james12
-
Posts
722 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by james12
-
-
Thanks James.
Appreciate the thought you have put into this and i agree whole heartily
My question to you is do you feel that this is being taught most Sunday's? My original post was that there seems to be a lot of depression in our ward. Im sure if everyone read your post they would feel alot better but im wondering if their just hearing "You have 3 days before the month ends go out and do your home/visiting teaching".
Perhaps in the doing, the why has been lost.
I think we speak of the atonement and of Christ fairly often but we do not feel or internalize the message. We somehow, in the midst of the message, miss the "good news". I agree that we can easily lose the "why" of it all.
Sometimes we want to change outward behavior but do not really want Christ to change our hearts. If we continue on such a path at some point we quit trying or become discouraged. The church demands too much of the natural man and we cannot keep up the pretense.
I think the focus at times needs to be not on doing more, but feeling more deeply and trusting the Savior more fully. There is a breadth, but also a depth to our personal discipleship. Elder Maxwell once said it this way, "Increased consecration is not so much a demand for more hours of church work as it is for more awareness of whose work this really is!" (“Settle This in Your Hearts” Ensign, Nov. 1992 p66).
Let me give two examples among many to highlight the difference.
Speaking Words vs. Praying with Desire
It is not the time or the number of words we speak, but the feeling and meaning in the words we pray. "...and they did not multiply many words, for it was given unto them what they should pray, and they were filled with desire" (3 Ne 19:24)
Attending Church vs. Truly Worshiping
"But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship him. For unto such hath God promised his Spirit. And they who worship him, must worship in spirit and in truth" (John 4:23-24 JST) We worship when we seek to follow the Father and the Son. Songs, prayers, talks, these are merely empty shells without the commitment of the heart.
And so it goes the sacrament, service, scripture reading these can all be drudgery if not done for the right reason.
-
Christ in testifying of himself read, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted..." (Luke 4:18).I hear a lot about "the power of the atonement" and that it can "fix" all problems. One thing I haven't heard is how, particularly when it comes to depression, can the atonement fix things. So to the OP, I too would like to know.
On a related note, if someone already feels that they are the exception to the plan, they are thinking that the atonement doesn't mean much for them and hold very little hope let alone faith. The one thing they do believe in is justice, at least for them. Mercy is for others. They don't feel Father's love. I just don't see how counseling can rectify all of this, but if someone has a solution........
Elder Holland said, "I testify that the Savior’s Atonement lifts from us not only the burden of our sins but also the burden of our disappointments and sorrows, our heartaches and our despair."
To paraphrase Steven R. Robinson, my problem and your problem is that we believe in Christ but we do not believe Christ. We believe that he is the Son of God, we believe in the atonement. But when he says, "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." (Matt 11:28-30), we do not believe him. We think this applies to other people or to ourselves in some far future date. We do not lay down the cares we have today at his feet. Instead, right after reading these words we pick up our bag of troubles and try and do it ourselves. We think these problems are ours to bear alone or that somehow we can do it alone. What a lie.
Even Nephi had problems, but did he take the burden upon himself? No. Instead, he "knew in whom [he] had trusted." For he said, "My God hath been my support; he hath led me through mine afflictions in the wilderness; and he hath preserved me upon the waters of the great deep." (2 Ne 4:20)
So, first we must believe the Savior when he says he can help us. We must realize that the promises in the scriptures are for me and you. Then we must turn to the Lord in prayer. Elder Bednar explains that we should ask for strength to bear our burdens, not necessarily for Christ to lift them. If we ask in this way he will enable us to bear them (see "In the Strength of the Lord" by David A. Bednar). Then we must do our best. Not someone else’s best, not in comparison to Mr. Jones down the street, but our best. No doubt we will fall, but when we do we must humble ourselves, and recommit to try our best again. Once we are baptized and under the covenant it is this commitment, it is this turning our hearts to God, that makes all the difference in the world.
We then will have the strength of ten (and even more) because we will be yoked with Christ. We alone, are weak and feeble, but joined with Christ we become much more than we ever could.
Will we be completely free from sorrow and depression? No. But, we will see the Lord's hand in our lives, day in and day out, lifting and strengthening us and over time we will find that what once caused us concern no more concerns us because we have grown. That to me summarizes the process.
