Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Now...without resorting to the usual..."That's all well and fine" happy crappy...address what Russell Ballard had to say regarding the Bible.

And...of ALL the standard works, the Bible remains the BEST SOURCE for an intimate understanding of the character and personality of Jesus Christ during His mortal mission."
************************************************

(This directly contradicts Joseph Smith's claims that the Book of Mormon was the best source for knowing God)
************************************************

And:

"While the Old Testament offers a prophetic foretelling of that mission, the New Testament provides an UNMATCHED account of the events, experiences, teachings and personal interactions of Christ."
*************************************************

When an Apostle says that "the New Testament provides an UNMATCHED ACCOUNT OF THE EVENTS, EXPERIENCES, TEACHINGS AND PERSONAL INTERACTIONS OF CHRIST"...he means exactly that.

That it is unmatched. Even by the other books in the Standard Works.

Unmatched does not mean equal...it means superior.


Come on Jaye, it's not hard to see what his talk was on, and what his focus was on.

Of course the Bible is the most comprehensive view of Christs life. That is true, but again, dosen't negate the fact that....

If he was speaking of the Book that gives the most detail on the Priesthood and it's orgainization, he would say "the D&C is the most comprensive book to read on the priesthood restoration"

Or

If he was speaking on the book of scripture that gives the most detail on where Christ went after his death, he would say "The Book of Mormon gives the most detail about the details of Christ's life after he was killed"


Or

If he was speaking on the pre-earth life or Adam and Eve he could say the "Pearl of Great Price is the most detailed book we have on this"

It was, indeed easy to see what he was talking about. Russell Ballard always managed to put his point across in a way that any but the most comprehensionally challenged could understand.

He stated that the Holy Bible provided an "UNMATCHED ACCOUNT OF THE EVENTS, EXPERIENCES, TEACHINGS AND PERSONAL INTERACTIONS OF CHRIST"

He stated that "the Bible remains the BEST SOURCE for an intimate understanding of the character and personality of Jesus Christ during His mortal mission."

You are disregarding and disrespecting the words of a General Authority.

Dubbs wrote:
JLD wrote:
Wren

Yep, definitely superior to the BoM

I'm not so sure "superior" is the appropriate word.

My thoughts are that each piece of scripture is unique and serves a distinct purpose. I don't think they can be graded one against the other - apples to oranges.

When the dust settles, does it really matter? If God did give us these pieces of work I'm sure they were intended to be more than fodder for arguments over their superiority one to the other. I think we are missing the point.


I agree, their equal.

That would be...THEY'RE equal.

But you are not correct.

Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote: And again, as usual you are not comprehending what I have said, I know it's important, but it is no more important that the book they call the "keystone" of our religion, and the book you can get closer to God than any other book would also seem to be just as important, as would modern day revelations found in the D&C. One no more important than the other

======================

As Jaye conclusively proved, the LDS leadership disagrees with your assessment. My counsel is to get in line with it.


And my council to you is to KMA.

Very Christian council indeed...and so very Mormon.

Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
JLD wrote:
Wren

Yep, definitely superior to the BoM

I'm not so sure "superior" is the appropriate word.

My thoughts are that each piece of scripture is unique and serves a distinct purpose. I don't think they can be graded one against the other - apples to oranges.

When the dust settles, does it really matter? If God did give us these pieces of work I'm sure they were intended to be more than fodder for arguments over their superiority one to the other. I think we are missing the point.


I agree, their equal.

That would be...THEY'RE equal.

But you are not correct.

"LOL" Dubbs is just showing us how educated he is "LOL"

are as Dubbs spells it:
educted he is

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? You have just referred to God as... 'IT'?

Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
The Doctrine and Covenants 42:70-73 states 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 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!

For the benefit of those who are not familiar with the 'Law of Consecration', A.K.A. United Order, A.K.A. the 'Order of Enoch':

United Order was one of several 19th century church programs established to manage and administer the Law of Consecration (a voluntary practice with some similarities to Christian communism/communalism). The United Order established egalitarian communities designed to achieve income equality, eliminate poverty, increase group self-sufficiency, and to ultimately create an ideal utopian society Mormons referred to as Zion. The movement had much in common with other utopian societies formed in the United States and Europe during the Second Great Awakening which sought to govern aspects of people's lives through precepts of faith and community organization. However, the Latter Day Saint United Order was more family and property oriented than the utopian experiments at Brook Farm and the Oneida Community.

