TruthSeekerToo

Sorry, my blood sugar seems to be low today and I'm shaky and had a hard time finishing my post. That is why it is missing some references. Vort and Maxel- With section 119 it is specific to Zion, yes, and to be an example to all the stakes of Zion. Well, Zion is not redeemed or built right now so where does that put us? Do we keep the whole thing or reject it all? Vort, that is great that your ancestors were thus tithed, not many people can say that now. Also, again, since the foundation of Zion has not been established (it is in Missouri and has not been moved) it should still stand. Only those "thus tithed" are to be tithed by the second part which is 10% of annual interest. Here is the reference to the 1828 dictionary. The definition that applies here is 5. Surplus advantage. You can break that down and learn how tithing was done in the OT and early church history to understand that it was after your food and housing was taken out. The reason it was done annually was to see what was leftover. That is fine if you don't want to believe that, but I have done lots of researching and praying about it. If you are going to say that section 119 is fulfilled or not what we currently live then why is it used to teach tithing and why don't we have a new canonized revelation to the new order of tithing? The wording "and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood" seems to say to me that the whole thing is still in effect-unless it is only speaking to the people living in Zion. If the latter, then we are exempt from the entire law. Fast offering is different from consecrating to the poor. But that answers my question. People think we are doing what we have been asked. The widow's mite is a great story. Who has given EVERYTHING? It wasn't required of the widow, she did it anyway. And I have never met a person who has given everything-that would be cool, though. Yes, I believe in continued revelation. By the mouths of 2 or 3 witnesses is every word established. Sidney Rigdon's calling (one of them) was to prove ALL the revelations by the scriptures already given. That was never done with section 132 which wasn't put in the D&C until 1876 (replacing the Article on Marriage which was monogomy). I have a God-given right to prove everything by the scriptures and the witness of the Spirit. If it doesn't pass the test "we can set it aside." Joseph Fielding Smith (emphisis mine): “It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teaching of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by authorities of the church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted”. (Doctrines of Salvation 3:203) *As for kneeling with the church...they used to do this. They stopped. So my interpretation is in harmony with the early saints. Also, there is a difference between "with" and "in front of." I believe it says what it means. The revelation that we can substitute the emblems was given because of a specific situation and ironically JS was able to find some wine and use it. I believe the symbolism of wine is very important (this from a girl afraid of alcohol LOL). D&C 27:2 For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins. 3 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, that you shall not purchase wine neither strong drink of your enemies; 4 Wherefore, you shall partake of none except it is made new among you; yea, in this my Father’s kingdom which shall be built up on the earth. 5 Behold, this is wisdom in me; wherefore, marvel not, for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth... So, I guess we aren't worthy of sacremental wine until we establish Zion. Obviously wine will be used in Zion if the Lord with drink it with us. Maxel-you make a very good point about the bishop saying "I have interviewed soandso." This doesn't happen in my ward with convert baptisms-they are interviewed by an elder (district or zone leader?). I only hear this saying in reference to priesthood ordinations. If it did happen, I agree that it would fulfill this injunction. I am going to pay extra close attention to see if they say this for converts! Yes, the law of consecration was given to the early saints. The whole church fell under condemnation for failing to live it. We are still under condemnation according to Pres Benson. I think it is safe to say we are still in that condition. Until we live the laws we have been given and remember the Book of Mormon we are in big trouble. We failed to redeem Zion and still have to do it. It seems to me we should figure out how to live the higher laws. I don't believe anything supercedes the words given in Moroni. Why? He was writing to us! He saw us! He knows US! He did not write those words for his own benefit. God commanded him to write them to you and me sitting here on the internet in 2009.

I would like to present some modern scriptures that we do not follow. And, yes, it is relevent. To tell someone it is wrong to disbelieve God commands lying, killing, etc but okay to not live other scriptures is a double standard. The scriptures were written FOR US. They are relevent today. I am specifically speaking of the NT, BoM, D&C and prophecies of OT. *The law of tithing (which is the LOWER law) D&C 119 1...I require all their surplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop of my church in Zion. 3. And this [meaning the above] shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people. 4 And after that, those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord. So, problems are that we do not give over all our surplus property FIRST and then be tithed 10% of our ANNUAL interest. The 1828 definition of "interest" is what you have left over after all your bills are paid. Also, this method of tithing eliminated the tithe of the poor and needy because they have no surplus property. To add to this we see a consequence of not keeping this holy order of consecration/tithing: D&C 85:3 It is contrary to the will and commandment of God that those who receive not their inheritance by consecration, agreeable to his law, which he has given, that he may tithe his people, to prepare them against the day of vengeance and burning, should have their names enrolled with the people of God. 4 Neither is their genealogy to be kept, or to be had where it may be found on any of the records or history of the church. *Section 42 of the D&C is where the highest law/Celectial law is given to the saints. It has lots of good stuff in it. 22. Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart and cleave unto her AND NONE ELSE. [monogomy] 30. ....thou wilt remember the poor, and consecrate of thy properties for their support..... 73. And the bishop, also, shall receive his support, or a just renumeration for all his services in the church. [bishop should be supported by the members] *For baptism the convert is to confess their sins before the congregation before baptism. I have never seen this done in my life. See Moroni 6:2 and D&C 20:37 *Sacrament-the whole church is to kneel down in prayer with the elders. See Moroni 4:2 and D&C emblem is to be wine distributed in one cup-D&C adds that we need to make it ourselves. See Moroni 5:1 and D&C Anyway, I'm just curious what peole think about these scriptures-commandments for us.

No problem, Pam. It's no fun to be left out of the joke! =)

Sorry, I posted an answer in #56. Those men both play the part of the devil. The one on the right is Michael Ballam an LDS singer. In the temple we see a re-inactment of the creation story. That is where we have seen them before.

Do you have any specific study materials you can share or did you use only scripture?

Here is a portion from the Lectures on Faith which were included in our canon until 1921: [Lec 4:5] First - Knowledge: [Lec 4:5a] Acts 15:18, "Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." [Lec 4:11c] seeing that without the knowledge of all things, God would not be able to save any portion of his creatures; for it is by reason of the knowledge which he has of all things, from the beginning to the end, that enables him to give that understanding to his creatures, by which they are made partakers of eternal life; [Lec 4:11d] and if it were not for the idea existing in the minds of men that God had all knowledge, it would be impossible for them to exercise faith in him.

Justice, I have tried several times to show that the killings are justified under the LESSER law. Nobody wanted to believe it. The literal believers want to believe that the killings are justified under the HIGHER law. I guess you and I agree. This is the LOWER LAW which does not apply to the law of mercy or the law of the celestial kingdom. That said, I believe that God does not command killings. However, he gives lower laws unto the children of men (who will not abide the higher) so that they may inherit the proper kingdom after judgment. Now, my answer to the "Joe" scenerio is this: If Joe represents God, who is the only omnipotent being, then He is bound to do nothing himself. He allows us our agency that our actions might witness for/against us at the judgment bar. Now he might inspire someone to do something to frustrate the evil work. That is a possibility. However, I'm thinking the inspiration would be along the lines of "call the police." This topic gets even more confusing if you believe that God preserved Cain after he murdered his brother. These things seem to condradict eachother.

I appreciate the time you took with these answers. I think you misunderstood me, though. If I believe Abraham lied out of fear I also believe he was acting on his own impulses-not God's. The problem is that we are saying humans have to lie and kill so that God's truths will come to pass (so he won't be a liar). Well, I feel that he is much more powerful than that. He does not need us to make him truth. He is truth all by himself. Well, there are other scriptures that indicate he can preserve people through mysterious ways. By faith prison walls are crumbled. By faith men walk through fire. By faith the mouths of lions are closed. By faith men are so filled with power that they cannot be touched. Can't anyone see? God is so powerful! What takes more faith? Lying or telling the truth? What is more Godly? Lying or telling the truth?

Snow, see this is what I think. It seems like confusion to me. And God is not confusion. On the other hand, he does teach in parables and with symbolism. So sometimes an olive tree is a symbol for something else. Of course, if it said "all" of the olive trees I would take that to mean "all." As to the picture-Those men play the part of the devil. One is Michael Ballam.

JAG-That would be great. I hope you can find it. =) ETA: Found this reference from the 1828 Disctionary: I'm having a hard time seeing the verse rendered: the father of most of the lies. Doesn't have the same ring to it.

Hi. I've been mulling over this more. Here is what I wonder. I agree that loving our neighbor as ourselves is crucial. This is why I see that God does not command killing or genocide. That is the opposite of loving our neighbor. I just don't believe it can be both ways. The greater truth must remain constant. God is truth and is unchanging. And could you tell me what the TRUTH was that Abraham was upholding? I'm not being snarky, it just isn't plain to me. Was it the truth of his marriage or the truth of his calling or something I can't think of? ------------------------ Next thought. Those of you who do not believe the devil is the father of all lies. Do you reject those scriptures which say otherwise or interpret them differently? Or were they an error of the writer? Obviously I don't have a problem with any of those solutions since I don't believe God comands killings. I just would like to hear how you reconcile your beliefs. Thanks.

Yes. Yes it is. Abraham was probably acting out of fear. Poor Pharoah was very hurt that he was decieved. My point is that it would appear to me that sometimes commanding the killing of innocent children vs. commanding to lie to save other peoples lives is being a "respecter of persons." If you feel I am misunderstanding this concept please help me see what it really means. Oooh, and thank for the tip on that site. I couldn't figure out why it was like that. I didn't know there was two! ----------- I still don't see any scriptural evidence that God is the author of any lies.

