Vort

Now THAT makes a difference!I wuv my wife, the wight of my wittow wife. I am vewy, vewy wucky. What kind of wudicwous wamebwain could take offense at that? Weawwy. If the exposition is identifiable to an individual, then I agree with you. At the very least, it's sadly pathetic that anyone would expose his/her spouse to such public abuse. But assuming the whining is anonymous, I think that may be going a little far. Such unspecified complaining may allow the complainer to get some perspective on the issue and perhaps receive some input to help him/her see another side to it, maybe even how s/he has some fault in the matter.(Sounds like this is regarding a particular thread on this forum...if so, I have not read it and am offering no opinions on any particular thread, just the general idea of whining about your spouse on a discussion list.) Agreed. There was a recent thread where people were actually telling a woman to leave her husband! Unbelievable. I mentioned that such things were totally inappropriate, and offended some people by saying so.Again, I'm not privy to the particular thread that apparently inspired this conversation, so I'm not commenting on it, just in general.

Avrham, Your valid point is lost here. You are spitting (shall we say) into the wind. Nice try, though.

I truly welcome you to your opinion and to ignore mine. I have no illusions about my own inerrancy or that you (or anyone else) should listen to my take on things.However, your statement above is false. The covenant we make in the temple is unmistakable. We covenant to consecrate ourselves, our time, and our possessions. That's the covenant. Nothing there about "accepting but not living" the covenant. If you want to argue that, somehow, the covenant we make in the temple is not valid, or is not enforced, or is not applicable, go right ahead. But you cannot truthfully say that we don't make the covenant. We do. We covenant to consecrate our lives to God. Not tomorrow, not in the eternities, not when the bishop gets around to asking us one day. Right now.

If it says an eternal law has been rescinded? Yep. Perhaps. Non sequitur. I can show you many errors, even in our own scriptural headings. (Or do you believe that the Nephites had coinage?) LDS doctrine is not defined by whatever has been found at any given time in manuals, or else you would have to agree that our premortal selves were incapable of feeling spiritual joy or pain, as was explicitly taught in the missionary discussions I had to memorize word for word and that had been approved by the First Presidency. Perhaps you don't live it, but if you have been through the temple, you should, and you are in violation of your covenants. What you are saying is equivalent to saying, "The law of chastity was rescinded because the members could not live polygamy, and was replaced by monogamy." I have helped you out by placing the emphasis in a more appropriate position. I am not familiar with such people, though I'm sure some of them must exist. They seem to be an area of special concern for you. Again, you ought to speak only for yourself. Probably true, yet we are under covenant to consecrate them -- as well as our money -- to the kingdom. That's a covenant we live under now, not held in reserve for some future moment. Ah, so that's it. Unless I have published as many books as Nibley, my opinion doesn't count for as much as his, and my doctrinal insights are by definition inferior. (At least by Rameumptom's definition.) Very well. I've made my opinion known; ignore it as you see fit, secure in the knowledge that my published list of works pales in comparison to Nibley.

This is untrue. The law of consecration was not and cannot be "rescinded", any more than the law of chastity can be "rescinded". It's an eternal law. This is an error. If you read the heading to Section 119, it makes it clear that the covenant was rescinded by which those who had entered into it had bound themselves together to the particular exercise of the law in conjunction with "stewardship of property". This is much different from the law being rescinded, which does not even make sense. The full quote from the introduction (which, of course, is not scripture), is as follows:"The Lord had previously given to the Church the law of consecration and stewardship of property, which members (chiefly the leading elders) entered into by a covenant that was to be everlasting. Because of failure on the part of many to abide by this covenant, the Lord withdrew it for a time, and gave instead the law of tithing to the whole Church." What is the antecedent to "it"? It is either (1) "the law of consecration and stewardship of property" or (2) "a covenant that was to be everlasting". If (1), that simply says that the particular exercise of the law of consecration (e.g. "stewardship of property") was withdrawn for a time. If (2), the law of consecration is not even involved. No. Rather, we have already voluntarily agreed that all we have already is dedicated to the kingdom of God. That means right now, not at some future nebulous time. No. The law of consecration operates by an individual consecrating by covenant his goods and efforts to the kingdom of God. That is the law of consecration. The so-called "united order" was not a "form" of the law of consecration, it was a particular method of practice. (This is perhaps a semantic point, so let me ask: Do you consider polygamy to be a "form" of the law of chastity? If so, then perhaps it makes sense for you to call the united order a "form" of the law of consecration. I disagree with that usage, but as long as you're consistent in it, I won't quibble too much.) Well, that's a rather sweeping supposition. Who are these "LDS capitalists"? Since every member of the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve in this dispensation has lived under American law, can I safely assume that they have all been "LDS capitalists"? If not, then what exactly to you mean?My understanding of the law of consecration comes from an extensive study of our doctrines, primarily as discussed in the Doctrine and Covenants. You ought perhaps not to make such false assumptions and assertions. Suggest away. I may be wrong, but I suspect I have read as much Nibley as you, and perhaps more. However that may be, Nibley, a brilliant scholar and insightful man, was not a source of LDS doctrine, merely an exponent.