Members who voluntarily chose to enter the United Order community would deed (consecrate) all their property to the United Order, which would in turn deed back an "inheritance" (or "stewardship" which allowed members to control the property; private property was not eradicated but was rather a fundamental principle of this system. At the end of each year, any excess that the family produced from their stewardship was voluntarily given back to the Order. The Order in each community was operated by the local Bishop.

The United Order is not practiced within mainstream Mormonism today; however, a number of groups of Mormon fundamentalists, such as the Apostolic United Brethren, have revived the practice.
Contents

Latter Day Saint President Joseph Smith, Jr. learned of 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 (See Acts 2:44-45; Acts 4:32)

Members of "The Morley family" were originally followers of Sidney Rigdon, a Campbellite/Restorationist minister, who later converted to Mormonism. Many of these communalists also joined the new church and several, including Isaac Morley, served in leadership positions. Levi Hancock records an early event wherein a 'family member' stole his pocketwatch and sold it, claiming it was "all in the family."[1]

Smith was troubled because of the number of members joining the church in poverty in Kirtland, Ohio. Revenue was needed for the church to publish books and tracts. At this time, Smith and Rigdon were both in economic distress. Smith and his wife Emma lived on the Morley farm for a period of time.

On February 4, 1831, Smith claimed to have received a revelation calling Edward Partridge to be the first bishop of the church. (See Doctrine and Covenants 41) Five days later, on February 9. 1831, Smith claimed a second revelation detailing the Law of Consecration. (See Doctrine and Covenants 42)

[edit] Land Purchases and Stewardships

Joseph Smith claimed to have received a revelation directing the saints to impart of their land and money to the church. (Doctrine and Covenants 48) Bishop Partridge assigned the incoming saints from New York lots according to another revelation. (Doctrine and Covenants 52) Smith directed Colesville immigrants to settle in Thompson, Ohio, a few miles east of Kirtland, on a farm owned by Leman Copley. Saints from Seneca County were assigned to the Isaac Morley farm.

[edit] First Inauguration

Bishop Partridge tried to implement the full law in Thompson. However, disagreements broke out and he was unsuccessful. Shortly after, Smith announced a revelation directing Newell Knight to lead the saints on the Copley farm to settle in Missouri. (Doctrine and Covenants 54)

[edit] Dissolution of the United Order

Originally, the United Order was intended to be "an everlasting order for the benefit of my church, and for the salvation of men until I come" (Doctrine and Covenants 104:1). In practice, however, the Order was relatively short-lived during the life of Joseph Smith, Jr.

[edit] The United Order as practiced by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

From 1855 to 1858, under political and financial pressure from the United States government, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints once again considered living under the United Order. During this period, under the leadership of Brigham Young, church members were instructed to prepare deeds of consecration, but these deeds were never acted upon perhaps due to the community disruption caused by the Utah War.

It was not until 1874 that Young initiated the United Order of Enoch, beginning in St. George, Utah on February 9, 1874. There were a number of differences between the United Order of Enoch and United Order communities established years earlier by Joseph Smith. Under Young's leadership, producers would generally deed their property to the Order, and all members of the order would share the cooperative's net income, often divided into shares based on the amount of property originally contributed. Sometimes, the members of the Order would receive wages for their work on the communal property.

The cooperative plan was used in at least 200 Mormon communities, most of them in rural areas outlying the central Mormon settlements near the Great Salt Lake. Most of the communities held out for only two or three years before returning to a more standard economic system. One of the last United Order corporations established the new community of Bunkerville, Nevada in 1877. The Bunkerville cooperative dissolved, under pressure from limited water and a lack of individual dedication and initiative, in 1880.

Like the United Order established by Joseph Smith, Young's experiment with the United Order was short-lived. By the time of Brigham Young's death in 1877, most of these United Orders had failed. By the end of the 19th century, the Orders were essentially extinct. Historian Andrew Karl Larson pointed out that the failure of these ventures are rooted in the frailties of human nature.

The habits of an acquisitive society were too strongly forged to be broken without the unmost devotion and selflessness to the cause, and rugged individualism triumphed over the abortive attempt at communal ownership and communal living here. (Larson, p. 168)

Some leaders and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that the United Order will be reestablished some time in the future. Many leaders have taught that the Church's present system of welfare and humanitarian aid is a predecessor or stepping stone to the renewed practice of the United Order in the future.

[edit] Private Property, Communalism, and the United Order

Under the United Order, private property was never abolished. The sharing of goods, often cited as communalism, was completely voluntarily. Members of the Church who chose to participate in the United Order voluntarily deeded their properties to the Church, which would then, deed all or a portion of it back to the original property owner. The "residue", or property which was over and above what the owner and his family required for themselves, was used by the Church to provide to the less fortunate, who would be required to pay it back either monetarily or by labor. The private property owner was never forced to participate in the Order nor was his property forcefully confiscated. Private property owners were free to join or leave the orders and were in total control of their deeded properties. J. Reuben Clark Jr., First Counselor in the First Presidency explained:

"The fundamental principle of this system was the private ownership of property. Each man owned his portion, or inheritance, or stewardship, with an absolute title, which he could alienate, or hypothecate, or otherwise treat as his own. The Church did not own all of the property, and the life under the United Order was not a communal life, as the Prophet Joseph, himself said, (History of the Church, Volume III, p. 28). The United Order is an individualistic system, not a communal system." (President J. Reuben Clark, Jr. on The United Order and Communism, 113th Semi-Annual Conference, October 1942)

Lorenzo Snow, 5th President of the Church also highlighted the United Order's preservation of individual free will:

"In things that pertain to celestial glory there can be no forced operations. We must do according as the spirit of the Lord operates upon our understandings and feelings. We cannot be crowded into matters, however great might be the blessing attending such procedure. We cannot be forced into living a celestial law; we must do this ourselves, of our own free will. And whatever we do in regard to the principle of the United Order, we must do it because we desire to do it..."(Lorenzo Snow, Journal of Discourses. Vol. 19, p.346, 349-350))

[edit] Kanab United Order

Many United Order communities were set up amongst Mormon towns beginning in 1874. One in particular was the United Order of Kanab, which was a communal experiment initiated by Brigham Young. Kanab was established in 1870. That year John R. Young and the local bishop, Levi Stewart, began colonization of this area and twelve families followed to begin this endeavor. However, there was confusion as to who was the leader of this society. Church authorities appointed the bishop and only they could revoke his status. But many wanted to elect John R. Young as president because he was related to the prophet Brigham Young. This conflict of power lasted until January 5, 1875 when Levi Stewart became the president. Eventually Stewart resigned from his position and John Nuttall of Provo took his place.[2]

Eventually other families followed that were either unhappy in their own lives or were from other failing colonies. By 1874 there were eighty-one families and about seventeen percent of the men that lived in this community practiced polygamy. The households were simple in structure and were usually two to three bedrooms. There were about three children per mother in every household and polygamous wives lived in the same home as well. Large families in all Mormon communities were regarded as a spiritual practice and the child-woman ration in Kanab reflected that. The main source of income for the community was by raising livestock. Most of their wealth was in livestock, vehicles, and shares of stock in corporate enterprises. The land and the improvements made up the rest of their wealth. This particular United Order was very wealthy but within the society there were major gaps. Everyone owned property but some pieces of land were better than others. Eventually Brigham Young ordered the community to diminish the financial gap that set them apart from the other communities.[3]

Many suffered hardships while living on the frontier and tended to move frequently, around the same area to escape the harsh conditions and find greater opportunities. It also made it easy to migrate since most of the wealth people had was movable. The number of families moving three or more times was below fifty. Only twenty-three families moved four times or more and thirteen moved five times or more. By the year 1880, the United Order at Kanab had greatly decreased. Only thirty-two families were left out of the original eighty-one families that came within the first year of it being established. Many eventually migrated to Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Mexico. Also the young men tended to leave home before they were married and started families of their own.[4]

[edit] The United Order Versus Communism

This doctrine and succeeding practice, which was similar to that of many other religious groups in the early 19th century, was an attempt to eradicate poverty and promote a sense of unity and brotherhood within Latter-day Saint communities. Although many leaders of the Church clearly distinguished between communism and the Law of Consecration, due to the practices' distinct differences as related to the topics of free agency, private property and Deity, many throughout the 20th century and up to the present continue to incorrectly equate the two practices. These individuals often compare the Law of Consecration and the United Order to Christian communism/communalism, which they also claim was practiced by 1st century Christian saints (Acts 2:44, 4:32). In reality, the Church has officially stated that communism, communalism, or socialism are simply counterfeits of the Law of Consecration whereby many are swindeled into believing that these godless practices are divine. Nevertheless, community unity is central to the Latter Day Saint doctrine of Zion as described in Moses 7:18, "And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them."

Church leaders, including David O. McKay, Harold B. Lee, Ezra Taft Benson, Marion G. Romney, and J. Rueben Clark, Jr, often spoke of the stark differences between the United Order and communism. An official Church statement on this subject stated:

"Communism and all other similar isms bear no relationship whatever to the United Order. They are merely the clumsy counterfeits which Satan always devises of the Gospel plan .... The United Order leaves every man free to choose his own religion as his conscience directs. Communism destroys man's God-given free agency; the United Order glorifies it. Latter-day Saints cannot be true to their faith and lend aid, encouragement, or sympathy to any of these false philosophies ...." ("Message of the First Presidency," 112th Annual Conference, April 6, 1942.)"

And important point to remember, so I'll repeat a some of the above posted information for consideration:

Originally, the United Order was intended to be "an everlasting order for the benefit of my church, and for the salvation of men until I come" (Doctrine and Covenants 104:1). In practice, however, the Order was relatively short-lived during the life of Joseph Smith, Jr.

From 1855 to 1858, under political and financial pressure from the United States government, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints once again considered living under the United Order. During this period, under the leadership of Brigham Young, church members were instructed to prepare deeds of consecration, but these deeds were never acted upon perhaps due to the community disruption caused by the Utah War.

It was not until 1874 that Young initiated the United Order of Enoch, beginning in St. George, Utah on February 9, 1874. There were a number of differences between the United Order of Enoch and United Order communities established years earlier by Joseph Smith. Under Young's leadership, producers would generally deed their property to the Order, and all members of the order would share the cooperative's net income, often divided into shares based on the amount of property originally contributed. Sometimes, the members of the Order would receive wages for their work on the communal property.

The cooperative plan was used in at least 200 Mormon communities, most of them in rural areas outlying the central Mormon settlements near the Great Salt Lake. Most of the communities held out for only two or three years before returning to a more standard economic system. One of the last United Order corporations established the new community of Bunkerville, Nevada in 1877. The Bunkerville cooperative dissolved, under pressure from limited water and a lack of individual dedication and initiative, in 1880.

Like the United Order established by Joseph Smith, Young's experiment with the United Order was short-lived. By the time of Brigham Young's death in 1877, most of these United Orders had failed. By the end of the 19th century, the Orders were essentially extinct. Historian Andrew Karl Larson pointed out that the failure of these ventures are rooted in the frailties of human nature.

The habits of an acquisitive society were too strongly forged to be broken without the unmost devotion and selflessness to the cause, and rugged individualism triumphed over the abortive attempt at communal ownership and communal living here. (Larson, p. 168)"

So...God gave the commandment to both Joseph Smith, and Brigham Young via revelation that the United Order was ""an everlasting order for the benefit of my church, and for the salvation of men until I come" (Doctrine and Covenants 104:1)."

And this "everlasting order", far from lasting until the return of Christ...only lasted a short time under either man's leadership.

Like a few other eternal or everlasting principles I can think of.


And after all that, you ignore my point that you were misunderstanding the verses.

Your point lacks any merit.