james12

By the word Communism I do not mean to imply Communism under Stalin or in the USSR. Clearly there were major differences between the United Order and this form of Communism. My point is that even a Marxist or Engels definition of Communism does not equate to the United Order. Further, even the UO as practiced by the saints is not in keeping with what has been defined by the Lord. In fact, I believe it is some of these "supposed" similarities that lead people to not appreciate the UO order for what it may be. Thanks for commenting on specific items I have mentioned. I may not completely disagree with your comments but please expound on a few. In what way do you see property as not completely private under the UO? How do you see individuals economic standing divided by needs and wants as compatible with communism?

So, apostles and prophets have repeatedly commented that the united order is not Communism, yet you disagree. And dispite the fact that the UO is based upon private ownership of property, private ownership of the means of production, voluntary entrance, and equality according to needs and wants you still insist it is Communism. Well then all I can say is that your definition of Communism is the strangest I have ever seen and does not accord with the commonly understood definition.

Joseph Smith in 1838 answered a number of commonly asked questions. Question number six was as follows, "'Do the Mormons believe in having all things in common?'" Joseph's answer, "No." (HC Vol 3: 28). Now there have been quite a number of different tries at living the United Order but J. Ruben Clark says they were not according to the revelations, "I may say to begin with, that in practice the brethren in Missouri got away, in their attempts to set up the United Order, from the principles set out in the revelations. This is also true of the organizations set up here in Utah after the Saints came to the Valleys." (The United Order vs. Communism) Thus a look back through LDS history does not present adequate evidence for how the United Order was to function. Independence and private property ownership are necessary. The church was never to own all the property! Additionally, Elder Clark says the brethren got away from the revelations in their take on equality. The scripture given is the following, "every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs." (D&C 51:3) Now any person should agree that a persons family, circumstances, wants and needs may vary widely. I do not equate the United Order with Communism, Socialism, or Capitalism for that matter. It does have elements of these for sure but it is a unique form of economic order.

Thanks for the clarification. I now understand the thought. However, earlier you defined socialism as an "economic theory" so in that sense socialism does not adequately equate to the law of consecration. As you have stated, the law of consecration is much broader than simply an economic theory. Thus I equated your use of the term socialism with the united order as found in the law of consecration. At any rate, your now extremely broad definition of socialism may aim to achieve the law of consecration but the only path to living the law must ultimately include the united order. For each person must have the "free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life" (see D&C 134:2). A system that does not offer at minimum all these protections will never allow a person to learn how to be free, nor will it teach one to voluntarily give all that they have and are to the Kingdom of God.

Anatess, I am trying to understand your statement, "Socialism IS the state of God's Kingdom... commonly called the Law of Consecration." What do you mean to say by this? Even at an economic level socialism is not the United Order. Socialism seeks social ownership of property, or production. The United Order is based on private ownership. Even though you deed (consecrate) your property to the church a portion (larger or smaller than what you gave) is deeded back to you. J. Ruben Clark says, it is deeded back "in fee simple". It is yours to do with as you will, sell it, rent it, etc. The two systems at their core and in their ultimate results are in disagreement.

Joseph Smith in the King Follett discourse said: Thus as Christ inherits what the Father had, the Father is exalted. We will never eclipse or reach the Father. Some fail to recognize this important point.In the Family Home Evening Resource Book in the section "I Am a Child of God" it says, "Explain to your children that they will always be members of your family and that you will always be their father and mother. Nothing can change that. The same is true of God’s family. He will always be our Father. We will always be his children." Now this is not a definitive source but it is clearly and well stated. God will always be our Father and we will always be his children.

Seminary, Perhaps you have missed my point... You agree that individual independent effort is required to become like Christ. Yet you seem to disagree that there is some individuality that remains if someone reaches perfection. (You may want to clarify this point since you wrote on a different post, "He wont destroy what makes you you."). At any rate, to carry the thought to the end - since the beginning effort does not match the end result do you conclude that at some point along the path individual effort ends and complete unity begins? My question then becomes, where do these two apparently conflicting states intersect? Where does individuality end and complete oneness begin? Additionally, if we must put forth this extreme effort to become like Christ, why at some point would all the work be wiped away? Now, perhaps I have misunderstood you. If you agree that something of self remains what is it? I agree that one who has reached perfection will posses the same attributes as Christ. However, I do not believe that our entire personality boils down to these attributes (ie. knowledge, mercy, justice, etc.) At any given moment even a perfect person may make choices that do not revolve around morality. Because such choices remain a person is free to choose. Elder Uchtdorf talks about God being the most creative being in the universe. Can he not create as He will? Can he not choose what he will do? If you say "yes" then I believe you have agreed to individual choice.

So you agree that in order to become more like Christ we must exercise individual and independent effort. At what point then does this individual effort end? Do we in a supreme act of individuality become a mere copy of another person? Parish the thought! We become more ourselves. With more freedom to do and to be. Let me give a bit more from Joseph F. Smith: Now the above quote brings up the contrast so lets consider the other extreme. What of those individuals who are being driven by appetite and passion? As they continue down the path are they more themselves? Is individuality to be found by following Satan? Absolutely not! There will is being subsumed, and their ability to choose is taken away. Despite claims heard the world over, sameness reigns supreme under Satan's plan. My time is up. Gotta go...

I agree with Eowyn here, to posses all that God has (including His traits) does not indicate we loose individuality. As a matter of fact scripture and gospel teaching seems to imply just the opposite. Let me quote here from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism from the section "individuality". This last scripture is particularly enlightening. When we loose ourselves for Christ we find ourselves. Spencer Kimball once said it was because there is more of us to find! The problem is the conclusion does seem paradoxical. How can we become more like our Father but have more individuality? And yet it appears this is the case. Elder Packer said it once this way.

I have in the past considered this point about uniqueness and individuality. I admit there are a number of scriptures and teachings which allude to a oneness which seems beyond our present understanding. For example, Christ is said to be the "express image" of his Father (see Heb 1:3). What might that term imply? And yet something feels wrong about it. I am not working so hard to become exactly like someone else. Even if that someone else is God (I hope that does not seem blasphemous, but there it is). In all the universe there is no one like me. I was a unique individual from time immemorial. Something was valuable about me. Why then are we each unique? When time as we know it comes to an end is there something about me, apart from others, that holds value? C.S. Lewis once considered the matter and came to this conclusion, "Your place in heaven will seem to be made for you and you alone, because you were made for it - made for it stitch by stitch as a glove is made for a hand. (The Problem of Pain, p. 132) Something tells me this statement is true. How exactly it may be I do not know, but that is an eternity I want to be a part of.

Paul in Ephesians discusses unity. In so doing I believe he explains the pinnacle of the matter. He says: In this scripture Paul points out that we need prophets and apostles and other leaders to help us all come, in unity, to the measure of the stature of Christ. I feel the Joseph Smith translation makes this phrase slightly more clear. He says, "Till we, in the unity of the faith, all come to the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;" Thus the goal is not unity. Rather the goal is Christ. To approach the Man. To all come together to him. Paul says, "grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ."One of my favorite non-LDS addresses was given by Henry Drummond and is entitled, "The Changed Life". In it he says: This then is my answer to unity. Stop focusing on the pieces (gossip, service, friendship, etc.). These are simply a part. Instead focus on Christ, approach him as we would a living friend. When we begin to approach Him we begin to find unity. When we focus on the pieces we find we can make little headway.

I believe Mosiah 15:1-8 is primarily about submission and becoming one. Not in any strange way, but simply that the spirit and the flesh in Christ are perfectly united. Elder Holland said, "That is the very doctrine Abinadi taught - that the Father (the spirit) in Christ gave direction and had to be obeyed, while the Son (the flesh) in Christ had to yield and obey." (Christ and the New Covenant, p. 91) Abinadi teaches this in a number of ways. 1. Christ subjected the flesh to the will of the Father. (v2) How? Because he dwelleth in the flesh. 2. Christ subjected the flesh to the Spirit. (v5) How? Because he suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation. 3. Christ subjected the flesh even unto death. (v7) How? Because he allowed himself to be led, crucified, and slain. Thus the will of the Son (the flesh) being swallowed up in the will of the Father (the Spirit). He is indeed then one God the spirit and the flesh united in perfect harmony.

I do not give it as fact but I do give it as my opinion that we indeed progressed until we could progress no more in our first estate. We were as perfect, or complete, as we could be. Why might this be so? Consider the following: - Was our first estate a near infinite amount of time? - If so, within that extremely long period of time, how far could one progress? - At what point then would an individual complete his or her first estate? - If there were more to learn in the current estate why would one progress to the next? - What differentiates a person who has progressed from one estate to the next?

The further truth regarding temple sealings has come line upon line and precept upon precept. It was not completely understood by the early church. Wilford Woodruff gave a seminal address on this matter of adoption and sealings: The Law of Adoption | Wilford Woodruff. In it he said: What was to be done, or how was the work to move forward? Wilford Woodruff again says: I also read a good paper on the subject entitled, "The Law of Adoption: One Phase of the Development of the Mormon Concept of Salvation, 1830–1900" In it he mentions the matter of those who were not sealed parent to child. He says this was considered by the first presidency and the twelve. They concluded that these people should be sealed to their own parents but that the old records should be left standing with possible problems sorted out in the hereafter. Now I'm not sure where that leaves a family tree. Perhaps there has been further clarification on the matter of which I am not aware.

I believe Elder Ballard referred to a New York Times article in his address. I may be mistaken but I think it was this one. Also of interest are some of the statistics referred to in the article, found here. A couple of notes: - 50% of unintended births occurred with women who were cohabitating. - More than one-half of all babies born to unmarried couples are not firstborns. Some of these babies represent repeat births to the same unmarried couple.

At one time in my stake there were only two church building for eight wards. I believe with permission (although I don't know whose) they began to do a 2 1/2 hour block. Sacrament was the same length, with Sunday school and priesthood shortened. I remember my wife telling me that the Relief Society sometimes had a five minute lesson after the prayer, announcements, music practice, etc. It definitely felt like a rush. With continued people moving into the area the stake then split. We continued on the 2 1/2 hour block. At some point, the Stake President received a letter from church headquarters stating that the 2 1/2 hour block was not approved and should stop immediately. I found the entire situation rather amusing. Then in a World Wide Leadership Training President Monson mentioned shortened Sunday meeting schedules by saying, "Over the years, we’ve had to correct many attempts by well-meaning leaders to change some of the programs of the Church. We’ve dealt with lighted candles on sacrament tables, with locally determined changes in the length of Church meetings, with elimination of Sunday School from the Sunday block meetings." ("Opening Remarks", 2010 Worldwide Leadership Training Meeting). All of those in the audience laughed when we heard this statement.

I do not have a lot of time to answer all your thoughts and they are well worth considering. However, in regards to the United Order being postponed we have these words from the Lord. “Let those commandments which I have given concerning Zion and her law be executed and fulfilled, after her redemption.” (D&C 105:34) J. Ruben Clark has commented, "The United Order lasted, in theory, for some three and a quarter years, and then it was discontinued, withdrawn by the Lord, because of the greed and selfishness of men” (“Testimony of Divine Origin of Welfare Plan,” Church News, 8 Aug. 1951, p. 3). He also made these comments:

The Law of Consecration is a commitment to dedicate time, talent, and wealth to the building up of God's kingdom. The United Order is one aspect of The Law of Consecration. It deals with the temporal well being of the saints. The basic premise of the United Order is that everything we own belongs to the Lord and we are simply stewards of these items. In brief, the United Order requires that an individual should consecrate or deed all his property (material possessions) to the church. The church then deeds back a portion of property to the individual. It may be more or less then he previously had. It may not be his original possessions. This portion given back to the individual is his. He is the steward and can do as he pleases with these items. Any surplus is to be given back to the church. The United Order, as defined in the Doctrine and Covenants, is not fully enforced today. The early saints were unable to live the law and so received the lesser law of tithing. Today we have a few aspects of the United Order. I consider them to be the law of tithing, fast offerings, and the welfare program. While these in some respects approach the United Order I do not consider them the same as living the United Order.

Rank Advancement Scouts is not simply about rank advancement and merit badge achievement. In fact, some scout books admit that some boys may not have the desire to progress down this path. There are a lot of other benefits to scouting. Insurance Insurance is particularly important when boys go on camps or activities outside the ward or stake boundaries. I can see the advisors point here. Overzealous It does seem like the adviser is pushing rather hard. I guess I'm having a hard time seeing why you wouldn't simply sign him up as a scout with the understanding that you do not want him pushed to earn merit badges and advance in rank. Skip the Court of Honors and simply participate in the activities.

I love Mere Christianity. There are a couple parts of the book with which I disagree but when C. S. Lewis gets it right he says it better than anyone. I also suggest his essays "The Weight of Glory" and one few read but I think should be right at the top called, "The Trouble with X".

Two comments.... Nonmembers partaking of the sacrament: Please note the words, "nothing should be done to prevent nonmembers from partaking". When I was a missionary we had an investigator who began to partake of the sacrament. A member slapped his hand while he was in the process. It was a terrible experience.Children partaking of the sacrament: I would never presume to exclude children from partaking of the sacrament for such is the kingdom of heaven.

To my understanding Joseph had a seer stone and the Urim and Thummim. It appears that there was one seer stone (though there may be a little confusion on the point). It was dark colored and opaque. There is an interesting article entitled "Joseph Smith the Gift of Seeing" Volume 15, Number 2, Summer 1982 The seer stone is likely the stone referred to by Joseph Fielding Smith in Just_A_Guy's post. David Whitmer explained a little more regarding the seer stone and possible comments of Joseph. Also, Joseph Fielding Smith said this.

If we are sincere and wish the best for someone I don't believe it's a sin to ask God that a suffering individual die. However, while not a sin we may err in our asking, for we are so limited in our understanding of the reasons for pain. We only see the immediate effects of suffering here in mortality. I think back to a story about B. West Belnap and a comment from Harold B. Lee. Bro. Belnap suffered from a brain tumor which caused excruciating pain. He asked Pres. Lee if he should keep fighting it. Pres. Lee said, “West, you and I...know that life is a very precious thing,...every minute of it, even the suffering of it....How do you and I know but what the suffering you’re going through is a refining process by which [the] obedience necessary to exaltation is made up?...Live it out to the last day....Who knows but what the experience you are having now will pay dividends greater than all the rest of your life. Live it true to the end, and we’ll bless you and pray to God that pains beyond your endurance will not be permitted by a merciful God.” (Bruce C. Hafen, A Disciple’s Life, 561)Teaching Legacy - B. West Belnap | Religious Studies Center Now, for those who offer heartfelt prayer the spirit will whisper the words to say. But I suspect he will not often guide the petitioner to ask that another die.

Interesting thoughts. But how do you reconcile your above statement, about angels from other planets visiting Adam, with D&C 130:5 "But there are no angels who minister to this earth but those who do belong or have belonged to it"? The Orson Pratt quote seems a little tenuous...

Traveler, I'm a little unclear on the first thought but I'll rephrase slightly and you can correct it if I'm wrong. 1. Is it possible to misplace good worship on a false idea of God? We certainly can worship whatever we want and many do. Whether it is "good worship" is less clear. Certainly it is not as meaningful as worshiping the true God. But, specifically related to God, I might ask a follow on question to yours: If I do not correctly understand who God is, am I worshiping God? I would say, only as I have a correct idea of who God is am I able to worship him. Now, I do not believe this is an all or nothing proposition. For instance, if I have a correct idea of some of the attributes of God and honor him by trying to emulate those same attributes I will indeed be following Christ. However, when I try to worship base on my false notions of who God is I cannot be worshiping the true God for I will be moving down the wrong path. 2. Is it really possible to improperly worship the correct God? I don't believe I said that we can improperly worship God. Rather, I said that if we don't seek to follow Christ, the forms we are making may only be a pretense and ultimately a mockery. The answer to this question may depend on the definition of "worship". Ultimately I would say that worship is adoration which leads to emulation (see Russell M. Nelson, “Gratitude for the Mission and Ministry of Jesus Christ,” in Brigham Young University 1997–98 Speeches [1998], 349). In this strict sense of the word anything less then followership based on love would not be worship at all. Rather, it would be something akin to hypocrisy.