This is incorrect. We live the law of consecration today, and we also own private property today.If you really mean (sigh) the united order, then I believe that this is still incorrect. Under the united order, people were deeded back ownership of property to care for themselves, then given stewardship over other properties to benefit the order.

I believe this is correct. The bishop is the agent for the order, hence the shorthand of "deeding over to the bishop". In fact, it was the order itself that received the goods. The bishop was merely the steward over the order's belongings, or more precisely, the one in charge of apportioning out the stewardships. Sure, this can be done. You can even call it a "united order", if you like. But it is not the law of consecration unless done under the auspices of the kingdom of God.On the other hand, paying your tithing, fulfilling your calling, and giving any amount or doing any job requested by your bishop is living the law of consecration, right now, today.

Law of consecration != united order Let me repeat that. Law of consecration != united order We do not live the united order. It may never be restored, or it may be, but at this point in time it is merely an historical curiosity. We do live the law of consecration, today, right now. Let me repeat that, with emphasis. We do live the law of consecration, today, right now. It is a mystery to me why so many Mormons fail to understand this simple, basic, obvious truth. We live the law of consecration NOW, or at least we are supposed to. Many early Saints confused the law of chastity with polygamy, thinking they were the same thing. When polygamy was done away with, there may have been some who thought the law of chastity was being abolished. But of course, that's nonsense. The law of chastity is not polygamy, any more than the law of consecration is the united order. Dedicating all we have and are to God's kingdom and work: law of consecration. Deeding over our property to the bishop: united order. See the difference? The proper subject title for this thread should be: United order vs. socialism Asking how the "law of consecration" differs from "socialism" when what you really mean is how the "united order" differs from "socialism" is like asking how the "law of chastity" differs from "group sex" when what you really mean is how "polygamy" differs from "group sex". I don't actually expect this will do any good. Those who insist on equating the law of consecration with the united order will continue to do so, and will continue to insist that we don't live the law of consecration today. Which is utter nonsense and false doctrine, but hey, what can I do? I'm just one anonymous guy on the internet, powerless in the face of mass ignornace. Poor me.

Agreed. I am aware of no claims of Joseph Smith that were witnessed by large numbers of people but which are not accepted. Maybe you're confusing caution about interpretation or accuracy of records with unwillingness to accept true doctrine. Has someone said that the Follett sermon was "only speculation"? quote]or " confusing to so many LDS " Many LDS doctrines are confusing to others and even to Church members, such as continuing revelation, resurrection, the atonement, and other LDS doctrines. The fact that they are "confusing" is really neither here nor there. is right. I have no idea what you're saying here.

"You should leave your scumbag husband" is not helpful. "You should leave your scumbag husband" is not a little listening validation.

Hey, buddy. I'm not just a Vort, I'm the Vort. It's actually quite simple. The standard works -- Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price -- are the word of God to us. Thus, the latter three are "accurately documented" revelations to Joseph Smith. In addition, those revelations that Joseph Smith himself wrote down or caused to be written down can be considered accurately documented, whether or not they ended up in our D&C. The funeral sermon for Elder Follett (the "King Follett discourse") is neither a holograph nor a directed dictation. The doctrine found in it, correctly understood, is doubtless true, and the sermon has been used throughout Church history as a touchstone for the plan of salvation and as a source for understanding that plan. I personally think it is perhaps Joseph's crowning achievement. Nevertheless, it cannot be relied upon uncritically, and despite the pronouncements of well-intended individuals on this list, it is most certainly not scripture in the sense that the standard works are scripture. As I have already pointed out, when the particular nuance of word or phrase is necessary to grasp the full and accurate meaning delivered, a pieced-together recounting of a funeral sermon taken from several different sources simply doesn't provide you the required rigor. We can marvel at the "King Follett discourse", we can ponder its words and their implications, we can use it as a starting point to seek for further knowledge; but we cannot legitimately proclaim it as the foundation source for whatever doctrines we care to draw from it. Not that that stops people from trying to do exactly that, as this thread illustrates.

