All Activity
This stream auto-updates
- Past hour
-
-
The Law of Consecration and Stewardship
JohnsonJones replied to Carborendum's topic in LDS Gospel Discussion
NOT according to history...but then...there are MANY in the Church that do NOT read history today or even care how things actually occurred. There WERE people (particularly in the Missouri and Nauvoo areas) that were excommunicated over property and their attitudes towards the exact thing you are talking aqbout. many of them became leaders of Mobs and organizations which eventually kicked the members out of those areas...which is actually a pretty big impact. These were VERY angry and anti-driven people. Originally, they probably had similar ideas that you have, that they would sign it over, but it wasn't actually being signed over...it was still "theirs" to do with as they wanted. Unfortunately...that's not how it worked out for them...and it caused a LOT of strife. One thing that repeats constantly in history is that normally, the root of MANY problems can be traced back directly to MONEY and the struggle over it. This also created a problem in Utah later on, but not in the same manner. There were areas that lived under the Law of Consecration. There is no society on earth that really lives in the same manner, but the closest we could probably lay it to would be communism (as in RED communism...Marxist Communism...etc) but with some very strong differences in the approach to religion and who actually handled the property. In the Church (as opposed to the Reds)Religion is a the core of the law and plans, and the handling is done BY the leaders of the church under (hopefully) the influence of the Lord. As it was pointed out, the adversary likes to copy and make a mockery of the things of the Lord, and the Communism in the USSR was that copycat done by him. Like many copycats, it has many similarities, but the core is so vastly different it becomes the polar opposite in spirit). In so far as similarities physically, property was still handled by a small group of people who gave it according to how they saw needs and necessities to those under them. Spiritually, the Law of consecration and the copycat were as different as night and day. In Utah, Property really was dished out accordingly in a more communal fashion according to what a LEADER felt a family or individual needed (YOU, as an individual, did NOT get to decide what you kept or did not keep initially, that was decided more by the leader [normally a Bishop or similar leader] who would decide what YOU and your family actually needed...NOT you and what you thought you already had]. At times, when a leader died, this could lead to questions (legally in regards to US law) who owned the property or controlled it at that point. Most of this was settled in the Post Brigham Young crisis years, and many of the deeds in the former Utah territory have roots in these decisions by various individuals and groups. It would probably occur more like it does already for those who live under the similar laws. Missionaries also technically live under the law of consecration. Living places are paid for by the Mission itself, and when missionaries move, they live in the place provided. They are given a small allowance which is determined enough to fulfill their needs in life (not necessarily their wants). Under the law, you would NOT be free to move around as you wish normally. You would be given a job (like a calling, but it would not just be a calling, it would be your occupation, until called to another) and you live accordingly. In Brigham's time, the houses probably would be being constructed during the time the Law was more strongly enforced, so it would be more debatable about what type of living situation you would be under. Once established, if it was still in effect, you would not have to worry about moving. If you were told you were moving (and you would be told, much like missionaries are), then you would also have a place provided for you and your family. You would have stewardship, much like missionaries do. They live under a form of the Law of Consecration, more so than anyone else today, as far as I know. They do not get paid to be General Authorities and generally do not get any money from jobs. I'm not sure about their retirements (if they collect such) and what they do with that money, but as far as the church is concerned, much like missionaries get a monthly allowance to pay for the necessities of life, the General Authorities also collect a stipend of sorts, or monthly allowance to help provide for the necessities of life. A few years ago it was around 120K and probably increases in regards to inflation (which may make it around 125K or a little higher today). Much like Missionaries, it is theirs to budget accordingly (and wisely, as it is the Lord's money they are budgeting) to help provide for what is needed in life. Unlike the Missionaries, they are given a little bit more leeway on what is needed (for example, a place to reside, and furnishing it as well as utility bills and other expenses that go with it). IN THEORY (not that it happens this way, I don't know) they would also return unspent money at the end of a certain amount of time (one might think annually, but it could also be at the end of their lifetime as well), and certain things would remain with the church while others would go to their families as inheritances. There have been times (And a FEW positions still do) where a specific living or residence is specified for that leader to live. Below the GA level, there are various levels of the Law in effect (for example Missionaries are rather close to living the Law today as well, but Mission Presidents are technically somewhat under it, but also not...and have a foot in basically both worlds of living. Many have certain residences spelled out where they must live and utilities and other things are reimbursed as per what they need to pay). Information on how Missionaries live is pretty widely known, but I'm not sure of specific sources at this instance which graphs it out and puts it in writing. The same could be said for Mission Presidents, and much of it may be found in some handbooks which probably are still not widely distributed. The Handbook for those in higher positions is definitely not available for public consumption as far as I am aware. -
- Today
-
-
-
I'm the last one to ever call the cowardly thugs of antifa smart. Others have wondered if it was a joke as well. Reuters found historical snapshots of antifa.com. :
-
-
- Yesterday
-
The Law of Consecration and Stewardship
Scott replied to Carborendum's topic in LDS Gospel Discussion
I believe they were during Joseph Smith's time, but not during Brigham Young's time. That's what I remember from reading The History of The Church. -
-
The Law of Consecration and Stewardship
Just_A_Guy replied to Carborendum's topic in LDS Gospel Discussion
1) What is the source for the claim that the GAs live the Law of Consecration? (I’m not disputing it, necessarily; but this seems to be one of those things that everybody knows but no one can source.) 2) FWIW, property records in Davis and Salt Lake Counties are online, and searchable by owner name; and several members of the Q15 are on there as owning homes in their own names or under family trusts. -
The Law of Consecration and Stewardship
Vort replied to Carborendum's topic in LDS Gospel Discussion
Indeed, the two are inseparable. Part of our consecration is accepting and magnifying our stewardship, just as part of our stewardship is our consecration of all things to God. Obvious? Maybe, but worth considering. -
That's because it included lots of promiscuous sex. What could be more utopian for the typical high schooler?
