The Chosen - A Review

[JohnsonJones]

13 hours ago, Vort said:

There is a common idea, both inside and outside of Christianity, that Jesus was born in poverty to a single mother, reared in utter obscurity, and spent his ministry consorting with prostitutes and generally the dregs of society. He supposedly called his closest disciples from the ignorant and unlearned, and generally turned up his nose toward those with money and societal position. All of these things are false, rank lies, and all of them can be disproven by nothing more than reading the New Testament. The problem is that a great many people, like Satan himself when talking to the mortal Jesus, will bend and distort the plain meaning of scripture to further their personal ambitions and sociopolitical ends. And sadly, the masses who truly are ignorant of scripture, having never invested any significant time into reading or understanding the words of scripture, are deceived by such lies.

I find it interesting that those who have money tend to try to paint the Lord as having come from Money and his followers from the wealthy.

Fishermen were not necessarily the wealthy, and having a boat or boats was no more a signifier of wealth than having a rowboat is today (in fact, it would depend on the size of the boat, but if we utilize the story where they were afraid of the storm overwhelming them, it probably was NOT one of the bigger boats or those used by the wealthy as the storms in that sea were not strong enough to really pose any sort of threat to that type of boat). 

(PS: Edit - Another topic for another time, but the entire stormy sea episode has brought on a lot of interesting theories because those storms on the inner seas were not really that much of a threat unless in a very weak or small boat.  Even then they normally are not that big of a deal.  This has led to some thinking the lord traveled all over Europe because the type of storm that would really threaten to capsize a boat would be more likely found in the Mediterranean rather than the seas generally thought to be where the Lord traveled.  It is an interesting topic, but enough of that, it's an entirely different topic for a different thread).

It is true the Lord took followers from all walks of life, including those who had more money, but one would have to be blind to the writings of the New Testament to think that the Lord was a supporter of those with wealth and power.

It is a popular thing amongst the prosperity gospel today to try to say it was, but I would say that those who truly read the words of the Lord will see such teachings are an anathema to the actual gospel as the Lord taught.   

Depending on the writer, some even hypothesize one of the REAL reasons he was crucified was that he was a threat to the social order at the time within the Jewish community.  He was a very real threat in his criticism of those in power and those with riches that they wanted him dealt with. 

The thing was that he was sent for ALL people, which also included the wealthy and powerful.  The wealthy and powerful were unlikely to listen to him or heed what he said.  Even those that were righteous did not have the desire to give up that power or wealth.  As we see from the rich man, he did NOT want to give up his wealth.

This was NOT as some imagine it here, if it were, the rich man probably would have had no problem doing what the Lord asked.  It was not that he give his wealth and then he gets it back rubber stamped by the Lord as his to be presiding over.  It was he was to give it all away and then come follow the Lord without ANY of it.  As the Apostles, he was to go without food or shelter of his own, relying on the goodness of Heaven to provide for whatever it was he needed. 

This is NOT the teaching of one who is telling people to be wealthy and keep their wealth. 

It is not stated, but some could assume, that those who were from the upper class did not retain their wealth either, but donated it away and followed the Lord anew in poverty as humble followers depending on the grace of Heaven to provide for their needs.  It was not Peter who funded all their expeditions, but the money that they had somehow received and was kept (some say Judas was the one who was the keeper of funds amongst the twelve until the betrayal). 

We do not know the education of his apostles or his disciples.  Once again, we can ASSUME that they had been taught in the way of Jewish tradition (in which case, they would have been educated to a degree, as all faithful Jewish people were), but that does not necessarily put them as upper class or wealthy or powerful. 

I find one of the most pernicious lies amongst Christians today is the prosperity gospel and it's attempt to teach that wealth is a reflection of righteousness and righteousness is rewarded by money. 

Yes, the Lord was sent for all men, even the 1%,  or even the top .1% of people.  If we read the New Testament however, we find it full of examples of WHY those who were in power and those with riches were unlikely to follow the Lord while a majority of those who followed him were those who were of the 99% (probably because 99% is a FAR GREATER percentage of the population just to begin with). 

There are multiples stories regarding this.  There are multiple examples in the New Testament for this. 

Those who were more likely to listen to him were those who were humble.  It is better to be humble from the start, but more often then not (as we see from Alma) many of those who are humble are humble because they are forced to be due to poverty, illness, or other items which physically humble us.  In essence, he was sent to teach to those who would listen and those tended to be the humble rather than those who were less inclined to be of that attitude. 

Those who are humble on this earth are many times seen to be cursed due to the afflictions that they deal with.  They are despised while the prideful who have power and wealth are held up as the heroes.  It is the dynamic of the natural man. 

Of interest, there are two stories about a man named Lazarus.  Are they the same man?  Perhaps, perhaps not.  If they are, we can tell a LOT about the Lord's mortal status in regards to wealth and power, as well as how the Lord felt about Lazarus compared to the man with riches. 

I don't know of my self who will be in heaven or not.  I can figure general ideas from what the scriptures tell us, but in the end only the Lord knows and only he is the judge.  I can only hope that I am not among the hypocrites, the sinners, and all others who will not make it.  We can only hope our own souls will be worthy at the judgement seat.  I know I have problems even with the little wealth I have, I can only pray that I would be strong enough to forsake it all and follow the Lord if given the opportunity.  In some ways, the above can be seen as retrospective into my own fears.  Am I willing to give all I have to follow the Lord?  Do I treasure worldly goods and wealth far too highly, or do I recognize what is really of worth in this life and what will be of worth in the life to come?

Edited February 5, 2023 by JohnsonJones

[Vort]

8 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I find it interesting that those who have money tend to try to paint the Lord as having come from Money and his followers from the wealthy.

I find it interesting that you claim to know anyone who has done this. I can't think of any examples. Perhaps you could provide two or three. Or just one.

8 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

It is true the Lord took followers from all walks of life, including those who had more money, but one would have to be blind to the writings of the New Testament to think that the Lord was a supporter of those with wealth and power.

Matthew 23:1-3 

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

8 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

This was NOT as some imagine it here, if it were, the rich man probably would have had no problem doing what the Lord asked.

How do you think that some here imagine it? I don't understand what you're saying. Please clarify.

8 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

This is NOT the teaching of one who is telling people to be wealthy and keep their wealth.

Who in the forum has written any such thing?

8 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

We do not know the education of his apostles or his disciples.  Once again, we can ASSUME that they had been taught in the way of Jewish tradition (in which case, they would have been educated to a degree, as all faithful Jewish people were), but that does not necessarily put them as upper class or wealthy or powerful.

Who claimed that Jesus' apostles or disciples were taken from among the upper class or wealthy or powerful?

It appears you may have misread what I wrote, in which case you might consider rereading what I wrote without preconceptions to understand my meaning.

Edited February 5, 2023 by Vort
It's Sunday. Chill the heck out, Vort.

[CrimsonKairos]

I have no sense there was a gospel of prosperity being preached in this thread: in the world though? 24/7. In other news…

Judas Iscariot was the only apostle from an urban setting. His “last name” derives from Hebrew “eesh” meaning “man” and Kerioth was a city, so he was “Judas the man from Kerioth.”

The other apostles seem to have been rural folk, regardless of their financial status.

Is there a lesson there about the corrupting power of cities and their attendant financial systems and values? Twenty pieces of silver seems to say “yes.”

Edited February 5, 2023 by CrimsonKairos

[Vort]

Just now, CrimsonKairos said:

I have no sense there was a gospel of prosperity being preached in this thread: in the world though? 24/7.

Can't disagree with you there.

Just now, CrimsonKairos said:

Is there a lesson there about the corrupting power of cities and their attendant financial systems? Twenty pieces of silver seems to say “yes.”

