tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post4228053463453892055..comments2024-03-28T15:23:18.071-07:00Comments on Pure Mormonism: Infallible Authority, Chapter FiveAlan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-85638027133216644752017-05-29T16:43:08.887-07:002017-05-29T16:43:08.887-07:00Did you know you can create short links with Short...Did you know you can create short links with <b><a href="http://shortener.syntaxlinks.com/r/Shortest" rel="nofollow">Shortest</a></b> and <b>earn money from every visitor to</b> your shortened links.Bloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07287821785570247118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-63704993316581584232012-07-18T04:47:47.750-07:002012-07-18T04:47:47.750-07:00He says the press can't figure out where tithi...He says the press can't figure out where tithing goes and that we don't know what the "stipend" is to the GA's but then assumes he knows and they have more based on their position. I don't understand this logic. Loved it other than this.Micahnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-48553600926243540942012-04-28T12:09:53.182-07:002012-04-28T12:09:53.182-07:00an interesting read--Nobody knows how much general...an interesting read--<br><br>Nobody knows how much general authorities receive? That protects the best and the worst among them, then, doesn't it?<br><br>However, those who had humbler positions would need more money, so those who turn down the stipend would be those who succeeded best in Babylon. What a mess.<br><br>The church has become highly stratified, of course, whatever stipend general authorities do or do not receive. It is seen as easily on a ward and stake level as on a "general" level. Level. Should be no levels.<br><br>Council of 50. Fascinating. Where does one read about that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-54118597793751890792011-12-09T12:03:05.490-08:002011-12-09T12:03:05.490-08:00Dead Poet-I was at the SLC Temple for a sealing th...Dead Poet-<br><br><br>I was at the SLC Temple for a sealing this summer and my wife and I spoke with the second counselor in the presidency while we were there. I told him that in the temple interview questions we are asked if we keep the 5 covenants we make in the temple. I told him that if we didn’t keep the law of chastity we wouldn’t get the renewal but no one keeps the law of consecration. How does that work. He said that it was ended (or removed, I forget which). I asked where it said that in the scriptures. He said he didn’t know because he wasn’t a historian. I couldn’t believe he said that. I have taken the opportunities to speak with several temple presidents and they in my experience have been well learned in the scriptures and other good works. How could he not know such an essential and basic principle and part of the temple? <br><br>The truth is, it is still in effect. The Lord is waiting for us. What is everyone’s game plan? Wait for Monson or Packer or Perry? It will not happen that way. The scriptures…especially the Book of Mormon and D&C are clear and direct. The Gentiles(adopted into Ephraim for the most part) are to gather the Lamanites who will build Zion. They will take the lead, not us. The law of consecration and inheritance are essential commandments and resultant states of those who go and follow the Savior.goingtozionhttp://goingtozion.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-1021470417025180182011-12-08T13:40:09.724-08:002011-12-08T13:40:09.724-08:00Andy:I understand and felt no ill will toward your...Andy:<br><br>I understand and felt no ill will toward your response. <br><br>In fact your response made me ponder the usage of the phrase "weak from failure". I think I should have written to "protect anyone from failure", weak or strong. <br><br>Protecting from failure comes in a much different principle. Which is the principle of repentance.Tylernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-89430190088715585922011-12-08T12:46:20.181-08:002011-12-08T12:46:20.181-08:00Dead Poet:"Now, a lot of people equate the la...Dead Poet:<br><br>"Now, a lot of people equate the law of consecration with communism. What about socialism?"<br><br>I would amend your statement with ...erroneously equate the law...<br><br>Communism and socialism and most all other "isms" are counterfeits of God's truths. The law of consecration is the truth...communism is the error. Capitalism itself was a word coined by Marx to disparage free enterprise and give it a stigma with the people. I won’t try to go into the whole history, but suffice it to say that most everything God has given man has been corrupted either by Satan or man in its implementation at one time or another.Garyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07872531141869468228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-11373826270174479852011-12-08T11:48:08.027-08:002011-12-08T11:48:08.027-08:00goingtozion, thank you. I have gone through the t...goingtozion, thank you. I have gone through the temple and made those covenants, and it has always been confusing to me, because I was taught when I first joined that the law of consecration is not required right now.<br><br>Now, a lot of people equate the law of consecration with communism. What about socialism? I don't understand a lot about either form of government, other than that they are apparent swear words and you are a bad person and not a true American if you like the idea of them. But in socialism, is it not possible to have more worldly goods than someone else, yet everyone still has their basic needs met? Everyone has a place to live, everyone has clothes to wear, everyone has food eat, everyone has access to medical care. But someone who makes more money than me is able to buy a bigger house, better clothes, and fancier food, plus maybe an Xbox if they want it. I know that in socialism that all these things are paid for by taxes, and taxes are not voluntary, but is this a better way of looking at it? Not perfect, but better?<br><br>P.S. I do NOT want to turn this into a political discussion.Dead Poethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09903125060174519559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-47622895774460077392011-12-08T10:06:57.343-08:002011-12-08T10:06:57.343-08:00Tyler:I apologize for misunderstanding your commen...Tyler:<br><br>I apologize for misunderstanding your comment and for being snippy. I had a recent conversation with someone who basically dismissed the principle of caring for the poor. So when I saw the line "the law of consecration is not intended to protect the weak from failure" followed by "it is not intended to 'redistribute wealth'" I took it to mean "screw the poor." Because my associate basically says "screw the poor" despite all that scripture says on the topic and because he often uses the term "redistribute wealth" as a kind of arrow to shoot down the Lord's commands I mistakenly projected his attitude onto you. So again I apologize.Andynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-21429103882859720482011-12-08T07:39:45.653-08:002011-12-08T07:39:45.653-08:00Jon said,"excess of wealth...means the same w...Jon said,<br><br>"excess of wealth...means the same wealth that we would give to charitable offerings like most of us already do today."<br><br>I think you nailed it, Jon. The term "excess wealth has been a sticking point for many of us because we have interpreted it to mean "everything we own other than what we require for our basic subsistence." That idea scares us, because if feels like we will end up with next to nothing.<br><br>The key word is "wealth." We would be permitted (and "permitted" itself is not the right word because the system would be voluntary) to keep as much of our wealth as we felt to. Each individual would merely donate whatever HE considers excess; pretty much the same, as you say, those of us who tend to be charitable already normally do.Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-75587444945691508362011-12-08T07:21:44.272-08:002011-12-08T07:21:44.272-08:00I think following the Law of Consecration will be ...I think following the Law of Consecration will be similar to anarcho-capitalism. I think people will have more than another person, but that person that will have more, will hold it in common with the people, e.g., Let's say George has a boat, Jon doesn't want a boat but enjoys going out with George on occasion. George has just lived the Law by sharing what is his. I may have other things that I enjoy and share with others, thereby I live it also. <br><br>Living the LoC is different than living in Zion, Zion will have other things attached to it also, that will make it more like a cooperative, where you pay into a central fund, voluntarily of your excess wealth, to help the poor and people that have fallen on bad times, e.g., George's house burns down and he uses the funds in the coop to rebuild, which, one day, he repays. This will be done is small groups, not large groups.<br><br>Now excess of wealth doesn't mean that you don't save for a rainy day or use funds to expand your business from monies you earn, excess, means the same wealth that we would give to charitable offerings like most of us already do today (at least I hope so).<br><br>At least that's how I see it.Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05518762624199557168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-13438133086391442072011-12-08T06:20:28.174-08:002011-12-08T06:20:28.174-08:00An excellent example of the nature of parables: do...An excellent example of the nature of parables: doctrinal and spiritual truths disguised by allegory and metaphor so that the spiritually insensitive can't figure out what they're about. <br><br>But no, I'm sure it was meant as a literal economics lesson and not about something else altogether.Brokenbycloudshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06219699453952795992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-32533144199121628752011-12-07T16:58:35.506-08:002011-12-07T16:58:35.506-08:00I agree that the United Order wasn't a good id...I agree that the United Order wasn't a good idea. It was done with good intentions but was set up for failure. It was trying to create a Gentile solution to a Zion system. Consecration can only be done out of desire. Those who have had the change of heart and desire to truly follow Christ all the way, will want to do what they can and in so doing it will naturally live the law of consecration.goingtozionhttp://goingtozion.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-34241516815901552372011-12-07T15:55:32.931-08:002011-12-07T15:55:32.931-08:00Andy:The purpose of the law of consecration is not...Andy:<br><br>The purpose of the law of consecration is not to protect the weak from failure. It is not to redistribute wealth. The relationship between this statement and my own personal relationship with charity and "protecting" the weak are highly irrelevant. <br><br>I don't think the bible could, however, be less clear. <br><br>"And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" mat 25:28<br><br>No where did I say that the poor are weak failures. I said, let me repeat it again. The law of consecration is not intended to protect the weak from failure. This means if and when a man given a stewardship has proven himself unable to successfully produce from this stewardship his stewardship should be removed and given to one who can. Further more it is clear that once he has proven his failure (according to his ability) he should be cast out, despite his protests.<br><br>Anonymous@2:58pm:<br><br>Of course we can, and we should. Again the parable , clearly says "according to his ability". Supporting and helping those in need I believe is a separate principle, linked solely on the fact that we are responsible for making some type of intelligent decision as to whether someone is truly outside their realm of ability. A very hard decision to make in some cases and very easy to make in others.Tylernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-73647687363688029702011-12-07T14:58:27.117-08:002011-12-07T14:58:27.117-08:00Tyler, I agree that we can only trust the things t...Tyler, <br><br>I agree that we can only trust the things that we can 'prove' Joseph Smith really taught about principles pertaining to things like the Law of Consecration.<br><br>If polygamy was evil, as Joseph said it was, then we can't go by anything any leader says or taught who came after Joseph. <br><br>Even the temple ordinances & teachings are all very suspect if they can't be proven to be completely from Joseph Smith or the scriptures.<br><br>We now need to just wait on understanding things like the 'Law of Consecration', etc., until Joseph & Christ returns & cleanses or restores the Church again with it's true doctrines.<br><br>In the meantime we can still do all we can to financially support all the widows & the fatherless (single mothers) around us, so they don't have to go to work & leave their children & homes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-48309351443796930912011-12-07T13:00:45.889-08:002011-12-07T13:00:45.889-08:00"The law of consecration is not intended to p..."The law of consecration is not intended to protect the weak from failure."<br><br>Hmmm...someone desperately needs to read King Benjamin's sermon, particularly Mosiah 4:16-26. Without Christ's atonement we are all weak failures destined for a unpleasant after-life in hell. <br><br>Stewardship plays a vital part in the Lord's plan for His children, for sure. But stewardship means we do what He wants us to do with His stuff. And His way always includes love, not casual dismissal of the poor as weak failures. <br><br>Oh, and they should probably also read Jacob 4:12-21.Andynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-39831251709673409822011-12-07T10:27:05.992-08:002011-12-07T10:27:05.992-08:00The united order was an implementation of the law ...The united order was an implementation of the law of consecration and it is my personal belief that it was wrong. I believe that the is a very large misunderstanding surrounding the law of consecration, how it is to be properly implemented and how because of it there will "No poor among them"<br><br>While in liberty jail Joseph wrote this.<br><br>Again, we would suggest to the brethren, that there be no organization of large bodies upon common stock principles, until the Lord shall signify it in a proper manner. (Millennial Star, 5:69.)<br><br>As far as I know Joseph made no other major discussion around the Law of Consecration and based on that quote it seems to me, that the Lord has not revealed the means by which the law of consecration is to be lived. Which means that any organization (including the church) that implements a system intent on living the law consecration is basing those mechanics on the "arm of flesh" <br><br>This is made clear if you read a bit more about how the United Order was run. <br><br>Correct me if I'm wrong but the law of consecration isn't complete without the inclusion of the term "stewardship".<br><br>This is essential to the law. The law of consecration is not intended to protect the weak from failure, it is not intended to "redistribute wealth". It is intended to outline the placement of stewardship over a domain and thereby place responsibility of that domain to he who have said stewardship.<br><br>Much like the parable of the talents. The Lord expects that when we are entrusted with a stewardship that we improve it, that we take what has been given and through our effort return more then we were given.<br><br>I find it interesting that there is no case in the parable of the talents for the servant who tries and returns less then he was given. There is only 5 returns 10, 2 returns 4 and the servant who returns the same as he was given. He is called slothful and what he is given is taken from him and given to him who has 5.<br><br>This is interesting because the scriptural account ultimately states.<br><br>"each according to his ability" mat 25:14<br><br>there is another famous quote that warps the above statement.<br><br>"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."<br>http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/k/karlmarx136396.html<br><br>In my opinion communism is a great evil. I find it difficult to believe that we as saints will one day be living "communism" and it won't be evil. Which suggests to me that I've made a grave error in understanding the law of consecration and stewardship.Tylernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-2590293232638041392011-12-07T09:22:44.252-08:002011-12-07T09:22:44.252-08:00Dead Poet- The United Order fell apart, which was ...Dead Poet- <br><br>The United Order fell apart, which was a system designed to get the people to live the law of consecration. The Law of consecration is eternal. The only place that tithing replaces consecration is mentioned, is in the heading of section 119 and the heading is a contemporary addition that is not scripture. We still covenant to live the law of consecration in the Temple. <br><br>“In your temporal things you shall be equal, and this not grudgingly, otherwise the abundance of the manifestations of the Spirit shall be withheld” (D&C 70:14; see also D&C 49:20; 78:5–7).<br><br>Basically, we can’t be saints; we can’t be who we are supposed to be unless we are in Zion, living the law of consecration. Many people have covenanted to do so as they went through a temple, but don’t live up to those covenants made that day.goingtozionhttp://goingtozion.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-23599006180634841402011-12-07T08:23:09.122-08:002011-12-07T08:23:09.122-08:00Wasn't the Law of Consecration removed as a co...Wasn't the Law of Consecration removed as a commandment from the church because of the failure to live it correctly and replaced with the Law of Tithing?Dead Poethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09903125060174519559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-78937055262727425202011-12-07T06:38:30.780-08:002011-12-07T06:38:30.780-08:00Paid or not paid isn't really important to me ...Paid or not paid isn't really important to me as much as the following:<br><br>1)The church doesn't call it a salary, they call it a stipend so that the general membership can be told that our clergy are volunteers. That, to me, seems completely dishonest. I remember telling people on my mission that our church leadership was a volunteer force. I lied.<br><br>2)I'd like to know how many of the apostles, actually refuse their "stipend". After all, you'd expect that since many of them did come from successful careers, where they responsible saved for retirement, that they wouldn't really need the stipend. Assuming the church pays for their travel expenses etc etc, there is no reason why many of them couldn't simple say they don't need the stipend. Overall the concept that the stipend itself is a fixed amount simple suggests that just like the world the leadership of our church views their salary as a indication of the value of the position they hold.Tylernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-32010179870203802322011-12-06T20:19:33.959-08:002011-12-06T20:19:33.959-08:00I thought the scriptures said that paying ministry...I thought the scriptures said that paying ministry is OK. I thought it was false doctrine saying they shouldn't be paid. Can't remember where those scriptures are at the moment, otherwise I would site them.<br><br>Either way, it has disturbed me that it is a teaching in the church but once you get in the higher ups it's not adhered to anymore.Jonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05518762624199557168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-42440516541286815152011-12-06T20:11:10.484-08:002011-12-06T20:11:10.484-08:00I have always wondered why the G.A.'s receive ...I have always wondered why the G.A.'s receive a salary. For don't our scriptures teach that our Church should have no paid ministry? <br><br>We say we don't pay our ministers but then we do, for so many G.A.'s are paid so well, even though many were very successful in their careers & probably could have easily supported themselves.<br><br>I see so many widows & fatherless in the Church struggling financially & suffering greatly, who, the scriptures teach, are supposed to come very 1st, even before healthy male church leaders.<br><br>True religion is caring for the widows & the fatherless & the poor.<br><br>Did Joseph Smith completely expect the Church to support him & his family & all the Apostles & their families too?<br><br>I do not believe it was at all right for leaders to keep collecting wives & expect the Church to provide for them all & the man not have to do that himself.<br><br>Didn't King Benjamin in the BoM teach that even the Prophet should work with his own hands & support himself & not expect others to support him? <br><br>I have never understood why healthy able bodied male leaders with successful careers receive money before, & instead of, the widows & the fatherless, who then are made to suffer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com