Rosabella
-
Posts
65 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Rosabella
-
-
Another quote. This is right off of LDS.org About what Hell is.
Latter-day revelations speak of hell in at least two ways. First, it is another name for spirit prison, a temporary place in the postmortal world for those who died without a knowledge of the truth or those who were disobedient in mortality. Second, it is the permanent location of Satan and his followers and the sons of perdition, who are not redeemed by the Atonement of Jesus Christ.
Spirit prison is a temporary state in which spirits will be taught the gospel and have the opportunity to repent and accept ordinances of salvation that are performed for them in temples (see D&C 138:30-35). Those who accept the gospel may dwell in paradise until the Resurrection. After they are resurrected and judged, they will receive the degree of glory of which they are worthy. Those who choose not to repent but who are not sons of perdition will remain in spirit prison until the end of the Millennium, when they will be freed from hell and punishment and be resurrected to a telestial glory (see D&C 76:81-85).
Those who are not redeemed by the Atonement are in outer darkness, which is the dwelling place of the devil, his angels, and the sons of perdition (see D&C 29:36-38; 76:28-33). Sons of perdition are those who receive “no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come—having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame” (D&C 76:34-35; see also D&C 76:31-33, 36-37). Such individuals will not inherit a place in any kingdom of glory; for them the conditions of hell remain (see D&C 76:38; 88:24, 32).
-
Pam
It is funny how the Lord works sometimes. I am glad I followed the feeling I had today and that it assisted you :)
-
You are very welcome.
That is interesting you were looking for this quote. I have not been on this site or posted in a long time but felt like should look at this site just now and then saw this thread and felt I should post these quotes.
Prompting? :)
-
Here are some quotes I found on this topic:
(The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.50)
No progression between kingdoms. After a person has been assigned to his place in the kingdom, either in the telestial, the terrestrial, or the celestial, or to his exaltation, he will never advance from his assigned glory to another glory. That is eternal! That is why we must make our decisions early in life and why it is imperative that such decisions be right.
Elder Bruce R. McConkie
There is no such thing as a second chance to gain salvation by accepting the gospel in the spirit world after spurning, declining, or refusing to accept it in this life. It is true that there may be a second chance to hear and accept the gospel, but those who have thus procrastinated their acceptance of the saving truths will not gain salvation in the celestial kingdom of God.
Salvation for the dead is the system by means of which those who "die without a knowledge of the gospel" (D. & C. 128:5) may gain such knowledge in the spirit world and then, following the vicarious performance of the necessary ordinances, become heirs of salvation on the same basis as though the gospel truths had been obeyed in mortality. Salvation for the dead is limited expressly to those who do not have opportunity in this life to accept the gospel but who would have taken the opportunity had it come to them.
"All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel," the Lord said to the Prophet, "who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom, for I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts." (Teachings, p. 107.)
This is the only revealed principle by means of which the laws pertaining to salvation for the dead can be made effective in the lives of any persons. There is no promise in any revelation that those who have a fair and just opportunity in this life to accept the gospel, and who do not do it, will have another chance in the spirit world to gain salvation. On the contrary, there is the express stipulation that men cannot be saved without accepting the gospel in this life, if they are given opportunity to accept it.
"Now is the time and the day of your salvation," Amulek said. "For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors .... For after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed." (Alma 34:31-35; 2 Ne. 9:27; 3 Ne. 28:34; Luke 9:62.)
An application of this law is seen in the words of the resurrected Christ to the Nephites. "Therefore come unto me and be ye saved," he said in repeating with some variations the Sermon on the Mount he had previously given the Jews, "for verily I say unto you, that except ye shall keep my commandments, which I have commanded you at this time, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." (3 Ne. 12:20.) Thus salvation was forever denied those Nephites unless they gained it by virtue of their obedience during mortality. On the same basis, there is no such thing as salvation for the dead for the Latter-day Saints who have been taught the truths of salvation and had a fair and just opportunity to live them.
(Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, pp. 181-196.)
Thus the false and heretical doctrine that people who fail to live the law in this life (having had an opportunity so to do) will have a further chance of salvation in the life to come is a soul-destroying doctrine, a doctrine that lulls its adherents into carnal security and thereby denies them a hope of eternal salvation. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, pp. 181-196.)
-
Indeed, it seems I have received a calling, but I'm not sure.
Whenever I went to the library, I went to the religious section and I would always see The Book of Mormon, and I would pick it up and read it. And then I would search for it on the Net, and I had it saved in bookmarks.
Ever since Monday, I have been reading my Bible to prove detractors wrong, and a lot of Mormons practice is found in the Bible.
Also, before classes ended at college, I walked out of the classroom for about three weeks and I saw a flyer for a LDS Student community thingy, but now I regret not going.
I converted similar to you. I was searching for the true church and found many attacking the LDS faith. They said all kinds of weird stuff about Mormons which ended up not to be true. I found what is called a Missionary Pal. It was a little book that was like a quick topical guide that helped missionaries get to scripture topics quickly. What I did was read it to see all the doctrines of the LDS faith (This was before the internet LOL) I would look up all the topics using the bible's Scriptures and sure enough all doctrines of Mormonism were right there in the Bible. I found that all the stuff that was being thrown at me that was anti-Mormon was just silliness and unfounded.
What exciting time this is for you! I know it was for me :)
I am very happy for you! Use Mormon.org as suggested before (I wish it had been there when I was searching) and get a hold of missionaries and you can always find a ward near you to just attend. I went to Church for a while before I joined and found it to be the opposite of all the stuff I had heard. Same once I went to the temple. It was beautiful and nothing close to what lies are spread about it. I have never in my 20 years now being LDS found anything that did not fit the Bible.
May God Be With You
Rosabella
-
I'm not interested in discussions about "how much socialism is okay?". To me, it's akin to arguing about "how much cancer is okay?"
Ironically, that's a question that clinicians deal with every day. Cancer, at times, seems to be ubiquitous, and it takes many forms. Consider, for instance, prostate cancer. A huge number of men in the US die with prostate cancer, but they don't die of prostate cancer. In the majority of cases, prostate cancer is not anything to worry about--it's benign--and cutting out a benign cancer can have worse side effects than leaving it in. So, in reality, we very often have to ask ourselves how much cancer is okay.
