Different Christian denominations have different relationships with wealth --- ranging from a "high church" tradition of inspirational grandeur to pseudo-evangelical "prosperity churches", as well as denominations that reject all that stuff, and the LDS relationship is unique and (in a relative sense) pragmatic. I don't think your blanket statement really applies here.
I'm guessing you're talking about the moneychangers being thrown out of the temple?
There are examples recorded in the scriptures of tithes and offerings, and also of a people preparing/amassing the relative wealth/supplies (Noah, Joseph, etc).
There are multiple levels of preparedness taught in the LDS church. The lowest, the family, being to only have necessary debt (e.g. university or a house) and to have 3 days of storage for in case of emergencies for your own family (or individual self), or to help others. Then in some areas you have Bishop storehouses. It goes up and up.
> I get why the churches do it (of course they don't believe in Christ)
> and also of a people preparing/amassing the relative wealth/supplies (Noah, Joseph, etc).
Matthew 19:24, direct 'quote' from Jesus: "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." Seems pretty clear.
> being to only have necessary debt (e.g. university or a house)
I work for a Mormon owned company, this ideology even extends there. It's completely ignorant of why debt exists and how it can be used to offset inflation and improve capital expense flows. As a 'doctrine' it's misplaced at best.
> Why does the LDS church do it?
They cite the parable of the three talents, but I think they've gravely misunderstood that passage. The point wasn't for the servants to make money for themselves, it was to share their efforts and work with the world around them in order to improve it for everyone.
God had given them these gifts and they weren't to waste them, not hoard them for themselves.
> Matthew 19:24, direct 'quote' from Jesus: "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." Seems pretty clear.
Organizations aren't people. Organizations don't enter the kingdom of God; people do. Wealth sitting around and growing in organizational coffers doesn't belong to any one person.
Jesus praised the widow for paying a 100% tithe into organizational coffers.
> Organizations aren't people. Organizations don't enter the kingdom of God; people do. Wealth sitting around and growing in organizational coffers doesn't belong to any one person.
That's awfully spun. Organizations don't have brains either. They don't "decide" to do anything with that money, people do. Those people do so on the basis of some kind of self-interest. And in practice (I'm sure in this case too, though I don't have LDS-specific numbers to back it up) the people who make decisions for "organizations" tend themselves to be either very wealthy or live very wealthy lives based on that influence.
I mean... I'm an atheist. But if I weren't, and I were hanging my appraisal of my chances at eternal salvation on the fact that technically I run an LLC and that money isn't mine... Yeah, St. Peter doesn't seem likely to buy that excuse.
> > and also of a people preparing/amassing the relative wealth/supplies (Noah, Joseph, etc).
> Matthew 19:24, direct 'quote' from Jesus: "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." Seems pretty clear.
Here’s the full passage from 19:24-26
> 24 And again I say unto you, 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 God.
> 25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
> 26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
It’s not evil to be rich. In my mind richness just makes being evil easier. Being rich without God in your life is what Christ was saying makes it impossible to enter the kingdom of God. I have a very wise neighbor who said that richness of the World is a great accelerator for a greater Good or a greater Evil. Here’s a relevant scripture from The Book of Mormon that basically states it’s not evil to be rich, Jacob 2:18-19
> 18 But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God.
> 19 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—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted.
People may not like the Church or what it does for whatever reasons, but it does a great amount of good for people and that good often has nothing to do with money, but with a better outlook on life and an understanding of our place in it. I know those that leave the Church sometimes get a hard time from members. Sometimes people have bad experiences with members of the Church, but the Church teaches what Christ would have us do and sometimes people fall short of that, that doesn’t make the Church wrong. It just means the Church has imperfect members.
The keystone of our religion is The Book of Mormon and it is a beautiful book. The doctrine in it is superb. I believe The Book of Mormon to be the word of God, and that it would enable one to understand the mind, will, and character of Christ. If someone reads it with an open heart and mind they can come closer to Christ. I am far from done learning from it despite having read it over 7-8 times. It teaches of Christ’s and God’s mercy, but also their justice and law. It explains the purpose of life on Earth (2 Nephi 2), and the reason for God’s punishment to the wicked (Alma 42). It preaches repentance which I’ve had explained to me as a turning towards God. It explains that people prosper when they live righteously and that wickedness often leads to personal and societal downfall. It also teaches that the rain falls on both the righteous and the wicked. It explains Charity and love. It teaches pride, doubt, discouragement as antitheses of faith. It teaches humility, virtue, honesty, faith, hope, and diligence. It teaches that sometimes the truth can be hard, like as it was for those who heard Christ’s Sermon at Capernaum and took the words to be hard and walked no more with Christ. The book has a reference to Christ on average every other verse [1]. It teaches of the purpose of agency and why people are allowed to make wrong choices that affect and hurt others. It also teaches of the choice to choose liberty (the freedom to choose that comes only by living the law) and eternal life according to Christ or captivity and death (meaning spiritual death) through the Devil.
Of course knowledge of the truth of something including the character of Christ doesn’t lead one to automatically follow it which is why we all need all the help we can get honestly.
> They cite the parable of the three talents, but I think they've gravely misunderstood that passage. The point wasn't for the servants to make money for themselves, it was to share their efforts and work with the world around them in order to improve it for everyone.
God had given them these gifts and they weren't to waste them, not hoard them for themselves.
> God had given them these gifts and they weren't to waste them, not hoard them for themselves.
I think God gave them those talents, so that they would build and multiply them. I know you may think the church is the one burying their talent in the ground, but the gift of money is best used if invested and multiplied. Regardless, I believe there to be multiple correct interpretations of that parable and multiple meanings to it, so I’m not discounting the fact that you are supposed to share your talents as well.
My faith in the Church comes fundamentally down to my own personal spiritual witness of the truth of The Book of Mormon and in my testimony of modern revelation, and I firmly believe that Christ leads the Church. As stated in Isaiah 55:8 sometimes God can have a wiser purpose than we see in things this is why coupled with my personal testimony of The Book of Mormon these attacks against the church barely cast a shadow of a doubt about the truthfulness of it in both my heart and mind.
I’m very curious about spiritual confirmations of truth. What was your spiritual witness of the Book of Mormon like? How do you know that the spiritual experience came from an external source and was not just generated by your brain?
