BrotherHinds

You say two years away, but here we are in 2007 and the Republican Presidential Primaries start in January of 2008. That is less than a year away. With the low name recognition Romney has right now, and being among the top three candidates, it is important that we talk with everyone we know about Romney. It is important to discuss the issues. If we don't do so now, the 2008 primaries will be upon us before we know it and Romney will still be garnering 10-17% in the polls. Let's work to make sure by that time that everyone in this country has at least recieved some positive information about Governor Mitt Romney.

It has been said by some that Romney can't win the election, he has too little name recognition, he was governor of a liberal state, he's a Mormon. The list goes on and on with reasons he can't win, but these are the pessimists, the people that don't know Romney. The people who already support McCain or Giulliani, or Brownback, or Clinton and Obama. These are the nay sayers and the anti-mormons who can't stand the thought of a Mormon in the White House. Yet that is not the majority of America. The majority, I agree, do not know much about him, so the low name recognition aspect is correct. However there is a way to fix that. Talk to everyone you know about Mitt Romney and where he stands. Here is a place you can go to view where Mitt Romney stands: http://www.mittromney.com

Yes, Mitt Romney is running for President. Right now he is trying to obtain the Republican nomination for President. I encourage all of you to go to http://www.mittromney.com and research where he stands on the issues, watch the videos and see what kind of man Romney is.

The important thing to realize is that the country was not really voting for Democrat candidates, but rather voting to remove Republicans due to the troubles in Iraq and the recent scandals that have plagued key Republicans. We must work to correct this. I am a Republican, make no mistakes about it. I am chairman and founder of a College Republican chapter here in Texas and was previously one in Ohio. I learned things while serving as chairman in Ohio during the 2004 election. What I learned was grassroots campaigning. I learned how to organize and effective grassroots effort. The primary thing essential to any campaign, whether it is local or national, is the grassroots of the campaign. Getting in the trenches and making the people in every community realize that the candidate you are working for is the best possible choice. The most important thing we need for this effort is volunteers. We can not do it without people volunteering. We need people to go door to door, make phone calls, stuff envelopes, attend rallies, ect. There are so many exciting and fun things to do when one gets involved with a campaign and is willing to volunteer. The motto of the College Republican National Committee is, "We Make A Difference." We need to begin now, lending our support to the party we want to win in 2008. We need to get involved locally and help select those candidates to run in 2008 that will best represent us the voters. We need to lend our support to their campaigns. Yes I know this all takes time, money, and when you have church, work, family time, and soccer games, it's hard to find time to devote to a campaign. Well that is what Howard Dean said in 2004 when it came to Get Out The Vote efforts for Bush's reelection campaign, but the local Republican parties and College Republican chapters showed him wrong. We showed up in the largest percentage of voters in the last 30-40 years. We must work to do that again in 2008. Mitt Romney stands an incredibly good chance of becomming the presidential candidate for 2008 and we can not afford to see him loose this race. Get involved in the local republican parties and show your support, volunteer your time, and help us achieve victory in 2008.

I am going on discussions in my Philosphy of Religion class at Ohio State Univeristy, Newark Campus. I am also going on programs shown on the History Channel about early Christianity and Emperor Constantine.

Here are a list of Evangelicals that support Mitt Romney for President: Dr. Richard Land, President of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission Cal Thomas, America's most widely syndicated op-ed columnist, himself an evangelical David Dockery, the president of Union University, an evangelical institution in Tennessee Chuck Colson, the leader of Prison Fellowship Ministries There is even a website out there called Evangelicals for Mitt and in the straw poll held in South Carolina at the Southern Republican Convention, Mitt Romney came in second with George Allen comming in first and John McCain comming in third. Many of those present were Evangelical Christians.

