Material Wealth

[Moksha]

Moksha, it is good to see you making use of the scriptures.

[MikeUpton]

Part of the reason I enjoy this topic is because to my mind it brings to light one of the central aspects of what the Gospel is about. Many people have adapted the belief in their life that the Gospel is teeth gritting, mind numbing, bone breaking perfectionism. Or that it is for purchasing the middle class non luxury car while thinking all who drive up in a car nicer than yours are going to hell. (People often are not aware they believe this, but it does show up in their attitudes.) Or perhaps some strive all their lives so you can be a good person and be considered wealthy by many, until the day when the new guy shows up in a car worth as much as your house. Then you curse him bitterly because he's winning the game of who the good guy is. Surely he can't be better than you! He must be worse! Or having the idea that their perception of what they might think of life in some way constitutes reality, and thus rely on their perception rather than seeking new information from the Lord, and then trying to live the Gospel without asking God for new light and understanding. It all begins to sound similar to certain groups we read about in the New Testament.

I believe the Gospel of Christ is about none of this. I believe it is centrally about Jesus Christ, and what God is asking us to do is to yield to him. This aspect that ought to constitute much of our focus in life: Yielding ourselves and our will to God. through the grace of Jesus Christ, and thus returning to live with God. All other aspects of the Gospel seem to fall in behind this neatly. We yield ourselves to believe and have faith. We yield ourselves to accept the atonement of Christ, and allow his teachings in our lives. We yield ourselves to follow the teachings of Christ. We yield ourselves to God by seeking inspiration and using our best judgment to think about about situations we might be in, then asking God if we are correct, and yielding to his counsel. We yield ourselves to God when we do our best at the workplace, because that is what the Lord would want us to do. Instead of fretting and worrying whether things are perfect, causing us to look beyond the mark and miss it, shouldn't we be instead focusing on yielding to God's will and finding peace that after we've done all we can to yield our will to God, things are going to work out and be okay?

In the end, we often cast judgment on others we know nothing of. Sometimes we think our perceptions constitute reality, rather than provide an imperfect representation. And we don't seeking out more light. Then we judge others with harshness who do not meet our expectations. This could be said to be the opposite of this yielding to God that we ought to seek after in our lives.

Consider this aspect of pride as spoken of by Ezra Taft Benson in his great article on the subject of pride:

Pride is a sin that can readily be seen in others but is rarely admitted in ourselves. Most of us consider pride to be a sin of those on the top, such as the rich and the learned, looking down at the rest of us. (See 2 Ne. 9:42.) There is, however, a far more common ailment among us—and that is pride from the bottom looking up. It is manifest in so many ways, such as faultfinding, gossiping, backbiting, murmuring, living beyond our means, envying, coveting, withholding gratitude and praise that might lift another, and being unforgiving and jealous.

LDS.org - Ensign Article - Beware of Pride

In the end, can a super-rich billionaire who loves God with all of his heart, and continually seeks to yield to him, keeps all of God's commandments to his best ability, has faith in Jesus Christ and utilizes the atonement, loves his fellow man, bought a one million dollar phantom because he liked it and felt he related in some way to the car, and had a 20 million dollar home, but gave the majority, say 20 billion dollars of his money to the purpose of serving the Lord, will he not get into the celestial kingdom of God and find that his Father in Heaven is pleased with him? I believe he will.

I believe he will be asked (perhaps you will be too) to give a stewardship and accounting of his wealth, and how he has used it for the betterment of others. But I don't think the main questions asked will be things like whether he purchased and enjoyed a very expensive (in relativity to American middle class) car that constituted .005 percent of his entire net worth. I believe it will be a lot closer to him being asked "Did you use the money the way I wanted you to?" And I do believe there will be some room for enjoyment that will have a whole lot less to do with the American middle class perception of what is a lot of money, and a whole lot more to do with what the Lord felt was okay.

