Is wealth a sin?

[mercyngrace]

Selek and Lehi,

I'm not sure why we are having this discussion if you agree that Solomon misused his wealth. That's what I have said all along and I have quoted the lesson manual to support that assertion. That he misused his wealth and that his misuse of it revealed the condition of his heart.

Here I said the condition of Solomon's heart was the problem.

Here I said it was hi MISUSE of wealth. And here I linked to the specific quote from the manual that shows Solomon's use of wealth illustrates his decline.

So I'm not sure why you have the impression that I believe a box of gold coins or a bucket of diamonds is innately evil. I have not said such. Not once. What I have stated throughout this thread is absolutely consistent with the manual and supported by quotes. In fact, I have used quotes extensively in this thread to avoid editorializing because I know how political these types of threads tend to get and I prefer to not to get politically pigeon holed by people who mistakenly think they know my politics. (Not that you two are doing that - I'm just explaining why I stick to quoting scriptures or modern authorities rather than relying on my own interpretations.)

[selek]

Selek and Lehi,

I'm not sure why we are having this discussion if you agree that Solomon misused his wealth. That's what I have said all along and I have quoted the lesson manual to support that assertion. That he misused his wealth and that his misuse of it revealed the condition of his heart.

Here I said the condition of Solomon's heart was the problem.

Here I said it was hi MISUSE of wealth. And here I linked to the specific quote from the manual that shows Solomon's use of wealth illustrates his decline.

So I'm not sure why you have the impression that I believe a box of gold coins or a bucket of diamonds is innately evil. I have not said such. Not once. What I have stated throughout this thread is absolutely consistent with the manual and supported by quotes. In fact, I have used quotes extensively in this thread to avoid editorializing because I know how political these types of threads tend to get and I prefer to not to get politically pigeon holed by people who mistakenly think they know my politics. (Not that you two are doing that - I'm just explaining why I stick to quoting scriptures or modern authorities rather than relying on my own interpretations.)

Don't take that tone with ME young lady, or you're off the cookie list!

Besides....we agree.

Please understand that I understand your position.

It was my intent to reply both to your basic points and to the larger "wealth is innately evil" nonsense that was being purveyed elsewhere.

I did not mean to imply that you held this larger position, nor to tar you with the same brush.

So there.

Hmmmmphhhh!!!!!

[ERayR]

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.

You obviously are not aquanted with Mr. Huntsman Sr.

[mercyngrace]

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.

Actually he was wealthy when he was righteous. But his love of massive building projects created debt with Israel's neighbors. So he burdened the people with heavy taxes, created a bureaucratic class that was paid at the expense of the people and created social divisions among the people. But you're right... that 13 year building project had nothing to do with a love of nice things.[/sarc] (You can verify these facts easily by reading the section in the Institute Manual corresponding the 1 Kings 1-11)

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.

You've said nothing contraversial here, Selek. How do you think the manual uses the word EXCESSIVE?

[mercyngrace]

Don't take that tone with ME young lady, or you're off the cookie list!

Besides....we agree.

Please understand that I understand your position.

It was my intent to reply both to your basic points and to the larger "wealth is innately evil" nonsense that was being purveyed elsewhere.

I did not mean to imply that you held this larger position, nor to tar you with the same brush.

So there.

Hmmmmphhhh!!!!!

It's not tone It's absolute befuddlement!?!!

[selek]

You've said nothing contraversial here, Selek.

Dagnabit! I must be slipping.....

It's not tone It's absolute befuddlement!?!!

Okay, I forgive you.

Creme brulee?

[LDSToronto]

You obviously are not aquanted with Mr. Huntsman Sr.

I know he's wealthy, not a bad guy, other than that, not much. I saw him on 60 Minutes years ago, but he's never had me over for dinner and backgammon.

But, before you say more, please re-read my post - you'll note I wasn't saying 'all rich people are prideful', you'll see I actually wrote:

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.

I believe that's what the scriptures teach. If Mr. Huntsman Sr. has done that, well, super.

H.

[mercyngrace]

Okay, I forgive you.

Creme brulee?

Maybe tomorrow It's midnight here and I have to get some sleep. My children will be up for school at the crack of dawn.

'Night Selek.

[Vanguard]

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.

But an abundance of money is the most readily convertible commodity that could help the masses in the here and now (read: a means of providing food, shelter, and clothing). Though we should guard against the trappings of abundant physical health and good looks (I try to stay humble!) these qualities in and of themselves will not feed anyone. It's not like hoarding your good looks means that someone else will go without, know what I mean?

A couple of years ago I got into an extended exchange on a Christian apologetics sight with a true, blue and well-informed atheist who had left Christianity many years earlier. In a nutshell, his contention was that every true believing Christian should be on the front lines literally with everything they have at their disposal in the cause of helping those less fortunate. I have thought about that challenge many times since and am still somewhat ambivalent about my situation and the call to help those in dire need.

When we talk about not abusing our wealth, too many times to me is sounds like a bunch of rationalizing clap trap. What does abusing look like anyway? I just purchased a brand new Camry last week. Could I get by with less and send that excess to someone who hasn't eaten? Sure I can. What about those material luxuries I bestow on my children? What about that house that allows my eldest to have his own room? What about that trip to Disneyland? The list goes on. Why aren't we all in Africa serving and ministering to those in need even with our own children to accompany us? Where is our faith that the Lord will provide even though we cannot see a scenario that would include dragging our family overseas to a 3rd world country? Don't we believe it is a worthwhile cause? Do we believe the Lord will deliver or not?

These and many more thoughts conflict me periodically. I have a counter to this but I would like to know more about what others may think.

Peace.

Note: The Camry is only an entry level model, honest.

[rodheadlee]

Matthew19

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.

23

[LDSToronto]

But an abundance of money is the most readily convertible commodity that could help the masses in the here and now (read: a means of providing food, shelter, and clothing). Though we should guard against the trappings of abundant physical health and good looks (I try to stay humble!) these qualities in and of themselves will not feed anyone. It's not like hoarding your good looks means that someone else will go without, know what I mean?

A couple of years ago I got into an extended exchange on a Christian apologetics sight with a true, blue and well-informed atheist who had left Christianity many years earlier. In a nutshell, his contention was that every true believing Christian should be on the front lines literally with everything they have at their disposal in the cause of helping those less fortunate. I have thought about that challenge many times since and am still somewhat ambivalent about my situation and the call to help those in dire need.

True, money has the ability to change other lives in a way good looks can't; I think the principle is the same. But let's explore money for a minute, because it is the easiest.

Peter Singer created a scenario similar to the following - I'm going by memory, hope I don't screw it up:

You are leaving your house for a fancy event, for which you've already purchased tickets. Wearing your best shoes, clothes, and other trappings, you proceed towards your car and just as you are about to get into the car, you hear urgent cries coming from your neighbours backyard. You rush to see what's happening, and you recognize the young 14 year old daughter of your neighbour, frantic - "Help my brother, he's just fallen in the pool and can't get out!' You turn to see the 4 year-old going under the surface. Now, if you jump in and save the boy, you will permanently ruin your shoes, and will miss the event for which you have tickets, thus sacrificing a lot of money. Nonetheless, you jump into the pool, and save the drowning child.

Singer

[mercyngrace]

I got up this morning with this thread in my mind and a few thoughts rattling around that I want to share.

I think the problem with this discussion is the question we started out with, "Is wealth a sin?"

This is like saying "Is sex a sin?" or "Is eating a sin?" Sex is only a sin when misused. Eating is only a sin when it is excessive. Likewise, sins stemming from wealth come from our lust for it and misuse of it. The real question we should be answering is "What is the proper use of wealth?"

Jacob 2 seems conclusive.

12 And now behold, my brethren, this is the word which I declare unto you, that many of you have begun to search for gold, and for silver, and for all manner of precious ores, in the which this land, which is a land of promise unto you and to your seed, doth abound most plentifully.

13 And the hand of providence hath smiled upon you most pleasingly, that you have obtained many riches; and because some of you have obtained more abundantly than that of your brethren ye are lifted up in the pride of your hearts, and wear stiff necks and high heads because of the costliness of your apparel, and persecute your brethren because ye suppose that ye are better than they.

14 And now, my brethren, do ye suppose that God justifieth you in this thing? Behold, I say unto you, Nay. But he condemneth you, and if ye persist in these things his judgments must speedily come unto you.

15 O that he would show you that he can pierce you, and with one glance of his eye he can smite you to the dust!

16 O that he would rid you from this iniquity and abomination. And, O that ye would listen unto the word of his commands, and let not this pride of your hearts destroy your souls!

17 Think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free with your substance, that they may be rich like unto you.

18 But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God.

As does 3 Nephi 6:

10 But it came to pass in the *twenty and ninth year there began to be some disputings among the people; and some were lifted up unto pride and boastings because of their exceedingly great riches, yea, even unto great persecutions;

11 For there were many merchants in the land, and also many lawyers, and many officers.

12 And the people began to be distinguished by ranks, according to their riches and their chances for learning; yea, some were ignorant because of their poverty, and others did receive great learning because of their riches.

13 Some were lifted up in pride, and others were exceedingly humble; some did return railing for railing, while others would receive railing and persecution and all manner of afflictions, and would not turn and revile again, but were humble and penitent before God.

14 And thus there became a great inequality in all the land, insomuch that the church began to be broken up; yea, insomuch that in the *thirtieth year the church was broken up in all the land save it were among a few of the Lamanites who were converted unto the true faith; and they would not depart from it, for they were firm, and steadfast, and immovable, willing with all diligence to keep the commandments of the Lord.

15 Now the cause of this iniquity of the people was this

[semlogo]

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The ice on which this thread topic resides is rice paper thin.

Hat tip to Mola for even bringing it into the forum.

I knew that when I started this thread. But I thought it important to discuss this topic as I think it relates to the gospel in a certain way. Obviously there comes a point when riches become a problem.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I got up this morning with this thread in my mind and a few thoughts rattling around that I want to share.

I think the problem with this discussion is the question we started out with, "Is wealth a sin?"

This is like saying "Is sex a sin?" or "Is eating a sin?" Sex is only a sin when misused. Eating is only a sin when it is excessive. Likewise, sins stemming from wealth come from our lust for it and misuse of it. The real question we should be answering is "What is the proper use of wealth?"

This is exactly what I had in mind when I started this thread. Wealth is neutral. It takes an out side influence to be good or bad.

And I agree we should ask ourselves, what is the proper use of wealth.

[CV75]

Debate!

God is the wealthiest of all.

[mercyngrace]

I knew that when I started this thread. But I thought it important to discuss this topic as I think it relates to the gospel in a certain way. Obviously there comes a point when riches become a problem.

I don't think this topic is skating on thin ice at all. I think the problem arises when some insist on injecting manmade economic theory.

Unity and equality through charity is not the same as unity and eqaulity through compulsion.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't think this topic is skating on thin ice at all. I think the problem arises when some insist on injecting manmade economic theory.

Unity and equality through charity is not the same as unity and eqaulity through compulsion.

Yeah, that is true. I guess it could be paper thin if we wanted it to.

[mercyngrace]

Yeah, that is true. I guess it could be paper thin if we wanted it to.

Anytime we make this about manmade economic theory, we embrace a secular approach. These approaches, ALL OF THEM, fall short of what God has in mind.

Don't take my word. Hear it from Elder Maxwell (reposted from page 1 of this thread):

Even when secular solutions help, such programmed scratching often goes on after the itching stops. The surf of secularism, therefore, seems so often to carry its sincere seamen against the rude reefs of reality.

Secular efforts, for instance, have tried over the centuries and in many ways to redistribute wealth; it is the judgment of some historians that human systems of redistribution are temporary, for after a short period of time wealth is once again back into the hands of the few. Human systems do not seem to be able to deal very effectively with the challenge of poverty, either, for that matter. Eternalism focuses on values and behavior which, where followed, result in either enlightened use of wealth (the individual truly feels he is the concerned custodian of wealth in behalf of others and so behaves) or in those remarkable but few episodes (the City of Enoch, the small branches of Middle-East Christians in the apostolic area, and the brief but happy period, a.d. 36

[thesometimesaint]

elguanteloko:

Take it up with Paul.

[Ahab]

What [is] too much money and what is to[o] big of a house?

I'll describe what I think it's like to have too much money for yourself and the people in your household before I think you need to give some away to some other people who have less than you do, and I'll try to do it faux-Jeff Foxworthy style just to try to keep the atmosphere a little bit light.

1) If you have enough money to pay someone else to wash and style and color/tint you or your spouse's hair and do his/her fingernails and toenails every week, in addition to paying cash for all of your other bills while having no financial burden at all, then you either have too much money or not enough expenses to worry about.

2) If you have more than two children and each of them has their own bedroom with everything they want in it while your spouse also has a separate room he/she uses exclusively as a craft room with everything he/she wants in that, then you either have too much money or too big of a house, or a spouse and children who really don't want very much.

3) If you have two children who constantly ask you for things and you have no trouble at all giving them everything they ask for, then you have too much money, or not enough children.

4) If you have every material object you truly desire in your house and on your property/land and you also have no trouble at all paying cash for anything else you desire, then you either have too much money or you really don't want very much.

5) If you have a vacation home in addition to your "regular" home, with everything you want in both of them, then you have too much money, or one too many houses.

6) If you have enough money to pay cash for a new luxury car every few years without needing to trade in the old one, and your spouse also keeps up with his/her own new car/truck too, then you have too much money, in the form of your vehicles.

7) If you have enough money to take your whole family on a vacation every year where you do anything other than "roughing" it, then you have too much money, or not enough of a vacation.

8 ) If you have enough money to pay cash more than once a week when taking your family out to eat to anything other than a fast-food restaurant, then you have too much money, or you don't get enough food.

9) If you have enough money to have a very nice boat, and also a very nice camp trailer/motor home, and also a very nice 4-wheeler for every member of your family, and you still have no trouble paying for all of your "regular" expenses every month, then you either have too much money or not enough concern for the "poor" people, like me, in this world.

And finally, number 10:

If you and your spouse and your children never want for anything materially that you can't go out and pay cash for right now without causing you at least some financial difficulties, then you either have too much money or not enough concern for others to prompt you to make better use of all of that money.

There are people in this world you are financially poor, FYI, and to spend your money as if you and your household are all that matter doesn't show enough real world rubber-meets-the-road concern to try to make their life at least a little bit better by giving up some of your material desires so they can have what they truly need and maybe even some little luxuries in their life, too.

[Ahab]

I think the problem arises when some insist on injecting manmade economic theory.

I think the problem arises when some people think God's economic method is a manmade theory or justifiably optional.

Unity and equality through charity is not the same as unity and eqaulity through compulsion.

God actually COMMANDS us to love others as we love ourselves, and loving others includes providing for them and helping them provide for themselves. It's not an option, or at least not a justifiable one, and sooner or later everyone will give an accounting.

[mercyngrace]

In answer to the question "What is too much?", I take my cue from those who uttered "We have sufficient for our needs."

A couple more things that jump out at me today as I consider these principles:

Jacob 2 says Think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free with your substance, that they may be rich like unto you. This is not socialism, communism or capitalism. This is shared wealth that creates more wealth! It's a whole new system. We freely impart of our substance and both those who receive and those who give are RICH. I don't think we can presently conceive of how this works because we can't conceive of a society whose inhabitants are devoid of self-interest and completely unified in heart and mind.

This is a temporal application of a spiritual principle. By being willing to be abased, Christ allowed us to be exalted. Through abasing Himself for others, He was exalted also. In the same way when we willingly consecrate, those we help have what they need, and we also prosper.

Again from President Kimball:

Book of Mormon history eloquently reveals the corrosive effect of the passion for wealth. Each time the people became righteous, they prospered. Then followed the transition from prosperity to wealth, wealth to the love of wealth, then to the love of ease and luxury. They moved then into spiritual inactivity, then to gross sin and wickedness, then on to near destruction by their enemies.

[Ahab]

In answer to the question "What is too much?", I take my cue from those who uttered "We have sufficient for our needs."

A couple more things that jump out at me today as I consider these principles:

Jacob 2 says Think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free with your substance, that they may be rich like unto you. This is not socialism, communism or capitalism. This is shared wealth that creates more wealth! It's a whole new system. We freely impart of our substance and both those who receive and those who give are RICH. I don't think we can presently conceive of how this works because we can't conceive of a society whose inhabitants are devoid of self-interest and completely unified in heart and mind.

I think the idea of being or becoming RICH implies that some people have more than some others, but in the Book of Mormon we're told that the people got to the point where there were no rich or poor among them, because they had all things in common:

And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift. - 4 Nephi 1:4

We're also told that to have eternal life is to be rich, and that not everyone will make it, but for those who make it there will no longer be any rich or poor among them, either, because they will also have all things in common, with all of them having everything our Father in heaven has.

[Lamanite]

I got up this morning with this thread in my mind

I read the OP and then skipped to this last page.

I think about wealth on a regular basis. To be honest, I often feel guilty about having some of the finer things in my life, and by extension the lives of my wife and children. My feelings of guilt abate sometimes, but because I grew up in poverty, my current comforts seem to have a way of rekindling my guilt.

When we view things from an external vantage point we can look at something silly like buying shoes and say.

(This is a real example. I do this kind of crap all the time.)

I bought a pair of Ferragamo lace ups for $700.

Then I thought, "Why didn't I just buy a pair of Floorsheim wingtips for $200, and give the $500 to fast offerings?"

Then I imagined that I owned the wingtips and thought, "Surely I could have bought some Steve Maddens, and gave the difference to fast offerings and the missionary fund", but then I know I would still feel bad.

So, it's obvious the Lord wants me to buy some flip flops from Old Navy and give all the extra money to the Church. Oh wait, I can't wear flip flops to church!

Where do I draw the line? Why don't I give away all my money until I can say, "I have sufficient, AND ONLY SUFFICIENT for my needs!" I had a friend once say to me, "I pay more in fast offerings in one month than most people make in a year!" I thought, "So what! It's not how much you give, but how much you keep that determines how well you live the law of sacrifice and consecration." I don't know if my bolded statement is a true principle, but I bet there's some truth in it.

Now, if we look at the issue with a modicum of introspection it becomes a lot easier.

Our conversion and increasing discipleship will inspire us as we use and distribute money. Each man may judge for himself how to manage his financial stewardship. And I'm happy to relieve myself of being anyone's judge, and hope that they would do the same for me.

Here's to fine Italian leather cap-toe lace ups!

Big UP!

Lamanite