Disbelieving the Scriptures.

[applepansy]

In Snow's defense-

He's not posting this to sow dissent, confusion, or corruption. This is in response to a side conversation he and I had on a different thread- I link the two pertinent posts in my first post on this thread. He is trying to prove a point in an honorable way (starting a new thread as opposed to hijacking another); I don't think it's fair to say he's provoking dissent- although, without knowing what spawned this thread, it might be easy to come to that conclusion.

I disagree. Read Snow's response to my response.

applepansy

[pam]

I would believe the story of a talking donkey. The Lord can do anything. To me it would be no different than someone suddenly finding they can speak a language that they have never heard of before.

Balaam had two servants traveling with him. If they had seen the Lord standing in front of them I'm sure as servants they would not dare to open their mouth to their master. However, the donkey would have more of a dramatic impact on the warnings and chastisement that Balaam was to receive.

I have no reason to doubt that Heavenly Father could indeed make this happen.

[Jamie123]

I would believe the story of a talking donkey.

I've often wondered about that story, and in particular who exactly Balaam was. Yes - I agree that he seems to have been a prophet of some description - but he's not given much in the way of introduction. The writer seems to expect us to know already who he is, so I wonder if he perhaps appeared in a lot of other stories, popular at the time, but which have since been lost.

[pam]

Here is a great article from Bruce R. McConkie that sheds a little more light on the man.

LDS.org - New Era Article - The Story of a Prophet’s Madness

[TruthSeekerToo]

I would like to present some modern scriptures that we do not follow. And, yes, it is relevent. To tell someone it is wrong to disbelieve God commands lying, killing, etc but okay to not live other scriptures is a double standard. The scriptures were written FOR US. They are relevent today. I am specifically speaking of the NT, BoM, D&C and prophecies of OT.

*The law of tithing (which is the LOWER law)

D&C 119 1...I require all their surplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop of my church in Zion.

3. And this [meaning the above] shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people.

4 And after that, those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord.

So, problems are that we do not give over all our surplus property FIRST and then be tithed 10% of our ANNUAL interest. The 1828 definition of "interest" is what you have left over after all your bills are paid. Also, this method of tithing eliminated the tithe of the poor and needy because they have no surplus property.

To add to this we see a consequence of not keeping this holy order of consecration/tithing:

D&C 85:3 It is contrary to the will and commandment of God that those who receive not their inheritance by consecration, agreeable to his law, which he has given, that he may tithe his people, to prepare them against the day of vengeance and burning, should have their names enrolled with the people of God.

4 Neither is their genealogy to be kept, or to be had where it may be found on any of the records or history of the church.

*Section 42 of the D&C is where the highest law/Celectial law is given to the saints. It has lots of good stuff in it.

22. Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart and cleave unto her AND NONE ELSE. [monogomy]

30. ....thou wilt remember the poor, and consecrate of thy properties for their support.....

73. And the bishop, also, shall receive his support, or a just renumeration for all his services in the church. [bishop should be supported by the members]

*For baptism the convert is to confess their sins before the congregation before baptism. I have never seen this done in my life. See Moroni 6:2 and D&C 20:37

*Sacrament-the whole church is to kneel down in prayer with the elders. See Moroni 4:2 and D&C

emblem is to be wine distributed in one cup-D&C adds that we need to make it ourselves. See Moroni 5:1 and D&C

Anyway, I'm just curious what peole think about these scriptures-commandments for us.

[pam]

The law of tithing as LDS understand it is explained by a talk given by Elder Earl C. Tingey.

Here is an exerpt:

The doctrine of paying tithing is woven like a tapestry throughout the scriptures. Abraham paid tithing to Melchizedek. The children of Israel were taught to bring their tithes to the Lord. Probably the most quoted scripture on the subject of tithing in the Old Testament is found in Malachi:

“Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.

“Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.”

The amount of tithing we pay is the most perfect and equitable arrangement of which I know. It is one-tenth of our increase. All, from the poorest to the richest, pay the same percentage. Christ taught that principle in the story of the widow’s mite:

“And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.

“And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.

“And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:

“For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.”

All are expected to pay tithing no matter their financial circumstances. The story of the widow's mite is a very strong one.

[Vort]

Anyway, I'm just curious what peole think about these scriptures-commandments for us.

Here is my take.

The scriptures were written FOR US. They are relevent today.

The scriptures were written and given to us for our benefit, but they do not necessarily apply to us. For example, we are given the law of Moses in detail, yet we are not expected to live it; on the contrary, we are to live the higher law.

*The law of tithing (which is the LOWER law)

D&C 119 1...I require all their surplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop of my church in Zion.

3. And this [meaning the above] shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people.

4 And after that, those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord.

So, problems are that we do not give over all our surplus property FIRST and then be tithed 10% of our ANNUAL interest.

