Mormonism, the original prosperity gospel?

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Blessings are connected to prosperity in verse 22.

Yes but "prosper in the land" doesn't necessitate riches on an individual level. That's extremely important. Also prosperity often appears to simply mean not being in war or taken captive. (See for example Mosiah 2:31; Mosiah 12:15; Alma 48:15 etc.) When you are subsistent farmers under constant threat of war and slavery prosperity takes a very different meaning than what it has today where even the poorest aren't in danger of starvation in the west.

This is a non-trivial point. Prosperity gospel in the American Evangelical tradition has two important characteristics. First it is individual prosperity tied to a Calvinist idea of God choosing people and all choices ultimately being due to God. (They are determinists) Second the prosperity is interpreted in terms of amassing individual wealth.

To make a claim about a prosperity gospel in the Book of Mormon you have to make the same claims. Since the sermon you are quoting from is arguing against that idea you have to find something else. Further the text you're quoting from defines prosperity as being kept from enemies. (31)

Edited March 15, 2017 by clarkgoble

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

It seems to be an inevitable blessing in the BOM, despite some trials of faith for some to begin with. I don't see how you can make any real claim that the righteous prosper materially more than the unrighteous, except by retroactively declaring the prosperous to have been righteous. 

King Benjamin' speech about the poor and giving what you have unless you have nothing suggests righteous poor. Alma the Younger preaching to the exiles from the synagogue and giving up on the well-heeled church goers shows that the best of that group were the impoverished. I just do not see a specific correlation.

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

King Benjamin' speech about the poor and giving what you have unless you have nothing suggests righteous poor. Alma the Younger preaching to the exiles from the synagogue and giving up on the well-heeled church goers shows that the best of that group were the impoverished. I just do not see a specific correlation.

Those are some good contra-examples. 

Still, there are dozens and dozens of prosperity gospel verses throughout to book. Perhaps Joseph hadn't fully considered the implications, given his portrayal of the righteous poor. 

[clarkgoble]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Upward mobility is highly dependent on the local culture, India for example, likely has much lower upmobility for their lower castes than in our society that has the "American dream".  There is a stigma here attached to the poor, but not so much the 'past poor'.

However, even here:

http://www.nccp.org/publications/pub_911.html

"The findings in this brief are consistent with a wide body of research documenting limited economic mobility in the United States and the significant risks associated with child poverty.

Interestingly Utah has mobility on par with Scandanavian countries. 

[Stargazer]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Kind of an oxymoron unless by this you mean those who practiced manumission.

If they practiced manumission, then they weren't slave owners.  They were former slave owners.

Yeah, you can't call a given slave owner "fair and kind", no matter how well he treats his slaves, because somebody is going to interpret it as "praise for slavery."  Because "political correctness", that's why. 

But compare two slave owners.  One beats his slaves to get the uttermost effort out of them, sells their wives and children away from them, and provides as little in the way of food and clothing as he can get away with.  The other treats his slaves reasonably, doesn't mistreat them, even encourages them to learn to read and gain skills that he then allows them to use for their own benefit as well as his, refuses to split families, and if they can earn enough money by their own efforts to buy their freedom, he lets them do.  Now you tell me, is one of these fair and kind in comparison to the other?  In no sense does calling one slave owner fair and kind a recommendation for slavery.  It's evil regardless.  But which one would you rather be enslaved to?

 

[The Nehor]

Just now, clarkgoble said:

Interestingly Utah has mobility on par with Scandanavian countries. 

Due to the social support network in the LDS faith where different economic classes rub shoulders regularly I think we are a particularly economically mobile people. My father's parents were lower to mid-middle class but all three of their sons are wealthy now. We have examples of success to emulate and people willing to help the young succeed. It is wonderful. It is not the same for most other Americans.

[Gray]

33 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Yes but "prosper in the land" doesn't necessitate riches on an individual level. That's extremely important. Also prosperity often appears to simply mean not being in war or taken captive. (See for example Mosiah 2:31; Mosiah 12:15; Alma 48:15 etc.) When you are subsistent farmers under constant threat of war and slavery prosperity takes a very different meaning than what it has today where even the poorest aren't in danger of starvation in the west.

