It is easy to miss the point of the parable of the rich man and the eye of the needle. When the apostles go “who then can be saved?” the implicit question is “if not the rich, who are impliedly blessed of God, who is there who can be saved?” Who is it that Christ will come to?
The answer is just as telling. “With man it is impossible.” That is, no one is saved … at least at first blush … “But with God, all things are possible.”
Christ doesn’t say the rich are saved only if they become poor, or that the poor are saved, or that there is some magic middle ground. He says that with man, salvation is impossible.
What does that mean to you? What other parables or stories in the scriptures do you think are overworked or used to say things that they don’t really stand for? Who then can be saved? Republicans? Democrats? Feminists? Wheat and Tares readers? Let me hear your thoughts.
Wheat & Tares 
The vas majoriy of humaniy will be in
1. The lower levels of the celestial kingdom
2. Terrestrial and telestial
3. Outer darknes
Why? People love the glories of this world.
Negative attitude? Probably.
Vast
Who then can be saved? Republicans? Democrats? Feminists? Wheat and Tares readers? Let me hear your thoughts.
The vast majority of humanity will be saved — meaning they will remain within the kingdom of God (the created universe) in one of its diverse degrees of glory.
Only those completely unwilling to believe in Christ will be damned — meaning that they will remove themselves to outer darkness, being captivated by Satan and his angels.
This very concept of being eternally “saved” and “damned” in an afterlife, is a New Testament concept. That Jesus can save people sounds great, until you consider the billions of people who won’t be. Granted, the LDS view is at least more charitable to those damned souls. However, I find it extremely unfair (and imporobable) that a loving God would damn a good majority of His creations, that He supposedly created anyway, to some sort of hell (or Telestial kingdom) just because they didn’t believe right, or act right, or have the right faith. If you look at all the religions (30,000 different Christian sects alone) it’s not very obvious who is right and who is wrong. Having faith or relying on our spiritual feelings does not clear things up. Even believing in the same scripture doesn’t clear up the confussion. Scripture is pretty vague. So, why would God not give answers, and then judge you forever if you got the wrong ones?
Josh:
The Telestial kingdom is not hell — so I’m confused why it is your parenthetical reference to “a loving God would damn a good majority of His creations, that He supposedly created anyway, to some sort of hell.”
Also, as I noted: “The vast majority of humanity will be saved” — So I guess I too would find it extremely unfair (and improbable) for a vast majority of humanity to be damned.
I think the vast bulk of humanity will return to God. At the end of the day, we will be judged on our actions rather than which of the tens of thousands of denominations and faiths we happened to be born into or stumbled across in our particular region of the world.
We call it the Celestial kingdom. A Buddhist might call it Pure Land. A Muslim might call it Paradise. A Catholic might call it heaven. It doesn’t really matter the name.
And any necessary ordinances are relatively meaningless in mortality anyway. If there are necessary hoops to jump through, they can be taken care of at a later point in the plan. Some people are baptized by immersion. Other are baptized by sprinkling. Some take refuge. Some recite the Shahadah. These are all declarations of faith.
But, at the end of the day, love God and love your neighbor. And that’s about it.
All of us can be saved through Jesus Christ. That is the great gift of His atoning sacrifice as He makes clear in the passage you reference. Mosiah 4:8 makes the same case, and in a few verses makes clear that we must also repent and follow Christ, but the opportunity is there only because of Him and His sacrifice for us.
It is, for me, not a question of how few can be saved, but how many.
Another (related) overworked verse: 2 Nephi 25:23, that we are saved by grace after all we can do. Most other Book of Mormon references make clear that grace is a gift freely given, and when we focus on the “after all we can do” clause, we tend to assume we can earn our salvation. While it’s true we need to do things (ordinances, having faith, obeying God’s commandments), we do not “work” our way into Heaven. The mere opportunity do consider it (returning home) is a result of His grace and the gift of His atonement.
There is a little trick many LDS use to decrease the cognitive dissonance of believing in a God who doesn’t save everybody. It’s called denial; just deny that the telestial kingdom is what others would call hell or damnation. Like Justin, who subtly writes “The Telestial kingdom is not hell. . .” No, the telestial kingdom is a great place, a Kingdom of glory, a place most people would kill to get to go to.
Only problem is that the BOM is flush with references to hell being a bad place. JS clearly believed in hell when he wrote the BOM. D&C doesn’t soften up the idea of hell much either. Take D&C 76:84 and 106 where it says that the “heirs of telestial glory are thrust down to hell.” Sounds like Telestial kingdom and hell are the same place.
Others, like Mike S, say that whatever happens in life, everybody will be saved anyway. Well, then what’s the point of missionary work? We sure seem to be wasting a lot of money and time on that if all we have to do is accept it later on. And why do you think they will? Don’t they have to have a little faith still during the Spirit World missionary discussions, or do they somehow magically get the answer that it was the Mormons who were right all along – like on some South Park episode.
Sorry, but I just don’t think this gets God off the hook. He still supposedly made a plan for good people to go one really good place, and unfaithful people to go to another not so good place, based on some pretty shaky criteria that is not at all clear to anybody.
Just want to say that I actually really like Mike S’s philosophy. It’s my own philosophy too. There are many roads up Mt Fuji, many ways to be happy. Let’s just worry about our own happiness, and not get so caught up how others live.
I just don’t think it’s a view compatible at all with orthodox Mormonism. People who say it is, usually engage in a lot of mental gymanstics.
Wow, Josh — talk about dissonance:
Just deny that the telestial kingdom is what others would call hell or damnation. Like Justin, who subtly writes “The Telestial kingdom is not hell. . .” and Only problem is that the BOM is flush with references to hell being a bad place. JS clearly believed in hell when he wrote the BOM. D&C doesn’t soften up the idea of hell much either.
