[Why does Socialism seem to lead to the decline of religion?]

I agree that it isn't Communism, if by which you mean the Stalinist government of the USSR. The UO was however a form of the economic system communism. Apples and oranges, as I have said.

Not entirely private.

Most communist systems have voluntary entrance.

Yes, that is still compatible with a form of communism.

Not to put too fine a point on it, the commonly understood definition is baloney.

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?

[Why does Socialism seem to lead to the decline of religion?]

I've heard that rebuttal before. It is weak. Not all forms of communism have all things in common. In the UO members placed everything in the common fund and weregiven what they needed. Each had their own plot of land. Doesn't make it anything other than a form of communism. Other communist systems followed along the same lines.

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.

[Why does Socialism seem to lead to the decline of religion?]

Marion G. Romney was an apostle, but in this famous article it is quite clear that he is talking apples and oranges. Was the United Order the Stalinist government of the USSR? Of course not. Was the UO a form of the economic theory called communism, or as Arrington cautiously worded it, communalism? Of course!

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.

[Why does Socialism seem to lead to the decline of religion?]

James, I am not talking about the United Order. That is simply one application to implement the Law of Consecration in an imperfect world.

No, I am talking about the Celestial Law of Consecration. And THAT is simply socialism in its purest form where everyone VOLUNTARILY dedicates everything that they are, have, own to God's Kingdom. Everyone's achievements/talents are gained without any thought of self but purely as a contribution to God's Kindgom. Every man would then have equal claim according to his wants and needs and everything dedicated to the glory of God.

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.

[Why does Socialism seem to lead to the decline of religion?]

Okay, back-up just a minute. Socialism is not a form of government and neither is Capitalism. It is an economic theory. So, looking at both of those in that context and then comparing it with Satan's Plan, I present that Socialism IS the state of God's Kingdom... commonly called Law of Consecration.

So, no, Socialism doesn't sound like Satan's Plan at all.

Now, of course, there's a reason why the law of consecration was not imposed on the members of the Church... we're not ready for it. But please don't say it's closer to Satan's plan than capitalism is, because that would not be correct.

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 fundamental principle of this system was the private ownership of property. Each man owned his portion, or inheritance, or stewardship, with an absolute title, which he could alienate, or hypothecate, or otherwise treat as his own. The Church did not own all of the property, and the life under the United Order was not a communal life, as the Prophet Joseph, himself said, (History of the Church, Volume III, p. 28). The United Order is an individualistic system, not a communal system. (The United Order Vs. Communism. General Conference Report October 1942, 2nd Session.)

The two systems at their core and in their ultimate results are in disagreement.

[Our continuing relationship with Heavenly Father.]

Joseph Smith in the King Follett discourse said:

What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out His kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of His Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all His children.

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.

[Church attitude towards Gays.]

I never spoke of individual effort ending...

It is only through individual effort that we can get there, this is the plan that you and I chose, to have a chance to prove that we will do the things Our Father in Heaven asks us to do. Why? So, we can be like Him some day.

The correct plan is to CHOOSE to follow the will of God. By doing so we make ourselves more Christ like in every way...

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?

Please, name one trait, you think, a person that makes it into the Celestial Kingdom would have that would be something we could say that our Heavenly Parents do not have. I think if you ponder that, you will answer that there is no such trait that is praiseworthy that our Heavenly Parents do not have that would make another stand out as different than them if they find themselves in the Celestial Kingdom at the highest level. Those at lower levels have deficiencies of those traits and therefore are different.

I have never argued the idea of agency, in fact, I am stressing it's importance that we choose the right path. We should choose the path that keeps our eye focused on the FULL glory of God, not partial, less valuable glory.

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.

[Church attitude towards Gays.]

I think you are 180 degrees misinterpreting those statements. If anything, those statements are supporting what I am saying and especially in Matthew 10. The statements you provided are not speaking of "where "we are going but the "how" to get there. "How" we get there is through individual and independent effort. It is an expression of independent and individual effort, to give up our individual self to become more like Christ. But paradoxically, that is not binding or limiting, it provides more freedom.

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:

Our being united does not destroy our individuality at all. We can be just as strong in our individuality when united in regard to the purposes and designs of the Almighty, as we can possibly be when in opposition to these purposes and designs, and to our brethren who are united in regard to the things of God. Indeed I think it evinces a stronger characteristic of individuality for men and women to bring themselves into harmony and union with the purposes of the Almighty than to be divided against them or separate from them. (JD vol 25, p 245, italics added)

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...

[Church attitude towards Gays.]

Explain to me, please, why uniqueness is more valuable to you than would be having all the good traits that would include all the ones that you find good in yourself now plus all the good traits you may not have at this time?

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".

