For LDS: Is a wealth a personal blessing for being righteousness? Is poverty an indication of personal wickedness?


blueskye
 Share

Recommended Posts

From this talk:

 

The Lord has demonstrated throughout the generations that when the inhabitants of the earth remember him and are obedient to his direction, he will bless them not only with spiritual blessings, but with material abundance as well.

 

 

Is wealth, therefore, a sign of personal righteousness. And conversely, is poverty a sign of personal wickedness?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, wealth is a sign of having a lot of money. True, when the people of the Lord live righteously, he prospers them -- as a people. But wealth is not any sort of sign of individual righteousness. Any such teaching is a pernicious lie, and shame on the person who claims it as LDS doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, wealth is a sign of having a lot of money. True, when the people of the Lord live righteously, he prospers them -- as a people. But wealth is not any sort of sign of individual righteousness. Any such teaching is a pernicious lie, and shame on the person who claims it as LDS doctrine.

So, if one person is wealthy in a community, wealth is not a sign of that person's righteousness. But if everyone in a community is wealthy, that is a sign of the righteousness of all the individuals?

 

But you didn't address the quote.

 

How is material abundance related to obedience?

Edited by blueskye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

Uncomfortable fact: If you can't feed your own children, you can't feed the poor either.

 

it's important to have enough money to keep your family afloat and not starving. 

 

There is no shame in being poor, but there is also no shame in being rich. IE-if you work hard and bust your butt you have every right to enjoy the fruits of your labor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uncomfortable fact: If you can't feed your own children, you can't feed the poor either.

 

it's important to have enough money to keep your family afloat and not starving. 

 

There is no shame in being poor, but there is also no shame in being rich. IE-if you work hard and bust your butt you have every right to enjoy the fruits of your labor. 

How is material abundance related to obedience?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if one person is wealthy in a community, wealth is not a sign of that person's righteousness. But if everyone in a community is wealthy, that is a sign of the righteousness of all the individuals?

 

I realize this is difficult for you. Let me try again.

 

Wealth is not a sign of righteousness. Only a wicked and adulterous generation seeks for a sign.

 

Is that sufficiently clear?

 

But you didn't address the quote.

 

I think I did. If you have some question, let me know.

 

How is material abundance related to obedience?

 

I have already explained that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize this is difficult for you. Let me try again.

 

Wealth is not a sign of righteousness. Only a wicked and adulterous generation seeks for a sign.

 

Is that sufficiently clear?

 

 

I think I did. If you have some question, let me know.

 

 

I have already explained that.

"The Lord has demonstrated" = we can discern there is a sign from God. Something God wants us to know? No?

 

I don't think you've really thought about what that quote is saying, and are giving a non answer. But, if you think you've answered, fine, I don't have anything else to ask you. Thank you for your reply.

 

Clearly, the quote teaches there is a correlation between wealth and abundance. Your reply is, no, there is not.

 

So.

 

Maybe someone else can address what the quote says, and not what you wish it said?

Edited by blueskye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Lord has demonstrated" = we can discern there is a sign from God. No?

 

Correct. No.

 

I don't think you've really thought about what that quote is saying, and are giving a non answer. But, if you think you've answered, fine, I don't have anything else to ask you. Thank you for your reply.

 

You betcha.

 

Clearly, the quote teaches there is a correlation between wealth and abundance. Your reply is, no, there is not.

 

Wrong. My reply is that wealth is not a sign for sign-seekers such as yourself.

 

So.

 

Maybe someone else can address what the quote says, and not what you wish it said?

 

I have addressed what it really says. You may keep trawling to see if someone else will say something you like better, but don't pretend the question you asked has not been answered.

 

Helpful hint: When you want to find out what people believe, it's better to ask them what they believe than to tell them what they believe and then demand an explanation for what you said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Helpful hint: When you want to find out what people believe, it's better to ask them what they believe than to tell them what they believe and then demand an explanation for what you said.

This.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From this talk:

 

 

Is wealth, therefore, a sign of personal righteousness. And conversely, is poverty a sign of personal wickedness?

Let's keep this simple.

Wealth is not a sign of personal righteousness nor poverty a sign of personal wickedness.