There are many problems with your interpretation and application of this scripture. For example:

• My ancestors tithed in exactly this manner. So far as I know, their descendants have always tithed. I have tithed my entire life, since childhood. How exactly do you propose that I should have given over all my surplus property?
• Are you aware that we have modern prophets today who guide us on these issues, and that their teachings are in every case more important than previous instruction given?
• How do you know that the scriptures you quote were not intended specifically for the people at the time it was given? Remember the law of Moses.

The 1828 definition of "interest" is what you have left over after all your bills are paid.

How do you know this? It doesn't sound very plausible to me; frontier people in the early nineteenth century did not live in a debtor society like we do, and typically paid up front. Certainly they had some creditors, as for example with a mortgage, but the idea that if they run up enough "bills" then don't have anything left over, they don't pay tithing, does not sound believable to me.

Also, this method of tithing eliminated the tithe of the poor and needy because they have no surplus property.

Only if we accept your definitional gloss.

To add to this we see a consequence of not keeping this holy order of consecration/tithing:

D&C 85:3 It is contrary to the will and commandment of God that those who receive not their inheritance by consecration, agreeable to his law, which he has given, that he may tithe his people, to prepare them against the day of vengeance and burning, should have their names enrolled with the people of God.

4 Neither is their genealogy to be kept, or to be had where it may be found on any of the records or history of the church.

Did you receive your inheritance by consecration?

*Section 42 of the D&C is where the highest law/Celectial law is given to the saints. It has lots of good stuff in it.

22. Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart and cleave unto her AND NONE ELSE. [monogomy]

If you are married to a second woman, then she too is your wife. So this does not specify nor imply monogamy. That is purely your incorrect gloss.

30. ....thou wilt remember the poor, and consecrate of thy properties for their support.....

How does this not apply today? You have not heard of fast offerings?

73. And the bishop, also, shall receive his support, or a just renumeration for all his services in the church. [bishop should be supported by the members]

Modern bishops do not function in the same way bishops did at that time, so this instruction does not apply today, and will not until the same type of system is again in place.

*For baptism the convert is to confess their sins before the congregation before baptism. I have never seen this done in my life. See Moroni 6:2 and D&C 20:37

Depends on what "confess their sins" means, doesn't it? I have seen a great many fellow Saints stand in testimony meeting and testify how the Lord has atoned for their sins and allowed them to overcome their imperfections, and how they could continue on that path despite their continuing imperfections and sins. How do you know that such does not fulfill the scriptures you cite?

*Sacrament-the whole church is to kneel down in prayer with the elders. See Moroni 4:2 and D&C

The priests kneel. The priests are with the congregation. Thus, the priests kneel with the congregation. Maybe it's your interpretation that's skewed, not our practices.

emblem is to be wine distributed in one cup-D&C adds that we need to make it ourselves. See Moroni 5:1 and D&C

Also adds that it need not be wine. Or do you reject continuing revelation?

If your point is only that practices change, then that point is well-taken. If your point is that we ignore scriptural injunction at our convenience (which is what it sounds like to me), then you are ignoring the facts of how the kingdom of God actually operates and instead insisting on your own model of operation.

[Maxel]

I would like to present some modern scriptures that we do not follow. And, yes, it is relevent. To tell someone it is wrong to disbelieve God commands lying, killing, etc but okay to not live other scriptures is a double standard.

Not really- one has to look at what is actually being said, and the context of the arguments. The idea that Nephi was not ordered to slay Laban has much more dire consequences than not following commandments that are given circumstantially to other people- the idea behind the former refusal of scripture is that the prophets sinfully lie to us in the scriptures; the idea behind the latter is that God's children require different laws at different times.

*The law of tithing (which is the LOWER law)

D&C 119 1...I require all their surplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop of my church in Zion.

3. And this [meaning the above] shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people.

4 And after that, those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord.

So, problems are that we do not give over all our surplus property FIRST and then be tithed 10% of our ANNUAL interest. The 1828 definition of "interest" is what you have left over after all your bills are paid. Also, this method of tithing eliminated the tithe of the poor and needy because they have no surplus property.

You leave out verse 2- I think it's important.

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord, I require all their surplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop of my church in Zion,

2 For the building of mine house, and for the laying of the foundation of Zion and for the priesthood, and for the debts of the Presidency of my Church.

3 And this shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people.

4 And after that, those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord.

It seems that two different laws are given: the first (where all surplus property is given) is to continue until the Lord's house is built, the foundation of Zion is laid, and the debts of the Presidency of the Church are paid. After this happens, the law we find in verse four comes into effect: 1/10th of a person's yearly income. The Church was well established and out of debt early in the 20th century- it seems that the first law was fulfilled, and we are now living under the confines of the second law listed.

