The Prodigal Son's missing verse

[Traveler]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Exactly.  It is not about having "wealth".  That alone is never the sin.

But you said that the "sin" was "wealth", not "waste".  And if your focus is on "wealth = sin" then you missed the entire point of the parable.

The art of a magician and their craft is to divert focus and attention from truth.  I am of the mind that similar to looking upon a woman and lusting causes one to have already sinned in their heart – that with a focus and attention on wealth that sin has already occurred in one’s heart.  I remain convinced that the focus on wealth (though seemingly different) brought both sons to a sinful and prodigal fall for temptations of wealth.

Light of truth is the only true wealth.  Those that attempt to substitute or even just include money for true wealth are already captured and lost in sin.  Which is what I believe is the reason Christ spoke of both brothers in the parable.  I see more than just one point – what have I missed?

 

The Traveler

[Carborendum]

35 minutes ago, Traveler said:

The art of a magician and their craft is to divert focus and attention from truth.  I am of the mind that similar to looking upon a woman and lusting causes one to have already sinned in their heart – that with a focus and attention on wealth that sin has already occurred in one’s heart.  I remain convinced that the focus on wealth (though seemingly different) brought both sons to a sinful and prodigal fall for temptations of wealth.

Light of truth is the only true wealth.  Those that attempt to substitute or even just include money for true wealth are already captured and lost in sin.  Which is what I believe is the reason Christ spoke of both brothers in the parable.  I see more than just one point – what have I missed?

 

The Traveler

You first have to accept that the definition of "prodigal" is "wasteful".

Once you accept the dictionary definition, then you need only answer the question: What do we waste when we sin?

[mikbone]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Those that attempt to substitute or even just include money for true wealth are already captured and lost in sin. 

So the Church has deep pockets.  And temples are quite expensive with gold trim.  Custom furniture.  Artwork.  etc.

Is the Church and its leadership sinful?

Just trying to understand your position.

[Traveler]

19 hours ago, Carborendum said:

You first have to accept that the definition of "prodigal" is "wasteful".

Once you accept the dictionary definition, then you need only answer the question: What do we waste when we sin?

I have pondered this for some time - the primary answer that I understand is that we waste ourselves.  If there is something else - I will require your help - perhaps you can walk me through.

 

The Traveler

 

 

[Traveler]

18 hours ago, mikbone said:

So the Church has deep pockets.  And temples are quite expensive with gold trim.  Custom furniture.  Artwork.  etc.

Is the Church and its leadership sinful?

Just trying to understand your position.

Thank you for your questions and comments.  The Church has not always had deep pockets.  For most of history (including these last-days) the pockets of the church have been strained - one could say, thread bear to nonexistent.  In order to move forward, great sacrifice was required by all the Saints.  So pronounced was poverty in the Church that during the Great Depression – there was not much that changed throughout the Church and its membership.  There are three great economic principles that have been fostered within the Church.  First industry or labor by all members even those suffering from disabilities – that all contribute what they are capable of.  The second principle is to avoid debt.  The third principle is the principle of sacrifice (also known as the Law of Consecration).

To properly understand one needs to understand the scripture in the Book of Mormon that in essence teaches that those that covenant with G-d must seek first the Kingdom of G-d and all else will be added to it.  The purpose of the temple is not to have a lavash place of opulence for the Saints to come and enjoy wealth – the purpose of the temples are to bestow upon the Saints endowments of light and truth.  It is my personal understanding that the Church is not as wealthy with money as many project but rather there is a temporary surplus that has been added according to our covenant.  I believe that events will unfold that will reveal why a surplus has been added and coupled with the 3 principles above – all will be necessary.

My position is that anyone that seeks worldly wealth will be caught in a snare that will only lead away from light, truth, liberty and freedom.  It is possible that worldly wealth may be added upon the Saints or some particular Saints – but if they succumb to the temptation to adorn themselves with the wealth of the world – they have been caught in a bondage in which they will surely loose themselves.

I am of the mind that many believe that if they are righteous that G-d will adorn them with worldly riches – which is the prime desire in their heart that drives them to attempt to do and be what they think is righteous.  That so strong is this temptation of worldly wealth that Jesus warned it is easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter into the Kingdom of G-d.   Regardless of how one interprets this prophetic warning – the reality is; that it is impossible.  

My personal recommendation is that if someone is given riches – they best hide it and keep it secret – as much as they are able.   If somehow that secret ever gets out – they are doomed.

 

The Traveler

[zil2]

58 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I have pondered this for some time - the primary answer that I understand is that we waste ourselves.  If there is something else - I will require your help - perhaps you can walk me through.

