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

[Just_A_Guy]

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

 

Okay.  But merely repeating a thing doesn't make it true, you know. 

 

 

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

 

Righteous indignation about the virtues of child-rearing aside, please answer the question.

 

Is an extra $2500/year in your budget a material blessing?  Or is it not?

 

(And if it's not, please explain where in the Bible it says we should go fornicating all willy-nilly, the better to create as many out-of-wedlock babies as possible.)

 

I didn't change what he said.

 

I didn't say you did.  I just said you had made some pretty significant omissions.

 

 

The talk does not address the Cross, at all.

 

Why should it?  We don't worship the cross.  The word "Lord" does appear in the talk (by my count) twenty times, and "God" nine more.

 

 

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.

 

Mormons read Hebrews 11 as being quite clear that Abraham was saved by faith.  Faith in what?  Not himself, and not his own works.

 

And, no; in Mormon thought, Jesus was not a backup plan.  He was not "Plan B".

 

 

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

 

Again, your repeating something does not make it so.

 

 

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

 

No, I put it in quotation marks because it's not new.

 

 

The law is fulfilled 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.

 

You've just undermined your own logical argument.

 

First you say that Larsen's teaching that there is any sort of "law-based" connection between Divine favor and prosperity must be completely spurious, because there is no more law.

 

But now you acknowledge that Jesus did leave us with some laws--certainly no the full Mosaic code, but some "laws" none the less.

 

If it's okay to have some laws, you have no basis for saying that Larsen's connection can't be one of them.

 

If must not be any laws, then it would appear that even Jesus wasn't Christian enough for you.

 

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?

 

No one here is saying that material possessions should be viewed as a measurement for how well God is pleased with us.  However, his experience does seem illustrative of what I've been saying all along:  First he becomes poor, through no fault of his own.  Then, at the story's end, he becomes fabulously wealthy--apparently, at least in part as a blessing for his faithfulness in trial.  Which buttresses the assertion that righteousness/prosperity link is a general trend, subject to numerous exceptions.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[blueskye]

Okay.  But merely repeating a thing doesn't make it true, you know. 

 

 

Righteous indignation about the virtues of child-rearing aside, please answer the question.

 

Is an extra $2500/year in your budget a material blessing?  Or is it not?

 

(And if it's not, please explain where in the Bible it says we should go fornicating all willy-nilly, the better to create as many out-of-wedlock babies as possible.)

Holy smokes, I never implied any such thing. If all it is, is fear of child support, that kept you chaste. Whew! Thank God for putting the fear of losing money into you. Is all I can say. Me, I'd rather follow the will of God because God is my desire. Obviously, it is not something I do alone, but in and through Christ. If I fail, it is not God's failure, but my own. But alleluia! I can seek forgiveness.

I think you have a false sense of punishment and reward, is all.

$2500 is $2500. I can spend it on a car, or feeding a kid. Could be my own kid, could be a complete stranger (or two) who is hungry. I don't view money as either punishment or reward, from God.

"I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want." Philippians 4:12

 

 

I didn't say you did.  I just said you had made some pretty significant omissions.

I don't think so.

 

 

What about Job?  First he becomes poor, through no fault of his own.  Then, at the story's end, he becomes fabulously wealthy--apparently, at least in part as a blessing for his faithfulness in trial.  Kinda buttresses what I've been saying all along--the righteousness/prosperity link is a general trend, subject to numerous exceptions.

Oh my heck! Go read Job.

Edited June 23, 2015 by blueskye

[Vort]

 

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

 

 

So you disbelieve the book of Job. Very well, that is your prerogative, but I hardly think disbelieving clear Biblical teachings is a point of pride.

 

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

 

Nor did JAG say it was. Don't dodge the question; answer it.

 

I didn't change what he said.

 

No, you misunderstood it. Given your subsequent reactions, your misunderstanding appears to be willlful.

 

The talk does not address the Cross, at all.

 

"The Cross"? Uh...can you say "non sequitur"?

 

That is not so. Abraham was saved by his obedience.

 

Abraham was saved by the grace of God, just like any other saved being.

 

The Jews were meant to be saved by obedience to the law, but failed, thus showing us our need for Jesus Christ.

