Also, internet publication IS publication. Why would you think it is not?

I get where you’re coming from–my quibble isn’t so much with the sentence itself, because it does say what we’d expect it to say. Rather, it’s the way it says it, as if that last step were optional. I suppose it is optional, but as written, that last sentence comes across as hedging on what’s probably the most important step (and, arguably, the step that should come first–consecration). It’s like saying that we believe in faith, repentance, baptism, and, ideally, the gift of the Holy Ghost. See? Seems optional in that list, doesn’t it?

And after having followed the link, I’ve got some intellectual property issues with the authors as well (unless they’ve actually written to IRI and gotten permission for the multitude of GA quotes–including a PDF download of a current Church pamphlet–that they’re quoting). I have a little experience in this arena, and IRI usually isn’t too happy with people who quote, voluminously, recent General Authority statements without asking permission first. If I’m mistaken, and they have permission, then I apologize. But it certainly looks to me like coattail-riding, which is at least one of the reasons IRI exists–to make sure that the Church’s intellectual property doesn’t get hijacked by anyone, friend or foe.

I take the word “ideally” to mean that if we continue the same pattern, the Lord will continue to prosper us in whatever ways He has planned. If we don’t, then we’ll be moving in the direction of being on our own, without His help. The B of M and history show us that most people don’t continue that pattern, but “ideally” we would.

“And from our studies emerged a clear model, which is this: 1) start with the ideals (building the kingdom, achieving eternal happiness, serving our fellowman, everything Jacob talks about in Jacob chapter 2, these are the proper reasons for wanting to thrive financially), 2) prepare and protect (basics such as food storage, insurance, savings, tax and estate planning), 3) manage our finances on an ongoing basis (tithing, cash flow management, budgeting, etc.), 4) choose the right career (believe it or not, the prophets have given much specific advice on this), 5) increase our productivity, and 6) after all of these come the blessings. Then, ideally, once we receive these blessings, we reinvest them back into building the kingdom and serving others more.”

It’s that last sentence, I think, that troubles me–”ideally”? Not if you’re taking that whole Law of Consecration covenant seriously. That paragraph rubs me the wrong way because it seems to say that there’s a system God set up that if you play by His rules, you’ll get wealth, and then, well, you know, it’s up to you to do with as you please. “Ideally,” you’d give some back, but you know, if you decide at that point that a bigger house might be nice, well, God’s not going to care.

I think God does care, at every point, what you’re doing with the temporal blessings you’ve received. If you do decide, once you’re wealthy, to go for the trappings of wealth instead of building up the Kingdom (as many do, and as the Book of Mormon repeatedly warns against and explains why “natural men” fall into this trap time and time again), God’s going to get out the broom.

This paragraph, and its last sentence, trouble me because the stakes are far too high to be that casual about what you *should* do if and when God prospers you. Consecration means finding ways to build the kingdom regardless of your net worth. If you are wise with your stewardship, you’ll be given more to steward (and that goes beyond mere money).

I think you might have it backwards. Normon Vincent Peale and all that.