Again, I wonder, why do you keep calling the Telestial kingdom [which is inside the created universe] “hell” [which is outside the created universe, in outer darkness]?
The words damned, damnation, condemned, and condemnation all deal with a judicial act of declaring one guilty [no mercy applied] and dooming him/her to punishment.
In the case of the words damned and damnation — this can refer to either eternal [everlasting] punishment or temporal punishment [condemnation]. While condemned and condemnation usually refer only to temporal punishment unless the scriptural text is speaking specifically of the last day [day of judgment] and eternal punishment.
Regardless of which word you use, though, the meaning always is that a judgment has taken place, you have been found guilty because no mercy has been applied, and you are to receive a punishment.
According to Abinadi’s definition [Mosiah 16:10-12], damnation consists of “being delivered up to the devil.” Those who are damned are subject to the devil — meaning they travel with him to outer darkness at the end of this world.
Josh — it is impossible to be saved and damned at the same time.
By the same token, where there is mercy, there is no condemnation and where there is no condemnation, there is no punishment.
Speaking of the day of judgment [the last day], there is only one punishment or penalty affixed to the law: i.e. death. The spiritual death that is the second death means that those who receive it are banished from the kingdom of God [the created universe] and are cast into outer darkness, where the devil will eternally subject them to himself [as in Abinadi’s definition of damnation].
None of the inhabitants of the three degrees of glory receive this punishment [That includes the Telestial kingdom]. In fact, it is impossible for them to receive it b/c Satan will be cast out into outer darkness. Once out of the kingdom of God, he cannot subject anyone in the kingdom of God to himself. Only those cast out with him [the filthy still, who did not receive mercy] can be subject to him.
So, the inhabitants of all of the three kingdoms will be free forever from the power and influence of Satan — thus they are not damned. Only those who go into outer darkness receive punishment after the resurrection.
So, if everyone else gets saved and receives a fulness of joy and endless happiness, why is everyone put into one of three glories? Why not have one glory, instead of three? Why do all the Telestial spirits eventually receive a fulness of the Telestial glory, the Terrestrial spirits a fulness of the Terrestrial glory and the Celestial spirits a fulness of the Celestial glory? If the assignment to a kingdom of glory is not a punishment for wicked deeds, but is actually a reward, upon what principle is the reward based?
I will simply say that these questions and their answers have to do with the doctrine of the resurrection. They could be explained with a review of D&C 76, D&C 88 and Alma 41 — but there is enough exposition for one comment.
Justin – it sounds like you have it all figured out.
Regarding the frequent misinterpretation of that reference to the rich man and the eye of the needle to mean “God hates rich people,” this has always been evidence that the people who use that passage thus, haven’t read the Bible.
Because James 5:1-6 is a much, much better “Rich people suck!” humdinger.
“He says that with man, salvation is impossible. What does that mean to you?”
Thank God for His saving grace.
We believe that through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.
Doesn’t it seem a bit odd that we as Mormons, who are supposed to have the purest doctrine of heaven, can’t ever seem to agree on just how that heaven works, who goes where, who gets saved and who gets damned?
Why don’t we just go back to the way the Book of Mormon explains it- one heaven and one hell with very plain instructions on how to be saved?. Is the Book of Mormon not the cornerstone of our religion?
Throw in the D&C and all the manuals and other commentary and suddenly we don’t teach any kind of heaven or hell like that which is spoken of in our Book of Mormon.
Thomas:
Well said.
Rich people are damned. Well, damned might be a bit strong, but the grinding of the poor is a bit hard to stomach. Read the article linked there – a great perspective. I personally like the parable in Luke 12 that talks about a rich man building new bards to hold his goods (especially when contrasted with retirement accounts). But that’s just me.
Rob Osborn:
I agree with comment #15. The BofM (ie. keystone of our religion, most correct book, etc) suggests heaven and hell. Period. It’s that simple.
Apmex,
From the linked article:
Since the United States relies on taxation of the wealthy to a significantly greater extent than is the case in other developed countries, I think they impart quite a bit of their “portion” to the needy.
In biblical times, about the only way a person could get rich, would be to grind the poor — to take control of an inherently limited supply of assets (basically, arable land) and then either charge exorbitant rent or clear off the farmers and work the land with slaves.
In a capitalistic, technological society, wealth is generally not created this way. By and large, people get rich by increasing the productivity of available resources. We have the same amount of land, after all, as the pioneers had — yet we (including the poor) are much richer than they are. Because people have pursued good ideas, and taken risks, to make our birthright resources worth far more than they were worth before.
A poor person today enjoys a far better material standard of living than a person living even in the times when they “had no poor among them.” The vast majority of the general societal wealth that made that possible, was created by people who got individually rich in the process.
If God wants to issue a new revelation that states unambiguously that the new kind of “rich” are damned, He can issue it. Until then, I say pshaw. Demonizing the rich operates more often as not as a justification for looting them. And oddly enough, the level at which it’s said the Evil Rich can be morally looted, tends to trickle down to apply to more than a few of the absolutely non-rich. Like me. Behold, thou art a robber, and I shall give thee noogies.
Re: the Book of Mormon’s teaching of heaven & hell vs. “three degrees of glory” (and its Trinitarianism, and all the other differences between its gospel and the Nauvoo gospel), I’m inclined to agree with Terryl Givens’ idea that the Book of Mormon is important “primarily for its existence and extra-textual historical claims rather than for its contents.”
That is, it’s valuable less for its contents, much of which we’ve replaced with other doctrines, and more for its value as evidence of Joseph’s prophetic calling.