With all of the talk of elections swerling around the news today, I wonder about Mitt Romney, the Governor of Massachusetts. Romney decided this year not to seek reelection as Governor, and previously stated that he would not remain Governor while running for President at the same time. He has not sought any Senate or House seats for himself, so does that mean he will be running for the White House in 2008 against Hillary Clinton? I personally feel he is the best man for the job. I am not even considering any other candidates at this point. His record is stellar. One thing I did not know about the man, that I just found out recently, is that he is the only elected official currently serving in the executive branch and the upper levels of government that has chosen not to take a salary for his service as Governor. He is not paid for his job as Governor. some other things he has done while in office in Massachusetts: 1) He has taken the Mass. economy from a $1.3 billion deficit to a $500 million surplus. 2) He has increased standards in education within the state to hold teachers and students accountable and reward good teachers for the job they do instead of their years on the job. 3) He proposed and signed state legislation to provide health insurance to almost everyone in Massachusetts without raising taxes. 4) He has proposed bills to provide $100 laptops to all middle and high school students, provide $15,000 a year bonuses for top performing math and science teachers, creation of English immersion classes for students that cannot speak English as opposed to bilingual education. 5) He has stood against gay marriage in Massachusetts and before the U.S. Senate. 6) He proposed a bill that would have brought back the death penalty in Massachusetts with DNA evidence being required to sentence someone to death and implemented a tougher standard of "no doubt" of guilt for juries. 7) Proposed and signed into law, Melanie's Bill that greatly increased penalties for repeat drunk drivers. 8) Has openly opposed Roe v. Wade because he feels that the individual states and the people of those states should decide. Romney feels that each state government should put the issue of abortion to a vote of the people and whatever the result of that vote should be the law in that state, rather than a nation wide "one size fits all" Supreme Court ruling. 9) Vetoed an emergency contraceptive bill. 10) Vetoed a bill in 2004 that would have allowed illegal immigrants, that graduated from a Massachusetts high school and had attended the school for at least three years, to attend college at in state tuition rates. 11) He has highly supported energy conservation and alternative energy in Massachusetts and in the nation. Given the things Mitt Romney has done as Governor of the most liberal state in the nation, it seems he would be the perfect candidated for president in 2008. He views public service as simply that, service, not a job or career in which one should be paid. He believes in ending corruption. He balanced the budget in Massachuesetts and produced a surplus. He produced the best winter olympics on record after restructuring a corrupt board of directors, removing officials at the center of the scandals, balancing the budget for 2002 Olympic Games and operating under budget. Romney has attempted to set an example of strong leadership, integrity, and compassion that will become even more pronounced if he runs for president of the United States. What is your oppinion?

WHYYYYYYY! Oh Why do people who are investigating the church continually go to anti-LDS websites, books, and videos put out by people who have manipulated the truth, and used every possible means they can think of to destroy the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints? Satan wants nothing more than to destroy the work of the Lord. Ever since that humble prayer offered in that small grove of trees in Palmyra, New York in the spring of 1820, the adversary has raged with unquenchable determination against this work. You have not even READ the Book of Mormon from one cover to the next and yet you are begining to judge it. Set asside everything that anyone has said or written about the Book of Mormon and just read it from cover to cover. As you read it, pray about and ponder it's contents. Do not pay attention to any of the anti-LDS stuff out there, just read the book. If the Book of Mormon is true you will know by reading it and praying about what you have read, if it is not true, you will know by the same means. I add to this my testimony that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, as is the Bible as far as it is translated correctly. I Know for a fact that the Book of Mormon is true, that Joseph Smith, Jr. did see God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. I know that Joseph Smith, Jr. did handle the gold plates, and translated them into what is today the Book of Mormon. I know that the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is now upon the earth and was restored by way of Joseph Smith, Jr., a prophet of God the Eternal Father. I know that every president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints is, and have been prophets of God the Eternal Father. I know these things because I personally have heard the voice of the Lord Jesus Christ speak these things to me and the Holy Spirit testified to my soul that these things were true. Glory be to God for His infinite mercy in revealing these things to me, for I was going about attempting to destroy this great work, even after I had been baptized a member of the Church. I was persecuting my fellow members, seeking to lead them away. I was heading down a path that if this event in my life had not occurred I would have proceeded further down that path to the point of no return. Nothing will ever shake me from this testimony that I have. I would face the most painful and humiliating torture one could devise for any human being and still would not deny what I know in my heart of hearts and with every fabric of my soul to be true. I leave you to ponder these words. Sincerely, Brandon Hinds

I believe you are wrong in that assessment, because from the studying I have done, Constantine did not fully convert to Christianity until he was on his death bed. Up until that point he was still worshiping at the pagan temples and praying to Mars, Jupitar, and Venus.