But hey, if I am wrong in all of this, I do seek that the Lord might give me new light and understanding concerning this thing, and it would be in my best interest to throw out my old understanding in favor of the way the Lord would explain it.

In saying these things about pride, I am not making the claim that I am without pride, because I know good and well where my heart is, and I know that I lack humility. But I'm doing my best to yield, and that's all anybody can do.

Edited June 21, 2009 by MikeUpton

[MikeUpton]

Part of the reason I enjoy this topic is because to my mind it brings to light one of the central aspects of what the Gospel is about. Many people have adapted the belief in their life that the Gospel is teeth gritting, mind numbing, bone breaking perfectionism. Or that it is about purchasing the middle class non luxury car while thinking all who drive up in a car nicer than yours are going to hell. (People often are not aware they believe this, but it does show up in their attitudes.) Or perhaps some strive all their lives so they can feel they are a good person and be considered wealthy by many, until the day when the new guy shows up in a car worth as much as their house. Then they curse him bitterly because he's winning the game of who the good guy is. Surely he can't be better than you! He must be worse! Or having the idea that their perception of what they might think of life in some way constitutes reality, and thus rely on their perception rather than seeking new information from the Lord, and then trying to live the Gospel without asking God for new light and understanding. It all begins to sound similar to certain groups we read about in the New Testament.

I believe the Gospel of Christ is about none of this. I believe there is one very central feature of the Gospel of Jesus Christ: it is the sort of humility that causes you to yield yourself to God's will, putting his will in place of your own. This aspect ought to constitute much of our focus in life. All other aspects of the Gospel seem to fall in behind this neatly. We yield ourselves to believe and have faith. We yield ourselves to accept the atonement of Christ, and allow his teachings in our lives. We yield ourselves to follow the teachings of Christ. We yield our resources and talents so the Lord might be able to make use of them. We yield ourselves to God by seeking inspiration and using our best judgment to think about about situations we might be in, then asking God if we are correct, and yielding to his counsel. We yield to God by drinking in the principles of the gospel, growing in a spiritual understanding of what they mean, and then submitting our lives to live by these principles. We yield ourselves to God when we do our best at the workplace, because that is what the Lord would want us to do. Instead of fretting and worrying whether things are perfect, causing us to look beyond the mark and miss it, shouldn't we be instead focusing on submitting to God's will and finding peace that after we've done all we can to give our will to God, things are going to work out and be okay?

In the end, we often cast judgment on others we know nothing of. Sometimes we think our perceptions constitute reality, rather than provide an imperfect representation. And we don't seek out more light. Then we judge others with harshness who do not meet our expectations. This could be said to be the opposite of this yielding to God that we ought to seek after in our lives.

Consider this aspect of pride as spoken of by Ezra Taft Benson in his great article on the subject of pride:

Pride is a sin that can readily be seen in others but is rarely admitted in ourselves. Most of us consider pride to be a sin of those on the top, such as the rich and the learned, looking down at the rest of us. (See 2 Ne. 9:42.) There is, however, a far more common ailment among us—and that is pride from the bottom looking up. It is manifest in so many ways, such as faultfinding, gossiping, backbiting, murmuring, living beyond our means, envying, coveting, withholding gratitude and praise that might lift another, and being unforgiving and jealous.

LDS.org - Ensign Article - Beware of Pride

In the end, can a super-rich billionaire who loves God with all of his heart, and continually seeks to yield to him, keeps all of God's commandments to his best ability, has faith in Jesus Christ and utilizes the atonement, loves his fellow man, bought a one million dollar phantom because he liked it and felt he related in some way to the car, and had a 20 million dollar home, but gave the majority, say 20 billion dollars of his money to the purpose of serving the Lord, will he not get into the celestial kingdom of God and find that his Father in Heaven is pleased with him? I believe he will. (And I also believe i just made a run-on sentence.)

