Everyone is familiar with the New Testament story of the rich man and the Kingdom of God.
All three of the synoptic Gospels have the story. Below is Luke’s version:
18 A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
19 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’[a]”
21 “All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said.
22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
23 When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was very wealthy. 24 Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! 25 Indeed, 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.”
26 Those who heard this asked, “Who then can be saved?”
27 Jesus replied, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.”
Luke 18:18-27 NIV
A camel through the eye of the needle? Even his disciples were incredulous, and said “who then can be saved?” We’ve all heard the Sunday School Answer to this problem. The “eye of the needle” was a small door to enter Jerusalem at night, and a camel can get through if it crawls through on its knees. It was very difficult, but possible. There are two problems with this.
First there is no archaeological evidence for an “eye of the needle” gate from the time of Jesus. It is also not known in literature from the time. If it was as well known as we were lead to think, why were his disciples so dumfounded? The earliest evidence of anyone thinking that the eye of the needle is a gate is from the early medieval period and attributed to Thomas Aquinas.
The second problem is that camels cannot crawl on their knees! The can bend their knees, but they have very hard knees, and cannot crawl.
The most likely interpretation to me of this is that camel was an inscription error, or “typo” in the modern vernacular. The Greek word for camel is kamelon, while kamilon is the Greek word thick rope. The simple changing of an “I” to an “E” takes the very difficult/impossible (rope trough an eye) to the absurd (camel through an eye).
So where does this leave us? Theologians have been struggling with this for years. They needed to come up with a plausible explanation to this so as not to alienate all the rich converts. The camel explanation gave a loophole for the rich. It was hard but not impossible. But it’s looking like Jesus really did say that it is impossible for a rich person to enter into the Kingdom of God. There is no Prosperity Gospel, and Elder Stevenson is going to hell.
Your thoughts?
Wheat & Tares 
Nibley covered this well in his “How Firm a Foundation” talk. He goes on to talk about how we are supposed to come out of the world.
Click to access Dialogue_V12N04_31.pdf
I assume by the “Kingdom of God” you mean the Celestial Kingdom. And you ask who will end up there? I have no idea what the real criteria will be even according to LDS beliefs. Is it reserved for those on the Covenant Path (registered trademark)? Or will all the temples all over the world get almost everyone in during the Millenium anyway?
I see the world divided into four groups of people:
1. baptized members who are active and on the CP (does this mean you have to be endowed in the temple?)
2. baptized members who are not on the CP and/or have gone inactive
3. non-members who rejected the Gospel (i.e., ignored the missionaries including next door neighbors who were “member’-missionaries”
4. non-members who have never really been exposed to the Church in any meaningful way
My observations:
5. The #1s are in good shape and have the best prospects for the CK unless they blow it later on in life. Unfortunately they are only about 1/1000 of the world population (note: assumes 50% member activity rate)
6. Many of us are #2s (re-read that it’s kind of funny) and we have the worst prospects for the CK. Essentially, we were given our chance and we walked away. You could argue that for many of these folks, it would have been better to not have ever known about the Church in the first place. The ignorant villager in North Korea has a better chance of making it (see below).
7. A lot of gray area for #3s. How do you define “exposed” to the Gospel? And maybe they had good reasons to reject what they heard (neighbor was a jerk, missionary was immature, they were anti-American). These folks are still better off than the #2s.
8. The #4s are 99.7 % of the world’s population and 99.999% of everyone who has ever lived on the earth. And I think I finally see a reason RMN is building so many temples that in the short-run will hardly get used. We need temples everywhere to service the 99.999% during the millennium.
Back to your piece: I doubt it will matter much whether you’re rich or poor. Just find your place above and hope for the best. In the meantime, act like you want to go to Heaven if there is a Heaven by following the Golden Rule and I bet it works out.
I agree about there being no prosperity gospel, but I’m reluctant to pass judgement on Elder Stevenson.
I know of several individuals who have made and spent several fortunes on humanitarian efforts. They are rare, but they are out there.
But I believe God would prefer us all to live simply and humbly, with incomes sufficient for our needs.
Josh h,
I’d prefer not to act as judge on the world population. And I believe most of Father’s children will make it. But wealth and riches are poison for most.
Using “rope” instead of “camel” makes much more sense. It can insinuate that rich people can still fit through the eye of a needle if they shed the intertwined layers within rope and become like an individual strand of string.
Having wealth isn’t evil in itself. It’s what you do with that wealth that matters. If you’re involved in a career that includes a higher salary, then more power to ya. HOWEVER, do you use that wealth as a tool to help the less fortunate, or do you flaunt that wealth through decadent purchases and gluttonous appetites?
I Ike the explanation Bishop Bill puts forth. A few thoughts:
Writing (only partly) tongue-in-cheek, I sometimes think we are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Very Successful Saints.
Try as we might, wealth cannot help but affect our attitudes and behavior, usually not in good ways. Even if we are generous with our surplus, it is hard to not succumb to “donor egotism.” My daughter works for a foundation that seeks charitable donations for worthy community efforts, and she frequently comes across people who want to donate in a certain way, even if what they want is not allowed or even needed.
In “The Grapes of Wrath,” Ma Joad says, “the only people who help poor people are other poor people.”
As to amassing great wealth, when does that morph from acumen in making money to the love of money, for its own sake? The optics of Elder Stevenson’s billion-dollar windfall are terrible, even though no one accuses him of impropriety. The same goes for Ensign Peak’s excess tithing fund investments.
I like Wesley’s maxim: make all you can, save all you can, give all you can.
As a TBM, I thought hearing about the camel kneeling down and all similar analogies as…. “Cool !!. ….So much insight in having the restored gospel” Obviously, I was not reading from other outside sources and only getting the LDS Sunday School exposure . Once we expose ourselves to more information, like kamilon vs kamelon we have more insight and “light”.
However, for the institutional church this is a problem. If we really, REALLY search and learn from the scriptures, then we get beyond all the Sunday school juvenile answers. We learn more truth and light ! imagine that!!! . More learning done out of “school” than attending ‘school”. However, if you learn too much, you no longer need the LDS institution.
The church used to teach and encourage member learn as much as we can; and that the gospel can withstand any outside criticism ……Now the talk is “only search from authorized church sources”. If you learn too much, then you are being deceived by Satan. Intellectuals are one of the 3 main enemies of the church.
One of the gifts of the “faith crisis/transition” is that I have learned so much about many more topics and depth thereof than before. I have had my horizons expanded. I thought I was well versed as a TBM. After the past decade of independent research and self learning, via the internet and a variety of podcasts, I can honestly say as a TBM, I was in 2nd grade and stuck in the first half of life with excessive boundaries.
SWK used to say, I do not remember not learning something from a LDS sacrament meeting, or the same quote with every time attending the temple. Even as a active TBM, that SWK quote used to seem off key. I was not learning something with EVERY meeting, despite being all engaged. The institutional boundaries did not allow more learning, but then made us feel lacking and responsible when none occurred. (another famous blame shift quote).
Now, I feel that each podcast, each blog, each day there is so much more to learn outside of TBM Mormonism.
Summarizing Richard Rohr, “Mormons do Stage 2 really well in establishing boundaries “, but then miss out on the 2nd half of life and I believe are literally damned in 2nd grade. I still maintain some beneficial boundaries from the first half of life, but wish that I would have tried entering the eye of the needle (taking control of ones destiny) via a kneeling camel or a skinny rope 20 years prior, when it was time to transition to the second half of life.
Thank you, Bishop Bill and all the many others who add to our learning and community !
I also wanted to comment on the prosperity gospel comments.
As an active member, I even recognized that church callings were given to family members, friends and the network. I never agreed with this system of nepotism and “networking”.
What I did not know, is when they drop to the next tier of callings or how to enter the “network”, it is based solely on amount of tithing donations. Now it all makes sense (light bulb time !). I had always been a solid tithing payer and despite, not being in the social clique, I would get the initial callings into the group. (However, not called up to “higher” callings, due giving an alternative point of view in ward/stake council meetings, despite magnifying the calling at 110%). When I learned that the church literally uses a top paid tithing list in making callings for: Stake Presidencies/Bishops/High Councils/EQ it all makes so much more sense. You literally pay to play.
Then you have to ask, are Mormons saved by their works, grace, or the size of their bank account and donations to the LDS church?
The teaching that no rich man can enter heaven has concerned me for some time. I consider myself to live an average lifestyle but I’ve saved and invested a comparatively large % of my income to avoid poverty as a retiree. However I served a mission in Guatemala during the civil war there and witnessed crushing poverty. I wish I could have the courage to donate to Guatemalan causes or to adopt an orphan or two.
I don’t believe in Heaven right now but I have a nagging worry that if there is a judgement seat that I’ll be asked if I couldn’t have done a bit more. That said, if investing wisely is a moral liability or if possessing more than say the 80th percentile (globally), we Americans are screwed. Probably including most GAs.
Perhaps verse 27 in the quoted passage leaves an opening for rich people to be saved: “Jesus replied, ‘What is impossible with man is possible with God.’”
But this (w)hole bit about a camel passing through a gate appears to be an example of how change the original meaning of the scriptures to match our desired narrative. We do it All The Time, usually without even realizing it.
Christians who are well off may experience cognitive dissonance when reading that Jesus said it would be impossible for them to go to Heaven, so this alternative reading about the gate and the camel helps them feel better. And since they feel better about it, it must be true.
Incidentally, I don’t think that changing camel to rope changes the intended meaning of the pagate on iota. Both are impossible for man, but with God, it may be possible.
GDP/person for the USA is $60,000. So a couple with 2 children $240,000/ year. If it were distributed evenly there would be no poor in America. Should we be asking that it be redistributed more equitably? Should we be voting for that possibility? Not republican!
How could it be redistributed so young families struggle less while having young children? Having children is a nation building activity isn’t it?
Even if the normal people got $30,000 pp, and the super rich got half as much.
If you could deal with the contentious political issues dividing the country, this could be worth discussing. It would make for a more productive economy too.
This was interesting to me to read because in my corner of the world, I’ve never heard that explanation of a door that a camel can crawl through. My Sunday School and seminary classes taught a simpler and, in my opinion, more worthwhile interpretation: greed and lack of generosity are bad for the soul, and the only way to enter the Kingdom of God is to turn to God.
I am thinking about those who have privileges that came from getting ahead by exploiting others, by polluting air and water, by destroying forests, jungles, and deserts, by actions that cause global warming, etc.
I one time heard a discussion about ultra wealthy people who become benefactors. They can NEVER give enough to counter the harm they caused while getting to their position. (To a different degree, the same applies to those of us down the ladder that have comfortable circumstances, knowing that there is so much need, in our local communities, and spread far beyond.)
It was suggested that the only way to even approach making amends is to make changes that prevent such exploitation. I know it is easier said than done, but our current system is so far askew that some positive changes would make a positive difference. For starters:
-Tax law could benefit working people (who ARE the economy) over the exploiters.
-While some social safety nets are in place, they are vulnerable, with many conservative politicians frequently holding them up as the next expense to be cut.
-Paying anything less than a livable wage belies classic conservative ideals.
Imagine if exploiters were held accountable to “first, do no harm”, and then, to repair the harms done.
This is one of those scriptures that we as a church simply don’t believe. (Others would include scriptures stating that marrying a divorcee constitutes adultery, that God wants us to eat meat only times of winter or famine, and that stake high councils have authority equal to the 1st Presidency and Q12.)
While Elder Stevenson certainly takes it to a higher level, let’s face it, most of us reading this are pretty dang wealthy relative to the world at large. To avoid a crisis of conscience, we have to either latch onto dubious interpretations like the Jerusalem gate, or do as Spencer Kimball said he did when reading the incriminating parts of King Benjamin’s address: “I always read fast when I get to those verses.”
It seems like there is one big question here. Does the camel/rope principle apply to religious institutions?
Another issue that needs to be resolved is the regressive nature of tithing. It severely penalizes the poor.
Next, the idea that you should pay tithing before putting food on the table needs to be renounced. That “policy” is probably illegal. It’s immoral to ask the poor to contribute to a $100B slush fund.
Also important, it must be recognized that the poor mother giving alms makes a much bigger personal sacrifice than the billionaire parting with some percentage of his fortune. Much of the billions may well be I’ll-gotten gains.
Maybe GAs should be required to give up a part of their wealth before being set apart. The money to be given to the poor. If they are not willing to do that then their worthiness is in question. No second anointing for them.
Three cheers for informed, critical scriptural interpretation. There are a lot of camels infesting Mormon scriptural teaching.
@Faith, can you give a source for the claim that higher-up callings are deliberately picked from a list of who pays the most tithing? That’s the kind of claim where I’d be interested to know if it’s true but I’m not going to take the word of an internet stranger on a comment thread for it. Thanks!
Pontius, unfortunately there is no official church memo or document or such. we need more transparency from church head quarters. But after listening and reading stories for the past 10+ years, it is more than just hear say. I have seen it with my own eyes and was even called as one of the highest paying members of the stake, even though the clique did not like me
One example is from Leonard Arringtons book written by Greg Prince, point #2 https://bycommonconsent.com/2018/02/01/leonard-arringtons-nine-points/
“In choosing stake leaders, the general authority comes with a list of the 15 to 20 highest tithe payers and starts down the list to choose a stake president and high council”
As church historian Leonard Arrington is solid. All of Greg Princes reporting and research is valid.
If you discount that, then you may think the churches essays are anti-Mormon lies and someone hacked into the church website and put them there.
Thanks for the link. I’m still not convinced of the claim based on that link, but not because I don’t trust Leonard Arrington or the Gospel Topics essays. In the comment thread on that article there’s plenty of room for reasonable doubt.
I am not stating that the wealthiest is automatically called as Stake President. Our last SP, was not super wealthy, but he was well connected to SLC and with nepotism. His 2nd SP councilor was the wealthiest. However, the financial list is a major factor in the top Stake/Ward positions. That can not be denied !
From the churches point of view.
They need so many people to be Mission Presidents. They prefer men who can return after 3 years and not be financially destitute (we could have a whole conversation on that). They need men in the pipeline for such callings (408 total or 136 every year). Also they want people in positions of power that are successful in their careers, because if gives more credit and esteem to the church to the community. Look they have doctors/lawyers/dentists/ CPA/MBA in their leadership. The church needs money to run its organization and that’s OK, but when is enough, enough? However, we were all told by Pte Snow, once they had enough they would not keep requiring 10% tithe.
Also, if I am a major financial contributor to the ward/stake and not in a major decision calling, I could take their $$$ and spend else where, be it a charity or a new boat. Giving $$$ to the church keeps one invested in the church, be it for the poor or rich. For the rich, It keeps the cycle that one if successful in their career because of the church and its blessings and you owe it back to us ! (Also it keeps the $$ in house and not elsewhere). And for the poor, look you need to repent and follow the commandments.
Also, for the wealthy, they can see it as an insult if they give and not “receive”. And the cycle continues……give…calling…give…calling…
@Pontius, if the church and your ward/stake is working for you, then great! You are blessed, lucky. However, as a whole the church has problems like this and is in denial on so many topics. The LDS church can be a good place for some people at some points of their lives. However, for many the LDS church and the rhetoric no longer work. If the church would join the information age and be truly honest and open, many of these issues would go away. However, they have hunkered down and keeping members in the blind, until have so many experiences that their eyes are opened and realize the LDS church is not what it proclaimed or promised it was.
What saddens me the most, and I have written this before. It that the church will not support its’ own hungry needy children. The Bountiful/Liahona Children’s foundation is supported solely by individuals, NOT the church. https://bountifulchildren.org/
Thousands of children are starving and malnourished throughout the church. When presented to the Q15, they said NO, we do not want the children and families to become reliant on the program. What/Que ? How is a starving child going to abuse food supplements ? And even if their mothers do, let them.
The church takes credit for these programs, but spends ZERO $$ and keeps the money in Ensign accounts for the upcoming tragedy. These families are living their tragedy now, and unless the Q15 and their nepotistic clique have a food shortage, the system will not change, unless regular members like you @Pontius request them to follow the scriptures and feed the poor and not neglect their own children, the cycle continues.
Though we can debate the merits of keeping a substantial reserve fund, I take comfort in knowing that general authorities aren’t getting rich off of this fund. Do you see President Nelson or any of the other apostles wearing fur coats, Gucci belts, and Louis Vuitton shoes while riding in a Rolls-Royce? I’m at least grateful that our leaders aren’t Televangelist-like leaders who are gluttonous over donations.
“ As the Tennessee Supreme Court wrote in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.” “
Heather Cox Richardson. Letters From an American. (May 24, 2022) Substack.
In this one of the daily writings from Professor Heather Cox Richardson, she outlines the progression of the interpreted meaning of “well-regulated militia” that got us to where we are today (with footnotes). Today’s gun culture is not representative of most of American history.
It has become very politicized. It is ideological. It is used by conservative politicians to raise money.
History professor Heather Cox Richardson:s writings are available free by email.
Responding to Faith. I don’t know anything about your ward or stake and yes I have seen circumstances of seeming nepotism in some areas. However, as someone that was involved in the selection and calling of stake presidents many times all across the Eastern US I can assure you that never once was a list of tithing payers used or even looked at. When a stake president was selected before the call was issued the presiding GA70 or A70 would simply ask the brother if he held a current temple recommend and if there was anything in his life that needed to be resolved. Certainly there were a few men called that were wealthy but that was the exception not the rule.
Same as to your comment on MPs. My wife and I served for 3 years. We are not wealthy and most of the MPs I have know are not either. I was specifically asked if I would have a job to come back to if called. My answer was I had no idea. Turns out I came back to a standing start and had to totally rebuild my practice and the firm I had been affiliated with dissolved. We’ve been blessed but it was a major economic hit for us to serve a mission.