(and for the record, that isn't a straw-man, that's sophistry)
This ends my discussion with you. This has gotten silly beyond absurdity. Arguments can be made out of anything. I can say the sun is the moon and the moon is the sun and argue you that I am right because of Historical context, linguistics, subjective refection etc. This is only arguing for argument's sake and is no longer a discussion but has degenerated to absurd intellectual games, which is contention and in which I have no interest in participating. I am willing to discuss and even debate ideas but not when it degenerates into this.
-
At least we've established that you're capable of picking out a few sentences you don't like and ignoring everything else said. Perhaps you should go up and few posts and read what I've said about socialist and capitalist (and other) governments.
You do not need to revert to jabs to make you view points. It does not make one want to discuss things with you.
Let's look at it the other way then...can the city of Zion be built under Capitalism?
I was not discussing capitalism I was discussing the Constitution there are differences.
As for not being able to barter, you clearly don't use craigs list much
.The Craig's list has nothing to do with a barter system.
It's been made abundantly clear that we are to build Zion in the places where we live. Remember, God "called his people Zion, because they were of bone heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them." Zion is not built upon government, or geography, or social policy. It is built on righteousness. Zion can be built anywhere, and under any form of government.
Yes, now we are to build Zion where we are. That is because Zion must be redeemed. The Saints will not be allowed to return to the new Jerusalem until they change their hearts and purify their lives, but that does not mean the City will not be built.
Can you tell me what the City of Zion or the New Jerusalem in Independence Missouri is? Is it just a myth or symbol? Or is it a real place that will be built? Is it just a state of mind the world is going to build to through these socialist and world-oneness philosophies, that we will evolve to a world wide unity? Is that the means by which you think Zion is built?
We are told to build Zion where we are, for that is building the Lord's kingdom on earth but there will be a time when there is a city called Zion and it cannot be built under socialism.
In the same breath you've tried to dismiss the challenge and then defend the "god-fulness" of the Constitution with the defense, "because my mother said so." Seriously, tell me where God is in the Constitution. The fact that people that wrote the Constitution believed in deity no more puts God in the Constitution than my belief in God puts Him in my manuscript about robotic surgery.
Mocking my deceased mother has won no points in your favor. My point is History, Scriptures and Prophets seem to differ from your view on the Constitution. You may find other Historians that do not agree with my mother's findings for they are against the Constitution, but I dare say you will find no prophet to back you. I think D&C 101 is pretty simple and to the point. God said "I established the Constitution of this land". If you do not believe the D&C and God's words that is fine. But you cannot recreate what the scriptures and prophets have said.
-
I hereby challenge you to show me where God appears in the Constitution. I also assert that the Constitution is quite literally godless.
And strangely, when I read the words of the same prophets, I see numerous references to "godless communism." The implication being that there was more objection to the atheistic push of those contemporary forms of government. The objection was that those governments required absolute loyalty and devotion to state and no acceptance of God's existence. They objected to men using power and government to coerce those under them to cater to the ruler's self interest and pride.
Would you be as adamantly opposed to 'god-full communism?' Would they?
Godlessness is not independent of the social system. The essence of any form of "state-ism" is that they encourage or require worship of the state in place of God. You cannot have a powerful central government such as is necessary to run a socialist or communist society, without it developing into state-ism, whether the founders intended it or not.
Let's look at it this way. Can the city of Zion be built under Socialism? Would we be allowed to set up an independent economic society such as the United Order within a system that required absolute integration with the powerful state? I think the answer is clear. We at this time cannot legally even use the barter system precisely because it is not taxable and therefore not under the control of the almighty state. Food coops are being raided and shut down. Why? They are no real threat, but again they are not playing in the system that the government demands from its slaves.
When the Saints fled to Utah they were able to live without much interference from the federal government. Where can we flee to now? Where is a safe place to build Zion. We are told at some point Zion will be built in Missouri and it will not be part of the world's government, socialist or communist or whatever it might be at that time, because it cannot exist with those kinds of systems.
The point that the Constitution has nothing to do with God and is Godless only works if you do not believe the words of Prophets and the writings of the creators of the Constitution. My Mother was a Historian of this very subject and it very clear what the founders intended and created. It is misrepresented when God is taken out of the equation of the Constitution and the founding of this Country.
-
I think this goes back to what FunkyTown was trying to establish -- each person (especially those who vehemently profess to be anti-socialism) seems to have a different definition of what socialism is.
Anything that helps people is not necessarily socialism. Socialism is when the government owns and controls the principle industries such as agriculture, utilities, education, health-care, transportation, and much of the root manufacturing industries such as mining, oil refining, etc. It also can imply that the government owns all land and that citizens "rent" it from the government (We call it property tax). Private ownership is usually limited to retail and small scale manufacture.
We do not truly own our property even once it is paid for out right. If we do not pay taxes every year on said property we lose it. The government takes it away. So do we at this time really own property? No. We pay a huge deposit (cash or mortgage) then pay yearly rental fees (taxes) and if we do not meet those rental costs we are evicted from our property that we thought we owned. This is not owning property, this is bondage.
-
These discussions are always simultaneously frustrating and amusing. But in general, I find it disturbing when people pull to either pole of the arguments. Unrestrained socialism is just as bad as unrestrained capitalism is just as bad as unrestrained monarchism is just as bad as unrestrained fascism.
Simply put, all these types of policies are tools that can be used to accomplish a goal. Some tools are better suited to accomplishing certain goals than others. But at times, it seems like we're determined to pick our favorite tool and use it for everything. But would we use a hammer to cut a baseboard? Would we use a saw to hang drywall?
Instead, doesn't it make a lot more sense to have all of the tools at our disposal and to use them wisely, and in the correct context. I'll admit, that's a lot easier to say than it is to do, but it's easier to say "build a house" than it is to actually build a house.
Some mormons really like to use the Church as the quintessential example of everything. In this, it's no different. The Church employs socialist programs to care for the poor; namely, fast offering. Through this program, the Church asks people to give generously, often expecting those with more resources to give more, and then telling those who are receiving assistance not to contribute to fast offering.
The knee jerk reaction of anti-socialists is that fast offering is not compulsory-that there's no punishment or consequence of not paying fast offering. This is disingenuous, because there is a consequence. It just isn't a temporal consequence. And when I observe mormons who deride forms of government they don't like, that tends to be their message, is that 'socialism takes away my free agency.' But that isn't true, socialism just imposes temporal consequences instead of eternal consequences. But that seems perfectly consistent since we're talking about temporal government here.