I believe he will be asked (perhaps you will be too) to give a stewardship and accounting of his wealth, and how he has used it for the betterment of others. But I don't think the main questions asked will be things like whether he purchased and enjoyed a very expensive (in relativity to American middle class) car that constituted .005 percent of his entire net worth. I believe it will be a lot closer to him being asked "Did you use the money the way I wanted you to?" And I do believe there will be some room for enjoyment that will have a whole lot less to do with the American middle class perception of what is a lot of money, and a whole lot more to do with what the Lord felt was okay.

But hey, if I am wrong in all of this, I do seek that the Lord might give me new light and understanding concerning this thing, and it would be in my best interest to throw out my old understanding in favor of the way the Lord would explain it. So far I think I'm on the mark.

In saying these things about pride, I am not making the claim that I am without pride, because I know good and well where my heart is, and I know that I lack humility. But I'm doing my best to yield, and that's all anybody can do.

Edited June 23, 2009 by MikeUpton

[a-train]

This was from the Parable of the Talents. The servant who returned the one talent was the the protagonist of the parable: The truly holy man. The merchant is a businessman, whose sole interest is maximizing his financial gain. Only the third servant refuses to participate in the game of increasing his lord's financial wealth at the costs of the poor, thus committing usury which was proscribed in Jewish law. The servant who was faithful to God, rather than serve the materialism of his master would no doubt be dealt with harshly - even to be thrown into outer darkness. He suffered for righteousness sake.

Of course Jesus wasn't talking about money. Money after all, as He had pointed out, was an impediment to entering the Kingdom of Heaven since the measures of gold along with the man would not fit through the narrow way of Jesus. The only passport that could fit though with man was love.

Sorry Rolls Royce Phantom, it will be weeping, wailing and gnashing to teeth time for you.

:)

That is the exact opposite of the parable. The one who burried the one talent was not the righteous, but wicked. He had not faith but fear. He selfishly sought his own personal materialism and laid aside the instructions of his lord. Because of this, he entered not into the joy of his lord.

Our LORD has given us the great talent of the Gospel and our instructions are to trade it with others and bring to God the increase. The message is missionary work. It is a slothful missionary that fails to spread the gospel but keeps it hidden in a napkin or in the earth. Further, the testimony which is not used is taken away. So if you want to lose your testimony of the gospel, simply stop doing your missionary work. Otherwise, we need to stay with it.

Getting back to materialism, we can take the example of the Apostles who upon being asked if they have any money simply reply: "We have sufficient for our needs." These men are massive fund managers. Imagine the asset management that our General Authorities are involved with today.

Can there be any doubt that God is rich? Is there any wealth on this earth that is not His? Satan, on the other hand, has not even a physical body much less any real estate. And somehow there are still those claiming the righteous have nothing and the rich are wicked.

Material wealth is not an automatic attribute issued to the temple worthy. In our probationary state, the rain falls on the head of the just and the unjust. Possessions give no indication of righteousness or the lack thereof.

Our endeavors are to build Zion. Can we do so with nothing? What example do we have from the General Authorities? The Church is run as efficiently as possible in its temporal affairs. Resources are allocated toward production and increased capacity. The Elders have counseled us to avoid debt and to save. We are counseled to put our savings to production. Brigham Young taught the saints not to keep talents in napkins. He would say that if one has a piece of land sitting idle, he should rent it out for farming or whatever can be done with it.

The American Dream has been redefined in recent decades. The new definition makes it synonymous with consumerism. Possessing lots of liabilities is the aim of the American Dream today.

The true measuring stick by which we can tell if a thing is vanity or purposeful is profit. If owning a house makes one a profit, then it is good and is an asset. If it costs one money, it is bad and is a liability. Certainly one must have liabilities to live, we must eat and drink and be clothed and so forth. However, the accumulation of liabilities is to be avoided as much as possible. That is, of course, if our goal is prosperity.

It was liabilities that kept the man in Matthew 19 from following our LORD. It is said he "had great possessions". The LORD wanted him to trade these in the marketplace for assets which would benefit the poor.

The Church welfare program does not simply give donated funds to the needy. The funds are invested and increased to magnify the benefits available. This sharply contrasts against the welfare endeavors of our government which must borrow money simply to keep up with promised benefits.

Many of us would do a lot better if we sold many of our possessions and used the funds to invest and to gain an increase. Our contributions to the poor could thereby be magnified. But we do not do this because we are in love with those objects. We love all that junk in the garage. We love that car. We love that house. We love all sorts of stuff. Many of us have such love for those things that we pay for them many times over in the form of debt and interest.

Interest was not proscribed by Jewish Law. On the contrary, it was condoned in Deut. 23:20. Because of this, with the Muslim and Christians often denouncing interest banking, many Jewish families became the elite bankers throughout the old world.

Nobody sees renting a car out as a sin. But many see renting money out as a sin. There is really no distinction. Loaning something out for a fee is a great way to allocate resources efficiently. By this, the various users of the resources split the overall costs of providing them. It doesn't matter what those resources are.

Material wealth often is a subject misunderstood. I think it is because we spend too little time on it. The worst ramification of this is that many who think their activities demonstrate their non-materialist ways are in bondage to mammon.

-a-train

[Elgama]

don't know why felt strongly prompted to post this

[MikeUpton]

Certainly one must have liabilities to live, we must eat and drink and be clothed and so forth.

I consider those investments that bring returns. But I'm just poking you in the rib, I see the point you are making. :)

[pam]

Can there be any doubt that God is rich? Is there any wealth on this earth that is not His? Satan, on the other hand, has not even a physical body much less any real estate. And somehow there are still those claiming the righteous have nothing and the rich are wicked.

This reminded me of a story. I was working one day and had a customer come in that was pretty whacked out. I ended up calling the police.

While the police were there the guy claimed he was Satan. He was going on and on about how God had everything and he was given nothing.

The reply from the officer: "Well He is God." I thought the response was awesome.

[Moksha]

That is the exact opposite of the parable. The one who buried the one talent was not the righteous, but wicked.

-a-train

I think I interpreted it right. You must remember two things:

1. Parables are written with a meaning that is not readily apparent.

2. Jesus was a Jew and was keyed into Jewish law.

Gaining interest on the talent was not something allowed by Jewish law. It was more of a money changer type of thing. The master being greedy wanted maximal returns on his investment via interest.

Sometimes we have perceived things and been taught with a superficial understanding. Seeing beneath the layers to seek for a different and truer meaning can be desirable.

The irony of the servant's chastisement was that he was fulfilling the law rather than breaking it for his master's enrichment. A corollary meaning from this parable would be the example of Jesus himself: He was not there to break the law, but to fulfill it with a new understanding - a new covenant if you will.

:)

[a-train]

I think I interpreted it right. You must remember two things:

1. Parables are written with a meaning that is not readily apparent.

2. Jesus was a Jew and was keyed into Jewish law.

Gaining interest on the talent was not something allowed by Jewish law.

Yes it was, I already pointed out the explicit approval in the Old Testament. (Deut. 23:20) It says: "Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury".

It was more of a money changer type of thing. The master being greedy wanted maximal returns on his investment via interest.

Was not the master in the parable the LORD? Is God's "greed" any sin?

Sometimes we have perceived things and been taught with a superficial understanding. Seeing beneath the layers to seek for a different and truer meaning can be desirable.

Not to sound condescending, but I invite you to do so.

The irony of the servant's chastisement was that he was fulfilling the law rather than breaking it for his master's enrichment. A corollary meaning from this parable would be the example of Jesus himself: He was not there to break the law, but to fulfill it with a new understanding - a new covenant if you will.

:)

So are you saying that we would serve God's will by burying the talents He has given us?