One of the main reasons that those people disagreed with the deeper doctrines is because the did not fully understand, follow, nor appreciate the principles and ordinances of the gospel that come prior to the more complex and deeper doctrines. So many people are prideful and want to have everything and know everything right now. You can't have it all at once or you will not fully appreciate the greater ordinances and principles. The same as all the prophets have been taught and administered the doctrines of the Gospel so must we. Line upon line, precept upon precept. You wanted Soooo bad to know the deeper things of the Gospel before being baptised and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost in order to more fully understand and appreciate them. You did not then go through the new member discussions, hold callings, attend temple prep class, ect. that come before the temple ordinances in which you learn much of the deeper doctrines in an environment where they can be more fully understood, and if one truly enters that environment being truly clean, then you will understand by way of the Spirit, and you will more fully appreciate those things taught therein. The prophets were taught this way, even Abraham and Moses. We must be willing to humble ourselves, and "become like even as little children, submissive, meek, humple, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things..." Brother Hinds

The thing is pushka, The doctrines of the Gospel Christ have always been taught line upon line, precept upon precept. The ordinances of the Gospel of Christ are administered line upon line, precept upon precept. You learn the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel, gain a testimony of those principles and those foundational doctrines, go through those ordinances that apply, and then continue on beyond that. You can not fully understand nor appreciate the more complex doctrines until you have gained a testimony of the simpler doctrines and gone through the ordinances relating to them. I am sure you have heard this all before and don't buy it, or rather don't understand why it has to be that way. But it is the way the Gospel has been taught since day one, "Line upon line, precept upon precept. Here a little, there a little." Brother Hinds

Yes blazius, I am well aware that not everything I put into that list is taken from the Sermon on the Mount. First of all, read the sentence that proceeds that list, "Here are the commandments of Christ I find just in The Gospel According to St. Matthew". Does that sentence imply that I was meaning only the Sermon on the Mount as found in Matthew? I did not mean for it to imply such, but rather made reference to the Sermon on the Mount to build my case that there were more commandments given by Christ that to "Love the Lord" and to "Love thy neighbor". Also in reference to #8 "Swear not at all." I was not meaning foul language. If I had meant foul language I would have refered to swearing as using profanity rather than swearing or cussing or cursing. I meant the swearing of oaths, for Christ does command to "Swear not at all, but let thy communication be yay yay, nay nay." Perhaps that is the way I should have typed it to make it clearer. Thanks for the oportunity to better explain myself. Brother Hinds

Scott and Kate, Thank you for comming to this site, and thank you for you interest in the Book of Mormon and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I understand your concerns because I have stood where you now stand. I am not sure, Scott, if Elder Wilson is still serving in your area or not, but I highly recommend that you continue to discuss these things with the missionaries in your area. I recommend the same to you as well Kate. You asked first off about the Book of Mormon, where it comes from, who it comes from, what is it's purpose, and what is it. I will answer that question by quoting from the title page and introduction to that very book: <blockquote>The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. An account written by the hand of Mormon upon plates taken from the plates of Nephi. Wherefore it is an abridgement of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites -- Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile -- Written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation -- Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed -- To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof -- sealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile -- The interpretation thereof by the gift of God. An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven—Which is to show unto the remnant of the House of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL God, manifesting himself unto all nations—And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ. TRANSLATED BY JOSEPH SMITH, Jun.</blockquote> Now the Introduction: <blockquote>The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel. The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians. The crowning event recorded in the Book of Mormon is the personal ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ among the Nephites soon after his resurrection. It puts forth the doctrines of the gospel, outlines the plan of salvation, and tells men what they must do to gain peace in this life and eternal salvation in the life to come. After Mormon completed his writings, he delivered the account to his son Moroni, who added a few words of his own and hid up the plates in the hill Cumorah. On September 21, 1823, the same Moroni, then a glorified, resurrected being, appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith and instructed him relative to the ancient record and its destined translation into the English language. In due course the plates were delivered to Joseph Smith, who translated them by the gift and power of God. The record is now published in many languages as a new and additional witness that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God and that all who will come unto him and obey the laws and ordinances of his gospel may be saved. Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” In addition to Joseph Smith, the Lord provided for eleven others to see the gold plates for themselves and to be special witnesses of the truth and divinity of the Book of Mormon. Their written testimonies are included herewith as “The Testimony of Three Witnesses” and “The Testimony of Eight Witnesses.” We invite all men everywhere to read the Book of Mormon, to ponder in their hearts the message it contains, and then to ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ if the book is true. Those who pursue this course and ask in faith will gain a testimony of its truth and divinity by the power of the Holy Ghost. (See Moroni 10: 3-5.) Those who gain this divine witness from the Holy Spirit will also come to know by the same power that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, that Joseph Smith is his revelator and prophet in these last days, and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord’s kingdom once again established on the earth, preparatory to the second coming of the Messiah.</blockquote> I hope this helps. If you have any further questions, which I am sure you will, please do not hesitate to ask myself or the missionaries in your area. I do not have all the answers to your questions, but I will try to answer them as best I can. Also, please read the Book of Mormon and pray about it. Sincerely, Brother Hinds

