Church members and basic doctrine

[English Saint]

I spoken to two church members in recent weeks regarding the US Constitution.

One of the discussions arose when I met a member who was traveling home on the same bus as me. She was talking about her son's schooling an how well he is doing in Modern Studies. I asked her what exactly was involved in modern studies. She mentioned a few things including 'equality and diversity' and 'climate change'. I immediately replied that I don't believe in man made global warming. She was quite defensive of it. I probed her a little more about her general political beliefs and she said that she is 100% socialist and that all Christians must be socialist. I couldn't convince her that socialism is wrong and that church leaders have preached against it. She said that the church says we have to be socialists and support social services! She then went on about welfare giving people self-esteem. Our conversation was on a bus and there was a man sitting in a row ahead of us who kept on turning around and making snarling faces at me everytime I criticised socialism, so I decided not to push it any further.


The second discussion I had was in PH this Sunday. I took the lesson on sacrifice. I got one of the class members to read a paragraph from one of ET Benson's talks from 1976, where he spoke about the sacrifice made by those great founding fathers of yours. The EQ member said afterward that he didn't believe in the War of Independence or the US Constitution. It's strange how so many church members don't even support such basic ideas of freedom that is throughout the BoM. He didn't even understand that he wouldn't have the prieshood if America had remained a Crown colony.

I read about the Law of Consecration, but I honestly can't see it happening now if it couldn't even work in the early days when people were so much more informed than we are.

[Mosby]

English Saint- if you really want to see how ignorant of basic doctrine most LDS are, ask them about the proper role of warfare...............

Most are still stuck in the old testament "eye for an eye" mentality- and completely ignore the teachings of Jesus Christ on the "new law" @-)

[7cylon7]

The clock is ticking. Tick tock tick tock ... These saints are being fooled by the mass media and the program of the Illuminati. Social studies have confirmed that if 80% of the people do something then most people will do it to just to not look stupid. A cool study was done where people street walked against a red light. If a whole crowd of people would street walk then many of the people who normally would not of street walked in fact did street walk. Also if you were in a suit and tie and street walked you could get 80% of other people to follow you in breaking the law.

So it is with philosophy and culture if enough talking heads and suits and ties espouse the tenets of communism then many people will say 80% of these people say this they must be right. They jump on the band wagon.

Christ is not on the band wagon folks. He went against the world. He tells us time and time again to leave Babylon and be not of this world. Those who find the faith and strength to discern between evil and good and follow the Savior will go against this world. "Few there be that find it" the straight and narrow path.

That is why Paul was told to feed my sheep. Teach the pure simple doctrine to the them that can only handle milk.

The cleansing of the communist from the church will happen very soon. The Lord has a way that will cut us to the very core we will be left with choosing him or not. It will be a very clear choice.

[Jason]

A TEST a TEST is coming....

[jdtech]

The cleansing of the communist from the church will happen very soon. The Lord has a way that will cut us to the very core we will be left with choosing him or not. It will be a very clear choice.

7cylon7 - Can you elaborate on this? Do you know what kind of a "test" this might be?

[Teancum-Old]

The cleansing of the communist from the church will happen very soon. The Lord has a way that will cut us to the very core we will be left with choosing him or not. It will be a very clear choice.

7cylon7 - Can you elaborate on this? Do you know what kind of a "test" this might be?

Skousen's "Cleansing of America" elaborates on this topic a bit.

[lundbaek]

It was in England back in 1974 that I remember a member saying that if Ezra Taft Benson ever became President of th eChurch he would leave the Church. But there are English LDSs who understand the significance of the US Constitution. I can direct you to a couple of them if you like up in the North Riding.

[jdtech]

Skousen's "Cleansing of America" elaborates on this topic a bit.

I have recently read "Cleansing of America." I enjoyed it very much - certainly hard times will be coming in preparation for the Kingdom of God! It seems though that the statement by 7cylon7 implied something different - like some kind of policy change by the church that will leave members with a clear choice. Was this the intention? Or was it something more along the lines of the "cleansing" as discussed by Skousen?

The cleansing of the communist from the church will happen very soon. The Lord has a way that will cut us to the very core we will be left with choosing him or not. It will be a very clear choice.

