Leaderboard

Then we must all educate them as best we can. Pres Oaks was referring to the slogan/statement "black lives matter". People need to know that the phrase and the BLM movement are two different things. BLM only cares about self-aggrandizement through destruction...they don't give a rat's patootie about actual black lives...or anyone's life for that matter. If they did, they would be protesting the countless black on black deaths we see in Chicago every day.

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.

I'm torn, but thinking that any semblance of decency, respect and cooperation between opposing sides is gone . Many religious leaders are expecting persecution, either following November's election, or a few years later. At least having one more judge in place will delay some of the trials/tribulations to come. :::sigh:::

Why has no one posted anything about the Smoking Gun on Biden's involvement with Burisma? https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/ And China. https://nypost.com/2020/10/15/emails-reveal-how-hunter-biden-tried-to-cash-in-big-with-chinese-firm/ Facebook and Twitter both censored the article. https://nypost.com/2020/10/15/twitter-ceo-will-be-subpoenaed-to-testify-on-post-censorship/ https://nypost.com/2020/10/15/biden-campaign-glad-posts-hunter-biden-exposes-censored/

To quote from this: Halt here means limping and is a different and much older word to the one meaning to stop (which was originally a German military term of the late sixteenth century). It has long been archaic. We know it today almost exclusively in the set phrases the halt and the lame and the halt, the lame and the blind, though we do retain halting in phrases such as halting speech, where it means slow and hesitant.

It an old usage: https://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-hal2.htm#:~:text=It is better for thee,be cast into everlasting fire.&text=But the Oxford English Dictionary,disability than just a limp

There was a time in the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that the church leaders endorsed political candidates. This was one of the reasons (among others) that the majority of the Church members were driven from the boundaries of this nation and the lives of it leaders sought (including the murders of Joseph and Hyrum). Once established in Utah, in a conference of the Church, Brigham Young divided the congregation designating half to be republicans and the other half to be democrats. Forever since the church has remained outside of political party politics but strong backers of the principles upon which this country was founded - with the exception of slavery (which stance was among the reasons the church was forced to flee the country.) The Traveler

The scriptures speak of the process as a refiner's fire. God will refine us just as much as we allow Him to. If at any point we step back and say "That's it. That's as far as I'm willing to go" then we have self-imposed damnation upon ourselves or in other words placed an artificial limit on our progression towards eternal life.

Embrace BLM? People have lost their freakin minds. BLM fights for racial equality by looting small businesses. BLM fights for racial equality by stealing TVs. BLM fights for racial equality by trashing their own cities. BLM & "LDS?" members who support BLM, the movement, can go suck eggs.

There was nothing in Pres. Oaks talk that was controversial or confusing. Folks (and especially our kids) need to realize and remember that black lives do matter, (everyone's life matters and is important) but the organization that calls themselves "black lives matter" is not actually associated with that phrase, and could actually care less about the prosperity of black america. Their organization is all about destroying our country as we know it at any cost, and lifting themselves up through theft and violence. They, along with may rioters we see in places like Seattle - aka CHAZ, are today's version of the Gadianton Robbers - lazy, evil, destructive, and disgusting people. Black Lives Matter, but Black Lives Matter as a phrase and black lives matter the organization are two completely different things. The actions and messages of the latter are far away from love, tolerance, and acceptance. This group is exhibit A of a wolf in sheep's clothing.

@person0 Minor thought. I read the quote you posted multiple times, being frustrated by it each time I read it. Each time, I failed to read it as the following: "Things that do not command universal support. Examples": - Abolishing the police (do not support) - Seriously reducing their (police) effectiveness (do not support) - Changing our constitutional government (do no support)

It got passed, that has to be a plus👍 Not only no wars, peace deal between Israel, UAE, Sudan, etc. Actually, I did click the link to read the NYtimes article earlier but then it wanted me to have a subscription or sign up for an account so I left. I'm never opposed to other views but I do shy away from creating accounts to read something.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Heh. They impeached Trump over this. And now here it is.