 

This is plain false doctrine, and demonstrates your lack of grasp of the most basic aspects of LDS doctrine. The Jews were never "meant to be saved by obedience to the law"; even you should be able to figure that out based on Paul's teachings.

 

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.

 

And yet, you say that the Jews were supposed to have been saved by their obedience to the law of Moses.

 

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?

 

Again, you have not the slightest understanding of LDS doctrine. You really should quit embarrassing yourself. Yes, Christ's covenant was available to all believers from Adam.

 

And JAG very clearly explained that the quotes around "new" is because the covenant itself was not new at all, except to the knowledge of those Jews who didn't understand that it had been around since Adam.

 

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?

 

Since you have already freely admitted to disbelieving Job, I am surprised and entertained that you would now attempt to reference Job as somehow supporting your condemnation of your misstatement of LDS doctrine.

[estradling75]

 

Oh my heck! Go read Job.

 

 

Or maybe you should.... Here is how it ends

 

 

 

 12 So the Lord ^ablessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning: for he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she asses.

 13 He had also seven sons and three daughters.

 14 And he called the name of the first, Jemima; and the name of the second, Kezia; and the name of the third, Keren-happuch.

 15 And in all the land were no women found so fair as the daughters of Job: and their father gave them inheritance among their brethren.

 16 After this lived Job an hundred and forty years, and saw his sons, and his sons’ sons, even four generations.

 17 So Job died, being old and full of days.

[Just_A_Guy]

Blueskye, seeing that you made some edits to your 3:37 PM post, I've similarly edited my 3:51 PM post.  I'll hold off on responding to your 3:58 PM post for half an hour or so, to give you time to make any edits to that post that you feel my own edits have required.  (Confusing enough for you?  :)  )

[blueskye]

Okay.  But merely repeating a thing doesn't make it true, you know. 

 

 

Righteous indignation about the virtues of child-rearing aside, please answer the question.

 

Is an extra $2500/year in your budget a material blessing?  Or is it not?

 

(And if it's not, please explain where in the Bible it says we should go fornicating all willy-nilly, the better to create as many out-of-wedlock babies as possible.)

 

 

I didn't say you did.  I just said you had made some pretty significant omissions.

 

 

Why should it?  We don't worship the cross.  The word "Lord" does appear in the talk (by my count) twenty times, and "God" nine more.

 

 

Mormons read Hebrews 11 as being quite clear that Abraham was saved by faith.  Faith in what?  Not himself, and not his own works.

 

And, no; in Mormon thought, Jesus was not a backup plan.  He was not "Plan B".

 

 

Again, your repeating something does not make it so.

 

 

No, I put it in quotation marks because it's not new.

 

 

You've just undermined your own logical argument.

 

First you say that Larsen's teaching that there is any sort of "law-based" connection between Divine favor and prosperity must be completely spurious, because there is no more law.

 

But now you acknowledge that Jesus did leave us with some laws--certainly no the full Mosaic code, but some "laws" none the less.

 

If it's okay to have some laws, you have no basis for saying that Larsen's connection can't be one of them.

 

If must not be any laws, then it would appear that even Jesus wasn't Christian enough for you.

 

 

No one here is saying that material possessions should be viewed as a measurement for how well God is pleased with us.  However, his experience does seem illustrative of what I've been saying all along:  First he becomes poor, through no fault of his own.  Then, at the story's end, he becomes fabulously wealthy--apparently, at least in part as a blessing for his faithfulness in trial.  Which buttresses the assertion that righteousness/prosperity link is a general trend, subject to numerous exceptions.

1/2 hour? LOL. Lucky I'm not busy today or I'd miss your deadline.

The NEW COVENANT is Jesus Christ. Jesus wasn't being capricious when He named Himself, the New Covenant. So we follow Him, NOT THE LAW. We follow the ten commandments because we follow Him. We do as He commands, because we follow Him. We are not following the Law, as given to Moses. We are following Jesus Christ. He is not a Law, he is a PERSON.