[gooseguy11]

I have said this before. I feel that as the world get more and more wicked the people will recognize the wickedness and have to either chose between righteousness and wickedness. In 2 Nephi 9 it discusses that there must be an opposition in all things. This is where is see the test being in each persons heart. Hopefully with enough guides we can be a great influence of good in the world.

[Teancum-Old]

Skousen's "Cleansing of America" elaborates on this topic a bit.

I have recently read "Cleansing of America." I enjoyed it very much - certainly hard times will be coming in preparation for the Kingdom of God! It seems though that the statement by 7cylon7 implied something different - like some kind of policy change by the church that will leave members with a clear choice. Was this the intention? Or was it something more along the lines of the "cleansing" as discussed by Skousen?

The cleansing of the communist from the church will happen very soon. The Lord has a way that will cut us to the very core we will be left with choosing him or not. It will be a very clear choice.

jdtech, you may be right. Not sure exactly what 7cylon7 meant there. Anyone else have further insight? 7cylon7?

[waking]

englishsaint......I love reading your posts and I often think of you as a light about the size of a laser pointer in a vaccum of darkness. Just keep shining, and when things get hard people will remember your faith and example.

[davedan]

The confusion lies in thinking that Capitalism has anything to do with the Constitution and visa versa. The capitalists have done such a good job brainwashing us into thinking that America is all about Capitalism and evil is all about communism, when the truth is that both are evil.

Capital = Money that is leveraged to extract more money by the collection of usury.
Capitalism = System that promotes the use of money to extract more money by the collection of usury.

(look up the definition of "Capital" for yourself)

In actual fact, Capitalism has nothing to do with the Constitution and visa versa. The Constitution is about the separation of powers, checks and balances, enumerated power to the Federal Government and Reserved Powers to the States and to the people as well as protecting individual liberties like the freedom of press, speech, and religion.

What the Constitution really protects is Free Enterprise, which is all the good stuff about Capitalism minus the Usury. The good of Free Enterprise is equal opportunity, not equal result. Self-determination, and property rights. In actuality, there is nothing about the Constitution that would get in the way of a people voluntarily practicing the economic system of the United Order, or living the law of Consecration.

The problem with Capitalism is that the system requires says that it wants the private sector to determine the direction of the economy and not government. So, what Capitalism does is it allows certain ultra-elite, ultra-wealthy to leverage their capital and use it to extract usury from others, lend at interest, making others economic serfs, and sharecroppers to a unelected ruling class of money masters and oligarchs (corporatism).

In a more equitable (opportunity wise) system, the US Treasury would create all money, and not banks via fractional reserve lending, and the US Treasury would allow local, regional, and state banks to determine credit worthiness, and make no-interest, fee-based loans to individuals, and groups who qualify based on uniform criteria.

These Safety Society Banks would never leverage money to make more money by collecting usury, because qualifying individuals could always have access to "no-interest" liquidity from the US Treasury at any time to use to purchase non-depreciating "real" assets like land and houses, and possibly heir-loom furniture. The amount they could borrow would be based on their proven ability to repay.

Since the borrower builds equity from day one, (unlike an amortized loan), if the borrower misses a payment, that payment is deducted from the equity they already have built up in the asset to that point. When they have lost all equity, then the asset is repossessed by the bank. Since, the asset retains its value, and the bank has received partial payment, as well as being the owner of the asset, the bank hasn't lost anything. The borrower was given extra time to get back on their feet before repossession occurs unlike today when default and foreclosure can occur after one missed payment.

[freedomforall]

A TEST a TEST is coming....

Danger! Danger! Mr. Robinson.

[freedomforall]

If I remember correctly, the cleansing will begin with Christ's church.
http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... ang=eng#24

Are you referring to scripture that states the inner vessel need be cleansed first, then the outer vessel?

I get the impression from what some statements by our Prophets have been...that, in essence, if the wheat and tares were to be separated at this time, the church would be torn usunder? I guess the Brethren have been extremely disgruntled with a lot of the Saints, nevertheless, they await that time when Christ says...let's clean out the unbelievers, the unrighteous, the hypocrits and the evil at heart.

D&C 122:26
First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.