To add to this we see a consequence of not keeping this holy order of consecration/tithing:

D&C 85:3 It is contrary to the will and commandment of God that those who receive not their inheritance by consecration, agreeable to his law, which he has given, that he may tithe his people, to prepare them against the day of vengeance and burning, should have their names enrolled with the people of God.

4 Neither is their genealogy to be kept, or to be had where it may be found on any of the records or history of the church.

The section heading gives the scope of D&C 85.

"This section is an extract from a letter of the Prophet to W. W. Phelps, who was living in Independence, Missouri. It was given to answer questions about those saints who had moved to Zion, but who had not received their inheritances according to the established order in the Church." D&C 85, section heading

Nowadays, the established order of the Church is the law of the tithe- the lesser law, as you said.

*Section 42 of the D&C is where the highest law/Celectial law is given to the saints. It has lots of good stuff in it.

22. Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart and cleave unto her AND NONE ELSE. [monogomy]

I don't quite see how an admonishment to love one's wife is a clear indictment against institutional polygamy, in which all of a man's wives- are his wife. This is, I admit, a weak case on my part- but I will add to it in response to your next point.

30. ....thou wilt remember the poor, and consecrate of thy properties for their support.....

73. And the bishop, also, shall receive his support, or a just renumeration for all his services in the church. [bishop should be supported by the members]

This revelation was given in 1831, and was the manner in which the Church was built up during that time- this included the law of consecration (as is mentioned in verse 30). When the saints live the law of consecration, it seems that the bishops are to be supported by the people. However, when the people live the law of tithing, it appears to change- as is evidenced by the fact that we now live the law of tithing, and bishops support themselves. What we see here is an example of a circumstantial (a.k.a. 'conditional') commandment given to a people for an intended purpose for a time. We know that the law of consecration was replaced with the law of tithing later- another example of a conditional commandment.

I would be interested in learning more about this.

*For baptism the convert is to confess their sins before the congregation before baptism. I have never seen this done in my life. See Moroni 6:2 and D&C 20:37

Your listed scriptures support the idea of the person being baptized witnessing that they had repented of their sins; not actually confessing their sins before the congregation. I am under the impression that the person confesses his/her major sins to the bishop (if there are any), who then decides if the person is ready for baptism. If the person is ready, the bishop witnesses such to the congregation- "I have interviewed [enter name here] and found [him/her] worthy of baptism".

*Sacrament-the whole church is to kneel down in prayer with the elders. See Moroni 4:2 and D&C

Moroni 4:2 mentions that the priests administering the sacrament "did kneel down with the church, and pray to the Father in the name of Christ"- yesterday, I saw the priests blessing the sacrament kneel down in the midst of the congregation (who were in reverent prayer) and pray to the Father in the name of Christ. I see no disconnect here.

emblem is to be wine distributed in one cup-D&C adds that we need to make it ourselves. See Moroni 5:1 and D&C

You don't offer sections and verses for the D&C references, and Moroni 5:1 is superseded in importance to us by more recent revelation that I'm having trouble finding... A verse in D&C in which Joseph Smith receives revelation commanding him to use water instead of wine in the sacrament.

Anyway, I'm just curious what peole think about these scriptures-commandments for us.

The law of consecration was not given to us, but to the early Saints of America.

[Vort]

I pretty much agree with what Maxel wrote, except for this:

The law of consecration was not given to us, but to the early Saints of America.

The law of consecration is an eternal law, and is given to us every bit as much as it was given to them. Each of us who has received his/her temple endowment has covenanted to live the law of consecration RIGHT NOW, not just at some nebulous time in the future.

In comparison, we have also covenanted to live the law of chastity. In the early restoration, the law of chastity was understood by many to mean living plural marriage. The fact that we don't currently live plural marriage does not mean we don't live the law of chastity. Similarly, the fact that we don't currently live a united order does not mean we don't live the law of consecration.

[TruthSeekerToo]

Sorry, my blood sugar seems to be low today and I'm shaky and had a hard time finishing my post. That is why it is missing some references.

Vort and Maxel-

With section 119 it is specific to Zion, yes, and to be an example to all the stakes of Zion. Well, Zion is not redeemed or built right now so where does that put us? Do we keep the whole thing or reject it all? Vort, that is great that your ancestors were thus tithed, not many people can say that now. Also, again, since the foundation of Zion has not been established (it is in Missouri and has not been moved) it should still stand. Only those "thus tithed" are to be tithed by the second part which is 10% of annual interest. Here is the reference to the 1828 dictionary. The definition that applies here is 5. Surplus advantage. You can break that down and learn how tithing was done in the OT and early church history to understand that it was after your food and housing was taken out. The reason it was done annually was to see what was leftover. That is fine if you don't want to believe that, but I have done lots of researching and praying about it.

