zil

I admit I don’t often get up and share my testimony in Fast and Testimony Meeting. But, when I do share my testimony whether in Fast and Testimony Meeting, or in a Primary lesson, Sunday School lesson, or Relief Society lesson, I feel the responsibility that is on my shoulders. My responsibility is to teach or share with the Spirit, and to help my fellow members and/or investigators feel that Spirit. Because I do have a testimony and have felt the Spirit testify to me of the truthfulness of the gospel I feel I will have let my Savior down if I don’t testify. So, I will use the terminology “I know”, or “I testify in the name of Jesus Christ that ...”. And then I try to clarify why I know. I feel because I do know, I need to help those who are struggling. I want them to learn for themselves and know without a doubt so that when trials come their way, they have an anchor to hold on to. If they don’t know for themselves, when a a pivotal point comes in their life I hope they might remember me, Sister Classylady, and remember she knew! I hope they can hold onto my knowledge until they get their own. This is a responsibility I feel very strongly about. 

Actually, I pointed out the demonstrable fact that you called those who use the phrase self-righteous liars.  Then I pointed out that you don't know what's in another person's head1, and therefore cannot accurately make that claim.
1Unless you're claiming God revealed to you what's in everyone else's head, or claiming to have telepathy and to have read everyone else's mind.
If you don't like the phrase, grand, say you don't like the phrase.  But you didn't stop there, you went on to accuse those who use it of being self-righteous liars:
Yes, your first sentence is about the incidence of using the phrase, not the people, but the rest is accusing the people who use it.

Nonsense.  I know beyond any doubt whatsoever that potato chips are bad for my health.  I still eat them.  The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.  (Potato chips are one example in a bazillion where people fall short of acting in harmony with what they know.)
You don't avoid it because you know; you avoid it because it hurts.  If I got third degree burns every time I ate a potato chip, I wouldn't have finished the first one.
And you know what's in their heads and hearts, so it's your right to judge, huh?  You have no idea what's in another person's head or heart, what they know or don't know, how they know it, or how hard or easy it is for them to act in harmony with what they know.  Try a bit of charity and let them choose their own words and stop accusing them of lying (which is basically what your post did).  Some may be liars, some may be using the word differently from how you would use it, but for all you know, some of them are telling the truth.

The part of that links to verses 2 & 3 quotes Elder Orson F. Whitney ... Conference Report, Apr. 1931, pp. 65–66, who appears to disagree with you.  Personally, I'll take the scripture over Elder Whitney.  (Hugh Nibley also thought that tithing would continue to be required under the Law of Consecration, and that living both was really the only way to properly live the law of tithing - he said something to the effect that giving a 10th of your excess really wasn't much of a sacrifice.  Pretty sure this was all in Approaching Zion, which the Maxwell Institute no longer offer online.)
 

Actually, I pointed out the demonstrable fact that you called those who use the phrase self-righteous liars.  Then I pointed out that you don't know what's in another person's head1, and therefore cannot accurately make that claim.
1Unless you're claiming God revealed to you what's in everyone else's head, or claiming to have telepathy and to have read everyone else's mind.
If you don't like the phrase, grand, say you don't like the phrase.  But you didn't stop there, you went on to accuse those who use it of being self-righteous liars:
Yes, your first sentence is about the incidence of using the phrase, not the people, but the rest is accusing the people who use it.

Nonsense.  I know beyond any doubt whatsoever that potato chips are bad for my health.  I still eat them.  The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.  (Potato chips are one example in a bazillion where people fall short of acting in harmony with what they know.)
You don't avoid it because you know; you avoid it because it hurts.  If I got third degree burns every time I ate a potato chip, I wouldn't have finished the first one.
And you know what's in their heads and hearts, so it's your right to judge, huh?  You have no idea what's in another person's head or heart, what they know or don't know, how they know it, or how hard or easy it is for them to act in harmony with what they know.  Try a bit of charity and let them choose their own words and stop accusing them of lying (which is basically what your post did).  Some may be liars, some may be using the word differently from how you would use it, but for all you know, some of them are telling the truth.

Actually, I pointed out the demonstrable fact that you called those who use the phrase self-righteous liars.  Then I pointed out that you don't know what's in another person's head1, and therefore cannot accurately make that claim.
1Unless you're claiming God revealed to you what's in everyone else's head, or claiming to have telepathy and to have read everyone else's mind.
If you don't like the phrase, grand, say you don't like the phrase.  But you didn't stop there, you went on to accuse those who use it of being self-righteous liars:
Yes, your first sentence is about the incidence of using the phrase, not the people, but the rest is accusing the people who use it.