Next question...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if one person is wealthy in a community, wealth is not a sign of that person's righteousness. But if everyone in a community is wealthy, that is a sign of the righteousness of all the individuals?

 

But you didn't address the quote.

 

How is material abundance related to obedience?

 

Okay, I'll bite.

 

First, I agree with Vort that the statement is true as a general principle applying to communities.  That said--there are enough exceptions that I wouldn't use wealth or poverty to judge the righteousness of either a community or an individual.  Many, many factors can prevent otherwise righteous individuals or societies from becoming wealthy.  Similarly, societies in decay may still enjoy great wealth left over from a period when they followed Divine principles closely than they do at present.

 

How is material abundance related to obedience?

 

I'm not convinced it's quite a situation of God looking at a nation, saying "You worship idols, so DOOM ON YOU!!!".  Rather, I think certain activities just have natural consequences that will affect one's own and one's neighbors' economic well-being.  Societies of self-centered individuals will not tend to do the sort of long-term planning or sacrifice across generations that leads to stable, prosperous nations over the long term.  Violent societies will not enjoy sufficiently long periods of peace to allow commerce to thrive.  Kleptocratic or dishonest societies will find that they can't establish a steady economy, because being a worker/economic producer is a sucker's game.  Sexually promiscuous societies will get unstable family structures--with all the economic problems that entails--and find themselves saddled with a large number of unwanted children.

 

Also, I'm going to issue a challenge to you:

 

1.  Assume that Dean Larsen, rather than being an ogre or a shyster with dollar signs in his eyes, is actually a decent fellow who's trying to inspire people to be their best selves and live in a Christlike way.

2.  Reread his talk.  The whole talk.

3.  Why do you think he said what he said?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How is material abundance related to obedience?

 

 

From D&C 130:

 

 20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

 21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

 

 

 

So when we obey eternal laws and principles, we are blessed accordingly. As your quote says, when we are obedient to His direction, He blesses us, including with temporal blessings.

 

Except when He doesn't.

 

The trouble with trying to use something like level of wealth as a general sign for level of righteousness is that God doesn't deal with all His children in exactly the same way, because we're all different. Job was righteous and, perhaps in large part as a consequence of his righteousness, he became wealthy. And then his wealth (and health, family, etc.) were taken from him for a time. His friends took this as a sign of Job's wickedness, but they were unjustified in doing so. Eventually Job learned and grew from the experience, and his wealth was restored. This is just one example - many are called upon to actively sacrifice prosperity for righteousness. Some even give their lives for the gospel, and by extension they also sacrifice 100% of their material possessions.

 

On the flip side, wickedness is often used as a means to obtain wealth. Think Pharisees, secret combinations from the Book of Mormon, etc. etc. Not to mention modern examples. Is this wealth sustainable? Of course not. But if we used wealth as a sign to discern righteousness, we would end up off base in judging a lot of people.

 

My personal thoughts on D&C 130 and the quote you gave are something like this. Obedience to true principles of the gospel will, in general, lead to increased productivity and prosperity, both spiritually and temporally. But individual circumstance and trial can put a roadblock on this. Disobedience to true principles of the gospel will, in general, lead to spiritual and temporal ruin. But sometimes the illusion can be sustained for a time - maybe even a lifetime. God puts spiritual blessings first. He will prosper His righteous followers, but sometimes temporal prosperity needs to be sacrificed for greater spiritual blessings for the individual.

 

The true blessings that come from obedience are the change within the person. That person then has greater capacity to produce wealth based on righteous principles, assuming he or she is not called upon to sacrifice that in one way or another through a trial, calling, or a requirement to direct their efforts elsewhere. Therefore:

 

...when the inhabitants of the earth remember him and are obedient to his direction, he will bless them not only with spiritual blessings, but with material abundance [often directly resulting from the spiritual blessings] as well. 

 

 

I feel like it's more about change from the inside, act rather than be acted upon, etc. And if God needs to teach us those eternal principles through a trial which involves poverty and which may last a lifetime, I don't think he'll hesitate, BUT that doesn't negate the eternal truthfulness of the promise. So it really isn't that useful as a "sign" in the sense of judging others or even ourselves based off of it.