My interpretation of this parable is not only that which is coherent with the Saviour's explanation in Matthew 25, but it is also the same which our leaders are directed to teach in the Gospel Doctrine manual (Lesson 22 in the New Testament Gospel Doctrine Manual):

LDS.org - Sunday School Chapter Detail - “Inherit the Kingdom Prepared for Youâ€Â*

It is also the interpretation widely taught in General Conferences since the beginning of this Church. Joseph Smith even taught that interpretation (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith page 67) :

http://www.boap.org/LDS/Joseph-Smith/Teachings/T2.html

-a-train

Edited June 21, 2009 by a-train

[a-train]

Much of the Christian world has succumbed to the philosophy of altruism. The message of altruism is that the promotion of one's own personal interests is evil and the promotion of the interests of others is good. This shameful false doctrine has not only been widely perpetuated throughout Christianity, but even among Mormons. It is diametrically opposed to our Father in Heaven's Plan of Happiness.

Many take verses out of context to support the philosophy of altruism. King Benjamin's famous saying that service to our fellow beings is only service to our God is often held out to support altruism. This however, does not make the altruist ethic any better.

The Aaronic Priesthood in our ward stands at every Sunday priesthood meeting and quotes the Mission of the Aaronic Priesthood from the Aaronic Priesthood manual. The first line says: "The purposes of the Aaronic Priesthood include: Become converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ and live its teachings."

Read it in the manual on page 7.

Is not the first priority of every Aaronic Priest to seek his own best interests? Is not the duty of every father to put his family's interests above all others? What would we say about a husband who cared more for another woman than his wife?

I recall a woman who said "When I die, I want to take up the smallest particle of heaven so that God can have all the glory." If indeed taking the very smallest portion from heaven would glorify God the most, would we not do well to simply take no portion of heaven? Would we not glorify him best by simply going to hell?

God's work and glory is the immortality and eternal life of man (Moses 1:35). Do we not see that God spends all of His time seeking His own interests? Do we not see that the immortality and eternal life of man is what glorifies God? We should seek to take all we can from God. What is better, to receive or to refuse the gifts of God?

Evil and Good are not defined on the basis of "who". "Who" is the only determinant between good and evil within the philosophy of altruism. "Who" is politics. Satan turned the Plan of Our Father in Heaven from "what" to "who". That is where the trouble began.

Christian altruists even hold the Saviour up as the ultimate altruist. To them, he gave up all his own personal interests and put others first. It was this, in their eyes, that made Him great. Satan on the other hand, according to the altruists, sought only his own personal interests and this is why he is so evil. But I ask you: Who has served their own personal interests best, Jesus or Satan?

Indeed, Jesus served his own personal interests quite well, and Satan has damned himself for eternity. How could this be so? It was not the "who", but the "what". Satan sought his own interests, but focused only on "who". Jesus did so as well, but focused on the "what". Jesus focused on what should be done, not who it should be done to. Satan focused not on what should be done, but who it should be done to.

Our own personal interests are not only good if sought, but they are part of our responsibility to God. When we stand at the judgment bar, we will not be responsible for the agency of others. We will be responsible for how well we sought our own personal freedom from sin, our own personal worthiness.

Individuals must love themselves. We are commanded to do so. The great commandment which says: "Love thy neighbor as thyself" would be void if we hate ourself. Indeed, if our self love is low, then loving our neighbor as ourself would not mean much for our neighbor.

The rules that should direct our affairs in terms of material wealth are no different from those of the spiritual realm. Imagine one who says they are destroying their own personal chastity through one single sexual transgression because they love their lover. That "love" makes their actions no less sin. Just the same, to destroy ones own capacity to produce is not made good simply because it feeds a family for a day.

King Benjamin said it is not required that a man run faster than he has strength, that providing for the poor must be done in wisdom and in order (Mosiah 4). One cannot provide for the poor if he has ruined his own capacity to do so.

Should we really seek our own material welfare? Definitely. Is it a sin? No, it is a commandment.

-a-train

[Moksha]

Yes it was, I already pointed out the explicit approval in the Old Testament. (Deut. 23:20) It says: "Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury".

The strangers were the Gentiles. They were dealing with their fellow Jews and that constituted usury.

Was not the master in the parable the LORD? Is God's "greed" any sin?

The master was the world at large (and perhaps with some reference to the Pharisees and Sadducees thrown in). The third servant who did not serve the greedy needs of the world, but came to show us the way to our salvation, was the Savior

Not to sound condescending, but I invite you to do so.

Sorry A-train, I was on a roll and it was way to smug. Differences of opinion are always present and nobody's opinion should be overlooked.

So are you saying that we would serve God's will by burying the talents He has given us?

Not at all. It is always wise to keep your money in a FDIC bank. Of course, there are always hot investment opportunities that come out of Provo, in which you can quadruple your investment, if you get in on the ground floor and recruit your friends, neighbors and other people on your ward list.

Now ask yourself this question: Would Jesus truly be berating a man for not serving Mammon or did this represent a message with a more spiritual meaning and that is to serve God and not Mammon.

:)

[a-train]

The parable teaches that a man must serve the LORD, not mammon. The man who buried his talent served mammon, not the Master. He was greedy. He would not part with a simple talent for fear of losing it. The man with five talents on the other hand, invested them without a care and was rewarded well. Our efforts are to turn our talents to the money changers, to bring an increase to our LORD.

-a-train

Edited June 22, 2009 by a-train

[fish4kitty]

I guess that if it fits the bill of getting you from point A to point B and you can afford such a nice vehicle why wouldn't you get it? My question is this...Can it go four wheelin' and pull the boat to go fishing? At a million bones it better.....

[Just_A_Guy]

The strangers were the Gentiles. They were dealing with their fellow Jews and that constituted usury.

The parable doesn't say that at all.

The master was the world at large (and perhaps with some reference to the Pharisees and Sadducees thrown in). The third servant who did not serve the greedy needs of the world, but came to show us the way to our salvation, was the Savior

Matthew 25:14 says the Kingdom of Heaven is as the man who traveled into the far country--the master. Not the servant. In addition, the third servant is rewarded with weeping and gnashing of teeth (v. 30). Scripture does not usually attribute that kind of fate to the righteous.

Moreover, the servant knew clearly what was expected of him and nevertheless took the money under false pretenses, converted it to a use contrary to the instructions given by the master, did so for the express purpose of inflicting fiscal harm on his master, and justified himself with a scripturally-unsubstantiated form of pseudo-Marxism.

When I worked at the AG's offfice, we used to call that embezzlement. And we put people in jail for it.

Edited June 22, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Moksha]

.

When I worked at the AG's office, we used to call that embezzlement. And we put people in jail for it.

Embezzlement!!! On Wall Street they would call it playing the market. At AIG they would say it is time to ask for more bailout money.

Seriously, this need to get maximal return for your capital investment really feels like a misinterpretation of something Jesus would say. Maybe a Ferengi Jesus would, but that is a whole other set of speculations.

[MikeUpton]

I guess that if it fits the bill of getting you from point A to point B and you can afford such a nice vehicle why wouldn't you get it? My question is this...Can it go four wheelin' and pull the boat to go fishing? At a million bones it better.....

Haha, no you just buy a seperate vehicle at 1/30th of the cost to do that. You could however get a million dollar laugh with it :). Simply attach a bumper sticker to the back that said "My Other Car Is A Ford Pinto." I gotta admit that would be very tempting. But, no, not at a million dollars. Maybe if there was a way to attach the sticker without the sticky part of the sticker.

Edited August 16, 2009 by MikeUpton

[talisyn]

Embezzlement!!! On Wall Street they would call it playing the market. At AIG they would say it is time to ask for more bailout money.

Seriously, this need to get maximal return for your capital investment really feels like a misinterpretation of something Jesus would say. Maybe a Ferengi Jesus would, but that is a whole other set of speculations.

I think my brain just exploded

[Seanette]

Haha, no you just buy a seperate vehicle at 1/30th of the cost to do that. You could however get a million dollar laugh with it :). Simply attach a bumper sticker to the back that said "My Other Car Is A Ford Pinto." I gotta admit that would be very tempting. But, no, not at a million dollars. Maybe if there was a way to attach the sticker without the sticky part of the sticker.

Put the sticker on sheet magnet material? (which can be obtained at craft stores)

[john doe]

Seriously, this need to get maximal return for your capital investment really feels like a misinterpretation of something Jesus would say. Maybe a Ferengi Jesus would, but that is a whole other set of speculations.

No, Jesus has always told us to do and make the best with what we are given. He does not give extra blessings to those who are given special talents and do nothing with them. He gives extra blessings to those who extend themselves outside their comfort zone and trust in Him to help them accomplish His ends.

[MikeUpton]

Put the sticker on sheet magnet material? (which can be obtained at craft stores)

That sounds like a winner.

[Just_A_Guy]

Embezzlement!!! On Wall Street they would call it playing the market. At AIG they would say it is time to ask for more bailout money.

Seriously, this need to get maximal return for your capital investment really feels like a misinterpretation of something Jesus would say. Maybe a Ferengi Jesus would, but that is a whole other set of speculations.

Your interpretation of Wall Street, like your interpretation of this parable, is flawed due to your insistence on interpreting it through the lens of class envy.

The parable is not about maximum return on a capital investment. It's about fiduciary duty, and serving one's master with honesty and integrity.

Edited June 22, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Moksha]

Your interpretation of Wall Street, like your interpretation of this parable, is flawed due to your insistence on interpreting it through the lens of class envy..

You are right, I do not cast my lot with those loaded down with money, since they will face their own needle's eye and I my own obstacles. However, I would have been among the cheering squad when Jesus cast the financial community from the Temple.

The parable is not about maximum return on a capital investment. It's about fiduciary duty, and serving one's master with honesty and integrity

We can agree to disagree. I think the parable is about staying true to the ideals of Jesus rather than servitude to Mammon.

:)

[MikeUpton]

maybe I have been wrong.

"It is not the amount of money that we donate to the Church or others that matters to the Lord. Rather it is whether we give of our abundance or of our living. We should give until it is a sacrifice to give."

LDS.org - Ensign Article - Words of Jesus: Riches

"...To those who have in abundance, even more than you need, I say: Find happiness in the relationships and service you share with God, family, and others. Resist the feeling of constantly needing things just to entertain yourself and occupy your time. We have the scriptures and books of all kinds available. Conversation and service are a better use of time than watching television. Casting in all that you have will be so much more rewarding than the alternative of personal gratification."

Elder William R. Bradford, Quorom of the Seventy

I don't know yet. But even that statement is meant to be taken within reason, and my difficulty has been finding where that reason is. I'll keep looking for it. I never intended to say that one ought to go to the extreme of constantly looking and needing the material things, purchasing and buying. My attitude was more to the idea that a few nice things would be okay, not to be worshipped, but because you like those things. We have all factored in how much we like something to some extent (notice i say like and not love and worship) when we make a purchase.

Actually I'm still not convinced I'm wrong, to be perfectly honest. I already do seek personal improvement through reading the scriptures and other books on the Gospel. I wouldn't quit doing this if I were to be rich. Self improvement defines me as a person. I love it, and I am so passionate about it, and I love people, and I know they're better than any material thing. I'm not the kind of person who would buy something with such a price tag ever mistaking that it was in any way better than a person. Or use a million dollar car to say I to others I was better than them.

All things that I've even posted above are even speaking about one's heart, and whether they are pursuing the Gospel, or the things of the world. Purchasing a car that is commonly considered "flashy" by many doesn't necessarily automatically mean your heart is in the wrong place, or that you are pursuing incorrect things. I still don't subscribe to the idea that it is asset or liability that causes something to be wrong or vanity without regard to price, because every time you bought a candy bar, you'd be committing sin! That is, if you(atrain) were implying that purchasing the car would somehow be sin in that frame. And for the super rich who can make a million quickly (with no loss to principle), a Phantom would be a relative to them, what a candy bar is for most. This asset/liability thing is something I have never heard a general authority say. They only speak of denying yourself the nicer stuff when it hurts your ability to help.

And I don't think giving up 1,000,000 would be much of a sacrifice for a man who had quickly got his million in the manner I described. However, giving up 19,950,000,000 out of 20,000,000,000 could be well said to be a sacrifice that hurt. (yes, I did put in the zeroes for effect, sue me):)

So okay, I guess I have to admit I'm really not making much progress towards thinking the car(as an extra) would somehow be bad in and of itself. It just doesn't make sense. It doesn't sound right. It seems a lot more like something to do with assumptions when it comes to others having the car, and self image, in the case of one's self. If God wanted it all(and I mean all) from me, it would be in my best interest to give it to him. And I know he does. But he generally seems to allow us to have nice things within reason. If he wanted those too, I know that i ought to give them to him. If he wanted to take the very food I eat and the water I drink and the clothes I wear, it would be my duty to give them to him with a willing heart. I just don't know if that is what he is asking. I think he is asking us to be willing to do that if needed. BTW, some of the most humble, spiritual, most Christlike people I have ever met live in mansions and drive sweet cars:). They can also be among the best of friends too.

However, I'm enjoying this debate. Thanks for your thoughts and opinions atrain.

Edited June 23, 2009 by MikeUpton

[Hemidakota]

This is something I've been thinking over, questions concerning material wealth and luxury. Take a hypothetical example. Here's a car, the Rolls Royce Phantom. The cost of the car is one million dollars.

I chose a picture of this car because I like this car. I liked everything about this car before I knew anything about the price tag. Well, I guess I don't like the price tag :).(don't look at me, I'm a poor man these days, so this is not an option for me. but just think.)

I've been reading ensign articles about how the church feels about material wealth, and materialism. I've read the scriptures about it. I have an opinion, but I want to hear yours.

Can a one million dollar Rolls Royce Phantom and a strong testimony of the church, humility, and obedience and worshipfulness to God coexist? Can your eye be single to the glory of god? Or if you're super wealthy, do you really need to stick with a middle class car? Your thoughts? If you know of any good articles, post them here.

First the car cost only a meager $400K and not 1-million dollars. Now if you decide to purchase a Bugatti Veyron sports car, you will need at least 1.4 million dollars and some hope there is a person who is willing to sell you one. Having wealth and showing your taste with expensive toys is not an issue if you are sincere in serving GOD. Second, I had spoken my daughter a couple of years back on purchasing a house that was 14K square feet in modest upper class neighborhood. What was a learning moment by her wisdom, is what will other think of you if you did purchase the home? Looking back with great men of the past, there were not many who spend their time toiling for global wealth but dedicated their lives to the Lord and serving His will.

[MikeUpton]

First the car cost only a meager $400K and not 1-million dollars. Now if you decide to purchase a Bugatti Veyron sports car, you will need at least 1.4 million dollars and some hope there is a person who is willing to sell you one. Having wealth and showing your taste with expensive toys is not an issue if you are sincere in serving GOD. Second, I had spoken my daughter a couple of years back on purchasing a house that was 14K square feet in modest upper class neighborhood. What was a learning moment by her wisdom, is what will other think of you if you did purchase the home? Looking back with great men of the past, there were not many who spend their time toiling for global wealth but dedicated their lives to the Lord and serving His will.

i was going by youtube vids on it,

. Where do you get one for 400k? I really like the rolls-royce but i used it as an example here also partly because the price tag seemed ludicrous. There are other cars out there :).

Thanks for the answer Hemi, I'd been curious to know what you thought.

Edited August 17, 2010 by MikeUpton