[Edit: Asking because I wonder often about the provenance my own spiritual experiences. I’m currently leaning toward “generated by the brain,” but I would love to be wrong about that.]
> I’m very curious about spiritual confirmations of truth. What was your spiritual witness of the Book of Mormon like? How do you know that the spiritual experience came from an external source and was not just generated by your brain?
I’ve often had very sudden powerful spiritual experiences. I would describe it as a very euphoric sensation. It’s a sudden feeling of overwhelming peace and comfort that can come with force upon both the mind and heart [1]. I’ve had this only after putting in a lot of my own time on spiritual things and on experimenting with the word (Alma 32 [here Alma invites us to experiment on the word and says faith is like a seed and if you plant it and look after it then it can grow]). I don’t always feel it with the same force and power, but sometimes I have to cast my mind on the times that I have had those feelings.
Here’s an interesting 3 part series on revelation [2]. It speaks of three analogies to spiritual experiences. First, it could be like a light-switch instantly changing from spiritual darkness into light (Elder Bednar says this is more rare than common). Second could be like a sun-rise gradually illuminating with knowledge and light (he says this is more common). He also gives a last analogy of revelation in that it can be like walking through a fog with only enough light to know to take a step forward.
Sometimes people describe the Holy Ghost as a still small voice. The spirit teaches us to do good and the spirit allows us to discern good from evil [3]. God and the spirit manifest themselves in diverse ways, but all good things come of Christ otherwise man/woman were fallen (in reference to the fall of Adam and Eve) and no good thing could come of them [4] (this is due to the Justice of God which without the mercy coming from Christ and His Atonement which allows us to repent and be forgiven we would be lost). Most importantly if you are struggling to say is this my own thought ask yourself if it invites you to do good and to partake of God’s love, if it does then it is of God and the Spirit. I think Paul states very well how we can know of spiritual things in the New Testament in 1 Corinthians 2:7-14 [5]. I also love what Alma said to Zeezrom when asked how he knew so much about the mysteries of God (Alma 12:8-11) [6].
[1]: D&C 8:2-3
> 2 Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart.
> 3 Now, behold, this is the spirit of revelation; behold, this is the spirit by which Moses brought the children of Israel through the Red Sea on dry ground.
> 12 Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually.
> 13 But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.
> 14 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.
> 15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.
> 16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.
[4]: Moroni 7:24
> 24 And behold, there were divers ways that he did manifest things unto the children of men, which were good; and all things which are good cometh of Christ; otherwise men were fallen, and there could no good thing come unto them.
[5]: 1 Corinthians 2:7-14
> 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
> 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
> 9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
> 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
> 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
> 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
> 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
> 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
> Matthew 19:24, direct 'quote' from Jesus: "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." Seems pretty clear.
People have quoted that single verse a lot, and it's often funny to me when someone says something along the lines of "seems pretty clear" in regards to a single verse, especially one which people aren't sure is even translated correctly.
If we read it in context, in my opinion doesn't align with the implied meaning that you can't get into Heaven 'easily' if you are rich. Like many good teachings, they start with a question (ftr I'll be using the KJV version).
> 15 .. Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Christ then goes on about what people should do to have eternal life, like keep the commandments. Christ said that someone who is simply rich will have a hard time receiving it. Even today in many cultures and economies, we associate wealth with goodness. We often trust more those who have lots of money. We look up to them. The disciples were amazed that a rich person would have a hard time getting in. If we look at other examples (like the widow and her mite), the people often looked down upon the poor. The poor often couldn't worship as the non-poor did.
So it's not the act of being rich, but rather a. what you do with your wealth, and b. if you're asked to give it up, will you? There's example of a young man who was asked to do that in a few verses prior.
For a., you cited the parable of the talents, which is a great addition to this topic. People who are given much, have much expected of them.
But they are using it for members of the church, and non-members. Are they storing money? Sure, but is that inherently bad? Nope. You could store money for a. a rainy day and b. to pay for upcoming things. Does the church do both, they do.
For b., have the LDS members been asked to give up wealth, in order to do good? Yes, they have! At the early days of the church, thousands gave up effectively everything they had. They abandoned their lives and moved across the USA, or across the Atlantic, or other long treks.
> President Brigham Young (1801–77) spoke of the difficulty people face when they accumulate riches: “The worst fear that I have about this people is that they will get rich in this country, forget God and His people, wax fat, and kick themselves out of the Church. … This people will stand mobbing, robbing, poverty, and all manner of persecution, and be true. But my greater fear for them is that they cannot stand wealth” (quoted in James S. Brown, Life of a Pioneer [1971], 122–23).
You quoted my question, but didn't answer why they do it, but simply said that hoarding money is bad. Are they doing it to be bad and watch it be wasted? This reminded me of an interaction in the Book of Mormon, Alma 30:
> 35 Then why sayest thou that we preach unto this people to get gain, when thou, of thyself, knowest that we receive no gain? And now, believest thou that we deceive this people, that acauses such joy in their hearts?
The moneymakers in the temple were making money for themselves, profiting off of the nominally faithful. This is very different from saying the church shouldn't acquire wealth.
Here's how I've always understood it. People used to make sacrifices to compensate for their sins. The merchants at the temple were selling offerings to be sacrificed, which was problematic for a couple of reasons. They were profiting off of the guilt and shame of others, they created a system that implied you could straightforwardly pay for the right to sin, and they made a mockery of the system of sacrifice for sin in the first place.
In addition to the money changers (who exchanged local currency for Roman gold or silver), the dove sellers were also expelled. Doves were the cheapest sacrificial creature, and they were gouging poor widows.
The whole point is that the temple authorities were part of and profiting from what was happening. Jesus was dead with 10 days of this event.
There is a lot of depth here and it’s a genuinely fascinating story whether you ascribe to religious belief or not.
Find me the executive team of a multimillion person company with hundreds of billions of assets making the living stipend of the (relatively few) ecclesiastical leaders of the Church and your argument will have more weight.
IIRC, the living stipend for members of the Twelve was around $100k? Or less than the salary of an intern at Google...