If you are going to say that section 119 is fulfilled or not what we currently live then why is it used to teach tithing and why don't we have a new canonized revelation to the new order of tithing? The wording "and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood" seems to say to me that the whole thing is still in effect-unless it is only speaking to the people living in Zion. If the latter, then we are exempt from the entire law.

Fast offering is different from consecrating to the poor. But that answers my question. People think we are doing what we have been asked.

The widow's mite is a great story. Who has given EVERYTHING? It wasn't required of the widow, she did it anyway. And I have never met a person who has given everything-that would be cool, though.

Yes, I believe in continued revelation. By the mouths of 2 or 3 witnesses is every word established. Sidney Rigdon's calling (one of them) was to prove ALL the revelations by the scriptures already given. That was never done with section 132 which wasn't put in the D&C until 1876 (replacing the Article on Marriage which was monogomy). I have a God-given right to prove everything by the scriptures and the witness of the Spirit. If it doesn't pass the test "we can set it aside."

Joseph Fielding Smith (emphisis mine):

“It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teaching of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by authorities of the church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted”. (Doctrines of Salvation 3:203)

*As for kneeling with the church...they used to do this. They stopped. So my interpretation is in harmony with the early saints. Also, there is a difference between "with" and "in front of." I believe it says what it means.

The revelation that we can substitute the emblems was given because of a specific situation and ironically JS was able to find some wine and use it. I believe the symbolism of wine is very important (this from a girl afraid of alcohol LOL).

D&C 27:2 For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins.

3 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, that you shall not purchase wine neither strong drink of your enemies;

4 Wherefore, you shall partake of none except it is made new among you; yea, in this my Father’s kingdom which shall be built up on the earth.

5 Behold, this is wisdom in me; wherefore, marvel not, for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth...

So, I guess we aren't worthy of sacremental wine until we establish Zion. Obviously wine will be used in Zion if the Lord with drink it with us.

Maxel-you make a very good point about the bishop saying "I have interviewed soandso." This doesn't happen in my ward with convert baptisms-they are interviewed by an elder (district or zone leader?). I only hear this saying in reference to priesthood ordinations. If it did happen, I agree that it would fulfill this injunction. I am going to pay extra close attention to see if they say this for converts!

Yes, the law of consecration was given to the early saints. The whole church fell under condemnation for failing to live it. We are still under condemnation according to Pres Benson. I think it is safe to say we are still in that condition. Until we live the laws we have been given and remember the Book of Mormon we are in big trouble. We failed to redeem Zion and still have to do it. It seems to me we should figure out how to live the higher laws.

I don't believe anything supercedes the words given in Moroni. Why? He was writing to us! He saw us! He knows US! He did not write those words for his own benefit. God commanded him to write them to you and me sitting here on the internet in 2009.

[JohnnyRudick]

I would like to present some modern scriptures that we do not follow. And, yes, it is relevent. To tell someone it is wrong to disbelieve God commands lying, killing, etc but okay to not live other scriptures is a double standard. The scriptures were written FOR US. They are relevent today. I am specifically speaking of the NT, BoM, D&C and prophecies of OT.

*The law of tithing (which is the LOWER law)

D&C 119 1...I require all their surplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop of my church in Zion.

3. And this [meaning the above] shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people.

4 And after that, those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord.

So, problems are that we do not give over all our surplus property FIRST and then be tithed 10% of our ANNUAL interest. The 1828 definition of "interest" is what you have left over after all your bills are paid. Also, this method of tithing eliminated the tithe of the poor and needy because they have no surplus property.

To add to this we see a consequence of not keeping this holy order of consecration/tithing:

D&C 85:3 It is contrary to the will and commandment of God that those who receive not their inheritance by consecration, agreeable to his law, which he has given, that he may tithe his people, to prepare them against the day of vengeance and burning, should have their names enrolled with the people of God.

4 Neither is their genealogy to be kept, or to be had where it may be found on any of the records or history of the church.

*Section 42 of the D&C is where the highest law/Celectial law is given to the saints. It has lots of good stuff in it.

22. Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart and cleave unto her AND NONE ELSE. [monogomy]

30. ....thou wilt remember the poor, and consecrate of thy properties for their support.....

73. And the bishop, also, shall receive his support, or a just renumeration for all his services in the church. [bishop should be supported by the members]

*For baptism the convert is to confess their sins before the congregation before baptism. I have never seen this done in my life. See Moroni 6:2 and D&C 20:37

*Sacrament-the whole church is to kneel down in prayer with the elders. See Moroni 4:2 and D&C

emblem is to be wine distributed in one cup-D&C adds that we need to make it ourselves. See Moroni 5:1 and D&C

Anyway, I'm just curious what peole think about these scriptures-commandments for us.

Funny to see this here.

I brought this up (and a few others) years ago and got into trouble for it.