Yes, I agree that we can not be perfect. None of us can be. We can not possibly keep ALL the commandments. Each and every one of us will fall short at some point in our lives, and that is where repentance and grace come in. But there are more commandments than just those two that you mentioned Christ giving. Ever read the Sermon on the Mount? Here are the commandments of Christ I find just in The Gospel According to St. Matthew: 1) Love the Lord thy God with all thy might, mind, and strength. 2) Love thy neighbor as thyself. 3) Love thy enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you and despitefully use you and persecute you. 4) Be baptised. 5) Worship the Lord thy God, Him only shalt thou serve. 6) Thou shalt not live by bread alone, but by every word that procedeth from the mouth of God. 7) Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. 8) Swear not at all. 9) Turn the other cheek. 10) Give to all those that ask of thee. 11) Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness. 12) Judge not lest ye be judged. 13) Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them. 14) I the Lord will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men. Brother Hinds

blazius, The commandments we are to keep are all the commandments of God. This includes the Ten Commandments, the commandments from Christ, we are to keep all covenants we make with the Lord, and any new commandments given through prophets of God such as the word of wisdom. Read and study the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and General Conference addresses and you will know what commandments you are to keep. Brother Hinds

As promised prisonchaplain, I am responding to a part of our earlier discussion and this in regards to "faith and works". Some have asked the question, "Why do you think you must keep commandments to be saved? Isn't that by works instead of grace?" And my answer is this: Everything that Christ offers us is through grace and not through our merits. That includes resurrection (salvation from physical death), which all will receive (I Cor. 15:20-22), and "eternal life" (salvation from spiritual death - the death caused by sin, the death that is equivalent to being cut off from the presence of God), which relatively few find (Matt. 7:14). Eternal life is life in the presence of God, where people can "partake of the divine nature" and of godliness (2 Pet. 1:4,5) and can become "joint heirs with Christ" and partakers of his glory (Rom. 8:14-18). This wonderful blessing is made possible through His grace, not by our works. We gain access to his grace through faith (Rom. 5:2), a principle that leads us to act and obey and grow in Christ, gaining patience, hope, and so forth (see Rom. 5:2-6; 2 Peter 1:3-10). Our faith and obedience does not earn salvation, but provides access to the gift. Thus, God says in Rev. 22:14, "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the [heavenly] city." It's not doing the commandments that earns that heavenly reward, but it is an essential element for us to receive the gift that no man could ever earn. Salvation is only possible because the Atonement of Christ allows us to repent of our sins and be cleansed, to become purified even to the point of being like Him in some sense (1 John 3:2) and receiving a glorious resurrected body like His (Phil. 3:12, I Cor. 15:40-43). Eternal life is offered to us through grace - but it is CONDITIONAL, as are all God's covenants (and all covenants and contracts of any kind). It depends upon our accepting the terms upon which it is offered. Being conditional does not make it no longer by grace, but we need to receive that grace and follow Christ, as He commands us. Is it really conditional? Must we really repent of our sins, change our lives, and keep the commandments to be saved (in the fullest sense of the word - receiving eternal life)? Yes. To me, the Biblical teachings on this are very hard to miss. Almost everything Christ taught was about the need to change our behavior, to get on the straight path, to obey his teachings, to forsake sin and temptation, and salvation was "conditional" upon this - not "once confessed, always saved". Twice He was asked what we must do to be have "eternal life", and both times he answered that we must keep the commandments (Matt. 19:16-17, Luke 10:25-28). He warned that even the elect could be deceived, but that those that endure to the end will be saved (Matt. 24). His parable of the goats and sheep in Matt. 25:31-46 makes it clear who will have eternal life: those "righteous" that follow Him in loving and serving and blessing others. Over and over this is taught, yet the LDS Church is condemned an non-Christian and even Satanic for teaching the same doctrine the Christ preached, a doctrine which also taught the necessity of baptism (John 3:3-5) and repentance (Matt. 4:17). Paul teaches the same doctrine just as clearly. Although we must keep the commandments, that does not save us. Although God saves the obedient (Heb. 5:9), their obedience is simply part of their side of the covenant through which Christ offers his Grace to us. "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John 3:5

