LeSellers

Google mormon and nutty ideas, or brits and nutty ideas, or white folks and nutty ideas, or europeans and nutty ideas, and I bet you'll get a lot of weird results, too. When you intentionally bias your search, don't be surprised when you find what you're looking for. But that doesn't make you right in your assessment.

That is an unkind and uncharitable (and false) assessment of things. I understand that this is the view that is fed to you from pretty much all European media, so I can't really blame you for having the general idea that Republicans are a bunch of fascists -- though I would hope that exposure to American friends here and elsewhere might blunt that perception a bit. But it seems beyond the pale to throw such accusations around in this environment.
 
I was in Europe while Reagan was the President, and the Italians hated him and acted shocked if they ever found out I supported him. (Which only happened maybe twice, when I was directly asked; otherwise, I kept my politics strictly to myself.) Now, Europe is engaged in an ongoing love-fest with possibly the most corrupt and inept, and certainly the most divisive, President of my lifetime. So the opinions of European media are highly suspect, and you might do well not to accept the consensus views that you find in your news outlets.

The problem was that Germany in the 1930's was under a mountain of debt.  They were required to pay reparations for WWI.  They had enormous unemployment, the currency was inflated, etc.
 
The Germans saw Hitler as the saviour of their nation to get out of these problems.  It is frightening that we have a similar situation today, and where that could lead -- to our own saviour leader.

A web site does not a truth make.  The claim, even by the site is that Hitler used socialist organizations and reshaped their basic functions.  The plain fact is that the programs Hitler designed for citizens were entirely socialistic.  The problem was not in the Nazi definition of socialism but their definition of a citizen.  What the web site also fails is to recognize that under the rule of Hitler the German economy was based on state control, under the guise of a socialistic workers party - not private ownership.
 
I can accept the fact that no government is truly socialistic, capitalistic or even democratic.  There are always elements that pollute the purity of whatever label a government gives itself.  But one thing for sure - Hitler sold his programs to the German populous as socialism and the people at the time that embraced Hitler thought they were getting socialism.
 
The great lie of the left is that socialism protects the individual and their rights.  When the central state has the power they never distribute it - they keep it.  The basic difference between the right and left is the left wants to centralize power and sacrifice individual rights for efficiency and the right want to distribute the power whenever possible to provenances, cites, communities and individuals sacrificing efficiency for individual rights.   All other claims and efforts are intended misdirection and lies intended gain wealth, power and influence of some over others.

About.com is in no way an unbiased site.

We are witnessing here death of national borders, not only in Europe but also in the United States.
 
You can defeat a country with superior weapons of war, but this represents a new form of conquest.  You freely allow millions and millions of "refugees" with no attempt at controlling who is entering the country. Many of these refugees come from a culture alien to our cultural values of democracy, tolerance, the rule of law.
 
The purpose of a border is to protect its citizens.   The This is so important that the country will spend a significant part of its wealth to protect those borders with police and the military.
 
Why would a leader of a country allow this to happen?  Simple, you provide them almost the same benefits as you give your own citizens.  And then, you find legal loopholes which give them the ability to vote.  This is all done in the name of compassion and charity.  You attack those who oppose these policies as "racist".
 
AS Savage pointed out, "H" tried to conquer other nations through a superior military.  But today we see a "reverse invasion", where the enemy is invited and welcomed, along with legitimate refugees, to cross our borders at will.  It may be a decade before the damage is fully realized, but the enemy will be within our borders.
 
This article addresses some of these issues in more detail.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/11955742/We-are-seeing-the-last-dying-days-of-open-frontiers-in-Europe.html

We all have opinions - as does Michael Savage.  We currently think Hitler is evil because the lost a war.  But we may forget that he was a socialist.   He was not extreme right - and it was only when he was opposed that he became vicious.  His first step was to use government agencies to harass his opposition.  He then took steps to blame others for his mistakes and justify harsh measures (such as violations of rights under the law).  At first his harshness did not seem to be that harsh.  But he began to concentrate his power - then anyone that did not fully support him became his opposition.  Most citizens of Germany did not know of the execution holocaust that he had planned - until after the war.  And to this day there are elements that do not believe it.
 