-
I have many times wanted to scream from the roof tops the wonderful extent of the atonement. I feel many members do not avail themselves of it. They plod through life as if they are on their own with many struggles. They often do not realize how it can help them today with their personal problems. I have for many years liked the Ensign article from Bruce C. Hafen entitled "Beauty for Ashes: The Atonement of Jesus Christ". He speaks not just of sin but of our shortcomings.
The Savior desires to save us from our inadequacies as well as from our sins. Inadequacy is not the same as sinfulness—we have far more control over the choice to sin than we may have over our innate capacity. The Lord will not save us in our sins, but from them. However, he can save us in our inadequacies as well as from them. A sense of falling short or falling down is not only natural, but essential to the mortal experience. But, after all we can do, the Atonement can fill that which is empty, straighten our bent parts, and make strong that which is weak.
In their admirable and sometimes blindly dogged sense of personal responsibility, some believe that in the quest for eternal life, the Atonement is only for big-time sinners. As everyday Latter-day Saints who just have to try harder, they feel that they must make it on their own.
The truth is not that we must make it on our own, but that he will make us His own.
(Ensign April 1990, italics in the original)
-
Here are some of my current thoughts based on some comments made by Seminarysnoozer and others on another thread about this same topic. They are of course just thoughts and are not yet fixed in my mind. I hope they may spark other thoughts.
All who came into mortality accepted Heavenly Fathers Plan
From Pres. Ezra Taft Benson in a conference address.
Those who came in mortality to Earth accepted the plan and passed the first estate. There were no fence sitters who didn't have anything better to do so decided to come to earth.I testify that all those who come into mortality accepted our Father’s plan. (See Abr. 3:26.) Having proved faithful in their first estate in heaven, they are now subject to the test of mortality in this second estate. I Testify - Ensign Nov. 1988 - ensign
The three parts have to do with the hosts of Heaven that came to earth
No doubt there are many hosts in heaven and much we do not know. What has been reveled to us on this subject appears to be focused on those that are involved in coming here to Earth. Satan and his followers were "thrust down". Adam ate the fruit and thus was driven out of the Garden of Eden.
The devision appears to be based on agency which was given
"and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency" (D&C 29:36). "And we will prove them herewith..." (Abr 3:25).
The great differentiator between estates has to do with the body we receive
Satan and his followers have bodies of spirit only. We mortals are working to glorify our mortal bodies.
In Abraham 3:26 it does not talk about a third part being cast out but it does divide the hosts of heaven. "they who keep their first estate...; they who keep not their first estate...; and they who keep their second estate... "(Abr 3:26)
1. "They who keep their first estate" - We are these people. We are proving ourselves to see if we can gain permanently these physical bodies we have been given.
2. "They who keep not their first estate" - These are Satan and his followers. Those who have not keep their first estate, who were not give physical bodies but were cast down to earth none the less.
3. "They who keep their second estate" - There is one being who has come here that received a body but is unique. One who did not deserve to be subject to the fall. That being is Jesus Christ. The Father of his mortal body was God himself. As such, Christ had power to lay his body down and take it up again, thus keeping his second estate.
-
Steven,
Just a couple of scriptures to help you understand LDS thought on Adam and Eve.
Regarding Adam and Eve having children 2 Nephi 2:17-25* Here is verse 23 from 2 Ne 2:
And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.
Regarding both a spiritual and a physical creation. Moses 3:4-7* Here is verse 5 of that section:
And now the end of verse 7:And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth.
And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word.
Just to round out the major portions of additional scripture we also have the account in Abraham 4 and 5.
The creation appears to be a simple story but it is fraught with meaning. I am still working to understand it. But as LDS any explanation must square with these scriptures. If it does not there is clearly something wrong.
-
Unfortunately we are still not ready for the Law of Consecration which is fully lived through the United Order. It is hard to condemn the early saints when we are still so attached to what is "ours". Brigham Young once said, "Elders are agreed on the way and manner necessary to obtain celestial glory, but they quarrel about a dollar. When principles of eternal life are brought before them—God and the things pertaining to God and godliness—they apparently care not half so much about them as they do about five cents" (J of D 9:249).
