An Angel Of Light

[Flyonthewall]

Billy seems to be trying to say that once you've broken a commandment, there is no way to get back in good graces with the Lord. Repentance won't do it, and for those under the Law of Moses, offering a sacrafice won't do it either. Nope. In order to be able to say "I keep the commandments", one has to keep them all perfectly without a mistake...sacrifice and repentance have no place in cleansing us of our mistakes.

[Notquitewetyet]

Billy seems to be trying to say that once you've broken a commandment, there is no way to get back in good graces with the Lord. Repentance won't do it, and for those under the Law of Moses, offering a sacrafice won't do it either. Nope. In order to be able to say "I keep the commandments", one has to keep them all perfectly without a mistake...sacrifice and repentance have no place in cleansing us of our mistakes.

Then why does the Bible speak about repentance? Why did God command all those poor animals to be killed for thousands of years, if it was pointless? Psalm 51:17 says: "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." By Billy's theology, evidently God does despise these.

[Hoops22]

Let us not forget, either, that it was not an angel from heaven that appeared to Joseph. It was God Himself, with His Son, Jesus Christ.

by which acount?

I suspect that these have somewhat more authority than any twisted interpretation that self-centered 'doctors' of religion choose to give to the writings of Paul.

Apparently not. As I'm not mormon.

[Billy]

Love to see you still using the JST as a proof-text in spite of the fact that it was never completed (see the other thread you created for several examples).

I am just surprised that you are so quick to kick the JST under the bus. You have quotes that it was not finished, I have quotes that it was finished (I tend to believe you because in my opinion as Joseph's doctrine shifted though time he felt the need to change things to match up with his current beliefs). But this goes to the heart of the functionality of the JST, what good is it if you can't use it? In this case the verse was changed by Joseph, so it was addressed by him and changed by him via revelation to correct it from incorrect to a correct interpretation. It baffles me that you as a believing LDS do not have more trust in the JST, especially the verses that he DID change.

But, hey, if I wanted to provide an actual translation of the passage from the Greek, such a translation including the word only is acceptable and is in keeping with the emphasis placed on the word for one by placing it before the verb and at the beginning of the quoted sentence! Since you began the first volley in a weak effort to cast doubt upon my abilities, let's play the "my translation is better than your translation" game for a moment, shall we? Here are a few you omitted from your little list:

Living Bible: You lack only one thing,...

NLT: "You lack only one thing,"...

TEV: You need only one thing.

Wow, you are disregarding the JST and using the NLT, Living Bible, and the Good News Translation (TEV)? Do you quote these translations often?

So we will likely not agree on the first part of this problem. You insist that this man was perfect in all the commandments that Christ mentioned. I feel that this was unlikely.

Lets tackle the second part of the problem, The rich young ruler asks Christ what he must do to obtain eternal life, Christ tells him to sell EVERYTHING that he has and give it to the poor, then come follow me (Christ). I would be the first to agree that this guy likely had a problem with money.

Did this rich ruler have to sell EVERYTHING that he had and give it to the poor to obtain exaltation?

Did Christ ever make this command of anyone else as a stipulation for salvation?

(note--before you bring it up I am familiar with the LDS law of consecration and the brief attempt at shared property in the early book of Acts which obviously did not work and was stopped)

Mark 10

17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is goodâ??except God alone.

19You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'[d]"

20"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."

21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

22At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.

[Billy]

Billy seems to be trying to say that once you've broken a commandment, there is no way to get back in good graces with the Lord. Repentance won't do it, and for those under the Law of Moses, offering a sacrafice won't do it either. Nope. In order to be able to say "I keep the commandments", one has to keep them all perfectly without a mistake...sacrifice and repentance have no place in cleansing us of our mistakes.

Flyonthewall,

You know full well that is not what I am saying at all. Everybody breaks the commandments and everyone of us needs to repent of our sins as it says below in the verses in 1 John. That is the whole point of this discussion on the rich young ruler. He says "Master, ALL these have I observed from my youth." He says that he has kept ALL the commandments that Christ listed from his youth up. He did not say that he broke the commandments and then repented and received forgiveness. If I said that I have NEVER told a lie in my whole life, this is entirely different than saying that I have told a lie but received forgiveness after repentance. The former is a lie, the later is consistent with every human who has ever lived except Christ. You see if you say that you have no sin you are a liar and the truth is not in you as it says in 1 John 1, but if we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us of our sins.

1 John 1

8If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

10If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

[Flyonthewall]

Flyonthewall,

You know full well that is not what I am saying at all. Everybody breaks the commandments and everyone of us needs to repent of our sins as it says below in the verses in 1 John. That is the whole point of this discussion on the rich young ruler. He says "Master, ALL these have I observed from my youth." He says that he has kept ALL the commandments that Christ listed from his youth up. He did not say that he broke the commandments and then repented and received forgiveness. If I said that I have NEVER told a lie in my whole life, this is entirely different than saying that I have told a lie but received forgiveness after repentance. The former is a lie, the later is consistent with every human who has ever lived except Christ. You see if you say that you have no sin you are a liar and the truth is not in you as it says in 1 John 1, but if we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us of our sins.

1 John 1

8If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

10If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Keeping the commandments is different than having no sin, especially under the law of Moses, which this young Rich man was. If you broke a commandment, offered the proscribed sacrifice for it, then under the law, you were clean, and if you were clean, then you could still claim that you have kept the commandments.

I know of kids that were good kids and grew up to be good adults. They had no other gods before God. They did like their parents told them and taught them...most of the time They did not steal, kill, covet or commit fornication/adultery. As adults, they could answer that they have kept the 10 commandments from their youth. The only commandment I can see that a child would have trouble with is honoring their parents, so does that mean they were perfect kids and never caused grief for their parents? No, but that does not negate that they honored their parents, imperfectly though it may have been.

He did not say that he never sinned, but that he kept the commandments.

I think you are splitting hairs here, and making mountains out of molehills.

[Billy]

Keeping the commandments is different than having no sin, especially under the law of Moses, which this young Rich man was. If you broke a commandment, offered the proscribed sacrifice for it, then under the law, you were clean, and if you were clean, then you could still claim that you have kept the commandments.

Hebrews 10

4For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

[Flyonthewall]

Hebrews 10

4For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Under the Law of Moses, the blood of sacrifices did make one right with the Lord. Hebrews was written AFTER the Law of Moses was fulfilled, and animal sacrifices would no longer be accepted. You see, Christ offered His own life as the FINAL sacrifice, and since the young rich man was speaking TO Christ, the final sacrifice had not been made yet, and animal sacrifices were still acceptable to the Lord.