Yeah, God sees the future. D&C 130: 7 7 But they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord.

If God doesn't know the future how on earth are we able to have prophesies?

YMR-Abraham didn't actually lie-he withheld some truth. He and his wife really are half-siblings. And saying that breaking a lesser commandment to keep a higher is fine. Saying that God lies or that any lies come from Him is not truth. So, does everyone believe that "Lying for the Lord" is okay? You can look it up on mormonwiki if you are not sure what that means.

Well, at least you are willing to admit that I have a valid point. I completly disagree with your presentation that some lives just aren't fulfilling enough and killing them would be fine. Or if someone interferes with the purpose of others lives it is better to kill them. YIKES!!! I thought God was no respecter of persons. D&C 1: 35 35 For I am no respecter of persons, and will that all men shall know that the day speedily cometh; the hour is not yet, but is nigh at hand, when peace shall be taken from the earth, and the devil shall have power over his own dominion. D&C 38: 16 16 And for your salvation I give unto you a commandment, for I have heard your prayers, and the poor have complained before me, and the rich have I made, and all flesh is mine, and I am no respecter of persons. Acts 10: 34. 34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

That one is actually easy for me to understand. The story is full or symbolism. I don't believe he was literally being asked to physically kill his son Isaac. Even if that is what he initially thought. Also, Abraham came from a people who believed in human sacrifice. How ironic! Again, so much symbolism here. In a nutshell, Abraham was being asked to put it all on the alter-everything inside him. His heart, ego, traditions of his father, etc. And he did. Go Abraham! I also believe there are many layers of understanding to the scriptures. I also believe that the Lord reveals things in parables. The surface meaning is a story that the people of the time would relate to. The deeper meaning(s) are the spiritual message we should try to learn. I'm falling asleep and my brain has stopped working. G'night!

None taken. In my journey right now I am pretty open (or trying to be) to whatever the Spirit teaches me. I am trying to study things out in my mind (on the internet) because it helps me a lot. I get a lot more info this way. My opinion right now is that God never commands lying or killing of innocent children. I'm not so sure he commands any killing, but that is still up in the air. I do believe it is in human nature to lie. So, I could see that even without the temptation of Satan that man might still lie on occasion. But, I also believe that most lying stems from fear. Fear seems to be a lack of faith, IMO.

All of these arguments fail to prove that God commands lying or that he is the author of any lies. We sin. It is only because of the atonement of Christ that we are saved. We are not justified in our sins. The atonement pays the price of justice for us when we repent. Every lie was paid for. He allows us to use our agency. He allows us to choose to lie (sin).

Other things I'm pondering. God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. Which means all lies will have to be repented of. Through the infinite atonement of Christ we can be washed clean. Once we start lying it usually leads to others. It becomes very hard to stop. When speaking of the last days (which I believe are now) the scriptures warn: Isaiah 66:4&9 4 I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear; but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not. 2 Thes 2:9-12 9 Yea, the Lord, even Jesus, whose coming is not until after there cometh a falling away, by the working of Satan with all power, and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie; 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. Well, that sounds pretty bad. God will (or has) allow us to be deluded that we might believe lies. Because we don't/won't love the truth.

pam, you forgot to add the "not" to your sentence! BTW, I have to say that I do think those who strive to work against evil and preserve the lives of the innocent are heroes. But, I have to think outloud here. If our physical life is so important than why is it okay to commit genocide sometimes? Why would God command some people to lie to save their life while at the same time commanding others to kill?

2 Ne. 2: 18 18 And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil. 2 Ne. 9: 9 9 And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light, and istirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness. Ether 8: 25 25 For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil, who is the father of all lies; even that same liar who bbeguiled our first parents, yea, even that same liar who hath caused man to commit murder from the beginning; who hath hardened the hearts of men that they have murdered the prophets, and stoned them, and cast them out from the beginning. Moses 4: 4 4 And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice. Here are 4 witnesses from the scriptures that the devil is the father of all lies. We can search to see if there are any evidences that God lies or commands lying. But if we find any, then the universe goes *poof*.

Mark 8: 35 35 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s, the same shall save it. Luke 9: 24 24 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it. Matt. 16: 25 25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. Luke 17: 33 33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it. What about all the Christians who were martyred because they would not deny the Christ. Should they have lied to preserve their lives? You cannot beat the devil at his own game [by lying]. Lies do not come from God. That is what the scriptures say. We are allowed to choose. So we can choose to lie or bear false witness. That is part of agency.

This is true for humans in mortality. It seems that God already knows it all. Hemi, thanks for the info on how the Lectures on Faith got demoted. It's also funny to see that doctrine really has changed. Or at least, what is accepted as doctrine.

Moksha, good point. I also wonder if lying is a showing of lack of faith. I know whenever I am tempted to lie it is from fear.