Our leaders certainly do not blame their opposition for their mistakes???  Why if for example if a the Secretary of State made a mistake that resulted in the death of an ambassador - They would resign.  If an appointed official - say over the Internal Revenue Service was found to discriminate against a citizen for political opinions - they would be removed from office and prosecuted.  Unlike Hitler - our leaders uphold the law and always put the right of any citizen before political ambition or party.   We have nothing to worry about - yet?

"He's clueless and that says it all."
 
OK, you do have a clue, so please help us.
 
1. Would a rational person start a world war?  (Of course not)
2. Savage gives several points where Obama is making war on his own country. Do you agree with him.
3. Would a rational person who made an oath to protect this country wage war upon his country? 
 
Hoping you can educate us on what's going on in the world -- the Iran treaty, ISIS, Iraq, dismantling the military in both funding and manpower, open borders.
Savage is clueless, so please give us a clue.

My father served his mission in Brazil and decided I was the little Brazilian baby he always wanted (I'm so white I get sunburned sitting in front of the computer too long). My name is a common one, but uses the Portuguese spelling (I still pronounce it that Anglicized way). I joke that it gets me past the HR screens.
 
Given the mismatch of my appearance and my name (and especially since I don't pronounce it like it's spelled) I'm asked why my name is different. And I tell them plainly that my dad served a mission in Brazil. The most enthusiasm I've gotten was in grade school.
 
"Why's your name spelled like that?"
"My dad served a mission in Brazil."
[big eyes] "No way!"
[a little confused at the enthusiasm] "Yeah."
"Was it an American mission or for some other government?"
"It was a Brazilian mission. It wasn't for any government.""Did he kill anyone?"
"What?! No!"
...
"He did get hit by a bus though."

Wow!
Not a bishop, but this looks wonderful.
I'll have to bookmark this, just in case I ever get called to serve.
Thanks so much.
Lehi

The Gospel is not explicitly defined in the Bible except in the first half dozen verses of 1 Cor 15. The Gospel is the Good News of Christ's resurrection, and of the future resurrection of all mankind (For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive).
Jesus Christ appeared to the Nephites and Lamanites in (I believe) Central America in late 34 or early 35 AD. They did as Thomas: they felt His wounds, just as he did in Israel They kissed His feet, just as Mary did in Israel. He blessed them and their children, just as He did in Israel. He healed their sick and lame, as He did in Israel. He preached to them exactly as He did to the Jews in Israel.
So, we might ask, how does the Book of Mormon, in your opinion, fail to preach that same Gospel?
Lehi

You are missing the point...  It is not that fact that they meet the definition of Creed it is how they are used.
 
Creeds are used to exclude and separate.  For example This is the catholic faith: one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully." Plain as day.  If you don't believe this creed you are going to hell.  There have been tons and tons of times Mormons have been excluded from being Christian because of the Creeds.  Compare this to The Article of Faith  11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.  Since we are talking about why Mormon's aren't considered Christian the differences in the statements in red are profound.

Hmmm, I don't believe for a moment that the Holy Bible or the Book of Mormon *are* the gospel of Christ. Rather they both teach and expound upon the gospel of Christ. The Gospel of Christ is a set of beliefs which were explained earlier in the thread.

How not?

Thanks for your reply.
 
Yes, I believe salvation comes through God's grace, not anything independent of that. The only question I ask--who does God give His grace unto life to?
 
Hebrews 5:9---King James Version (KJV)
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
 
IMO--one cannot make the plea of faith without works for life through the idea that God died for them--Jesus Christ died for all of mankind--and all of mankind do not receive of eternal life.
 
The Atonement did not forgive anyone's sins--nor give one person eternal life--as a personal reception. If you believe it did--could you explain why all were commanded to repent and be baptized, for the remsiion of sins--following the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ?
 
The Atonement did offer the OPPORTUNITY for all men to inherit eternal life, as a free gift to all men:
 
Romans 5:18--King James Version (KJV)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
 
"Came upon"--past tense.
 
If you agree that faith alone would be dead without works--then why do those of the faith alone theology preach a theology of salvation through a faith without works?(sola fide)
 
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Sola fide (Latin: by faith alone), also historically known as the doctrine of justification by faith alone, is a Christian theological doctrine that distinguishes most Protestant denominations from Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, and some in the Restoration Movement.
The doctrine of sola fide or "by faith alone" asserts God's pardon for guilty sinners is granted to and received through faith alone, excluding all "works".