You're right in this, I am sure. Latter-day Saints rejoice that we have knowledge and revelation given us, but in the end we're still in the same situation of mortality and ignorance that our non-LDS brothers and sisters are. We, all of us, must live by faith. Joining the kingdom of God doesn't change that, it just makes the journey a bit more purposeful.

Potato, to be clear: My diatribe against the dishonesty I perceived was not aimed at you. I understand that you are hurting and that you are looking for some place to vent and perhaps receive a kind and consoling word. I hope you have found that. I also hope that you can find a way to move on and do the difficult but important work that lies ahead of you, perhaps even with your husband by your side.

Christ = cornerstone Book of Mormon = keystone Doctrine & Covenants = capstone Gazelem = seerstone Baptism = milestone Diamond = birthstone Hell = brimstone Georgetown = brownstone That should just about cover it.

Whoever told you that doesn't have a clue to how men operate. Sex is the deepest way a man can both express and feel his love toward his spouse (or other sex "partner"). If you've wondered why men tend to be "sex addicts" more often than women, or why a promiscuous man often seems more "messed up" than a promiscuous woman, well, there's your reason. Women can more easily disattach themselves from the act of sex, where for a man, that's almost impossible. Unfortunately, in my experience, very few men and almost no women understand this most basic fact about men.

No, they are not. Not in this context, anyway. The sons of Levi bore the ark of the covenant and performed the sacrifices and other rituals for Israel. Joseph Smith invoked the words of Malachi about the sons of Levi when he wrote about baptism for the dead, as recorded in Section 128: ...he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness. Let us, therefore, as a church and a people, and as Latter-day Saints, offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness; and let us present in his holy temple, when it is finished, a book containing the records of our dead, which shall be worthy of all acceptation. Joseph Smith apparently felt that the reference to the "sons of Levi" was appropriate when talking about redemptive work for the dead. So perhaps this "offering" refers to our offering of our work in the temple, specifically baptismal work.

She looked like the goddess of billiard balls.

I haven't read this thread all the way through (and given its length, I don't plan to do so), so I am not sure which teaching you think Joseph Smith offered that LDS members don't accept. However, I would point out that the funeral sermon for Elder Follett was not recorded in any official capacity, but was pieced together from accounts of those who did hear it, or in some cases perhaps heard it from someone who heard it. In such cases, it's difficult to determine precisely what the Prophet said. When an important doctrinal point hinges on a single word, phrase, or expression (e.g. "God was as we are" vs. "God was once mortal" vs. "God was once sinful"), such precision of wording becomes important. When that precision is lacking, no larger gospel doctrine can safely be drawn from the record.

Oliver Cowdery's account of this ordination, recorded in the Pearl of Great Price (Joseph Smith - History), reads thus: Upon you my fellow-servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer this Priesthood and this authority, which shall remain upon earth, that the Sons of Levi may yet offer an offering unto the Lord in righteousness! Note that the word "until" can mean "so that", and this usage was common in Joseph Smith's day. I think it's entirely possible that what John the Baptist was saying was, "This Priesthood is being restored to the end that ("until") the Sons of Levi offer up a righteous offering to the Lord." And what is the righteous offering we are to offer? Obviously, it is a broken heart and a contrite spirit. It appears, at least in this interpretation of the ordination, that the sons of Levi cannot offer up an acceptable offering of a broken heart and a contrite spirit unless and until they have the keys of the Aaronic Priesthood available to them. That's one possible interpretation, anyway.

