Matthew.Bennett

Interestingly enough, some of the greatest doctrine of scripture comes in response to completely unrelated questions. Hence a query about the practice of eating meat returns a principle that touches on the basic rules of human existence: "it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another", and that excess is a cause of woe. "Excess", as in "exceedingly rich".
I should clarify that I think there are at least three broad categories of economic well-being and this principle touches on them:
Poor- Unable to provide for one's own temporal needs. If they're really, really poor, they're "Exceedingly poor".
Rich- Able to provide for one's own temporal needs with some to spare. In our modern world, virtually every single American is "rich" and has a little excess they could give to others.
Exceedingly Rich- One has riches to excess. They have much, much more than they actually need to survive.
Being "exceedingly rich" wouldn't be bad if everyone were "exceedingly rich". But, when you have the "exceedingly rich" who continually use their riches on vain and trifling tasks or material things and don't give that money to a better cause--and I think the Lord makes it clear that the best cause is to feed the naked, clothe the hungry, liberate the captive, etc.--you have someone who doesn't abide by scriptural principles and isn't justified in their actions.
 
By the way, I've used the example of the $50k watch because it's relevant to this thread. I don't know the 70 who owned it, nor do I care to find out who it is or cast aspersions or judgment. I've always referenced it as an example of egregious wealth that, as far as we know, was used for an unjustified purchase that went against the principles found in the scriptures.
 
Did you or did you not covenant to live the law of consecration in the temple?
Just because the Church at large doesn't practice the principles of consecration, doesn't mean you and I, as individuals, can't. In fact, if we're ever to establish Zion, it would require us to be able and willing to abide by the law of consecration--and that would require us to put these principles into practice in our own lives, and recognize that they're valid principles, to prepare our hearts and minds.
 
I'm not saying go and give everything you don't need to survive to the poor or the bishop--I'm not advocating that (although Jesus did, and still can, command someone to do that). I am saying there's a need to recognize these principles are true, and to begin putting them into practice in our own lives (and be wise and careful about doing it). If we don't, we won't ever make it to Zion, in this world or the next.

estradling75 can answer but thought I'd throw out a couple examples - 
- The Lord needs enough saints to be well off enough to be mission presidents
- It also helps that those who are more affluent pay into the PEF, the Humanitarian Aid Fund, the Missionary Fund, etc.
- I also remember Pres. Hinckley mentioning a private airplane made available to assist him in visiting the members worldwide (thus not an expense for the church)

In Jacob 2
18 But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God.
 
19 And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted.
 
We see that once we have a Hope In Christ (which I classified as Righteous)  Then the promise of Riches if we seek them.
 
Then the Lord explains the purpose of the Riches  (the intent to do good).   Many of us read that last bit and work backwards judging how others spend their money.  That because if it was not used to clothe the naked etc  it must not have been acquired with the intent to do good.

A few additional thoughts:
 
1) How do we see the concept of doubt? Is the "unbelief" mentioned in Mark 9:24 ("Lord I believe, help thou my unbelief") considered doubt? Or is doubt limited to refusal to accept some truth ("I refuse to believe that Joseph pulled a gold bible out of the ground and translated it. It is just too fantastical of a story.")?
 
2) How important is humility and teachability (is that a word?) to the question? I can see some like Jennamarie describes who have doubts but are earnestly and humbly seeking to understand. There are also others who have no desire to even approach the subject.
 
3) Doubt is a good thing if we are "doubting" a falsehood. In spite of his claims in the premortal councils, I doubt that Satan really has the power to get me to heaven. It seems to me that some of this question around doubt is centered in the process of discernment. It might be all about the process of trying to find out what is truth and what is error.

"Where doubt is, there faith has no power." - Joseph Smith
 
How do we reconcile this with Jenmarie's excellent perspective?

Doubt is what lead me to a stronger testimony. Doubt is what lead me to dive into the scriptures more than I ever had before, because I wanted to *know*. Doubt motivates me to really "search, ponder, and pray" to know and understand a Truth. As such, when I *do* come to a knowledge of a particular Truth, I feel a greater sense of security in that knowledge; that it's not going to be suddenly ripped from me because I accepted it too quickly without fully understanding it first, like has happened to me before.
 
That's not to say that those who never doubt have weak testimonies, or don't search for Truth, but for ME, mine wouldn't be as strong without it.

Let's see if I follow your guys' argument, anatess and mdfxdb. This is what I believe you are saying:
 
-There are no scriptures supporting the idea that temporal affluence (being "exceedingly rich" while others within your sphere of influence are "poor") is good in the eyes of God.
-But there aren't any scriptures definitively against it.
-Our leaders have temporal success and many of them are very affluent.
-Our leaders are righteous, otherwise they wouldn't be our leaders. (I'm assuming this one; I feel that it's implicit in your statements. If I'm wrong, please correct me.)
-Ergo, the type of success enjoyed by our leaders isn't against the scriptures.
 