Yes, I agree, it's not necessarily about having an opulent lifestyle (which the BOM condemns), it's about doing well. Having "plenty". 

Mosiah 12:15 is in the voice of one of Noah's priests. But yes, a part of it is that righteousness will keep the people from physical destruction as well. Which of course is also out of touch with reality. Millions of good people have faced destruction. ETA: But, it's a very Biblical notion. Whenever Israel fell on hard times, the prophets blamed it on Israel's disobedience. 

Edited March 15, 2017 by Gray

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Stargazer said:

If they practiced manumission, then they weren't slave owners.  They were former slave owners.

Yeah, you can't call a given slave owner "fair and kind", no matter how well he treats his slaves, because somebody is going to interpret it as "praise for slavery."  Because "political correctness", that's why. 

But compare two slave owners.  One beats his slaves to get the uttermost effort out of them, sells their wives and children away from them, and provides as little in the way of food and clothing as he can get away with.  The other treats his slaves reasonably, doesn't mistreat them, even encourages them to learn to read and gain skills that he then allows them to use for their own benefit as well as his, refuses to split families, and if they can earn enough money by their own efforts to buy their freedom, he lets them do.  Now you tell me, is one of these fair and kind in comparison to the other?  In no sense does calling one slave owner fair and kind a recommendation for slavery.  It's evil regardless.  But which one would you rather be enslaved to?

 

One is more fair and kind then the other. The nicer one might be nice to his family, give to the poor, treat his slaves kindly, and whatever but he still practices the Mahanite principle of converting human lives into personal property so no, they may be nicer or kinder but they are not generally nice or kind. They are not truly charitable.

If saying one cannot be nice and kind while exploiting the lives of others for one's personal benefit makes me politically correct then I say we need more political correctness!

[Stargazer]

20 minutes ago, Gray said:

It is superstitious nonsense, Stargazer. And it's the opposite of what Jesus taught. The rain falls equally on the righteous and unrighteous.

There are millions of people in the world with out adequate food, housing or clothing. Without access to gainful employment. If only they were more righteous, they'd have enough to eat.  

So what is it exactly that Jesus taught that is the opposite?  I'm having a hard time visualizing it. 

[Stargazer]

37 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

One is more fair and kind then the other. The nicer one might be nice to his family, give to the poor, treat his slaves kindly, and whatever but he still practices the Mahanite principle of converting human lives into personal property so no, they may be nicer or kinder but they are not generally nice or kind. They are not truly charitable.

If saying one cannot be nice and kind while exploiting the lives of others for one's personal benefit makes me politically correct then I say we need more political correctness!

I don't disagree.

[Bobbieaware]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

That is right, but my point is that our gospel does not teach that money and wealth are evil.  It teaches that money and wealth can indeed be a blessing from God to bless the lives of others.

Prosperity is not always about money, but it can be (and there is nothing wrong with that).  Prosperity can mean different things to different people depending on their circumstances.  To the Israelite's, prosperity meant being provided food where there was none.  For Nephi it meant being directed by the liahona, it meant being directed to feed his family in the wilderness when they were hungry, it meant being taught how to build a ship to cross the sea to the promised land, it meant arriving in the promised land.  These examples, while not extravagant, are examples of the Lord prospering his people.  Was Nephi free of persecution from his brothers and hardships in other ways?  No, but the Lord prospered him in ways that he would not have prospered otherwise.  Their outcomes could have been very different without the help of the Lord in prospering them.  Sometimes, the Lord does bless us more with riches that we might better serve others.  This is often seen in the Book of Mormon.  It is also seen in the Bible where the Lord blessed Abraham greatly with flocks, herds, silver, gold, menservants, maidservants, camels, and asses (Gen 24:35).  This is also seen with Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon, Jehoshaphat, and Hezekiah.

The promise is that the Lord will prosper us when we are obedient to his commandments.  If that is not a form of prosperity gospel, I don't know what is.  Men are that they might have joy!  Can anyone deny it?