Years ago, I read an essay on why cities even exist when the outcome of those who live in them seems often to be so poor. Maybe it was a Malcolm Gladwell book; I don't remember. But it changed my thinking on the utility of cities. I have some idea in my head why cities might be a useful and perhaps even a good thing. But I don't see large cities ever serving as a beacon of hope and goodwill to the world. Not New York, not Seattle, not even Salt Lake City. (And whatever quibbles anyone may have about the definition of "large", SLC is in historical comparison most definitely a large city. It was founded less than 180 years ago as a refuge for the Saints of God. If any modern large city on the face of the earth should be an earthly paradise, that would be Salt Lake City. But it's not, which is the point.)

Cities do corrupt. I don't understand the dynamics that lead to this, but it looks almost inevitable. I fully agree with your statement above. But I also recognize that Zion is, among other things, a city. The intimate human associations and interplay that seem to define a city appear to be an integral part of perfect, celestial living. So I'm not quite sure what to make of it all. Obviously a city filled only with the righteous, generous, and Godly would be a heavenly place. Why, then, do cities seem to actively breed corruption? Why are there no self-selecting righteous big cities? The dynamics involved are way over my head.

[JohnsonJones]

18 hours ago, Vort said:

I find it interesting that you claim to know anyone who has done this. I can't think of any examples. Perhaps you could provide two or three. Or just one.

The prosperity Gospel is a popular teaching among Christians today.  Simply look it up to see what it teaches.  This is not something necessarily within the Church, but among Christiandom in general these days. 

As far as for here, I've heard MANY times from multiple individuals about how they think (against all evidence from Church historical records on how it worked) that the law of consecration allows them to keep their material possessions.  That they will simply be given an item which gives them "stewardship" rather than the Church doing what it traditionally did when the Law of Consecration was active, what it does now in regards to those who practice a more limited version of it, and what the New Testament writes about it.  They think that the inequality found among Church members today with the rich and poor will continue if we are ever called to start the Law of Consecration again. 

They forget that there are many members in other nations which are far less economically set than in the US.  Even today, the US (and a lesser degree the European) economies support the rest of the Church in poorer nations.  If we were to all be equal under one vast law, the money being transferred from US members to poorer members would be far more than many probably imagine, and what we would be left with would probably be more in what we actually NEED rather than what we currently have.  What we need is probably FAR less than what many here have indicated they will be allowed to keep should the Law of Consecration and the United Order ever become enforced in full on the Church again.

18 hours ago, Vort said:

Matthew 23:1-3 

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

I've long held this as well.  When people have trouble with Church leaders today I point out that even the Lord in his time recognized who the leaders of the Jewish religion were at the time.  He followed them as well as got ordinances under the proper authority (such as baptism).  In that same light, even if one has problems with how the Church is being led or policies or whatever complaints someone has, they should follow the Lord's example during his mortal ministry.  He recognized the Church and the leaders thereof, so should we no matter what our personal feelings are.

It is something I think many who fall away from the Church do not notice or realize at times, especially when I see them complaining (this is not applicable to those here, I am talking about elsewhere when I talk about those who are complaining in such a manner).

18 hours ago, Vort said:

How do you think that some here imagine it? I don't understand what you're saying. Please clarify.

See the top of this post.

18 hours ago, Vort said:

Who in the forum has written any such thing?

Again, see above.

18 hours ago, Vort said:

Who claimed that Jesus' apostles or disciples were taken from among the upper class or wealthy or powerful?

It appears you may have misread what I wrote, in which case you might consider rereading what I wrote without preconceptions to understand my meaning.

I read this...and it sounded like you were writing in support of the Rich and powerful being those favored by the Lord.

Quote

He supposedly called his closest disciples from the ignorant and unlearned, and generally turned up his nose toward those with money and societal position. All of these things are false, rank lies, and all of them can be disproven by nothing more than reading the New Testament.

From your response I must have misunderstood what you were referring to here and I apologize if any offense was taken. 

However, the commentary on my own weaknesses (which I admit are abundant) which I made in reference to my own personal obstacles in regards to what I SHOULD feel and do still stand.

 

[The Folk Prophet]

42 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I read this...and it sounded like you were writing in support of the Rich and powerful being those favored by the Lord.

