have in the Book of Mormon.

We should be serving God, rather than Mammon, with the laborer in Zion laboring for Zion while those who labor for money will perish.

[zerinus]

Look at this part of what he said to the Nephites, generally.

19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and thieves break through and steal;

20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal.

21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

22 The light of the body is the eye; if, therefore, thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If, therefore, the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

24 No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.

Now look at this part of what he said to 12 of the Nephites:

Remember the words which I have spoken. For behold, ye are they whom I have chosen to minister unto this people.

After saying that, he then basically gave them the same message he gave to the Nephites, generally, again, while adding a few more insights:

25 Therefore I say unto you, take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

26 Behold the fowls of the air, for they sow not, neither do they reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin;

29 And yet I say unto you, that even Solomon, in all his glory, was not arrayed like one of these.

30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, even so will he clothe you, if ye are not of little faith.

31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

32 For your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.

33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.

34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow, for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient is the day unto the evil thereof.

No. We have the same basic message in the NT that we have in the Book of Mormon, even though the concepts are worded differently by different people.

We should be serving God, rather than mammon, with the laborer in Zion laboring for Zion while those who labor for money will perish.

How do you explain the counsel the Church gives to its members as part of the welfare and personal "self-reliance" plan that they should have a healthy bank balance, and avoid debt etc. What is a healthy bank balance?

What do you think people should do for their retirement plans? Do you think they should have no retirement plans, and hope for the best, or do you think they should have some kind of a plan, as advised by governments and economic advisors nowadays?

[Ahab]

How do you explain the counsel the Church gives to its members as part of the welfare and personal "self-reliance" plan that they should have a healthy bank balance, and avoid debt etc. What is a healthy bank balance?

]What do you think people should do for their retirement plans? Do you think they should have no retirement plans, and hope for the best, or do you think they should have some kind of a plan, as advised by governments and economic advisors nowadays?

What message do you get from what the Lord said to both the Nephites, generally,and the 12 he chose as his ministers?

What part of "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth" do you not understand?

No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.

[zerinus]

What message do you get from what the Lord said to both the Nephites, generally,and the 12 he chose as his ministers?

What part of "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth" do you not understand?

I don't know, that is why I am asking you. Do you think we should ignore the Church's advice and have no bank balance? What do you suggest?

[Jeff K.]

I think the stance Ahab has taken is one of hypocrisy. He maneuvers man made numbers in order to ensure he isn't one of those he condemns, yet the hypocrisy which is profound is that his very words would condemn him. Perhaps he doesn't realize it, perhaps he doesn't care. What his outword covetous view of others and his condemnation of those he knows nothing about, while ignoring his own material riches, reflects a rejection of the gospel of Christ and an acceptance in fault finding of those whose only crime is being successful.

I pity the man.

[zerinus]

I think the stance Ahab has taken is one of hypocrisy. He maneuvers man made numbers in order to ensure he isn't one of those he condemns, yet the hypocrisy which is profound is that his very words would condemn him. Perhaps he doesn't realize it, perhaps he doesn't care. What his outword covetous view of others and his condemnation of those he knows nothing about, while ignoring his own material riches, reflects a rejection of the gospel of Christ and an acceptance in fault finding of those whose only crime is being successful.

I pity the man.

Come on now, don't be so harsh. The man has an opinion, and his opinion deserves to be heard.

[zerinus]

Um hmm. So, do you think the requirements are different from us now than they were for those other disciples? If they should do that, why not us?

I don't think I commented on that adequately.

In the days of Jesus, His missionary messengers were commanded to preach the gospel "without purse or scrip," meaning that they should not take any money with them, or food stuffs of any kind, but to rely on the mercy of the world, and faith in God to feed or clothe them (Mark 6:7-10; Luke 10:3-7). In this dispensation too the Lord initially commanded the missionaries to preach the gospel without purse of scrip (D&C 24:18; 84:78, 86). But now the rules have changed. They do take with them purse and scrip. That suggests to me that those kinds of rules may not always be applicable at all times, or under all circumstances. Luke 22:35-36 also suggests that those kinds of rules may not always be applicable under all circumstances. My understanding of the situation is that the Church now operates under the law of tithing, not consecration; and as long as someone fulfills that requirement, and is otherwise generous with his means towards the poor or the Church, if he has the means to spare, he has fulfilled all that God requires him to do. If the situation changed, and law of consecration became the norm, something different might be expected of him.