But there is no right to any of these things. The only rights one has are to his person and his labor and the property he has legitimately acquired. Rights come with concomitant obligations and responsibilities. If you have the right to food, for instance, you have the right to force someone else to give it to you, in other words, to make him your slave. If you have the right to housing, you must have the power to make someone else give it to you, or, in other words, to make him your slave.
In the case of health care (which is not the same thing as health insurance), in order to have the right to it, you must have the power to make a doctor, a nurse, a hospital give it to you, in other words, to make them your slaves. Absent that power, you must have the power to force someone else to pay the doctor, the nurse, the hospital when you use those services. In other words, to make him your slave.
I find no mention in scripture where it gives you or me or anyone the right to force others to pay for my education, for my food, for my home. There is no right to make others my slaves.
You bring up the abomination of "public" schools. (Please note I did not say "public education" because the laws pertaining to them require attendance, not learning.) The issue is that when Horace Mann imported schools from Prussia in 1852, he did it for one reason (and only one): to divorce children from their parents, from their parents' values and their religions. (See Mary Peabody Mann, Horace Mann: A Life.) Any education that happens in a government-run, tax-funded welfare school is purely by accident or is the bait to get parents to turn their children over to bureaucrats to raise them and instill acceptable value to those children. When John Dewey described the effects of grtf-welfare schooling, he wrote, "What can they do in their one hour of Sunday School when we have their children six hours a day?"
Charity stops being charity the moment it is forced. Welfare in any form is immoral: it takes from those who produce and gives a tiny portion of the proceeds to the group the government deems "needy" and keeps the majority for itself. Charity is vastly better than welfare. Welfare destroys, welfare weakens, welfare undermines the Family, God's fundamental unit of civilization. Charity builds up, ennobles, and builds the Family.
Finally, government is incapable of doing anything without taking something from someone, and taking it by (the threat of) force. The force is potentially lethal. All laws are based on lethal force and will be enforced by potential lethality. Government has perverse incentives. Government cannot make good decisions because it cannot understand all the parameters and cannot turn on a dime when that's the necessary action.
Lehi

I would have to disagree; a government should never have the power to make anything legal, and should be extremely judicious with its power to make anything illegal.

Crony capitalism is a symptom of big government, NOT a symptom of big business. If you believe it's merely the result of a small minority taking control then I believe it's you who doesn't understand.I think you place entirely too much blame on business, Traveler. If government was prohibited from playing favorites (in all its myriad forms) it wouldn't matter in the least how much money a business had or how much control it desired. A business, no matter the size, cannot use force to get what it wants. Only government can do that.

No it doesn't, lagartaaz. The Declaration of Independence preceded the UN Declaration of Human Rights by 170+ years. What's more, the UN Declaration fundamentally proclaims that "rights" are derived from government, while the Declaration of Independence proclaims that rights come from God. If a right derives from government then it can just as well be prohibited by government. Ergo, UN "rights" are NOT inalienable, and in reality are no rights at all!  You'll note that in virtually every instance where a right is proclaimed by the UN, there will be this caveat: "Except as prescribed by law". Contrast that to our Constitution which reads, "Congress shall make NO law". Not specifically as it's stated in the sources above, but I believe both the Bible and the BoM make it clear that human beings were created in the image of God and are of infinite worth. The Savior's life and example was centered around upholding with compassion the dignity of all human beings, of service to others, of valuing the poor and oppressed, no matter if they were lepers, children, widows, tax collectors or prostitutes. He taught us to care for the downtrodden. Yes he did. But did he teach anywhere or at any time that we should FORCE each other to care for the downtrodden? Or that we can steal money from each other to provide for the downtrodden?Or that we can jail or otherwise punish someone who doesn't wish to provide for the downtrodden? The UN Declaration describes human rights as 'inalienable' - whether men can take those rights away or not is hardly the point. What????? Whether men can take those rights away or not is PRECISELY the point!!If men can take them away then they are NOT inalienable, are they??Sheesh!   I couldn't disagree more. As a civilized society, and more importantly as people who have been enlightened by the Christlike attribute of charity, we should protect the basic rights of every individual to at the very least, food, shelter, education and healthcare.In turn, we too should expect to be taken care of should we become vulnerable at some point in our lives.  And I couldn't disagree with you more! Those who have been enlightened by the Christlike attribute of charity understand that Charity CANNOT be forced! Otherwise it isn't charity, is it? Otherwise it deprives an individual of his/her agency. As a member of the Church is that really what you advocate? Aside:  That's just really rude - don't speak to me as if you know anything about my church membership or that I'm somehow not a good enough member if I don't have the same views as you do. No it isn't rude. It's a legitimate question to ask, so I'll phrase it as a question instead of a declaration."As a member of the Church, do you believe you have a God-given right to the capitol or labor of another person?" Back on topic: Do you have children who attend public schools? If so, then you must believe you have the right to the capitol and labor of every taxpayer whose money goes into paying for your children's education. Shame on you then, for thinking you have that right - right? How so, lagartaaz? I pay a tremendous amount in property and other taxes to pay for my child's education. And if what I pay isn't sufficient to cover the cost I am more than willing to pony up the difference, provided that everyone else does the same. I do not now, nor have I ever believed that someone else has the obligation to pay to educate my children. What would you do if the government decided that from now on, all elementary and high-school education should be paid for because after all, they decide, 'education' is not a right. What would I do?I'd probably do cartwheels in the street and throw some sort of celebration. Because education ISN'T a right, and no one should be forced to pay to educate my children, nor should I be forced to pay to educate theirs!In my opinion, public (government) education should be eliminated entirely! So your scary scenario is lost on me.
 
