Carol Lynn Pearson's book

[NeedleinA]

21 hours ago, jewels8 said:

We have been told that polygamy will come back someday, although it is not practiced now. 

Admittedly I have not read all the posts yet. I will just put this here for now: Doctrine & Covenants Seminary Manual

Quote

Avoid speculation: Do not speculate about whether plural marriage is a requirement for the celestial kingdom. We have no knowledge that plural marriage will be a requirement for exaltation.

 

[Just_A_Guy]

21 minutes ago, jewels8 said:

I think men should be more sensitive and not marry a 2nd wife for eternity unless God really Commands them too  I think Dantzel deserves a husband who is faithful to only her and doesn't have to share him with another.  Wendy never married before.  I think she deserves a husband who she doesn't have to share with another man's wife.  That is just my opinion.  He could have picked somebody else who's husband had already died and just married for time.  Of course I sustain him as a prophet.  And he can chose what he wants to do, which he did, and they will have to work it out.  But I think of the sweet reunion Pres. Monson must have with his one wife.  

 

You talk as though Sister Wendy had no choice in the matter; and as though you know for certain that Elder Nelson and Sister Dantzel had never discussed this contingency before her passing.  

For someone who is so insistent on women’s feelings and agency, you rather seem to run roughshod over the feelings and agency of women who choose to live differently than you.

10 minutes ago, jewels8 said:

A woman deserves to feel cherished

Just for reference, what does a man “deserve to feel”?

[anatess2]

39 minutes ago, jewels8 said:

I think men should be more sensitive and not marry a 2nd wife for eternity unless God really Commands them too  I think Dantzel deserves a husband who is faithful to only her and doesn't have to share him with another.  Wendy never married before.  I think she deserves a husband who she doesn't have to share with another man's wife.  That is just my opinion.  He could have picked somebody else who's husband had already died and just married for time.  Of course I sustain him as a prophet.  And he can chose what he wants to do, which he did, and they will have to work it out.  But I think of the sweet reunion Pres. Monson must have with his one wife.  

 

From where I'm sitting the person that is selfish is the one who believes that it is a great outrage to have to "share him with another".  It speaks of a sense of owning something - "he's mine, he has to be loyal only to me, he has to give me 100% of his everything and nobody else can have it".  It's creepy.  Like Gollum kind of creepy.

[Jane_Doe]

9 hours ago, jewels8 said:

Many LDS have been taught that Mary is given to Heavenly Father as his wife and that Joseph will be given someone else.  I was taught this from church teachings..  

This is not Church doctrine at all.

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, jewels8 said:

  It is not an easy thing and I do not need to pretend that it is.  I have a right to my feelings and I have a right to let other woman know that they are not alone.  They deserve to know that, when they need to feel loved and understood in a place that caters to unfortunately men too much.

I 100% agree that we need to be sensitive.  Could you explain to me how you are being sensitive to Wendy in this quote:

1 hour ago, jewels8 said:

 I think Dantzel deserves a husband who is faithful to only her and doesn't have to share him with another.  Wendy never married before.  I think she deserves a husband who she doesn't have to share with another man's wife.  That is just my opinion.  He could have picked somebody else who's husband had already died and just married for time.  

To me, this quote appears very insensitive to the love Wendy feels and saying she never should have married the man she loves.  But maybe I'm misunderstanding you or getting the wrong vibe (internet is really good at that).  Hence why I'm asking for clarification on how you are being sensitive to Wendy here.  

[Just_A_Guy]

I hope y’all will forgive the gentle levity; but in pondering @Jane_Doe‘s post and its implications it hit me that “celestial home wreckers” would be an excellent name for a heavy metal band.

[pam]

19 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Sorry, I had a hard time reading the original post so I separated it out into paragraphs and made a small grammatical change in one or two locations. 

Thanks.  I used your paragraphs and edited the OP. 

[pam]

I just didn't do the grammatical changes.