What you need to understand is that Thomas Monson, who was an employee of the church (notorious for their extremely low pay) for his entire career, had an estimated net worth of $14m. That is excluding the church owned property that he gets to use free of charge, including private jets, cars, and homes. This is excluding free income sources such as free university for all family and extended family members. Outside of nearly every aspect of his life that was paid for, he was paid a parsonage stipend...untaxed by the IRS.
He was no Jeff Bezos, but that is still miles away from being modestly compensated, as they like to pretend is happening. And remember, they're only admitting to being modestly compensated after a century and a half of pretending they weren't being compensated at all...a lie exposed by leaks, not the mormon church. They haven't been upfront about compensation, and they never will unless they are forced to.
When I was very young I worked at a non-Church-owned bank for a while. Thomas Monson sat on its board, or at least showed up to a nice employee dinner/dance I attended. He had a business career before he was a Church General Authority, was brilliant, and for a time continued serving on various corporate boards, until GAs all stopped doing that.
The GAs I know of personally who did not obtain wealth in their private career are not rich in any worldly sense beyond middle-class Americans, and the few I have met were kind and unselfish (and very bright & capable). I was a also Church employee for a time.
In contrast, I have no experiences or knowledge indicating abuse of power or influence by GAs, except very rarely where I read about it in the news and they quickly were not GAs any more.
How do you know the bank wasn't church owned or controlled? The church isn't exactly upfront with their holdings. They have been found to use shell companies to obscure their holdings. The fact that he was on the board is actually a huge clue that suggests that the bank was actually owned by the church. He did that with lots of church owned businesses.
No, it was "commercial security bank", and it wasn't that long after (I think), that they stopped being on boards.
Edit: actually, I could be wrong on that. The Church might have had stock in CSB for all I know. It certainly didn't seem church-owned at the time. Monson did work in the printing industry.
We only agree that the church is tight with its money with respect to how that money is used to benefit members and the unfortunate that should probably be the beneficiaries of good old christian charity.
But tight with its money amongst those that control it? Neither of us know...because it is a secret. A secrecy that has no benefit but to protect those who control it from scrutiny.
I don't know how you could view either of those things as a "good thing" in the traditional christian understanding of good.
I think you've just described FUD. Asking for more transparency isn't bad though - this would require a change in US law or wherever they operate. Start there. Then all religions might meet the standard you're describing. There are abusers in every organization and transparency would be good.
If they're as benevolent of an institution as they pretend, we wouldn't need such a law. They already can publish financial reports without any law compelling them to do so.
The Church, with the Book of Mormon, are far and away the single best influence in my life. I experience peace amid hard health and other challenges, friends everywhere I go, people who help me and are a good influence, personal guidance in quiet but important ways (I see both the good and the bad based on whether I follow that guiet guidance), and I see the same things in long-term multigenerational ways among very many others (in writing and in person). And, based on experience, great reasons for hope of eternal life in the world to come. For those who distance themselves from it, they are loved, we are close, but I have seen that the multigenerational peace and joy are not the same. I am exceedingly grateful for the Church's influence in my life. Further, I have learned for myself, that God is real, helpful, and kind (both just and merciful, actions have consequences, and extremely patient with us as we repent, aka change back to doing things that help us rather than hurt ourselves).
These are things that no amount of hint & innuendo from others can change, because I have personally seen, experienced, and learned.
I have tried to explain more at my web site (which has no sales or javascript): http://lukecall.net . I think I lack the adequate words.
Tried to respond a while back but was blocked, probably due to being nicked on a couple of my comments (probably from those who disagree - that’s fine). Just because an institution doesn’t go out and away to placate a minority’s concerns does not mean it is intentional or nefarious. Probably just means they’re focused on more than paper work.
Demanding they do so, and that others don’t seems rather suspect though. Why treat one religion different than another? There are plenty of people abusing the system. Proposing that all these institutions be placed under the same burden. It would be fair.
I'm curious where this info could come from. Like, cars? The quote I heard from one GA (in a newspaper) was "you give them your life, and they give you a car." I once or twice rode in a Church-owned pool car to go to software-dev meetings in another city. And private jets? I read that the late (and wealthy industrialist) Jon Huntsman loaned his own jet to Pres. Hinckley some during those years (for his travels as President to visit Church members across the world), and maybe after, but calling it free use of "private jets" etc., seems exaggerated (but, for all I know, maybe there is one, and maybe they use it, but I'd be very surprised if there is a "jet pool", and any such thing is not used for pleasure outings. These men have a heavy, hard work schedule until they die, with Mondays off and 2 weeks a year, if I understand correctly. Monson did say he had a home in Midway (? I think: Heber Valley, a gorgeous area), but I doubt the Church owned or bought it. Like, I've been around these people some, and read much, and the tenor of what you are saying just doesn't ring true. One person I know, had some occasional interactions over time, was a GA, and he is definitely not rich (others in his family, also not rich, were offering to pay for new tires for his car, to get him safely back home safely from one reunion, as the tires they saw worried them. Maybe I shouldn't have said that as it was really not my business, but I was there, talked with my dad and/or mom about it, and what you are saying ... just doesn't sound right.)
And how do you know that about free university (and any of it)? I'd be surprised. I'm not asking for a zillion citations, but, I'm skeptical.
Edit: And free use of "private homes"? No idea what you could mean there, unless it is the condo that the president of the Church lives in for security reasons. Pres. Hinckley, a long-time do-it-yourselfer in his own yard & property, said he lived in a "filing cabinet: a condominium! I don't think people were meant to live in condominiums!".
I read some of the beginning. I didn't know who he was at the time, just another commuter to me, but I rode the same UTA bus regularly as Brook Hales to work for a time (it traveled through 2 counties across various towns). No glamour or special treatment there.
In the 2nd link, I believe those individuals, as is common with GAs, had successful careers before becoming full-time Church workers, and are probably wealthy. Elder Ballard worked in a family auto dealership (probably more to it than that, that's what I know), Gong was in international relations, Nelson a ground-breaking, internationally known heart surgeon, etc. When GAs are called, there is usually a blurb online about their previous careers (which they give up), that someone could easily find if desired. So they could easily pay for what they like. It sounds right about the president's apartment, and thankfully so (security/health help). Etc. (As I have now noted elsewhere here, Elder Gay previously founded and was an executive at a private equity firm.)