Would you say that's accurate? Or would you redefine or clarify anything? Just trying to understand.

Prison systems are increasingly focusing on re-entry preparation.  What can we do for those inmates who desire to turn around that will help them do so?  Requiring GED, offering parenting classes, making various spiritual and morals/ethics programs available, etc.  The charitable and faith-based communities are redirecting their energies.  Since the 1960s/70s the focus was getting religious education volunteers into the prisons.  Now, the effort is more towards aftercare and transition assistance.  That is, how can we help those inmates returning to our communities to make the change from prisoner to citizen?  Job search assistance?  Skill development?  Transitional housing, perhaps with a religious training component?
 
Bottom line:  I'm not so sure prisons are ineffective.  Some folks really do need a time out.  Or, we need a time out from them.  The question is how to make that time more effective, in a manner that is financially sound?

So I went back and read your OP more carefully.
 
I expect you felt guilty that you made her cry. But it implies that she darned well knows she has problems, and by not calling her on it you are passively supporting her. I do not mean to say by that, in any degree, that you are responsible for her negativity, but along the same lines, you are also not responsible to support it.
 
Point being (IMO) draw the line in the sand. When she gets negative, shut her down! Period. Be kind, of course. But don't put up with it. It may do nothing to help her (though it may, alternately, help) but you are not responsible to support her un-Christlike behavior. Moreover, you are in the right.
 
I know you said you've already talked to her about it. So, really, what I'm saying, is don't give up -- and perhaps be more firm. The second she crossed the line. "I'm sorry. I'm not going to listen to you complaining. I would love to chat, but it has to be positive." She may storm off mad or cry. She may turn worse or better for it. That's up to her. But you are not her therapist.
 
Alternatively, as you do this, you might consider seeking her out sometimes to initiate conversations that are positive so she knows you love her and can still be your friend if appropriate in her talk.
 
Above all, follow the Spirit. If you feel it directly you exactly opposite of what I'm saying, then don't listen to me at all. Maybe what she needs is just someone to put up with her for a while and it will be her saving grace.
 
Pray for her, literally (I know was say that all the time, but how often do we really, specifically, pray for someone by name this isn't a close friend or family) and that you'll be guided to do as the Lord would have you, and then...go and do. You know, that's much better advice than my first part.
 
Incidentally...referencing D&C 121:43-44 for my thoughts here:
 
"Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;
 
That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death."
 
Incidentally, just in case you've never heard this before: Reprove means to correct. Betimes means quickly. Sharpness means clarity. So in laymen's it reads, "Correct quickly with clarity, when moved upon...."

Can I, as a porn addict, be very, very candid with you? 
 
These things should be discussed with a potential marriage partner; but bear in mind--a person in the clutches of a porn addiction is very likely to simply lie about it.  It's nothing personal against you; and they won't give it a second thought--they've been lying about it, in most cases, for years.  Addicts lie.  It's the nature of the beast.
 
I fully agree with Honor--you need to watch his conduct, not just his words.  How does he treat women generally, and you in particular?  Does he listen to and respect his sisters' and mother's opinion?  Is he open with you about his other failings and/or weaknesses, and does he assume accountability for them?  Does he try to take physical liberties with you--even "small" ones--that he shouldn't?  Is he secretive and withdrawn at times?  Is he prone to depression?  Does he tend to expect instant gratification?
 
I would also note that the best evidence is that the number of males--even LDS males--who have been exposed to porn and have sought it out at one time or another, is ridiculously high.  Now, I'm not saying you should lower your standards in a potential mate at this point--that's between you and the Lord; and if you can find an LDS male untainted by porn and he otherwise meets your criteria in a mate, that's wonderful.  But I would respectfully suggest that the more open a person is about his problem with porn, the more advanced his recovery is as well.  I'd much rather marry a recovering addict, than an addict who was still in denial.

I don't believe getting a "no" answer to that question would provide what you're seeking.  I'd be more concerned with how open someone is to discussing the issue of pornography (including their own personal experiences), and if/how they currently work on improving themselves in all areas of life.  I'm willing to bet that the situations where pornography destroys relationships are where individuals are not willing to admit that it is a problem and/or are unwilling to try to change behavior. Saying they don't struggle with it might also mean that they haven't struggled with it yet.  How someone would approach a personal temptation and their willingness to improve would be much more valuable questions to have answered.  Those questions will probably be best answered through your own observations as you continue to get to know someone than by the words they speak when you ask a question.

I was discussing the money spent on the watch with my wife and she said something that really hit home; although she doesn't think that spending $50k on a watch is practical, nor easily justified, the bigger problem here is telling people how much was spent on the watch. Why else would some one brag up the expense of a watch besides pride in the ability to acquire such an overpriced item?