To be frank you are promoting your own opinion, seemingly based on your own personal bias, as fact. And it total fiction! It does great disservice to those that are called and others to imply that it is nepotism and wealth that results in these callings. Nonetheless, I know they abound. But as one that was involved in the callings of dozens of SPs and recommending several MPs your characterizations are false.
Recently learned that Holland and RMN have vacation homes in Midway, Utah.
Tithing and callings – what does it mean that my wife makes 3X what I do?
Geoff-Aus: you REALLY don’t like The United States very much; do you?! But, I do have to give you credit for not using Trump’s name in this particular post.
Faith
I have great respect for both Arrington and Prince. My dad was a close friend of Arrington and I’ve met Greg Prince and read all his books and highly recommend every one of them. A comment by Arrington without context is suspect and frankly the facts of who stake presidents are do not comport with the claim. I could share dozens of examples. But let me share just one. A stake in the East was being organized. All of the interviews were concluded, which consist of the SP and counselors, including clerk and ES, the HC, and anyone else the SP would like to add to the list. The A70 and GA70 took a break and walked past a door to the gym were a group was playing basketball. The GA70 pointed to a man who was on the court and asked the SP who he was. The SP said he didn’t really know him because he was new to the area. The GA said please invite him in for an interview. He did so and the spirit confirmed he was to be the new SP. He was told to go home, take a shower and return with his wife. He called as the new SP. No looking at a tithing list, no nepotism, but certainly some inspiration. This does not mean that every SP is perfect and I’ve seen some terrific failures that required an early release for a variety of reasons.
While I love this forum and don’t typically comment, I feel the need to add some perspective about the calling of Bishops and Stake Presidents. As has been pointed out by Dave Cook, there are situations where nepotism or an affluent member may have been called it was probably to some degree coincidental.
I have been a Stake President in 4 different stakes due to boundary changes. As such, I was involved in choosing the successor each time I was “moved” to a different stake. So, that was 3 changes plus being consulted about my successor due to my release after my tenure was completed. In all 4 cases, 2 presided over by a member of the Twelve and 2 by a Seventy there was no tithing list nor was tithing amounts or salary ever asked about. The bishops and the High Council and the current Stake Presidency are interviewed and there is Mixture of folks there from affluent to not affluent.
I am certainly not wealthy and have never made more than $100k in my career. In my last stake, my First Counselor was a self employed handyman to and my Second Counselor worked for an automobile manufacturer. None of us were wealthy, but we weren’t poor either. Just pretty average folks in the eastern US.
Don’t get me wrong, I struggle with many things the Church does in its operations. Many of the things discussed frequently on this site I am in 100% agreement with from $100 billion accounts to the use of buildings and interactions with member and leaders to having the building professionally cleaned. (I think it should be)
So much of the concern with leaders (myself included) is we have day jobs and we are poorly trained. Therefore, it is a real crap shoot as to what any ward/branch or stake may look like or function like. I’d advocate for at least one paid person in each ward who could organize the efforts of the volunteers and keep consistency to things. I think that would help, but who knows. It seems like all faith groups have their struggles as the Southern Baptists have recently had controversy over their handling of abuse victims. (And the criticism was well deserved)
Just my thoughts and trying to add some insight into the comments.
I thank Mac for his comments. Very helpful. My best Stake President was a man with six children who made less than $100K per year, as a high school vice principal
Like Mac, I have issues about the Church’s approach to its wealth, and the prosperity gospel mindset of many members, as I have earlier noted in this very same comment thread. But I also feel that allegations of choosing stake presidencies and bishops from the highest tithe payers in a stake or ward are somewhat sweeping. I will concede that such a practice probably happens from time to time, but the sweeping allegations that this is the standard practice have not been accompanied by persuasive data.
Color me skeptic, both toward TBM and Progmo claims.
Thanks everybody for your comments, and thank you Dave and Mac your sharing your experiences selecting a new Stake Pres. Four years ago I did a post about selecting a new Stake Pres, and my personal experience going through the process. It seems to match both Dave’s and Mac’s.
And now to completely derail my own post. I know of one time when a list of “high tithe payers” was used by the church here in California. It was during Prop 8 (same sex marriage), and the Stake Pres was instructed to solicit contributions for the “No on 8” campaign, and to call in the high worth individuals using the tithing roles. Two extended family members fit that category and were called in and asked to make donations. I was never called in due to my measly salary!