What *should* we learn from them? I’m not sure. IMHO, they have little bearing on reality, if taken as absolutes. Not everyone who is wealthy is righteous, nor can we impute evil to everyone under the poverty line…

2) Our own experience, and examples from the scriptures, show that “God sendeth rain to the good and evil alike.” Mafiosi are as rich as anybody.

I have to conclude that the blessing of material wealth is a collective blessing, not a personal one. Societies that, on the whole, are more righteous will recieve more blessings, with perhaps a lag time either way? I do but speculate, of course.

We can better understand the Old Testment teaching by realizing that the connection between righteousness and wealth was addressed to the Israelites as a whole. If the people as a whole were righteous they would be prosperous. But this shouldn’t surprise even an atheist–a system of law that punishes wrongdoing, regulates property and inculcates a sense of social responsibility, if followed, should produce prosperity. Moreover, Job notwithstanding, there are several examples of the righteous poor *individuals* in the Old Testament. The provisions for the poor in the Mosaic Law also would also seem to contradict a vulgar version of the connection between rigtheousness and wealth.

On the other side of the coin, one can see even in the New Testament an earthy appeal to the modest desire for gain that must have been common to farmers, fishermen and shepherds among Jesus’s disciples. Though Jesus makes it clear that the kingdom of God is important above all, and that the love of riches is a prime obstacle to discipleship, the blessings of heaven are called “treasures”, and the kindgom is compared to a pearl of great price. Successful missionary work is compared to a fruitful planting season. Discipleship is compared to financial stewardship (the parable of the talents).

The point of some of these parables and metaphors is precisely that the kindgom of God is a treasure of a qualitatively different and higher sort. But the choice of figures and types in Christ’s teaching seems to suggest that for him material wealth is not nothing; material blessings are indeed blessings. At least in his teaching style, Christ is much more earthy and ‘worldly’ (a wine-bibber and friend of publicans) than those who criticize Christianity as otherworldly would admit.

Did Huntsman really claim that “the Lord trusts me with wealth”? That is an outrageous statement, one that I hope he didn’t say. If he he did portray himself as a shining example of how we are to use our wealth, I would kindly dissent.

Sure, he’s given a lot of money to worthwhile causes and has lent his private jet to President Hinckley. But I have to wonder what Christ, who owned everything yet possessed nothing, thinks of those who have second and third homes of 25,000 square feet (per a spread in the Deseret News about their Deer Valley retreat), while there are people in his city unable to pay the rent.

It’s hard for someone to say he loves his neighbor as himself while seated in the cozy den of his second million dollar mansion while his neighbor is losing his two-bedroom apartment.

It’s not hard to see why Huntsman would offer himself as the personification of God’s benchmark to measure the use of our talents, but Christ has set the standard much higher. Christ has commanded us to work for the benefit of our neighbor. Looking around, it’s easy to see that most of us don’t meet that standard.

We tend to interpret–even WANT to interpret–Jacob’s words as, “I’ll work really hard for the Lord (i.e. it will be a great sacrifice) and afterwards he’ll reward me with some of the really good things in life (i.e. I’ll finally have some fun, and be righteous, too).” A literal reading of the chapter doesn’t agree with that perspective.

One more thing: Brent’s comments touch on Jacob’s qualifying “IF.” Clearly, not everyone who has a change of heart will desire riches in order to do good. There are plenty of other ways to serve your fellow men that don’t require money. It’s when we see “obtaining a hope in Christ” as a means to an end (riches) that we get ourselves in trouble.

I did not hear Huntsman say it himself, so I guess I am repeating hearsay. However, my source was pretty good. Hunstman’s brother-in-law was my priest quorum adviser. I think you raise some valid points about use of wealth. He also has a multi-million dollar car collection.

Let me go back to my main point. What I was trying to say is that righteousness can lead to material prosperity (1) if it is desired, and (2) if it is pursued in an intelligent manner. This is available to each one of us. However, as noted by Jacob (Nephi’s brother) and from many other scriptural references and from some of the above commentators, we are stewards of our material possessions. We are to use what we are given to bless the lives of others.

You know the scripture about the sparrows being cared for so how much more will we be taken care of? That’s what I think we gain the wealth in through obedience and faith. We are fed and sustained. I don’t equate material wealth with righteous living.

Does anyone think we have an obligation to impart our material wealth and to what degree? I find it somewhat odd that members have Lexus SUVs and 4000 square foot homes, regardless of how much they donate to charity and tithe. Personally, I find it a contradiction of scriptures, though I’m sure not intentional. That’s why I canceled my subscription to “LDS Living”. All the ads supporting it were for cruises and resorts, real estate for “exclusive” coummunities and so on.

-In my own personal experience, when we’ve come across hard times we’ve made big fast offering donations and recieved unexpected sums of money far beyond our donations. I think material wealth for some might be a route to faith, or a chance to test it.

It intrigues me for two reasons. For one it seems to suggest that *all* individuality is to be repressed in the temple. Or, put in a related way, that style is to be distrusted over substance. A rather interesting comment in a rite that is highly stylized and symbolic.

The other is that it seems to suggest style is somehow related to wealth. Or, worse yet, that somehow spending $500 on a suit or dress for the temple is inappropriate. I wonder if they feel similarly to those who dress in suits of $500 – $1000 to church. (I say this while having little by way of disposable income yet owning a Versace suite I saved $1500 for but which is now starting to get long in tooth) Is it more important to dress worse for the temple than for sacrament? Once again it is an odd juxtaposition for a building filled with rather nice furnishings and $50,000 chandeliers.

I’ll take no position on this, except to throw myself on the mercies of the court regarding my suit and admit a secret desire despite my married financial situation to own an other nice suit…