LDS Freedom Forum

farmerchick wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2023, 7:36 pm

Thinker wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2023, 6:53 pm

farmerchick wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2023, 6:37 pm ..the widow was not responsible for what the wicked priests did with the Lords goods.....

And yet if a widow (or anyone else) insists on being willfully blind to undeniable financial corruption in the church, then they will be responsible for that.

Are we saved by ignorance? Partly? Then at some point, God’s like, “I gave you a brain to use and like the slothful servant, you buried your potential.” God knows our hearts and intentions and is a perfect judge.

no I don't believe they will.....everyone has agency and if donated with a pure heart, without guile, expecting the servant of the vineyard to do as he is supposed to do with sacred resources given....the widow will be held blameless and will be obedient in the eyes of the Lord....possibly blessed temporally and of course spiritually if the Lord sees fit......then the Lord's supposed representative/servants will bear the burden of the misapplication of the sacred resources dutifully and obediently given for the Lord's house.....this is my interpretation as I've learned that my duty as a disciple of Christ is not canceled out because of someone else's free agency. At some point, the buck stops with each of us to do the "right thing." And your right, God knows our hearts and intentions and is a perfect judge....I'm quite at peace with that as a tithe payer and I do believe there will be a reckoning for the Lord's house and his "servants" who will answer to him for their stewardship even if they have never seen him or heard him in mortality. Steadying the Ark is a dangerous proposition as bad things happen to those who have no business doing it.....as we've been told in scripture......but each to his own..just my lowly opinion.

TheDuke wrote: ↑December 1st, 2023, 11:44 am I was lying in bed thinking about the widows mite and how the story would be received on LDS FF today, and how it would be written by many.

Here is what Mark said.
42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.

43 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:

44 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.

But, in reality it would be considered by most inappropriate taxing of the poor, and today on FF Jesus would have condemned her for wasting her money.

There would be a watchman by the door of the temple. He would reluctantly tell her that she should not give her offering. It was meant to be ok in the past but that was before Herod, and current HPs, they money is used to make the temple rich. He even wrote a pamphlet about the evils of donating money to the temples coffers, he would like her to read it but alas, she cannot read. It is pointed out that the HP was consorting with Herod the King and supporting the evil Romans. Everyone knows that the Jewish leaders are in league with the Romans to overthrow Jewish freedoms. The HP and the Sanhedrin get rich from the money, they wear fine apparel, have enormous homes and even attack Jesus n their spare time. the HP was seen recently in the Kings home greeting Roman leaders with hugs that are usually associated with priests greeting each other on the temple grounds. Obviously the HP was using the unneeded money to buy harlots and engage in SRA on the temple grounds, why else would no one be allowed in the holy of holies. After all this when the widow cast her mite anyway, he would engage in following her around and brow beating her into feeling stupid about her donation, there are after all poor among them, and homeless Essenes that cannot even afford nice clothes or haircuts, much more needy than the HP and his friends.

When all was over and done and she left the temple, the question would still be asked, "what the heck was Jesus saying about her gift being so special". I suppose they would just determine that Jesus was misquoted and really meant she should have kept her mite, I mean tithing the poor is well..................

TheDuke wrote: ↑December 3rd, 2023, 1:14 pm To consecrate something means to dedicate it to a sacred purpose. Church members in all ages have consecrated talents, time, and resources to establish and build the kingdom of God on the earth.

MikeMaillet wrote: ↑December 4th, 2023, 7:39 am

TheDuke wrote: ↑December 3rd, 2023, 1:14 pm To consecrate something means to dedicate it to a sacred purpose. Church members in all ages have consecrated talents, time, and resources to establish and build the kingdom of God on the earth.

What is the kingdom of God and in your opinion, does the kingdom of God exist today on the earth?

Mike

TheDuke wrote: ↑December 4th, 2023, 10:18 am

MikeMaillet wrote: ↑December 4th, 2023, 7:39 am

TheDuke wrote: ↑December 3rd, 2023, 1:14 pm To consecrate something means to dedicate it to a sacred purpose. Church members in all ages have consecrated talents, time, and resources to establish and build the kingdom of God on the earth.

What is the kingdom of God and in your opinion, does the kingdom of God exist today on the earth?

Mike

That is a good question. To me it seems like the term "kingdom of God" is another overloaded term. It seems to mean multiple things or at least the writers of canon used it different ways, perhaps loosely. When we see terms used by many different authors over the years, given this is LDS FF, I usually like to go to what Joseph said. I mean he seemed to define things for our time, some times using older definitions, some times newer meaning, sometimes a hybrid. And anyone after Joseph talking has for me less trust

It seems Joseph used the term to define a political system where god either leads or has influence or sets up. I'm not one that believes that Jesus will personally return to the earth and stay here as a literal king for the entire millennium. I think he will show up, set things in order and then assign someone(s) to lead some governmental body(s). Frankly, I see him using the US constitution as a basis for new world governments. I still see the millennium as a time of mortal probation, but without the daily interference of Satan, so it will require honorable men to perform the best they can and seemingly do so as individual nations. That's just my opinion, no revelation. To that end I would say that the kingdom of god on this earth will eventually be this honorable governmental system either lead by, set up by, or inspired by Jesus that will govern the earth during the millennium.

Whether there is a kingdom of god after the millennium really hasn't been made known. I see many worlds telestial, terrestrial and celestial all with their own laws and likely their own governments as the D&C says about laws. I accept eternal progression so there are many levels of god's kingdoms, each with their own level of laws and progressions. I don't know if they are termed "kingdom of god". I don't think so, but others claim such?

As far as now (pre-millennium) it would seem Joseph tried to set something up in his own way (committee of the 50), run for president, king of the world, etc.... I'm not sure what to make of it, other than perhaps he saw the potential for building up the government pre-second coming, or he really felt the second coming would happen while he was president? We have Jesus saying the kingdom of god is within you as well. To me this is really just a statement to the Jews in his day that he did not come to set up a government to take over Rome, etc... in his day. He had no intention of becoming political. Many take this sort of literally, like many do, and see something in your heart. I don't think that makes much literal sense. I mean it doesn't hurt anything, but the idea of an internal one person spiritual government seems incomprehensible. Apparently the Jews were waiting for the kingdom of god to be another King David and rule Israel and the world with both love and a sword and make them powerful and subdue their enemies. That Jesus seemed to debunk, he didn't and never will work that way. He forces no one, so therefore, it seems he cannot impose his power on unwilling peoples as their king. (Suppose if he kills all those that oppose, or enough to get 51% he' in???????).

Not sure if that answers the question. It just isn't a term I think of much as it is like the term "the church", and people run off and talk about how the infrastructure is same as gathering of two........... Different terms overloaded there as well, and always seems to end with an impasse.

MikeMaillet wrote: ↑December 4th, 2023, 10:53 am

TheDuke wrote: ↑December 4th, 2023, 10:18 am

MikeMaillet wrote: ↑December 4th, 2023, 7:39 am

What is the kingdom of God and in your opinion, does the kingdom of God exist today on the earth?

Mike

That is a good question. To me it seems like the term "kingdom of God" is another overloaded term. It seems to mean multiple things or at least the writers of canon used it different ways, perhaps loosely. When we see terms used by many different authors over the years, given this is LDS FF, I usually like to go to what Joseph said. I mean he seemed to define things for our time, some times using older definitions, some times newer meaning, sometimes a hybrid. And anyone after Joseph talking has for me less trust

It seems Joseph used the term to define a political system where god either leads or has influence or sets up. I'm not one that believes that Jesus will personally return to the earth and stay here as a literal king for the entire millennium. I think he will show up, set things in order and then assign someone(s) to lead some governmental body(s). Frankly, I see him using the US constitution as a basis for new world governments. I still see the millennium as a time of mortal probation, but without the daily interference of Satan, so it will require honorable men to perform the best they can and seemingly do so as individual nations. That's just my opinion, no revelation. To that end I would say that the kingdom of god on this earth will eventually be this honorable governmental system either lead by, set up by, or inspired by Jesus that will govern the earth during the millennium.

Whether there is a kingdom of god after the millennium really hasn't been made known. I see many worlds telestial, terrestrial and celestial all with their own laws and likely their own governments as the D&C says about laws. I accept eternal progression so there are many levels of god's kingdoms, each with their own level of laws and progressions. I don't know if they are termed "kingdom of god". I don't think so, but others claim such?

As far as now (pre-millennium) it would seem Joseph tried to set something up in his own way (committee of the 50), run for president, king of the world, etc.... I'm not sure what to make of it, other than perhaps he saw the potential for building up the government pre-second coming, or he really felt the second coming would happen while he was president? We have Jesus saying the kingdom of god is within you as well. To me this is really just a statement to the Jews in his day that he did not come to set up a government to take over Rome, etc... in his day. He had no intention of becoming political. Many take this sort of literally, like many do, and see something in your heart. I don't think that makes much literal sense. I mean it doesn't hurt anything, but the idea of an internal one person spiritual government seems incomprehensible. Apparently the Jews were waiting for the kingdom of god to be another King David and rule Israel and the world with both love and a sword and make them powerful and subdue their enemies. That Jesus seemed to debunk, he didn't and never will work that way. He forces no one, so therefore, it seems he cannot impose his power on unwilling peoples as their king. (Suppose if he kills all those that oppose, or enough to get 51% he' in???????).

Not sure if that answers the question. It just isn't a term I think of much as it is like the term "the church", and people run off and talk about how the infrastructure is same as gathering of two........... Different terms overloaded there as well, and always seems to end with an impasse.

Thanks, Duke; you're well thought out response is much appreciated. Much to think about. I'm currently leaning towards the idea that Zion is the highest spiritual point that we can achieve as mortals on this earth and that the US constitution is as good as it gets for a nation that are not united in their beliefs. Things went south as soon as the Federal Reserve was allowed to create money for the nation. We Canadians are always about 20 years behind and our central bank was created in the 1930s.

As for Joseph Smith, I believe he was the Prophet for our generation and although there have been some respectable church Presidents in the past, we are not being led by a Prophet today. This ended when Joseph and Hyrum were murdered. I keep going back to the idea of Zion as being the kingdom of God on this earth, given that He will dwell in person with the residents of Zion from time to time.

The next few years will be interesting and by this I mean in a bad way. The sifters in the mill are about to be turned up a notch.

Mike