It is good, though a lot of work, to build something that lasts, which is what these are trying to do. Those good efforts bring long-term peace and joy. I wrote elsewhere here about my personal experience and knowledge of the Church's long-term influence on individuals and families, that I personally know (some more than others), in the hundreds, and of whom I have read their journals, and knowing enough of individuals now, and personalities, to see consistencies in personality and behaviors and culture, to have some confidence there is not deception in the journals that extend back, to Joseph Smith. Regardless of what anyone else says, or the human faults we all do have (I do; and they will be found in any large organization), I have seen and know what I know, both with my human eyes and mind, and in answers to prayer. More, of personal thoughts and experiences, at http://lukecall.net .
Every first tier software company pays their interns pro-rated 100k+ or they won't get interns. I worked in a 5 year old "startup"/pre-ipo company in seattle with 200 employees and we paid interns 100k and college grads in their first job over 130k annually (not giving the exact amount to preserve a little anonymity). I'm sure faangs give those people 50k of real-value stock per year at least.
We have no way of knowing that, because the church keeps their finances shrouded from public view. Not even members that have paid 10% for their entire lives have a view into how the money is spent.
What we do have is a few leaked pay stubs showing actual amounts, and leaked memos acknowledging the existence of, but not quantifying, other forms of compensation. We also have some tangible evidence of the large net worth of various leaders of the church. The typical excuse is that they made lots of money before they were general authorities...but we also have proof of large (8-figure) net worths of people like Thomas Monson, who was a church employee (notorious for lower than market pay) for his entire career.
So what we really have is some leaked proof of a decently sized lower bound on compensation and knowledge that it goes higher than that, with the possibility that it could go much higher. How much higher, we don't know. And we won't until the church decides to actually share their finances.
I know that unapproved critical thinking is looked down on in the mormon church, but if I were a believing member, I would probably be asking why they won't do just that. If they really are responsible and meagerly paid stewards of god's money, they have nothing to lose, and everything to gain, by being transparent about it. Occam's razor tells me that they're a bunch of liars and secrecy suits them far better than transparency does.
To me, Occam's Razor suggests not that there is a massive conspiracy in the upper echelons of the LDS church where general authorities are glutting themselves on tithes, but rather that Thomas S. Monson had private sources of income outside of his church employment that account for his wealth.
And if it weren't for the fact that there are several thousand known and published leaks of information that the church has tried to cover up and whitewash through "official" media, then that might be a reasonable assumption.
It's not a massive conspiracy. It's a very simple conspiracy: don't tell people what you do with the money they give you, and then they don't have any way to criticize you about how you use it. In fact, the very culture that they've fostered to enable this freedom from criticism (just trust me, I'm a mormon bishop!) has become a problem that others have begun to exploit.
As I have noted elsewhere, I have personally known one where I know for certain his family (also not rich, visited their homes for years) was worried about his old car tires' safety for a long drive home, and two others tangentially who I'm somewhat confident were not rich. Another, Bassett, I knew when young, then he made good as a founder/owner in the auto-auction business (where I have a little grunt-level experience). Elder Gay was founder/executive in a private equity firm (quick wikipedia search). The prior careers are available on-line, I'm pretty sure, because there is always some blurb about their prior bios when they are called. Another I knew of in another state who started and ran a locally successful accounting firm. Nelson is widely known to have been a heart surgeon, and it goes on & on.
I am just me, not a Church leader, but I think it is for several reasons: 1) prophetically-encouraged preparedness, like in the days of Noah (food storage, avoiding debt, save for a rainy day, etc), 2) to best be able, long-term, to fulfill the divinely appointed mission of the Church to spread the teachings and voluntary systems that bring peace in this life and eternal life in the world to come.
ps: It strikes me after many years of general reading & observation that economic up/down cycles would be very reduced or different if we used savings instead of debt, more. And, being in debt leaves one under the control of others, to some degree, reducing independence of planning and action. I'm not saying it is never appropriate, but it also has some somewhat predictable effects.
Edit: I see that others have also posted these links that give some official responses:
For what it may be worth, there has been another, longer official response, w/ more good info: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/use-of-the-... . (It links to reports froml interviews. One of the above links also itself links to other further info.)
To go into detail would probably be outside the scope of HN, but if this is a serious question, Richard Dawkins is a good source on how the LDS church was founded.
I find a lot of people invoke Christ, but have little to do with his teachings.
Amusingly, his ideas align more with beliefs held by “the young left” than by “the old right”. (Yesyes, bad terms but you know what I mean) And yet the real-world allegiances are inverted.
You're missing the role of agency (or choice) in your evaluation. Forcing someone to do something vs someone choosing to do it of their own accord is quite different.
I don't think complaints about lack of individual agency fit with some of these Christian attitudes. eg. Someone violates said precious agency? Turn the other cheek. Concerned about excessive taxation? Render unto Caesar.
Figures you're being downvoted to pieces, when this is among the key aspects of Jesus' teachings. Indeed, the entire Sermon on the Mount is centered around the centrality of the /heart/ as the seat of sin, and the thoughts and intentions of the /heart/ as being the fount from which actions stem. Individual sin is what Jesus demanded repentance from; there is no 'collective sin' in Scripture, though groups of people with common sin may be punished collectively, e.g. the time of the Judges, Israel's captivity, etc.
Given the 'young left' is a collectivist ideology, which seeks to institute a form of 'ancestral sin' - people being responsible for their parents' and grandparents' wrongs, etc. - and which has made physical wealth and attributes the sole measurements of moral integrity, being a purely secular worldview - it is not in any way compatible with the teachings of Christ.
But people don't like to hear that. Self-righteousness is a potent drug, something else Christ taught about quite regularly. :)
I really think you have major misconceptions about social democrat ideology.
Your 'ancestral sin' interpretation could easily be said on capitalists who don't have a problem with people capital fortune being decided mostly a birth. (You're born poor, you are likely to stay poor, you're born rich you're likely to stay rich no matter what you do). Or, You could also easily say that the Protestant morals equate physical wealth accumulation with how moral you are. Because if you do good by God, of you'll get rewarded with prosperoty. In your lifetime.