You skipped in Job, where he loses everything. His family, livelihood, possession and even his health. His good friends come around, and say nothing to him for 7 days. Which is a nice thing for friends to do. After 7 days, they ask Job (paraphrasing) "What did you do wrong that God would punish you like this?" So, not such a nice thing for a friend to ask, or assume.Job further suffers because he knows he didn't do anything wrong, but his friends are convinced that Job sinned in some way. But Job is a righteous man, but he also lost everything. His friends, in a view coming from Leviticus or Deuteronomy, want to know what Job did wrong.

I don't take restoring his material possessions so literally as, God wants us to be rich! wahoo! That defies everything Jesus taught. It represents Job's salvation, which is in and through God. Not in himself, and not in his friends.

My point also being, taking the view of Leviticus, or Deuteronomy, without Job, causes a distortion in understanding.

Christianity, without the Cross, is not Christianity, and again, a distortion in understanding is made when you leave out the Cross.

Otherwise, thanks for explaining what you believe regarding the New Covenant. Obviously, I think you are wrong, but what you believe is what you believe.

Edited June 23, 2015 by blueskye

[Vort]

Otherwise, thanks for explaining what you believe regarding the New Covenant. Obviously, I think you are wrong, but what you believe is what you believe.

 

Obviously, you haven't a clue what he believes. I fear that Leah's assessment was correct.

[blueskye]

Obviously, you haven't a clue what he believes. I fear that Leah's assessment was correct.

Red herrings and why people use them.

[Josiah]

I think certain activities just have natural consequences that will affect one's own and one's neighbors' economic well-being. 

 

I feel like it really comes down to that sentence there. Blue's point that God's blessings are primarily spiritual is spot on, it's just that you can't change the spiritual without also affecting the temporal. The commandments and principles that we have been given, when applied and internalized, will naturally bless us temporally also. Eternal truths and principles work everywhere - they are universal - so living the gospel in all aspects of our lives will also ultimately bless us in all aspects of our lives. And the fact that we even have those principles is a gift from God, so wouldn't the results of them be His gift to those who apply them?

 

But the spiritual blessing is what Christ is more concerned about, as blue has said, so we shouldn't be surprised when God allows some of us, like Job, to go through economic or other trials as a means of helping us understand some of these eternal truths, regardless of our righteousness or wickedness. But if we trust Him, it works out in the long run even if that's not in this life for some.

 

Blue, the talk you quoted from in the original post strikes me as having a message not all that different from these verses in Matthew 6. If we're doing what Christ wants us to be doing, He'll take care of us.

 

 

26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

 27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

 28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:

 29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

 30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

 31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

 32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.

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

Edited June 23, 2015 by Josiah

[Just_A_Guy]

The NEW COVENANT is Jesus Christ. Jesus wasn't being capricious when He named Himself, the New Covenant. So we follow Him, NOT THE LAW. We follow the ten commandments because we follow Him. We do as He commands, because we follow Him. We are not following the Law, as given to Moses. We are following Jesus Christ. He is not a Law, he is a PERSON.

 

I whole-heartedly agree with you on this, with only the clarifications that a) as I said before, "new" implies that it was new to His hearers, but not necessarily that the prophets from Adam on down were ignorant of Him and His mission; and b) yes, we follow Jesus, recognizing that He may from time to time impose additional "laws" which we obey--not for their own sake--but because they bring us to Him.

 

 

You skipped in Job, where he loses everything. His family, livelihood, possession and even his health. His good friends come around, and say nothing to him for 7 days. Which is a nice thing for friends to do. After 7 days, they ask Job (paraphrasing) "What did you do wrong that God would punish you like this?" So, not such a nice thing for a friend to ask, or assume.Job further suffers because he knows he didn't do anything wrong, but his friends are convinced that Job sinned in some way. But Job is a righteous man, but he also lost everything. His friends, in a view coming from Leviticus or Deuteronomy, want to know what Job did wrong.

I don't take restoring his material possessions so literally as, God wants us to be rich! wahoo! That defies everything Jesus taught. It represents Job's salvation, which is in and through God. Not in himself, and not in his friends.

 

I don't think I skipped anything essential--I pointed out that Job "becomes poor, through no fault of his own".  Yes, his friends--like the disciples in John 9--got tripped up by believing that this was an absolute rule; but the fact that people misinterpret a principle is not per se evidence that the principle is incorrect.  (I mean, don't Catholic theologians still maintain that the practice of "indulgences" was based on a true doctrine, and that the Protestant criticism of the practice as "selling permission to sin" is a crass misinterpretation?  You don't abandon a true teaching just because some schmucks are misapplying it!)

 

I do have some difficulty with your dismissal of the Bible's appraisal of Job's final material status.  Under the notions of "law" as you have advanced them here, Job was still subject to Mosaic principles and there would be nothing theologically wrong with his getting a material reward for his faithfulness in the face of adversity.  So, why is it so important that he be left a pauper, when the book that bears his name proclaims otherwise?  The guy just had a conversation with God--his spiritual salvation should be pretty well settled. 

 

 

Christianity, without the Cross, is not Christianity, and again, a distortion in understanding is made when you leave out the Cross.

 

With all due respect, blueskye, I'm willing to bet money that every person who heard Elder Larson deliver that sermon in the Tabernacle was well aware that Jesus died on a cross.  I don't think His Name loses efficacy just because the word "cross" doesn't appear in every sentence, paragraph, or even sermon in which that Name is mentioned.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[blueskye]

I whole-heartedly agree with you on this, with only the clarifications that a) as I said before, "new" implies that it was new to His hearers, but not necessarily that the prophets from Adam on down were ignorant of Him and His mission; and b) yes, we follow Jesus, recognizing that He may from time to time impose additional "laws" which we obey--not for their own sake--but because they bring us to Him.

 

 

I don't think I skipped anything essential--I pointed out that Job "becomes poor, through no fault of his own".  Yes, his friends--like the disciples in John 9--got tripped up by believing that this was an absolute rule; but the fact that people misinterpret a principle is not per se evidence that the principle is incorrect.  (I mean, don't Catholic theologians still maintain that the practice of "indulgences" was based on a true doctrine, and that the Protestant criticism of the practice as "selling permission to sin" is a crass misinterpretation?  You don't abandon a true teaching just because some schmucks are misapplying it!)

 

I do have some difficulty with your dismissal of the Bible's appraisal of Job's final material status.  Under the notions of "law" as you have advanced them here, Job was still subject to Mosaic principles and there would be nothing theologically wrong with his getting a material reward for his faithfulness in the face of adversity.  So, why is it so important that he be left a pauper, when the book that bears his name proclaims otherwise?  The guy just had a conversation with God--his spiritual salvation should be pretty well settled. 

 

 

With all due respect, blueskye, I'm willing to bet money that every person who heard Elder Larson deliver that sermon in the Tabernacle was well aware that Jesus died on a cross.  I don't think His Name loses efficacy just because the word "cross" doesn't appear in every sentence, paragraph, or even sermon in which that Name is mentioned.

Well, historically, there were Catholics who were actually selling indulgences in a corrupt manner, and Luther was right in calling them out. The practice was changed 500 years ago, to prevent corruption.

 

We aren't going to agree on what New means. New, means New, as in, something that wasn't there before. ie, the OLD Testament is not called the Previously New Testament. It just doesn't even make sense to say New doesn't mean New, but means New-ish. Sorta. Kinda. But not really.

 

If you must view Job's new wealth as reward, then you must view all lack of wealth as punishment. And you must view all wealth as God's reward, and there you are, back with Job's friends.

 

The OT, including the Law, points to one thing and that is our Salvation in Jesus Christ. Salvation is not found in material things. So it is not a crass dismissal, but understanding the Old, in the light of the New.

Edited June 23, 2015 by blueskye

[Vort]

Red herrings and why people use them.

 

LOL. Well, if that ain't the pot calling the snowman black...

[blueskye]

LOL. Well, if that ain't the pot calling the snowman black...

I haven't avoided anything but your insults, and those I think can stand there with you.

If there were an ignore feature on this forum, you'd be my first guest to that list. You really say nothing useful. Ever.

[estradling75]

 

If you must view Job's new wealth as reward, then you must view all lack of wealth as punishment. And you must view all wealth as God's reward, and there you are, back with Job's friends.

 

 

 

 

What do you mean by "reward"?  If I credit God for everything I have (including any prosperity) am I just being wise and following the commandments.  Or must (as you seem to be require our position to be) we take it as some measuring yard stick of my personal righteousness?

 

Given the case of Job and the cases presented in the Book of Mormon anyone trying to make the claim that "prosperity" is a unfailingly reliable indicator of righteousness.. has a whole lot of explaining to do on all the counter cases the scriptures present.

[blueskye]

I whole-heartedly agree with you on this, with only the clarifications that a) as I said before, "new" implies that it was new to His hearers, but not necessarily that the prophets from Adam on down were ignorant of Him and His mission; and b) yes, we follow Jesus, recognizing that He may from time to time impose additional "laws" which we obey--not for their own sake--but because they bring us to Him.

 

 

I don't think I skipped anything essential--I pointed out that Job "becomes poor, through no fault of his own".  Yes, his friends--like the disciples in John 9--got tripped up by believing that this was an absolute rule; but the fact that people misinterpret a principle is not per se evidence that the principle is incorrect.  (I mean, don't Catholic theologians still maintain that the practice of "indulgences" was based on a true doctrine, and that the Protestant criticism of the practice as "selling permission to sin" is a crass misinterpretation?  You don't abandon a true teaching just because some schmucks are misapplying it!)

 

I do have some difficulty with your dismissal of the Bible's appraisal of Job's final material status.  Under the notions of "law" as you have advanced them here, Job was still subject to Mosaic principles and there would be nothing theologically wrong with his getting a material reward for his faithfulness in the face of adversity.  So, why is it so important that he be left a pauper, when the book that bears his name proclaims otherwise?  The guy just had a conversation with God--his spiritual salvation should be pretty well settled. 

 

 

With all due respect, blueskye, I'm willing to bet money that every person who heard Elder Larson deliver that sermon in the Tabernacle was well aware that Jesus died on a cross.  I don't think His Name loses efficacy just because the word "cross" doesn't appear in every sentence, paragraph, or even sermon in which that Name is mentioned.

Thanks for your perspective.

[Just_A_Guy]

If you must view Job's new wealth as reward, then you must view all lack of wealth as punishment. And you must view all wealth as God's reward, and there you are, back with Job's friends.

 

Hmm . . . not really.  If I reward my kids with Jolly Ranchers for going to bed on time, the fact that none of my kids have Jolly Ranchers at the moment does not mean they haven't been getting to bed on time; and the fact that any one of my kids has tons of Jolly Ranchers doesn't mean that he has been getting to bed on time.

 

 The OT, including the Law, points to one thing and that is our Salvation in Jesus Christ.

 

I agree, and I would further submit that the OT's authors from Moses on were fully aware of that.

 

 

Salvation is not found in material things.

 

I agree.

[Vort]

If you must view Job's new wealth as reward, then you must view all lack of wealth as punishment. And you must view all wealth as God's reward, and there you are, back with Job's friends.

 The Bible itself makes this identification. Not that that will mean anything to you.

[blueskye]

Hmm . . . not really.  If I reward my kids with Jolly Ranchers for going to bed on time, the fact that none of my kids have Jolly Ranchers at the moment does not mean they haven't been getting to bed on time; and the fact that any one of my kids has tons of Jolly Ranchers doesn't mean that he has been getting to bed on time.

LOL. That is a funny analogy.

But! Where did your kid get the ton of Jolly Ranchers?

 

 

I agree, and I would further submit that the OT's authors from Moses on were fully aware of that.

Certainly, Jesus is prefigured in the Old, but the authors were not aware of their Salvation in Jesus Christ. He was hidden.

Romans 16

25 Now to him who can strengthen you, according to my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret for long ages

26 but now manifested through the prophetic writings and, according to the command of the eternal God, made known to all nations to bring about the obedience of faith,

27 to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ be glory forever and ever. Amen.

[blueskye]

What do you mean by "reward"?  If I credit God for everything I have (including any prosperity) am I just being wise and following the commandments.  Or must (as you seem to be require our position to be) we take it as some measuring yard stick of my personal righteousness?

 

By rewards, in the context of this thread, I mean material abundance

"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."

 

Given the case of Job and the cases presented in the Book of Mormon anyone trying to make the claim that "prosperity" is a unfailingly reliable indicator of righteousness.. has a whole lot of explaining to do on all the counter cases the scriptures present.