I don't believe the Lord sees the things we own the same way we do. He says, "And again, I command thee that thou shalt not covet thine own property" (D&C 19:26). And again, "Let them repent of all their sins, and of all their covetous desires, before me, saith the Lord; for what is property unto me? saith the Lord" (D&C 117:4).
It has been 180 years but the living of this law in many ways is almost as distant as when the Lord first withdrew it.
-
The church does not seek to punish. Why? Because punishment by itself does not bring a soul closer to God. Instead, "The most loving action the Church can take at times is to disfellowship or excommunicate a person" (To Forgive is Devine, Theodore M. Burton, Ensign May 1983).
Why then is there church discipline? One reason is to alleviate the demands of covenants which the member is unwilling or unable to keep, another is to teach. The church disciplines in order to help a person lift the burden of sin and lead them to repentance. The greatest pain and suffering, by far, does not come from church discipline. It comes from sin. Nor is there a level of suffering one needs to endure in order to be forgiven. Your punishment is the pain you have caused and will cause yourself and others because of the many years of committing masturbation, viewing pornography, and fornicating.
Lastly, the opportunity to repent and be forgiven is one of the greatest blessings ever given to man. Repentance is associated with pain as one recognizes what he has done, but it ultimately is about peace and happiness. Suffering does not come from repentance, suffering ever has, and always will, come from sin. When you, and all of us, get that straight in our heads we will leap at the chance to repent and be forgiven.
-
The LDS believe that the Lord creates from existing matter and not from nothingness, correct? Would someone explain how Jesus fed five thousand people with five loaves and two fish? I understand He blessed the food before it was eaten. Did the loaves and fish transform into gigantic loaves and fish? Or did the blessing simply suppress everyone's appetites so that they felt "satisfied" from the few pieces they consumed? If that were the case, why not just bless the people to not know hunger? I guess I'm wondering how literal this scripture is.
From the account it appears that Jesus commanded the multitude to sit down by companies of 50 and 100 (see Mark 6:39-40). He then blessed and broke the loaves into pieces and gave the pieces to the disciples to distribute. After all had eaten and were full they gathered the remaining pieces. Upon gathering the pieces they filled twelve baskets.
The miracle is clearly one of multiplying the existing food. If not, there would not have been twelve baskets filled with the fragments. It also was likely more subtle than simply enlarging existing fish. It may be that once the food had been broken into pieces and placed in different baskets the individual pieces multiplied, perhaps almost imperceptibly, as they were eaten and passed. None of the accounts mention anything particularly miraculous until after the leftover pieces have been gathered together so individually perhaps nothing appeared spectacular but the entire result upon completion proved miraculous.
The increased loaves and fishes are in some respects similar to the manna gathered by the children of Israel during their sojourn in the wilderness. The multiplying of the food may have been meant to cite the minds of the multitude towards this event. Simply making them full without eating the food would not have had the same effect. For John provides a very deep and meaningful account of Jesus's teachings the following day which revolve around manna and Christ as the bread of life. The essence of the teaching can be found in these words, "I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world. (John 6:48-51)"
-
C.S. Lewis had some good comments on this subject of science and religion. He contrasts the materialist view with the religious view.
Please do not think that one of these views was held a logn time ago and that the other has gradually taken its place. Wherever there have been thinking men both views turn up. And note this too. You cannot find out which view is the right one by science in the ordinary sense. Science works by experiments. It watches how things behave. ...But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observes - something of a different kind - this is not a scientific question. If there is "something Behind," then either it will have to remain altogether unknown to men or else make itself known in some different way. (Mere Christianity, p 32)
Science is very useful, it tells us "what" happens and it tells us "how". Indeed there is much to discover and profound truths to reveal. But it will never tell us "why". Back to C.S. Lewis:
Supposing science ever became complete so that it knew every single thing in the whole universe. Is it not plain that the questions, "Why is there a universe?" "Why does it go on as it does?" "Has it any meaning?" would remain just as they were? (ibid, p. 32,33)
If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe - no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall of a staircase of fireplace in that house. (ibid, p. 33)
Here then to my mind is the limitation of science. Yes, revelation may come in uncovering "how" and uncovering "what". But at the end of the day we do not know "why". For example, "Why" am I here? Science can tell you about evolution and how you got here but it will never tell you why you are here. Science reveals the wonder of God's handiwork. However, studying the details of His handiwork will never reveal His reasons, His motivation and purpose. In short, we will not understand "Him" in any full sense of the word. Just as studying a wall in a building will never reveal the architect. For this reason we must take a different way. As has been commented on, faith, repentance, baptism, and the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost is the path. Until, "he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh."
Thus God's word reveals the truth, but more importantly it reveals His character and his motivation. Back to a scripture alluded to by Traveler, "You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. (John 5:39-40 English Standard Version) Ultimately scriptures lead us to understand not simply truth but Christ the "Man". Even if I uncover all the facts, if I do not search in the right place, I will never find Him and will never truly understand.
-
Here is something that works well for me. I simply start writing the talk. I don't worry if it sound great or if the words are exactly what I will finally say. I simply write. I find that after I have written my thoughts, ideas about how to format the talk start to come.
-
As a dispassionate observer let me tell you that I think you need a little more time before getting married. This marriage will mean major life changes; a new religion, a new country, and potential estrangement from your parents. I can think of few things that would be more significant than these.
I would suggest determining whether you want to join the church for you or strictly for your boyfriend. Have you prayed and received an answer of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon? If he is a returned missionary then he likely takes his faith seriously. Some time after your marriage you may find that you do not feel the commitment he feels towards the LDS church. It takes more time then simply Sunday for a few hours. It will effect every aspect of your lives. For this reason I think you need to find out if you have an independent testimony. If so, then get baptized. I realize there is a hurdle there with you're parents but this will be only a small step compared to moving away, getting baptized and married all at the same time.
From your post it sounds like you are planning on living in the US. Is this the long term plan? If so, I have to say that I have had a few friends with wives from other countries. Their wives have really missed their family. They have had to work out long term and regular trips. Make sure you figure out how his is going to work.
A marriage does not solve all problems. At some point that blissful feeling is lessened and we come back to earth. We realize that we now must forge out a life. Work on this aspect now before you get married because you will need a solid foundation.
-
I was at one time in the bishopric and responsible to call teachers to primary. To have someone fulfill this calling was the most difficult of any in the ward. I called couples without children, they would not show up. I called individuals or couples with families they would asked to be released. Some felt they needed to be with the Elders. Some would simply refuse. On the other end, I would then get complaints from mothers who had to be with their children in the nursery because there was only one teacher. Truly there were few who were willing to accept these callings.
Now I ask, are primary callings really that difficult? I understand the the family is the most important organization in the church but how much time does the position really require? Depending on your knowledge of the gospel it may take anywhere from a half hour to a couple of hours to prepare a lesson for the primary (If you are spending longer preparing I believe it is not necessary, if you do so it is likely more about being insecure then ready). It then requires two hours during the block to be with the kids. So at most I would expect about three or four hours a week two of these being at church. If you team teach or have a couple of teachers in nursery it is less.
How could the bishopric be so terrible! They must not have been inspired by the Lord. They don't understand my needs. I belong in the Elders quorum presidency. I belong in relief society. I only like to teach the young women. A calling that takes three hours is too demanding on me and my families time....
I wish we would take to heart Jacob's words:
"...having first obtained mine errand from the Lord." Go and find out if the Lord would have you serve in the calling. Forget your emotions, forget your perceived needs. Simply ask the Lord in humility what He would have you do. Members have the Holy Ghost, go use it. If you have not found out who has called you then you need to do so.
"...having been consecrated priests and teachers of this people by the hand of Nephi." Realize that the Lord will magnify you in the call. You will be set apart and consecrated. Trust in the promise, "Whom the Lord calls the Lord qualifies".
"...taking upon us the responsibility." Once you know where your call comes from and realize the support you will receive then take responsibility. Own your call. Be diligent and magnify the position.
The Lord needs people who have discovered from whom their call is coming, the support they will receive, and who are willing to serve.