Ok, Ok. because a fellow LDS member has attempted to point out my statements as false it has made me take another glance at the things I said. I am sorry if my statements were a little misleading, but they were things I had gathered from my own personal research on the founding of Catholicism, the Apostasy, the Reformation, and the Restoration. They are not direct quotes from the information I studied, but rather a general theory gathered from that information. Because of the fact that my comments were obviously misleading to some I will thus attempt to herein give information as taken directly from my research, with direct quotes: From the New Testament we can find evidences of doctrines that existed in the original Church of Christ that Christ Himself established. Doctrines such as baptism by immersion (Romans 6), the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands (Heb. 6:1-2), modern prophets and apostles (Ephesians 2:18-20; 4:11-14), priesthood authority from God (Heb. 5:8,9), and so forth. It has been asked by some, "Why was a restoration needed? Haven't we always had the Bible?" It is not necesarily that the documents were lost, but it was the loss of priesthood power, whose keys were to be held by the 12 Apostles. Further, the obvious loss of the original Church organization, the loss of key ordinances (e.g., giving the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands), the loss of apostles and other priesthood offices, and the reign of civil authority in the remaining shell of the original Church are all signs that the prophesied falling away occurred (2 Thess. 2:1-3) and that a restitution was necessary (Acts 3:19-21). One of many signs that an apostasy had occurred was the emergence of Mary as Mediatrix - the mediator between God and man - to whom prayers were directed. Likewise, other saints became viewed as mediators and prayers were directed to (or through) them. There is none of this in the earliest Christian writings. One can read every page of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers - the earliest writings of Church leaders outside the New Testament, leaders who were familiar with the apostolic traditions from the New Testament Church - and find Mary mentioned only a couple times by Ignatius, who simply affirms what the New Testament teaches, that she was the mother of Christ and a virgin at the birth of Christ. There is no hint of her preeminence, of her role as a mediator, or her perpetual virginity, etc. The early Christian writers affirmed that man should approach God directly through Christ as the mediator. The influence of Greek philosophy played an important role in the apostasy, leading to much doctrinal loss. Serious problems were fueled by the struggle of educated men to make Christianity seem more acceptable to the intellectual community of the day - a community steeped in the teachings of Plato and other Greek philosophers, to whom the idea of a tangible God with a material body was repugnant. With the loss of revelation, committees of men debated and redefined doctrines, resulting in the post-Biblical creeds that give us the modern Trinity concept of a God without body, parts, or passions, an incomprehensible, almost abstract, "wholly other" Being with three persons of one substance. This idea of a tangible God with a material body was also repugnant to Roman pagans like Constantine, who did not convert to Christianity until he was on his death bed. Shortly after the loss of the Apostles, the Christian leader Tertullian seemed to have recognized the apostate threat of Greek philosophical influences on the Church. He said, "Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition!" Another of Tertullian's comments seems to apply well to the gulf between the Hellenized metaphysics of the creeds and the approach of early Christianity: "What is there, then, about them that is alike, the philosopher and the Christian - the disciple of Hellas and the disciple of Heaven - the dealer in reputation and the dealer in salvation - one occupied with words and one with deeds - one creator of error and its destroyer - friend of error and its foe - the