This is of course nonsense just as your interpretation of social democrat ideology.
1. It's very hard to lose wealth while in management. Networking and clique play a big part of the manager eco system. Plus, in the startup area, if you are an entrepreneur that his startup failed you are not considered a failure, far from it. It is also more likely for you to bean entrepreneur if yoy have a strong financial background.
2. This 'True Protestant Ideal' isn't relevant. This 'false Protestant' developed from a Protestant mindset, through a natural evolution of ideas. Plus, I think you'd find that a similar part of these so called 'True Protestant' make claims like those I made point with.
3. The only relevant left in the west, is social democratic. Maybe in the US less so, only Sanders could fit that description. But, I'm not from the US, so my default meaning of left is social democratic.
Which left we're you speaking of?
Have you read the full bible? The Jesus stuff might be more on the liberal end but Christianity in general is very much socially conservative.
Especially the old testament.
In genesis whenever god made a covenant (like made Abraham the main dude) it always came with God giving them great wealth (sheep and an abundance of land) as well as leadership of entire areas. At least the early stuff, the leaders/prophets were hardly the poverty stricken Jesus story.
A lot of that poverty narrative became a greater part of Christianity with Saint Francis of Assisi in the middle ages which help push the helping the poor angle as mainstream image of the church.
But otherwise you can find plenty of evidence of great wealth leaders in Christian history. Not just in the centuries of mass wealth accumulation in the Holy empires and the Catholic church.
> The Jesus stuff might be more on the liberal end but Christianity in general is very much socially conservative.
“Christianity” is about Christ, not something else.
> Especially the old testament.
The old testament is context for the NT, but with a very small number of exceptions (and with the exceptions of potential general applicability to Jewish Christians, which were common in the first Christian communities but rare today) the dictates of the OT law expressly are superceded by the “Jesus stuff” for Christians.
Yes this is exactly it. And just like the circumstances we are discussing now, Jesus found himself and his following in conflict with existing leaders who had amassed wealth and power, and who tried to delegitimize him by saying that his teachings (of charity and anti-wealth gathering) were just an assault on the legitimate god-given power of the existing church.
Jesus was a radical hippie immigrant refugee, and his teachings are of course co opted now for the exact opposite effect.
That's an even worse modern day caricature than what the other guy was pushing. The immigrant thing especially considering he was born in Canaan/Israel within walking distance from Jerusalem.
He was far from a hippie immigrant. He fit a pattern of many men before him claiming similar sanctity and happened to be at the right time and right place in a warn torn Israel for it to really find an audience.
But I wasn't even talking about the man himself from a historical perspective, just the general religious and historical environment from which his legend grew. The man-of-the-poor and anti-wealthy narrative was very much a later development in the history of christianity and was always floating on the sidelines of their work, especially in terms of how it was adopted, not merely what was written in the decades and centuries after he died in the bible.
Like all religious works there are plenty of room for interpretation and holy but great wealthy leaders are plentiful in the history of christianity. It's hardly a new thing. It's even more established in the Koran through the various prophets and leaders in their canon, all of whom held great power and leadership in their local areas.
Even today the works of Mother Theresa are very controversial. Especially in terms of their long term ROI (ie, helping the poor stay poor by accepting their place and not developing the skills or industry to escape such die situations, which to me is not something to be revered).
How can it be a later development by other people when Jesus supposedly directly said it? https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-19-23/
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, 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 God.
I’ve been explaining this concept to my Christian fundamentalist family members for a long time. They look at the right-wing as more faithful to the tenets of their religious literature, but I don’t see it. What I see is more of a left leaning set of ideals, that aligns with the teachings of Jesus. I think the population of people that are left leaning and Christian practicing is low and they don’t tend to be as influential on the national stage as the religious right.
> They look at the right-wing as more faithful to the tenets of their religious literature, but I don’t see it
On the wealth issue specifically, you can certainly read it that way. I mean, I think it's wrong, but it's not like there aren't things that can be viewed, in isolation, as just as emphatic support for the prosperity gospel as other passages can be viewed as a mandate for asceticism.
> I think the population of people that are left leaning and Christian practicing is low and they don’t tend to be as influential on the national stage as the religious right.
The left-leaning Christian types tend not to wave Christianity around like a cudgel in political discussions, which makes them less visible as Christians in those contexts, even when they are quite visible.
Usually the right winger types are pretty heavily into prosperity gospel and feel that their faith entitles them to whatever they are into. Many of the loudest folks are associated with unaffiliated parishes, where there is no higher earthly authority to reign in the pastor.
You also see a lot of extreme behavior tied to single issues like abortion or birth control. In short, people very passionate about an issue will often veer (or be steered) into an ends justify the means type philosophy.
Many "Christians" follow more Moses than Jesus - and ignor Jesus teachings - and would better be called Mosians. Though amassing gold was also not Mosianic.
I see more parallels between pop Christianity in the USA and Mithraism or the Roman imperial cult. It was shocking years ago to read the gospels and realize they are not following the actual teachings of Christ at all. In some cases those teachings are radically different and opposed to what most American Christians seem to advocate, especially on things like economics and militarism.
The parallels are particularly strong with the Roman imperial cult now that so many seem to want to worship a Caesar. I see this trend as independent of Trump per se. I saw it around Bush II, but IMHO it didn't take there because Bush did not want to be emperor. I get the impression that Bush actively rejected that role, especially seeing the quiet life of apparent personal recovery he has pursued after the presidency.
IMO this phenomenon reflects the struggles that society has with communications. Mass communication is both miraculous and horrifying, and as controls weakened with deregulation in the 80s, and disappeared with the internet, we’re faced with a world where any idea can spread.
You have places like HN that fill a certain purpose for the audience, but you also have places where neonazis and other repugnant fringes can do their thing.
I can't speak for more faiths, just what I saw in the Mormon faith. Basically, they literally believe they are the only church that has authority to act for God on earth, it was given to them, and they will be the world wide government during the millennium (a time period kicked off when Jesus Christ returns, in their view).
A lot of what the Mormon Church teaches is not based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. Mormonism and Christianity are two separate things much like Christianity and Judaism are separate.
For example, Christians and LDS have different answers for these 3 fundamental questions:
Who is God?
LDS: God was once a man, who became a god There is more than one god, but only one god that we have to do with.
Christianity: There is only one God, who is the creator of all other things.
What happens when you die?
LDS: If you are truly evil, you will go to the bad place. If you are generally ok, you will go to the ok place. If you follow LDS teachings your whole life and perform the required temple rituals, you will eventually become a god.
Christianity: Heaven (eternity with God) or Hell (eternity without God)
What must you do to be saved?
LDS: You must perform many good works, including temple rituals.
Christianity: There is no good work you can perform that will save you. You have to trust Jesus and put your faith in Him. Good works are possible evidence that you have done this.
Your example covers a large plurality of Christianity but does not define the umbrella of Christianity.
For the record, Mormons consider themselves Christian, and are considered part of the Christian taxonomy. As an example, the first line of "Mormonism" wiki article says:
> Mormonism is the predominant religious tradition of the Latter Day Saint movement of Restorationist Christianity started by Joseph Smith in Western New York in the 1820s and 30s.[0]
It's beyond dispute that Mormonism is derived from Christianity and considers itself to be the restored, correct form of it.
Still, I think you'd find very few theologians who would consider them to be Christian. Their beliefs are largely based on the Christian scriptures but significantly depart from the traditional form of Christianity outlined in the early creeds. And that's the point of restorationism: Everyone else got it wrong, and those differences REALLY matter to the point where God gave a new revelation to fix it.
I think the key difference is that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't adopt the creeds (like Nicene ... in wikipedia) of the early centuries after Christ. We definitely do believe in the divinity and essential role of Jesus Christ as taught in the New Testament.
> We definitely do believe in the divinity and essential role of Jesus Christ as taught in the New Testament.
Most Christians would disagree with the notion that Elohim and Jesus/Jehovah are two distinct beings and that this unity is found (albeit, not explicitly) in the NT. Furthermore, Jesus' role in the the Mormon Plan of Salvation is a significant departure from the soteriology people usually derive from the NT. I understand one can argue otherwise and people do (e.g. Swedenborg's soteriology), but it's an extreme minority position even among the schismatic mess that is Christianity. You can argue that the Mormon movement got these right where everyone else got it wrong because Joseph Smith and subsequent prophets were given revelation to correct the errors. Accept the truth of that or not, it's more evidence that the Mormons are something significantly different from what we'd normally call Christianity. From that perspective, perhaps the Mormon movement is the true Christianity and the rest are something else. But there is a huge difference no matter what side you take.
> For actual teachings, the Book of Mormon (with the Bible) is all about Christ.
But is it the same Christ? The Mandaeans have scripture that teaches about Christ. But in these scriptures, he's evil. Islam's Quran also talks a lot about Christ. But he mostly exists to disavow doctrines about him that Islam considers heretical. And even confining ourselves to the canonical gospels, the Christ of John and the Christ of Mark are noticeably different. You can certainly argue that if the Book of Mormon is "the most correct of any book on earth" and it reveals aspects of Christ omitted from or distorted in the traditional Christian scriptures. So it's the same Christ, represented more accurately. But if you reject the Book of Mormon as inspired, it's easy to see the Mormon Christ as something else with significant differences.
Thanks for that thoughtful and interesting comment.
I am very grateful that the Book of Mormon promises that we can find out for ourselves if it is true, if we do it His way. Then, one has independent knowledge and can use it to go forward, and increase the knowledge with more & more applied experience. :)
Two groups of people who are worshiping different gods, who have a different concept of the afterlife, and who do not agree on how life should be lived - they are in fact two different groups. It doesn't matter what one group or the other believes about themselves. This does not mean that one group or the other is bad or better.
The church does have extrabiblical volumes of scripture, which also testify of Christ and go into more depth, but every doctrine of the church is in harmony with the Old and New Testaments. Members believe it is only by faith in Christ and by good works that they can be saved.
IANATheologian but I think many if not most Christian denominations teach that people are saved exclusively by faith. Works are interpreted as a sign of faith in some Protestant denominations, which lead to the concept of the Protestant work ethic.
IAANATheologian (I am also not a theologian), but I suppose those other Christian denominations conveniently skipped chapter 2 of James, where it says:
"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."
I think the Protestants focused on that last sentence, taking it to mean that you are saved by faith, but you can assess if someone does truly have faith by their works. So you are not saved by the works, but if you don't have works, your faith is questionable.
Ok, IAANAtheologian, but I do read a lot and believe this aligns with most Protestant doctrine (faith+grace yields salvation which yields faith which yields works), but not with LDS or Catholic doctrine which essentially teach that works yield salvation, and if you lack works, you will not be saved.
This is confusing, because there are many different passages that highlight different things. It seems easiest to look at it as a process that begins with salvation through grace and continues as you grow in faith.
You're not saved by faith alone. You do need a small amount of faith to believe in the first place, but then it is grace (the unwarranted forgiveness of your sins) that saves you, but only if you accept it and repent (reject/renounce/turn away) from your sins:
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God" (Eph 2:8)
As you grow in faith, you will produce works, and if you do not, then your faith is dead. (the aforementioned James 2, which was really aimed at believers, not those who hadn't yet accepted Christ.)
So, it goes like this:
(little) faith -> salvation by grace -> more faith -> works
"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (I John 1:9)
But if you die after salvation and true acceptance of your guilt and sin and repentance, you still go to Heaven, even if you are the most vile murderer on death row, because that's what grace is: completely unwarranted forgiveness.
But, if you stay alive and truly have faith, you will naturally produce works (that is, doing good things). If you don't do that, your faith is dead.
Interesting. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' perspective is similar, but (in my opinion) a little more straightforward. Faith leads a person to do good works (because faith helps one understand God's love for us, and we in turn want to share that), but neither faith nor good works alone will give us salvation (we can't save ourselves, which is why Jesus Christ is the key).
Salvation requires Christ to atone for our sins, and that forgiveness and atonement is granted on the condition that our works be in line with what Christ taught. So:
Faith -> Repentance -> Baptism (+ continuing to repent and improve yourself daily through faith and good works) -> Salvation through grace.
The Book of Mormon clarifies this belief (which is consistent with the teachings of James):
"For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." [1]
Both Mormons and Protestants get this passage wrong most of the time. I don’t know about Catholics.
Entry into the earthly Kingdom of God is based on the ancient suzerainty covenant, the covenant you as a citizen of a kingdom make with the ruler. You are accepted into the kingdom by swearing “faith” (eg fealty) to the suzerain. In return you are promised the protection of the suzerain; you receive the rights of a citizen in the kingdom.
The key insight here is that the meaning of the word “faith” has changed from “to have loyalty to” to “to have belief in”.
From the moment you swear fealty (“faith”) you are a full member of the kingdom. However, if you do not fulfill the obligations of a member of the kingdom (“works”) you can absolutely get yourself kicked back out.
So:
1) you are “saved” from the moment you enter the covenant, eg express loyalty to God; and you remain saved as long as you remain in the covenant.
2) works are not optional. They are the wages required to remain in the covenant.
Thanks for the insight. A lot of the difference seems to arise from a different interpretation of the word salvation. In some contexts, that does (as you mention) refer to a covenant relationship with Christ. In other contexts, salvation (as understood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) may refer to our desired state after this life, also known as exaltation or eternal life, which is to know Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and dwell with Them forever.
Or as John put it:
"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3)
That was in the context of people cashing in on religion, selling their wares in front of the temple. It'd be like him going to a religious bookstore and trashing the place. It was not an indictment on lending money.
I see this quoted a lot whenever there is discussion of wealth. However, as with all verses, the context is important as well as the follow up verses. This is not in defense of.
17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” “Which ones?” he inquired. Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’” “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?” Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
Matthew 19:17-26 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Matthew%2019:17-...
As an atheist I love reading these passages.. it is amazing how people in this day and age are trying to find "meanings" from a book full of the stories of one person... who lived 2000+ years ago.. imagine if someone tried to find meaning in Beckhams biography 2000 years from now...
There's actually not real evidence that Jesus even existed. The "official" gospels were chosen in the council of Nicaea in the year 325. There were lots of other gospels wildly contradicting each other, which were arbitrarily dismissed. Even the chosen gospels contradict each other. The writers of the gospels were born between 50 and more than 100 years after the alleged story they're telling. No roman or jew historian of the time even mentions Jesus, and some mentions usually used to claim otherwise are either a medieval addition, or not really a mention of Jesus. I won't go through all otherwise this post would be extremely long. The myth of Jesus' life has many parallels with other mythical figures, like Mythra, Amon Ra, and others, which probably influenced and converged into the figure of Jesus. It was probably considered to be mythical until someone decided to make it historical for political reasons. There were also lots of "Messiah's", which was more expected to be a political and military leader to raise the Jews against the roman oppressors. Even if there was a man with a life similar to what is described in the gospels, minus the miracles, it wouldn't have been god anyway, so it doesn't really matter, but there's absolutely no evidence of that, so most likely there wasn't.
To be fair, Josephus has only two quotes about Jesus, and one is definitely a forgery, although it is debated if it is a full or only partial forgery. The other quote is considered authentic, but just mention "James, the brother of Jesus". So not a lot to go by.
But you are correct that historians generally consider Jesus to be historical. It is not so much due to Josephus though, but more due to critical reading of the Gospels themselves.
The quote you claim as a forgery has been a subject of much debate, but I'm relatively certain it's not been proven to be so and many consider it to be at least partially authentic.
Regardless, Jesus was absolutely a historical character. No serious historian debates this.
The passage outright states that Jesus was the Messiah, which means it is obviously a forgery - Josephus wouldn't have written that since he wasn't a Christian. But the question is how much of the passage that have been altered.
The discussion has generally been that some people think that statement was added. There’s quite a bit more to it though, and that’s certainly not the only possible - or even obvious - conclusion.
The gospels were not chosen at Nicea. That myth originates from the novel The DaVinci Code. The book is fiction by the way.
You are espousing the Jesus Myth theory. That is a fringe theory which have generally been rejected by historians. The similarities with Amon etc. are pretty superficial except for the universal resurrection theme. Don't believe the websites with long lists of unsourced parallels.
I have learned for myself that God is real. I tried to explain how I know, not that it is proof for someone else necessarily, but (no sales or javascript, hopefully skimmable), for what it may be worth: http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854587400.html .
There’s lots of wisdom in old texts. Plato is 2000+ years old. Heroditus. Confucius. Rumi is almost a 1000.
Beckham is a football player and isn’t known for writing down (or saying) wisdom. But I can definitely imagine people reading Marx and Darwin and Hayek 2000 years from now. Biographies and published text.
There's things just as thoughtful that were written in the past 10 years.
The things you cited are famous for being famous, like some celebrity of the ages.
Just like the Mona Lisa was famous for getting stolen and returned, then this was forgotten about but it remained famous, but now just because it was famous previously.
Perhaps, but this is the first time I’ve heard someone refer to Hayek as “famous for being famous.”
I’m not sure if you’re arguing that there’s nothing old that is wise. Or if people are really smart now. Or all knowledge is just repeated over and over.
I don’t think it’s very productive to argue that the Mona Lisa is the most beautiful painting. But I certainly find it pleasing and beautiful. Are there recent paintings as beautiful? Maybe, but I’m not aware of them so they don’t help me.
Maybe there are recent books as useful as Origin of Species or Republic. But I, and many others, haven’t read them so they are potentially useful if discovered and used. While objectively true is the fact that these historical books have been discovered and used.
So I’m not surprised that people find wisdom in historical books or that books that many find useful remain popular for centuries and millennia.
I don’t think this is a reason to not search for additional wisdom. And I certainly wouldn’t claim they are the ultimate in wisdom.
Jesus makes several truth claims, that if true, are extremely compelling for why someone may want to pay attention today. One of these is His claim to be God. You can either dismiss Jesus as a lunatic, dismiss Jesus as a liar, or accept Jesus for who He claimed to be. If Jesus was merely a good man, He would not have claimed to be God. That is not something good people do.
We have no first hand accounts from Jesus himself. We have a couple of first hand accounts from followers. Most of them don't reconcile with each other very well. And even if they did, humans have a long history of collectively believing and participating in supernatural bullshit.
Lots of people have claimed to be god. Some are even widely recognized as good people. Do we need to give them all our attention? Cause I'm pretty content living my life without believing in wild fairy tales.
No, but I'm pretty happy with seeking its demise. Christianity, along with the rest of the abrahamic religions, are a corrupting plague on our planet and society. That which is good about it is not unique to it, and that which is unique to it is not good. We are stagnant in our progress as humans to the degree that we still believe in it.
It's not intolerant to state that you do not believe in somebody else's religion. Nothing above is even "disparaging", even that fairy tale remark. It's not disparaging to state that, without good evidence, you believe fantastic stories from thousands of years ago to be fairy tails.
> 'It's not intolerant to state that you do not believe in somebody else's religion.'
Stating that you are, quote, "seeking its demise", is the very definition of intolerance.
> 'Nothing above is even "disparaging", even that fairy tale remark. It's not disparaging to state that, without good evidence, you believe fantastic stories from thousands of years ago to be fairy tails.'
This is the very definition of disparagement.
If I were to refer to your atheistic beliefs as 'the ignorance of children, raised by a wicked society that is under the influence of psychopathic demons', would you view that as disparaging? Of course you would.
The difference between that way of viewing things and your way of viewing things is simply a matter of perspective. The difference is, one viewpoint is based on knowledge, whereas the other is based in ignorance.
Source: I used to be an atheist also. As a teenager. In the Bible Belt.
> Stating that you are, quote, "seeking its demise", is the very definition of intolerance.
Evangelizing atheism is no more intolerant than evangelizing your religion. Personally I have no particular interest in doing either, but if you get bent out of shape over somebody doing it, that's on you. If you don't like somebody disagreeing with your beliefs then move to a theocracy where such things are forbidden. The "intolerance" you describe is in fact an expression of the bedrock of liberal society.
“All things (e.g., a camel’s journey through a needle’s eye) are possible, it’s true. But imagine how the camel feels, all squeezed our, in a long bloody thread from tail to snout.”
I’ve seen this attributed to C.S. Lewis, but I’ve never tracked it down.
For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him.
- Matthew 13:12
^-- which should not be interpreted as rich people are "righteous" and poor people are "bad," but rather people tend to worship the rich and abuse the poor.
> The "Eye of the Needle" has been claimed to be a gate in Jerusalem, which opened after the main gate was closed at night. A camel could only pass through this smaller gate if it was stooped and had its baggage removed. This story has been put forth since at least the 15th century, and possibly as far back as the 9th century. However, there is no widely accepted evidence for the existence of such a gate.[7][8]
And it is hard for a rich man to pass through because they have many possessions.
These are things you can't take to heaven. These are things you should not covet. This and many other of Jesus's teaching demonstrate that to be holy and good is to focus not on the material, but on helping your fellow man. There's nothing saying you will get barred from heaven if you're rich. But there's plenty that says you should give away your wealth and spend all your time helping others. You know, kinda like what Jesus did...
According to the text, Jesus was an itinerant carpenter or stone mason (depending on the vagaries of translation). He wasn’t a billionaire philanthropist. And by the telling of Acts, his followers lived in communal poverty.
The problem with much of mainstream American Christianity is that it tries to reconcile the greed and amorality of Capitalist wealth accumulation with its own teachings and they are fundamentally irreconcilable. Or, if you want, by its own scripture:
“No one can serve two masters: Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”
Why do you think it's more difficult for a rich person? Does giving a tithe encourage or discourage the behaviors that make it difficult to make it to "Heaven"?
But can you provide some citations that show that is Jesus's own opinion rather than people's interpretation of something?
IF you're talking about the "leave your money and follow me" thing, I doubt he was talking about the money itself there. He said it was harder for a man to enter heaven with all his riches – but what if someone's virtue rose so high that they were able to enter heaven and then they encountered money – it would not have been true that they were virtuous if the money itself is capable of corrupting them. It's like saying that water corrupts someone. Wrong education (environment) does. Wrong education means that they stopped handing down the truth which was revealed by philosophy, lost the ability to make students able to see reality, and came to spread falsehoods, stories, logical derivations, and people's thoughts instead.
Mind reading. Would you like me to tell you what's going on in your head? I'm not a Christian, BTW. But this isn't the place to make inflammatory statements.
Christians in general all denounce socialism --even it seems democratic socialism.
Christ taught: Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, give all you have to those in need then come follow me, else there's no path to heaven if you're a shallow rich person.
I'm no expert on Marxism, but I think there's quite a bit of crossover in ideologies.
But the point of my argument is most church's don't practice what Christ preached, they're essentially anti-christian churches.
I think the issue that many folks take with this perspective is that you’re prescribing one particular implementation (socialism) of what Jesus taught. We can debate what he taught, but you must acknowledge that you’re advocating for your favored implementation. There are plenty of ways to “Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, give all you have to those in need then come follow me, else there's no path to heaven” that don’t involve or require your particular implementation at all.
I won't address your other points since that's not what HN is about, but the person you responded to didn't say tithing. He said amassing money. 100 billion is an absolutely massive amount of cash to keep on hand for any purpose, and I imagine a good number of people think the money would mostly be going towards charitable causes or something of the sort. Tithing doesn't necessarily entail stockpiles that can buy out entire countries.
One is a lot more defensible than the other. Having $100B cash on hand would just be stupid. Having invested $100B could be seen as more like an endowment if they produce income.
Did the parent significantly revise their comment? Because in its current incarnation, it doesn't argue against tithing nor that those who tithe are being exploited. It seems like you're responding to the wrong comment. For posterity, here's the original comment at the time that I read it:
> It always surprises me that wealthy churches pretend to take Christ seriously, when Jesus was not very fond of amassing money. I get why the churches do it (of course they don't believe in Christ), but why do the exploited masses believe them?
And here is your response:
> The concept of tithing is absolutely taught in the Bible. If you believe Christ to be the God of the Old Testament then He absolutely taught it. You seem to be under the impression all religious people who give tithing are merely being exploited. I can promise you are wrong there. The mentality of "I've had no such experience with God so everyone who claims they have is a kook" is quite ignorant. Perhaps you could learn something from those who have.
I get why the churches do it (of course they don't believe in Christ), but why do the exploited masses believe them?