LDS teachings make clear that living the gospel of Jesus Christ means voluntarily submitting the self to the will of God. Joseph F. Smith, felt that it shows "a stronger characteristic of individuality" to bring the self into harmony with God than to be separate from him (JD 25:245). An individual must voluntarily obey God's will to achieve righteousness (John 7:16), and God's will requires service to others in one's family and community (Matt. 20:26-27). Paradoxically, "he that loseth his life for [Christ's] sake shall find it" (Matt. 10:39)

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.

Obedience to God can be the very highest expression of independence. Just think of giving to him the one thing, the one gift, that he would never take. Think of giving him that one thing that he would never wrest from you. ...Obedience—that which God will never take by force—he will accept when freely given. And he will then return to you freedom that you can hardly dream of—the freedom to feel and to know, the freedom to do, and the freedom to be, at least a thousandfold more than we offer him. Strangely enough, the key to freedom is obedience. (Boyd K. Packer, Obedience, Brigham Young University Speeches of the Year [7 Dec. 1971], 3–4).

[Church attitude towards Gays.]

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.

[Ward Unity?]

This is sparked from a question asked by someone on another board. Denizens of that other board may recognize it, but here it goes:

What is ward unity? What does it entail? We are commanded to be one, to have unity, but what exactly does it mean for a ward to be one/have unity? Is it not back-biting or gossiping, sustaining the leadership, being willing to provide serve regardless of the recipient? Is there more to it? If so what?

Paul in Ephesians discusses unity. In so doing I believe he explains the pinnacle of the matter. He says:

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: (Eph 4:11-15)

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:

Thousands of persons go to church every Sunday hoping to solve this mystery [improving and sanctifying themselves]. ...At meetings, at conferences, many a time they have reached what they thought was the very brink of it, but somehow no further revelation came. Poring over religious books, how often were they now within a paragraph of it: the next page, the next sentence, would discover all, and they would be borne on a flowing tide forever. But nothing happened. ...Why did it elude them? Because there was no "it." When shall we learn that the pursuit of holiness is simply the pursuit of Christ? When shall we substitute for the "it" of a fictitious aspiration, the approach to a Living Friend?

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.

[Christ is the Father. Why is this a mystery?]

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.

[Who are the Noble and Great Ones?]

Who in this world did not finish their first estate perfectly? By definition, "keeping our first estate" is to have finished it perfectly.

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?

[Adoptive Sealings]

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:

We have not fully carried out those principles in fulfillment of the revelations of God to us, in sealing the hearts of the fathers to the children and the children to the fathers. I have not felt satisfied, neither did President Taylor, neither has any man since the Prophet Joseph who has attended to the ordinance of adoption in the temples of our God. We have felt that there was more to be revealed upon this subject than we had received.

What was to be done, or how was the work to move forward? Wilford Woodruff again says:

When I went before the Lord to know who I should be adopted to (we were then being adopted to prophets and apostles), the Spirit of God said to me, "Have you not a father, who begot you?" "Yes, I have." "Then why not honor him? Why not be adopted to him?" "Yes," says I, "that is right." I was adopted to my father, and should have had my father sealed to his father, and so on back; and the duty that I want every man who presides over a temple to see performed from this day henceforth and forever, unless the Lord Almighty commands otherwise, is, let every man be adopted to his father. When a man receives the endowments, adopt him to his father; not to Wilford Woodruff, nor to any other man outside the lineage of his fathers. That is the will of God to this people. I want ll men who preside over these temples in these mountains of Israel to bear this in mind. What business have I to take away the rights of the lineage of any man? What right has any man to do this? No; I say let every man be adopted to his father; and then you will do exactly what God said when he declared He would send Elijah the prophet in the last days.

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.

[Why Women Don't Marry]

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.

[3-hour meeting block: Too long or not long enough?]

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.

[Law of Consecration]

I have not been able to find a revelation where consecration or the United Order was commanded to be stopped. If there is one someone please send it to me or link to it. Additionally since members still covenant to obey the Law of Consecration as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants. The only conclusion I can come to is that neither the Law of Consecration nor the United Order were done away by God's command, but rather we simply stopped practicing them.

But again that's just my personal opinion. Search the scriptures and come to your own conclusion.

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:

It was under these circumstances, with the Saints scattered and sometimes hunted like wild animals, with their property gone, their organization largely broken up, wounded in mind and spirit, with the condemnation of the Lord pronounced upon their heads because of their unfaithfulness, not to say wickedness, with ‘Zion’ to all intents and purposes destroyed, that the Lord commanded them, in the great revelation given at Fishing River,—

"And let those commandments which I have given concerning Zion and her law be executed and fulfilled, after her redemption." (105:34)

It is interesting to note that after this pronouncement, the Lord practically never referred to the United Order in his revelations to the Prophet. The people had had their opportunity and failed. He then gave them the law of tithing in a revelation given in Missouri itself, in Zion, (July 18, 1838, Sec. 119 ), which is still in full force and effect. . . .