A brutal statement from Hugh Nibley (which is why I like it, and his writings):

Quote

Sin is waste. It is doing one thing when you should be doing other and better things for which you have the capacity. Hence, there are no innocent, idle thoughts. That is why even the righteous must repent, constantly and progressively, since all fall short of their capacity and calling.

Approaching Zion, Chapter 3 "Zeal Without Knowledge"

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I have pondered this for some time - the primary answer that I understand is that we waste ourselves.

That certainly sounds like a decent conclusion.

[mikbone]

7 hours ago, Traveler said:

My personal recommendation is that if someone is given riches – they best hide it and keep it secret – as much as they are able.   If somehow that secret ever gets out – they are doomed.

 

You may have a point.  The Church is sitting on $40 Billion & are not being terribly transparent about the finances.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2023/02/22/lds-church-investments-bounce-back/

The value of land that the church holds is considerably more.  According to the following report the Church is the 5th largest private land owner in the USA.

https://www.postregister.com/farmandranch/crops/miscellaneous/new-database-shows-lds-church-is-nations-fifth-largest-private-landowner/article_0a821ace-b331-5978-93b0-55658672784b.amp.html

The wealth that the Church has, comes from tithing (as well as astute investments).  Apparently there have been many wealthy Latter-Day Saints, which have paid their tithing.

There have been many prior crises associated with money in the Lord’s Church.  I personally love the Kirtland Safety Society.  I almost bought a KSS note signed by Joseph Smith, Orson Pratt, and Sidney Rigdon.  Unfortunately the price of the note was outrageous, I should have purchased it though, as the value has continued to increase.

My 17 y/o son has invested in silver coinage and it will pay for his mission and then some.

 

Edited May 10, 2023 by mikbone

[Traveler]

17 hours ago, mikbone said:

 

My 17 y/o son has invested in silver coinage and it will pay for his mission and then some.

 

I consider this to be a profound investment.  Of course, who knows what will happen economically with silver but the goal to pay for one’s own mission is an investment that will reap rewards (including rewards far beyond economic) for a lifetime.

 

The Traveler

[CV75]

On 5/9/2023 at 3:48 PM, Carborendum said:

You first have to accept that the definition of "prodigal" is "wasteful".

Once you accept the dictionary definition, then you need only answer the question: What do we waste when we sin?

Our agency.

[CV75]

If the parable has anything directly to do with material wealth (and I don't think it does), Jacob 2 comes to mind:

18 But ^abefore ye seek for ^briches, seek ye for the ^ckingdom of God.

19 And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to ^ado good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted.

20 And now, my brethren, I have spoken unto you concerning pride; and those of you which have afflicted your neighbor, and persecuted him because ye were proud in your hearts, of the things which God hath given you, what say ye of it?

The attitude of the obedient son is antithetical to seeking the kingdom of God. He had not yet obtained his father's riches and did not (and did not need to) seek that which was his entitlement. His intent for their use seems self-centered. He seems to be proud, establishing enmity between him and his brother, and to an extent his father. This dynamic can happen over money certainly, but also occurs when the proud treat Church membership, lineage and the good things in life like they do their money.

[Traveler]

18 hours ago, CV75 said:

If the parable has anything directly to do with material wealth (and I don't think it does), Jacob 2 comes to mind:

18 But ^abefore ye seek for ^briches, seek ye for the ^ckingdom of God.

19 And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to ^ado good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted.

20 And now, my brethren, I have spoken unto you concerning pride; and those of you which have afflicted your neighbor, and persecuted him because ye were proud in your hearts, of the things which God hath given you, what say ye of it?

The attitude of the obedient son is antithetical to seeking the kingdom of God. He had not yet obtained his father's riches and did not (and did not need to) seek that which was his entitlement. His intent for their use seems self-centered. He seems to be proud, establishing enmity between him and his brother, and to an extent his father. This dynamic can happen over money certainly, but also occurs when the proud treat Church membership, lineage and the good things in life like they do their money.

Many countries to which I have traveled and met with members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not have the economic means that is available to members here in the USA.  And yet I believe that these good saints do even better at clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, liberating the captive and administering relief to the sick and afflicted than some (perhaps many) of the USA more affluent Saints.

There seems to be an attitude among some (perhaps many) Saints in the USA that if they tithe and pay offerings that their duty is complete.  There are portions of Saints that believe in service, but it seems that most service projects are seldom over attended and often less show up than is needed.  There seems to be an attitude of independence and self-reliance to take care of yourself and others should do likewise. Poorer communities seem to be more likely to help each other and share.

My brother jokes that people with gardens and fruit trees on their property are much more likely to share their harvest than people that invest time and resources in stocks, banks and means for money seldom share any of the fruits of their labors.