I should add that the old damnable type of rich man — that is, the rentier — is still around, maybe even more so than in the “robber baron” era (the robber barons, after all, built actual, useful railroads & stuff). I think there really is a special place in hell for people who get rich by rent-seeking — by rigging rules in their favor, or taking advantage of poorly-crafted laws to loot others. (Note — this is not the same thing as “keeping the rules from being rigged against them.”) A full helping of hot coals and cackling goblins to those guys.
Thomas:
Why do we need a new revelation when the standard works – bible, BoM, D&C, etc. – are littered with statements that refute precisely what you’re arguing? We need look no further than:
Unless we engage in some pretty clever mental gymnastics, the underlying message of this statement is pretty clear. You can argue the scriptures only apply to a different time period, but I’m not sure what exception there is. The scriptures are unanimous on that point.
As to your thought on the “no poor among them”, I’d still disagree. If there are no poor, then their standard of living is exponentially greater than the poor we have among us today because there is an implied level of equality, not to mention the lack of greed, lust, grinding of the poor, etc.
More importantly, you simply can’t argue that the “new wealth” or whatever one may term it is less egregious than the old wealth. Sure, people do it in different ways – doctors get filthy rich because they’re preeminently specialized, RE developers get filthy rich because they know how to maneuver the court systems and permitting approval processes, bankers get filthy rich by investing our money through a complicated ponzi scheme, and on and on.
Even if you’re a self-made millionaire, who worked by the sweat of your brow to create your own little fiefdom, those millions of dollars were predicated off of selling something – whether it be health services, medical care, cars, specialized expertise, food, adept intelligence, anything, really – for as much as the market would allow, while paying those who either work for you or provide you with raw materials the least amount possible. Maximizing profit. Everyone does it, so it’s justified. Right? That’s what they taught me in both business school and then, later, in law school and then, now, in graduate school. It’s the same method that’s existed for millenia.
Food for thought:
2 Ne. 9:30 – For because they are rich, they despise the poor.
Brigham Young lived in this house:
Ordinary Mormons sent down to colonize the Arizona Strip lived in this one:
If we take your interpretation of that passage, we can only conclude that Brigham Young was living in sin. Cue “speaking evil of the Lord’s anointed.” The only way to avoid that, is to conclude that the passage means something other than strict economic egalitarianism.
Is there something wrong with that?
After all, the permitting approval process is not meant to gum up the works completely. It’s meant to be navigated. If anything, it’s the permitting process itself that enables rent seeking. In a perfectly libertarian world, there wouldn’t be any restriction at all on what a developer did with land he owned.
Wrong.
Charging what the market will bear is not justified because “everybody does it.” It’s justified because your trading partner freely agrees to the exchange. A person doesn’t buy a hamburger, or go to work for someone, unless he calculates that he is better off doing so, than not.
Yes, there is in the Christian tradition (as in many ancient traditions) of hostility towards merchants and commerce. The only honest way of making a living, you see, is scratching the dirt with a stick and gratefully accepting whatever rain Adad or Ishtar deigns to dribble on you.
Screw that. That mindset kept humanity in misery for millennia. I write that down as “prophets speaking as men,” to the extent that they may have meant to condemn commerce across the board. Hugh Nibley (whom you quoted) was a sharp guy, but in the end, he was just another eater of the bread other, more materialistically-minded men grew. It is a common human trait to resent those upon whom one is dependent.
Religion was once used to justify slavery, and indeed there are plenty of Biblical passages that work just fine for that purpose. I don’t believe that reflected the will of God. To the extent religion has also been used to justify slavery-once-removed — the looting of the productive by the nonproductive — I don’t believe God endorses that, either.
“Speaking as a man” is a splendid phrase, isn’t it? If you can apply it to the jeremiads of a certain John Birch-happy Apostle — if that can be chalked up to a man’s cultural background and experience — is there any good reason that Joseph’s Smith’s experience — as a member of an unusually financially incompetent family — might have shaped some of his teaching as well?
Ya can’t eat “equality.”
I suspect the inequality between my “wealth” (I have none, if you go by net worth, being in student debt up to my eyeballs) and Bill Gates’, is greater than the difference between an average farmer in the 1850s, and the richest man then alive. Would I trade places with that poor dirt farmer, who could count on burying half his kids from infectious disease, not to mention freezing his backside to the seat of his outdoor privy in January? Heck no. Neither would you.
Inequality, by itself, only matters to the prideful — to people whose worldview depends on comparing themselves to the next guy. Why should a person who has sufficient for his needs, be bothered in the slightest that someone else has more?
He says that with man, salvation is impossible. What does that mean to you?
To me it means that no one can beat Satan without help from God. If God doesn’t step in to free us from the captivity of the devil, we will all eventually become devils, or angels to the devil, just like the one-third who followed him previously.
Apmex:
… doctors get filthy rich because they’re preeminently specialized…
Hmmmm. I actually am very specialized, and I will admit, I do get currently get paid above the national average salary.
However, to get where I am this specialized, I spent 5 years in college, 4 years in medical school, 5 years in residency and another year in fellowship. Many of these years were spent borrowing money for living expenses (as I was married with children). I spent 100-120 hours per week in the hospital with a maximum week of 155 hours spent in the hospital (home one night for 6 hours and 7 hour for another night). I went days on end without seeing my kids unless they came up and visited me (leaving for work at 5:15 am and getting home after 9-10pm). In practice, I’ve spent many nights away from my family fixing a broken bone or evaluating and reassuring a worried patient.
Last year over 10% of my “billings” were for either uninsured patients or Medicaid – things that cost me actual money in malpractice, rent, staff, insurance, supplies, etc. and for which I get paid little if at all. And for patients I do get paid for, they are happy. If someone is to the point where they can’t work, won’t go to dinner with a friend because of pain, and can’t play with their grandkids, and afterwards they are doing all those things, what is the value of that?
So… when you start talking about doctors getting “filthy rich”, you’ve lost me…
Also, we can talk about the rich man and what an appropriate level of “giving” for the poor makes sense, but I think we need to “put our money where our mouth is” as an organization as well.