 

I do agree with Vort that a better place to see this "sign" in operation is by looking at larger groups and communities. True "Zion" communities, while rare, have always seemed to do pretty well temporally, haven't they? ;)  Even this can be deceptive though. Outward appearance of prosperity can be temporarily maintained even while the inner core that generates true wealth is decaying due to wickedness, even in a larger community or a nation. And sometimes an entire people needs to be tried, like the people of Alma who were briefly brought into bondage by the Lamanites and the people of Amulon.

 

So, my opinion: obedience brings spiritual change within us, which gives us the qualities that naturally allow us to produce more material abundance - if God doesn't have something better in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Lord has demonstrated" = we can discern there is a sign from God. Something God wants us to know? No?

 

I don't think you've really thought about what that quote is saying, and are giving a non answer. But, if you think you've answered, fine, I don't have anything else to ask you. Thank you for your reply.

 

Clearly, the quote teaches there is a correlation between wealth and abundance. Your reply is, no, there is not.

 

So.

 

Maybe someone else can address what the quote says, and not what you wish it said?

The irony is piled high here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I believed what you're claiming I believe (as an LDS member), I'd be in a major crisis of faith. Otherwise, I could have actually married my good husband for his money, and the likes of Hugh Heffner would be begging on street corners. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I'll bite.

 

First, I agree with Vort that the statement is true as a general principle applying to communities.  That said--there are enough exceptions that I wouldn't use wealth or poverty to judge the righteousness of either a community or an individual.  Many, many factors can prevent otherwise righteous individuals or societies from becoming wealthy.  Similarly, societies in decay may still enjoy great wealth left over from a period when they followed Divine principles closely than they do at present.

 

How is material abundance related to obedience?

 

I'm not convinced it's quite a situation of God looking at a nation, saying "You worship idols, so DOOM ON YOU!!!".  Rather, I think certain activities just have natural consequences that will affect one's own and one's neighbors' economic well-being.  Societies of self-centered individuals will not tend to do the sort of long-term planning or sacrifice across generations that leads to stable, prosperous nations over the long term.  Violent societies will not enjoy sufficiently long periods of peace to allow commerce to thrive.  Kleptocratic or dishonest societies will find that they can't establish a steady economy, because being a worker/economic producer is a sucker's game.  Sexually promiscuous societies will get unstable family structures--with all the economic problems that entails--and find themselves saddled with a large number of unwanted children.

 

Also, I'm going to issue a challenge to you:

 

1.  Assume that Dean Larsen, rather than being an ogre or a shyster with dollar signs in his eyes, is actually a decent fellow who's trying to inspire people to be their best selves and live in a Christlike way.

2.  Reread his talk.  The whole talk.

3.  Why do you think he said what he said?

Thanks! A real answer.

 

"Many, many factors can prevent otherwise righteous individuals or societies from becoming wealthy."  ...says to me that righteous individuals and societies are wealthy, but can't always realize it. (?) If that is what you mean, why doesn't God allow them to realize their wealth?

 

I'm rereading the talk. I don't think he is a shyster with dollar signs. Not at all. I just believe the idea that God rewards the righteous with wealth, is a false teaching.

 

From the opening of the talk to the point that I quoted, I read as a reflection of American Manifest Destiny.

 

Then he goes on to use the Book of Mormon, to show that God blesses the righteous while the wicked suffer misfortunes. Even the weather is good for the righteous. 

 

Then he quotes Leviticus, which is in context of living the Law. The covenant that God made with His People through Moses.

 

Then cautions about forgetting where material abundance comes from (God).

 

Then back to the Book of Mormon, where people are proud of their riches

 

Then to teaching that blessing of abundance are conditional.

 

Then telling people to pay tithing and fast offerings.

 

Then telling people to work towards qualifying for prosperity.

 

-----

 

The left out parts are the concerning points. This teaching is completely opposite of what Paul teaches in his letter to the Romans, that is, that we can see God's grace given in abundance to those who suffer. Even those who suffer in sin. (Of course, pointing out that we shouldn't sin in order to obtain more grace.) This paradox is not seen in the talk from Dean Larsen. His is based on the Law, which is fulfilled in Christ. Christ is the New Covenant for Christians. We don't live the Law, and are not justified by our own qualities, but by Jesus Christ.