[Billy]

Under the Law of Moses, the blood of sacrifices did make one right with the Lord. Hebrews was written AFTER the Law of Moses was fulfilled, and animal sacrifices would no longer be accepted. You see, Christ offered His own life as the FINAL sacrifice, and since the young rich man was speaking TO Christ, the final sacrifice had not been made yet, and animal sacrifices were still acceptable to the Lord.

The animal sacrifices DID NOT take away sin, they were a covering for sin. Hebrews 10:4" For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." When Christ came and offered his sacrifice, it DID take away sin. John 1:29 " "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world"

If animal sacrifices could take away our sins, and we could be considered clean or pure by these sacrifices, why did Christ come and offer himself as a sacrifice?

But you said

Keeping the commandments is different than having no sin, especially under the law of Moses, which this young Rich man was. If you broke a commandment, offered the proscribed sacrifice for it, then under the law, you were clean, and if you were clean, then you could still claim that you have kept the commandments.

Which is not really true if the animal sacrifices did not take AWAY sin, but was only a covering for sin.

[Flyonthewall]

The animal sacrifices DID NOT take away sin, they were a covering for sin. Hebrews 10:4" For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." When Christ came and offered his sacrifice, it DID take away sin. John 1:29 " "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world"

If animal sacrifices could take away our sins, and we could be considered clean or pure by these sacrifices, why did Christ come and offer himself as a sacrifice?

But you said

Which is not really true if the animal sacrifices did not take AWAY sin, but was only a covering for sin.

God gave the Law of Moses, and the Law of sacrifice, so that the House of Israel had a way to be right with the Lord. The house of Israel had all kinds of cleansing rituals, instituted by God, to make one clean.

Num. 19: 9, 12, 18-19

9 And a man that is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and lay them up without the camp in a clean place, and it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water of separation: it is a purification for sin.

â?¢ â?¢ â?¢

12 He shall purify himself with it on the third day, and on the seventh day he shall be clean: but if he purify not himself the third day, then the seventh day he shall not be clean.

â?¢ â?¢ â?¢

18 And a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, and upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave:

19 And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day: and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at even.

See here? a ritual that is a purification for sin.

True, the Law of Moses had no saving power, Christ had the saving power. But what were they to do before the atonement? Under the law that was in place at that time, this rich young man COULD claim that he kept the commandments.

I did not say he was sinless, I said he could claim that he kept the commandments, which Christ did not challenge. In fact, not only did Christ not challenge the young man on it, He invited him to "come follow me", the same way He invited the rest of His apostles. Do you think Christ insincere when He made this offer?

[Billy]

God gave the Law of Moses, and the Law of sacrifice, so that the House of Israel had a way to be right with the Lord. The house of Israel had all kinds of cleansing rituals, instituted by God, to make one clean.

See here? a ritual that is a purification for sin.

Agree, this was given to them to cover their sins, until Christ came and gave his offering for sin once and for all.

I did not say he was sinless, I said he could claim that he kept the commandments, which Christ did not challenge.

If a man (or woman) commits murder, and he goes to prison and completes his prison term, is that man no longer called a murderer?

[hagoth7]

The animal sacrifices DID NOT take away sin, they were a covering for sin. Hebrews 10:4" For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." When Christ came and offered his sacrifice, it DID take away sin. John 1:29 " "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world"

If animal sacrifices could take away our sins, and we could be considered clean or pure by these sacrifices, why did Christ come and offer himself as a sacrifice?

Perhaps...

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. 1 John 3:2-3

[Flyonthewall]

Agree, this was given to them to cover their sins, until Christ came and gave his offering for sin once and for all.

why then did the Lord call it a "purification for sin" if it merely covered it but not purify?

If a man (or woman) commits murder, and he goes to prison and completes his prison term, is that man no longer called a murderer?

Under the law, that person is no longer condemned for that crime and cannot be further punished.

If someone paid for their crime according to the law of the land, and fully repents, then the Lord will remember their sin no more, and whomever God has cleansed, who am I to say otherwise?

[Billy]

why then did the Lord call it a "purification for sin" if it merely covered it but not purify?

Animal sacrifice are a covering for sin, and but that Christ's sacrifice takes away sins. I think that this is based on these verses in Hebrews 10 below.

Hebrews 10

1For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

3But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

4For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

"c. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins: Animal sacrifice under the Old Covenant could cover sin. The Hebrew word for atonement is kophar, which literally means â??to cover.â? But animal sacrifice could never take away sins. Only Jesus, the Perfect Sacrifice of the New Covenant, takes sins away." http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/5810.htm

[Flyonthewall]

Animal sacrifice are a covering for sin, and but that Christ's sacrifice takes away sins. I think that this is based on these verses in Hebrews 10 below.

Hebrews 10

1For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

3But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

4For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

"c. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins: Animal sacrifice under the Old Covenant could cover sin. The Hebrew word for atonement is kophar, which literally means â??to cover.â? But animal sacrifice could never take away sins. Only Jesus, the Perfect Sacrifice of the New Covenant, takes sins away." http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/5810.htm

Remember that all men will be judged by the law under which they live. Those that live under the law of Moses will be judged by the Law of Moses, and if the Law says they are puriified, then they will be purified through the atonement of Christ. Otherwise all those that lived under the Law of Moses are condemned withoug salvation, for not being a part of the new testament.

The Law of Moses was given by the Lord, do you really think He will not abide by the laws He laid down? Do you really think that when he says: do this for a purification of sin, He will not honor His own law?

You are right in that the Law of Moses, in and of itself will not bring salvation, it is the gospel and the atonement of Christ that saves. What the Law of Moses lacked, is contained in the gospel of Jesus Christ

[Servant]

deleting because I was responding to the first page i didnt know this was pages and pages from that...

so...

[MormonMason]

I am just surprised that you are so quick to kick the JST under the bus. You have quotes that it was not finished, I have quotes that it was finished (I tend to believe you because in my opinion as Joseph's doctrine shifted though time he felt the need to change things to match up with his current beliefs). But this goes to the heart of the functionality of the JST, what good is it if you can't use it?

Well, for one thing, you seem to have me confused for a member of the Community of Christ Church. You are quoting from the Inspired Version of that Church. The Bible published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does not quote from that portion of the Inspired Version. It is nowhere to be found in the footnotes of said Bible, either. Of course, you who claim to have been formerly a member of said Church would have known that but you keep quoting from the CoC's Inspired Version.