Over a 25 year period, the Church gave $327.6 million in cash outlays for humanitarian needs – or around $13.1 million annually. If you include the value of donated goods and time, it is $884 million, or $35.3 million annually.
Putting this in perspective, if the Church takes in $3-4 billion annually, it gives. less than 1% for “humanitarian needs”, or helping the poor, even including the value of donated time and materials. If you compare to actual cash, it’s less than 0.3%.
From another perspective, for those bashing on the “RE developers (who) get filthy rich because they know how to maneuver the court systems and permitting approval processes”, the estimated $3 billion spent on the mall is roughly 10x the actual cash outlay the Church has spent on humanitarian needs in 25 YEARS. At that rate of spending, the mall could fund 250 YEARS of humanitarian spending. They also spend tens of millions on other real estate purchases, private game preserves, etc.
Now, we can all argue about how that’s money made from business, etc. and how they are just trying to build up their money so they can give at some point in the future. Anyone who works can make the same argument. The money “I” make comes from a business. I’m just trying to invest and save it so I can help people “someday”. The argument doesn’t work with me.
I give away 10% of my time and effort at work. From the money I do take home, I also give away at least another 10%. If we did the same thing as a Church and gave away 10%, we could spend $300-400 MILLION a year on humanitarian aid, much more than the $13 million average.
#7 – I think you’re on doctrinally sound footing, Paul. The concept of grace is one that is misunderstood by the majority of members of the church.
Thomas, I very much like James — good catch. As for I think there really is a special place in hell for people who get rich by rent-seeking … that is the source of a huge number of social ills. An entirely other essay, but an important point.
Clean Cut. Amen. Wish we had more comments like that sometimes.
That’s largely incorrect. In a perfect world, people to “freely exchange”, but this is far from a perfect world, and far from a perfect system. There might be a fair amount of economist speak in your statement – and that’s generally the rule of thumb these days – but general rules of thumb that are applicable in an entirely Babylonian society hardly tilt the scales in my mind.
Actually, you can. I’d invite you to share any scripture, historical note or otherwise which suggests that the equality the Nephites at that time had any issues feeding everyone, clothing everyone, housing everyone, or anything else. Give me something, anything other than a trite, entirely incomplete and historically incorrect “ya can’t eat equality.”
To answer this, you’ll have to know that I worked as both an RE developer at the local level, then later as an investor in RE development at the institutional level (investing in REITs and providing investments for other pools of investors). This, by and large, happened in an arena that was geared toward developing low-income housing, largely multi-family housing.
By and large, the system was rife with with profit seekers. There was no “freely exchanged” services, you did business with whoever had the money and on their terms. If they wanted higher rents, you gave it to them; if they wanted a lower developers’ fee, you gave it to them; if they wanted more guarantees, you gave it to them; if they wanted better quality tenants (which in that arena meant tenants with higher incomes), you moved the property across town; if they wanted more reserves, or a longer holdback, you gave it to them.
A program with generally good intentions – providing low-income tenants with quality, affordable housing – was all about money. Institutional investors wanting more money, developers wanting more money, city and local officials wanting more money. The reason for the program – the tenants – were never a concern despite how much lip service every party gave. It was (and is) greed, pure and simple. All parties equally culpable.
So yes, based on my many years of work in that field I can offer a qualified answer: I do disagree with it. I do think it runs counter to the gospel.
What’s more: nearly every field of work experiences the same issues. The world is ran by greed. Individuals, it is my belief, are generally good people, but they also generally base their decisions on how much money they can make off the deal. That is commerce. That is business.
I have many, many issues with Brigham, so this argument falls flat well before it even reaches my eyes. From his “you’ll do this, or you can’t be exalted” rhetoric, to his refusing to support the wives he didn’t want to or disagreed with him, to his living in abundance off the back of the saints, to his taking loans out from the church (interest free, not required to pay back), to him changing the way the Presiding Bishopric was to handle the temporal affairs of the church, and on and on.
Suffice it to say, yes, I do think what he did was uninspired, fueled by living a life of comfort and generally an example of “grinding the faces of the poor.” That is an unqualified assessment – he may well have a good excuse for doing all that, but it better be a dam good one.
Notably, it wouldn’t be the first (or last) time someone wasn’t living in accordance with the revelations given by the Lord, including church leaders. So yes, I think your example is entirely inapplicable.
And, I’d say the same thing about the stratified layers of cars different leaders get, the living allowances we give out, the multi-million planes current leaders fly on, the multi-million dollar mission homes, and on and on. The average real estate holdings for the FP and Qof12 (in Utah only), according to publicly available information, approaches nearly $1 million on average. Many of them made their millions outside of Utah, but there are several who haven’t and yet still have multi-million dollar holdings in the greater Salt Lake valley.
Moving on to Mike:
My examples are a necessary generalization. Many doctors can rightfully say they earn that money. Many likewise take less to have a better standard of living. Some even go the route of bucking big pharma and end up making much less money – a good friend of mine has chosen this route.
My example, though, is largely fueled by the time I spent working with Merrill Lynch where many (most?) of the clients were doctors who pulled in a boatload of cash annually, had even more in various retirement accounts, trusts, insurance schemes, hedge funds and other areas. So take it with a grain of salt.
As to your example of the City Creek Center: I wholeheartedly agree. The new “fourth mission” of the church – to care for the poor and needy – I think, is largely a result of the backlash the church has felt since embarking on the CCC. Many are beginning to realize just how discordant some activities that go on at the COB really are.
For all the lip service the church gives, their actions are far from ideal. The available financial records of the Church (available for the public in England) paint a similar picture, especially in regards to some donations that never get used and instead are used as vehicles for investments. Those are my thoughts, and result from my studies. The church very well may be more charitable than the publicly available resources suggest, but until transparency returns, we simply won’t know. The current record, though, isn’t promising.