-
While the commandment “thou shall not covet” may have much to do with wanting what someone else has or being jealous I think Christ has pointed the way to a higher law. In the sermon on the mount he says, “ Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” (Matt 6:19-21). In this simple statement we are taken from the rather petty concerns of comparing ourselves to our neighbors to the much more lofty goal of laying up treasures in heaven. For when one is focused on laying up treasures in heaven covetousness will fly out the window.
Things of the world are so transient, they are here today and gone tomorrow. And yet, try as I may, at times I find myself fixated on them. This in my mind is an extension of “thou shall not covet”. Any time we seek to find our happiness and self worth in things of the world we become in some sense emotionally attached to them. For instance, I live in a rather new area and was talking to a friend the other day about a busy road. He said he thought it would eventually pass right next to my backyard. That night and the next day I kept thinking about it. I hate living next to busy roads! I did not realize until that moment how such a minor issue would concern me. How attached I was to the location of my home.
We can of course seek to find ourselves in many things: beauty, strength, objects, and even people. This issue of people is interesting, instead of being comfortable with ourselves and taking people for who they are we can at time seek to use others. We can become demanding or set for others all sorts of unrealistic expectations they must meet. This can occur even, and perhaps especially, when we are married to them.
Earlier in the Sermon on the Mount I find some more useful advice, “But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth”. Thus even in giving we must avoid self satisfaction, in fact even our left hand should not know what our right had done! Henry Drummond pointed out that even after doing a kind deed we must put a seal of humility on it, for love must hide even from itself.
Wanting what our neighboor has is indeed minor in comparison to the Savior's lofty standard.
-
My patriarchal blessing says, "...you will be guided to a young lady who is also asking Father in Heaven for guidance and direction. And as you meet, you will know you have been waiting for her and she for you." Well from the blessing it may appear that it should have been all be roses from the time we met to the time we were married. However, it didn't quite turn our that way.
As we dated and began to get more serious I had difficulty committing. I was feeling pressured and finally told her one night that we needed to take a break from each other. She was devastated. Weeks went by... one day I was coming out of institute. As I was walking to my car I received thoughts which were some of the clearest revelation I have ever received. I was thinking about our relationship and this feeling and thoughts came to my head. In essence it was something like, "What are you doing? Why did you let go of this wonderful woman? She will help you on your journey through life and beyond." Anyway, these and other thoughts came. It was clear. We got back together and in a few weeks were were engaged. A few months after that we were married. It's been eleven years this month. I can honestly say it was the best decision of my life. We have such a wonderful relationship.
Often faith requires action and then the Lord then gives the answer. Elder Carmak of the 70 described it as the, "ready, fire, aim approach". In essence we make a decision and move forward with confidence trusting that the Lord will make known his will. As we do so we give faith the room it needs to breathe. In my case I made the wrong decision but the Lord knew what was right. I was guided back to the right path.
Now, I don't know what the right path is for your fiancé. I would give her room as it appears you have done. It also appears she has made at least a tentative decision to be married. If the decision has been made this would not be the time for doubt and fear in the Lord. I believe He will answer as she moves forward with faith in Him. If I were you I might pray that she recieves the answer the Lord has in store for her. You will have to have confidence in the Lord and in her ability to recieve an answer from him.
-
I think texting for kids has become a status symbol in perhaps a sad, and slightly distorted, reflection of our western culture. While it is easier to leave a text message than to call, I sometimes question the motivation, especially for kids. Are they truly so busy that they must text almost constantly? Of course not. If per-chance a few are, I say they need to slow down. However, for the grand majority of kids and most adults it is about validation. It comforts our ego to know that we have so many people who are focused on us. What's more, to further inflate our sense of self we have no time to talk to the person. Yes, how wonderfully busy we all are!
In some ways it seems to me that what used to be a face to face conversation has degenerated from a phone call until now it is simply a text. To highlight the point let me tell you of my wife who was the compassionate service leader a few months ago. She received a text stating something to the effect, "_______ in hospital meals needed for kids". My wife did not know the person, why she was in the hospital, nor how many people to plan for. Isn't this important enough for at least a phone call?
Benjamin Hoff in "The Tao of Pooh" nailed it on the head in a section about the bisy backson. In his book Pooh is just the opposite of the bisy backson. Here the author is having a conversation with Pooh:
“Say, Pooh, why aren’t you busy?” I said.
“Because it’s a nice day,” said Pooh."
“Yes, bu—”
“Why ruin it?” he said.
“But you could be doing something Important,” I said.
“I am,” said Pooh.
“Oh? Doing what?”
“Listening,” he said.
“Listening to what?”
“To the birds. And that squirrel over there.”
“What are they saying?” I asked.
“That it’s a nice day,” said Pooh.
“But you know that already,” I said.
“Yes, but it’s always good to hear that somebody else thinks so, too,” he replied.
“Well, you could be spending your time getting Educated by listening to the Radio, instead,” I said.
“That thing?
“Certainly. How else will you know what’s going on in the world?” I said.
“By going outside,” said Pooh.
-
My dilema is that I cannot find the motivation or desire to pray or read the scriptures. It's not that I don't believe the church is true or anything. I definitely believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet and that this is the true church. I know the Book of Mormon is true. Yet I've read the Book of Mormon a number of times, and the idea of just reading it again bores me.
I know this is going to sound arrogant, but I want to explain how I feel. I feel like I know everything. Not like I am a Mr. Know-it-all, but it's like I've already been taught the basics. Now I feel like I know what I should do, but whether or not I chose to do it is another problem.
Let me give you some of my thoughts along the lines of scripture study because I have felt as you've described. I realize after writing this that it may not provide the "help" you are looking for, but here it is anyway.
Why do I find myself lukewarm sometimes? This is not an idle question but a serious problem, here is why. God the creator of the universe, the maker of worlds feels it necessary to give me his written words. I, who am less then the dust of the earth, instead of reading and searching His words am bored by what He says. Bored! This seems the most illogical response imaginable. Overwhelmed, amazed, this would make some sense but boredom, is so not in keeping with logic, consistent belief, or behavior that I must review the premise.
1. Perhaps I don't actually believe the words written in scripture are from God.
2. Perhaps I believe I am so great and wise that God's word can actually bore me.
3. Maybe God's words are so basic that a couple of readings will reveal all.
Or it could be some combination of the above, such as:
4. Maybe I understand so little and am so inconsistent in my faith that I can fool myself into thinking I believe but in actuality not recognize the power of His words.
None of these possibilities thrill me but I can think of few other reasons why I would be bored. This really requires some soul searching. Anyway, I have found myself doing some searching lately on this and other related questions so I'll leave it for now.
-
KirtlandSaintinZion, It sounds as though there is a specific teaching within your religion to gather to Zion. If you'll forgive my ignorance, I would love to hear about this "Law of Gathering".
-
Could someone interpret Genesis 1:11-19? What is the meaning of theses verses? Was there really grass and trees producing seeds and fruit before there was a sun or moon? If so did something happen to them? Are the grasses and trees currently on earth of a "different" creation? Was the earth here (revolving around what?) before the sun? Is there any possibility something is missing here?
The Traveler
Traveler,
I commented on this question in another thread. Here are my thoughts...
I don't believe Day 3 and 4 need be "completely disregarded". Period one ends with the creation of light and darkness. What is this light? Could it be a Sun? I see no reason to think that it could not. What then of period 4? Elder Nelson explains it this way, "Lights in the expanse of the heaven were organized so there could be seasons and other means of measuring time. During this period, the sun, the moon, the stars, and the earth were placed in proper relationship to one another (GC, April 2000, "The Creation", italics added). Period 4 might then account for a time when the Earth, Moon, and Sun were placed in their proper orbits.
-
The general principle of agency is found all over the gospel. I have no problem with that. I'm just pointing out that the way the scriptures use the words agent and agency is something different from the type of agency where we represent God or vice-versa.
The scriptures never explicitly say that we are agents unto God, even though that principle does exist within them. The only time that men are called agents in the scriptures is when they are called, "agents unto themselves." That's a different thing and a very unique phrase. If we start to confuse the general idea of agents and agency with the specific way the scriptures explicitly use the words, we're going to cause confusion.
Just a point of clarification. At least in one location the scriptures do indicate that we are agents unto God, "Wherefore, as ye are agents, ye are on the Lord's errand; and whatever ye do according to the will of the Lord is the Lord's business." (D&C 64:29) Harold B Lee commented on this scripture saying, "When one becomes a holder of the priesthood, he becomes an agent of the Lord. He should think of his calling as though he were on the Lord’s errand." (Stand Ye in Holy Places, 255) Now this specific reference has to do more with priesthood duties so I don't necessarily mean to fall on one side or the other of this issue.
-
The obvious downside is, to use current American pop phraseology, limited liability socializes the risk, but the profits remain private. Limited liability is a huge, gigantic, enormous intrusion into the free market (and one that almost no self-styled "free market capitalists" ever bother to speak against). It seems to me that if you're going to socialize the risk, it makes sense to socialize the profit, as well. But that means government ownership, virtual or otherwise, in private industry.
Maybe we do away with limited liability altogether? Would that be a good idea?
Our method of trying to socialize profits needs to change. I think there are some big steps that could equalize capital and labor and it does not involve corporate taxes.
A major problem with almost all business in our capital economy is that a few individuals receive a large majority of the profit. When will we recognize that all workers should own a piece of the business? Their property rights should extend to the business for which they work. No individual should work for a company without receiving shares in the company. Not through some payment program but simply because they contribute labor to the business.
However, it is not enough that the worker owns stock, they must also regularly share in the profits or the losses the company receives. If a company has a good month the worker receives an associated bonus. If the company has a bad month the worker might even lose money. Thus each individual will have a large stake in how the company performs.
Now another piece in my mind is that the worker must have the ability to effect change in the company, they must be empowered. The work place needs to become more representative after the model of our government. Each worker must have a vote in the structure of the company, who the manager is, who the president is, etc. Tied with this is access to information so that each individual can be more free to make choices which effect how he performs his job.
I believe these changes could socialize the profit without running through the government. It would give more freedom and rights to the individual. It would increase the potential for rewards and also losses. It would put the president on a more equal footing with the employee. Of course it increases risk to the employee, but all added freedom and oportunity comes with added risk. I for one would like to see the change.
-
Totalitarianism isn't identical with socialism.
"Totalitarianism is the new word we have adopted to describe the unexpected but nevertheless inseparable manifestations of what in theory we call socialism." (F. A. Hayek) In other words socialism is simply the means to the end, totalitarianism.
Let me summarize Hayek's book "The Road to Serfdom" in a few bullets. The book was first published in 1944.
- Crisis and the desire for security lead to national planning.
To gain security and mobilize an economy freedoms are surrendered.
- "Planners" promise Utopias for each individual segment of the economy.
Farmers get one plan, repair men another, teachers yet another.
- "Planners" and citizens cannot agree on one Utopia.
Inevitably these plans clash and the perfect plan for the farmer causes problems for the teacher.
- "Planners" work to get agreement.
In order to get agreement some planners try to silence others or create propaganda.
- Confidence in planners fades.
The public sees the planners cannot get things done and lose confidence.
- In desperation planners authorize a new leader willing to hammer out a plan at any cost.
This new leader will uses any means to get agreement. He may focus on a negative unifying plan instead of a positive task such as envy of those better off or hatred of an enemy.
- The new leader faced with disagreement on multiple sides must disregard morals and force obedience.
Even with this negative unifying plan the leader must physically force some to obey.
- No one is allowed to oppose the leaders plan.
The ability to force obedience now becomes the primary virtue. The Utopian goal must be maintained at all costs.
- To effectively have people serve the leaders plan disagreement must cease and everyone believe in the plan.
It is not enough simply to force people to follow but they must fully agree. This requires changed beliefs and reaches even down to religion. (Perhaps this in some respects answers the original question of the thread.)
Thus, socialism becomes tyranny and freedom becomes servitude. No doubt some will disagree with the above, but history has proven the point a number of times.
-
Not according to want?
It seems like you have the modern connotation of desire in mind. Take a look at what want used to mean. Search => [word] => want :: 1828 Dictionary :: Search the 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (FREE) :: 1828.mshaffer.com
Lets look at the context of the term in other scriptures…
D&C 42:33 “…that every man who has need may be amply supplied and receive according to his wants.” Note the term amply supplied.
D&C 82:17 “And you are to be equal, or in other words, you are to have equal claims on the properties, for the benefit of managing the concerns of your stewardships, every man according to his wants and his needs, inasmuch as his wants are just –“ Why this clarification of the term wants?