So, it seems to me that the discussion about whether socialism (using socialism as a proxy for any form of government) is evil or not fails to grasp the complexity of reality. The question ought to be which social programs are beneficial to society and how do we execute them?
What social system creates the social programs is what is important, not just what the programs are. A godless system will make godless laws and godless programs. The constitution was not godless but was changed to become more godless over time, but that was not its original intent. Therefore the original Constitution is far better then what it has degenerated into.
The Church has clearly stated that its programs are not socialist or communist. The important piece that people miss is that God is in charge of the Church and its programs not man. All the other social systems are man made. The constitution in its original form we have been told clearly by Prophets is the way the Lord wants government to be structured in this terrestrial world, because it is the best suited to protect free agency for man to chose His Gospel or not. This is the only governmental system the Lord has stated He approves of and of which He said He inspired the authors. For me it is simple and clear when I read the words of Prophets. There is only one approved "tool" to use. All the rest are of men or the adversary.
-
Here is a good reason why the Church stays neutral on politics, This is straight from the IRS.
Charities, Churches and Politics
"The ban on political campaign activity by charities and churches was created by Congress more than a half century ago."
"In 1954, Congress approved an amendment by Sen. Lyndon Johnson to prohibit 501©(3) organizations, which includes charities and churches, from engaging in any political campaign activity. To the extent Congress has revisited the ban over the years, it has in fact strengthened the ban. The most recent change came in 1987 when Congress amended the language to clarify that the prohibition also applies to statements opposing candidates.
Currently, the law prohibits political campaign activity by charities and churches by defining a 501©(3) organization as one "which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."
As you can see the freedom of speech of Churches is forced to be silent on matters that could be conceived as promoting or opposing candidates. Therefore Churches must be very careful to stay completely neutral in public comments. This neutrality or silence does not show the lack of position, just the lack of their legal ability to state it openly. You can note this drastic change when looking at talks prior to the legislation and after.
After the laws were changed we only get statements like this: "long grip of godless communism" or "freed from Communist rule" "After many years of Communist hostility to religion, these countries were suddenly and miraculously given a measure of religious freedom."
If we look back during the years prior to these laws, our Church was very open on political matters and very forthright on where they stood. This is the great sadness resulting from socialist laws. They start to take away freedoms of speech. There were reasons why the laws were made at the time that appeared practical, just as all socialist laws do, but when one is searching for guidance from Prophets of God and they are silenced not by God but by laws this is a great tragedy. Our country was based on freedom of Religion and Speech, but is slowly turning to bondage. We were warned that if we strayed from the Constitution religious freedom was in grave jeopardy. We are being warned the same now with the New Civil Rights. We are told they will take away our freedom of religion. Will we listen this time or dismiss it as not possible?
-
Continued:
Differences
Now the differences:
(1) The cornerstone of the United Order is belief in God and acceptance of him as Lord of the earth and the author of the United Order.
Socialism, wholly materialistic, is founded in the wisdom of men and not of God. Although all socialists may not be atheists, none of them in theory or practice seek the Lord to establish his righteousness.
(2) The United Order is implemented by the voluntary free-will actions of men, evidenced by a consecration of all their property to the Church of God.
One time the Prophet Joseph Smith asked a question by the brethren about the inventories they were taking. His answer was to the effect, "You don't need to be concerned about the inventories. Unless a man is willing to consecrate everything he has, he doesn't come into the United Order." (Documentary History of the Church, Vol. 7, pp. 412-13.) On the other hand, socialism is implemented by external force, the power of the state.
(3) In harmony with church belief, as set forth in the Doctrine and Covenants, "that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property" (D&C 134:2), the United Order is operated upon the principle of private ownership and individual management.
God-given agency preserved in United Order
Thus in both implementation and ownership and management of property, the United Order preserves to men their God-given agency, while socialism deprives them of it.
(4) The United Order is non-political.
Socialism is political, both in theory and practice. It is thus exposed to, and riddled by, the corruption that plagues and finally destroys all political governments that undertake to abridge man's agency.
(5) A righteous people is a prerequisite to the United Order.
Socialism argues that it as a system will eliminate the evils of the profit motive.
The United Order exalts the poor and humbles the rich. In the process both are sanctified. The poor, released from the bondage and humiliating limitations of poverty, are enabled as free men to rise to their full potential, both temporally and spiritually. The rich, by consecration and by imparting of their surplus for the benefit of the poor, not by constraint but willingly as an act of free will, evidence that charity for their fellowmen characterized by Mormon as "the pure love of Christ." (Moro. 7:47.)
Socialism not United Order
No, brethren, socialism is not the United Order. However, notwithstanding my abhorrence of it, I am persuaded that socialism is the wave of the present and of the foreseeable future. It has already taken over or is contending for control in most nations.
"At the end of the year [1964] parties affiliated with the [socialist] International were in control of the governments of Great Britain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Israel, and the Malagasy Republic. They had representatives in coalition cabinets in Austria, Belgium, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, and Switzerland, constituted the chief opposition in France, India, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand and West Germany; and were significant political forces in numerous other countries. Many parties dominant in governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America announced that their aim was a socialist society." (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1965 Book of the Year, p. 736.)
United States has adopted much socialism
We here in the United States, in converting our government into a social welfare state, have ourselves adopted much of socialism. Specifically, we have to an alarming degree adopted the use of the power of the state in the control and distribution of the fruits of industry. We are on notice according to the words of the President, that we are going much further, for he is quoted as saying:
"We're going to take all the money we think is unnecessarily being spent and take it from the `haves' and give it to the `have nots.'" (1964 Congressional Record, p. 6142, Remarks of the President to a Group of Leaders of Organizations of Senior Citizens in the Fish Room, March 24, 1964.)
Socialism takes: United Order gives
That is the spirit of socialism: We're going to take. The spirit of the United Order is: We're going to give.
We have also gone a long way on the road to public ownership and management of the vital means of production. In both of these areas the free agency of Americans has been greatly abridged. Some argue that we have voluntarily surrendered this power to government. Be this as it may, the fact remains that the loss of freedom with the consent of the enslaved, or even at their request, is nonetheless slavery.
As to the fruits of socialism, we all have our own opinions. I myself have watched its growth in our own country and observed it in operation in many other lands. But I have yet to see or hear of its freeing the hearts of men of selfishness and greed or of its bringing peace, plenty, or freedom. These things it will never bring, nor will it do away with idleness and promote "industry, thrift and self-respect," for it is founded, in theory and in practice, on force, the principle of the evil one.
As to the fruits of the United Order I suggest you read Moses 7:16-18 and 4 Nephi 2-3, 15-16. If we had time we could review the history, what little we know, of Zion in the days of Enoch and about what happened among the Nephites under those principles of the United Order in the first two centuries following the time of the Savior.
What can we do?
Now what can we do about it?
As I recently reminded my wife of the moratorium on the United Order, which the Lord placed in 1834 (D&C 105:34), that socialism is taking over in the nations and that its expressed aims will surely fail, she spiritedly put to me the question: "Well, then, what would you suggest, that we just sit on our hands in despair and do nothing?" Perhaps similar questions have occurred to you. The answer is, "No, by no means!" We have much to do, and fortunately for us the Lord has definitely prescribed the course we should follow with respect to socialism and the United Order.
Constitution God-inspired
He has told us that in preparation for the restoration of the gospel, he himself established the Constitution of the United States, and he has plainly told us why he established it. I hope I can get this point over to you. He said he established the Constitution to preserve to men their free agency, because the whole gospel of Jesus Christ presupposes man's untrammeled exercise of free agency. Man is in the earth to be tested. The issue as to whether he succeeds or fails will be determined by how he uses his agency. His whole future, through all eternity, is at stake. Abridge man's agency, and the whole purpose of his mortality is thwarted. Without it, the Lord says, there is no existence. (See D&C 93:30.) The Lord so valued our agency that he designed and dictated "the laws and constitution" required to guarantee it. This he explained in the revelation in which he instructed the Prophet Joseph Smith to appeal for help,
Just and holy principles
"According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;
"That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.
"And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose. . . ." (D&C 101:77-78, 80.)
Sustain Constitutional law
Previously he had said:
"And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.
"And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind and is justifiable before me.
"Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land [the test of its constitutionality in the words of the Lord here is whether it preserves man's agency];
"And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this cometh of evil.
"I, the Lord God, make you free therefore ye are free indeed; and the law [that is, constitutional law] also maketh you free.
"Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.
"Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil." (D&C 98:4-10.)
These scriptures declare the Constitution to be a divine document. They tell us that "according to just and holy principles," the Constitution and the law of the land which supports the "principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before" God; that, "as pertaining to [the] law of man whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil." They remind us that the Lord has made us free and that laws that are constitutional will also make us free.
"When the wicked rule, the people mourn"
Right at this point, almost as if he were warning us against what is happening today, the Lord said: "Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn." Then, that we might know with certainty what we should do about it, he concluded: "Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold. . . ."
In its context this instruction, according to my interpretation, can only mean that we should seek diligently for and support men to represent us in government who are "wise" enough to understand freedom-as provided for in the Constitution and as implemented in the United Order-and who are honest enough and good enough to fight to preserve it.
". . . under no other government in the world could the Church have been established," said President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., and he continued:
". . . if we are to live as a Church, and progress, and have the right to worship as we are worshipping here today, we must have the great guarantees that are set up by our Constitution. There is no other way in which we can secure these guarantees." (Conference Report, October 1942, pp. 58-59.)
Now, not forgetting our duty to eschew socialism and support the just and holy principles of the Constitution, as directed by the Lord, I shall conclude these remarks with a few comments concerning what we should do about the United Order.
What to do about United Order
The final words of the Lord in suspending the order were: "And let those commandments which I have given concerning Zion and her law be executed and fulfilled, after her redemption." (D&C 105:34.)
Further implementation of the order must therefore await the redemption of Zion. Here Zion means Jackson County, Missouri. When Zion is redeemed, as it most certainly shall be, it will be redeemed under a government and by a people strictly observing those "just and holy principles" of the Constitution that accord to men their God-given moral agency, including the right to private property. If, in the meantime, socialism takes over in America, it will have to be displaced, if need be, by the power of God, because the United Order can never function under socialism or "the welfare state," for the good and sufficient reason that the principles upon which socialism and the United Order are conceived and operated are inimical.
In the meantime, while we await the redemption of Zion and the earth and the establishment of the United Order, we as bearers of the priesthood should live strictly by the principles of the United Order insofar as they are embodied in present church practices, such as the fast offering, tithing, and the welfare activities. Through these practices we could as individuals, if we were of a mind to do so, implement in our own lives all the basic principles of the United Order.
As you will recall, the principles underlying the United Order are consecration and stewardships and then the contribution of surpluses into the bishop's storehouse. When the law of tithing was instituted four years after the United Order experiment was suspended, the Lord required the people to put "all their surplus property . . . into the hands of the bishop" (D&C 119:1); thereafter they were to "pay one-tenth of all their interest annually. . . ." (D&C 119:4.) This law, still in force, implements to a degree at least the United Order principle of stewardships, for it leaves in the hands of each person the ownership and management of the property from which he produces the needs of himself and family. Furthermore to use again the words of President Clark:
". . . in lieu of residues and surpluses which were accumulated and built up under the United Order, we, today, have our fast offerings, our Welfare donations, and our tithing all of which may be devoted to the care of the poor, as well as for the carrying on of the activities and business of the Church."
What prohibits us from giving as much in fast offerings as we would have given in surpluses under the United Order? Nothing but our own limitations.
Furthermore, we had under the United Order a bishop's storehouse in which were collected the materials from which to supply the needs and the wants of the poor. We have a bishop's storehouse under the Welfare Plan, used for the same purpose. . . .
"We have now under the Welfare Plan all over the Church, . . . land projects . . . farmed for the benefit of the poor. . . .
"Thus . . . in many of its great essentials, we have, [in] the Welfare Plan . . . the broad essentials of the United Order. Furthermore, having in mind the assistance which is being given from time to time . . . to help set people up in business or in farming, we have a plan which is not essentially unlike that which was in the United Order when the poor were given portions from the common fund."
It is thus apparent that when the principles of tithing and the fast are properly observed and the Welfare Plan gets fully developed and wholly into operation, "we shall not be so very far from carrying out the great fundamentals of the United Order." (Conference Report, October 1942, pp. 51-58.)
The only limitation on you and me is within ourselves.
A Prayer:
And now in line with these remarks for three things I pray:
(1) That the Lord will somehow quicken our understanding of the differences between socialism and the United Order and give us a vivid awareness of the awful portent of those differences.