Lots of interesting insights from people: Fascinating responses, with a common theme: Woman is good, man is bad. The husband claims that he has stopped his addictive behaviors. While I have my doubts that a porn viewer just up and quits one day, the OP has no evidence that her husband is in fact doing these things, and he is claiming that he isn't. She admits that he is not emotionally abusive to the extent that she has accused him of being in the past. I don't know, do any of you live in the real world? Do you think that "emotionally abusive" husbands don't typically live with equally "emotionally abusive" wives? Do you think that many people, perhaps more often women than men, willingly adopt the "victim" role to blame their spouses for their problems instead of manning (or womaning) up and facing their own responsibility for their misery? Have any of you ever heard the expression, "It takes two to tango"? Do you think she had three children with this man because she was enraptured by his false presentation? Or maybe she was forcibly raped, you think? A while back, another sister posted to this list her frustration with her husband and their marriage. In this post, she openly admitted to having committed adultery. Amazingly, almost every response was sympathetic and supportive, many being explicitly critical of her husband, and almost none mentioning that, hey, adultery is a bad thing and you should be grateful your husband is even willing to look your direction any more, much less stay married to you. So apparently, adultery isn't that big a deal, as long as you feel under a lot of stress and are angry at your spouse. In the present case, the husband in question appears to be guilty of viewing pornography and of masturbating -- certainly an ugly set of sinful behaviors, but also certainly not rising to the level of adultery. In addition, he claims (at least) that he no longer indulges in such vices, and his wife can find no proof (yet) that he's lying. In addition, she admits that his behavior toward her has improved, and she also openly admits behaving badly toward him and toward her children. Her hatred for her husband (!!!) is so evident that it cannot be missed. Yet, again, her husband is skewered and she is cast as the victim. Folks, this is not merely a double standard, it is dishonest. To those whose words I listed above -- you are TELLING THIS WOMAN TO LEAVE HER HUSBAND AND ARE MAKING THE JUDGMENT THAT SHE IS RIGHT AND HE IS WRONG! Aren't you even the least bit worried about saying such things to a woman you don't even know, without even hearing her husband's perspective? Who, exactly, died and made you God? Because Jesus said that man (or woman) should not put asunder that which God has joined. Are you even thinking about what you're writing? Don't you believe that God will hold you accountable for your words to this woman, who may be an anonymous set of words to you but who in reality is a daughter of God and an agent of her own fate? Because he most certainly will hold you accountable for them. If you think he won't, you're fooling yourselves. Unbelievable. Your hatred of men has gotten out of control. And if anyone cares to cry "Apples and oranges!" yet again, go back and answer my previous questions and statements first. To the OP: You are clearly in a world of pain and misery. My heart goes out to you. I think you need to be talking to your bishop and, probably, a counselor at least weekly. Whether you leave your husband or stay with him is a decision only you and he can make, but in either case, you must come to forgive him. The hatred you feel for him will eat you up and leave you an empty shell of a human, and your children will suffer for it. Furthermore, your children are also HIS children, and if you hate him, that hatred will inevitably seep over to his (your) children. This is a difficult situation for you, and you have my sympathy, but no collection of anonymous people on an internet discussion board will be able to give you any significant, ongoing help. Please talk with those who can help you, and then prepare to do the hard things that you will need to do to put your life in order. Maybe your husband can and will do those things with you, but whether he does or not, you must do them so that you can be free from this pain. God bless you.

Why? If I write a computer program and then say, "I grant thee AGENCY!", the program will still act exactly as I programmed it to act. If God created my decision-making capacity and then merely said, "I grant thee AGENCY!", I will still make decisions exactly as my God-created decision-making ability dictates.

My ultimate decision-making capacity does not reside in my brain. If my parents consciously created my decision-making capacity, then of course they would be responsible for it. If God created our decision-making capacity, then very obviously he is "responsible for how [we] use it". To say otherwise is absurd, denying the very meaning of the term "decision-making capacity".

If God created our decision-making capacity, then God is responsible for our decisions, and agency is a sham. It's as simple as that. Whatever it is, "intelligence" is certainly far more than merely "spirit element".

Yes, of course -- if his presentations and insinuations had been similar, if he had been presenting and selling his ideas widely, and if FAIR had been getting queries about his presentations. To my eyes, it looks like FAIR has bent over backward to be impersonal and, well, fair in their criticisms of Brother Meldrum (never even mentioning, for example, that his name is an anagram for "led merry mound", let alone "dourly mend REM").

Yes, and so will Mormons unless they repent.