However, there is a rather detailed explanation of the process given to Edward Partridge by Joseph Smith concerning the consecration of property and how to reconcile what an individual or family requires versus what should be given to the church.
Concerning the consecration of property:— ... I will tell you that every man must be his own judge how much he should receive and how much he should suffer to remain in the hands of the Bishop. I speak of those who consecrate more than they need for the support of themselves and their families.
The matter of consecration must be done by the mutual consent of both parties; for to give the Bishop power to say how much every man shall have, and he be obliged to comply with the Bishop’s judgment, is giving to the Bishop more power than a king has; and upon the other hand, to let every man say how much he needs, and the Bishop be obliged to comply with his judgment, is to throw Zion into confusion, and make a slave of the Bishop. The fact is, there must be a balance or equilibrium of power, between the Bishop and the people, and thus harmony and good will may be preserved among you.
“Therefore, those persons consecrating property to the Bishop in Zion, and then receiving an inheritance back, must reasonably show to the Bishop that they need as much as they claim. But in case the two parties cannot come to a mutual agreement, the Bishop is to have nothing to do about receiving such consecrations; and the case must be laid before a council of twelve High Priests, the Bishop not being one of the council, but he is to lay the case before them. ( History of the Church, 1:364–65.)
A man has a say in how much property is to be given to the church, he is “his own judge”. And the process is to be administered by “mutual consent”. Only when there are disputes will the matter go to council. Thus an individual’s free will is more of a factor then it is in a communistic society. No large institution determines how much a person keeps. It is a one on one interview between the bishop and the person and the individual has a say as much as does the church.
-
D&C 104:67-75 describes ongoing redistributions. As soon as any money is made by anyone it is placed in the common fund and members can only access it through a treasurer, after showing that they do need such-and-such an amount for such-and-such a purpose.
Not quite. The money placed in the Treasury is only that which is made "by improving upon the properties". In other words money only goes into the treasury if it is in excess of what is needed to maintain one's family and stewardship (ie. profit). Yet once in the treasury it is then passed back to another individual to aid in his stewardship. Thus even in this case I do not see the church owning all the money or property. It is given to individuals.
In 1843 Joseph wrote: “I preached on the stand about one hour on the 2nd chapter of Acts, designing to show the folly of common stock [holding property in common]. In Nauvoo, everyone is steward over his own.” (History of the Church, 6:37–38) The Communist Manifesto was not published until 1848 so this clearly has little to do with a contrast to corrupt versions of Communism.
Really? Even in the Soviet Union, which was far from reaching communism, to give just one example, the support issued varied according to the number of people in the family.
But not according to want.
I don't feel the brethren were misrepresenting Communism. President Lee once directly contrasted both Socialism and Communism to the United Order.
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. (October, 1941, General Conference)
-
Has to do with stewardship. The order pools together property and resources, assigning to each a stewardship according to their needs and abilities. Any surplus is redistributed according to the needs of the group. So while others have no right to take from someone's stewardship just like that, this isn't exactly the classic idea of private property.
I agree with you that there is an initial consecration and stewardship. After that initial distribution the person owns the land and he may do with it as he will. So yes the primary difference has to do with the initial distribution. The church however is not the owner so this differs quite a bit from most forms of communism where a central group owns the property.
There is also distribution of stores to the poor. I see it very much like the church welfare system today.
The idea of communism isn't to have all starve alike. The community redistributes resource and property among the members. Naturally, a family of six will need more than a family of two.
Of course a family of six would have more. However, in almost all cases communism doesn't consider giving a person more based on individual want.
At the end of the day I see it as more of a modification of capitalism then of communism. But as long as the ideas are understood.
Reconciling Asking to be Released with GA Statements
in General Discussion
Posted
I have seen this question, "should I asked to be released" come up a number of times now on this forum. The advice regularly given is, "Yes, go asked to be released." My question is where does this advice come from? It seems contrary to statements from general authorities. Here are just a few I remember:
Now, I understand that a call to serve is a call to grow and that our salvation does not, "hang in the balance" if we asked to be released. But statements from leaders are very clear. It seems many do not agree with this stance. Please explain why.