The scriptures make it quite clear that the gospel of Christ is a divinely-ordained program of individual and collective spiritual progression that rewards those who obey God's will with an abundance of both spiritual and temporal blessings. My main point here is to bring into sharp focus the oft-repeated scriptural warnings that when the Lord deliberately blesses some of his children with temporal prosperity. as a natural consequence of faithful obedience, that blessing also comes with unavoidable tests that will challenge the depth of one's conversion to God and spiritual character. Accordingly, the Book of Mormon makes it plainly obvious that when the followers of Christ are blessed of the Lord with temporal prosperity, all too often those so blessed eventually come to fail the aforesaid unavoidable tests of faith and fall from grace. Simply put, while temporal prosperity can often be a good and wonderful blessing from the Lord, it's a blessing that comes with many potential hidden dangers and temptations of which the adversary of men's souls takes full malicious advantage. 

The only way those so blessed can prevent themselves from falling from grace is to genuinely think and act as king Benjamin counseled, and that is to think of themselves as impoverished and desperately needy beggar, in spite of theirwealth. The potential pitfalls of temporal wealth are so dangerous that the Lord warned it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Why would the Lord say something that, at least on the surface, seems so uncharitable and outlandish? It's because as long as a rich man considers himself to be independently wealthy, and not a totally dependent beggar before God, he won't spiritually have what it takes in order to be exalted. And it is for this same reason that the Lord said, "blessed are the poor IN SPIRIT, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

 19 For behold, are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all the riches which we have of every kind?

 20 And behold, even at this time, ye have been calling on his name, and begging for a remission of your sins. And has he suffered that ye have begged in vain? Nay; he has poured out his Spirit upon you, and has caused that your hearts should be filled with joy, and has caused that your mouths should be stopped that ye could not find utterance, so exceedingly great was your joy.

 21 And now, if God, who has created you, on whom you are dependent for your lives and for all that ye have and are, doth grant unto you whatsoever ye ask that is right, in faith, believing that ye shall receive, O then, how ye ought to impart of the substance that ye have one to another.

 22 And if ye judge the man who putteth up his petition to you for your substance that he perish not, and condemn him, how much more just will be your condemnation for withholding your substance, which doth not belong to you but to God, to whom also your life belongeth; and yet ye put up no petition, nor repent of the thing which thou hast done.

 23 I say unto you, wo be unto that man, for his substance shall perish with him; and now, I say these things unto those who are rich as pertaining to the things of this world. (Mosiah 4)

Edited March 15, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[pogi]

33 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

The scriptures make it quite clear that the gospel of Christ is a divinely-ordained program of individual and collective spiritual progression that rewards those who obey God's will with an abundance of both spiritual and temporal blessings. My main point here is to bring a sharp focus on the oft-repeated scriptural warnings...

Then we are agreed.  We are just emphasizing different points of the same principles.  

The portion in bold is what I am emphasizing.  These are prosperity principles that were taught in Mormonism long before other prosperity gospels taught these principles and distorted them. 

Edited March 15, 2017 by pogi

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

So what is it exactly that Jesus taught that is the opposite?  I'm having a hard time visualizing it. 

"that ye may be the children of your Father who is in Heaven. For He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust"

[pogi]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

"that ye may be the children of your Father who is in Heaven. For He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust"

God does bless everyone, but he doesn't bless everyone with all gifts and he doesn't bless us all equally.  That is not what Christ was teaching here.  Christ did teach prosperity for believers:

Quote

 ...I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly (John 10:10)

Also, if God prospers the believers and unbelievers equally, then why doesn't he send angels to free all people from prison instead of his apostles only?

[Gray]

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

God does bless everyone, but he doesn't bless everyone with all gifts and he doesn't bless us all equally.  That is not what Christ was teaching here.  

The rain is a blessing, and it falls equally on the just and unjust, without regard to who they are. 

 

 

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

 

Christ did teach prosperity for believers:

That's a spiritual teaching, not to be confused with concerns about money. Christ gives abundant spiritual life, but he does not give wealth. 

 

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

Also, if God prospers the believers and unbelievers equally, then why doesn't he send angels to free all people from prison instead of his apostles only?

God doesn't free anyone from prison. If we, as his angels, wish to do that job, there is nothing stopping us.

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Then we are agreed.  We are just emphasizing different points of the same principles.  

The portion in bold is what I am emphasizing.  These are prosperity principles that were taught in Mormonism long before other prosperity gospels taught these principles and distorted them. 

I knew we were in general agreement. But the well-catalogued potential dangers that invariably accompany the blessing of temporal prosperity must always be carefully presented as an essential and indispensable corollary to that blessing. The principle is a 'coin' with two fixed and interconnected sides.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[pogi]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

The rain is a blessing, and it falls equally on the just and unjust, without regard to who they are. 

I don't know, those in Seattle seem to be way more blessed than those of us here in SLC.  Christ was not teaching that obedience will not prosper you anymore than the disobedient, he was simply teaching us to love everyone, even our enemies, as he loves everyone.  He was not teaching us to divide our spoils equally among our enemies and our own children.  Nor was he teaching that God rewards us all equally. Obviously God gives better gifts to his children.

"If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him? (Matt 7:11)"

He taught that we will be prospered to where we need not even think about what to wear and eat everyday, but that it will be provided to the obedient who have faith. 

He did not focus solely on the spiritual.  Not only did he cure spiritual illness and suffering, but he cured physical illness and suffering.  He didn't cure everyone equally, only those who had faith in him. 

4 hours ago, Gray said:

That's a spiritual teaching, not to be confused with concerns about money. Christ gives abundant spiritual life, but he does not give wealth. 

3 John 2 says:

Quote

Beloved, I pray that you may prosper in all things and be in health, just as your soul prospers. 

John seemed to believe that the abundant life Christ spoke of was not necessarily spiritual only.  

Jesus would have believed in and taught from the following scriptures, he frequently taught from Psalms:

Joshua 1:8 tells us, “This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate in it day and night, that you may observe to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.”

Psalm 1:1-3 says, “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stands in the path of sinners, nor sits in the seat of the scornful; But his delight is in the law of the Lord, and in His law, he meditates day and night.  He shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that brings forth its fruit in its season, whose leaf also shall not wither; and whatever he does shall prosper.”

Psalms35:27 tells us the Lord takes, “…pleasure in the prosperity of His servant.”

I seem to remember Peter being freed from prison by an angel.

Edited March 16, 2017 by pogi

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

I knew we were in general agreement. But the well-catalogued potential dangers that invariably accompany the blessing of temporal prosperity must always be carefully presented as an essential and indispensable corollary to that blessing. The principle is a 'coin' with two fixed and interconnected sides.

I don't like to view blessings from God that way.  If someone told me that life is a blessing, I would agree with them.  I would not protest that "life is more of a two sided coin with potential dangers."  Life is a blessing, period.  Sure, greed and pride and all of the other potential pitfalls are dangers in life.  But life is still a blessing.  Life should not be defined by the potential dangers, but by the simple blessing that life is and by the opportunities it offers.  That is how I choose to define my life anyway, along with all other spiritual and material blessings from my father.   

Beware of pride and greed, not temporal blessings.

Edited March 15, 2017 by pogi

[notHagoth7]

On 3/14/2017 at 11:59 AM, pogi said:

Some of you may be familiar with prosperity theology made popular in the 1950's through healing revivals and televangelists.  Many of their ideas arise from the "New Thought" movement which began in the 19th century.  In learning about this theology, I couldn't help but see many parallels in Mormonism.  The first and most glaring parallel I found is in one of the central doctrines that it is God's will for his people to be happy. A list of notable comparisons:

...1) The atonement is interpreted to include the alleviation of not just spiritual but physical sickness.

...4) Emphasis on charity and importance of giving.

5) The idea that God blesses the faithful with prosperity (this is a central theme in the BoM).

...It would be interesting to hear your perspectives on the idea of Mormonism as a type of prosperity gospel...

Not all of us would buy into the notion that prosperity necessarily means monetary wealth. I've felt most "prosperous" in life during times of financial challenge/crisis, in part because I was focusing largely on things other than material wealth. Simple economics: opportunity cost.

As to item #4, the Nephite record is clear that if our desire is to give to those in need, that facet of prosperity will be granted. That said, many of the most important aspects of giving are in means other than financial.

When I was in elementary school, my best friend asked his mom whether my family was rich like his. She paused, and said, "No, but they're rich in love."

Thoughts?

Edited March 16, 2017 by notHagoth7

[Bobbieaware]

13 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't like to view blessings from God that way.  If someone told me that life is a blessing, I would agree with them.  I would not protest that "life is more of a two sided coin with potential dangers."  Life is a blessing, period.  Sure, greed and pride and all of the other potential pitfalls are dangers in life.  But life is still a blessing.  Life should not be defined by the potential dangers, but by the simple blessing that life is and by the opportunities it offers.  That is how I choose to define my life anyway, along with all other spiritual and material blessings from my father.   

Beware of pride and greed, not temporal blessings.

The fact is that when the scriptures mention the blessings of material wealth, that mention is  -- more often than not -- accompanied by dire warnings of what the Savior calls"the deceitfulness of riches," meaning the great potential dangers the possession of riches can bring into one's life. Over and over again, the Lord and the prophets warn that unless the receipients of material wealth remain ever vigilant, prayerful and deeply humble, devastating possibilities await at the door. Because the scriptures so often couple the mention of material wealth with solemn warnings concerning the great care that must be taken in order to avoid falling into the adversary's traps, I refuse to ignore the obvious implications of that very frequent coupling of the blessing with the warning. What follows is just one of those oft-repeated scriptural warnings (the Savior's words in bold).

 23 And when he (the rich young ruler) heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.

 24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

 25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

 26 And they that heard it said, Who then can be saved?

 27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God. (Luke 18)

Edited March 16, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[notHagoth7]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

...Beware of pride and greed, not temporal blessings.

Got a warning from the board software when I gave a rep point here, saying I'm not allowed to give you a rep point.

Never seen that happen before. Did the board software not like your post or something?

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

Got a warning from the board software when I gave a rep point here, saying I'm not allowed to give you a rep point.

Never seen that happen before. Did the board software not like your post or something?

You gave him one already and that message pops up when you try to give someone 2 points for the same post.

Think hockey, not basketball.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

The rain is a blessing, and it falls equally on the just and unjust, without regard to who they are. 

From a talk last conference:

Quote

 

Some will argue that God blesses everyone without distinction—citing, for example, Jesus’s statement in the Sermon on the Mount: “[God] maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.”Indeed, God does rain down upon all His children all the blessings He can—all the blessings that love and law and justice and mercy will permit. And He commands us to be likewise generous:

“I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

“That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.”

Nevertheless, God’s greater blessings are conditioned on obedience. President Russell M. Nelson explained: “The resplendent bouquet of God’s love—including eternal life—includes blessings for which we must qualify, not entitlements to be expected unworthily. Sinners cannot bend His will to theirs and require Him to bless them in sin [see Alma 11:37]. If they desire to enjoy every bloom in His beautiful bouquet, they must repent.”

 

Now obviously, Elder Christofferson is not talking about wealth distribution here.

[notHagoth7]

57 minutes ago, Ahab said:

You gave him one already and that message pops up when you try to give someone 2 points for the same post.

We suddenly have a problem with voting more than once?

I thought the admonition was:

 

 

Think hockey, not basketball.

Tried.

Still doesn't solve my dilemma/preference.

[Stargazer]

13 hours ago, Gray said:

"that ye may be the children of your Father who is in Heaven. For He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust"

I was not asking for a scriptural justification for rain (and every other darned thing) falling on everyone equally.  I'm perfectly aware that He said that.  But in saying that, the Lord was not teaching against the value of work.  I thought you were disputing something else.

Nevermind.