I am looking at the manuscripts' typescripts right now as I type this. There are several things that catch my eye as I look at it:

1. None of the versification and textual division here is from Joseph Smith at all! They were inserted by the editorial committee of he RLDS Church.

2. Numbers that do exist on these pages of manuscript were written by Sidney RIgdon, who also tinkered with the text here and there, but these do not match up at all with the versification used by the RLDS/CoC Editorial Committee. They are instead rather large paragraphs

3. A number of the modifications that Joseph Smith dictated to this manuscript never made their way into the Inspired Version as he originally dictated this portion to Sidney Rigdon. They were later modified to read as they do by Rigdon. However, these are minor modifications that do not bear the mark of revelation.

Rather, they are a crossout and replacement of "are" with an interlinear "is", a crossout and interlinear replacement of the word "that" for "who", and simple cross-outs and interlinear insertions of the words "the man" in place of the word "he", and an interlinear insertion of the word "Master", and a crossout of "kept" and interlinear replacement with "observed." A number of these actually are returns to the wording of the KJV by Sidney Rigdon.

What good is it? Well, that is a rather moot point for this portion of the Inspired Version because this portion does not form part of the footnotes for the LDS edition of the Bible or any portion of the Inspired Version that was actually canonized by us in the Pearl of Great Price.

In this case the verse was changed by Joseph, so it was addressed by him and changed by him via revelation to correct it from incorrect to a correct interpretation. It baffles me that you as a believing LDS do not have more trust in the JST, especially the verses that he DID change.

Well, see above. This particular passage does not bear the stamp of revelation on it so the point is moot. Minor crossouts and interlinear insertions do not a revelation make. And, as I said, we do not have this set of verses in either our footnotes or appendix, or canonized in the Pearl of Great Price. Your argument is a moot point and if you truly were a member of the Church as you claim you would be aware of this. Drop the argument, please. You do not need to use deception to make an argument.

Wow, you are disregarding the JST and using the NLT, Living Bible, and the Good News Translation (TEV)? Do you quote these translations often?

No, I am disregarding the Inspired Version and not any of the JST passages for this chapter that actually are in the footnotes of the official LDS edition of the Bible, which is for verses 10:26 and 10:30-31. There is nothing on the rest of the verses to disregard.

As to whether I use the Living Bible, the NLT and the TEV, I most certainly do make use of them frequently. They have some absolutely brilliant renderings of the Greek text into English in many places, particularly in the case of the TEV, which was made by individuals who have a lot of experience translating from one language to another in their mission work among peoples of many nations. However, like all English translations, they also have their faults from time to time.

So we will likely not agree on the first part of this problem. You insist that this man was perfect in all the commandments that Christ mentioned. I feel that this was unlikely.

Of course you won't. You would have to give up your cherished fantasy interpretation of the passage if you were to do that. However, the structure and syntax of the Greek text very much are in favor of the overall sense of the rendering in the examples I gave. You must reject it because it weakens your pet, eisegetical hypothesis.

In addition, you refuse to see that it is possible for a man to keep the commandments in the list that Jesus gave from his adolescence to adulthood. Nowhere does he say anything about his infancy or his whole life! Between all the accounts of this episode, he is a young man and from the time he was a young man, meaning that he was just coming to be considered a man. This is a period of a few years. The Greek of the texts shows this about the man. There is nothing warranting any great length of time from when he began to keep the commandments Jesus listed to the time he was questioned by Jesus.

I have produced reasons why that is possible but you insist on projecting your own incapacities and weaknesses upon the man where this is unwarranted. Jesus surely knew the man's heart and loved him because he knew that the man was telling it straight with him. He also knew the one thing that the man lacked; he loved money and possessions more than Jesus in the end. Jesus stated that there was one thing the man lacked. Had the man lied to him he would have known it and likely would have said something about it as he did at other times when peoples' hearts were not right before him.

There were no "woe unto you" statements, no "hypocrite" epithets cast, just simple expression of love at the moment he knew the man's heart. Frankly, there is zero ground for eisegetically interpreting this fellow as lying or dishonest in any way. You must read that intent into the text and, frankly, you do not have the capacity to know that man's heart. You are mindreading and that is a form of eisegesis (meaning "explaining 'into'" the text) and logical fallacy.

Lets tackle the second part of the problem, The rich young ruler asks Christ what he must do to obtain eternal life, Christ tells him to sell EVERYTHING that he has and give it to the poor, then come follow me (Christ). I would be the first to agree that this guy likely had a problem with money.

Yes, he had a problem with money. On that at least we agree. But, what is the significance of this episode? It seems that in your zeal to hold to your false hypothesis, you will refuse to believe anything further I cna say on the matter. So, I offer a commentary on the Greek text for your consideration. The commentary instructs the reader to go to Matthew's account of this episode for further information revealed by the Greek texts. So, following that instruction, let's take a look:

ho neaniskos, the youth; whence known? from a special tradition (Meyer); an inference from the expression ek neotetos mou in Mk. x. 20 (Weiss).--

ephulaxa (-amen). Kypke and Elsner take pains to show that the use of this verb (and of terein, ver. 17) in the sense of obeying commands is good Greek. More important is it to note the declaration the verb contains: all these I have kept from youth. To be taken as a simple fact, not stated in a self-righteous spirit (Weiss-Meyer), rather sadly as by one conscious that he has not thereby reached the desired goal, real rest in the highest good found. The exemplary life plus the dissatisfaction meant much: that he was not a morally commonplace man, but one with affinities for the noble and the heroic. No wonder Jesus felt interested in him, "loved him" (Mk. x. 21), and tried to win him completely. It may be assumed that the man appreciated the supreme importance of the ethical, and was not in sympathy with the tendency of the scribes to subordinate the moral to the ritual, the commands of God to the traditions of the elders.--

ti eti hustero: the question interesting first of all as revealing a felt want: a good symptom; next as betraying perplexity = I am on the right road, according to your teaching; why then do I not attain to the rest of the true godly life? The question, not in Mk., is implied in the tone of the previous statement, whether uttered or not.--

