Is wealth a sin?

[elguanteloko]

Perhaps the love of money creates a society in which certain pathologies thrive.

I certainly agree with you there... but, ALL evil?...ALL rapes? ALL lies? can we really believe any such thing?

[Nathair/|\]

Nathair, on 19 July 2010 - 10:51 PM, said:

You will have to take that up with Paul when you see him. Let me know how it goes.

What?!?

Wasn't it Paul who said it?

Yours under the innocent oaks,

Nathair /|\

[selek]

King David's house was bigger than the temple, by at least two times, and look what happened to him. So, in my estimation, big houses say something about those who reside within.

H.

And yet until (and to some degree after) his sin with Bathsheba, David was a man after the Lord's own heart- his words, not mine.

Your statement is a nonsequitor, as it was not a large house, or wealth, or power that David lusted.

It was for a woman not his own- and he was willing to commit murder to possess her.

[elguanteloko]

Wasn't it Paul who said it?

Yours under the innocent oaks,

Nathair /|\

Well... yes but if you told me that you disagreed with Socrates on something, would it be proper to tell you "Well, when you see Socrates you ask him that and then tell me about it"? How does this contribute to what I said? I am just thrown off by that kind of answer, I apologize.

[mercyngrace]

I certainly agree with you there... but, ALL evil?...ALL rapes? ALL lies? can we really believe any such thing?

For the sake of argument, we could say that secret combinations set themselves up to get gain, promote values and social systems that consolidate power in their hands. People commiting the acts of evil are unwitting pawns of others seeking money. Or we could say that false priests (of every conceivable ideology) desire money and aspire to the honors of men so they teach doctrines that are palatable to a sinful people thus promoting evil acts in exchange for a higher bank balance.

But to be honest, I still don't think those things could be culpable for ALL sins....

[Droopy]

I don't make that claim, the scriptures do. Poor --> humble ---> rich ---> Act like prideful jerks ---> cursing ----> Poor

There is no such substantive teaching in the scriptures or in the restored gospel. Be careful of isolating scriptures and using them as prooftexts for idiosyncratic doctrinal notions.

Seems like every story involving money leads to people acting like prideful jerks.

And yet we know that in real life, this is many times not the case.

Keep what you need to stay afloat and fed, and give the rest to others that need it. Seems like the safest means to staying on the right path.

That's a nice recipe for the collapse of the economy and of modern, industrial civilization Toronto. I wonder how long you'd last in that society?

My point exactly, only four people, in all of scripturedom, in contrast to entire civilizations that couldn't keep it together when they kept their money.

Civilizational collapse in the past has come for a number of interrelated reasons, of which the greed of the affluent classes (extremely minor, until the 20th century) has only been a part. It is actually the intellectual and moral decadence of the affluent classes of the West that concern me the most, of which money is an integral part. Indeed, in our modern context, there are great concourses of the poor who's "eyes are full of greediness" and which greed has been stoked to a cherry red glow by corrupt, power lusting intellectual and political Gaddianton Robbers among our political and cultural elites, who simultaneously swath them in circuses as they shower them in self interested bread.

Then, of course, there is the moral decline and disintegration, which affects all social classes across the entire socio-cultural spectrum.

Class envy is a harsh mistress, and demands fresh blood in large quantities. Seeing the entire gospel message through the lens of class consciousness rather vulgarizes the gospel, in my estimation.

[elguanteloko]

For the sake of argument, we could say that secret combinations set themselves up to get gain, promote values and social systems that consolidate power in their hands. People commiting the acts of evil are unwitting pawns of others seeking money. Or we could say that false priests (of every conceivable ideology) desire money and aspire to the honors of men so they teach doctrines that are palatable to a sinful people thus promoting evil acts in exchange for a higher bank balance.

But to be honest, I still don't think those things could be culpable for ALL sins....

I just saw other translations of the same verse say "...the root of all types of evils" (NIV, NLT, EST). I can certainly agree with this.

[LDSToronto]

And yet until (and to some degree after) his sin with Bathsheba, David was a man after the Lord's own heart- his words, not mine.

Your statement is a nonsequitor, as it was not a large house, or wealth, or power that David lusted.

It was for a woman not his own- and he was willing to commit murder to possess her.

Well, most importantly, it wasn't David.... it was Solomon. I made the correction in a subsequent post.

H.

[Nathair/|\]

Well... yes but if you told me that you disagreed with Socrates on something, would it be proper to tell you "Well, when you see Socrates you ask him that and then tell me about it"? How does this contribute to what I said? I am just thrown off by that kind of answer, I apologize.

OK, I guess I have stirred this pot enough. In case you haven't figured from my sign-offs, I've been doing a little Druidic/trickster punking of you.

Yours under the coyote oaks,

Nathair /|\

[LeSellers]

I just taught this lesson in GD and the manual explicitly links Solomon's wealth to his downfall.

I was teaching Primary, so I didn't get that lesson. All I know is what I read in the Bible.

1 But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites; 2 Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love. 3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart. ... 5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.

6 And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father. 7 Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon. 8 And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods.