-
I'm going to bring up this topic again because I've just had a change of perspective on just what the differences and similarities are here. It was because I actually got a copy of the Priesthood manual on Church Welfare and read it. The primary thought that has enlightened my mind is the "full title" of the law. It isn't just "The Law of Consecration". It was "The Law of Consecration and Stewardship." Primarily what this meant was that, yes, we signed over the deed to our land and property to the Church. BUT!!! then we were given an assignment to be stewards over that property. The vast majority of the time, such stewardship simply meant that the signing the deed over was effectively nominal. Yes, a legal procedure. But the way it was practiced, it was "in name only." The steward ran the farm, received profits from it and gave what he could to the Church for welfare purposes. As a side note, there were many of the particularly wealthy who would not sign over their property. None of them were excommunicated for that refusal (that I'm aware of). And when the practice was discontinued, the property was all given back to the stewards. Today, the general authorities practice the same thing. And I wonder when George P. Lee was excommunicated, did he ask for his property back? Was it given to him? I don't know. But I'd suspect that if he did ask and it were not given back to him then we would have heard about it all over the news. So, again, even though it was a legal procedure, it was apparently in name only. So, why do they practice it? I think that it is because when you sign on as a general authority, you have to have a physical reminder of the level of sacrifice you have to make to serve in that capacity. Signing over the rights to all your property is a pretty big commitment. Each of us makes a commitment to live the Law of Consecration. But we are not asked to sign over our homes. I think that on a practical level, it would be untenable. A general authority will live in the same place for pretty much the rest of his life. But I've moved into 11 different homes since I've been married. What process would I have to do for each time I had to move? I'm going through the process in my head and it could potentially be REALLY complicated. Would I even be able to move? How would I have had the jobs I've had in my life? The reality is that I would end up unemployed most of my life if I had to stay where I was. Instead, I make that covenant in my heart, but not on paper. I view all my property (both real and personal) as the property of the Lord. I am only the steward of that property. If the Lord were to ask me for it, I'd have to oblige. It's His. How could I keep it from Him? So, while some people say that we don't live the Law of Consecration today -- only the GAs do -- they are technically correct. But on a spiritual level, I disagree. The difference really is "just a piece of paper." The GAs who practice it are still given stewardship over all that property. They basically run it as if it were their own, just as I run my property as if it were my own. But in the back of their minds, and in the back of my mind, I'm always reminded of the covenants I've made. It isn't mine. It is the Lord's. And as long as I carry that thought in my mind and the principle in my heart, then I believe I am living the Law of Consecration and Stewardship -- with or without that piece of paper.
-
In high school, everyone understood that 1984 was a story about government overreach and tyranny. But many in my class had no idea that Brave New World was a DYStopian novel. They thought it was a Utopian novel. SMH. Yes, the fact is that freedom comes from family in a very real physical sense. It likewise has similar qualities in eternity. Many wonder about the Church's opposition to communism vis-a-vis the endorsement of the Law of Consecration (and stewardship). Maybe it isn't just about economics and property rights. It is about family.
-
I just spent some time on joebiden.com That was the first time since Obama was elected that I've been able to say "That is the weakest, most useless campaign website I have ever seen."
-
Well... That's gotta be some kind of joke. Tell me the guys who run Antifa.com really didn't believe it would be a good idea to have it re-direct to Joebiden.com.
-
The mob continually 'barks' (dog pun) louder and louder and louder still. It feels like the side with the largest bullhorn wins. Right now the mob has the bullhorn of Hollywood, music industry, woke sports leagues, mainstream news outlets, etc. Since barking alone isn't enough for the mob in most cases, they have evolved into (barking) + (intimidation) + (violence) + (character/reputation assassination) + (business assassination), etc. This formula is used over and over again to blur the lines, nay, rather flip the lines completely: This is all playing out in real time right before all our eyes. Who is going to stand up and stem the tide? The enemy is awake! Who is going to step up and fight the enemy 'now'? I have a cousin who just lost her temple marriage/family to her husband becoming trans. I have a niece who still thinks, in her impressionable 15yr old mind, that Black Lives Matter is actually about race relations. Local terrorist groups like Antifa.com instantly redirect you to (guess where?) Etc. Etc.
-
Meh. A little skeptical questioning on the forums keeps our apologetic abilities sharp. A little dishonesty/disingenuity by a supposed “Christian”, reminds us of who we’re dealing with. My issue (speaking personally) is when some anti or wannabe preacher insists on making themselves the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral. Hijacking threads (as seems to have happened here), is just tacky.
-
I have it, and while I don’t quite understand the effusive praises heaped upon it from academic types—I have found it a useful tool in my scripture study. The official BOM edition has so many footnotes that it kind of becomes overkill, and it’s easy to tune them out entirely. In my experience the notes in the MI edition have tended to either highlight differences between the original MSS/printer’s MSS/modern edition (which as a bit of a pedant, I find fascinating), or else highlight the places where BoM authors are drawing on the Old Testament. My use of the MI edition has reiterated to me just how scripturally-literate the BoM authors were and how certain OT themes dominated their own thinking. This probably isn’t The One LDS-oriented book to buy this year. But if you’re in the habit of buying a new LDS-oriented book every month or two anyways—I’d say this would be a useful addition to your library.
-
The following is mostly satirical. But all the descriptions of my dog are accurate. My family has a dog. She's one of the smartest pets I've ever had. I've had five dogs and a lot of cats. I've had one dog smarter than she is. I had about the smartest cat I've ever seen. But this dog is pretty darn smart. But I've begun to question whether she identifies as a male. There are things she does that I've only known males to do. I've never seen a female do these things. She loves to play fetch. Whether it's a stick or a ball or anything. I have a video of her chasing a large tree branch about half her weight and bringing it back to me. She went after it again and again. Never tiring. She marks her territory. Yup. On walks through the neighborhood, she sniffs and lifts her leg. I have never seen a female lift her leg before this dog. She is very aggressive and protective of her domain. If the cat's around the house, no problems. But if he comes near the dog's food, then all bets are off. She also likes ... uhmm... rubbing people's legs... and sniffing ... around... Then ... she does something similar ... to herself. So, I was wondering can dogs be trans? I asked her. She gave me a look like she understood the words, but she didn't get why I'd be asking that. "I'm just a girl, duh! I just do things differently. I'm a tomboy -- dog." Ok, so she doesn't identify as a male. She's just a female with a lot of masculine characteristics. It seems interesting to me that a dog can understand the difference between behavior and anatomy. Yet half the country does not have that ability simply because they're listening to the mob rather than common sense and reason... or even the dictionary.
-
The following is mostly satirical. But all the descriptions of my dog are accurate. My family has a dog. She's one of the smartest pets I've ever had. I've had five dogs and a lot of cats. I've had one dog smarter than she is. I had about the smartest cat I've ever seen. But this dog is pretty darn smart. But I've begun to question whether she identifies as a male. There are things she does that I've only known males to do. I've never seen a female do these things. She loves to play fetch. Whether it's a stick or a ball or anything. I have a video of her chasing a large tree branch about half her weight and bringing it back to me. She went after it again and again. Never tiring. She marks her territory. Yup. On walks through the neighborhood, she sniffs and lifts her leg. I have never seen a female lift her leg before this dog. She is very aggressive and protective of her domain. If the cat's around the house, no problems. But if he comes near the dog's food, then all bets are off. She also likes ... uhmm... rubbing people's legs... and sniffing ... around... Then ... she does something similar ... to herself. So, I was wondering can dogs be trans? I asked her. She gave me a look like she understood the words, but she didn't get why I'd be asking that. "I'm just a girl, duh! I just do things differently. I'm a tomboy -- dog." Ok, so she doesn't identify as a male. She's just a female with a lot of masculine characteristics. It seem interesting to me that a dog can understand the difference between behavior and anatomy. Yet half the country does not have that ability simply because they're listening to the mob rather than common sense and reason... or even the dictionary.
-
I see no one has responded yet. So I thought I'd look into this. TBH, I had never heard of this edition before. I've read up a little and here are my initial thoughts: 1. We have to separate out the study of the scriptures for spiritual purposes vs. secular purposes. 2. For spiritual purposes, I'm not really seeing much benefit. There may be the occasional verse with a word here or there that is clarified and so forth. But for the most part, not really worth shelling out $35 for it. 3. For secular purposes, I can see why it would be a nice curiosity. I'll have to think about whether I'd want to buy one.
-
Cool. I appreciate the apology. And I hope you appreciate mine. But in an effort to abide by your own advice for engaging with you... 1) I was NOT criticizing you for missing some part of my post. Everyone does that. When you apparently missed something, I was trying to be as polite as possible in trying to steer you in that direction, so you might be informed of what you missed. 2) When you persisted in reiterating your point, I offered a rebuttal. And at the same time I asked you to take a moment and consider. 3) Then you said that you had asked for more information when you hadn't. This seemed like you were making a snarky remark. You said you had asked. But you didn't. This was what seemed to lack civility. For now, we'll both apologize and accept one another's apologies and move on.
-
I didn't.... but I totally understand why you would go that direction. What I was trying to say (and very likely poorly) is that through repeated observations that Travel tends to be off in his own world a lot. That while I am sure his responses make perfect sense in his own head (and as he imagined it can or should go) it had repeatedly not translated well to those of us not privy to the interworkings of his mind. This is why many of us choose not to engage him any more. I did not vote for Trump in the last election. I did not feel he met the criteria of Good Character. (Which is Lord's command to us.. thus a judgement I have to make about person for my personal use) and I did not trust what he would do with the powers of the Presidency (Which is a judgement I have to make as a voter). Over the last few years, he has used the powers of the Presidency and I have to acknowledge that my fears were largely misplaced. Sure I don't agree with everything he has done and a lot of people are complaining and screaming about it. But largely all the complainers and screamers are people I expect to complain and scream when the job is being done reasonably like I think it should be done. As for his character his flaws are still there. But the correct use of power (as I see it) is a plus that was not there before.
-
I share similar sentiments. But technically he hasn't broken any rules of the board that they can confirm. I would think that the constant threadjacks would be evidence of "trollish" behavior. But apparently the mods disagree. I would think the evidence of sock puppets would also be breaking the rules. But apparently, they didn't find the evidence compelling. Tollish behavior can be evinced in the post you responded to. I had offered a peace offering by pointing at something we apparently agreed on -- based on his own words. But instead, he chose to re-focus the discussion to a point of disagreement that had not even been brought up in the thread. CARB: I'm glad we agree on this. JONAH: What?!?! We agree on something?!? Then I must be wrong.... uhmm... LOOK! See here! We disagree! I told ya. See? I would have thought that finding a point of agreement would have been a good thing. But apparently he would rather focus on disagreements.
-
This is a good point. I had thought in the past that it was simply a disbelief. But based on Jonah's response to my Romans reference, it seems that they can understand it just fine. They just refuse to accept it. That's why we call them creedal Christians. They believe in their creeds more than they do in the Bible, it seems.
-
Why is this anti nonsense being allowed on the LDS Gospel Discussion forum? For that matter, why is it (and its author) allowed on the TH forum at all?
-
Freedom, Family, and The Gospel
estradling75 replied to Carborendum's topic in LDS Gospel Discussion
From reading the copied post it seems they simply lack the idea that we are Literal Children of Heavenly Parents. This understanding would change the whole flow of their logic and conclusions. After all what is found to be logical ultimately depends on what one accepts as fundamental truths -
Perhaps you could explain clearly the difference between being one with G-d and living life as a G-d. I would point out that in the Gospel of John this exact point was made by Jesus and the Jews intended to kill him over this point of his teachings. The Traveler
-
Part of the reason I post is to bring to the attention of the forum or a specific poster "things" to various thoughts and ideas that may be missing or left out of various threads or posts. If this is understood to be an attack or disagreement or even an act of arrogance - I apologize. It would, perhaps, be more excusable if I were expert and without flaws in my own thoughts and responses. Never-the-less I do understand frustration when something that has already been resolved is presented again as if it were not. Whenever I make such a mistake - please remind me. I am dyslexic and often miss thoughts or the point being made or the logic involved. I do not offer this as an excuse. When I post something that is incorrect - it ought to be corrected. If I have missed something - it is most helpful to state it clearly or to restate it again in a slightly different manner. Otherwise, I most often will not know or connect to a specific frustration. Sorry for my flaws Thanks The Traveler