Thus the Lord directed that the law he had given regarding the setting up of the United Order in Zion was to be ‘executed and fulfilled’ after the redemption of Zion, that is, in the meaning in which the Lord was then using the word Zion, the ‘redemption,’ the reestablishment of the people in Missouri. This has not yet been accomplished.” (“The United Order and Law of Consecration As Set Out in the Revelations of the Lord,” Church News, 15 Sept. 1945, p. 9.)

Doctrine and Covenants Institute Student Manual - Section 105 - Revelation to Zion's Camp

[Law of Consecration]

I read that LDS Members voluntarily give up their material wealth, is that the Law of Consecration and do we still believe in it today? What the United Order?

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.

[Boy need to be registered as scout to attend YM Activities?]

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.

[Mere Christianity]

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".

[Eating and Drinking condemnation~]

Two comments....

Nonmembers partaking of the sacrament:

Although the sacrament is for Church members, the bishopric should not announce that it will be passed to members only, and nothing should be done to prevent nonmembers from partaking of it. (Handbook II: Administering the Church, Section 20.4.1)

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:

All little children virtually belong to the Church until they are eight years of age. Should they die before that age, they would enter the celestial kingdom. The Savior said, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven." Then why should they be deprived of the sacrament? (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, p.350)

Children who are capable of repentance should be baptized when they reach the proper age, according to the revelations. Up to that age they are entitled to the sacrament." (Messages of the First Presidency, Vol.2, p.289)

I would never presume to exclude children from partaking of the sacrament for such is the kingdom of heaven.

[The Gift of Seership]

As I understand it, Joseph's two seer-stones are currently in the First Presidency's vault.

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.

I haven't made an in-depth study of the early Saints and seer stones. I do recall that in the D&C Joseph seeks for various answers in the Urim and Thummim until June 1829 (before the Church was organized and before the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood), after which there is no more mention of using this tool for revelation. I wonder if it was intended to be a stepping stone until Joseph was acquainted with the order of revelation.

David Whitmer explained a little more regarding the seer stone and possible comments of Joseph.

After the translation of the Book of Mormon was finished, early in the spring of 1830, before April 6th, Joseph gave the [seer] stone to Oliver Cowdery and told me as well as the rest that he was through with it, and he did not use the stone any more. He said he was through the work that God had given him the gift to perform, except to preach the gospel. He told us that we would all have to depend on the Holy Ghost hereafter to be guided into truth and obtain the will of the Lord. (David Whitmer, An Address to All the Believers in Christ, p 32) An Address to All Believers in Christ Part Three

Also, Joseph Fielding Smith said this.

We have been taught since the days of the Prophet that the Urim and Thummim were returned with the plates to the angel. We have no record of the Prophet having the Urim and Thummim after the organization of the Church. (Doctrines of Salvation, 3:, p.225)

[Asking God to take away life....]

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.

[Adam and the Priesthood]

I continued my research and found a talk in the Journal Of Discourses by Orson Pratt that addresses what type of being(s) or class of angel administered to our first parents, “. . . .. We have now mentioned three classes of angels. There are others, among them some redeemed from former creations before this world was made, one of whom administered to our first parents after they were cast out of the garden as they were offering sacrifices and burnt offerings, according to the commandments which they received from God when they were driven from the garden....These angels that came to Adam were not men who had been redeemed from this earth-not men who had been translated from this earth-but they pertained to former worlds. They understood about the coming of Jesus, the nature of these sacrifices, &c.”

(Discourse By Elder Orson Pratt, Different Degrees of Reward and of Punishment-Marriage for Eternity Necessary to a Fullness of Celestial Glory) Delivered in the 14th Ward Assembly Rooms, Salt Lake City, Sunday Evening, January 19, 1873. (Reported by David W. Evans.)

By connecting the principles taught in the aforementioned articles together we find that the Angel(s) that administered the ordinances unto Adam must not have been spirits but must have been resurrected or translated beings that pertained to former worlds. I ascertain then that the Angel(s) must have gone through a former mortal probationary period and received the priesthood and keys there and then received there then translated or resurrected bodies to be able to confer and verify keys to Adam that they were sent from and by God. So the Angel(s) completed a calling in a former mortal probation and received the priesthood ordinances and keys and were called again to another and ongoing mission to assist Adam in progressing others.

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...

[What is worship? What should be worshiped?]

Thinking --- is it possible to misplace good worship on false thinking of G-d and also (as you stated) is it really possible to improperly worship the correct G-d?

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.