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?
I get why the churches do it (of course they don't believe in Christ), but why do the exploited masses believe them?
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)
Why does the LDS church do it?
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.
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.
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.
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.
[1] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1978/07/dis...
[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’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.
[2]: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media-library/video/2012...
[3]: Moroni 7:12-16
> 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.
[6]: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/al...
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?
> 36 And Korihor answered him, Yea.
I think the issue was that the church was being used as a place for worldly pursuits.
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.
IIRC, the living stipend for members of the Twelve was around $100k? Or less than the salary of an intern at Google...
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.
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.
https://mormonleaks.io/newsroom/2018/05/30/mormonleaks-compi...
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.
But we agree that the Church is tight with its money. I just argue that’s a good thing...
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.
But they aren't a benevolent institution.
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.
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.
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!".
https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/45h0je/when_the_b...
https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/bpiftw/800000_to_...
https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/cvbh8q/impress_yo...
https://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/lds/ci_8271793
As far as free university, I know because I went to school with one of Christensen's sons and he told me.
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 .
Edit: I found a page with links to their bios (fairly international, if you read down & click photos), that indicate education & prior careers: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/leaders .
> Or less than the salary of an intern at Google...
It'd be remarkable if their stipend was less than the salary of an intern at nearly any other company. Google is a huge exception
Those who work for the church full time (with the exception of missionaries) receive a stipend to cover their living expenses and not much else.
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.
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.
https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/official-statement/...
Source/citation? My understanding is that salaries and other financials are not public.
Edit: I found a page with links to their bios (fairly international, if you read down & click photos), that indicate education & prior careers: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/leaders .
I have collected a bunch of links (official and not) w/ further info, at my personal site, such as at: http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854578831.html
and http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854589754.html
and my own thoughts on this and various subjects at http://lukecall.net , such as http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854587122.html .
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:
https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-fina...
https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/first-presi...
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.
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.
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. :)
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.
Being born into wealth lends a significant chance of mismanagement and losing that wealth.
Protestants - not the megachurches that go by the label 'protestant', but believe nothing remotely related to Scripture - have no such conception.
Lastly, you're moving what I said, narrowing the scope to 'democratic socialists'.
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?
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.
“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.
Jesus was a radical hippie immigrant refugee, and his teachings are of course co opted now for the exact opposite effect.
I highly recommend reading: "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth" https://www.amazon.com/Zealot-Life-Times-Jesus-Nazareth/dp/B...
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).
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.
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.
Citation? Not my experience at all.
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.
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.
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.
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]
More info at [1].
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.
For actual teachings, the Book of Mormon (with the Bible) is all about Christ. I believe one can search by topics, at, for example, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/general-conference?lang=... . I have written more on what I know and how I know it, at my personal site: http://lukecall.net .
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.
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. :)
Do I get a planet?
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.
"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."
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.
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]
[1] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-...
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.
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)
my favorite book on the subject of why is "Robert Cialdini's Influence": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence:_Science_and_Practic...
-Jesus
Matthew 19:24
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-...
And I guess you’ve never heard of Josephus? He’s only the most well known Jewish historian since Moses.
Jesus most certainly lived, no serious scholar of history claims otherwise.
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.
Regardless, Jesus was absolutely a historical character. No serious historian debates this.
Jesus is a known historical figure. Pretending otherwise is silly. The end.
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbCzb_FWpi4
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.
If you don't want to pay any attention to the claims of Christianity, then by all means don't.
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.
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.
Unless the children were looting their elder's estate before the burial, there's no U-Haul behind a hearse.
- Supply Side Jesus, https://imgur.com/gallery/bCqRp
I’ve seen this attributed to C.S. Lewis, but I’ve never tracked it down.
- 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]
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...
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.”
More reflection is required for a deeper understanding.
Think on it.
Matthew 22:21 Jesus said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."?
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.
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.
He did not teach that the government should force everyone to do that.