Ver. 21. ei theles teleios einai (on teleios vide v. 48): if you wish to reach your end, the true life and rest it brings.--

hupage, etc.: go, sell off, distribute to the poor, and then come, follow me--such is the advice Christ gives: His final lesson for this inquirer. It is a subjective counsel relative to the individual. Jesus sees he is well-to-do, and divines where the evil lies. It is doubtful if he cares passionately, supremely for the true life; doubtful if he be teleios in the sense of single-mindedness. It is not a question of one more thing to do, but of the state of the heart, which the suggestion to sell off will test. The invitation to become a disciple is seriously meant. Jesus, who repelled some offering themselves, thinks so well of this man as to desire him for a disciple. He makes the proposal hopefully. Why should so noble a man not be equal to the sacrifice? He makes it with the firm belief that in no other way can this man become happy. Noblesse oblige. The nobler the man, the more imperative that the heroic element in him have full scope. A potential apostle, a possible Paul even, cannot be happy as a mere wealthy merchant or landowner. It is "a counsel of perfection," but not in the ascetic sense, as if poverty were the sure way to the higher Christian life; rather in the sense of the adage: of him to whom much is given shall much be required.--

Ver. 22. apelthen: he would have to go away in any case, even if he meant to comply with the advice in order to carry it into effect. But he went away lupoumenos, in genuine distress, because placed in a dilemma between parting with wealth and social position, and forfeiting the the joy of disciplehood under an admired Master. What was the final issue? Did "the thorns of avarice defile the rich soil of his soul" (Euthy.), and render him permanently unfruitful, or did he at last decide for the disciple life? At the worst see here the miscarriage of a really noble nature, and take care not to fall into the vulgar mistake of seeing in this man a Pharisee who came to tempt Jesus, and who in professing to have kept the commandments was simply a boastful liar.

(W. Robertson Nicoll, Ed., The Expositor's Greek Testament [1961, Grand Rapids: Eerdman's Publishing Company], 1:249-250)

You will note that the text of the commentary, particulary the closing remarks, addresses directly your claims concerning this passage, that of Mark, and the man himself.

Did this rich ruler have to sell EVERYTHING that he had and give it to the poor to obtain exaltation?

He needed to follow Christ, and endure to the end, to obtain that.

Did Christ ever make this command of anyone else as a stipulation for salvation?

(note--before you bring it up I am familiar with the LDS law of consecration and the brief attempt at shared property in the early book of Acts which obviously did not work and was stopped)

Actually, he did. Whenever he called a new disciple he would say "come follow me" and those he called directly dropped everything that moment and followed him. In addition, he made the requirement through Paul to those under Timothy's charge as cited in a passage I quoted in another thread. But, in the case of this young ruler, it was counsel to bring him to the fulness of earthly, moral perfection and to make him a disciple.

The young man failed in the test at that time. Did he continue to fail or did he accept later on in life? We are not told. What we are told by the Greek of the passages is that he was not self-righteous, that he was honest in his declaration to Christ, and Christ therefore wanted to disciple the young man and wanted his entire focus, not the partial focus that comes from one who is concerned with wealth and finances and social status all the while while trying to preach the Gospel of life. Please let go of your false interpretation of the passage in the interest of truth and learning the will of Christ for you.

[cjcampbell]

It seems like you have an issue with the Catholic church, not ALL Christian churches as you noted above.

Very well, then. If the Catholic understanding of Jesus Christ is so much different than yours, are the Catholics Christians?

[Billy]

Well, for one thing, you seem to have me confused for a member of the Community of Christ Church. You are quoting from the Inspired Version of that Church. The Bible published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does not quote from that portion of the Inspired Version. It is nowhere to be found in the footnotes of said Bible, either.

A couple of interesting points about your claim above.

First YOU quoted the exact same book that I am quoting, for some reason it is OK for you to quote it but when I quote the same exact book it is somehow a gotcha and I am wrong.

My heart is made glad by your report of your progress in the translation as you know something of my fears with regard to its publication, on account of what your father said about the unfinished condition of the work.

(Letter of Emma Smith Bidamon to Joseph Smith III, 10 February 1867, CCA, as cited in Joseph Smith's "New Translation" of the Bible [1970, Independence: Herald Publishing House], 11)

Of course, you who claim to have been formerly a member of said Church would have known that but you keep quoting from the CoC's Inspired Version.

I guess I would have to agree with you here, only "a member of said Church would have known" that you are quoting from the same version when it suits your needs.

Second point is that the book that I am using to quote from was purchased at the BYU Bookstore and still has the label on it, but I know that this does not really matter, this does not mean it is an "authorized version". Give me the ISBN number of the official LDS version and I will buy that one so that it meets your requirements.

[Billy]

What we are told by the Greek of the passages is that he was not self-righteous,

Can you give me a translation, besides your own, that you got this one from?

The quote below actually agrees with you on a couple of points, but agrees with me on a couple of points.

David Guzik's Commentary on Mark

"b. Teacher, all these things I have kept from my youth: In his reply, this ruler says of himself that he has kept all these commandments, and that he has done so since his youth. Is this possible? Yes and no. â??Yesâ? according to the way these commandments were commonly interpreted but â??noâ? according to the true meaning God had for these commandments.

i. In Philippians 3:6, Paul says that in the eyes of the religious Jews, he could say that for him, concerning the righteousness which is in the law, [he was] blameless.

ii. But Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, gave us the real meaning of the law - it goes to the heart, not just to your actions. You can have a heart filled with adultery even if you never commit it; a heat filled with murder even if you never do it; a heart that steals even if you never steal. And God looks at the heart as well as the actions.

iii. The man should have responded, â??There is no way I have kept or can keep the law of God completely. I need a savior.â?

c. Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him: Jesus was filled with loving compassion for this man because his life was so empty. He had climbed to the top of the ladder of success, only to find his ladder was leaning against the wrong building.

d. One thing you lack: Instead of challenging the manâ??s fulfillment of the law (which Jesus had every right to do), Jesus instead took him further down his own path. â??So you want to find fulfillment and salvation by doing for God? Then here, do it all.â? Jesus wanted the man to see the futility of finding fulfillment or salvation through doing, but the man wouldnâ??t see it.

i. He also could not love God more than his wealth, even though Jesus specifically promised him treasure in heaven. The man was more interested in manâ??s earthly treasures than in Godâ??s heavenly treasures. Essentially, this man was an idolater. Wealth was his God, not the true God of the Bible. He put money first.

e. Then how can we be saved? This man, like all men by nature, has an orientation towards a works-righteousness; he asks what shall I do. If we really want to do the works of God, it must begin with believing on Jesus, whom the Father has sent (John 6:29).

i. Jesusâ?? purpose wasnâ??t to make the man sad; but he could only be happy by doing what Jesus told him to do. So he went away grieved. How many have almost everything, yet are grieved!" End of quote http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/4110.htm

that he was honest in his declaration to Christ, and Christ therefore wanted to disciple the young man and wanted his entire focus, not the partial focus that comes from one who is concerned with wealth and finances and social status all the while while trying to preach the Gospel of life. Please let go of your false interpretation of the passage in the interest of truth and learning the will of Christ for you.