[Jeff K.]

Come on now, don't be so harsh. The man has an opinion, and his opinion deserves to be heard.

If I might disagree. Not all opinions deserve equal status. Opinions that condemn an entire group with strawman stereotypes and establish some sort of materialist level that allows the denouncement of people one has never met and apparently never known beyond the chariature some angry person tossed his way. As Mormons we often are characterized by generalities that we know are simply untrue and without merit for describing who we are. It is human nature to do so, or rather the nature of the natural man. To easily catagorize a whole religion, race, or class of people (trailer trash, rich parasites, etc), is wrong and an opinion based on such is not equal to opinions as neutrally acceptable.

The opinion suffers from several disturbing shortcomings.

1- It condemns an entire class or group of people as somehow being unworthy of the Lord's blessing.

2- It has a sliding scale, ie "because I say so, I am not rich" (even though it has been shown easily that one is rich relative to others) and as middle class no responsibility exists and therefore no condemnation for "my" kind of people.

3- It subsumes the doctrine of salvation and uses materialistic possessions as a guide to entrance into Heavenly Father's kingdom (if being rich is required to be in heaven, and such a view is wrong, the opposite side of the same coin should apply).

These things alone make the opinion as dangerous today as it was duirng the era when Nephites began catagorizing people economically. One wonders at the level of condemnation that seethes below the surface towards a "rich" stake president called by an apostle, how this pattern plays itself just as it did with the betrayer Judas Iscariot.

So in my view the opinion is indeed a dangerous one, because it is being proclaimed by those inside the church and it is never the outside that can hurt our church, only those within who betray it for 30 pieces of silver, or 30 pieces of poverty points in this case.

As an alternative I believe that looking towards the riches of others does nothing for the general welfare and spiritual well being of a people beyond allowing us to indulge is some sort of class covetousness. Shielding it under the veneer of "well I want it for other people" does not change the stripes of that beast.

[USU78]

If I might disagree. Not all opinions deserve equal status. Opinions that condemn an entire group with strawman stereotypes and establish some sort of materialist level that allows the denouncement of people one has never met and apparently never known beyond the chariature some angry person tossed his way. As Mormons we often are characterized by generalities that we know are simply untrue and without merit for describing who we are. It is human nature to do so, or rather the nature of the natural man. To easily catagorize a whole religion, race, or class of people (trailer trash, rich parasites, etc), is wrong and an opinion based on such is not equal to opinions as neutrally acceptable.

The opinion suffers from several disturbing shortcomings.

1- It condemns an entire class or group of people as somehow being unworthy of the Lord's blessing.

2- It has a sliding scale, ie "because I say so, I am not rich" (even though it has been shown easily that one is rich relative to others) and as middle class no responsibility exists and therefore no condemnation for "my" kind of people.

3- It subsumes the doctrine of salvation and uses materialistic possessions as a guide to entrance into Heavenly Father's kingdom (if being rich is required to be in heaven, and such a view is wrong, the opposite side of the same coin should apply).

These things alone make the opinion as dangerous today as it was duirng the era when Nephites began catagorizing people economically. One wonders at the level of condemnation that seethes below the surface towards a "rich" stake president called by an apostle, how this pattern plays itself just as it did with the betrayer Judas Iscariot.

So in my view the opinion is indeed a dangerous one, because it is being proclaimed by those inside the church and it is never the outside that can hurt our church, only those within who betray it for 30 pieces of silver, or 30 pieces of poverty points in this case.

As an alternative I believe that looking towards the riches of others does nothing for the general welfare and spiritual well being of a people beyond allowing us to indulge is some sort of class covetousness. Shielding it under the veneer of "well I want it for other people" does not change the stripes of that beast.

Brilliant! Would I had your gift. I'm a poor epigrammist at best. That's pure poetry.

[Vance]

. . . or 30 pieces of poverty points in this case.

I have known people who were as proud of and gloried in their poverty as any rich person I know are of their condition.

[T-Shirt]

Who gets to decide, for the purpose of salvation, how we define rich? The typical American welfare mother is rich when compared to most of the population of Ethiopia. Are we to condemn all rich people (whatever that means) regardless of the fact that we have no idea what they do with their money in helping the poor? Wasn't giving alms openly, for all to see, condemned by the Lord, and if so, wouldn't we be guilty of the greater sin by condemning someone we deem to be rich for not giving to the poor just because we didn't see them do it?

T-Shirt

[thesometimesaint]

Luke 14: 12-14

"When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your kinsmen or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return, and you be repaid.

But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just."

[Jeff K.]

Luckily that does not reflect the condemnation of an entire class of people. Indeed, how does a man afford a banquet for the poor? Is he less righteous? Or is the material aspect unimportant but the idea of doing good without return the key virtue expressed?

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

I'm not against the rich. I am against the Gospel of Prosperity.

[Ahab]

If I might disagree. Not all opinions deserve equal status. Opinions that condemn an entire group with strawman stereotypes and establish some sort of materialist level that allows the denouncement of people one has never met and apparently never known beyond the chariature some angry person tossed his way. As Mormons we often are characterized by generalities that we know are simply untrue and without merit for describing who we are. It is human nature to do so, or rather the nature of the natural man. To easily catagorize a whole religion, race, or class of people (trailer trash, rich parasites, etc), is wrong and an opinion based on such is not equal to opinions as neutrally acceptable.

The opinion suffers from several disturbing shortcomings.

1- It condemns an entire class or group of people as somehow being unworthy of the Lord's blessing.

2- It has a sliding scale, ie "because I say so, I am not rich" (even though it has been shown easily that one is rich relative to others) and as middle class no responsibility exists and therefore no condemnation for "my" kind of people.

3- It subsumes the doctrine of salvation and uses materialistic possessions as a guide to entrance into Heavenly Father's kingdom (if being rich is required to be in heaven, and such a view is wrong, the opposite side of the same coin should apply).

These things alone make the opinion as dangerous today as it was duirng the era when Nephites began catagorizing people economically. One wonders at the level of condemnation that seethes below the surface towards a "rich" stake president called by an apostle, how this pattern plays itself just as it did with the betrayer Judas Iscariot.

So in my view the opinion is indeed a dangerous one, because it is being proclaimed by those inside the church and it is never the outside that can hurt our church, only those within who betray it for 30 pieces of silver, or 30 pieces of poverty points in this case.

As an alternative I believe that looking towards the riches of others does nothing for the general welfare and spiritual well being of a people beyond allowing us to indulge is some sort of class covetousness. Shielding it under the veneer of "well I want it for other people" does not change the stripes of that beast.

Look, bro. The point I made is very simple to grasp, and even if you think I am rich, by worldly standards, you should be agreeing with me rather than thinking my point isn't valid or that I am a menace to society.

My point very simply is: The rich should give to the poor because it's the rich who have most of this world's resources. The poor people may have "some" riches, and the "middle-class" may have some "riches" too, but it's the people who our U.S. government classifies as the "rich" who have MOST of this world's resources, BY FAR, and in fact, the "rich" have more of this world's resources than the poor class and the middle-class, COMBINED, which is just not fair, at all, by any standard.

Now, since you seem to want to make this personal against me while accusing me of not giving as I should give, I'll just take a moment to say you are wrong about that, and if I had more, I would give more.

[Jeff K.]

Look, bro. The point I made is very simple to grasp, and even if you think I am rich, by worldly standards, you should be agreeing with me rather than thinking my point isn't valid or that I am a menace to society.

My point very simply is: The rich should give to the poor because it's the rich who have most of this world's resources. The poor people may have "some" riches, and the "middle-class" may have some "riches" too, but it's the people who our U.S. government classifies as the "rich" who have MOST of this world's resources, BY FAR, and in fact, the "rich" have more of this world's resources than the poor class and the middle-class, COMBINED, which is just not fair, at all, by any standard.

Now, since you seem to want to make this personal against me while accusing me of not giving as I should give, I'll just take a moment to say you are wrong about that, and if I had more, I would give more.

Your point is one that has been clearly outlined in my post. It is covetous, judgemental, and reflects a disdain based on materialistic rather than spiritual quantities. Your point that the "rich" control the worlds resources reflects a shallowness. Rather than judge your neighbor you should ask yourself what "YOU" are doing for the poor. I am not a respecter of persons, rather rich or poor or middle class. You shouldn't be either.

You apparently are not giving well enough since you still have more than the poor. At least based on your absolutist judgement of others.

[Ahab]

Your point is one that has been clearly outlined in my post. It is covetous, judgemental, and reflects a disdain based on materialistic rather than spiritual quantities.

You need to think again about what my point actually is, because you're still not getting it right.

The fact that I recognize the fact that most of this world's resources are in the hands of the rich does not mean I am covetous, and it doesn't mean that I don't give what I should give. I'm simply saying the rich should give to the poor because they should. Do you disagree that the rich should, whoever they are?

If you agree with me on that point, then it seems the only point we don't agree on is whether or not I am rich. You think I am, and yet you don't know how much income I have, while I do know that about me and I also know that I am not rich according to the parameters I use to define who is rich.

Your point that the "rich" control the worlds resources reflects a shallowness.

Your idea that they don't shows me that you are very naive.

Rather than judge your neighbor you should ask yourself what "YOU" are doing for the poor.

I already know what I'm doing for the poor, and I also know that the "rich" can give more than I am now able to give considering what I now have to work with.

Wouldn't you like to live in a world where things were spread out a lot more equally, instead of the rich having so much more than those who are poor?

What do you think when you know a government is going to be spending $40 million on a wedding ceremony while so many people are actually "poor".

Or what do you think when you know someone has already spent $4 million on a big fancy boat, while so many people are actually "poor".

Don't you get even a wee bit outraged at that kind of injustice, or do you consider yourself to be privileged if you can participate in some way, perhaps even while wishing you could do the same thing as those "rich" people ?

If I had millions of dollars to work with, or even only $120,000 a year in annual income, I wouldn't spend it that way while knowing there are so many people who are actually "poor" in the world, and I am outraged that so many people actually do.

I am not a respecter of persons, rather rich or poor or middle class. You shouldn't be either.

I'm not, and while I'd rather live in a world where there is no such thing as money, with people doing things they do just because they want to out of the charity of their own hearts, I respect what money can do in the world we now live in and I'd simply like to see it being put to better use than it usually is by those who have most of it along with most of the world's other resources.

You apparently are not giving well enough since you still have more than the poor. At least based on your absolutist judgement of others.

My "middle-class" status is based upon how much money I make in annual income, not upon how much I give of my resources, and since you really have no idea how much of my income I give to other people, you should simply think about the "principles" I am sharing with you.

Point of fact: The rich should give to the poor until the poor are no longer poor... regardless of whether or not I am one of the rich.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Jeff K.:

I'm not against the rich. I am against the Gospel of Prosperity.

So being prosperous is a bad thing? Who knew?

I take it that you desire all to live in cardboard boxes?

[Jeff K.]

Shrug

You fail to see how wrong you are.

Tell us, if your Stake President were "rich" would you contend that somehow he was less righteous than you because you are not "as rich" as he is?

If so, how can he be in judgement of your temple recommend you are so obviously more concerned with righteousness.

Quote

Your point that the "rich" control the worlds resources reflects a shallowness.

Your idea that they don't shows me that you are very naive.

Who buys the computers they don't need? The cell phones that are unnecessary and voluntarily gives of their wealth to the rich?

No, you view is shallow. Mine tends to understand and know the flow of money and affluence, indeed, I tend to understand how things work. The naivete is "well give it all away and everything will be better".

Now that is naive.

You make the rich what they are. And then you curse them because you gave them your money for things that aren't necessary. But wait.... you aren't rich (or so you contend even though you are indeed much richer than those in many nations), but you really haven't answered that have you?

You may not wish to admit it, but that is the flaw you have to deal with. Your wealth is incredible compared to what I have seen for poverty in Peru and other places. I suggest that you apply to yourself the same rules you wish to apply to others.

I think you could do much more to help the poor than what you are doing now. I might suggest you clean up your own neighborhood before you judge the neighborhood of others, especially when you don't know the people.

A thought.

Hugo Chavez lives a simple life in the government. And yet he has imprisoned many people for imagined crimes. Mao lived very simply, and yet almost 50 million died as he was trying to "help the poor".

Some very righteous men out there, at least by your criteria.

[Jeff K.]

Don't you get even a wee bit outraged at that kind of injustice, or do you consider yourself to be privileged if you can participate in some way, perhaps even while wishing you could do the same thing as those "rich" people ?

I don't think about the rich. I have my own soul to look after. I don't wonder about the money they spend since I don't think it is my business to covet their wealth. It shouldn't be yours either.

Frankly, if you wanted to be a fault finder you could argue that any wedding party beyond the temple ceremony is a assult upon the poor, since the spiknard could have been given to the poor instead of to the couple being married. Tell me, when and if you married, did you have or plan to have a wedding party?

If so, shouldn't you be ashamed when there are so many people in the world poorer than you?

[Ahab]

Shrug

You fail to see how wrong you are.

Heh, yeah, sure bro. Keep telling yourself, and me, that I am the one who is wrong.

Tell us, if your Stake President were "rich" would you contend that somehow he was less righteous than you because you are not "as rich" as he is?

No, but I would hope he was giving to the poor, as he should, and just as all other rich people should, while knowing that he had more to give than I did.

If so, how can he be in judgement of your temple recommend you are so obviously more concerned with righteousness.

N/A.

Who buys the computers they don't need? The cell phones that are unnecessary and voluntarily gives of their wealth to the rich?

No, you view is shallow. Mine tends to understand and know the flow of money and affluence, indeed, I tend to understand how things work. The naivete is "well give it all away and everything will be better".

You seem to see how it works from the bottom up, but you don't seem see how it should work from the top down.

Since you mentioned computers, let's consider someone who has made a ton of money by "selling" computers and/or computer software.

... and without mentioning any names, to avoid violating any board rules, and just considering the fact that there are many real people who have become "rich" that way.

So, let's say we have some guy with millions, if not billions of dollars. What do you think he (or she) should do with it?

Give it to the poor, right? Not all of it, of course, because he still needs some money to live on and we wouldn't want him (or her) to become poor and in need of someone else's assistance, because the goal is to eradicate poverty from the whole world, rather than to support some opulant lifestyle.

Are you with me so far, or do you still see me as a mean ole boogey man who has no right to talk about how things should work on this planet I live on ???

Now that is naive.

Uh, what is? Did you have a valid point to make about something?

You make the rich what they are.

Well, not all by myself, but yes I do help them to become rich, and since I"m not poor, myself, I'm not really complaining about the lifestyle I am living.

I'm speaking up for the poor here while talking about what rich people should do with their money.

And then you curse them because you gave them your money for things that aren't necessary. But wait.... you aren't rich (or so you contend even though you are indeed much richer than those in many nations), but you really haven't answered that have you?

Yes, I have, and if you didn't see that then you haven't been paying very good attention.

You may not wish to admit it, but that is the flaw you have to deal with. Your wealth is incredible compared to what I have seen for poverty in Peru and other places. I suggest that you apply to yourself the same rules you wish to apply to others.

I do, bro. I actually do practice what I preach.

I think you could do much more to help the poor than what you are doing now.

Nope, not really, and if you must know, I'm actually teetering on the edge of my limits with there being a very good possibility of me becoming poor, myself, if I don't really watch it.

I might suggest you clean up your own neighborhood before you judge the neighborhood of others, especially when you don't know the people.

A thought.

I preach the same doctrine in my own neighborhood too, bro. Thanks for the advice, though, as if I wasn't.

Hugo Chavez lives a simple life in the government. And yet he has imprisoned many people for imagined crimes. Mao lived very simply, and yet almost 50 million died as he was trying to "help the poor".

Some very righteous men out there, at least by your criteria.

Just so you know, I already forgive you for all of the bad things you've been saying about me, and likely will continue to say... because I'm just a nice guy, that way.