MarginOfError
-
Posts
6240 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
20
Posts posted by MarginOfError
-
-
There is a lot of confidential information that gets passed through the office of a Bishopric or Stake Presidency. If someone in the office were to leak some of that information, and some of that information were then used against the person, then the person might have grounds for suing the Church, as this was information that is trusted to people serving in an official capacity for the Church. The information could be personal or financial. However, the grounds for legal action could only be maintained if the Church did not take action against the person who leaked the information (as far as I understand).
-
Yes, but didn't Jesus imply it was more than that by saying 'you are of your father the devil'?
Depends on if you take a literal or metaphorical interpretation of the words you are quoting.
-
So we've got Ben, with a gun, going against Carl, with an Inquisition. I'm putting my life savings (abou $37) on Carl.
-
I think you'll find greater clarification on this question if you look in D&C 139.
-
And it just always feels so good to stick it to the French. :-)
-
I used to love watching the women's gymnastics. Then I turned 18 and felt like a pedophile. Now, I've graduated to beach volleyball. What a great sport!
Men's basketball sure looked good. And the US soccer team managed a tie.
And holy crap men's 4x100 Freestyle. I'm still in shock.
-
Originally Posted by MarginOfError
They select a group of about 30 men that are eligible candidates, then each of them selects an m&m out of a bag. The bag has been rigged to only have 1 yellow m&m (yellow is the celestial color). Whoever gets the yellow m&m is believed to be God's choice.
Is that a joke? No offence if it is not.
They pick them based on chance?
As much as Mars Co. would love to be involved in the selection of an Apostle, this statement is indeed false.
-
Interesting points, and I know this is off-topic to some extent, but the Muslims who attack people and bomb buildings, aren't fundimental, they're semantic and interpreting the Qur'an to support their own conclusions.
And irony scores another laugh.
-
lds.net is linked with Santa's list. It sends updates after the first check.
-
But is forgiveness from Christ given only after the fruit of it is displayed or depend on the execution of the fruit? Or does Christ forgive at the moment of repentance, regardless of the fruit to prove it?
Technically, I think the moment of official forgiveness is at the Judgment. We talk about repentance as if it is a word that has a past tense. But under our definition of repentance, where we have to never go back to the sin, we can't really say we've ever repented until we're in a situation where we couldn't possibly commit the sin again. Thus, we can really only say that we are repenting, and just given the benefit of the doubt until we've completed the repentance.
-
They select a group of about 30 men that are eligible candidates, then each of them selects an m&m out of a bag. The bag has been rigged to only have 1 yellow m&m (yellow is the celestial color). Whoever gets the yellow m&m is believed to be God's choice.
-
I actually wish that wearing a skirt wasn't considered cross dressing. During the really hot and humid days I'd much rather wear a skirt than slacks.
-
Rarely discussed fact: women are just as horny, if not hornier, then men.
-
If she were to join the Church, she would not be held accountable for anyone watching her videos. No one would be held accountable for her decision to star in those videos. Complete and total forgiveness would be offered her by the Savior on the condition that she never engaged in those sins again. If she chose to pursue an aggressive campaign against the industry, she would certainly be entitled to and there are many organizations that would welcome that. However, she would also be completely within her rights to quietly disappear from public eye.
Any and all revenues she's received to date would be considered honest and clean money as part of her forgiveness.
The only loose end I see is what does she do with future revenues incurred from royalties and such. I don't know how receiving funds from that industry would affect her standing in the Church, if she could tithe it, etc. Those are probably issues to be worked out with priesthood leaders.
-
I thought being "dry" was a prereq for being on the high counsel.
If that is the case, then I'm afraid I'm overqualified for the position.
-
as long as place X wasn't Utah I'd go. But if it was utah, I'd apostatize
-
So government has to stay out of our bedrooms...unless, of course, there are homosexuals in the bedroom.
-
so you're saying you support homosexual marriage?
-
Just seems a little odd to complain about government in our bedrooms regarding plural marriage and the cry foul over government in our bedrooms regarding gay marriage.
-
Not answering my question? What's up with that?
Are you supporting this quote?"Who is this government that's in somebody's bedroom? ... It was illegal for me to marry a white woman at one time. ... It was illegal for me to vote at one time. And if I had accepted somebody else's definition of what was right and wrong, I would still be riding in the back of the bus.
"We're not saying this is for everybody. Everybody don't like football and basketball or tennis. But those who do ought to be free to do this."
-
"Who is this government that's in somebody's bedroom? ... It was illegal for me to marry a white woman at one time. ... It was illegal for me to vote at one time. And if I had accepted somebody else's definition of what was right and wrong, I would still be riding in the back of the bus.
"We're not saying this is for everybody. Everybody don't like football and basketball or tennis. But those who do ought to be free to do this."
Are you supporting this quote?
-
Wow, creepy, I found traits of myself in all of those definitions. But I think I fell mostly into the charismatic box. Maybe I should go see someone and make sure I'm not on the verge of snapping.
If I did snap, I'm sure my first victim would probably be Gingy.
-
Discover once credited me almost $1000 that someone else wrote for their own account. I was sure they'd correct it on their own, but I called them anyway. When I talked to them they said, "oh, we won't do anything until the other person calls to report the error." Way to be proactive!
-
I leave several times every week........
And I thought I was indecisive.
Wouldn't it be great, however, if we were judge based on the number of times we left the church?
Church finances
in General Discussion
Posted
When the Law of Consecration was first put into effect in the 1800's, it was a commandment that was expected of all of the people that accepted the Gospel and joined the Saints in the gathering places (it wasn't established in areas where the groups of Saints were smaller, but these areas also didn't typically have bishops). In essence, at the time, Consecration was a more generalized commandment than it is now.
As it turned out, the general body of the Church couldn't seem to live by Consecration, and Tithing was instituted instead. So let's look at the relationship between Consecration and Tithing with an analogy: Tithing is to Consecration what the Aaronic Priesthood is to the Melchizedek. After sufficient preparation under the law of Tithing, an individual may accept the Law of Consecration. This covenant is accepted in the Temple during the Endowment.
However, contrary to popular opinion, those who lived by Consecration in the 1800's did not simply deed everything they owned to the Bishop and hope they got enough back to support themselves. Consecration was not quite like communal living. Detailed records of consecrated property had to be kept, and anytime property was consecrated, two contracts had to be signed. The footnotes in the second volume of The History of the Church give an example of these contracts. The first enumerated in detail everything that an individual was leasing to the Bishop. The second enumerated in detail everything the Bishop was entrusting to the individual's stewardship. Both contracts had to be signed together in order for them to be valid.
The interesting thing about these contracts is that they were negotiated. It was intended that the bishop would meet with a family and they would work out what the family's needs were and compare that to their resources. Nothing was consecrated until both parties came to an agreement. Furthermore, if it was determined that a family had a surplus, the surplus was not taken unless the Bishop had a need for it. Instead, the surplus was granted back to the family's stewardship, and if necessary, the bishop could ask for it later.
So, yes, those of us who have made the Temple Covenants are under obligation to live the Law of Consecration. However, if the bishop asks for the deed to my house, I won't be giving it up until he and I are both satisfied that my family's needs will be met.