(2) That we will develop the understanding, the desire, and the courage born of the Spirit, to eschew socialism and to support and sustain, in the manner revealed and as interpreted by the Lord, those just and holy principles embodied in the Constitution of the United States for the protection of all flesh, in the exercise of their God-given agency.
(3) That through faithful observance of the principles of tithing, the fast, and the welfare program, we will prepare ourselves to redeem Zion and ultimately live the United Order, in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
-
Since the question keeps coming up "What is socialism?" What does the Church mean when it talks about socialism?" What does the Church mean by the United Order?" "Is socialism or communism the same as the United Order?" Lets read from one of the most detailed Conference talks on the topic that answers these many questions.
In this General Conference talk the definition of Socialism and the United Order were laid out in great detail. It shows what the Church's definition of both are.
I will contiune the talk on my next post. That section discusses the differences.
CR April 1966 General Priesthood Meeting Elder Marion G Romney
Elder Marion G. Romney
Of the Council of the Twelve Apostles
What I am going to give you now is a statement I have prepared in answer to the question, "Is Socialism the United Order?" Some of you may have already heard it. This is the first time I have ever attempted to give a talk a second time. My excuse is that the Brethren have asked me to give this talk here tonight.
I suppose the best way to start a comparison of socialism and the United Order is with a definition of the terms. Webster defines socialism as:
Socialism defined
"A political and economic theory of social organization based on collective or governmental ownership and democratic management of the essential means for the production and distribution of goods; also, a policy or practice based on this theory." (Webster's New International Dictionary, 2nd ed. unabridged, 1951.)
George Bernard Shaw, the noted Fabian Socialist, said that:
"Socialism, reduced to its simplest legal and practical expression, means the complete discarding of the institution of private property by transforming it into public property and the division of the resultant income equally and indiscriminately among the entire population." (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1946 ed., Vol. 20, p. 895.)
George Douglas Howard Cole, M.A. noted author and university reader in economics at Oxford, who treats socialism for the Encyclopedia Britannica, says that because of the shifting sense in which the word has been used, "a short and comprehensive definition is impossible. We can only say," he concludes, "that Socialism is essentially a doctrine and a movement aiming at the collective organization of the community in the interest of the mass of the people by means of the common ownership and collective control of the means of production and exchange." (Ibid., p. 888.)
Socialism arose "out of the economic division in society." During the nineteenth century its growth was accelerated as a protest against "the appalling conditions prevailing in the workshops and factories and the unchristian spirit of the spreading industrial system."
Communism, starting point
The "Communist Manifesto" drafted by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels for the Communist League in 1848 is generally regarded as the starting point of modern socialism. (Ibid., p. 890.)
The distinction between socialism, as represented by the various Socialist and Labour parties of Europe and the New World, and Communism, as represented by the Russians, is one of tactics and strategy rather than of objective. Communism is indeed only socialism pursued by revolutionary means and making its revolutionary method a canon of faith. Communists like other socialists, (1) believe in the collective control and ownership of the vital means of production and (2) seek to achieve through state action the coordinated control of the economic forces of society. They (the Communists) differ from other socialists in believing that this control can be secured, and its use in the interests of the workers ensured, only by revolutionary action leading to the dictatorship of the proletariat and the creation of a new proletarian state as the instrument of change. (Ibid.)
German Socialism
A major rift between so-called orthodox socialism and communist socialism occurred in 1875 when the German Social Democratic party set forth its objective of winning power by taking over control of the bourgeois state, rather than by overthrowing it. In effect, the German Social Democratic party became a parliamentary party, aiming at the assumption of political power by constitutional means.
Fabian Society
In the 1880's a small group of intellectuals set up in England the Fabian Society, which has had a major influence on the development of modern orthodox socialism. Fabianism stands "for the evolutionary conception of socialism . . . endeavoring by progressive reforms and the nationalization of industries, to turn the existing state into a `welfare state.'" Somewhat on the order of the German Social Democrats Fabians aim "at permeating the existing parties with socialistic ideas [rather] than at creating a definitely socialistic party." They appeal "to the electorate not as revolutionaries but as constitutional reformers seeking a peaceful transformation of the system." (Ibid.)
Forms and policies of socialism
The differences in forms and policies of socialism occur principally in the manner in which they seek to implement their theories.
They all advocate:
(1) That private ownership of the vital means of production be abolished and that all such property "pass under some form of coordinated public control."
(2) That the power of the state be used to achieve their aims.
(3) "That with a change in the control of industry will go a change in the motives which operate in the industrial system. . . ." (Ibid.)
So much now for the definition of socialism. I have given you these statements in the words of socialists and scholars, not my words, so they have had their hearing.
The United Order
Now as to the United Order, and here I will give the words of the Lord and not my words. The United Order the Lord's program for eliminating the inequalities among men, is based upon the underlying concept that the earth and all things therein belong to the Lord and that men hold earthly possessions as stewards accountable to God.
On January 2, 1831, the Lord revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith that the Church was under obligation to care for the poor. (See D&C 38.) Later he said:
"I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth, . . .and all things therein are mine.
"And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.
"But it must needs be done in mine own way. . . ." (D&C 104:14-16.)
Consecration and stewardship
On February 9, 1831, the Lord revealed to the Prophet what his way was. (See D&C 42.) In his way there were two cardinal principles: (1) consecration and (2) stewardship.
To enter the United Order, when it was being tried, one consecrated all his possessions to the Church by a "covenant and a deed which" could not "be broken." (D&C 42:30.) That is, he completely divested himself of all of his property by conveying it to the Church.
Having thus voluntarily divested himself of title to all his property, the consecrator received from the Church a stewardship by a like conveyance. This stewardship could be more or less than his original consecration, the object being to make "every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs." (D&C 51:3.)
This procedure preserved in every man the right to private ownership and management of his property. At his own option he could alienate it or keep and operate it and pass it on to his heirs.
The intent was, however, for him to so operate his property as to produce a living for himself and his dependents. So long as he remained in the order, he consecrated to the Church the surplus he produced above the needs and wants of his family. This surplus went into a storehouse from which stewardships were given to others and from which the needs of the poor were supplied.
These divine principles are very simple and easily understood. A comparison of them with the underlying principles of socialism reveal similarities and basic differences.
Comparisons and contrasts: Similarities
The following are similarities: Both (1) deal with production and distribution of goods; (2) aim to promote the well-being of men by eliminating their economic inequalities; (3) envision the elimination of the selfish motives in our private capitalistic industrial system.
-
I'm only speculating here, but I think the silence of modern prophets on whether socialism or conservatism is better, is due to modern laws which prohibit Churches from endorsing political parties or candidate -- otherwise we would lose or tax status as a charitable organization.
I think that's why the Church is always careful NOT to tell people who to vote for. And that's why there is probably very little modern guidance on political issues from the Prophets.
Years ago, in the Church news, George (not W) Bush visited Gordon B Hinckley (when he was a counselor in the First Presidency and the prophet was ill) on "how to promote family values in American society". There was a picture of the two of them in the Church news. I think the article was meant to show the affinity a Christian religion like ours has for conservative political thought, without actually endorsing it. In fact, the byline under the picture said "Gordon B Hinckley welcomed President Bush as a leader of a nation, and not a political party leader".
So, in modern times, prophets have less freedom to speak politically. That's why you hear less direction. If we were able to speak openly about such things to sway our people to vote, it wouldn't surprise me if the endorsement was for parties with more right wing values on most issues.
So then maybe the reason they are seem more quiet now is that we are more socialist now and therefore have far less true freedom of speech
We are being warned now about how our freedom of religion is now at stake by the "New Civil Rights". Which is just an extension of socialism's grasp we are under. They have not stopped teaching the same principles.
Religious Freedom
Elder Dallin H. Oaks
....The full functioning of a democratic process and the full enjoyment of the people’s needed freedoms do not occur without a struggle. In Mongolia, the freedoms of speech, press and religion — a principal feature of the inspired United States Constitution — remained unfulfilled....
"..Religious values and political realities are so interlinked in the origin and perpetuation of this nation that we cannot lose the influence of Christianity in the public square without seriously jeopardizing our freedoms. I maintain that this is a political fact, well qualified for argument in the public square by religious people whose freedom to believe and act must always be protected by what is properly called our “First Freedom,” the free exercise of religion...."
The focus now is just having the rights of freedom of speech and religion. It no longer is just warning of communism or socialism it is warnings about the specific threats to our very freedoms we are going through and will go through because of the socialist changes that have already occur and are continuing to occur. These will jeopardize our religious freedom.
LDS.org - Ensign Article - A New Civil Religion
James E. Faust, “A New Civil Religion,” Ensign, Oct 1992, 69
...There seems to be developing a new civil religion. The civil religion I refer to is a secular religion. It has no moral absolutes. It is nondenominational. It is nontheistic. It is politically focused. It is antagonistic to religion. It rejects the historic religious traditions of America. It feels strange. If this trend continues, nonbelief will be more honored than belief. While all beliefs must be protected, are atheism, agnosticism, cynicism, and moral relativism to be more safeguarded and valued than Christianity, Judaism, and the tenets of Islam, which hold that there is a Supreme Being and that mortals are accountable to him? If so, this would, in my opinion, place America in great moral jeopardy.
For those who believe in God, this new civil religion fosters some of the same concerns as the state religions that prompted our forefathers to escape to the New World. Nonbelief is becoming more sponsored in the body politic than belief. History teaches well the lesson that there must be a unity in some moral absolutes in all societies for them to endure and progress. Indeed, without a national morality they disintegrate. In Proverbs, we are reminded that “righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.” (Prov. 14:34.) The long history and tradition of America, which had its roots in petitions for divine guidance, is being challenged...
..The establishment and free exercise clauses should be read together to harmonize the importance of religious liberty with freedom from government regulation. Rather, today in our nation the establishment clause is being used to restrict religious institutions from playing a role in civic issues, and the free exercise clause denies to individuals their religious liberty. It does not accord the equivalent to what the Constitution accords to secularism—the new civil religion...
They have not changed their position. They have only gotten more specific.
-
Just to clarify eh, let's not generalize and say LDS folks don't believe in Socialism/Communism. Just like there are lots of Democrats and LDS, there are many LDS folks who believe in Socialism.
Yes there are members that believe in Socialism. But I ask to please share any Prophet and Apostle quotes that say any of them has supported it. All the quotes I find on the topic are against communism and socialism. I am not talking Democrat or Republican just Socialism, Communism or even Fascism. All the quotes I find back the US Constitution as the Divinely inspired document and state that Socialism and Communism are its opposite and condemning them as even Satan's counterfeit and anti-Christ.
I would love to see any quotes that say different by the General Authorites.
-
What was the sin of the people Jacob preached against? They had begun to search for gold and silver. And some of them were better searchers than others, so they tricked out their apparel to show off that they were more ambitious and competent that their brothers. Apparently God wants everyone to be comrades who don't flaunt their private property, but share and share alike:
Jacob says, "Think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free with your substance, that they may be rich like unto you."
The same process repeated in 4 Nephi: A socialist utopia came to an end when the people asserted private property again. So while it puzzles me that Mormons are mostly Republicans, it puzzles me even more to see a thread that claims that socialism leads to a dwindling in unbelief.
That is a very good question and one it took me a while to understand, for we should and must feed the needy, cloth the naked etc. Or we are failing one of the two greatest commandments which is "love thy neighbor as thyself".
The Bible, Mark chapter 12 verses 28-31
28 ¶ And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
33 And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
So the two most important commandments are first to love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and second to love your neighbor as yourself.
How do we do this? It must be from the heart and we must be the ones to decide and willingly do this. Neither loving of God can be forced nor can the loving of ones neighbor. It must be something we choose or it is not righteousness. We cannot be forced to worship God and be called his sheep or followers. One cannot be forced to love his brother as himself and be called charitable and truly loving. These things must be by choice not force. Blessings of God and fulfilling commandments must come from what is in our heart and actions, not merely from the outcome of forced actions.
For me personally I look forward to living the United Order. I have am very much willing to consecrate all that I have and all that I can do for God and my brothers and sisters. The highest commandment is to consecrate all to God. But there is a difference between consecrating all to God and to consecrate to a government not run by God.
I would say the reason that LDS do not believe socialism or communism is because it requires forced righteousness and not love freely given. If it is forced by a government it is no longer consecration but the government taking or stealing from one to give to another. If a man gives without coercion of his bounty to the needy his is blessed. If a man's bounty is taken from him without choice how can the Lord bless him, for he did nothing from his heart? It was taken from him and he had no choice. He also has no choice in how it is used. It could go to funding things that go against the laws of God when governments use the money.
Analogy:
I am hungry and I come to you and ask for food and you willingly agree to give me food in my time of need. Or I go to your neighbor and his says he has no food for me but then comes to your house breaks in and takes food out of your house then feeds me. Do you get the credit from God for this action? No. I am fed but by what means. Was it stolen or was it given? The neighbor gave it to me but did you? Is the neighbor blessed for stealing the food?
For giving to be a pure Christ-like means it must be given from the heart freely and honestly. In the action of giving it through our agency and not being forced is wherein lies the blessing of God, not in the mere fact one was fed. If the neighbor came to you and asked for food for me and you agreed, then you would be blessed of God. You will be blessed even more if you sought out those in need and gave to them.
As LDS we do this through our fast offerings, or time spent working in the canneries, the Bishops Storehouse, and volunteer work etc... We are told not to build up treasures on earth but to build treasures in heaven. We are told to build the Kingdom of God on earth and not build up private empires. If one is not doing those things then they are failing in one of the two greatest commandments. We are not forced to do those things. We are asked to and if we do them with a willing heart that seeks to help the needy, not coerced or forced then we are doing what the Lord has commanded. It should never be forced upon men. It should come from their desire to help. Otherwise it really is stealing from them which fruits no love or eternal blessings.
The United order is voluntary. No one forces you to participate. It is done by ones own conscious.
Socialism and Communism do not encourage the first commandment to love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. They actually discourage it because the "ism" needs you to give it all of your heart, soul, mind and strength to support it. So they end up in competition with Religions for your bounties.
Here are some talks by LDS leaders that say socialism or communism is not the United Order but a counterfeit.
Elder Harold B. Lee Of the Council of the Twelve Apostles CR April 1942
They suit their approaches to the particular group they seek to deceive. Among the Latter-day Saints they speak of their philosophy and their plans under it, as an ushering in of the United Order. Communism and all other similar isms bear no relationship whatever to the United Order. They are merely the clumsy counterfeits which Satan always devises of the gospel plan. Communism debases the individual and makes him the enslaved tool of the state to whom he must look for sustenance and religion; the United Order exalts the individual, leaves him his property, "according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs,"
(D. & C. 51:3) and provides a system by which he helps care for his less fortunate brethren; the United Order leaves every man free to choose his own religion as his conscience directs. Communism destroys man's God-given free agency: the United Order glorifies it. Latter-day Saints cannot be true to their faith and lend aid, encouragement, or sympathy to any of these false philosophies. They will prove snares to their feet.
Elder Harold B. Lee Of the Council of the Twelve Apostles CR October 1941
There are some things of which I am sure, and that is that contrary to the belief and mistaken ideas of some of our people, the United Order will not be a Socialistic or Communistic set-up: it will be something distinctive and yet will be more capitalistic in its nature than either Socialism or Communism, in that private ownership and individual responsibility will be maintained. I am sure also that when it comes it will come from the leaders of this Church whom you sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators, and will not come from some man who does not occupy that position. It will not come as a political program, legislated by men not possessed of that authority. I am also convinced that the time is here when Zion must put on her beautiful garments preparatory for the second coming of the Savior, and I believe firmly that that preparation is in progress. I am likewise persuaded that the Church Welfare Plan is contributing mightily to that preparation.
President J. Reuben Clark Jr First Counselor in the First Presidency CR October 1943
The United Order and communism are not synonymous. Communism is Satan's counterfeit for the United Order. There is no mistake about this and those who go about telling us otherwise either do not know or have failed to understand or are wilfully misrepresenting.
-
For me personally I look to the Prophet and Apostles to help guide my life in all areas. I search what they have said regarding all matters including politics. I feel that if God is speaking through His mouth pieces, which I believe, and they speak about politics I should listen. The Brethren concerns expressed mostly have been over moral issues, not issues between political parties, but they make it clear what systems of Government can best fruit the Gospel Plan. It is the systems like Communism, Socialism that are the concern not as much the political parties. Republicans, Democrats, Independents etc. can expose and promote Socialist or Communistic ideas and platforms. We must understand the Constitution and what the Church leaders have said about that to understand the big picture. We have been told that the Constitution is a divinely inspired document, created so the Gospel can prosper. The other systems of Government limit ones right to freedom of religion. What we are seeing now in society is the right of freedom of religion being threatened.
I thought this was a good talk I was reading today.
Meeting the Challenges of Today by Neal A Maxwell 1978.
Some highlights from this talk:
We are now entering a period of incredible ironies. Let us cite but one of these ironies which is yet in its subtle stages: we shall see in our time a maximum if indirect effort made to establish irreligion as the state religion. It is actually a new form of paganism that uses the carefully preserved and cultivated freedoms of Western civilization to shrink freedom even as it rejects the value essence of our rich Judeo-Christian heritage.
What the secularists are increasingly demanding, in their disingenuous way, is that religious people, when they act politically, act only on secularist grounds. They are trying to equate acting on religion with establishing religion. And--I repeat--the consequence of such logic is really to establish secularism. It is in fact, to force the religious to internalize the major premise of secularism: that religion has no proper bearing on public affairs. [Human Life Review, Summer 1978, pp. 51–52, 60–61]
Brothers and sisters, irreligion as the state religion would be the worst of all combinations. Its orthodoxy would be insistent and its inquisitors inevitable.
Your discipleship may see the time come when religious convictions are heavily discounted. M. J. Sobran also observed, "A religious conviction is now a second-class conviction, expected to step deferentially to the back of the secular bus, and not to get uppity about it" (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, p. 58). This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain of people's opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions. Resistance to abortion will soon be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened.
In its mildest form, irreligion will merely be condescending toward those who hold to traditional Judeo-Christian values. In its more harsh forms, as is always the case with those whose dogmatism is blinding, the secular church will do what it can to reduce the influence of those who still worry over standards such as those in the Ten Commandments. It is always such an easy step from dogmatism to unfair play--especially so when the dogmatists believe themselves to be dealing with primitive people who do not know what is best for them. It is the secular bureaucrat's burden, you see.
We will notice paradoxically that the new pagans however are not so devoted to the beliefs they are willing fund their own programs. They prefer to use the funds of believers but without having to take the latter's opinions.
Our founding fathers did not wish to have a state church established nor to have a particular religion favored by government. They wanted religion to be free to make its own way. But neither did they intend to have irreligion made into a favored state church. Notice the terrible irony if this trend were to continue. When the secular church goes after its heretics, where are the sanctuaries? To what landfalls and Plymouth Rocks can future pilgrims go?
-
There are lots of answers to this very question by GAs. I would rather quote them than my own thoughts.
Elder John A. Widtsoe Evidences and Reconciliations
Modern communism, facism, nazism, socialism, and other related systems, are all the same in essential theory. They oppose religion, except as they themselves claim to be revelations, and they reject Christian morality. They prohibit free speech and action; eliminate private ownership and initiative; hold without exception the state above the individual; regiment the people; allow the strong to dominate the weak; they take government out of the hands of the governed, and place it in the hands of a self-appointed, selfish, self-styled, super-group, and they culminate in dictatorships. The free agent has no place in their systems. Their claim that they believe in human equality, as shown by their tyrannical behavior, is false. Force and terrorism are their weapons. All that makes for human security and happiness is destroyed.
CR April 1963 Ezra Taft Benson
"We may first observe that communism and socialism-which we shall hereafter group together and dub Statism-cannot live with Christianity nor with any religion that postulates a Creator such as the Declaration of Independence recognizes. The slaves of Statism must know no power, no authority, no source of blessing, no God, but the State....
-
Can a moderator decide if this thread has run its course yet? It's devolved into "I'm right!" "No, I'm right!" "No, I'm right!" "No, I'm right!"
No it devolved to "I am right" versus "The Prophet and Apostles are Right"
:lol::lol:Sorry I could not help that one
I think everyone needs to take a big breath and relax. If one does not want to believe all that they Prophets and Apostles say that is their right. If one wants to believe all that the Prophets and Apostles say that is their right also. That is the beauty of free agency. Who is right and who is wrong will be up to God to decide not us.
-
The Brethren do not claim infallibility. But I would trust their words over anyone on a this forum or in the world.
-
Rosa, yours is a passionate call to follow the prophets. However, are you suggesting that when a political opinion of a prophet becomes known, the faithful are bound to comport with that viewpoint, or be cast aside as tares? Isn't that what this string is about--discerning the opinions of prophets from their prophetic words?
I'd very much like to know your explanation about who we should follow when apostles disagree with each other, but only one of them is brash enough to vocalize his opinion. Are we only supposed to consider the words of the most outspoken?
My stance on this thread is primarily to state that what the Brethren say at conference is to be taken not with a grain of salt as many have alluded to, but to recognizes the Brethren when speaking at Conference are wearing the mantle of Prophet, Seer and Revelator. If not at Conference then when are they wearing the mantle? It should be clear and quite obvious that they are speaking as God's mouthpieces at Conference since they speaking to the whole Church and the world proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ and calling all to repentance.
I am not quite sure where these statements come from about the Brethren always disagreeing with each other I find them to be very much in agreement.
I could post pages of quotes where the Brethren have stood on Communism and Socialism and even how it is of the devil and a counterfeit of the United Order. If anyone would like me to post those I will. They only echo President Benson's warnings.
My intent was not to go into the political details but state my complete faith in the Brethren and the fact that if my view differs from theirs I am the one that molds my view to fit what is said at Conference and within the publications of the Church. I am not a blind follower, I seek out to understand the whys but I do not doubt that what they say is correct. I chose this religion. I picked it out of all the worlds religions. I believe it is the Restored Church of Jesus Christ.
I do not pick and choose what I will accept or reject from the counsels of Prophets and Apostles. I have already decided the Church is true and so are the doctrines and I seek out to understand them better. When one feels they need to pick and choose what they deem as correct or incorrect doctrines that the Prophet and Apostles state at conference and in Church publications they are on a very slippery slope to apostasy. Every apostate Mormon dismissed things that the Prophets and Apostles have said. Some then reject the words of other Prophets in the Bible and even the words of the Lord Jesus Christ. Where does it end? We might as well say all the prophets of the bible merely stating there own opinions.
I chose to believe and have a personal testimony and witness that God does call Prophets to guide His flock. We have the choice and the freedom to not listen to their words, but that does not make their words any less true words of God.
-
We wonder how the Israelites after seeing the great miracles performed on their behalf could so quickly turn to idolatry, sin and faithlessness when Moses tarried in the mountain. I am sure the conversations then were the same as now. "Oh Moses is just a man, not everything he says is necessarily the word of God. He has his own opinions, we have a right to our own opinions. Why is he any more knowledgeable or inspired then we? Are we supposed to wait on every word he says or can we not think for ourselves? We can know truth for ourselves , what makes him so special? He is just a man as we are."
Are we so different than the Israelites? Look what happened to them. The earth opened and swallowed them up. Are we not taking the same path as they?
God has promised to cleanse His Church before the Second Coming of Christ. In this great sifting will we be found as wheat or tares?
-
I would not disagree that President Benson IS controversial. The same is true today of Elder Oaks and Elder Packer. We can go back further. Joseph Smith is a controversial topic, so is the Lord Jesus Christ for many. Pretty much all prophets through out history have been controversial. Look at Noah he was mocked and was ridiculed and laughed at until the rain fell. Jesus Christ was crucified because He was controversial. I would be more worried if he was well-embraced by the world then that he is rejected. There are prophets that have gained respect from "some" in the world but not the majority.
Just my thoughts on being controversial
-
I am curious as to how you personally know this.
My husband and I know some of the GAs and their families personally (my husband is related to a member of the first presidency) and I have met with them regarding research they requested from me. I also have friends and a family member that have met with them regarding research they requested. In my personal conversations and meetings with them they explained how they make decisions for the Church and how they all get along so well because of having the Spirit communicating truth to them. They are not quiet about how the Church works. They are actually quite open when you talk to them about it.
Having known many of them and knowing how truly humble they are it saddens me when I hear false claims about them. I personally heard from the mouths of other GAs how they felt about President Benson and his teachings. It does not come close to what is spread falsely around on forums and by the murmuring of members.
Is the final judgment permanent?
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
Maybe this quote will help clarify.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Search When you click the Encyclopedia of Mormonism Explanation: Spirit Prison Spirit Prison - The Encyclopedia of Mormonism It seems to be an approved statement because LDS.org links to it. This is what it says: