Betzz wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Betzz wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
[b]
But neither me, you, OR the Church can prove that God considers the Book of Mormon to be of higher import than the Bible...and that overrules individual belief.



And you can't prove that it thinks the bible is above any other.


But it says alot when they call one the "keystone" of our religion.

It says more when your apostles call the Bible the foundation of the latter day gospel. A keystone rests on the foundation. Capiche, Guiuseppe?

No, a Keystone rests in a doorway archway, a Cornerstone rests on the foundation dar dar.

A keystone can also mean "something on which associated things depend". We are talking philosophy here, not a building.


So the Book of Mormon is something we depend on for our doctrine, same diff, big whoop.

You truly are an idiot. If it is not a big deal (or whoop) why are you harassing Kitkat over it?

His BIG WHOOP is being nasty and rude to all of the posters. If they do not AGREE with him, they are a target for his vile posts.
JMO

Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:that bishops (as well as elders and high priests who assist these bishops) are to receive a just remuneration for all their services.

"The priests and elders shall have their stewardships, even as the members.

And the elders or high priests who are appointed to assist the bishop as counselors in all things, are to have their families supported out of the property which is consecrated to the bishop, for
The Doctrine and Covenants 42:70-73 states the good of the poor, and for other purposes, as before mentioned.

Or they are to receive a just renumeration for all their services, either a stewardship or otherwise, as may be thought best or decided by the counselors and bishop.

And the bishop, also, shall receive his support, or a just remuneration for all his services in the Church."
?


Oh Brother Jaye, another example of you not being in bed far enough, and misunderstanding simple scriptures.


These versus in the D&C were talking about a time during when the law of consecration was inacted.


It also shows your claim that the church "hid" that the people in the church were paid to be false, this was written in 1831 DOH!

I also find it interesting that Joseph Smith implemented the Law of Consecration right about at a time when he and his wife were so poor that they lived with a group of about 50 people known as "the family" living on Isaac Morley's farm near Kirtland, Ohio. They had established a cooperative venture based on statements in the Book of Acts 2:44-45; & Acts 4:32.

Convenient timing...that the Lord would command that the members of the Church pay support for the leadership of the Church.


Yes, and typical of you to consider it not a command, when it clearly was according to scripture. Typical

Interesting response. I'll remember that next time you take issue with my use of homemade wine for sacrament...which was scriptural, doctrinal and a commandment from the Lord.

Beyond that...I never said that it WASN'T a commandment.

Just supposing it WAS a commandment...and the Lord commanded such a thing as an everlasting principle...to be carried on until He returned to reign on the earth...I find it revealing that the Saints abandoned it so very quickly.

Someday it will be an everlasting principle, the saints couldn't live it, maybe it was to prepare us for the knowing what will be expected of us in the future, would you give all you had to the church Jaye? Doubt it.


The fact is, it was done away with, so the payment system to Bishops went away with it,

That you cannot grasp this and ask why they did away with the paytment system shows you don't understand the concept, nor continuing revelation, course you don't believe that either.

As I have said before...the concept of continuing revelation has often been used as a convenient excuse when the Church has changed policies of doctrine due to outside pressuring.

The remuneration of clergy was a doctrinal COMMANDMENT. The Lord stated that it was an EVERLASTING PRINCIPLE.

What part of that don't YOU understand?

When the Lord says that His commandment WILL be implemented and obeyed until the time He returns...this is PRECISELY what He intends.

The city of Enoch lived the law of consecration, and became so perfected as a people that they were translated.

The early Christians continued under the law of consecration even under the constant persecution and martyrdom they suffered.

The Nephites continued under that law for two hundred years.

But the Mormons just couldn't cut it.

Think about it. It gives one cause to ponder.

Why that the 'One True Church', the 'One True Faith', the 'Church With the Most Correct Doctrines', the Church who claims to have 'The Restored Fullness of the Gospel' and the Church who has the 'Most Correct Book On the Face Of the Earth as it's keystone'...couldn't manage to live the law of consecration for even a few short years.

Joseph received a commandment directly from God revealing His will as to how His people should live.

And like many other instances of their inability to continue in obedience...His people failed in their task.

As far as whether I would comply with the law of consecration if it were to be re-implemented...yes I would.

On certain condition.

It is taught within the Church that when the Saints return to Zion, that we will be living the United Order.

And as sure as I see that the most wealthy and powerful among the faith sell everything they own, and turn it over to the Church, and accept their fair allotment for a modest home, and such necessities as a family requires... just as a poor member might expect to receive...then I shall gladly comply.

Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:He is comparing an time period when the saints were in the law of consecration, to now. Are we in the law of consecration? No, we are not, so his comparison is of two differing set of commands. And he bads mouths the church for not following it's own scriptures, when he doesn't understand what he's reasding TO BEGIN WITH! WITH!

Dubbs, it has been clear for years that Jaye understand LDS scripture, policy, and doctrine as well as anybody here and better than you.

He's right. The church has changed many times, which has led to a mass of confusion among its hundreds of denominations.


You or Jaye didn't read the heading nor description of those verses, or you just plain don't know what the law of Consecration was about, nor the story behind it, if you did, you would understand how ignorant you are asking questions about why the church doesn't follow these verses.

As I said...I am well aware that the verses referred to the law of consecration, and I have read the headings.

I am well versed regarding the law of consecration.

And I have seen proof that while the Great City of Enoch managed to obey the law of consecration to the point that the people achieved perfection...and the early Christians managed to obey and live the law of consecration and continued quite happily in it (excepting for the fact they were being persecuted and martyred), and the people of Nephi managed to live this law for 200 years...the Mormons just couldn't cut it.

Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs writes, " think it's irrevelant, it's not extravagent, it's value is because it's in a high rise condo in down town area, prime real estate. But it is not given to them, it's not extravagent, and is a moot point to begin with."

It could be a shack in the grass, Dubbs, it would still be compensation for their work. That point is not moot.


We already knew they get compensation, nobody denied that here. Your the only dar dar that keeps repeating they get compensation when we already knew that.

Quite a few people have denied that they get compensation.

Including yourself, in past discussions.

Sir John the Apostate wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
You have never pointed what supposedly "plain and precious parts" were removed.



Read the BofM, D&C, Pearl of Great price, and listen to the Prophets to find out.

Go ahead Percy, your the "expert".

Prove your point and, show us the parts that have been removed. Don't post your opinion but, show us the historical facts and documentation.


Step up or shut up Percy AKA Bishop Kent AKA TBM AKA Dumbya AKA Dubs AKA Dubbs etc etc etc.......

Don't forget AKA Everybody Loves Raymond.

Dubbs wrote:
KitKat wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
KitKat wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
KitKat wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
The BoM is equal only in your mind, Dubbs. You are not going to find any church publication that says otherwise.



If it is the keystone to our religion, I'd say it's pretty equal.


Even the Book of Mormon itself says it "shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace" (2 Nephi 3:12)

Pretty equal in my mind if it clears up contentions the Bible has caused.
But it's NOT the cornerstone of our religion. Christ is!

I said Keystone dar dar. Read, comprehend.
You said cornerstone earlier, and you know it. Besides, there's not much difference between the two if any.

Betz is right. You are a totally arrogant SOB.


And I corrected it, even appolgized for making the error, guess you don't read much.

But in that post I didn't say cornerstone, now did I?
Yes, I read, and I saw it. So what? Keystone? Cornerstone? Technically, not much difference between the two.


There is a difference if you understand that the PRophets have taught that Christ is the Cornerstone, and the Book of Mormon is the Keystone to our religion, and study what those two words significance is. Course why would a LDS lady know this?

Do you even know that the church calls the Book of Mormon the keystone to your religion? They don't say that about the Bible now do they?

Well of COURSE they don't...yet it all began when a young boy who had been educated by his mother using a Bible as his primer, heeded the word of God and went to a grove to seek wisdom from the Lord.

I would say that this indicates that the Holy Bible is the keystone for the keystone.