If you want a good example of good old fashioned Mormon inspired greed: read up on John Boyden and his fiasco with the Black Mesa. I have a good article on it, if you’re interested.
“As to your example of the City Creek Center” — I have to say that is another massive urban renewal project. Do you disagree with it because it will turn a profit, because you don’t believe the Church should ever invest money, or (I’m looking for a good reason rather than ones I read into what you are saying) …
“to some donations that never get used and instead are used as vehicles for investments” — again that goes to whether you spend everything you have and live off credit or whether you have reserves.
The Church has been in both situations. Nowadays they are more cautious than in times past.
Mike S — so you don’t count fast offering funds and expenditures as for the poor? That is the direct result of what you are measuring and how you measure it. Once you consider that, you might be surprised at what else comes up.
Re: #30
I disagree with it for a number of reasons, some of which are as follows:
(a) It may be an urban renewal project of sorts, but it’s also eerily similar to a “Vaticanization.”
(b) The church could never invest in such projects without the tithing of members. They may say they aren’t using tithing, but it’s just mere semantics: they are using money that is earned based on investments of tithing income.
(c) The urban renewal is also places further pressure on continued stratification (i.e. all based on peoples incomes).
(d) I think there are much better uses for the money – be it on water wells in Africa or South America, be it on getting out of banking system like Harold B. Lee was rumored to have been trying to do before his death, be it on any number of things. Burton (and others) have routinely billed this project as an economic revitalization the likes of the current church welfare system – and I don’t see any long-term (i.e. anything beyond 2 years from now) similarities.
Some reserves are fine, I’m OK with that – but with enough reserves to pay for a multi-billion dollar for profit venture? Call me skeptical.
Lastly, this gets back to my understanding of tithing. Tithing was never meant to be a vehicle for investment, for building corporations, for building for-profit ventures, for enriching contractors pockets. Tithing, per the definition in D&C 119, doesn’t even begin until we start living the law of consecration. We, however, have made it a law unto itself. I’d invite a reading of this non-Mormon article on tithing – the underlying premise of this article is that tithing was never meant to provide a large stream of revenue for either the Church or leadership, that tithing was specifically meant to feed the poor, the widowed and hungry, etc.
I likewise don’t think the church is more “cautious” than they were in the 60s when they last reported their financials and when Moyle was running up huge budget deficits – I think they’re afraid how the membership might react if we actually saw how much cash was flowing in, where it was being spent and just what happens inside the COB – from a strictly monetary perspective.
Lastly (promise, I’ll end my threadjacking here):
I looked into the available finances for City Creek Center and it just doesn’t match up. Estimates are hard to come by, naturally, but they generally settle around the $3 billion mark. Some go as high as $6 billion, others stay between $1 and $2 billion. If you look at projects of a similar scope, based on available square footage, sizes, spaces, etc., and the net finding is that City Creek is nearly 5 times more expensive than the next nearest comparable property (the comparable properties I used were Atlantis (Dubai), City Center (Las Vegas), Mohammed Bin Zayed City Development (UAB), Burj Khalifa (UAB), Sears Tower (Chicago), Petronas Twin Towers (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia), Taipai 101 (Taiwan)).
Certainly there will be differences between labor rates, land prices, raw material prices, inflation, etc. (many of these were accounted for in my calculations), but even when I backed out some of this data, I was still left with the 5x more expensive figure.
My conclusion (which may be incomplete): either those in Utah are getting ripped off by having the CCC, instead of (2) TWO Burj Khalifas, (2) TWO Petronas’ Twin Towers or (2) TWO Atlantis the Palm style developments, or there’s something else we’re not seeing (those assumptions are at the $3 billion total price tag). The figures just don’t line up, at all. I admit there may be some missing information, but a 5x more expensive rate is extremely, extremely unlikely given the economies of scale in building something this big.
Sorry for the treadjack.
LDSA:
Have you considered the possibility that the 1/3rd (a) isn’t an exact percentage and (b) hasn’t yet happened?
The BIG scripture used to define the war in heaven is Revelations 12:1-17. Tell me the context and time period that are being described in Revelations, not using our rose colored glasses.
Also, contrast that with the same description in section 88:112-116. Note who fights our battles. Notice when that battle is being fought – there are two time periods discussed. One at the end of the earths telestial existence the other at the end of the millennium.
One eternal round that we are witnessing before your eyes.
I’m amazed at how many here don’t understand the principle of salvation.
The way I understand it is that Jesus died on the cross for our sins and was resurrected saving us mortals from the bonds of death.
My understanding of damnation is that you are damned if your eternal progression is stopped.
Now, considering those 2 things, it would appear that you can be saved and damned at the same time.
Apmex #29
Thomas may have more in common with you than you think. Your experience with reinvestment illustrates why government programs done in the name of equality often don’t impress conservatives that equality or care for the poor will usually result. (I can tell you similar horror stories from the energy and environmental field where I worked for so many years.) Too much parasitism feeding off the system.
But that’s why we have to change human nature if we expect human systems to be more effective. Issues of public versus private pale besides issues of personal integrity, IMO.
Apmex #34:
In Revelation the devil and his angels are cast out of heaven to earth to persecute the woman (church of God).
In D&C 88 the devil and his angels are cast out to “their own place” never to have power over the saints any more.
These are two different events. The devil and his angels are here on earth. Lehi states that the devil fell from heaven. The devil was here when Adam was here, therefore, the Revelation account is talking of events that happened before Adam was on Earth. As the devil still exercises power over the saints, the events of D&C 88 are still future.
Then there’s D&C 29: 36.