despoiler of truth and its restorer - its robber and warden?" Interestingly, many of our most vocal critics condemn us for not sharing the "right" Trinitarian philosophies about God, and for teaching the importance of deeds. They seem to put an emphasis on words and metaphysics, while early and restored Christianity are rooted in deeds and behavior. If you reject this thought, take a few minutes and read the Sermon on the Mount. Compare that to the modern doctrines of the Trinity, of salvation apart from works, of irresistible grace, original guilt, and other philosophical views that are miles away from the focus of Christ's teachings but close cousins to Greek philosophy. Tertullian was right to be worried. Human philosophy contributed to the spoiling of early Christianity, and continues to be antagonistic to the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. Tertullian's concerns about the influence of philosophy were justified. For example, Augustine, the father of so much of the doctrinal framework of both Protestant and Roman Catholic theology, seems to have considered himself a philosopher. He placed little emphasis on revealed truth but much on "natural philosophy," which "turns out to be what philosophers, and specifically what he, believed were Plato's views concerning divine things.... Augustine argued that Plato ... provided a necessary intellectual grounding for a mature Christian faith" Many of his teachings find little support in the Bible, but are the result of wresting the scriptures to comply with the demands of human philosophy. This becomes painfully apparent, for example, in considering his views on original sin and the guilt of infants, or in the relationship between faith, works, and salvation. That Augustine is the source of much modern theology is a point that many non-LDS scholars recognize. Even some evangelical writers have stated as much, in spite of the popular evangelical assumption that their theology comes straight from the Bible. It may come largely from the Bible, but the framework for understanding and interpreting the Bible is one that has been developed over many centuries, and the father of much of that framework is Augustine. Thus, the evangelical writers Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie in Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1995, p. 431) declare that Augustinianism "was the major soteriological framework that informed Western Christianity. Both Roman Catholics an Protestants are indebted to the Bishop of Hippo [Augustine]." Further, they state that "both Catholics and orthodox [evangelical?] Protestants have a common creedal and Augustinian doctrinal background. Both groups accept the creeds and confession and councils of the Christian church of the first five centuries. Both claim Augustine as a mentor" Eastern Orthodox writers have also made this point, though without the favorable implications that Geisler and MacKenzie ascribe to the framework of Augustine. In fact, Eastern Orthodox writers, who are less indebted to Augustine (but still not free from the influences of Greek philosophy on the post-Apostolic Church), have expressed great discomfort with Augustine's doctrines, particularly the doctrine of original sin, seeing it as misanthropic in the condemnation of infants as vile sinners. Protestants often feel that their doctrines come straight from the Bible, even when many core doctrines are set in language borrowed from philosophers, not the Bible. Doctrines such as the Trinity, original sin, salvation by grace alone, and others are not found taught in the Bible - certainly not in the language and forms used to describe these doctrines, language which, ironically, is used as a litmus test to determine who is a true Christian and who is not. Personally, I share Tertullian's prescient discomfort with Christianity mixed with philosophy, and its emphasis on words rather than deeds. The test of faith for true Christians should not be acceptance of the metaphysical formulations of a combative post-Biblical committee of philosophers - but faith in Jesus Christ, expressed in part by deeds based on His teachings.