Nonsense.  I know beyond any doubt whatsoever that potato chips are bad for my health.  I still eat them.  The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.  (Potato chips are one example in a bazillion where people fall short of acting in harmony with what they know.)
You don't avoid it because you know; you avoid it because it hurts.  If I got third degree burns every time I ate a potato chip, I wouldn't have finished the first one.
And you know what's in their heads and hearts, so it's your right to judge, huh?  You have no idea what's in another person's head or heart, what they know or don't know, how they know it, or how hard or easy it is for them to act in harmony with what they know.  Try a bit of charity and let them choose their own words and stop accusing them of lying (which is basically what your post did).  Some may be liars, some may be using the word differently from how you would use it, but for all you know, some of them are telling the truth.

Actually, I pointed out the demonstrable fact that you called those who use the phrase self-righteous liars.  Then I pointed out that you don't know what's in another person's head1, and therefore cannot accurately make that claim.
1Unless you're claiming God revealed to you what's in everyone else's head, or claiming to have telepathy and to have read everyone else's mind.
If you don't like the phrase, grand, say you don't like the phrase.  But you didn't stop there, you went on to accuse those who use it of being self-righteous liars:
Yes, your first sentence is about the incidence of using the phrase, not the people, but the rest is accusing the people who use it.

Nonsense.  I know beyond any doubt whatsoever that potato chips are bad for my health.  I still eat them.  The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.  (Potato chips are one example in a bazillion where people fall short of acting in harmony with what they know.)
You don't avoid it because you know; you avoid it because it hurts.  If I got third degree burns every time I ate a potato chip, I wouldn't have finished the first one.
And you know what's in their heads and hearts, so it's your right to judge, huh?  You have no idea what's in another person's head or heart, what they know or don't know, how they know it, or how hard or easy it is for them to act in harmony with what they know.  Try a bit of charity and let them choose their own words and stop accusing them of lying (which is basically what your post did).  Some may be liars, some may be using the word differently from how you would use it, but for all you know, some of them are telling the truth.

Pretty sure I don't own leather-soled shoes.  No passport either.  Sigh.  Thwarted by technicalities.
Stonehenge!  Aren't you paying attention?  :SMH:

Yes.  This is my perception as well.  (And it matches what Nibley explained.  Not that Nibley is a reason to believe it - the scriptures are the reason - but he does a good job of explaining why he thinks this is the way, and I've never been able to find a way to refute his conclusions.)

Nonsense.  I know beyond any doubt whatsoever that potato chips are bad for my health.  I still eat them.  The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.  (Potato chips are one example in a bazillion where people fall short of acting in harmony with what they know.)
You don't avoid it because you know; you avoid it because it hurts.  If I got third degree burns every time I ate a potato chip, I wouldn't have finished the first one.
And you know what's in their heads and hearts, so it's your right to judge, huh?  You have no idea what's in another person's head or heart, what they know or don't know, how they know it, or how hard or easy it is for them to act in harmony with what they know.  Try a bit of charity and let them choose their own words and stop accusing them of lying (which is basically what your post did).  Some may be liars, some may be using the word differently from how you would use it, but for all you know, some of them are telling the truth.

Absolutely. But until we live an economic system where we freely give all we have, we still live the law of consecration. If you have been through the temple, then your possessions are not yours at all. Your time is not yours. Even your very talents are not yours. They are consecrated to the building up of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
In my understanding, this is perfectly clear. It means that if your bishop asks you to deed over your house to the Church, you do so. If the Church asks you to leave your family and serve a mission abroad, you do so. If you are required to stand up in a den of hateful enemies and preach the good news of Christ to hostiles who want to burn you at the stake, you do so. Why? Because you have covenanted to live the law of consecration. You are consecrated. All of your efforts, without exception, are meant to further the work for which you have pledged yourself and all of your abilities and means.
None of that depends on living the (or a) United Order. All of it is exactly as open to you to do today as it is to any exalted being. Of course, you haven't the ability or the opportunity to live the law of consecration to the extent they do—but you can still live it, and you're still under covenant to do so.
I have made a practice of carefully distinguishing between the fundamental law of consecration and the implementation known in the early Church as "the United Order". Early Saints were not so careful to make that distinction. Apparently, neither was Elder Hales. But that doesn't mean the distinction does not exist; it most surely does.
I believe this is inescapable. I also think it will be a great joy to us when we can finally shed the trappings of how we must live now and live a more celestial order.
I think it's much more direct than this. Assuming we use money in transactions, under a United Order, we would give a regular (probably annual) accounting of our business dealings, wherein we "show the books" and determine what our increase has been. During this time period, or perhaps at the accounting, we count out a tenth of that increase and give it to the bishop to use in his storehouse. The remainder is under the bishop's control, of course, but most likely the bishop returns most of it to us, to use in our stewardship following the principle of the stewards and the talents. if we have been profitable in our stewardship, perhaps some of our increase will go to help our brothers and sisters elsewhere. if we need more means to fulfill our duties, perhaps the bishop will reassign funds from others to us. That's all at the bishop's discretion. But the principle of tithing lives on forever, and whatever our increase, in whatever form it takes, a tenth always, always, always goes to the bishop for use in his storehouse.
That's my understanding of things, at least.
Good night, my friend. Thanks for the conversation.