You asked me, “Have you considered the possibility that the 1/3rd (a) isn’t an exact percentage and (b) hasn’t yet happened?”
No, I do not consider that a possibility, based upon these scriptures.
#31 Stephen Marsh
I may or may not have counted fast offerings as helping the poor. I don’t really know because the Church is fairly opaque about most things.
My inclination is that fast offerings ARE included in the numbers above. From the link I provided, they include the following:
I would therefore assume that the money we give for fast offerings is included in the “cash outlay” portion of the numbers, and that the value of the time we donate is included in the overall number.
Since fast offerings are generally given in addition to tithing donations, the percentage of tithing used to “feed the poor”, etc. is probably even lower than what I quoted.
#30 Stephen Marsh
Do you disagree with it because it will turn a profit, because you don’t believe the Church should ever invest money, or (I’m looking for a good reason rather than ones I read into what you are saying) …
My biggest issue is that I would hope that my Church appeared more like a church than a corporation.
Perhaps it is just delusional, but when I picture Christ while He was on the earth, I picture Him giving any money or resources he got away to someone who had even less. I don’t picture him buying up land around the temple to “preserve its environment”. I don’t picture him working on an urban renewal project for downtown Jerusalem. I picture Him giving everything away – even the shirt off his back if needs be. But that’s just me.
Mike, thanks for #39. I may end up doing a post on related points.
but a 5x more expensive rate is extremely, extremely unlikely given the economies of scale in building something this big.
Some of the estimates may be very much off.
There is a huge issue on the impact of projects that increase stratification — are they a conversion of something into Babylon or are they strong forces to avert urban decay. Is a Manhattan style zone a blasphemy or a strong core.
As an aside, I had someone approach me about a year ago, they thought they had just invented the idea of REITs 😉
#15 brings up a good point. You’d think that in the church that claims to have the fullness of the Gospel, the plan of salvation would be a little more clear.
Here is my 2 cents on the issue of who goes to heaven or hell or wherever (assuming the church is true):
I tend to go with the Alma 40 approach. When we die, all of us are taken back to “the God who gave us life.” Those with sin that they haven’t repented of need to help pay for those sins in hell, until the time of the resurrection. THEN comes the resurrection and the judgment. So one will go to their appropriate degree of glory VIA hell.
So hell isn’t necessarily eternal like the scriptures sometimes make it seem; although, sometimes when talking about outer darkness hell that may be the case.
Personally, I see very few people meeting that designation.
Then there is the whole issue of progressing between kingdoms. I know Bruce R and others have had pretty strong opinions on that issue. Like most things in the church, you can cherry pick quotes from different GAs to support just about any position you want. For me, I can’t see the gospel being true or God being just unless that progression is possible.
Rick (#35):
My understanding of damnation is that you are damned if your eternal progression is stopped.
The scriptures don’t share this understanding with you.
Now, considering those 2 things, it would appear that you can be saved and damned at the same time.
Classic.
Aaron, I always liked Hyrum Smith on how the middle kingdom was symbolized by the moon because it filled up and emptied as people went through it.
Bishop Rick (#35)
Yes it is sad that many LDS do not know the basic principles of salvation and damnation. This is one area that our brothers of other Christian beliefs have pegged pretty much exactly correct. I even believe in the early church, back in Joseph Smith’s day, they used the terms correctly. Here are the correct usages-
Damnation means to be condemned to hell, or the state of the condemned in hell. Damnation is not a place or state of glory as some have supposed. Damantion is the opposite of “saved” and it is impossible to be saved and damned at the same time.
“Saved” or “salvation” means to be saved from damnation. This literally means that one who is saved is either saved from a future in hell or saved from hell itself. A person who is saved is only saved because of strict obedience to the gospel.
For whast it is worth (and it is of great worth to me), the temple teaches a different plan of salvation than what we are taught in church on Sunday. Instead of being assigned to a kingdom after resurrection, the temple teaches that we progress through each of the lower two kingdoms (the telestial and terrestrial) until finally we reach the celestial kingdom. Also, of special note is that the temple teaches that our earth right now is the telestial kingdom. It then follows that during the millennium, the earth passes from the telestial kingdom to the terrestrial kingdom.
So, if we were to compare both the temple plan of salvation to the basic plan of salvation as taught in our manuals, only the temple plan of salvation matches up with both the Newt Testament and Book of Mormon.
Very interesting indeed, and of which I find of great worth and importance.
Are we even aware of this discrepency in our doctrine?
#40 Stephen Marsh
I’ve been thinking about this since last night, trying to put my finger on what bugs me about this. I think, like government, it’s too many zeros. Putting things in a more realistic perspective by simply scaling things down by a factor of 10,000. I’m going to tell a story:
Granted, this may be a little hyperbolic. It may be a little sarcastic. But, if we step outside ourselves for just a moment and look back at ourselves to see how we might look to an outsider, this really isn’t too far off. The numbers are all as correct as I can determine.
We may say it’s within the right of the doctor or a church or any organization to do whatever they want with their money. It’s absolutely true. We live in a capitalist world. But some things, while correct, might be distasteful.
Why am I not surprised?
And — since you’re happy to throw one prophet under the bus — why on earth should I pay any attention to you using another prophet’s words to make the case that commerce is bad?
You’re saying that an egalitarian society will be better at making sure that people have the basic necessities. I disagree, but that’s not the point. Your point was that even if this were not true — even if a free commercial society in fact made even the least well off, better off than everybody’s equal level in an egalitarian society — then the egalitarian society would still be better, because of the (intangible) benefits of knowing that nobody else has more than you do. And no, you can’t eat that.
The difference is that I don’t believe that imperfections in the operation of a generally applicable, and thoroughly moral, system of free exchanges, render the whole system immoral. I wonder if your mindset hasn’t been shaped by your unfortunate experience in two of the least value-adding sectors of the economy (real estate and finance). You may have gone around rent-seeking and filching money back and forth with other greedy people, but out on the dark fields of the Republic, there really is some genuine production going on.
I happened to grow up the son of a not-particularly-well-off academic, at the edge of a moderately wealthy area, which my ward included. There is a man there who decided that supermarket bread tastes like it was mass-produced a month ago and stuffed full of chemicals to keep it from going completely stale as it sat on a warehouse shelf. So he started a bakery, and wound up producing a cinnamon-swirl bread that makes the best French toast in the universe. He hired some kids from the ward — at less, I suppose, than he conceivably could have paid, but more than they were making babysitting or whatever — and sold his bread for perhaps more than the bare minimum, but still less than the value to me of really good cinnamon-swirl French toast. He later sold the business for a boatload of cash. He serves in the Church and is one of the most fundamentally decent people I know.
But “rich people are damned,” and I’m supposed to think there’s something morally wrong with that man. I call that lashon hara (Jeff can perhaps translate.)
Where I really get irked with this charade, is that none of this has anything to do with concern for the welfare of rich people’s damned souls. You don’t much care about that. You demonize them not to show them the error of their ways, but to try and make a moral case that it’s morally acceptable to loot them.
From D&C 56:16-17:
LDSA:
You’re possibly mistaken on at least one account (a), and possibly on the second (b) – or at least incomplete. There is absolutely zero scriptural evidence to suggest that “third part” means “33%” or “one third”. It just doesn’t exist. Some church leaders have interpreted the former to mean the latter, but the scriptures don’t offer that. “Third part” could just as easily be interpreted as “third portion” or “third piece”, which says nothing about equal parts or proportionate parts. I have serious doubts that it’s an equal percentage.
You’ll have to wait for my second answer. Just no time now.
Stephen (#40):
You may be correct, but of all the projects, City Creek Center is the only one not to provide clear information on the costs or scope of the project. We get a whole lot more detailed information from the likes of United Arab Emirates, or Dubai, or Taiwan or anywhere for that matter, than we get from Property Reserve, Inc. on their project. Burton has been incredibly evasive in some of the responses he has given about the project, all while taking great joy – and no small amount of credit – for his part in the project.
But, even so, neither the footprint of CCC, nor the total square footage being constructed, doesn’t even compare to projects like the Burj Khalifa, or the Petronas Towers in Malaysia.
If you look at the Mohammend Bin Zayed project, they’re creating an entire city, which will offer more than 50,000 housing units (housing an estimated population approaching 100,000 when complete) and 349 residential towers (all between 12 and 22 stories tall), complete with commercial and retail space when it’s said and one. There is simply no comparison between the scope of work, and yet CCC is approaching the same cost of work.
Mike S:
I liked that “hypothetical”. It is interesting to see how many formerly “paid” positions in the church have turned into “service missionary” opportunities for various individuals. The Church largely gets the same work from similar individuals, but the “profit” from the endeavor benefits substantially.
But, at least you look good on the face of it. And, for the vast majority of your clients, no one really asks for more details on just how you’re calculating your charitable contributions.
Thomas:
You’ve entirely misjudged my comments. Notably, Brigham Young himself went out of his way to say that he wasn’t a prophet, but that’s neither here nor there.
I maintain the right to disagree with any practice I choose to disagree with.
And, you have managed to touch on something I agree with (imagine that): I left those fields once I came to realize what they meant in the greater scheme of things. It no longer fit my personality or mindset. I was raised to believe in President Hinckley’s maxims:
I happen to disagree with these ideas now, am I not allowed that? Or, because he was a “prophet,” does that mean that I have to agree with these things? That I have to agree that there’s a moral responsibility I have to sacrifice everything I have to get an education and qualify myself for the “work of the world”, in order to make more money, in order to increase my “worth”? My response: Bah!
Perhaps Jeff can translate that for you.
As to your baker friend, I say good for him. I applaud those efforts.
As to this comment:
You couldn’t be more wrong. Really. You accuse me of demonizing them all while demonizing me in the same breath – to say nothing of the entirely illogical last sentence. Touche.
Re: the City Creek center, what are the relative construction costs per square foot as between (say) Dubai or Malaysia, vs. Salt Lake?
I think we may agree on some of this. The Church’s teaching to avoid debt, except maybe educational debt, which is “good” debt, seems like exactly what you’d expect from older people with a mindset from a time before this country overproduced college graduates, to the point where grads are working low-paying retail, or other jobs that don’t remotely require a college degree, trying to service $50,000 or more in student debt.
Re: whether or not the “radical politics” that the “Mormon Worker” outfit you quoted from demonizes the rich in order to justify redistributing their wealth without their consent, I will leave it to people familiar with that radical tradition to evaluate how illogical my characterization is. Suffice to say I don’t see a whole ‘lotta love there towards people who’ve made money, and some great sweeping generalizations of them.
I remember running across the Deuteronomy passages cited in that article a while ago, and thinking “huh…Old Testament tithing was really only 3.33%.”
Based on what I’ve read, this article may have it right. The idea that there was a 10% tithe paid to the Levites every year (as opposed to every third year) seems unsteadily rooted in scripture. Plus, Deuteronomy is supposed to be the gold standard for the Law, so what it says about tithing, possibly ought to be taken as definitive.
It interests me, though: A 3.33% tithing rate was evidently capable of taking care of both the priestly needs of ancient Israel (which included secular administration, since the place was a theocracy under the Judges), AND taking care of the poor and strangers.
We pay a rather higher combined tithing-and-tax rate today.
As far as the OP and “Who can be saved?”, Christ himself was asked this question. From Matthew:
I am of the opinion that all of the other random (and ever-changing) things that have grown up around this such as earrings, drinking wine, beards, garments, denomination to which we belong, etc. are things that might help us in these two great laws, but that they are NOT what we are ultimately going to be judged on.
