laronius

The United Orders practiced in Utah seem to be more of a hybrid of the law of consecration. The actual Revelations pertaining to the law of consecration specifically state: "every man shall be made accountable unto me, a steward over his own property." (D&C 42:32) It seems like I read somewhere that the full law of consecration that the Lord set forth was never fully implemented in Missouri or Utah though I guess we could say that they did try to live the spirit of it if not the letter.

Personal property rights and ownership are not eliminated under the law of consecration. They are in fact a vital part of it. Whenever something such as land was given back to an individual it was in fact deeded to them. Without ownership the law of consecration ceases to be operative as no one any longer has ultimate say over their property.

@Jonah I'll take my life here in mortality over your version of heaven any day.

And yet by sweeping the beam from side to side even just a little will allow you to hit an infinite number of trees. Maybe the point is to just keep moving. 😀

Clearly the Lord is going to use the current circumstances to His advantage as He always does and I sincerely hope your family is blessed because if it. Though it is still not the ideal for most members so take advantage of it while it is here. But even when it ends do not lose hope that the Lord can reach them individually. He knows them better than anyone and knows what it will take to turn their hearts.

I'll be blunt. If your goal is to learn whether the things the missionaries are sharing with you are true then you need to change how you are going about it. I'm sure the missionaries have already explained how we gain a testimony. The experiences of others, even if true, are not a suitable substitute for gaining a witness yourself through the Holy Ghost.

Little children who died before the age of accountability don't need to be baptized. So it's possible that the Holy Ghost also doesn't need to be baptized unless there is some scenario where it is requisite for him also to "fulfill all righteousness" like it was with Jesus. But I do believe that Joseph Smith did say that at some point he would be an exalted being with a body. But that in and of itself does not automatically necessitate baptism. There is much we do not know in this regard.

I am reminded of the story of Jacob and Esau. Esau was the heir but apparently considered his birthright of little value and sold it to Jacob who obviously valued it. Christ is also heir to all that the Father hath and while he is not looking to sell it he is allowing all of us to be joint heirs with him. This offer is extended to all of us as God's children. The only question is how much do we value it? Because in a sense it's already ours, we just have to do what it takes to keep it and not sell it for whatever the world offers.

My thought as I read it this morning was that the people had gathered from across the land. Maybe there was a "conference" or something that Nephi had called them together for and they were all conversing about what had taken place in their part of the land. This is a possible explanation as to why they still seemed amazed so many months after the fact. You do make a good point about who was speaking. I hadn't considered that before. Was that the difference? I don't know but it's something interesting to think about.

I think a key element in all this is knowledge. To the degree knowledge is lacking so is agency and yet we are required to make choices all the time with incomplete knowledge. But this is a saving grace for us as it is far worse to screw up knowing verses only believing or only knowing in part. We are familiar with the doctrine that we cannot be saved in ignorance. It can likewise be said that we cannot be damned in ignorance as well. Sons of perdition have lost this excuse because they really do KNOW and still reject it.

I don't know that I have any answers but I do have some thoughts I think are relevant. First off, I don't think God would ever deny one of His children the chance to progress if they are willing to whether it be in this life or a billion years from now. But the question is will they want to (speaking of those in the lower kingdoms). We existed for however many eons of time before coming to this earth and I think our trajectory was already pretty well defined by then. Though perhaps this life could act as a "scared straight" experience for some. But when we consider that our ultimate destination is truly of our own choosing and that choosing took place over who knows how long of time it makes me wonder what could happen in the eternities that would all of a sudden make someone say "okay, now I'm willing to live a higher law." There is so much that hasn't been revealed like what will the inhabitants of the lower kingdoms be doing with their time? I don't know. We do know they will be happy with their allotment and perhaps that will breed contentment. But if progress between kingdoms was a real thing it would be a truth that would work against God's purposes in this life.

I always just assumed it meant those on the surface.

I was amazed by how many ward members have attended church since we recently started back who normally didn't come back before we stopped going. Who would have thought that the Church, in a sense, "shutting down" could actually bring members back or in your case potentially increase exposure to. I'm glad to hear about the silver linings in all this.

We've had a decent showing the few weeks we've been back. But it is a little weird because so much of our church experience is social and with that aspect being limited it does not feel like the full experience where as being at home I don't expect it. So I think it just comes down to expectations. Just appreciate it for what it is.

It depends on the context. From a literal perspective it is true that we are all children of God. But figuratively when a person is born again spiritually they become the sons and daughters of God in a way that others aren't.

Please provide some context. Where do you think it says "only" they are? My response would vary depending on that.

Just to be clear, from what I've read the bill does not create the standard but rather broadens an existing law that only applies to heterosexual type activities to now include homosexual type activities. The argument being the LGBTQ community was being adversely affected by the previous law which is true. The problem is that the original law was absurd to begin with. I totally get the desire for allowing judges to have some discretion as not every case is the same but the 10 year age difference part is just crazy. It's one thing to extend some leniency to an 18/19 year old having relations with a 16/17 year old but 24 and 14??? That's just crazy!

I have not as of yet come to a firm conclusion in my beliefs of how much government has a right to regulate on issues such as this. It's the dilemma caused by a form of government that requires a moral people to function properly but who's people are quickly losing said morals. Concerning the gay marriage issue (which I think is relevant) Pres Hinckley said: “Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality. Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family. We believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out."

I couldn't agree more. It's the acting vs waiting to be acted upon principle. I've done both and without a doubt when I change my mindset to be outward focused instead of inward my church going experience is totally different.

I could go all week without seeing another person and be fine with it. That's just my personality. But even for me when I go to church and associate with people of faith and other admirable qualities I can't help but be uplifted. I get your emphasis on living the gospel in the home. We are living in a day where if that is not happening then all the church in the world won't be enough. But that time spent in worship together can make all the difference in the world for some people and I hope I can be a part of that. Could I go the rest of my life only worshipping at home? I would like to think I could. But life would not be nearly so full and enjoyable without those relationships with fellow saints.

We don't believe in multiple mortal probations. It is not taught in our scriptures or by any of our prophets and anyone teaching such a doctrine is not who you should be listening to to understand our doctrine. Here is how we are reaching out to the nation of Israel: we teach the fullness of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. Sadly, as scriptural prophecy indicates they will not embrace the truth as a nation until He comes again and saves them from their enemies.

@priesthoodpower your argument is totally nonsensical. You clearly have a burr under your saddle but all this just sounds like excuses.

Not necessarily related to the thread but this verse kind of made me step back and look at things a little bit different. For the righteous, when they die, they enter into paradise. And while they are probably still concerned about us they live without all the chaos and tumult that surrounds us here in this life. It's almost like we exist in this tiny snow globe in space that is constantly getting shaken up whilst peace reigns throughout the rest of the universe. Oh how that must be nice! 🙄 Okay, back to reality.

Haha. Another related discussion: divine nature vs divine nurture. Is that J Golden Kimball's excuse? 🤔😆

What you are describing sounds like to me to be different manifestations of the same type of personality or quality. But as I've thought about this question a little more I am starting to shift my thinking about something. While I still believe we can ultimately become perfect in many ways regarding our qualities I am wondering if there are not some things for which there is no "perfect" standard. Let's take humor for example. Can we really say someone with a dry sense of humor is better or worse than someone who loves knock knock jokes? I guess someone could develop both but that doesn't mean they don't have a preference. Same thing with interests. While we can become knowledgeable in all things I we can still prefer to spend time with some aspect of creation over another. So I guess we need to differentiate between ability and preference as well as things for which there is a wrong and right and where there isn't. Perhaps that is where personality is manifested by perfect beings.