Mark 10 NLT

17 As Jesus was starting out on his way to Jerusalem, a man came running up to him, knelt down, and asked, â??Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?â?

19 But to answer your question, you know the commandments: â??You must not murder. You must not commit adultery. You must not steal. You must not testify falsely. You must not cheat anyone. Honor your father and mother.â??[e]â?

20 â??Teacher,â? the man replied, â??Iâ??ve obeyed ALL these commandments since I was young.â?

21 Looking at the man, Jesus felt genuine love for him. â??There is still one thing you havenâ??t done,â? he told him. â??Go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.â?

22 At this the manâ??s face fell, and he went away sad, for he had many possessions.

So you feel that this man is a great man who has kept all the commandments that Christ mentioned and that he was turned away by Christ because he did not sell EVERYTHING that he had and give it ALL to the poor?

Why do you think that Christ did not say be baptized and follow me, rather than sell everything?

Does exaltation require that this man sell EVERYTHING and give it to the poor?

Even under the United Order, they were NOT REQUIRED TO SELL EVERYTHING and give it to the poor.

Law of Consecration

"In the Latter Day Saint movement (also known as Mormonism), the law of consecration has two broad meanings. As the term was first used in 1831 by Joseph Smith (Doctrine and Covenants 42:30-39 http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/42/3), it was a doctrine of covenanted Christian socialism: Latter Day Saints were asked to voluntarily deed (consecrate) their property to the Church of Christ, and the church then would assign to each member a "stewardship" of that property. The member usually controlled completely the property delegated or (in some instances) deeded to him; his responsibilities were to manage the property and to generate an income from it. Any excess income was to be remitted to the church. The organization established to manage the Law of Consecration was called the United Order." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Consecration

[Billy]

Very well, then. If the Catholic understanding of Jesus Christ is so much different than yours, are the Catholics Christians?

I have tried to avoid the Christian, Non Christian debate, because I know it is a no win for both sides. The problem with the LDS trying to make an all inclusive definition for the term Christian, is that it includes groups that may under the letter of the law be included, but under the spirit of the law probably should be excluded, such groups as the Branch Davidians and the People's Temple immediately come to mind.

Some people use the term Christian to mean making Christ a "normative" center for your life, but others see the term Christian as a system or belief in things required to live with God again, and although some people may meet the letter of the law by making Christ a "normative" center of their life, they do things that put them outside the requirement to get back and live with God again.

[MormonMason]

A couple of interesting points about your claim above.

First YOU quoted the exact same book that I am quoting, for some reason it is OK for you to quote it but when I quote the same exact book it is somehow a gotcha and I am wrong.

I guess I would have to agree with you here, only "a member of said Church would have known" that you are quoting from the same version when it suits your needs.

Second point is that the book that I am using to quote from was purchased at the BYU Bookstore and still has the label on it, but I know that this does not really matter, this does not mean it is an "authorized version". Give me the ISBN number of the official LDS version and I will buy that one so that it meets your requirements.

Ummm... Billy??? I quoted from the preface because it had a source relative to whether or not the JST was finished. The book you have in your possession was NOT published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Show me where I have quoted from the JST anywhere to make a point. The preface is not the JST.

As to the Bible, I was not referring to the Inspired Version. I also have to make known that the volume that you do have is problematic in that it makes claims about things Joseph Smith changed which he did not even touch. The book contains a number of errors including points where changes were marked as having been from Joseph Smith when they were in reality modifications in the Phinney Bible that Joseph Smith used as a base for the work. Portions of the KJV which were put into the Joseph Smith translation wholesale by the CoC are also included in that book, without indicating what Joseph Smith did or did not touch.

Now, the Bible that members of the Church use should have been used by you when you allegedly were a member of said Church, as you have claimed. It has been available to members of the Church since 1979. If you were a member of the Church like you have claimed, at any time from that year to the present, you already would have had one in your possession. That you do not have one makes your claims all the more interesting and rather suspect. Why do you not have one? Families or Bishops of Wards buy them and present them to members on the day of their baptisms. Where is yours? Please, Billy, just be honest with us. We appreciate it more when people are completely honest with us.

At any rate, you can get one of the official LDS Bibles at any LDS bookstore. You also can find them at your nearest Deseret Industries store for pennies on the dollar in both paperback and leatherbound and a false leather binding. Most of those are used copies, however.

Alternatively, you also can look at the scriptures online at http://scriptures.lds.org and read them there. All of the notes and JST sections that are in the official LDS Bible are located there as well as in the printed editions. And, you can get to that site for free. It is not very convenient, however, if you are away from your computer and want to look something up.

Furthermore. it is not that it meets my requirements, it is that it is the official Bible of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You keep making claims about the JST and about how I am "rejecting" such when you do not even have the same Bible that the Church officially uses! Incidentally, Latter-day Saints are not bound by the content of the publications of other Churches. You should also have known that before trying to castigate me for "rejecting" something that that my Church does not even publish! That is the height of hypocrisy.

[Billy]

I quoted from the preface because it had a source relative to whether or not the JST was finished. The book you have in your possession was NOT published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. . . I also have to make known that the volume that you do have is problematic in that it makes claims about things Joseph Smith changed which he did not even touch. The book contains a number of errors including points where changes were marked as having been from Joseph Smith when they were in reality modifications in the Phinney Bible that Joseph Smith used as a base for the work. Portions of the KJV which were put into the Joseph Smith translation wholesale by the CoC are also included in that book, without indicating what Joseph Smith did or did not touch.

You quoted the same book that I have, how can you trust the quote that you provided? If seems hypocritical to blame me from quoting a book that you yourself quote, even if it is only the preface of the book.

This is the book that you quoted from, the same exact book that I have at home.

My heart is made glad by your report of your progress in the translation as you know something of my fears with regard to its publication, on account of what your father said about the unfinished condition of the work.

(Letter of Emma Smith Bidamon to Joseph Smith III, 10 February 1867, CCA, as cited in Joseph Smith's "New Translation" of the Bible [1970, Independence: Herald Publishing House], 11)

Now, the Bible that members of the Church use should have been used by you when you allegedly were a member of said Church, as you have claimed. It has been available to members of the Church since 1979. If you were a member of the Church like you have claimed, at any time from that year to the present, you already would have had one in your possession. That you do not have one makes your claims all the more interesting and rather suspect. Why do you not have one? Families or Bishops of Wards buy them and present them to members on the day of their baptisms. Where is yours? Please, Billy, just be honest with us. We appreciate it more when people are completely honest with us.

This is the second time that you have implied from your writing that I was never a member. Do you believe that I was never a member of the LDS church, or is it your way to give me a backhanded jab? In your answer please remember your own advice that "we appreciate it more when people are completely honest with us."

As far as owning a LDS Bible, yes I do own one. It is marked up heavily from my missionary days (IF I really did go on a mission).

Why do active members of the LDS church, including members of my own family, continue to rely on the JST book like the one printed by the Herald Publishing House the exact same book that YOU quoted, if that book is not reliable as you say? And why on earth does the BYU Bookstore sell this book if what you say is accurate that the many changes were not by Joseph Smith? This make absolutely no sense to me at all, because it is providing false information to it's members. Maybe you should call the BYU Bookstore at recommend that they discontinue to sell this book, if they haven't done so already.

[MormonMason]

Can you give me a translation, besides your own, that you got this one from?

Billy, you keep mentioning translation. Once again, I have offered no translation in what you are addressing. You are not reading my posts very carefully. I have made assertions regarding the Greek text and not offered translations on that matter thus far. In a few other threads I have offered my own translations of various texts themselves. If I had offered a translation here, I have no need to appeal to authority in that I can translate the texts myself and I would clearly state that I am providing a translation. I am sorry that you do not have the ability to do so. I am sure that you could learn to do so, however, so why not get the ball rolling?

It will take you a few years before you start to get a feel for the text, however. Besides this, I provided a text above in my preceding posts that goes right to the heart of the issue. You seem to have ignored it! Here, I'll post it again:

ho neaniskos, the youth; whence known? from a special tradition (Meyer); an inference from the expression ek neotētos mou in Mk. x. 20 (Weiss).--

ephulaxa (-amēn). Kypke and Elsner take pains to show that the use of this verb (and of tērein, ver. 17) in the sense of obeying commands is good Greek. More important is it to note the declaration the verb contains: all these I have kept from youth. To be taken as a simple fact, not stated in a self-righteous spirit (Weiss-Meyer), rather sadly as by one conscious that he has not thereby reached the desired goal, real rest in the highest good found. The exemplary life plus the dissatisfaction meant much: that he was not a morally commonplace man, but one with affinities for the noble and the heroic. No wonder Jesus felt interested in him, "loved him" (Mk. x. 21), and tried to win him completely. It may be assumed that the man appreciated the supreme importance of the ethical, and was not in sympathy with the tendency of the scribes to subordinate the moral to the ritual, the commands of God to the traditions of the elders.--

ti eti husterō: the question interesting first of all as revealing a felt want: a good symptom; next as betraying perplexity = I am on the right road, according to your teaching; why then do I not attain to the rest of the true godly life? The question, not in Mk., is implied in the tone of the previous statement, whether uttered or not.--

Ver. 21. ei theles teleios einai (on teleios vide v. 48): if you wish to reach your end, the true life and rest it brings.--

hupage, etc.: go, sell off, distribute to the poor, and then come, follow me--such is the advice Christ gives: His final lesson for this inquirer. It is a subjective counsel relative to the individual. Jesus sees he is well-to-do, and divines where the evil lies. It is doubtful if he cares passionately, supremely for the true life; doubtful if he be teleios in the sense of single-mindedness. It is not a question of one more thing to do, but of the state of the heart, which the suggestion to sell off will test. The invitation to become a disciple is seriously meant. Jesus, who repelled some offering themselves, thinks so well of this man as to desire him for a disciple. He makes the proposal hopefully. Why should so noble a man not be equal to the sacrifice? He makes it with the firm belief that in no other way can this man become happy. Noblesse oblige. The nobler the man, the more imperative that the heroic element in him have full scope. A potential apostle, a possible Paul even, cannot be happy as a mere wealthy merchant or landowner. It is "a counsel of perfection," but not in the ascetic sense, as if poverty were the sure way to the higher Christian life; rather in the sense of the adage: of him to whom much is given shall much be required.--

Ver. 22. apēlthen: he would have to go away in any case, even if he meant to comply with the advice in order to carry it into effect. But he went away lupoumenos, in genuine distress, because placed in a dilemma between parting with wealth and social position, and forfeiting the the joy of disciplehood under an admired Master. What was the final issue? Did "the thorns of avarice defile the rich soil of his soul" (Euthy.), and render him permanently unfruitful, or did he at last decide for the disciple life? At the worst see here the miscarriage of a really noble nature, and take care not to fall into the vulgar mistake of seeing in this man a Pharisee who came to tempt Jesus, and who in professing to have kept the commandments was simply a boastful liar.

(W. Robertson Nicoll, Ed., The Expositor's Greek Testament [1961, Grand Rapids: Eerdman's Publishing Company], 1:249-250; transliteration and bold emphasis mine; English text in original; paragraphs in original order but broken up for easier oline reading)

Again, read this commentary on the Greek text very carefully. Once again, it is not my commentary. Yet, it agrees with what I have asserted above about the contents of the Greek text insofar as the character of the young ruler was concerned. Read this very carefully. It addresses both you and the commentary you quote below. I have a few words to say about your quoted commentary in just a moment.

The quote below actually agrees with you on a couple of points, but agrees with me on a couple of points.

David Guzik's Commentary on Mark

"b. Teacher, all these things I have kept from my youth: In his reply, this ruler says of himself that he has kept all these commandments, and that he has done so since his youth. Is this possible? Yes and no. â??Yesâ? according to the way these commandments were commonly interpreted but â??noâ? according to the true meaning God had for these commandments.

i. In Philippians 3:6, Paul says that in the eyes of the religious Jews, he could say that for him, concerning the righteousness which is in the law, [he was] blameless.

ii. But Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, gave us the real meaning of the law - it goes to the heart, not just to your actions. You can have a heart filled with adultery even if you never commit it; a heat filled with murder even if you never do it; a heart that steals even if you never steal. And God looks at the heart as well as the actions.

iii. The man should have responded, â??There is no way I have kept or can keep the law of God completely. I need a savior.â?

c. Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him: Jesus was filled with loving compassion for this man because his life was so empty. He had climbed to the top of the ladder of success, only to find his ladder was leaning against the wrong building.

d. One thing you lack: Instead of challenging the manâ??s fulfillment of the law (which Jesus had every right to do), Jesus instead took him further down his own path. â??So you want to find fulfillment and salvation by doing for God? Then here, do it all.â? Jesus wanted the man to see the futility of finding fulfillment or salvation through doing, but the man wouldnâ??t see it.

i. He also could not love God more than his wealth, even though Jesus specifically promised him treasure in heaven. The man was more interested in manâ??s earthly treasures than in Godâ??s heavenly treasures. Essentially, this man was an idolater. Wealth was his God, not the true God of the Bible. He put money first.

e. Then how can we be saved? This man, like all men by nature, has an orientation towards a works-righteousness; he asks what shall I do. If we really want to do the works of God, it must begin with believing on Jesus, whom the Father has sent (John 6:29).

i. Jesusâ?? purpose wasnâ??t to make the man sad; but he could only be happy by doing what Jesus told him to do. So he went away grieved. How many have almost everything, yet are grieved!" End of quote http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/4110.htm

This has got to be the most eisegetically inclined piece of crapola of a commentary I have ever read, Billy. No wonder you are misled! I am serious. Completely. This man reads back into past times things that were given afterward as though it is understood. He mind-reads and then states what the man should have said upon the basis of a theology and codified teachings that did not yet exist! He takes liberties with the text that no one truly familiar with the Greek text ever would! It is filled with so many falsities in one compact space--where should I start?

One cannot foist 19th century evangelical theology onto a text if one is doing exegesis of the text. The above commentary you cite is filled with eisegetical, evangelical "gobbledygook" which reads into the text what is not apparent from the text. It is a ridiculous approach and a reproach to the Greek text itself. You are wasting your time with that commentary, Billy. It is leading you astray from the true joys of understanding the text of the Bible.

Mark 10 NLT

17 As Jesus was starting out on his way to Jerusalem, a man came running up to him, knelt down, and asked, â??Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?â?

19 But to answer your question, you know the commandments: â??You must not murder. You must not commit adultery. You must not steal. You must not testify falsely. You must not cheat anyone. Honor your father and mother.â??[e]â?

20 â??Teacher,â? the man replied, â??Iâ??ve obeyed ALL these commandments since I was young.â?

21 Looking at the man, Jesus felt genuine love for him. â??There is still one thing you havenâ??t done,â? he told him. â??Go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.â?

22 At this the manâ??s face fell, and he went away sad, for he had many possessions.

So you feel that this man is a great man who has kept all the commandments that Christ mentioned and that he was turned away by Christ because he did not sell EVERYTHING that he had and give it ALL to the poor?

I feel that the man was far greater than any of his previous questioners like the scribes, Sadduccees and Pharisees. He had great potential and Christ saw that in him as I see that in him. Christ got it from what he knew of the hearts of men. I get it from reading the Greek text. The man was genuine and it is sad that he failed the test given him.

AND, ONCE AGAIN, BILLY, CHRIST DID NOT TURN THE MAN AWAY! He turned HIMSELF away. Billy, how many times must I tell you this to get the point across? Christ did not turn the man away. He turned himself away. Christ did not turn the man away. He turned himself away. Christ did not turn the man away. He turned himself away. Christ did not turn the man away. He turned himself away. Christ did not turn the man away. He turned himself away. Christ did not turn the man away. He turned himself away. Christ did not turn the man away. He turned himself away. Christ did not turn the man away. He turned himself away. Christ did not turn the man away. He turned himself away. Christ did not turn the man away. He turned himself away. Christ did not turn the man away. He turned himself away. Christ did not turn the man away. He turned himself away. Christ did not turn the man away. He turned himself away. Christ did not turn the man away. He turned himself away. Christ did not turn the man away. He turned himself away. Christ did not turn the man away. He turned himself away. Christ did not turn the man away. He turned himself away. Christ did not turn the man away. He turned himself away. Christ did not turn the man away. He turned himself away. Christ did not turn the man away. He turned himself away. Christ did not turn the man away. He turned himself away. Christ did not turn the man away. He turned himself away.

There. Have I made my point any clearer?

If not, show me where it says that Christ turned this man away. Do I need to rent a jack-hammer and drive the point into your skull?

Why do you think that Christ did not say be baptized and follow me, rather than sell everything?

That would surely have followed because he required it of all his disciples who were not baptized by John. It was required afterward by the apostles Jesus chose. And, the reason for the question? A test.

Does exaltation require that this man sell EVERYTHING and give it to the poor?

Of this man it certainly would have been a requirement. Jesus told him what he needed to do in order to reach relative moral perfection and told him that he wanted him to become his disciple. "Go and sell everything and take up the cross and, come, follow me." It does not get any clearer than that. If Jesus himself tells you do do something directly, and you refuse the instruction, do you honestly feel that your reward will be as great as that of the man who did as instructed? The answer is a 'no' answer simply because exaltation is the highest reward from God to man known to man. It is predicated on what one does. Salvation is by grace through faith but exaltation, which is salvation in its fullest sense, requires grace, faith and effort.

Now, what do you make of the words attributed to Paul to Timothy? It is written:

Well, religion does make one rich if he satisfied with what he has. What did we bring into this world? Nothing! What can we take out of the world? Nothing! So then, if we have food and clothes, that should be enough for us. But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and are caught in the trap of many foolish and harmful desires, which pull them down to ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a source of all kinds of evil. Some have been so eager to have it that they have wandered away from the faith and have broken their hearts with many sorrows.

* * *

Command those who are rich in the things of this life not to be proud, but to place their hope, not in such uncertain things as riches, but in God, who generously gives us everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share with others. In this way they will store up for themselves a treasure which will be a solid foundation for the future. And then, they will be able to win the life which is true life.

(1 Timothy 6:6-10, 17-19, TEV; bold emphasis mine)

Now, I have to point something out to you. I prefer the TEV over the NLT and the Living Bible but even there the translation has problems. One of the problems is the last sentence of the translation, which is caused by substantial differences in the underlying Greek text tradition. The vast majority of the Greek manuscripts have "eternal life" here, whereas the handful of manuscripts used to make the TEV and NLT have "real life" or "true life" there.