Far be it from me to argue with an apostle. If you feel you have to choose between him or me, the choice is obvious.
But I think Elder Hales' words fit just fine into what I said, as long as you recognize his usage of "the higher law of consecration" (certainly not a scriptural usage of any kind) as meaning "the United Order". In this reading, what Elder Hales said is that the United Order (what he called "the higher law of consecration") was commanded, then withdrawn as a commandment. This is plain historical fact, one that I certainly don't dispute. But the actual fundamental law of consecration is absolutely central to the gospel. It was not, indeed cannot be, withdrawn, ever.
And while Elder Hales also mentioned tithing as a "preparatory law", that neither means nor even implies that that's all it is. I see no reason that the law of tithing could not fully exist even in a United Order-style economy. I see that @zil says that Nibley taught this in Approaching Zion, which to my shame I must admit I've never read. But I expect Nibley's take on the matter is similar to my own.
The law of tithing is an eternal law. This cannot be disputed by any Latter-day Saint who believes the scriptures. And the use of the term "law of consecration" as a synonym for "United Order" seems to be plain historical fact. Surely no apostle or temple president would seriously argue that we are not under temple covenant to live the law of consecration, right now, today, exactly as we are, without any hint of any united order in place.

The part of that links to verses 2 & 3 quotes Elder Orson F. Whitney ... Conference Report, Apr. 1931, pp. 65–66, who appears to disagree with you.  Personally, I'll take the scripture over Elder Whitney.  (Hugh Nibley also thought that tithing would continue to be required under the Law of Consecration, and that living both was really the only way to properly live the law of tithing - he said something to the effect that giving a 10th of your excess really wasn't much of a sacrifice.  Pretty sure this was all in Approaching Zion, which the Maxwell Institute no longer offer online.)
 

Whoa!  Dude, this is totally cool.  I've always wanted to be able to do this.  Excuse me a moment while I put on my shoes and a jacket.....
OK, ready.  Ahem.  Here we go.  Wait, will I need a passport?  Meh, I'll just bring a bunch of cash.  Hang on, back in a sec.......
OK, now ready.  <clears throat again>  Wish me luck.  "The plates of Ether." . . . . .  Dude!  Nothing happened.  No boom.  I'm still on the couch.  This sucks.  If we were on facebook, I'd unfriend you!

I get this way when I'm in that S.A.D. phase.  I don't know if this is the same problem with your fatigue.  I don't just experience it on Sacrament Meeting though.  I experience it every single day.  So, I think the issue with it coming up on Sacrament Meeting is that it has become a trigger.  I'm thinking, the best way to deal with it (in addition to dealing with the bigger issue of energy drain) is to remove the trigger - try spending the 12 hours before Church sleeping, relaxing, walking (maximize sunlight and negative ions absorption).  Then eat a bowl of oatmeal with bananas and an egg and drink as much water as you can handle.  Avoid sugary anything (donuts, sugar cereals, pop tarts, store-bought fruit juice, etc).  Get dressed and go to Church with a mindset that this is gonna be the day that you're going to put a smile on your face and focus for 2 hours.
Let us know how it goes whatever you decide to do.

Are you from the future?

Does it always rain in your world?

It's appropriate to cut a body down after its been hanging a certain amount of time

Really, really old.

We enjoy comics at our home. Here is a glance at a new one that we look forward to seeing someday:

Question: @GaleG is your account actually authored by Jim, @theplains? 

Question: @theplains, 'Jim', are you the actual person behind the @GaleG account?

We read in the CTR Primary Manual: