I hereby challenge you before God, and all of your covenants Kent...to invite your Bishop to your home, and show him your remarks on this forum.

And show him your cut and pasted attempt at altering the meaning of God's revelation regarding the Law of Consecration.

Show him your interpretation...in how you believe God was releasing the Saints from the obligation to live the Law of Consecration.

Then show him my remark regarding the FACT that God was wrathful with the Saints because they had not obeyed this principle, and how He told them that if they HAD been faithful in obeying it, they might have already been redeemed...and how He warned them of the consequences should they continue to fail to obey and live the principle.

Those consequences being that God would not take Zion unto Himself.

And ask him who has it right.

Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubss said:

"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 payment system shows you don't understand the concept, nor continuing revelation, course you don't believe that either."

***************************************************

Well here's a news flash for you Kent.

The Law of Consecration WAS ALREADY an everlasting principle from the moment it was revealed by God through Joseph Smith.

It was explained that God commanded this principle to be enacted and continued until such time as Christ returned to reign.

And, yes...the Saints failed to comply and obey, and this 'everlasting principle' was dully abandoned.

So much for obedience.

Tell me...what makes you think that the current, or future Saints will be any more capable of obeying this law than these very hardy souls were in the 1800's?

You have completely misunderstood and misrepresented the concept of continuing revelation.

It was never meant to give the Church a way to let God's disobedient children off the hook if they just couldn't manage to comply with His commands.

You keep bandying that term around like you know what it means.

Continuing revelation is a concept wherein God continues to communicate His will through Prophets in modern days.

But God explained EXACTLY who He was, and EXACTLY
how He operated. He did this in the opening verses of Section 3 in the D&C.

1. "THE WORKS, AND THE DESIGNS, AND THE PURPOSES OF GOD CANNOT BE FRUST5RATED, NEITHER CAN THEY COME TO NAUGHT."

Really? Well they certainly came to naught regarding the EVERLASTING PRINCIPLE of the Law of Consecration in a scant few months during the leadership of Joseph Smith...and after a scant few years under the leadership of Brigham Young.

2. "FOR GOD DOTH NOT WALK IN CROOKED PATHS, NEITHER DOTH HE TURN TO THE RIGHT HAND, NOR TO THE LEFT, NEITHER DOTH HE VARY FROM THAT WHICH HE HATH SAID, THEREFORE HIS PATHS ARE STRAIGHT AND HIS COURSE IS ONE ETERNAL ROUND."

Really? Well...according to YOU...God changes His mind every time an ETERNAL PRINCIPLE is abandoned, or altered by the LDS Church.

You are guilty of using the concept of continuing revelation as a convenient excuse for disobedience to God, or at least for the very human inability to adhere to God's ETERNAL PRINCIPLES.

Church Doctrine is, indeed, found within the scriptures.

Within Section 42 of the D&C, after revealing His commandments regarding the Law of Consecration, God says this in verses 59 & 60.

'THOU SHALT TAKE THE THINGS WHICH THOU HAST RECEIVED, WHICH HAVE BEEN GIVEN UNTO THEE IN MY SCRIPTURES FOR A LAW, TO BE MY LAW TO GOVERN MY CHURCH;

AND HE THAT DOETH ACCORDING TO THESE THINGS SHALL BE SAVED, AND HE THAT DOETH THEM NOT SHALL BE DAMNED IF HE SO CONTINUE."

So...he that remains constant in obedience to the LAWS of God which were revealed, and which were found in scripture would be saved...while he that does not remain constant in obedience to these laws would be damned.

I wonder...how many of the Saints in the early Church will find themselves damned because they just could not abide by the REVEALED COMMANDMENTS AND LAWS OF GOD found within scripture?


Ahh, the crooked path sermon, doens't really apply when dealing with continual revelation.


Fact is, you are misunerstanding a scripture to mean Bishops should be paid today, this is not accurate and you are teaching false doctrine.


The Lord allowed the saints to attempt the Law of Consecration, they couldn't follow it, therefore the laws applying to this attempt no longer apply that Bishops should be paid.

You are teaching something that you are ignorant on.

The Saints were commanded by God, through revelation received by Joseph Smith that they were to live the EVERLASTING PRINCIPLE of the Law of Consecration, and that they would be required to continue living that law until Christ returned to reign on earth.

This is scriptural doctrine...and remember...our law of doctrine is found within scripture.

They only managed to obey for a few months under Joseph Smith's leadership...and a few years under Brigham Young's leadership.

God never released the Saints from this obligation. It is not found within scripture...ergo...this Eternal Principle was abandoned by disobedient men...and touted off as revelation...which was never received and inducted into scripture.

You are guilty of using the concept of continuing revelation as a convenient excuse for why the Saints failed to obey...and why they abandoned an EVERLASTING PRINCIPLE which God COMMANDED they live until such time as He returned to reign.

Dubss said:

"I've had this discussion with a relative who is a seventy, from all he portrays and mentions on the subject, the brehren all love what they do, have good attitudes, and realize they are doing the LOrds work, is it hard at times ? yes, I'm sure it is, but "burden" is the wrong word."

I'm sure the brethren all love what they do, have good attitudes and realize they are doing the Lord's work.

Never said they didn't.

BTW...the brethren have often used the terms burden, onus, and responsibility when addressing the duties of their callings.

And Jesus even asked His Father to remove the bitter cup that had been placed before Him.

The mantle of spiritual leadership is a heavy weight, and a burden to be borne.

But I have never said that these Brethren didn't bear their burdens honorably, or with glad hearts.

That is just another invention of misinterpretation on your part Kent.

Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubss said:

"Can you say anything in less than 800000 words? Holy crap!!

I doubt they look at their church calling as burdens, if they have the proper attitude, I'm sure you used to see your callings as burdens, says alot why you don't go anymore and don't have a calling anymore."
***************************************************

1. Yes I can. But since your level of comprehension is so very low...I have been attempting to explain so that you can understand. If and when you indicate that your comprehension level has improved, I shall shorten my responses.

2. The Prophets throughout History have often referred to their responsibilities as being a burden.

When God instructed Jonah to admonish the people to repentence, lest they be destroyed...Jonah shrunk away from the burden of that responsibility.

He attempted to run away. He was reluctant to take the burden of this responsibility upon his shoulders, and he was fearful for his life.

And he did NOT obey the Lord's calling until after the Lord sent the great fish to swallow him up. He remained in the belly of that fish for 3 days, until he cried unto the Lord in repentance and asked for deliverance.

When God instructed Moses that he was to be His instrument in leading the Children of Israel out of captivity...Moses questioned the Lord.

"Who am I, that I should go unto Pharoah, and that I should bring forth my people, the Children of Israel out of Egypt?"

And God answered, explaining that He would be with him. He instructed Moses what he should say.

And Moses questioned yet again...saying..."Behold they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice: for they will say, The Lord hath not appeared to thee.'

The Lord taught him the signs and wonders he should display as proof.

And again Moses questioned...saying...'Lord, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken to thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue.'

The Lord explained that He would teach Moses what to say, and fill his mouth with words.

And again Moses questioned...saying...'O my Lord, send, I pray thee, by the hand of him whom thou wilt send.'

(He was basically asking the Lord to send someone who could better handle the task.)

And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses for his doubts.

Moses was reluctant to take the mantle of leadership upon his shoulders. But he obeyed.

And finally...Jesus Christ Himself.

Not only the Son of God, but also accepted as a great Prophet in many faiths outside of the Christian faith.

Jesus shouldered a great burden of responsibility.
He knew for many years the fate that lay in store for Him.

This would be a burden to any man.

And when He knelt in the Garden of Gethsemane, He implored God to take this burden from Him, if there were any other way to accomplish what He must accomplish.

Nevertheless...He said...'Thy will, not mine, be done.'

The mantle of leadership is always a burden of responsibility.

And this applies not only in religion...but in every other facet of leadership...including politics.

Ever noticed how quickly the Presidents age during their term(s) in the White House?

I've had this discussion with a relative who is a seventy, from all he portrays and mentions on the subject, the brehren all love what they do, have good attitudes, and realize they are doing the LOrds work, is it hard at times ? yes, I'm sure it is, but "burden" is the wrong word.

Dubss said..."burden" is the wrong word."

Tell it to Elder Ballard Kent...for it is PRECISELY the same term he used when describing the responsibilities of priesthood leaders.

Dubss said:

The Lord allowed the saints to attempt the Law of Consecration, they couldn't follow it, therefore the laws applying to this attempt no longer apply that Bishops should be paid."

What an interesting concept, and belief system.

God 'ALLOWS' His people to 'ATTEMPT to obey what He COMMANDS of them to obey.

Hmmm.

And when they tried and failed, suddenly the LAW and the COMMANDMENT no longer applied...and God let the Mormons off the hook...eh?

Hmmm.

God was extremely disappointed with the Saints in their failure to adhere to the Law of Consecration.

He told them, through Joseph Smith, that if only they HAD obeyed and adhered to that principle, they might have already been redeemed.

He told them, through Joseph Smith, that should they not obey His COMMANDMENT, and adhere to the EVERLASTING PRINCIPLE of the Law of Consecration...then Zion could not be taken unto God.

He was not letting them off the hook, so to speak.
And He did not release them from this commandment.
In fact, Brigham Young continued the experiment in Utah, and it fizzled out after about 3 years or so.

There was no revelation releasing the Saints from the requirement.

Dubss said:

"You are teaching something that you are ignorant on."

I say...right back at'cha Kent.

Jaye wrote:
Dubss provided this cut and paste from Church history as his evidence regarding why God released the Saints from the obligations of the Law of Consecration.

But Dubss has misinterpreted this history.



"The Saints who went to Missouri in the early 1830s were commissioned to live the law of consecration, but they failed to do so.

In 1834 when they were being attacked by mobs and driven from their homes, Joseph Smith led a party known as Zion�s Camp, bringing clothing and provisions. While this party was encamped on Fishing River the Prophet received [a] revelation� (D&C 105 headnote) which began:

Verily I say unto you who have assembled yourselves together that you may learn my will concerning the redemption of mine afflicted people�

Behold, I say unto you, were it not for the transgressions of my people, � they might have been redeemed even now.

But behold, they have not learned to be obedient to the things which I required at their hands, but are full of all manner of evil, and do not impart of their substance, as becometh saints, to the poor and afflicted among them;

And are not united according to the union required by the law of the celestial kingdom;

And Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the law of the celestial kingdom; otherwise I cannot receive her unto myself.(D&C 105:1�5.)"

Here is where you have erred in interpretation Kent. The Lord was not releasing the people from the obligation of obedience...HE WAS REMINDING THEM THAT OBEDIENCE WAS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, AND IF THEY HAD OBEYED THAT EVERLASTING PRINCIPLE OF THE LAW OF CONSECRATION...THEY MIGHT HAVE ALREADY BEEN REDEEMED AT THAT POINT IN TIME.

HE WAS REBUKING THEM FOR THEIR FAILURE, KENT, AND REMINDING THEM THAT ZION COULD NOT BE BUILT UP UNLESS IT WAS BY THE PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF THE CELESTIAL KINGDOM...OTHERWISE GOD COULD NOT RECEIVE ZION UNTO HIMSELF.

Geez Kent...did you REALLY think this revelation was releasing the Saints from the Law of Consecration?

If that is true...why did Brigham Young attempt the United Order once the Saints reached Utah?

Or are you saying that God commanded the Saints to live the Law of Consecration, and released them from this obligation a few months later...and then turned around and commanded them through Brigham Young to live the Law of Consecration once they reached Utah?

Oy-flippin-VEY KENT. The way you understand it...God isn't, as he stated in Section 3 of the D&C, unvarying in what He says, and in His paths...but instead God is a changeable as the winds of His latest fancies.

Dubss said:

"Since this revelation was received, Church members have not been required to live the law of consecration."

Incorrect...as I explained above...God was not releasing the Saints from the requirement of living the law of Consecration...HE WAS REMINDING THEM THAT THEY'D BETTER START OBEYING HIM AND LIVING THE LAW OF CONSECRATION...and warning of the consequences should they not obey.



One problem I didn't say it, it was from the churches website, I'll go with that.

Marion G Romney said it. DOH!