He used his wealth to build a house for the daughter of pharaoh, and he built altars for his wives' native gods, one, as I recall, in the confines of the Temple.

Lehi

[elguanteloko]

OK, I guess I have stirred this pot enough. In case you haven't figured from my sign-offs, I've been doing a little Druidic/trickster punking of you.

Yours under the coyote oaks,

Nathair /|\

My bad, then.

[mercyngrace]

I was teaching Primary, so I didn't get that lesson. All I know is what I read in the Bible.

He used his wealth to build a house for the daughter of pharaoh, and he built altars for his wives' native gods, one, as I recall, in the confines of the Temple.

Lehi

I hear you, Lehi. I just wanted you to know that the Sunday School lesson manual made the connection very clearly.

[LDSToronto]

There is no such substantive teaching in the scriptures or in the restored gospel. Be careful of isolating scriptures and using them as prooftexts for idiosyncratic doctrinal notions.

You mean the scriptures don't teach the poor --> humble --> blessed ---> rich ---> prideful ---> cursed ---> destroyed ---> poor cycle? I must be reading them wrong. Especially the stories of the Nephites and Lamanites, and I think a house called Israel....

That's a nice recipe for the collapse of the economy and of modern, industrial civilization Toronto. I wonder how long you'd last in that society?

Jacob 2:17, my friend, Jacob 2:17... But you are right, I should disregard the counsel of the Lord's servant in favour of man-made economic theories. I wonder if I could disregard the Lord's counsel in favour of other man-made theories - imagine the world if I started buying into some of the social theories out there... oh, wait...

Civilizational collapse in the past has come for a number of interrelated reasons, of which the greed of the affluent classes (extremely minor, until the 20th century) has only been a part. It is actually the intellectual and moral decadence of the affluent classes of the West that concern me the most, of which money is an integral part. Indeed, in our modern context, there are great concourses of the poor who's "eyes are full of greediness" and which greed has been stoked to a cherry red glow by corrupt, power lusting intellectual and political Gaddianton Robbers among our political and cultural elites, who simultaneously swath them in circuses as they shower them in self interested bread.

Then, of course, there is the moral decline and disintegration, which affects all social classes across the entire socio-cultural spectrum.

Class envy is a harsh mistress, and demands fresh blood in large quantities. Seeing the entire gospel message through the lens of class consciousness rather vulgarizes the gospel, in my estimation.

Droopy, I can't tell what the heck you are saying here... in one sense you seem to agree, in another sense, you seem to disagree. Lukewarm, I guess.

H.

[ERayR]

I don't know I have never been blessed/cursed with much of it but have always had Gods blessing to provide for our needs. Didn't have much left for wants so wasn't toubled with that.

[selek]

Well, most importantly, it wasn't David.... it was Solomon. I made the correction in a subsequent post.

H.

And yet Solomon inherited his father's kingdom and house.

And again like his father, Solomon's failing wasn't lusting after "a big house" or "wealth", either.

The statement remains a non sequitor.

[mercyngrace]

And again like his father, Solomon's failing wasn't lusting after "a big house" or "wealth", either.

Selek,

I have to disagree. The Sunday School lesson, as I already pointed out to Lehi, explicitly says Solomon misused his wealth to his own glory and the writer of 1 Chronicles also points out that while Solomon spent only 7 years building the temple, he took 13 years building his own house.

From chapter 6:

38 And in the eleventh year, in the month Bul, which is the eighth month, was the house finished throughout all the parts thereof, and according to all the fashion of it. So was he seven years in building it.

And the very next verse, chapter 7 verse 1:

1 But Solomon was abuilding his own bhouse thirteen years, and he finished all his house.

The juxtaposition of these facts is not an accident. We can see clearly by the comparison upon what Solomon set his heart.

[LDSToronto]

And yet Solomon inherited his father's kingdom and house.

And again like his father, Solomon's failing wasn't lusting after "a big house" or "wealth", either.

The statement remains a non sequitor.

I know, I tried to tell that to the Church's Sunday School Curriculum Committee, but they wouldn't listen, and insisted on putting it in the OT Teachers Manualanyways:

Solomon also had a house built for himself. How did the size of his house compare to the size of the house of the Lord? (See 1 Kings 6:2

[Lightbearer]

Wealth is not a sin. It is the worship of wealth (golden calf) that is the sin. Abraham was quite wealthy yet he is considered the father of the faithful and a type of Christ. But he did not make his wealth his God, he was willing to sacrifice all things for the Lord. That I think is the difference, the wealth only corrupts if it causes us to covet after our own property. So yes riches can be our downfall, but so can poverty, it can cause us to be tempted to steal, or covet others property. The scriptures are clear on this point:

(Jacob 2:18-19) "But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God. And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good

[selek]

I know, I tried to tell that to the Church's Sunday School Curriculum Committee, but they wouldn't listen, and insisted on putting it in the OT Teachers Manualanyways:

I told them that no one on the MADB would believe this, but they said tough. Oh well.

H.

Toronto and MercyNGrace,

Respectfully, I interpret the lesson differently than you did.

The statement is that he misused his wealth (and built the houses) for his own glory.

It wasn't the wealth or the house that was the sin- it was the pride and self-aggrandizement that were his downfall.

It was the pride- not the material wealth- that was his sin.

[LDSToronto]

It wasn't the wealth or the house that was the sin- it was the pride and self-aggrandizement that were his downfall.

It was the pride- not the material wealth- that was his sin.

If Solomon wasn't wealthy, would he have found another means to commit the same sin?

H.

[selek]

If Solomon wasn't wealthy, would he have found another means to commit the same sin?

H.

Absolutely he would have.

Recall if you will the parable of the two debtors. One is forgiven a great debt and goes away happy- only to mercilessly oppress and beat a man who owes his a much smaller debt.

Both are poor- and yet one of them is both hyprocritical and prideful.

Contrary to popular belief, pride is not a sin reserved to the affluent.

[mercyngrace]

Toronto and MercyNGrace,

Respectfully, I interpret the lesson differently than you did.

The statement is that he misused his wealth (and built the houses) for his own glory.

It wasn't the wealth or the house that was the sin- it was the pride and self-aggrandizement that were his downfall.

It was the pride- not the material wealth- that was his sin.

Selek,

Are you saying that Solomon's pride was separate from his wealth? That his love of stuff (say a huge house that he put twice as much time and effort into as he did the temple) had nothing to do with his decline?

I agree his pride fueled how he misused his wealth. But I believe part of that pride was rooted in the fact that he was wealthy and wise. The Sunday School lesson makes a point of talking about how the Lord blessed Solomon with riches and wisdom and that our strengths can become our biggest downfalls. The correlation in the manual, whether or not you agree with it, is explicit. In fact, the fourth subheading of the lesson is "Solomon becomes excessively wealthy...". Excessively wealthy.

If you read it differently, that's your prerogative but the maual says what it says.

MnG

[LDSToronto]

Absolutely he would have.

Recall if you will the parable of the two debtors. One is forgiven a great debt and goes away happy- only to mercilessly oppress and beat a man who owes his a much smaller debt.

Both are poor- and yet one of them is both hyprocritical and prideful.

Contrary to popular belief, pride is not a sin reserved to the affluent.

I recall the parable, but don't see how it can be said that Solomon would act this way.

Time to pull back the ruse - I'm pushing a bit on this thread because, while I don't think wealth is a sin, I do think that abundance has the ability crack the most earnestly righteous shell of any human being because it, and it alone, has the ability to appeal to one's sense of entitlement. Notice, though, that I use the word 'abundance', and not 'wealth' or 'money'. I think that if one is given a 'good' thing in abundance, be it money, land, wealth, wisdom, intelligence, good looks, physical health, or even blessings and testimony and righteousness itself, one needs to guard against the natural tendency to look upon someone with less and judge oneself as more entitled, even if that entitlement is hard-come-by through work and perseverance.

Thus it is with Solomon. I think he fell prey to the abundant life and that abundance found a way to crack his otherwise righteous demeanor. I think his only protection would have been to use his abundance to bless others.

H.

[LeSellers]

If you read it differently, that's your prerogative but the maual says what it says.

Every passage of scripture is open to multiple interpretations and many of these interpretation are correct, simultaneously.

That's why we're counseled to "liken the scriptures unto ourselves".

Pride is the ultimate sin. It is the basis for adultery, theft, murder, rebellion, lying, idolatry, apostasy, everything.

Pride is what made Solomon disregard the commandment not to marry foreign wives, what made him build a large house, made him worship the gods of his wives.

The Bible, irrespective of what the manual says, is clear that the wives were what led Solomon astray, but, as we do not have polygyny in our day, that topic is not as useful as showing the misusing (which I believe was part of the manual's presentation) his wealth caused Solomon's problems. And, recalling that we use the scriptures to improve our lives and dedication to the Gospel, this vantage point makes a great deal of sense. But, we should be careful to note that it was not the wealth, but its misuse that was his downfall.

Lehi

[selek]

Selek,

Are you saying that Solomon's pride was separate from his wealth?

I suggest that it was a means to an end, rather than an end in and of itself.

I further suggest that had he been born poor, his innate pride and desire to be acknowledged as great would have led him to express that sin through other means.

The correlation in the manual, whether or not you agree with it, is explicit. In fact, the fourth subheading of the lesson is "Solomon becomes excessively wealthy...". Excessively wealthy.

The key word there is the one you have emphasized: excessive.

Unfortunately, "excessive" is a highly subjective term- and varies from individual to individual.

By the standards of even our great-grandfathers, we today are excessively wealthy- we have luxuries today that even kings dared not dream of a hundred years ago.

If you read it differently, that's your prerogative but the maual says what it says.

MnG

And yet the manual is equally clear that it is not wealth that was his sin, nor wisdom.

It was his pride.

And anything which can contribute to our pride can be abused, without being sinful in an of itself.

More to the point, wealth just lays there. "Wealth" did not stalk Solomon down the corridors of his palace, ambush him with a knife, and suddenly make him prideful.

He did that on his own- and his fixation on wealth was a mere symptom of a deeper problem.