What do you think the correlation given in this quote, between obedience and material abundance, or lack thereof, means? If this is not a reliable correlation, why make the correlation at all?

 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I haven't avoided anything but your insults, and those I think can stand there with you.

If there were an ignore feature on this forum, you'd be my first guest to that list. You really say nothing useful. Ever.

 

There is an ignore feature.  It is very useful.  Click on your name on the top right hand of the page.  From the drop down menu click, "My Settings"  Then look on the menu on the left hand side of the page.  Click on "Ignore Preferences".  Then type in the name of the person(s) you want to ignore.  :)  

[Syme]

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.

 

Why not c) both?

[The Folk Prophet]

You really say nothing useful. Ever.

 

Such a comment made to Vort fairly fully destroys any semblance of credibility you you may have...never mind. You had no credibility. Still, what a ridiculous comment.

[Guest]

I am interested to know if Anatess agrees with this.

I not sure why my name got pulled here...

I'm from the Philippines. I have a completely different understanding of what is poor vis a vis what is rich than a First World citizen.

[estradling75]

 

By rewards, in the context of this thread, I mean material abundance

"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."

 

 

 

Questions for you...  If people say that the Lord bless them with material abundance are they wrong? Lying? Deceived?

 

 

 

 

 

 

What do you think the correlation given in this quote, between obedience and material abundance, or lack thereof, means? If this is not a reliable correlation, why make the correlation at all?

 

 

I think the Lord will bless me however he wants...  I would not ever be so arrogant and to deny the possibly of the Lord blessing me materially if he so wishes... Also he has promised all his faithful with the fullness of the earth that sounds very materialistic to me.  Of course I think the Lord also blesses me with Trials and challenges too.

 

Because of this understanding it seems to me that the correlation is simple.  Obedience brings blessings.  If the Lord so wills those blessing can be material in nature.  But just because they can be... does not mean it is right to assume all blessing are material in nature... or that someone with a bunch of materiel stuff is being greatly blessed for obedience. (that in fact might be a Trial or a Challenge for us to deal with)

[priesthoodpower]

No, they DO NOT.

That talk CLEARLY teaches material wealth is a sign of righteousness. The Catholuc Church has never, and will never, teach anything of the sort. You have your head in the sand..

what you dont understand is that living in good standings as an LDS member require sacrifices and strict obedience. So much so that many avenues to obtaining lucrative careers and material wealth is out of our reach. For example my household income is half of what it could potentially be because my wife decided to stay at home and raise our kids for the past 12 years.

But the lord has promised us that if we obey him he will prosper us in HIS WAY with material wealth AND eternal blessings.

01. The two bedroom apartment (with no yard) that I live in is waaay too small for my family of 5 but I have no debt, a comfortable savings, my kids love spending time with me, this two bedroom apt is in a safe neighborhood and is what I consider my "riches of the earth" I am truly a blessed man.

I am not offended by the way you view the LDS church and its teachings because you dont understand it and to your defense there are many LDS faithful that dont understand fully some/most of our teachings and that is why we continually strive to learn and understand the gospel. Its a lifetime journey.

 

How is material abundance related to obedience?

A drug dealer is obedient to following the protocol of selling the drugs.

A Lawyer had to be obedient through out his schooling to obtain a law degree.

A business man had to be obedient to laws and regulations to run his business.

Even winning slots at vegas require enough obedience to put the coin in the correct slot.

--------------

To non-LDS folks material abundance has no relation to being obedient to God. I think we can all agree on that.

LDS members like myself believe that God is the source of all material and eternal blessings in our lives. The fact that I was able to afford a soda and sushi for lunch this afternoon humbled me enough to thank God for that abundance and I would like to believe that the Lord appreciates my efforts of obedience to pray and recognize him in following his commandments daily.

God wants us to recognize him in all things, thats all, I choose to, you choose not to.

 

I just believe the idea that God rewards the righteous with wealth, is a false teaching.

Your perspective and understanding is different. We simply need to agree to disagree.

My soda and sushi lunch is an abundance of wealth and I attribute this abundance to my gospel obedience. Its false to you but true to me.