Do we love God? Were we good to our fellowman?
Apmex #48, that is interesting. I’ve never heard such an interpretation. I’ve always assumed that everyone understood these scriptures as meaning a specific, proportional quantity and not the uncertain quantities. English does have many shades of meaning and so I guess we are free to assign any shade we want to a word, but the context of the sentence we use it in usually gives us a clue as to which shade we are referring to.
In the case of the scriptural expression “the third part”, this is not referring to an uncertain quantity, but to a specific, proportional quantity.
Using the same dictionary you used and the edition that followed it (1913), perhaps we can come to an understanding:
The 1828 dictionary has this shade of meaning: “10. Proportional quantity; as four parts of lime with three of sand.” This is the shade of meaning of the scriptural phrase.
In case we are still not sure, let’s look at the next edition of that dictionary, the 1911 edition. Here are the two entries with examples of their use in the scriptures. (I’m going to quote from the 1911 edition of that dictionary, which I possess myself, but you can compare it to the 1913 version found online, if you want). –
Justin #42,
I was tempted to write a LMAO! on that one, but I bit my lip and just let it slide.
#54: I’m not sure I’d approve of using later dictionaries to define a word written and used in the early 1800s. Meanings shift, certainly, but we ought to try and get as unfiltered an account as possible. So, even though I recognize the shift in meanings, I’m more interested in what it meant in the early 1800s.
You referenced the 10th definition of that 1828 dictionary, but what about the first: “A portion, piece or fragment separated from a whole thing; as, to divide an orange into five parts.”
If I apply that to the “third part”, as in “a third part of the hosts…” or whatever the language is, do I have to conclude that the utilization of the “third part” confines the meaning to 3 distinct parts, with no possibility for more?
Some symbologists (some more adept than others) have argued that all the word “part” really means is “group” – i.e. 3 groups, of an indeterminable size.
To take this argument to the extreme, say God decided to cap his human creations at 77,777,777,777 (taken after the divine number of completion). Just for discussion purposes. If that group – all of them included in the premortal equation – is divided into 3 equal parts, you end up with each part having 25,925,925,925.66667. Now, how exactly can you divide someone into themselves? Joking aside, how often do things really divide themselves, in nature or elsewhere, along proportionately equal parts? Be it in relation to the fibonnaci rule, the golden ratio (which I’m using in something I’m building currently) or some other idea – does it happen elsewhere in nature or the universe at large? (Honest question.)
Even that being said, I’m more partial to the word “part”, in this instance, meaning “group.” You have 3 groups, one competing against the other 2 undefined groups, each of a differing size. I recognize your point of view, but I’m not sold on it.
Re: Thomas
I happen to be one of those “overproduced college graduates.” If I had a kid that was about to become college age, I’d probably advise him/her against it unless it was low priced and didn’t involve any debt. Even then, I’m not sold on the idea. Too many stories abound these days about inflated tuition prices coupled with poor job placement rates.
What I find interesting about this, is that tithing is mentioned all of 3 times in the Book of Mormon, 2 of which directly reference (word-for-word) the Malachi verse that Old Testament article was based off of. For all the emphasis that wasn’t placed on it in our written works, there’s a strange emphasis on it in our modern practice – to the point of even defining one’s worthiness to participate in supposedly eternal ordinances.
Tithing was likewise mentioned 3 times in the first 4 gospels, and each reference has a negative connotation: 2x coupled with a “woe” said to the Pharisees because they tithe but somehow forgot the “weightier matters” of the law – love + mercy, and 1x in the story of the Pharisee and Publican when the Pharisee is praying about how good he was.
Thanks for the conversation…
Apmex #56:
Well, I haven’t read the commentaries that you have, but if you go to Biblegateway.com and look at all the English language translations of Revelation 12: 4 (which mentions “the third part of the stars of heaven” according to the KJV), you’ll notice that these other Bible translations use “a third” or “one-third” instead of “the third part” as the King James translators did. The noun “third” in these passages can only mean “the quotient of a unit divided by three; one of three equal parts into which a thing may be divided.” There is no way around this.
So, Revelation 12: 4 is definitely talking about 33%.
Now, D&C 29: 36 uses the expression, “a third part of the hosts of heaven.” The expressions are actually quite similar:
“the third part of the stars of heaven” (Rev.)
“a third part of the hosts of heaven” (D&C)
Not only that, but they appear to be talking about the same event. If they are talking about the same event, then “a third part” (D&C) = “the third part” (Rev) = 33%.
If they are not talking about the same event, then you might be able to argue that the expression in D&C 29: 36 is not referring to a one-third (33%) part.
But first you’ve got to show that these are entirely different events.
One last thing, if you translate the D&C expression “a third part” into Spanish (which language I know), you get “una tercera parte.” If you translate “a third” (which means 1/3) into Spanish, you get the same “una tercera parte” expession. The Spanish expression “una tercera parte” means “one-third” in English. So, the evidence is overwhelming that these scriptures are all talking about 1/3.
Use wordreference.com and the Spanish language editions of the D&C on lds.org to sort it all out, if you want. Or compare any other language version of these scriptures. It all points to the same thing.
Oops, sorry the the lack of closed italics html in the previous comment…
…and double the’s… (should be “for the”)
Not only that, but it’s questionable whether the inclusion of the Malachi tithing passage ought to be read as a statement that tithing is to continue into New Covenant practice. Because that passage also includes an injunction by Malachi to observe the whole law of Moses.
And looking at Utah’s bacon consumption rate, I wouldn’t figure that injunction is being taken too seriously. 🙂
Not to mention the whole polygamists-marrying-two-sisters thing, which the Mosaic law also forbids, IIRC.