Anyone who insists that education is a right must be relying on some esoteric perspective that is not grounded in human logic or spiritual understanding. 
 
I love it when an argument ends in agreement. 

I loved it. I thought it was a very well written and researched article.
 
I agree with the conclusion that Zwingli neglected what Jesus said on the topic when he says, “Christ himself did not connect salvation with baptism.” There are two direct referenced that Christ Himself related the two in Mark 16:16 and John 3:5. As well as neglecting the many other instances in the New Testament, the obvious ones being 1 Peter 3:21 and Titus 3:5.

He contradicts himself when he says, "It is election that saves, not baptism, and not even faith." And then turns around and says, "“We are saved by faith only.” If we say baptism takes away sins, that is just a figure of speech; for it is not baptism that takes them away, but faith."

Your comment on priesthood, I did not find any reference to in the article. Where or what section of the article did you get that from?

I think it is ironic that the author took the same chronological approach to this topic as my most recent blog post, Understanding Baptism Line upon Line, and my next one, Misunderstanding Baptism for Salvation (which will post on Sunday). Except I start with Joseph Smith's understanding as enlightened by the Book of Mormon.

Agreed--and a rather strange summation, seeing the scriptures connect repentance and water baptism with the beginning of the gospel--and with the remission of sins:
 
Mark 1:1-5---King James Version (KJV)
1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

Hi Lehi--
 
Indeed, an interesting scripture.
 
There seems to be a debate centering on being saved by grace. The faith alone make the argument that if we are saved by grace--then it can't be merited on anything.
 
For me--once we agree man is saved by God's grace(which we are)--then there is but one question left to ask.
 
That question is--who does God extend this salvational grace to?
 
If the scriptures are correct--it's to them that obey Him:
 
Hebrews 5:9---King James Version (KJV)9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

I have often wondered, when someone makes this statement--are they referring to the true Christianity of the Biblical NT--or the "christianity" the Reformation brought?
 
Chaplin--there is very little common ground between "faith alone" theology--and the Biblical NT.
 
The faith alone theology is "another gospel", when comparing it to the Biblical NT:
 
James 2:24---New American Standard Bible (NASB)24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
 
What is found in the Bible--is also found in the LDS church, especially pertaining to core salvational doctrines.

Greetings and thanks for sharing!
I'll be happy to answer what questions I can... My suggestions would be always be humble and open to the spirit, and be patient... and always follow the promptings of the spirit. Just remember to always put God first no matter how crazy it seems and be humble.
I know a man who recieved very definite answers from God to join different religions before eventually recieving an answer to join the LDS and according to him i fhe hadn't had those previous experiences he wouldn't have had the faith to remain strong in the LDS Faith.  Not all answers are immediate or quick in coming or happen the same way but if we are really sincere and we perservere, we will get them some way or another.

My name is a patrimony from my grandfather.
Whenever anyone asks for my name, I tell them "Lehi", and he looks puzzled. It becomes an opportunity to give someone a gift of the Book of Mormon. I've had only one person pull a pickle face and tell me "I don't need that."
Lehi