Jacob 2:18-19. 
 
But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God.
 
And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted.
 

I believe that wealth will come to those who use it wisely in the pursuit of following Christ.
 
Example:  My husband's neighbors growing up were amazing people.  They didn't have money yet they found ways to help others financially and in all other ways.  When I started dating my husband I heard the story more than once of the wife going visiting teaching, finding a household with a broken toaster, going home to get her toaster to give to the family who needed one.  How I learned this was one day I heard "June gave the toaster away again".  The husband was the same.  They quietly and without fanfare served.  They both served at the Ward and Stake level and later in life he served as a temple sealer.
 
Several years ago they became wealthy.... millions and millions wealthy.  And it grew.  Their lifestyle didn't change other than he splurged on a new truck for ranching.  He still wore overalls for work and suits for church work.  When the wife died of cancer he didn't hire nurses, he took care of her himself at home with the help of their daughters.  If you met them on the street you would have no idea they were wealthy.  Their attitudes didn't change and they continued to help those around them, just in bigger yet meaningful ways.
 
There is a scripture about seeking wealth somewhere but I can't think well enough to remember where it is.  The jist is if we seek riches to to the Lord's work we will receive them.  I think this applies to the GAs.

Being financially stable and pursuing wealth and influence are two different things. In the Book of Mormon, the Lord never condemned riches but condemned the attitude of the rich which was to look down to those who were financially poor, think they were better than them and basically show off their riches.
 
 
 
(Jacob 2)
 
Seeking after wealth does not seem to be the problem as long as the person has righteous desires to help the less fortunate. It would be interesting to discuss: How many people truly think about this righteous desire when we are in a position to help others? How many of us deep inside us see the less fortunate just like unto ourselves?
 

So, the only way to be in line with the current Church's stance is to shrug your shoulders and say "I dunno...."? Ignorance and unknowable mystery are the defining traits of Satan's organizations, not God's (Revelation 17:5; Alma 12:10-11).
 
In the earlier days of Utah, the Brethren were very clear as to why the ban was set in place (I won't bother cutting/pasting here, as I don't want to threadjack. You can look up quotes for yourself; they're not hard to find). The recent essay on blacks and the priesthood pins the origin of the priesthood on... well, it wasn't God. The racist tendencies of early Americans (which included Brigham Young, et al.) seems to be the culprit without being explicitly stated as such. In less than 40 years, the Church's official stance on this issue has done almost a complete 180-degree turn, and I guarantee that it hasn't stopped turning yet.
 
When the spirit of man is the driving force for an action and not the spirit of God, then that action has come about by the will and power of man, and not the will and power of God.
 
By the way, your replies (JAG, anatess, and thefolkprophet) emphasize the point I was making. Marion G. Romney, in his remarks, described being in "harmony with the leaders of the Church and the counsel and direction they give" as part of the "full spirit of the gospel". The changing position on blacks and the priesthood (from what it used to be--blacks couldn't hold the priesthood because of the "curse of Cain"--to today) and the ban itself highlights the difficulties that position presents. If the Gospel is eternal and unchanging but Church practices change radically with no reason given from God and no explanation even being attempted by the leaders, then can lockstep obedience with Church leaders really be considered one of the basic requirements of Christ's eternal Gospel? Or is that level of strict obedience one of the hedges we make around the law?

The greatest intellectual I have encountered associated to LDS doctrine is Jesus the Christ. Unfortunately in all my studies of him I have encountered only one short document that could possibly be associated with him as an autograph. I believe that this deserves a short explanation before continuing.
There are two kinds of documents that are considered original documents. The first kind is called an autograph. These are documents written and composed by the originating source. It should be noted that a direct copy of the original, without commentary or translation is considered an original autograph even if it has minor corrections to correct grammar, spelling or other textual errors. However, to be considered and original autograph it must have been created while the originator was still living and in the same language as his (the origonator's) initial account. A document that includes translation (language change) or any literally corrections, commentary, editor, abridgement, or explanation written at the time and place within the culture of the source is called an original autogram. All other documents are considered copies or commentaries and are not considered actual originals. Also note that there are few original copies of scripture in Jewish or Christian literature or the LDS standards works. The closest we have in LDS literature is the Doctrine and Covenants and the published or recorded conference talks. One final note before continuing – I do not accept any church as a true church that does not have access to original source material. Not just among some component of clergy but available to all – This is why I believe prophets are an accentual element of the “True Church”.
Because of the lack of original documents I have often wondered from where one can get true and correct information in order to make an accurate assessment of original intent –specifically concerning the Christ. Joseph Smith made an incredible observation while still in his youth concerning religion. That is – with so many experts and studied theologians coming to so vast and various conclusions and the fact that there are precious little original source in religion – how can any individual come to any accurate and reasonable conclusion concerning their own personal salvation – let alone anyone else’s. This is why I fine the oath and covenant of the Priesthood as written in D&C 84 such a profound witness to the truthfulness of the LDS church.
Thus the access to doctrinal learning is the priesthood. That we may be introduced to ideas by any source – there must be a witness within the priesthood structure before anyone can declare anything to be valid inspiration from G-d. This is to me true intellectualism – the singular witnesses of other non original sources – I see as pseudo intellectualism. If anyone has any other ideas to put forward – I would be most interested to consider.
In quick summary - I can only witness of myself. I find the statement from Christ that the Father bears witness of him to be profound intellectualism. If I speak any truth the Father will bear witness of that truth to anyone seeking truth.