Quote

He supposedly called his closest disciples from the ignorant and unlearned, and generally turned up his nose toward those with money and societal position. All of these things are false, rank lies, and all of them can be disproven by nothing more than reading the New Testament.

It strikes me that the comment @Vort made and the idea of "in support of" are clearly not the same things. Methinks some bias was interjected on your part.

[Carborendum]

39 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It strikes me that the comment @Vort made and the idea of "in support of" are clearly not the same things. Methinks some bias was interjected on your part.

Some people believe that unless you completely condemn something, simply describing or defining something is "supporting" it.

It's a common rhetorical device, not concerned with discovering truth, but at winning an argument.  It is essentially using pathos, feigning ethos, and ignoring logos.  IOW -- virtue signalling.

Edited February 6, 2023 by Carborendum

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

It is essentially using pathos, feigning ethos, and ignoring logos. 

I ignore the definitions of all these words and consider them philosophical voodoo.

[Vort]

5 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I read this...and it sounded like you were writing in support of the Rich and powerful being those favored by the Lord.

Quote

He supposedly called his closest disciples from the ignorant and unlearned, and generally turned up his nose toward those with money and societal position. All of these things are false, rank lies, and all of them can be disproven by nothing more than reading the New Testament.

From your response I must have misunderstood what you were referring to here and I apologize if any offense was taken.

How could you misinterpret what I wrote to mean what you say?

Does anyone else on the list interpret what I wrote as claiming that the rich and powerful are favored by the Lord for their riches and power? Anyone? Please speak right up. If anyone is as baffled by this misinterpretation as I am, feel free to voice that, as well.

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

How could you misinterpret what I wrote to mean what you say?

Does anyone else on the list interpret what I wrote as claiming that the rich and powerful are favored by the Lord for their riches and power? Anyone? Please speak right up. If anyone is as baffled by this misinterpretation as I am, feel free to voice that, as well.

I don't think it is baffling.  It is very human to seek confirmation of their own positions.  And anyone who says anything but complete agreement MUST be in COMPLETE OPPOSITION to the same.

Is this a fault?  Maybe. 

However, I detect that there may actually be a survival mechanism behind this type of behavior.  I've certainly been guilty of it at times.  But I try to be more careful with written words.

[mikbone]

 

I’m up to date with the show.  We will be watching Season 3 episode 8 tonight!

I love it.  It’s by far the best artistic representation of the life of Christ and his disciples that I have ever seen.

So many moments have been heartbreaking.  

 

I wish Mary’s character was a bit softer.

Quintus drives me crazy.  Not sure why they just didn’t cast William Shatner.

Gaius, Matthew, little John, Peter and Nicodemus. Are my favorites.  

The Jesus character isn’t half bad either.  But no one could play him…

 

Im sure there was some discussion about the scene wherein the apostles were ‘ordained’

I agree it was best to not offend our other Christian brethren.  I just assume that the real ordination was too sacred to film on set. 😀

Edited February 8, 2023 by mikbone

[mikbone]

Peter and Eden in Season 3 episode 6 reminded me of this talk.

[JohnsonJones]

On 2/6/2023 at 6:18 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

It strikes me that the comment @Vort made and the idea of "in support of" are clearly not the same things. Methinks some bias was interjected on your part.

 

I believe I said I may have misunderstood and apologized.

This is the statement

Quote

and generally turned up his nose toward those with money and societal position. All of these things are false, rank lies, and all of them can be disproven by nothing more than reading the New Testament.

What exactly is that statement meant to mean?

I stated I must have misunderstood, but no one has actually CLARIFIED it.

There are those that can laugh and pat themselves on the back for their ingenuity which they feel is blatantly obvious to them while mocking those who are not part of their group understanding, but there is a REASON I misunderstood it.

After I have admitted that I must have misunderstood what was said (and I think I expressed what I understood from it explicitly well) why did no one come around and explain it then?

In general, the Lord DID condemn those with money and societal position (though seen in context due to how those in such positions and with such wealth generally act and in accordance of condemning those types of actions). 

I mentioned the prosperity gospel (though clarified this  later as it became obvious there was at least one person who did not understand how the prosperity gospel is related to what I posted).  This type of teaching is something taught by a few other Christians, popular among some mega churches including those on TV these days.  This statement is similar to something right out of one of their sermons.  Obviously, someone not familiar with their teachings would not be quoting them.

However, it's similarity is why there would be some out there that would confuse the above statement with saying what I thought it did, because it mirrors what some prosperity gospel preachers would say in justifying why wealth is righteousness. 

So, as I said, I must have misunderstood and I apologized.  It would SEEM though, that the Christian thing to do in that instance would be to explain what was actually meant instead of simply laughing that someone didn't understand the intent of what was written. 

Edited February 8, 2023 by JohnsonJones

[mikbone]

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

In general, the Lord DID condemn those with money and societal position (though seen in context due to how those in such positions and with such wealth generally act and in accordance of condemning those types of actions). 

The Lord condemned those who had a love of money and position.  You can be poor and a nobody and still have a love of money and position.

The Lord has the most wealth and authority possible. His desire is obviously not money though.

Matthew 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Edited February 8, 2023 by mikbone

[The Folk Prophet]

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

There are those that can laugh and pat themselves on the back for their ingenuity which they feel is blatantly obvious to them while mocking those who are not part of their group understanding, but there is a REASON I misunderstood it.

Is there a reason you're misunderstanding my post to be laughing, patting myself on the back, and mocking?

Seriously....how on earth you could take it that way? I said I believe what you heard wasn't what was said and that implied some sort of bias. What about that is laughing or mocking? And as for patting myself on the back...I said "it strikes me". As in "I believe". As in "in my opinion". Of course I could be mistaken. I was just sharing my take.

Every time I interact with you you treat me this way. You have some serious chips on your shoulder apparently. That's your problem, not mine. I said nothing that was mocking, condescending, laughing, or smug at all.

And as to why I didn't explain what @Vort meant.... I didn't because I'd be guessing and applying my biases if I did. I could take a shot at what I thought he meant, but would you take it any differently than you take anything else I write? You'd just accuse me of a bunch of terrible things either way.

Honestly the only reason I posted at all is because Vort asked if anyone else took it the way you did. I only meant to say, "I didn't take it that way". Beyond that....leave me out of it. I'm sorry I injected my thoughts.

(On a side note: I wrote "interjected" before, but I mean "injected".)

Edited February 8, 2023 by The Folk Prophet

[Just_A_Guy]

Back to the topic, I thought night’s episode really put an interesting (possible) perspective on Peter’s walking on water to Christ.

[mikbone]

24 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Back to the topic, I thought night’s episode really put an interesting (possible) perspective on Peter’s walking on water to Christ.

“I found myself questioning why God would let this tragedy happen to me when I was doing all I could to magnify my calling. I had just come home from fulfilling one of my duties in ministering to the Saints. Why couldn’t God look upon my service and save our son and our family from this tragedy? The more I thought about it, the more bitter I became.”   We can do hard things through Him.  Isaac K Morrison - Oct 2022

Its a common theme.  And resonates strongly with most saints.  

[Still_Small_Voice]

On 2/8/2023 at 7:01 AM, mikbone said:

The Lord condemned those who had a love of money and position.  You can be poor and a nobody and still have a love of money and position.  The Lord has the most wealth and authority possible. His desire is obviously not money though.

Matthew 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Some people fear positions of power and wealth because of the temptations they may bring.  I am reminded of this scripture in Proverbs chapter 30:

8 Remove far from me vanity and lies; give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me only food sufficient for me,

9 lest I be full, and deny Thee, and say, “Who is the Lord?”— or lest I be poor and steal, and take the name of my God in vain.

Most of us cannot handle power righteously.  (See Doc. and Cov. 121: 39-44.)  To truly test someone give them a position of authority and true integrity of character will be tested.