Edited by blueskye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I believed what you're claiming I believe (as an LDS member), I'd be in a major crisis of faith. Otherwise, I could have actually married my good husband for his money, and the likes of Hugh Heffner would be begging on street corners. 

What am I claiming? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, wealth is in the eye of the beholder.  A poor African would look at the poorest in the States and proclaim those in the States are wealthy, yet the poor american will claim his is poor and needs more.

 

I am very, very leery of the preaching of the material "Prosperity Gospel". I do believe as a general principle, those who are obedient and righteous will be more wealthy than had they not been righteous individually, but is it fruitless to compare individuals against other individuals one can only compare them against themselves. 

 

Because one is poor does not mean one is unrighteous.  I think as a general principle someone who is poor and righteous will be less poor than if that same individual were poor and unrighteous. But that is extremely subjective and really can't be measured.

Edited by yjacket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, wealth is in the eye of the beholder.  A poor African would look at the poorest in the States and proclaim those in the States are wealthy, yet the poor american will claim his is poor and needs more.

 

I am very, very leery of the preaching of the material "Prosperity Gospel". I do believe as a general principle, those who are obedient and righteous will be more wealthy than had they not been righteous individually, but is it fruitless to compare individuals against other individuals one can only compare them against themselves. 

 

Because one is poor does not mean one is unrighteous.  I think as a general principle someone who is poor and righteous will be less poor than if that same individual were poor and unrighteous. But that is extremely subjective and really can't be measured.

I am interested to know if Anatess agrees with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if one person is wealthy in a community, wealth is not a sign of that person's righteousness. But if everyone in a community is wealthy, that is a sign of the righteousness of all the individuals?

 

Hi blueskye. If a community have all things common then that is a sign of the righteousness of all the individuals in that community.

 

We will prosper in the land if we keep God's commandments because we will be blessed with peace, knowledge, health, strength, etc. If you strive to keep God's commandments, as a natural consequence, you will acquire and learn principles that, if put in to practice, will make you industrious and prosperous. However, your material wealth has no bearing on your personal righteousness. It is also true that God warns us on several occasions about seeking for riches and how being rich can be a very difficult temptation to overcome.

 

-Finrock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi blueskye. If a community have all things common then that is a sign of the righteousness of all the individuals in that community.

Are you referring to communism, socialism or some other "ism"?

 

We will prosper in the land if we keep God's commandments because we will be blessed with peace, knowledge, health, strength, etc. If you strive to keep God's commandments, as a natural consequence, you will acquire and learn principles that, if put in to practice, will make you industrious and prosperous. However, your material wealth has no bearing on your personal righteousness. It is also true that God warns us on several occasions about seeking for riches and how being rich can be a very difficult temptation to overcome.

 

-Finrock

Is the measurement of righteousness, then, the GDP of a country?

What does it mean to be prosperous?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks! A real answer.

 

"Many, many factors can prevent otherwise righteous individuals or societies from becoming wealthy."  ...says to me that righteous individuals and societies are wealthy, but can't always realize it. (?) If that is what you mean, why doesn't God allow them to realize their wealth?

 

I don't quite understand your question.  Spiritually, sure, they're wealthy.  Materially, not always so.  And, why?  I suspect my explanation is the same as yours:  first, God does, for His own purposes, send rain on both the just and the unjust; and second, God chooses not to meddle in the free will of those whose actions prevent the prosperity of the righteous.

 

We're talking about general trends here, not absolute guarantees.

 

 

I'm rereading the talk. I don't think he is a shyster with dollar signs. Not at all. I just believe the idea that God rewards the righteous with wealth, is a false teaching.

Hmm.  But the Bible clearly states that He can "rebuke the devourer" in order to preserve one's assets (a specific promise to those who tithe--see Malachi 3:11).  How is that different?

 

Let me give you an example: 

--I believe God gave me a commandment to not engage in sexual intercourse with people to whom I am not married. 

--I have not had sexual intercourse with any woman to whom I am not married.

--I currently enjoy the "blessing" of not having to pay child support to any child of mine conceived out of wedlock--a benefit easily worth some $2500 or more per year.

 

Now--have I been rewarded with extra wealth because of my supposed righteousness in this matter?

 

If so--by whom?