Just to complicate matters: the suffix can also be attached as a superlative rather than a plural. I happen to agree with you on that "Elohim" is intended as a plural in Gen 1:1; but in discussing it with mainline Christians we should bear in mind that it's not a "smoking gun" argument. When most Christians see "Elohim" in Genesis 1:1, they will choose to read "most high god" rather than "gods".

I wonder if early members who thought blacks ought to have the priesthood and the priesthood ban was put in place due to the will of man and not God was out of harmony with the spirit of the Gospel. I guess, if they lived in Brigham Young's day they would be, but if they lived today, they wouldn't.
 
And yet, the Gospel is eternal and unchanging. Hmmmm....

Are you talking about two different things?  Mortal laws vs level of glory.
 
There are laws that if lived while in mortality might qualify one for the Celestial kingdom and I think you are making reference to the lesser law associated with the lesser priesthood when refering to the Law of Moses.  Both of which are a set of laws that were given while here in mortality but that does not suggest they are laws of any given kingdom.  I am not sure how you arrive at that conclusion.  Maybe you could reference where you get the understanding that mortal laws are continued in the kingdoms.
 
Consider this, a person who finds their self in the Telestial Kingdom is one who has a level of glory and is not capable of breaking any law. In other words, a person in the Telestial Kingdom cannot sin.  What "eye for an eye" law could exist for a person who cannot sin? 
 
I don't think any of the "laws" (meaning principles of truth) found in either the Telestial or Terrestrial Kingdoms are different than the ones found in the Celestial Kingdom, only the Celestial Kingdom would have the full set of the laws whereas the lower kingdoms will not have all available to them.

D&C 76: 71 And again, we saw the terrestrial world, and behold and lo, these are they who are of the terrestrial, whose glory differs from that of the church of theFirstborn who have received the fulness of the Father, even as that of themoon differs from the sun in the firmament.
 72 Behold, these are they who died without law;
 73 And also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh;
 74 Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it.
 75 These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men.
 76 These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness.
 77 These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father.
 78 Wherefore, they are bodies terrestrial, and not bodies celestial, and differ in glory as the moon differs from the sun.
 79 These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God.
 80 And now this is the end of the vision which we saw of the terrestrial, that the Lord commanded us to write while we were yet in the Spirit.

Moroni 7 sheds important light on the subject. Angels/"true messengers" have unique tasks to perform. 

If she is righteous I have no doubt angels have ministered to her and continue to do so. She is simply unaware of their presence. When our minds and hearts are right before God then we will see them (Moroni 7:30). The ministering of angels is an outpouring of the Spirit. Those who walk in the spirit hear their words, feel their presence, and know them.   
 
Of course this is just a step on the road of sanctification. Paul clarifies for the Hebrews the importance of looking to the Son of God and not simply angels. It appears the Hebrews were to focused on this subject for he says, "[Christ] being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou are my Son, this day have I begotten thee?" (Hebrews 1:4-5).  He continues to show how the Son is superior to angels. The chapter ends with this interesting comment, "Therefore, angels are only servants - spirits sent to care for people who will inherit salvation." (Heb 1:14 NLT). Then our work is to ensure our inheritance and we will be cared for. 

Amen. I'm puzzled why you're getting any pushback on this thread at all.
 
Alma 5:34: "Yea, he saith: Come unto me and ye shall partake of the fruit of the tree of life; yea, ye shall eat and drink of the bread and the waters of life freely"
 
In my life, I've found that whenever there's a long-term failure to receive the sustaining waters of life, it's because I've forgotten to abide by the basic doctrine of Christ found in 3 Nephi 11:
"32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.
33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.
34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.
35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.
36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.
37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.
38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.
39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them."
 
Thanks for the post, PC.

I used to post here with the profle name Matthew0059. About 4 months ago, I began changing online screen names and information to reflect my actual identity, hence the new account name.
 
I'm excited by the new look and look forward to posting again! It's been... I don't know, 6 months to a year? A long time... I'll be on here and there as I can, between school and work.