My other problem is that the translators of the NLT and preceding Living Bible have an agenda which they once shared with their readers but which they now for some reason no longer do, is that they sometimes force evangelical theology into the Greek texts they considered difficult texts. Here is the original preface to the Living Bible when they were a little more honest about what they were doing. Would that all Bible versions done by evangelical committees were this honest!

There are dangers in paraphrases, as well as values. For whenever the author's exact words are not translated from the original languages, there is the possibility that the translator, however honest, may be giving the English reader something the original writer did not mean to say. This is because a paraphrase is guided not only by the translator's skill in simplifying but also by the clarity of his understanding of what the author meant and by his theology. For when the Greek or Hebrew is not clear, then the theology of the translator is his guide, along with his sense of logic, unless perchance the translation is allowed to stand without any clear meaning at all. The theological lodestar in this book has been a rigid evangelical position.

(Preface to the Living Bible; bold emphasis mine)

Well, irregardless of the differences in the manuscripts here, or translation methodology elsewhere, I think we both know that the true life = eternal life, so--at least here--the sense still gets across to the careful reader of even the English text. The point of the passage is that only by doing as they are commanded concerning their attitudes toward riches and doing good works would these rich men obtain the eternal life or true life they sought. Read this passage very carefully.

Check the Greek text, if you will. The Greek there is in the subjunctive mood, meaning that the outcome of the phrase following the subjunctive conjunction with proper verb form (hina epilabōntai, meaning in said mood "so that they may lay hold upon") is dependent upon the actions of the first part of the sentence. In other words, for these rich men to whom Paul directs Timothy to give the commands, their willingness to share and actually doing so was necessary in order for these men to have the true life, which is eternal life. The Bible text actually says it clear as crystal, especially so in the Greek of the text irrespective of the manuscript tradition represented in the English Translation.

Again, what make you of this passage in light of Jesus' comments regarding what the rich man had to do in order to become perfect in his quest for keeping the commandments and for eternal life?

Even under the United Order, they were NOT REQUIRED TO SELL EVERYTHING and give it to the poor.

Law of Consecration

"In the Latter Day Saint movement (also known as Mormonism), the law of consecration has two broad meanings. As the term was first used in 1831 by Joseph Smith (Doctrine and Covenants 42:30-39 http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/42/3), it was a doctrine of covenanted Christian socialism: Latter Day Saints were asked to voluntarily deed (consecrate) their property to the Church of Christ, and the church then would assign to each member a "stewardship" of that property. The member usually controlled completely the property delegated or (in some instances) deeded to him; his responsibilities were to manage the property and to generate an income from it. Any excess income was to be remitted to the church. The organization established to manage the Law of Consecration was called the United Order." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Consecration

This quote does not tell the whole story, unfortunately. The purpose of the Law of Consecration was for the benefit of the poor. The person intering into this law gave up everything that s/he owned to the Church. The Bishop of the Church would then determine with the person consecrating what he and his family needs were and deed back to the person a portion of the property and other things that the family would need as a stewardship. The property belonged to the Church but stewardship was given to the family that occupied it. Any surplus from that property was automatically deeded to the Church and distributed to the poor of the Church. The remainder of the property that was not deeded back to the person as a stewardship was distributed to those in need.

The rest of the article was fairly accurate but I wanted to point out how the Law of Consecration worked in reality. The United Order was similar but not the same. The LDS faith has had four laws of finance given it thus far. These four laws were and are:

1) The full Law of Consecration and Stewardship of Property

2) United Order

3) Law of Tithing (10% annual increase including consecration of initial surplus)

4) current Law of Tithing (10% of income or annual increase)

The prior three were not being lived up to by members of the Church, and this is precisely the reason why we are not in Jackson County, Missouri, right now building a temple to the Most High! See the Doctrine and Covenants for relevant scriptures to that effect. The full Law of Consecration is the Celestial law of equality. Disciples in Christ's day, as you should know if you actually read your Bible, were told to leave all behind and follow him. Later, people actually tried to live such a law themselves but in the selfishness of the people it did not work then as it did not work now. But, the power of God among the Saints who did as commanded was great. This power was lost to a great degree when they failed to live up to the commandments relative to this principle of the gospel. This is the case then and now.

[Billy]

Billy, you keep mentioning translation. Once again, I have offered no translation in what you are addressing. You are not reading my posts very carefully. I have made assertions regarding the Greek text and not offered translations on that matter thus far.

The young man failed in the test at that time. Did he continue to fail or did he accept later on in life? We are not told. What we are told by the Greek of the passages is that he was not self-righteous, that he was honest in his declaration to Christ. . .

You make assertions about the Greek text and then tell us what is in it by your understanding. What do you want to call this your own assertions based not on YOUR translation, something you are making up in your own mind? Or are you making your assertions based on YOUR translation of the text? You can really twist things around.

If I had offered a translation here, I have no need to appeal to authority in that I can translate the texts myself and I would clearly state that I am providing a translation. I am sorry that you do not have the ability to do so. I am sure that you could learn to do so, however, so why not get the ball rolling?

I don't read Greek or Hebrew, and have no plans in the immediate future to do so.

Do you feel that all the experts in this field are incapable of making an accurate translation, and that only you can give us the nuances of the ancient text?

AND, ONCE AGAIN, BILLY, CHRIST DID NOT TURN THE MAN AWAY! He turned HIMSELF away. Billy, how many times must I tell you this to get the point across? Christ did not turn the man away. He turned himself away. Christ did not turn the man away. He turned himself away. Christ did not turn the man away. He turned himself away.

There. Have I made my point any clearer?

Do you believe that Christ is all knowing? Don't you think that Christ knew ahead of time what the reaction would be by this rich ruler by what He said? Technically you are correct the the ruler went away on his own accord, but Christ knew by what he said what would happen.

Billy asks,

Does exaltation require that this man sell EVERYTHING and give it to the poor?

MormonMason replies,

Of this man it certainly would have been a requirement. Jesus told him what he needed to do in order to reach relative moral perfection and told him that he wanted him to become his disciple.

So for different people there are different rules for exaltation. So do you have to sell everything and give everything to the poor? How about the LDS leaders, have any of the current leadership sold everything that they have and given it to the poor? If you say no, why not? (Recall that even in the law of consecration this was not even required)

You say "Jesus told him what he needed to do in order to reach relative moral perfection. . ." So this man needed moral perfection to become a disciple of Christ and for exaltation?