 

 

From the opening of the talk to the point that I quoted, I read as a reflection of American Manifest Destiny.

 

Then he goes on to use the Book of Mormon, to show that God blesses the righteous while the wicked suffer misfortunes. Even the weather is good for the righteous. 

 

Then he quotes Leviticus, which is in context of living the Law. The covenant that God made with His People through Moses.

 

Then cautions about forgetting where material abundance comes from (God).

 

Then back to the Book of Mormon, where people are proud of their riches

 

Then to teaching that blessing of abundance are conditional.

 

Then telling people to pay tithing and fast offerings.

 

Then telling people to work towards qualifying for prosperity.

 

Not a bad run-down, but I think your summation of the effort required as being "paying tithing and fast offerings" and generally "work[ing] towards qualifying for prosperity" gives short shrift to what Larsen is actually saying we need to do:  labor together equally, share with those in need, not set their heart on riches, and generally conform all aspects of their lives to the Lord's will.

 

 

The left out parts are the concerning points. This teaching is completely opposite of what Paul teaches in his letter to the Romans, that is, that we can see God's grace given in abundance to those who suffer. Even those who suffer in sin.

 

The idea that God loves and succors the poor spiritually (even if that poverty is self-inflicted)--and even did so before Christ's lifetime when, by your interpretation, we were still "under law"--is an enormous part of LDS theology generally.  Larsen does not dwell on it explicitly, because that doesn't happen to be the focus of this particular sermon.  But it is implicit in his warnings that the Church needs to remember the material needs of the poor (which is what fast offerings are for, by the way); and concern for the poor is a recurring theme in both the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants (as well as the Bible, of course).

 

 

This paradox is not seen in the talk from Dean Larsen. His is based on the Law, which is fulfilled in Christ. Christ is the New Covenant for Christians. We don't live the Law, and are not justified by our own qualities, but by Jesus Christ.

 

This statement is worth its own thread (maybe two or three threads).  Suffice it to say--Mormons have a fundamentally different view of the relationship between God, man, Jesus, and "law", than what you seem to state above.

 

We hold that Jesus' ministry was anticipated from the very beginning; and that He was the Mediator between God, man, and the law from the days of Adam onwards.  Salvation never came through mere obedience.  Living after the Spirit was always the ideal.  Divine law has always been instituted as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ; and that "New Covenant" was available to true believers throughout Old Testament times  (Paul only called it "new" because, to the Jews in the Roman era, it was new--these concepts had been lost to them centuries earlier.) 

 

Jesus' resurrection did mark the lifting of a number of aspects of the Mosaic law that were either tailored to the circumstances in which they were given or specifically intended as precursors of Jesus' own life.  However, none of this deprived God of the prerogative to insist on compliance with certain other commandments, or even to issue new requirements--and occasionally, to impose fearful penalties for disobedience.  (Ananias and Sapphira, anyone?) 

 

So, no; in LDS teaching Jesus' life, death, and resurrection did not abrogate the notion of "law" and thereby convert mortality into some kind of amoral free-for-all for those lucky enough to have their birth year succeeded by an "anno domini".  Nor did it negate long-standing notions of cause-and-effect.  Generally speaking, obedience to--say--the Ten Commandments, breeds social stability; which in turn breeds economic prosperity.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you referring to communism, socialism or some other "ism"?

 

Is the measurement of righteousness, then, the GDP of a country?

What does it mean to be prosperous?

 

Zion. Acts 2:44

 

And all that believed were together, and had allthingscommon;

 

blueskye, material wealth does not indicate righteousness so the answer to your question about GDP is no. Material wealth is NEVER a measure of righteousness.

 

You asked how is material abundance related to obedience which is what I explained. 

 

Your question about what it means to be prosperous is exactly the point. You decide.

 

-Finrock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't quite understand your question.  Spiritually, sure, they're wealthy.  Materially, not always so.  And, why?  I suspect my explanation is the same as yours:  first, God does, for His own purposes, send rain on both the just and the unjust; and second, God chooses not to meddle in the free will of those whose actions prevent the prosperity of the righteous.

 

We're talking about general trends here, not absolute guarantees.

I don't believe God rewards the righteous with material things.