 

The Traveler

[Carborendum]

20 minutes ago, Traveler said:

There seems to be an attitude among some (perhaps many) Saints in the USA that if they tithe and pay offerings that their duty is complete. 

It sounds like you live in Utah.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Many countries to which I have traveled and met with members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not have the economic means that is available to members here in the USA.  And yet I believe that these good saints do even better at clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, liberating the captive and administering relief to the sick and afflicted than some (perhaps many) of the USA more affluent Saints.

There seems to be an attitude among some (perhaps many) Saints in the USA that if they tithe and pay offerings that their duty is complete.  There are portions of Saints that believe in service, but it seems that most service projects are seldom over attended and often less show up than is needed.  There seems to be an attitude of independence and self-reliance to take care of yourself and others should do likewise. Poorer communities seem to be more likely to help each other and share.

My brother jokes that people with gardens and fruit trees on their property are much more likely to share their harvest than people that invest time and resources in stocks, banks and means for money seldom share any of the fruits of their labors.

 

The Traveler

I see you live in Utah. I thought it quite odd, when we stayed a few days in an Airbnb-type arrangement (in Utah) for a few days that the elderly landlord took some pains to show us his electric vehicle, all-terrain vehicle, piano, and a few other expensive or garish items indicative if the fruits of his labors. He even gave us the prices! He made it abundantly clear that he is an active member of the Church, missions, heritage, etc. I became uncomfortable, though, after being subject to this behavior from other members of his community, a number of times, during our week-long visit. I chalked it up to the culture. Being from NYC, I grew up aware of "old money" and "new money" phenomena (not that I had any personal experience with either!  ), and this seems to be an example of the latter. My theory is that Utah struggled for so long as an agricultural economy that when things exploded economically in the second half of 20th century, a "new money" attitude took root among the new and growing middle class. Outsiders, immigrants especially, seem to readily adopt this materialistic attitude. A lot of "borrow-buy-die" and "get-rich-quick" economics going on there, from my observation. You quickly find out they're in debt to the eyeballs, buying more with whatever equity they amass, and then die with their estate in the red.

Some people point to the Church as the source of this (a misguided application of the prosperity gospel), but I think it's just human nature around "new money" -- and there are a lot of people taking advantage of these suckers.

Elder Bednar has had some interesting thing to say about the saints in Africa with regards to their material attitudes in living the Gospel.

PS the same landlord left in the paperwork 2 phone numbers to contact him for any emergency, and it turned out they did not function (one had a lengthy, wise-guy message and threat about telephone marketers for the voice mail; the other "I'll get right back to you."). We got locked out because his battery-operated lock went dead on us, and we had to roam the neighborhood until someone could help us locate his bishop who could contact him only on a super-secret number. He laughed about the phones; he knew all about them like it was an old joke. I'm glad us stupid outsiders could oblige. When he finally showed up, he expressed embarrassment about the battery running out -- nothing else like giving us phony phone numbers with insincere messages or taking his time to check it out because he was enjoying dinner out (at the Olive Garden, no less -- how gauche!  !

Edited May 12, 2023 by CV75

[mordorbund]

Quote

Do you structure these 3 parables differently so that there is no missing verse?

Sounds like for many people here the parable structure is:

Parable with focus on the lost sheep
Parable with focus on the lost coin
Parable with some focus on the lost son, but with additional focus on the one "left behind" who also needs to be recognized as lost

I don't want to discount what has been shared since I think it has merit, but I do want to revisit my questions since I've had some additional thoughts since posting. As with many parables (and as seen in this discussion so far) there's no need to limit it to one strict canonical interpretation -- doing so often robs us of precious insight.

On 5/5/2023 at 2:01 AM, mordorbund said:

 

Quote

Sheep:

I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

Coin:

Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.

What should the missing verse say?

Son:

Likewise, I say unto you there is joy for the Father above over one sinner that repenteth.

 

Quote

Who omitted the verse? Jesus or Luke, and why?

I think Jesus omitted the verse. If this were Matthew I could see it being one of the "secret" teaching like he has with the parables of Matthew 13. There Jesus gives several parables, explains one to His apostles and asks, "Do you understand them now?" Suddenly they do! Clearly the additional explanations were given but left out of the record. There doesn't look to be anything like that here and Luke doesn't generally refer to secret teachings. If this were John I would expect an overt statement and a blasphemy challenge. Since this is Luke and he grounds his writings in histories, I think if there were an account that Jesus said the missing verse then Luke would have tried to include it.

Quote

Why is the verse missing?