[wenglund]

11 hours ago, jewels8 said:

 I have no respect for unfaithful men who practice "legalized adultery"

This is like calling marriage, itself, "legalized prostitution."  Both are lacking in comprehension.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Vort]

3 hours ago, jewels8 said:

I think men should be more sensitive and not marry a 2nd wife for eternity unless God really Commands them too

I think you should mind your own business.

3 hours ago, jewels8 said:

I think Dantzel deserves a husband who is faithful to only her and doesn't have to share him with another.

I think you should mind your own business.

3 hours ago, jewels8 said:

Wendy never married before.  I think she deserves a husband who she doesn't have to share with another man's wife.

I think you should mind your own business.

3 hours ago, jewels8 said:

We need to be sensitive.

Where "we" means "not jewels8".

3 hours ago, jewels8 said:

They deserve to know that, when they need to feel loved and understood in a place that caters to unfortunately men too much.

Yes, we can't have men being catered to too much. How inappropriate! Women? That's another story.

[JohnsonJones]

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

From where I'm sitting the person that is selfish is the one who believes that it is a great outrage to have to "share him with another".  It speaks of a sense of owning something - "he's mine, he has to be loyal only to me, he has to give me 100% of his everything and nobody else can have it".  It's creepy.  Like Gollum kind of creepy.

I'm not certain it is selfish.  It probably has a little bit of jealousy.  My personal thoughts is that, between a man and a wife, it is okay to be jealous in a way that makes you want your spouse to be loyal to you and only to you.  When you trust that your spouse will be yours and only yours, regardless of whether it is for time, for eternity, or for both, that can create a special bond between the two. 

In this life, when an individual breaks that bond in whatever fashion (pornography, emotional affairs, adultery, etc) it creates a great deal of pain, hurt, and anguish for the other spouse in most cases.  They feel betrayed and mortified. 

It is no surprise that many would feel this way when thinking about their spouse and a situation where their spouse might ever be married or sealed to another individual without them. 

It may be selfishness. 

I know that, because the church decided to let women be sealed in the temple after death to any man they had ever been married to, that has not sat well with me.  In the same light, my wife did not feel comfortable with the idea of me ever being married to another woman if she died first.  Thus, we saw how this idea could hurt the other.  She has said she will not marry another if I die first, out of respect for me, and I likewise said I am more than happy to spend my time among my books and history library.  For us (and this doesn't have to apply to anyone else), this assurance that we are ours, and only ours, is a great assurance currently. 

I am also glad to know that I and my wife are not alone in this feeling.  If we turn the pages back in the history of the church we find that there are many who also felt similarly.  Of course there were those who gladly ran with the idea of polygamy, but we also read multiple accounts where those who were called to be in polygamous marriages found the idea revolting and very difficult to participate in.  In fact, many felt almost like Abraham when he was called to sacrifice Issac.  These were righteous men and women who held chastity and marriage high in their ideals.  They were very loyal to the church.  If they had a great difficulty accepting it, even when commanded to do so, I do not feel so bad that I and others may have difficulties if we think about it in a modern sense.

I am blessed and I am lucky in that thus far, I do not have to be brought to the same trial as many of the early members of the church.  In our modern time, I am not given the choice of following the commandment of this or not.  Instead, my wife, who hates the idea of polygamy probably more than @jewels8 has expressed, does not have to also suffer the sadness and torment of this idea.  Likewise, I do not have to suffer the great pain it would be if I had to share my wife with someone else. 

It is not evil to have these feelings, and I think it to be quite common.  It may mean I am not ready or as righteous as others who are willing to sacrifice all they have in an instant no matter what the Lord asks.  I admit that in many areas I am still quite uncharitable.  The Law of Consecration is another where, though I understand the concept, I am probably glad I have not been called to participate in it as of yet.  Not all of us are ready to give all we have in this very moment.  I may be older, but I also admit I have a very long way to go. 

However, these feelings of hardness towards the idea of polygamy, I think, are common among many in the LDS church.  It was not an easy principle back when it was instituted in the church, and it is not an easy thing to think about today when we ponder it.  There are some that may be ready to leap feet first back into it, or would be ready if asked, but for me, right now I am glad that it is not something I or my wife are asked to do.  Luckily, currently, we have no commandment that we must do these things in the church, and I am happy it is not something that I must make a choice about or not at this time in our modern world.

[anatess2]

9 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

However, these feelings of hardness towards the idea of polygamy, I think, are common among many in the LDS church.  It was not an easy principle back when it was instituted in the church, and it is not an easy thing to think about today when we ponder it.  There are some that may be ready to leap feet first back into it, or would be ready if asked, but for me, right now I am glad that it is not something I or my wife are asked to do.  Luckily, currently, we have no commandment that we must do these things in the church, and I am happy it is not something that I must make a choice about or not at this time in our modern world.

There's a big difference between having to live polygamy and a completely different thing to say that President Nelson shouldn't have married his 2nd wife for eternity after his first wife passed away.

Edited March 1, 2018 by anatess2

[An Investigator]

I have read this book, to be honest it's not very well written, I would recommend a House full of females by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich instead, that gives a very comprehensive overview of both the view of "romanticised" marriage when we last practiced plural marriage and also how some women (although not all) found it benefited them, gave them access to childcare so they could train to be midwives for example.  

In light of Polygamy in the celestial kingdom, I am not sure that it matters.   I have been married to my husband for 10 years now and the older we get the more our marriage changes.   My Grandfather remarried after 40 years of marriage and he has pictures of my grandmother all around the house.   He also married someone who was one of my grandmothers friends.  They are not members but I will do the work for them when they die, I think if they all end up together they will be very happy with each other.  

I think where the hurt comes from is when people cannot separate doctrine from their own fantasy.  I am married to a non member and given the choice I would prefer to be with my husband, the fact that he is not a member is out of my control.   People speculating that the only way I will be exalted is if I enter into a plural marriage is neither helpful or comforting.  Sometimes members need to learn to sew their mouths up! 

[Vort]

16 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Of course there were those who gladly ran with the idea of polygamy, but we also read multiple accounts where those who were called to be in polygamous marriages found the idea revolting and very difficult to participate in.  In fact, many felt almost like Abraham when he was called to sacrifice Issac.  These were righteous men and women who held chastity and marriage high in their ideals.

I don't know the specifics for most of my polygamous ancestors, but I do know that my great-grandfather was advised that it was God's will for him to take a second wife, and that he would never fulfill the calling God had reserved for him unless he complied. As one who loved his wife dearly and had no particular desire to marry a second wife, he nevertheless married my great-grandmother. Much pain and many trials ensued, along with (I can only suppose) blessings that follow obedience.

To be blunt, @jewels8 does not know whereof she speaks.

19 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I admit that in many areas I am still quite uncharitable.  The Law of Consecration is another where, though I understand the concept, I am probably glad I have not been called to participate in it as of yet.

You are dangerously mistaken. You have indeed been called to live the law of consecration, right now, wherever you are. Everything that the law says you own? You have already consecrated it, along with all of your time and talents, and every other blessing that God has given you, to the building up on the kingdom of God on earth (aka The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) and for the establishment of Zion. If you are unaware that you are presently under this covenant, in full force, you are in a dangerous position. I encourage you to speak with your bishop on this matter.

[JohnsonJones]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

You are dangerously mistaken. You have indeed been called to live the law of consecration, right now, wherever you are. Everything that the law says you own? You have already consecrated it.  If you are unaware that you are presently under this covenant, in full force, you are in a dangerous position. I encourage you to speak with your bishop on this matter.

It would be a very interesting thing to discuss it with the Bishop of my ward TBH.  I can almost guarantee that he would agree 100% with anything and everything I state or say.  Talking with the Stake President could be a little bit more interesting. 

In more seriousness though, I am aware of what we have pledged and stated.  I am VERY cautious of stating certain things, fully, out in the open in regards to specific ideas we discuss elsewhere.

That said, when I say live under the law of consecration, even if one has given an oath to do so, we have not yet been called to do such by the church.  We have not yet been given the same commandment the Lord gave to the rich man to give all that we own to the church, and then have it taken BY the church from us to be redistributed among the Poor.  The only ones that live close to this idea currently are those who are part of the 1st quorum of the 70, the Twelve apostles and the First Presidency, and to a certain degree, the missionaries around the world.  We, of ourselves, may have made promises, but we have not been called on by the church to be collected upon those promises as of yet.  When we do, if it is like when Joseph Smith and Brigham Young instituted it, not only will we LOSE all that we have as we give it to the church for redistribution, we will also be told what our occupation will be, what work we will be doing, and where we should go or live.

This full participation in the Law of Consecration is not something that I, nor most of the Saints live under today.  I have a feeling that this principle may be harder than many would anticipate in regards to following it.  I especially may have a hard time, speaking personally, because though I value my history books, I have a feeling that most who handle them would have no idea of their value, or even consider them, and some books which are worth hundreds of dollars would go for 50 cents at a church yard sale or something similar.  Plus, the enjoyment I have in that book would be something I could not re-experience, but only have it for memories. 

When we look at living under the Law of Consecration, I look at how it was implemented previously in the LDS church.  Thus far, most members are NOT living under that law, even if they have made promises to live it.

[Vort]

1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

That said, when I say live under the law of consecration, even if one has given an oath to do so, we have not yet been called to do such by the church.

Of course we have. What do you think the temple covenant you made to that effect meant?

2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

This full participation in the Law of Consecration is not something that I, nor most of the Saints live under today.

This is meaningless. It's like saying that "full participation in the law of chastity is not something that we live under today." I suppose it's true, technically speaking. But what of it? We ARE bound under our covenants of chastity in our present state, just as we ARE bound under our covenants of consecration.

This seems to be a difficult principle for many people to understand. I don't see why; it seems perfectly straightforward: We made a covenant. Now we have to live it. We aren't forced to. We can consider "our" stuff to be consecrated to our own pleasure and entertainment. We are given the choice. But one day very soon, we will stand before God and give him an accounting of our actions and of how we kept (or did not keep) our covenants. Don't deceive yourself: The law of consecration will be right there with the law of chastity and our other covenants.

[zil]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

This seems to be a difficult principle for many people to understand.

IMO, the Law of Consecration is too often conflated with the United Order, and many people are under the impression that in order to fully live the Law of Consecration one must live in a United Order style community.  It seems that many find it difficult to figure out how to step away from that view and think of the covenant as exactly what is said in the temple.

(FWIW. And I agree with what you've stated here on this law.  We're under this covenant and it doesn't matter who else is doing what.)

[JohnsonJones]

Just now, Vort said:

Of course we have. What do you think the temple covenant you made to that effect meant?

This is meaningless. It's like saying that "full participation in the law of chastity is not something that we live under today." I suppose it's true, technically speaking. But what of it? We ARE bound under our covenants of chastity in our present state, just as we ARE bound under our covenants of consecration.

This seems to be a difficult principle for many people to understand. I don't see why; it seems perfectly straightforward: We made a covenant. Now we have to live it. We aren't forced to. We can consider "our" stuff to be consecrated to our own pleasure and entertainment. We are given the choice. But one day very soon, we will stand before God and give him an accounting of our actions and of how we kept (or did not keep) our covenants. Don't deceive yourself: The law of consecration will be right there with the law of chastity and our other covenants.

 The Law of Consecration, when practiced is different than what you suppose, in my opinion.  You may have promised something, but that does not MEAN you are LIVING the Law of consecration today. 

Part of Living the Law of Consecration is that ANYTHING you have above what you need (and that is NEED, not want or desire or possess) is given to the church to be redistributed among the needy as necessary.  People were unable to live this law, and thus today we practice the law of TITHING and Offerings instead.  When the Living under the Law of Consecration, there is no need for tithing.  This is why Missionaries should not be expected to tithe on the missionary monies they are given, nor the General Authorities expected to tithe on their living expenses or stipends.

We as a people are expected to live with the spirit of Consecration, but we are not expected to live UNDER the Law of Consecration today.  It is very fortunate, because I expect that almost no one gives all of their surplus to the church to redistribute to the poor as the Law of Consecration dictates we do, and how it was practiced and dictated to be done.

Quote

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAW OF CONSECRATION. The law of consecration requires dedicating all of one's time, talents, and possessions to the Church and its purposes (D&C 82:19;64:34;88:67-68;98:12-14). John A. Widtsoe, an apostle, noted that its operation was quite simple. Those who joined such an order were to place all their possessions in a common treasury-the rich their wealth, the poor their pittance. Then each member was to receive a sufficient portion-called an "inheritance"-from the common treasury to enable that person to continue in trade, business, or profession as desired. The farmer would receive land and implements; the tradesman, tools and materials; the merchant, necessary capital; the professional person, instruments, books, and the like. Members working for others would receive proportionate interests in the enterprises they served. No one would be without property. All would have an inheritance (Widtsoe, pp. 302-303).

A person's inheritance was to consist of personal property, to be operated permanently and freely for the benefit of the person and the family. Should the person withdraw from the order, the inheritance could be taken with him, but the person would have no claim upon surplus donations or possessions initially placed in the common treasury (D&C 51:3-6). At the end of a year or set period, the member who had earned more than needed for his family would voluntarily place the surplus in the common treasury. Substantial profits were to be administered by the group rather than by one individual. Men and women who, despite diligence, had a loss from their operations would have the loss made up by the general treasury for another start, or they might-with consent-be placed in some activity better suited to their gifts. In short, the general treasury was to establish every person in a preferred field and was to care for those unable to profit from their inheritance. The general treasury, holding members' surpluses, would also finance public works and make possible all community enterprises decided upon by the group (D&C 104:60-77).

Consecration

This does not mean we cannot apply the principles of Consecration in our lives, or try to live these principles, but the church today is NOT under the Law of Consecration for the most part unless you are living within the funds the church provides...which is VERY  limited.

A basic rundown of Consecration

Quote

Consecrating possessions

Under the law of consecration, Church members voluntarily consecrated their possessions to the Church by legal deed (D&C 42:30).

Receiving a stewardship

After Church members consecrated their possessions, the bishop granted them stewardships, or portions, from all the properties received. The size of the stewardship depended on the circumstances and needs of the family, as determined by the bishop in consultation with the member who received it (D&C 42:32; 51:3). The stewardship was given with a deed of ownership so each member would be fully responsible and accountable for managing it (D&C 51:4; 72:3–4; 104:11–13). The stewardship, then, was treated as private property, not common or communal property, even though all property ultimately belongs to God.

Surpluses

If members produced a surplus from their stewardships beyond what was necessary for their families, at the end of the year they gave it to the bishop to put in the bishop’s storehouse (D&C 42:33; 51:13). The bishop used the surplus to care for the poor, to build houses of worship, and for other worthy purposes (D&C 42:34–35).

United order

In March 1832, the Lord revealed that there must be an organization to regulate and administer the law of consecration among His people (D&C 78:3). He called this organization the “united order” (D&C 92:1). In subsequent revelations the Lord gave further instructions concerning the united order (see, for example, D&C 104).

Quote

3. We can consecrate our lives to the Lord now.

As Saints of God, we must be prepared and willing to live the law of consecration in its fulness. But we do not need to wait for a future day to consecrate our lives to the Lord. As we do all we can to live the law of consecration today, we will be better prepared to live the fulness of the law when the Lord asks us to do so.

• In what ways can we live the law of consecration in our lives today? (Use the following information to discuss or add to class members’ responses. Write the headings on the chalkboard as you discuss them.)

This means that we can apply these principles, and be willing to live under it, but today, we do NOT live under the fullness of the Law.  It has not yet been asked of us again.

The Law of Consecration as directed in the D&C

Quote

30 And behold, thou wilt remember the poor, and consecrate of thy properties for their support that which thou hast to impart unto them, with a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken.

31 And inasmuch as ye impart of your substance unto the poor, ye will do it unto me; and they shall be laid before the bishop of my church and his counselors, two of the elders, or high priests, such as he shall appoint or has appointed and set apart for that purpose.

32 And it shall come to pass, that after they are laid before the bishop of my church, and after that he has received these testimonies concerning the consecration of the properties of my church, that they cannot be taken from the church, agreeable to my commandments, every man shall be made accountable unto me, a steward over his own property, or that which he has received by consecration, as much as is sufficient for himself and family.

33 And again, if there shall be properties in the hands of the church, or any individuals of it, more than is necessary for their support after this first consecration, which is a residue to be consecrated unto the bishop, it shall be kept to administer to those who have not, from time to time, that every man who has need may be amply supplied and receive according to his wants.

34 Therefore, the residue shall be kept in my storehouse, to administer to the poor and the needy, as shall be appointed by the high council of the church, and the bishop and his council;

35 And for the purpose of purchasing lands for the public benefit of the church, and building houses of worship, and building up of the New Jerusalem which is hereafter to be revealed—

36 That my covenant people may be gathered in one in that day when I shall come to my temple. And this I do for the salvation of my people.

37 And it shall come to pass, that he that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out of the church, and shall not receive again that which he has consecrated unto the poor and the needy of my church, or in other words, unto me—

38 For inasmuch as ye do it unto the least of these, ye do it unto me.

39 For it shall come to pass, that which I spake by the mouths of my prophets shall be fulfilled; for I will consecrate of the riches of those who embrace my gospel among the Gentiles unto the poor of my people who are of the house of Israel

Today, rather than living under the Law of Consecration, we live the Law of the Tithe.  It is not as complete as the Law of Consecration, but by living it and preparing ourselves to live under the Law of Consecration by applying those principles in our life, we can be better prepared to live the Law of Consecration in it's fullness if it is ever restored for us to live under it completely in our time.

[Vort]

13 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Part of Living the Law of Consecration is that ANYTHING you have above what you need (and that is NEED, not want or desire or possess) is given to the church to be redistributed among the needy as necessary.

Nothing was said about that in my temple covenant. Are you conflating the law of consecration with the various "united orders" practiced by the early Saints, as @zil has suggested?

[Vort]

15 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

When the Living under the Law of Consecration, there is no need for tithing.

I think that I don't believe this. Tithing is an eternal law.

[JohnsonJones]

17 minutes ago, Vort said:

Nothing was said about that in my temple covenant. Are you conflating the law of consecration with the various "united orders" practiced by the early Saints, as @zil has suggested?

In regards to the Temple, I probably would be more constrictive on what I say in that regards...personally speaking.  That is your choice however.

16 minutes ago, Vort said:

I think that I don't believe this. Tithing is an eternal law.

The United Order is different then the Law of Consecration.  I posted what the Law of consecration is composed of as defined in the LDS Scripture of the D&C, Gospel Principles, and research.  They all agree on how it is done.  We DO NOT live that currently.  Instead we live under the Law of the Tithing and offerings.  Under the Law of Consecration there is no need to pay tithes and offerings as EVERYTHING you have has already been given.  You then have a stewardship.  Annually, ALL surplus (not just 10%) above what you have been given as stewardship and that you do not need to live is given to the church again. 

The United Order, as posted above and per the Gospel Principles, is an organization that was made in order to administer the Law of Consecration.  It is NOT the Law of Consecration itself. 

The church currently does NOT take your property deeds and other property (as deeded LEGALLY to the church, one of the requirements for living under the Law of Consecration) today and then let you have stewardship over what they deem is what you actually need (rather than want).

In addition, even if one views their promises to live under the Law of Consecration and believes that this means (even though they have not followed it by deeding their property to the church) they have now consecrated all they own and thus have stewardship (even though this property is NOT recorded on the books in the church, which is also a part of the items regarding things, they are to be recorded here on Earth as well as in Heaven), Most do NOT then give their entire surplus (- their actual NEEDs, not WAnts) to the church.  It is not done.

The church does not require it. 

Instead, we are told to give only 10% of our annual increase.  This is the Law of the Tithe.  We are also told to give generous fast offerings.

Tithing is an eternal principle, but is a lesser principle in relation to the Law of Consecration.  One is of a lower degree than the other.

Even if we are not under the fullness of the Law of Consecration currently, we can still have it applied to our lives and live principles of it.  We can pay a generous tithe and more generous fast offerings.  We can be willing to give all that we have if we were ever asked (and it is asked of some, but then they do live under that law, whereas for most of us, we do not).  When asked to do callings, we can be willing to give our all in that calling (and if we really want to be helpful, one can go and clean the church every week!!!).

Living the principles of the Law of Consecration can be an important thing for members to do, but currently, and of today, most of us do NOT live under the Law of Consecration (unless one, of course, is part of the first quorum of the seventy or the twelve apostles or the First Presidency, and to a more limited degree, a young Missionary).  That does not mean we cannot live it's principles though. 

I think this is the difference in what your perception is.  You CAN live the principles, but we, as a church, are not living the Law currently.  We do not even have the United Order to administer the Law presently for most of us.

Edited March 1, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[zil]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

When the Living under the Law of Consecration, there is no need for tithing.

 

Quote

But more than enough is more than enough: "Every man shall be made accountable unto me, a steward over his own property, or that which he has received by consecration, as much as is sufficient for himself and family" (D&C 42:32). It is from this that one pays tithing. Tithing is not consecration and does not supersede it. To pay a tithe of what is sufficient and no more is to pay a real tithe, given out of one's own necessities, something of a test and a sacrifice, as tithing is meant to be. Ten percent taken out of a surplus that one will never miss or need is indeed a strange "offering."

--Approaching Zion, by Hugh Nibley, Chapter 13

I recommend reading the entire book.

[jewels8]

9 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

I 100% agree that we need to be sensitive.  Could you explain to me how you are being sensitive to Wendy in this quote:

To me, this quote appears very insensitive to the love Wendy feels and saying she never should have married the man she loves.  But maybe I'm misunderstanding you or getting the wrong vibe (internet is really good at that).  Hence why I'm asking for clarification on how you are being sensitive to Wendy here.  

I don't mean to imply anything about the love Wendy feels for him.  But I wonder how she will feel later, when they have to sort things out.  Hopefully all will be well.  I am just glad it isn't me.  Of course things are different in heaven, and hopefully it will not be , awkward, to say the least.

[jewels8]

9 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

This is not Church doctrine at all.

Brigham Young gave this at least as his opinion

[Jane_Doe]

8 minutes ago, jewels8 said:

I don't mean to imply anything about the love Wendy feels for him.  But I wonder how she will feel later, when they have to sort things out.  Hopefully all will be well.  I am just glad it isn't me.  Of course things are different in heaven, and hopefully it will not be , awkward, to say the least.

Can we say agree that she's probably an intelligent woman who's thought things through with prayer and study?  

That we need to be sensitive and respecting her choice, rather than condemning her/her choice with comments to the jest of "she deserves better" or "she'll probably regret it later"?   Such comments are extremely disrespectful of her and insensitive. 

Edited March 2, 2018 by Jane_Doe