You know, I find it interesting how non-members always point to the Mountain Meadows Massacre as being something the "Church" did. That it was sanctioned by the "Church". Yet they can't truly link that particular incident to the LDS church the same way one can link the crusades and the inquisitions to the Catholic church and Jihadsto Islam. Suppossedly from what I have read, those that were attacked at Mountain Meadows were part of a group of people who members of the LDS church had previously had problems with. President Brigham Young punished those involved that were of the church and issued sincere appologies to the families of the victims and survivors. Yet in the cases of the Crusades, Inquisitions, and Jihads, no appologies have been made by and Pope, Sheik, Bin Laden, or any other religious leader. However, mainstream Christianity and the Catholic church views the LDS church as a cult, devil worshipers, nonChristian, blasphemers, heretics, conjurers, ect. Much like people did to the prophets, followers of prophets, Christ, the Apostles, the original seventy called by Christ, and the early faithful Christians.

The reason we do not believe in Apostolic Succession the EXACT same way as the Catholics do is because Apostolic authority was not given to the first Pope by an Apostle or someone who an Apostle had ordained, but rather he was appointed by the hand of man. We know from historical records that Constantine, a pagan, ordered the creation of a formalized, unified, and singular church of Rome. He decided that it would be a Christian church because he knew that the doctrines were more unifying than paganism. He selected several men who he named as priests and ordered them to search the records of the Jews, the letters of the early followers of Christ, and anything on Christ Himself, and to select from that what would be the whole of their religious text and the basis for their doctrine. He also had them decide and write what the tenents or doctrine of the church would be and to write it down. He then had them select from among themselves a leader or head of the church. This was a church organized by man, the organization of which was ordered by man and not God, and the first leaders were appointed by a man, who not only did not have proper authority from God, but was also a pagan. This counsel of priests appointed by Constantine was also where the taking away of the plain and precious parts of the Gospel began. Also, after this time and until the begining of the Reformation, anyone who challenged the authority and doctrines of the Catholic church as directed from the Vatican in Rome was severely punished and even killed by hanging, torture, beheading, or burning at the stake. Would Christ have supported such measures for disobedience or challenging of doctrines? I think not.

Thank you once again for your insightful comments, and the slight chastisement for one of my comments there. I know I sometimes can become a little overzealous in my approach to things and say things in a way that comes off a little harsher or high minded than I might like and I need a little chastisement to bring me down and take another look at how I approached the issue. I feel that this thread may have run it's course with your most recent post, but will address one point that you made in a new thread. Until then God bless you my friend.

I have quoted the verse that you are refering to in my previous post. "By their fruits ye shall know them."

Thank you so much for your comments. See this is the sort of discussions we should be having, and the manner in which issues should be confronted. Instead, so many allow themselves to take offense and harden their hearts towards one another's counsel and seek not to understand one another, but to destroy one another's position. True. I can see where they might perceive these men in this light, but then why did they state to Joseph Smith and others that there coul be no prophets, priesthood, revelation, visitations from heavenly messengers, or miracles like the ones Christ performed because all those things had been done away with the death of the apostles? It is thought by many mainstream Christians that there can be no more revelation and that we do not need Heavenly Father speaking to us today except through the word He gave to man thousands and thousands of years prior to our own day before the use of the internet, credit card debt, and television? I can very well understand how these great men of learning could feel that Joseph was calling them to repent of their CHURCHES, but you have to think that there were those in Paul's day that had turned aside from sound and true doctrine and were called to repentance and they were professed followers of Christ. Also think about the fact that you mentioned professors. These are men who went to great universities of high aclaim to study with the brightest minds of the field of theology and learned in the doctrines of Martin Luther or the founders of other religious sects of the day, and got degrees and licensure that said that they were authorized to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all mankind. They felt that this certificate gave them authority to baptise, to ordain even. Is this not a rejection of sound doctrine, of the teachings of Christ who taught His disciples to go into the world without purse or script, and weren't these men ordained by Christ Himself to teach and not ordained by one lacking the proper authority? Yes I can see how these people could have believed and still believe that they are not rejecting God or His Son Jesus Christ and that Joseph was calling them to repent of their Church, but was not this the same view of the priests and elders of the Jews in the days of Christ, or even in the days of Jeremiah, Uziah, and other prophets that called the people of Jerusalem to repentance? I do not see where this line of thinking makes Joseph a false prophet, but I can see how these men could call Joseph and the other leaders false prophets because it is exactly the same thing that the elders of the Jews had done to some of the prophets of old and even to Christ. They called them false prophets, stoned them, beat them, fed them to lions, burnt them, crucified them, drove them from their midst. Yet the things that they have said and done to these men does not make Joseph Smith or any of the other leaders of the church false prophets. True. Very true, but anything anyone says or does can be extremely offensive. Does that mean that anything offensive is evil? I think not. The elders of the Jews took the teachings of Christ to be offensive, but were His teachings any less true? That is true that they may believe that it teaches the latter, but they do not fully understand the doctrine of Faith and Works. Faith is the what grants us salvation, but that faith must be proven by our works. You can not simply say I believe and then expect to enter the kingdom of God. Someone who takes the life of an innocent person in a brutal act of murder and then professes to believe in Christ just before he is given the lethal injection is not going to live with Heavenly Father and dwell in His glorious presence for all eternity. "Show me your faith and your works and I shall show you my faith by my works, faith without works is dead." It just makes me laugh at how people can study the Bible their whole lives, memorizing countless passages of scripture from the Bible, and go through hours upon hours of study to UNDERSTAND the Bible, yet still reject the thought that a restoration of the Gospel as taught by Christ, and a restoration of the Church as organized by Christ, with the proper authority as given by and through Christ, would not be necessary since it is obvious that that power and authority and organization was lost with the death of the original twelve disciples of Christ. I do thank you however for you comments and insight into the POV of non-LDS people. It has been helpful in knowing why they believe the way they believe so that I might better explain my own beliefs in a way that they might comprehend easier. Thank you friend.