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm.  But the Bible clearly states that He can "rebuke the devourer" in order to preserve one's assets (a specific promise to those who tithe--see Malachi 3:11).  How is that different?

 

Let me give you an example: 

--I believe God gave me a commandment to not engage in sexual intercourse with people to whom I am not married. 

--I have not had sexual intercourse with any woman to whom I am not married.

--I currently enjoy the "blessing" of not having to pay child support to any child of mine conceived out of wedlock--a benefit easily worth some $2500 or more per year.

 

Now--have I been rewarded with extra wealth because of my supposed righteousness in this matter?

 

If so--by whom?

Ummm, what? Supporting a child is not a punishment from God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not a bad run-down, but I think your summation of the effort required as being "paying tithing and fast offerings" and generally "work[ing] towards qualifying for prosperity" gives short shrift to what Larsen is actually saying we need to do:  labor together equally, share with those in need, not set their heart on riches, and generally conform all aspects of their lives to the Lord's will.

I didn't change what he said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The idea that God loves and succors the poor spiritually (even if that poverty is self-inflicted)--and even did so before Christ's lifetime when, by your interpretation, we were still "under law"--is an enormous part of LDS theology generally.  Larsen does not dwell on it explicitly, because that doesn't happen to be the focus of this particular sermon.  But it is implicit in his warnings that the Church needs to remember the material needs of the poor (which is what fast offerings are for, by the way); and concern for the poor is a recurring theme in both the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants (as well as the Bible, of course).

The talk does not address the Cross, at all.

 

 

 

 

 

This statement is worth its own thread (maybe two or three threads).  Suffice it to say--Mormons have a fundamentally different view of the relationship between God, man, Jesus, and "law", than what you seem to state above.

 

We hold that Jesus' ministry was anticipated from the very beginning; and that He was the Mediator between God, man, and the law from the days of Adam onwards.  Salvation never came through mere obedience.

That is not so. Abraham was saved by his obedience. The Jews were meant to be saved by obedience to the law, but failed, thus showing us our need for Jesus Christ. In whom we are saved, not by the law. Paul clearly teaches this is more than one of his letters. Hebrews is very clear regarding this as well.

 

 

 

Living after the Spirit was always the ideal.  Divine law has always been instituted as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ; and that "New Covenant" was available to true believers throughout Old Testament times  (Paul only called it "new" because, to the Jews in the Roman era, it was new--these concepts had been lost to them centuries earlier.)

The New Covenant IS Jesus, and was not available to anyone until the Crucifixion.

Why do you quote "New Covenant", like it is not real?

 

 

 

 

Jesus' resurrection did mark the lifting of a number of aspects of the Mosaic law that were either tailored to the circumstances in which they were given or specifically intended as precursors of Jesus' own life.  However, none of this deprived God of the prerogative to insist on compliance with certain other commandments, or even to issue new requirements--and occasionally, to impose fearful penalties for disobedience.  (Ananias and Sapphira, anyone?) 

 

So, no; in LDS teaching Jesus' life, death, and resurrection did not abrogate the notion of "law" and thereby convert mortality into some kind of amoral free-for-all for those lucky enough to have their birth year succeeded by an "anno domini".  Nor did it negate long-standing notions of cause-and-effect.  Generally speaking, obedience to--say--the Ten Commandments, breeds social stability; which in turn breeds economic prosperity.

The law is fulfilled (not abrogated) in Jesus Christ. If not, then we should be living the 631 laws.

Jesus taught us to follow the ten commandments, love God, our neighbors as ourselves, and pick up our Cross and follow Him.

What about Job? Doesn't the story of Job teach against viewing material possessions, as a measurement for how well God is pleased with us?

Edited by blueskye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zion. Acts 2:44

 

 

 

blueskye, material wealth does not indicate righteousness so the answer to your question about GDP is no. Material wealth is NEVER a measure of righteousness.

 

You asked how is material abundance related to obedience which is what I explained. 

 

Your question about what it means to be prosperous is exactly the point. You decide.

 

-Finrock

I know what I believe.

Do you believe:

a) You follow God's commands, you follow the will of God, you will prosper. But don't expect primarily treasure on earth, expect treasure in heaven.

or

b) God wants to increase you financially, by giving you promotions, fresh ideas and creativity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share