Good questions;)

Bro. Rudick

[Maxel]

Sorry, my blood sugar seems to be low today and I'm shaky and had a hard time finishing my post. That is why it is missing some references.

No worries.

With section 119 it is specific to Zion, yes, and to be an example to all the stakes of Zion. Well, Zion is not redeemed or built right now so where does that put us? Do we keep the whole thing or reject it all?

Neither. We lean to the prophets to interpret it for us, and search for ourselves. The prophets have clearly laid down the current law of the tithe: 10% of our annual increase. We see this explained in D&C 119, verse 4. Verse 3 indicates that the previous two verses were to continue:

"For the building of mine house, and for the laying of the foundation of Zion and for the priesthood, and for the debts of the Presidency of my Church."

Let's break that down a little bit. I would prefer someone more knowledgeable in history give you a more detailed account, but I will give the bare-bones as I remember it:

"Building of mine house"- Building of the Nauvoo temple. That has been accomplished.

"Laying the foundation of Zion"- I'm hazy as to the exact meaning of this, as I am not a prophet. I assume this is referring to the establishment of the Saints in the Salt Lake Valley- where the Church had a secluded place of its own, where it would be insulated from the evil men who want to use mobocracy to tear it down. There can, of course, be other answers. It's important to remember that the word 'Zion', when the Lord uses it, means more than just the actual location of the future city of Zion, in Missouri.

"for the debts of the Presidency of my Church"- In the "good old days", the Church had to borrow money for its various needs. Circa 1900 the Church was under a crushing amount of debt, but under the encouragement and admonishment of Lorenzo Snow, the Church members gave enough to pull the Church out of debt. Ever since then, it has stayed in the black.

If we use the above interpretation- which is highly plausible- coupled with the simple fact that the prophets are inspired and that the Lord leads this Church, we can be assured that we are currently living under the lesser law of the tithe- therefore, the requirements of living the Law of Consecration are not expected of us at this time.

Also, again, since the foundation of Zion has not been established (it is in Missouri and has not been moved) it should still stand. Only those "thus tithed" are to be tithed by the second part which is 10% of annual interest. Here is the reference to the 1828 dictionary. The definition that applies here is 5. Surplus advantage. You can break that down and learn how tithing was done in the OT and early church history to understand that it was after your food and housing was taken out. The reason it was done annually was to see what was leftover. That is fine if you don't want to believe that, but I have done lots of researching and praying about it.

You have to realize that your entire case rests on two things:

1- A literal rendition of the phrase 'laying the foundation of Zion' as the 'laying of the foundation of the future city of Zion'- there are other ways to (very plausibly) interpret it.

2- The definition of 'interest' being the one found in the 1828 dictionary- I'm not an economist, but the modern-day prophets have interpreted the modern law of the tithe to mean '1/10th of our annual increase'. That works for me, and it makes sense given the wording and context of D&C 119.

One hole I see in your reasoning- and I might be misinterpreting here:

If 10% was taken out of a person's "surplus advantage" (after housing, food, etc.) in a system where very often the tithes were paid in property, and all of a person's surplus property was already given to the Church (v. 1)... How exactly can the surplus be tithed if it is already given to the Lord? The intended result of living the Law of Consecration as found in v. 1 is to keep only what a person needs to subsist and then give all extra to the Church for the building of Zion. How, exactly will a person give more than what they absolutely need, save they will give more than they can absolutely afford and will not have enough to live off of? That immediately requires the Church to turn around and establish a welfare system for the Saints that make themselves needy by following both the Law of Consecration and the law of the tithe as you have explained them.

Does that make sense to you?

If you are going to say that section 119 is fulfilled or not what we currently live then why is it used to teach tithing and why don't we have a new canonized revelation to the new order of tithing?

Or, keeping with the exegesis we have proffered- D&C 119 is the canonized revelation explaining how tithing works.

Fast offering is different from consecrating to the poor. But that answers my question. People think we are doing what we have been asked.

We are doing what we're told by the prophets of God. I submit that therein lies safety.

Yes, I believe in continued revelation. By the mouths of 2 or 3 witnesses is every word established. Sidney Rigdon's calling (one of them) was to prove ALL the revelations by the scriptures already given. That was never done with section 132 which wasn't put in the D&C until 1876 (replacing the Article on Marriage which was monogomy).

Are you hinting at the idea that the prophets aren't inspired and don't give inspired counsel- or, at the least, that D&C 132 was uninspired or meant to cover up the Church's mistake?

The Saints as a body sustain new revelations as doctrine when they are presented in General Conference- there are 12 witnesses (the quorum of the 12 Apostles) that testify of the truthfulness of the doctrine.

I have a God-given right to prove everything by the scriptures and the witness of the Spirit. If it doesn't pass the test "we can set it aside."

When a person argues his/her case by saying "I have the right to do this!" they are walking on shaky ground (logically speaking). I would agree that we have a God-given commandment to do so, though.

Joseph Fielding Smith (emphisis mine):

“It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teaching of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by authorities of the church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted”. (Doctrines of Salvation 3:203)

May I ask where you found this wonderful piece of doctrine? Do you have an internet link, or do you have the Doctrines of Salvation, or do you have some sort of pamphlet with talking points? I'm really interested; not being sarcastic.

I wholeheartedly agree with President Smith. However, I have yet to see how anything you show us is out of line with the canonized scripture, or shows that the Saints are living outside the bounds set by the canonized scripture.

*As for kneeling with the church...they used to do this. They stopped. So my interpretation is in harmony with the early saints. Also, there is a difference between "with" and "in front of." I believe it says what it means.

Quite so, there is a difference between "with" and "in front of". However, when speaking in the context of one person's positional relation to a group, "with" and "in front of" can very easily become synonymous.

I also remind you that the Church and its leaders were not shown the beginning from the end: practices had to evolve (somewhat) to accompany new revelation and practical problems.

The revelation that we can substitute the emblems was given because of a specific situation and ironically JS was able to find some wine and use it.

Can you link that revelation, or cite its source? I still can't find it.

I believe the symbolism of wine is very important (this from a girl afraid of alcohol LOL).

Have you also noticed that the symbolism of water also finds poignancy?

D&C 27:2 For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins.

3 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, that you shall not purchase wine neither strong drink of your enemies;

4 Wherefore, you shall partake of none except it is made new among you; yea, in this my Father’s kingdom which shall be built up on the earth.

5 Behold, this is wisdom in me; wherefore, marvel not, for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth...

So, I guess we aren't worthy of sacremental wine until we establish Zion. Obviously wine will be used in Zion if the Lord with drink it with us.

Perfect. You've answered your own question- we are not worthy of sacramental wine until we establish Zion. You say you're looking for answers- is that one good enough for you?

I could work more with this if I had the revelation commanding Joseph Smith to use water instead of wine- I wish I knew where it was...

Yes, the law of consecration was given to the early saints. The whole church fell under condemnation for failing to live it. We are still under condemnation according to Pres Benson. I think it is safe to say we are still in that condition. Until we live the laws we have been given and remember the Book of Mormon we are in big trouble.

There's the answer to your question: we are under condemnation. I agree with that assessment.

We failed to redeem Zion and still have to do it. It seems to me we should figure out how to live the higher laws.

How, exactly, do you think we should figure that out? Should it be a grassroots uprising where the members return to the rigidity of the word of God, or will it be a decree or series of policies from the leaders of the Church?

I don't believe anything supercedes the words given in Moroni. Why? He was writing to us! He saw us! He knows US! He did not write those words for his own benefit. God commanded him to write them to you and me sitting here on the internet in 2009.

I would say that the prophet Joseph Smith, who actually lived in our time and received revelation pertinent to our individual circumstances, receives the revelation most poignant to our circumstances. If he reveals anything that seems contrary to previous scripture, it is our duty to test that revelation and see if it holds true. I've gained a witness of that.

[TruthSeekerToo]

Here is a reference to the quote from DoS in the book "Black and Mormon" on page 35. It doesn't appear to be an "anti" book so I see no reason to disbelieve it. You could also google it and find it referenced in dozens of places.

And, yes, my answers are good enough for me. I know my answers. I was inquiring about YOUR answers. That was the whole point of this thread, I think.

D&C 27 is the revelation about changing the emblems. Here is the historical background for it. You'll have to scroll down to Section 27. It is Joseph Fielding Smith who explains that wine was still used in those early years interchanged with water and it wasn't until later that water was exlusively used. As to hearing that wine was procurred in this instance I can't recall where I read it. So we'll just go with what the manual says.

As to the polygamy question. Let me just say that the Article on Marriage called for strict monogomy and was canonized. It was accepted by common consent. By so doing the church was under covenant to uphold and live by it. It was there until 1876 when it was replaced by D&C 132. You can draw your own conclusions from that.

Section 119 does not contain any of the law of consecration. Look at the heading-it is the complete law of tithing given to the saints after they failed to live the law of consecration.

After you give all your surplus property you continue to work. You will either grow food, earn money, sell things or whatever. So, the next year you figure out your proper tithe and give it. The year after that you figure out your proper tithe and give it. Does that make more sense?

I don't believe surplus is everything over "subsist" level. I believe a family can determine what is surplus or extra. The D&C does mention our "needs and wants" so I think that is more than just food and shelter-of course it is in D&C 51 law of consecration. Sorry for making it sound that way in my pp.

Edited April 28, 2009 by TruthSeekerToo

[Just_A_Guy]

May I ask where you found this wonderful piece of doctrine? Do you have an internet link, or do you have the Doctrines of Salvation, or do you have some sort of pamphlet with talking points? I'm really interested; not being sarcastic.

Maxel, may I recommend that you invest in GospeLink? I got the 2001 version on CD-ROM sometime ago, and it has been invaluable.

[Moksha]

Please provide scriptural examples of God ordering rape.

From Judges 21 "They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife...

They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance.

-------------------

From Numbers 31:7-18 "They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at MountPeor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."

[TruthSeekerToo]

Sorry, I just found a really good example. Could someone please explain this, because I find it really hard to understand.

Luke 14: 26

26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

On the other hand we have:

3 Nephi 12

43 And behold it is written also, that thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy;

44 But behold I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them who despitefully use you and persecute you;

A bunch more references to loving here.

Matt. 19: 19

19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Matt. 22: 39

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Mark 12: 31

31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

In one scripture Jesus is telling us that we are not worthy to be his disciples unless we hate an awful lot of people. In all the other scriptures he is says to love everyone including our enemies.

It appears that we have to reject the literal rendition of one or the other....

Edited April 28, 2009 by TruthSeekerToo

[JohnnyRudick]

From Judges 21 "They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife...

They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance.

-------------------

From Numbers 31:7-18 "They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at MountPeor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."

God had His reasons for ordering that in that day.

I believe it to be true.

But we cannot use that account to justify going out and capturing a virgin bride from the Gentiles:eek:

Right:rolleyes:

Ecclesiastes 3:1 To every thing there is a season, and a time

to every purpose under the heaven: . . .

Bro. Rudick

[Maxel]

From Judges 21 "They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife...

They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance.

-------------------

From Numbers 31:7-18 "They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at MountPeor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."

Kidnapping... Kidnapping and war... where's the rape being commanded by God? I see the commandment to take the women home to wed- but nothing condoning or commanding rape.

[Snow]

That might be his purpose for using the word "sick". I wouldn't have said it that way myself. And I completely understand why you took offense to it.

I was just addressing the difference between "You are sick" and "Your attitude is sick". This difference is universal and does not just apply to a 2 year old. It is applicable from toddlers, to the workplace, to professional debate.

I understand the theoretical difference but, as I said, the difference is insignificant because the posters intent was simply to marginalize me/my opinion - I certainly don't take offense to it however. Most people on the internet do not have much power to offend me. I simply point it out since it was useful in rebutting the poster in question.

I did not say that it was AUTHORED to be taken as an entirety. It definitely was not. But as a divinely inspired book, its compilation with the required companion of the Book of Mormon and modern revelation is to be read as an entire set and not just line upon line, chapter upon chapter.

Sure - all scripture ought be studies but one does not have to read all scripture in order to understand specific parts. The Gospel of Mark is (or is supposed to be) true, all by itself, regardless of what anybody else wrote. Here I confine my remarks to those parts of Mark that the original author of wrote and not those parts of Mark that were later added fraudulently.

And you're still talking about it like a science textbook.

I don't know what you are talking about - I haven't even addressed the scientific errors in the Bible. I am just pointing out parts of the Bible that some people do not beleive - for example when the NT says that divorce is not permitted unless of adultery and that if someone divorce his spouse for something other than sexual infidelity and then remarry - that remarried person themselves commits adultery... most people do not believe it... Brigham Young certainly did not believe it. Science has nothing to do with it.

Okay, I'll give you an example of what I mean. In the book of Genesis, God created the earth in 6 days with man right there at the end of the week. If that was to be taken as is, without the benefit of scripture as an entirety, you can just forget any scientific discovery of natural evolution and throw Darwin out as a nutcase. But we all know that Joseph Smith, in the restoration of the gospel, has clearly stated that modern science still coincide with the book of Genesis in such that all of the laws of nature are God's laws and everything evolves according to God's purpose.

Of course JS knew nothing of Darwinism but that is beside the point. There may be some who do not believe what the Bible says about creation. If there are such people, are those to whom the topic of this thread applies.

Did the author of Genesis intend for it to be read in conjunction with Joseph Smith's revelations? I didn't think so.

Because, I might be wrong, but I highly doubt that a Spiritual study of the scriptures will lead you to throw out verses ala carte and title your post "disbelieving the Scriptures".

This thread is not necessarily about what I believe - perhaps I believe that women are to remain silent in Church and cover their heads while praying - I didn't give my opinion. This is about what some people reject in scripture.

[Maxel]

Luke 14: 26

26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Checking the footnotes here is enlightening, as is looking over the JST:

-The footnote for the word "hate" references Matthew 10:37, which reads:

"He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

The JST of Luke 14:26 reads (with the JST in italics):

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, or husband, yea and his own life also; or in other words, is afraid to lay down his life for my sake; cannot be my disciple."

It is clear that by "hate" in Luke 14:26, we are to understand that we are to "hate" our families and selves more than we "hate" Christ- in other words, we are to love Christ above our own families and lives.

When we couple this with 3 Nephi 12 and other commandments from Christ to 'love our neighbor' and 'honor our parents', etc., it is clear that we are to love our families and selves- but to love Christ even more.

It appears that we have to reject the literal rendition of one or the other....

That's the thing: we can't take everything in scripture at face-value- the scriptures are meant to be pondered, studied, and prayed over.

[Snow]

This is an old argument. There is the text and the context. The biblical references relate to a very specific subject and circumstances. I am away from my home computer today and too late and too tired to respond to Snow's argument point by point but I'll try some:

Corinth was a port city with a long history of lascivious and lewd practices. The Apostle Paul is providing counsel of how Christian men and women are to be different in dress, appearance and behavior.

Imagine a forcing a Tongan man to wear western style pants to go to church. They wear a tupenu (looks like a skirt) and that is fine in Tonga. The counsel for us in California, for example, to wear slacks to officiate in the priesthood does not constitute a condemnation of the dress code in Tonga.

That's certainly a creative answer - the women of Corinth were cover their heads while praying and men were created for God's glory but women elsewhere didn't need to cover their head, and men were created for some purpose other than God's glory. Timothy or Timothy's bishop was to be married to one woman but apparently other bishops were free to be single or take plural wives

As far as some of the rest, do some research about what the word translated "glory" could mean in the Greek original, for example. You must study the context of the passages in question and their meaning:

Apparently YOU haven't researched the word else you would have explained. I, on the other had have:

Doxa - NAS Greek Lexicon

... and it doesn't change anything. The scripture says what the scripture says.

"to live by the sword" means to resort to violence to solve problems or establish authority. In the course of such lifestyle you are likely also to die by the sword...in sum, without detail and dedicated study of these scriptures you may never truly understand them.

Well - No. That is, in fact, not what the scripture says. The scripture says "ALL" not some or most or "likely." Apparently you do not agree with the verse - which is the point of this thread - in that you are changing it in order to suit your desired understanding.

[Snow]

How can you read tone Connie???? that seems your perception......

She is not incorrect. I am often condescending with certain types of posters... usually it is with those that are arrogant - and factually mistaken, or dogmatic and irrational, or whiny, etc.

[Maxel]

And, yes, my answers are good enough for me. I know my answers. I was inquiring about YOUR answers. That was the whole point of this thread, I think.

No- the point of this thread was to find scriptures that I (and/or the community at large) dismiss as uninspired, etc. You can find the history of what sparked this in the thread I linked in my first post.

D&C 27 is the revelation about changing the emblems. Here is the historical background for it. You'll have to scroll down to Section 27. It is Joseph Fielding Smith who explains that wine was still used in those early years interchanged with water and it wasn't until later that water was exlusively used. As to hearing that wine was procurred in this instance I can't recall where I read it. So we'll just go with what the manual says.

So, how is this an example- even when we take Moroni's words into account, and D&C 89 condoning sacramental wine- of rejecting scripture?

As to the polygamy question. Let me just say that the Article on Marriage called for strict monogomy and was canonized. It was accepted by common consent. By so doing the church was under covenant to uphold and live by it. It was there until 1876 when it was replaced by D&C 132. You can draw your own conclusions from that.

I wasn't aware about the Article on Marriage, and I can guarantee I'll look into that. However, I have received revelation that the early act of polygamy was indeed commanded by God- the conclusion I draw from the preceding evidence is that the Church follows the commandments of God, and that the commandments of God change. I have a more developed opinion on this particular matter, but I don't share that for personal reasons.

After you give all your surplus property you continue to work. You will either grow food, earn money, sell things or whatever. So, the next year you figure out your proper tithe and give it. The year after that you figure out your proper tithe and give it. Does that make more sense?

Yes.

I don't believe surplus is everything over "subsist" level. I believe a family can determine what is surplus or extra. The D&C does mention our "needs and wants" so I think that is more than just food and shelter-of course it is in D&C 51 law of consecration. Sorry for making it sound that way in my pp.

Well, that makes more sense.

[Snow]

But is that not one of the points Snow? Many would take that scripture they way it is published as literal. Many would take and use it to show that someone of old said and meant woman are inferior. Which is hardly the case.

I think it is, yes, specifically the case. Some authors of ancient scripture considered women to be inferior.... not Paul however, despite what some of his epistles say... but that is a topic of a future thread.

[Maxel]

She is not incorrect. I am often condescending with certain types of posters... usually it is with those that are arrogant - and factually mistaken, or dogmatic and irrational, or whiny, etc.

So, in your opinion, everyone.

What do you think of my explanation of the proffered scriptures?