Vort

How is this any different from obeying the president of the Church? Sure, but it's a start. Any kind of obedience is better than disobedience. Are you in a position to pass judgment on your bishop? Which part of your covenant instructs you not to obey your bishop until God himself speaks to you?

I like Jared's effort, but I disagree with many of his dates. For example, we know that during the transoceanic voyage in 592-591 BC, when Nephi was bound by his brothers, Sariah was still nursing, as described in 1 Nephi 18:19: And Jacob and Joseph also, being young, having need of much nourishment, were grieved because of the afflictions of their mother; and also my wife with her tears and prayers, and also my children, did not soften the hearts of my brethren that they would loose me. Now, I realize that the ancients tended to nurse their children later than we do, but if Jacob had been born in 598 BC as Jared supposes, he would be six or seven years old by this point. While it is not completely unheard-of for a woman to nurse her child to this age, I think it's highly unusual in almost every culture. I think a birthyear of around 595 BC, maybe even after, is much likelier because it's more in line with the whole nursing thing. Jared is also supposing Jacob to have been 88 years old at Enos' birth. This is not impossible, but I find it highly unlikely given Enos's statement in Enos 3: Behold, I went to hunt beasts in the forests; and the words which I had often heard my father speak concerning eternal life, and the joy of the saints, sunk deep into my heart. Even if Jacob had lived well into his 90s, Enos would likely have been a young child when orphaned by his father's death. How then would he remember having "often heard" his father speak about "the joy of the saints" -- especially given Jacob's seemingly pessimistic worldview, as he voiced in Jacob 7:26: ...our lives passed away like as it were unto us a dream, we being a lonesome and a solemn people... No, I don't believe Jacob was in his late 80s when Enos was born. Late 70s is much more believable, even from a biological viewpoint; although it's certainly possible for an 88-year-old to father a child, male fertility does in fact decline with age, so a septuagenarian would be more likely to father a child than would an octogenarian. Moving Jacob's birthyear to no earlier than 595 BC and Enos' birthyear to no later than 515 BC allows for this much more likely scenario, while still allowing Enos to be of reasonable age himself to father a child in his old age.

God gave me the opportunity to make a covenant of consecration and the good sense to go ahead with that covenant. Why do you insist that obeying a Priesthood leader is "running on autopilot"? Perhaps. Or maybe, "The bishop had the keys of leadership and the authority to request my stewarship. I recognized thine authority in him and honored it."

More important or not, that isn't the question I asked.

Is it unwise to follow the direction of our Priesthood leaders?

Why would you blindly follow God?

Matthew 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. Since the Lord clearly is not talking about a personal visitation of the Father to Simon Peter, the only other option I can think of is revelation through the Holy Ghost. It is clearly untrue to say that the Holy Ghost was inoperative until Christ's atonement was completed, but it does seem that there was some sort of period during the Lord's mortal ministry when the influence of the Holy Ghost was in some sense modified. Jesus himself told his disciples that he had to leave so that the Comforter would come to them.

Perhaps this is why such a question is known as a "hypothetical".

This is new doctrine to me. I know of no duty to be skeptical. Can you elaborate, perhaps with scriptural or other doctrinal references?

I have never been to Rexburg, but fwiw literally everyone I can remember who went to Ricks (now BYU-Idaho) loved both the school and the area. Living there as a student is different from living there as a resident, I realize, but that's all I can offer.

There's the windup...swing...IT'S OUTTA HERE!!! It should be noted that the previous chapter tells of Abinadi preaching that the people WOULD BE brought into bondage IF THEY DIDN'T REPENT. So they were warned, fair and square. After their continued sinfulness for two more years, they had fully earned their bondage -- even those who later repented.

While I agree in principle with what you have written above, you are mistaken in the bolded part. In the other thread, I have assumed that any believing Saint, and especially any believing Saint who has received his/her endowment, is willing to part with anything that s/he knows the Lord has asked for. Rather, that thread is a question about how people see authority and whether they are willing to follow direction even when it comes from the guy down the street who until last month didn't even get his home teaching done on time.

That's about what it looks like to me, maybe a couple or three years less. It was about 25 years from the time Abinadi was executed under Noah until Alma and his people were led to Zarahemla and all the Nephites reunited. I think we often don't realize that the Nephites under Limhi were in servitude to the Lamanites for a full generation. Under Alma, they fared better since they were free for at least the first four or five years after leaving Noah's kingship. But even then, after Amulon's kidnapping of the Lamanite daughters, they also spent somewhere around 20 years in bondage -- though of course their bondage was attended by miraculous interventions. Next question on this: Why were the people under Alma brought into bondage at all? Weren't they righteous and serving the Lord as best they knew? Mosiah 23:21 says simply, "Nevertheless the Lord seeth fit to chasten his people; yea, he trieth their patience and their faith." But I am thinking of a very specific reason why the people under Alma had to have been brought into bondage, despite their righteousness.

Nope, not excess. Just everything you own.

That is not a flaw. That is by design. Why is that flawed? The point is, you are not told what's going on. You are simply asked to sign your property over to the Church. It's a simple scenario. Yet I specified that this was not the case. No, it is really not conceivable. Otherwise, there would certainly have been numerous cases of bishops enriching themselves from the Church's coffers, penalty-free. So, then, I assume you are equally against anyone asking any such hypothetical question as, "Suppose Jesus appeared before you and asked you to home teach the lonely widow up the street," because of course you cannot name an instance in the last 50 years that that has happened. Right? The only reason I could imagine is that you believe you have covenanted to do so. You are wrong here. Consider this the correction you requested.

This is more or less what I have been saying. Where do you see an error? Are you saying that covenanting to live the law of consecration does not involve exactly that -- consecrating all of your time, talents, and property for the rest of your life to the building up of God's kingdom? If so, I differ with you and think that the covenant taken explicitly identifies exactly those elements.

Sorry, Moksha, I don't understand. Is there something inherently ridiculous about trying to find out how others' though processes differ from one's own?

Can't tell if this is supposed to be a serious question, so I don't know how or whether to give an opinion.

My response would be: If you have received your temple endowment and if you take it seriously (and literally), you have already given as much as or more than the D&C specifies for "the beginning of the tithing of [God's] people".

Actually, I think I agree with you. All baptized members are under covenant to live the law of tithing. But those who go to the temple freely covenant to live the law of consecration fully. That law has not been implemented in the united order, so of course we don't live the united order. But the law of consecration, yes, we absolutely are under covenant to live it, if we have received our temple endowment. I would add that living the "lower" law of tithing in no way precludes us from living the law of consecration to our own fullest extent. The law of consecration is lived in individual action, attitude, and worship. The united order is not required to live the law of consecration, any more than plural marriage is required to live the law of chastity.

I agree with Elphaba's take. Moreover, I'm a bit confused by the apparent pride many in the Church take at being "the fastest-growing Church" (which, as Elphaba points out, isn't actually true). Obviously, every believing Latter-day Saint rejoices in those who join the kingdom of God -- another brother or sister holding to the iron rod and joining us in our journey. What's not to like? But many Saints seem to take pride in the mere fact (as they suppose) of great Church growth, as if the growth of the Church were itself a testimony of its truthfulness. But that is not the case. The Church will never make up more than a small minority of the earth's population. Though I am not sure I agree with Br. Phillips' contention that the LDS Church is not truly a worldwide Church, still I would say, even as a worldwide Church, the LDS Church will always be a minority religion. Isn't that what our doctrine teaches? The Lord's sheep hear his voice, but it is "one of a city and two of a family", not stadiums-full converting to a megachurch. We offer the gospel to all, but we do not expect everyone to respond. Those who join are a self-selecting minority, and always will be. Even those raised in the Church will eventually be forced to choose whether and how they follow the faith of their fathers. Church growth is exciting, even inspiring. But let's not get caught up in the false notion that Church growth somehow reflects the truthfulness of the gospel. The gospel and the Church were true even when the Church struggled with apostasy. Great struggles lie ahead for the Church and its membership, yet the Church will still be true even if and when members apostatize by the hundreds and thousands.

When I was created, I was born. The same is true for every other person I have ever met. Why is it unreasonable to assume the same for Adam and Eve?

LDS and non-LDS: Is the law of consecration something we're supposed to live today? P.S. I have no ulterior motive or lesson to teach. I have my own view, of course, and I'll probably vote and may even comment. But (DapperDan, take note!) if you're going to accuse me of posting leading questions in order to debase everyone and/or reign in pharisaical hypocrisy over all those who answer "wrongly", please save your virtual breath.

You've been talking to DapperDan, haven't you? Not a personal attack, but that's really stupid? Well, okay, since you told me not to take it as a personal attack, I guess now I have to assume it isn't. But how do you think asking a simple hypothetical question "cause judgmentalism"? The question itself is "dumb" because it inspires evil? It causes the "righteous" who say "yes" to think evil of the "apostates" who say "no"? Funny, as one of the "righteous" who said "yes", I didn't think of any of those who said "no" as apostates. In fact, the only ones I was at all tempted to think less of were those who called names or otherwise berated my supposed "judgmentalism". (Yes, I admit, being falsely accused of "judgmentalism" does indeed tend to put me in a judgmental frame of mind. Bitterly ironic. Almost a self-fulfilling prophecy.)

James 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.