Maybe it is just a fear of mine, but I work for and wish for only so much wealth.  Maybe my mind will change if I ever get to around one fifth of what Abraham and Sarah had.  Abraham and Isaac had great wealth and it did not corrupt their souls.

Edited February 13, 2023 by Still_Small_Voice

[Vort]

On 2/8/2023 at 2:40 AM, JohnsonJones said:

This is the statement

and generally turned up his nose toward those with money and societal position. All of these things are false, rank lies, and all of them can be disproven by nothing more than reading the New Testament.

What exactly is that statement meant to mean?

I stated I must have misunderstood, but no one has actually CLARIFIED it.

The statement means that all of the claims listed are false—not merely false, but rank lies, easily disproven by simply reading the Bible. Those false, rank lies include (but are not limited to) the following:

• Jesus was born in poverty
• Jesus was born to a single mother
• Jesus was reared in utter obscurity
• Jesus spent his ministry consorting with prostitutes and generally the dregs of society
• Jesus called his closest disciples from the ignorant and unlearned
• Jesus turned up his nose toward those with money and societal position

On 2/8/2023 at 2:40 AM, JohnsonJones said:

There are those that can laugh and pat themselves on the back for their ingenuity which they feel is blatantly obvious to them while mocking those who are not part of their group understanding, but there is a REASON I misunderstood it.

After I have admitted that I must have misunderstood what was said (and I think I expressed what I understood from it explicitly well) why did no one come around and explain it then?

I remember no explanation from you about what your REASON was. Rereading your response above, I still can find no REASON that you expressed to explain why you misunderstood.

On 2/8/2023 at 2:40 AM, JohnsonJones said:

In general, the Lord DID condemn those with money and societal position (though seen in context due to how those in such positions and with such wealth generally act and in accordance of condemning those types of actions).

This is simply false. The Lord did no such thing. The Lord condemned the hypocrites and the oppressors. He did not single out those with money or position as the special recipients of his displeasure. If the rich and powerful are more likely to be exposed as hypocrites and oppressors, then they would likely have been overrepresented in his condemnation. But that is a vastly different thing from your claim above, that the Lord focused his condemnation on them.

On 2/8/2023 at 2:40 AM, JohnsonJones said:

I mentioned the prosperity gospel (though clarified this  later as it became obvious there was at least one person who did not understand how the prosperity gospel is related to what I posted).  This type of teaching is something taught by a few other Christians, popular among some mega churches including those on TV these days.  This statement is similar to something right out of one of their sermons.  Obviously, someone not familiar with their teachings would not be quoting them.

However, it's similarity is why there would be some out there that would confuse the above statement with saying what I thought it did, because it mirrors what some prosperity gospel preachers would say in justifying why wealth is righteousness.

So let's see if I understand your logic correctly:

• 1. I wrote, "These things are false, rank lies, and all of them can be disproven by nothing more than reading the New Testament." (See the early part of this post for a listing of "these things".)
• 2. You think my statement in #1 "is similar to something right out of one of their sermons", where "their" refers specifically to those who believe in and preach the so-called prosperity gospel (the perverse belief that money, position, and power are rewards for righteousness and an evidence of divine favor).
• 3. You believe it obvious that "someone not familiar with [the] teachings [of the prosperity gospel believers] would not be quoting them."

Taking #2 and #3 together, you implicitly believe that my statement in #1 is an intentional quotation of the words, or at least the ideas, of proponents of the prosperity gospel. Therefore, you conclude that I myself am both a believer in and an outspoken proponent of the prosperity gospel.

If I have made any logical mistakes in the above list, please carefully explain exactly what I got wrong. Because as it stands, the above line of reasoning is not merely illogical and careless, it is an open twisting of what I wrote and constitutes a false allegation.

On 2/8/2023 at 2:40 AM, JohnsonJones said:

So, as I said, I must have misunderstood and I apologized.  It would SEEM though, that the Christian thing to do in that instance would be to explain what was actually meant instead of simply laughing that someone didn't understand the intent of what was written. 

Don't you suppose that, perhaps, "the Christian thing to do" would have been for you not to have jumped to such a hasty, illogical, and dishonest conclusion and then call names and make false allegations? If you couldn't figure out the meaning based on a careful and thoughtful reading of the words, don't you think that maybe "the Christian thing to do" would have been to simply ask what was meant?

Edited February 13, 2023 by Vort
Made edit, then changed my mind and realized I had it right to begin with.

[scottyg]

2 hours ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

Some people fear positions of power and wealth because of the temptations they may bring.

I know many great men who refuse to get involved in politics or civic leadership for this very reason. They do not want to be put in compromising situations.

[mikbone]

35 minutes ago, scottyg said:

I know many great men who refuse to get involved in politics or civic leadership for this very reason. They do not want to be put in compromising situations.

Doubt that is the real issue.  It’s easy to stay away from compromising situations.

More than likely they don’t want to deal with the meetings, complaints, time commitment, wasting time trying to get people to do the right thing, when there are policies and infinite arguments as to why the right thing is not right for the community…

Oh yeah, and the opposition digging up dirt and lying about you and your family.

Hard Pass.

Edited February 13, 2023 by mikbone

[scottyg]

22 hours ago, mikbone said:

Doubt that is the real issue.  It’s easy to stay away from compromising situations.

More than likely they don’t want to deal with the meetings, complaints, time commitment, wasting time trying to get people to do the right thing, when there are policies and infinite arguments as to why the right thing is not right for the community…

Oh yeah, and the opposition digging up dirt and lying about you and your family.

Hard Pass.

Yes...that too.

[LDSGator]

On 2/13/2023 at 5:34 PM, scottyg said:

I know many great men who refuse to get involved in politics or civic leadership for this very reason. They do not want to be put in compromising situations.

A lot also don't want their personal lives to be brought up either. Who wants to relive the mistakes you made thirty years ago?

[askandanswer]

On 2/14/2023 at 8:04 AM, scottyg said:

I know many great men who refuse to get involved in politics or civic leadership for this very reason. They do not want to be put in compromising situations.

I've long had an interest in politics but it is this ^^ concern that has held me back from further involvement. I think the way that politics is usually played in Australia, there is often a correlation between how fast you rise up the ladder and how fast you abandon your principles. To succeed in politics, I would have to become the kind of person that is not naturally me. So I've looked for other ways to serve instead. 

[JohnsonJones]

On 2/13/2023 at 2:10 PM, Vort said:

This is simply false. The Lord did no such thing. The Lord condemned the hypocrites and the oppressors. He did not single out those with money or position as the special recipients of his displeasure. If the rich and powerful are more likely to be exposed as hypocrites and oppressors, then they would likely have been overrepresented in his condemnation. But that is a vastly different thing from your claim above, that the Lord focused his condemnation on them.

There is one singular item I have objected most to.  It is the one that I also object about with the prosperity gospel doctrines.  It is the idea that the Lord never had bad words or was against the rich.  This is a false teaching in my opinion. 

One of the most famous (but hated by many rich LDS folks [or those who wish to be so] and prosperity preachers) is

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

They try to explain it away (for example, trying to use a gate in Jerusalem's common slang term of the time, but knowing of whom the Lord was teaching and the context, it is a meaning hidden to the rich who assume such, but obvious to those who would not even be using the gate as to what he was alluding to.  It is a common example of a double meaning so that those who were not among his followers would see one meaning while the actual meaning relavant to those who were his followers would be obvious).

It's the most famous, but not the ONLY one, of which there are several among his teachings.  Lazarus's story is another rather well known adage of this teaching. 

Yes, he pointed out hypocrisy, but the point I specifically was contesting was that you appear to state that the Lord did not condemn those who were rich.  I can see it from the viewpoint of condemning those who valued riches (such as the Rich man) and set their hearts so upon riches that they could not give up their riches in order to receive the Lord's fullness, but seeing the mockery I have received in this thread, and how you seem to not contradict that's what you meant, that does not seem what you meant either. 

If you didn't mean to say what the prosperity gospel preachers state on these things...

What exactly do you mean?  You've stated this several times in the thread thus far trying to say the Lord did not condemn those who were rich.  His words (in the KJV, other translations have slight variations, but we use the KJV) are rather EXPLICIT in his condemnation of rich men.

 

On 2/13/2023 at 2:10 PM, Vort said:

So let's see if I understand your logic correctly:

• 1. I wrote, "These things are false, rank lies, and all of them can be disproven by nothing more than reading the New Testament." (See the early part of this post for a listing of "these things".)
• 2. You think my statement in #1 "is similar to something right out of one of their sermons", where "their" refers specifically to those who believe in and preach the so-called prosperity gospel (the perverse belief that money, position, and power are rewards for righteousness and an evidence of divine favor).
• 3. You believe it obvious that "someone not familiar with [the] teachings [of the prosperity gospel believers] would not be quoting them."

Taking #2 and #3 together, you implicitly believe that my statement in #1 is an intentional quotation of the words, or at least the ideas, of proponents of the prosperity gospel. Therefore, you conclude that I myself am both a believer in and an outspoken proponent of the prosperity gospel.

If I have made any logical mistakes in the above list, please carefully explain exactly what I got wrong. Because as it stands, the above line of reasoning is not merely illogical and careless, it is an open twisting of what I wrote and constitutes a false allegation.

Don't you suppose that, perhaps, "the Christian thing to do" would have been for you not to have jumped to such a hasty, illogical, and dishonest conclusion and then call names and make false allegations? If you couldn't figure out the meaning based on a careful and thoughtful reading of the words, don't you think that maybe "the Christian thing to do" would have been to simply ask what was meant?

Your statement would appear to be exactly the same reasoning Prosperity teachings use.  They appear to state the  exact same thing you seem to be stating in regards to the wealthy. 

I pointed out though, that it could be that as a member of the Church you may not be familiar with their teachings, even if your statements seem to be a reflection of what they are stating.  This means as a member you probably are NOT quoting them or using them as the foundation of your statements (or did you MISS that?).

Thus, I assume I must have misunderstood.  Your response SEEMS to double down on the idea that the Lord did not condemn those with Riches and state a simple reading of the New Testament would make this obvious. 

It does NOT seem obvious to me and in fact seems to be the exact opposite of what he stated.

In fact, the closest I can come to anyone in the scriptures actually CONDONING being rich is found in the Book of Mormon, and is not actually condoning it, but that we seek them to help others...not ourselves.  If we use them then, in the way taught by Brigham Young, or as it was utilized in the New Testament, we no longer really are rich then, but use it to enrich our neighbors and the entire congregation.  We USE those riches to feed the hungry, to clothe them, to liberate the prisoners (most likely in reference to debtors prisons, but could also be applicable to other forms of imprisonment), to help the sick...etc...etc...etc).  They would lift ALL to their level.  In this, one could say they were wealthy, but in these situations there would be no "rich" or "poor" per se, as they all would be equally lifted up relevant to each other.

I view the idea that the Lord condoned rich men, those with riches, and would support that obtaining and keeping riches are not an obstacle to obtaining kingdom of heaven (or ignoring that entire parable) as a false idea.  The idea of the Lord condoning riches is popular among those in the Prosperity doctrine who have their hearts set on riches...even if they are not rich themselves (but several of those preachers are IMMENSELY wealthy).  Hence why I spoke out against it.

I have tried to do the Christian thing in that I DID apologize and state I must be mistaken.  In return I have been mocked, jeered at, and ignored in regards to what exactly it was that was actually meant (and thus far, it really does appear that you are saying that the lord never condemned or spoke out against the rich).  As I said before, I must be mistaken, but I really don't understand WHAT you are saying then.

It REALLY sounds as if you are saying the Lord

Quote

did not single out those with money or position as the special recipients of his displeasure.

When, from my reading of the scriptures it seems he not only did so, but did it EXPLICITLY so in several situations. 

Edited February 24, 2023 by JohnsonJones
Clarity