The missing verse addresses the charge that launched all the parables of the lost: "This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them." His answer is that the Father above has joy in the work of reclamation, and Jesus Himself does too! He did not come right out and say it because it was an admission of the charge.

In His rivalry with the Pharisees, Jesus would not always directly admit to the wrong He was accused of but would instead require the Pharisees to come right out and say that the good was evil. Since they wouldn't, Jesus was left to continue. I think in this case those who had ears to hear recognized that Jesus enjoyed working with them on their repentance, while those who did not have ears to hear could be content that they were among the 99 sheep.

[mikbone]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

He made it abundantly clear that he is an active member of the Church, missions, heritage, etc. I became uncomfortable, though, after being subject to this behavior from other members of his community, a number of times, during our week-long visit. I chalked it up to the culture. Being from NYC, I grew up aware of "old money" and "new money" phenomena

What a putz.  

Yup, I get the heebie-geebies in Utah.

Last time we were there we went to a couple bakeries.  We overheard a few conversations and they all seemed to be about a business opportunity or multi-level marketing.  It was a few years ago so hopefully things have changed.

But then a few years ago we went to Lake Tahoe for a vacation.  We went to a couple ‘fancy’ restaurants there.  And it seemed like every conversation revolved around getting drunk and everyones favorite vintage of wine or preference for liquor…

Im neither interested in old money or new money.  I find them both disturbing.

Why can’t we just be pleasant neighbors?

Edited May 12, 2023 by mikbone

[Jamie123]

On 5/5/2023 at 2:44 PM, Carborendum said:

Consider that in the parable of the prodigal son, we don't see the father "looking for" the prodigal son.

The father respected the younger son's choice. He let him go. He never stopped hoping that he would return, but he made no effort to force him back. He let him make his own decisions.

It's like what's going on in my own life at the moment. Childish and immature though I am, I'm finding myself cast in the role of the prodigal son's father.

Quote

Wasn't it Shakespeare who said: "If you love someone, set them free"?

No. Actually it was Sting.

 

Edited May 17, 2023 by Jamie123

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, Jamie123 said:

The father respected the younger son's choice. He let him go. He never stopped hoping that he would return, but he made no effort to force him back. He let him make his own decisions.

I don't disagree with what you wrote.  But I'd clarify that my statement was about the OP's question.  

The parable begins with "A certain man had two sons."  You have learned and pondered the lessons of the first son.  I'm commenting on the lessons offered about the 2nd son.  The very fact that the "pattern" is broken in this third parable points to something else that we're missing from concentrating on the first son.  This is a literary technique that is used quite often to teach a pattern and how we tend to see things differently in real life vs the point the author is trying to make.  We have to look elsewhere for the pattern to resolve itself.

While you're absolutely right about the prodigal son, looking at him alone doesn't show the completion of the pattern.  So, where do we see the pattern resolve itself?  It is by looking at the supposedly "righteous" son where we see the pattern resolve itself.

My comment is to point out that as people read the story of the prodigal son, they miss the surprise ending.  It turns out that it isn't just the prodigal who needs to repent.  It is the one who stayed in his father's house who also needs repentance. 

The prodigal son returned and repented and asked for forgiveness from the Father.  And they celebrated.

But this so called "righteous person" is the one who is not repenting (he refused to come into the Father's house).  It is this unrepentant soul for whom the Father goes out in search of.

Thus the resolution of the pattern indicates that the lesson to be learned is not only that sinners need to repent, but that we need to take a closer look at the words of the Savior:

Quote

I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

 -- Luke 15:7

So I ask you this question:  What mortals do you know of who "need no repentance"?

So, the parable of the prodigal son becomes The Parable of the Righteous Son.  The surprise ending is that there are none righteous, no, not one (Romans 3:10).  We all  need to repent.  That was the lesson the Savior wanted to convey.

[Jamie123]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

While you're absolutely right about the prodigal son, looking at him alone doesn't show the completion of the pattern. 

A really good book about the parable is "The Return of the Prodigal Son: A Story of Homecoming" by Henri Nouwen. He examines it from so many different perspectives - some of them quite surprising. It was very much inspired by Rembrandt's painting:

Edited May 17, 2023 by Jamie123
There was no need for me to reiterate the Jonah/prodigal parallel - I've already talked about that.

[Carborendum]

3 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

There was no need for me to reiterate the Jonah/prodigal parallel - I've already talked about that.

I was responding to your quoting me as if you were correcting me.

[Jamie123]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I was responding to your quoting me as if you were correcting me.

Oh no - I wasn't correcting you. I'm sorry if you thought that - I think your observation is very interesting. I was just adding one of my own - which is particularly relevant to me at the moment.