I have read some recent posts from individuals not of the church that question the validity of the claim that the presidents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are prophets of our Heavenly Father. Yet I ask them, how many of the prophets of old were infallible? Was Noah infallible? What about Abraham, Isaac, or perhaps Jacob? What about Joseph who was sold into Egypt? And how about Moses? Oh and we LDS also sustain our apostles as prophets of God. So what about Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Peter? James? Thomas? What about Andrew? Philip and Bartholomew? James son of Alphaeus? Or what about Thaddaeus or Simon? And we can't forget Judas Iscariot? Were any of these men perfect or infallible? Yet you say that the leaders of the LDS church can not be prophets of God because they are not perfect. Especially in the case of Joseph Smith. Why is it so hard for people to believe that there can be prophets of God upon the earth today in 2006? Or how is it that people can say that if there are prophets or people that claim to be prophets on the earth today that they must be false prophets? Why is it now and why was it then in 1820 so hard for people to believe that God, our Heavenly Father, could speak to a 14 year old boy who had offered up the most humble and tender of prayers to God? I also ask, if you believe so strongly that Joseph Smith was not called of God, that the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints are not prophets of God, that the Church is not true, and that the Book of Mormon is not true, for you to look inside yourself and ask yourself some very important questions: What evil did Joseph Smith, Jr. ever do to others? Did Joseph ever seek the death of any he came in contact with? Did Joseph ever tar and feather anyone? Did Joseph ever demand someone to deny their faith at gun point? Did Joseph ever order the imprisonment of anyone on false pretenses, or simply because they said they had seen a vision or had seen angels? Did Joseph ever burn someone's home or order the burning of their home? Did Joseph ever order the extermination of entire group of people because they would not give up land that had been bought and paid for and to which they had a signed deed to? Have any of the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints since the days of Joseph Smith, Jr. done anything to bring about evil by seeking to destroy another church, annihilate an entire body of people because of their religion? Does the Book of Mormon speak against Christ and His Attonement? Does the Book or Mormon teach one to value riches over the word of God? Does the Book of Mormon teach anyone to do anything contrary to the Ten Commandments of God or the teachings of Christ as spoken in the Sermon on the Mount? Does the Book of Mormon teach us to seek salvation in and through anyone or anything other than through Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the Holy One of Israel? "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." Matthew 7:15-20 There has only ever been one perfect and completely infallible man upon the earth and that was our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in whom we find salvation and eternal life.

Would you like to comment on what you feel is the correct thing to do in this situation, Brandon? Obviously I know that to avoid alcohol when we're in each other's presence would make a great deal of difference, but we have tried this before and it has only worked for a short time, before alcohol steadily creeps back into the drinks we're having whilst together. Yes it seems to me that alcohol is the problem. You go to parties where it is present, you have it around you whenever you are together with this person, whether in your home or hers. The thing is, you need to forgive her, if nothing else at least forgive her in your heart. There are many other things that I see that need to be done, that I would hope that you would not take offense to, and if you truly want to know then feel free to PM me, but this is not the place to discuss those things for they are too personal in nature. That is not to say that we could not all use the advice, it's that I know how some people respond to things and I would rather not have others comment on those things and thereby take away from the serriousness of them and add their own improper remarks or advice.

Let it go SF. Choose not to take offense. You say that "they offended you", like it was their fault that you feel the way you do about their comments. Choose this day NOT to take offense, but rather "If they shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to them the other also." That was the main point of my message, and apparently ya'll have missed it entirely. It was not my purpose to discuss why people leave the church, but rather the issue of "Living Without Offense". Perhaps you all should go back and reread my ENTIRE post.