Just a thought.

[AussieOi]

I

The second discussion I had was in PH this Sunday. I took the lesson on sacrifice. I got one of the class members to read a paragraph from one of ET Benson's talks from 1976, where he spoke about the sacrifice made by those great founding fathers of yours. The EQ member said afterward that he didn't believe in the War of Independence or the US Constitution. It's strange how so many church members don't even support such basic ideas of freedom that is throughout the BoM. He didn't even understand that he wouldn't have the prieshood if America had remained a Crown colony.
e.

tell em he's right
the USA sucks and we want nothing like it
however the USA of 1776 is not what it is now
the US constituion is a very small simple document and that is what we can only wish to have today
tell em even the USA hater aussie likes the us constitution, even though he hates america

sadly, as a Brit, he has a point re the US war of independance. terrorists and seditionists with retrospective justification
and the founders might have been pigs and adulterers too
but the constitution is a separate thing

[lundbaek]

If the Founders, that is George Washington or any of the at least 54 of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence were, as Aussie suggests, "pigs and adultereers", I don't think they would have been permitted to come to the St. George Temple to tell Wilford Woodruff, then Temple President, to get their temple ordinance work done.

[reese]

Maybe they repented.

[patriotsaint]

sadly, as a Brit, he has a point re the US war of independance. terrorists and seditionists with retrospective justification
and the founders might have been pigs and adulterers too
but the constitution is a separate thing

No the Constitution is not a separate thing, or have you forgotten what the prophet Mormon taught:

Wherefore, a man being evil cannot do that which is good; neither will he give a good gift. For behold, a bitter fountain cannot bring forth good water; neither can a good fountain bring forth bitter water. (Moroni 7:10-11)

Is the constitution good water or bitter water? By their fruits ye shall know them.

[lost ark]

"The temple work for the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence and other Founding Fathers has been done. All these appeared to Wilford Woodruff when he was president of the St. George temple. President George Washington was ordained a high priest at that time... and according to Wilford Woodruff's journal, John Wesley, Benjamin Franklin, and Christopher Columbus were also ordained high priests at that time. When one casts doubt about the character of these noble sons of God, I believe he or she will have to answer to the God of Heaven for it." Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pp 603-604.

[lundbaek]

It seems clear that George Washington and 54 of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence appeared to Prresident Woodruff demanding that their temple ordinance work be done for them. What is not clear to me is it the others whose work was done at that time also appeared.

This question came up last evening when I objected to a few members trashing Abraham Lincoln. It was suggested that maybe he and those other than the above did not actually appear to Prresident Woodruff, and perhaps did not accept the work done for them. Lincoln's name appears of the record on baptisms somewhere in between Washington and Jefferson.

Does anybody have further insight as to whether or not the others actually were in the St. George Temple ?

[mattctr]

This question came up last evening when I objected to a few members trashing Abraham Lincoln. It was suggested that maybe he and those other than the above did not actually appear to Prresident Woodruff, and perhaps did not accept the work done for them.

Regardless of whether Lincoln was right or wrong in prosecuting the Civil War, I don't see how that would preclude him repenting of any wrongs and appearing for an endowment. On the other hand, his possible appearance at the temple with other notables wouldn't necessarily serve as an endorsement of the generally accepted version of history that lionizes him.

In other words: His name as among those who appeared in the temple shouldn't be used as "proof" that his presidential policies were 100% good.
Likewise: His name not being among those who appeared in the temple shouldn't be used as "proof" that his presidential policies were 100% bad.

I think each point should be discussed on its own merits. 1) Lincoln's presidency Pro vs. Con, and 2) Lincolns endowment/appearance Y or N? This gives you possible 4 hybrid results to consider: Pres Pro, EndowApp Y; Pres Con, EndowApp Y; Pres Pro, EndowApp N; Pres Con, EndowApp N. :-B

[lundbaek]

thanks, Matt, and good points. I have come to have serious doubts about much of what is presented as history.

[freedomforall]

It seems clear that George Washington and 54 of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence appeared to Prresident Woodruff demanding that their temple ordinance work be done for them. What is not clear to me is it the others whose work was done at that time also appeared.

This question came up last evening when I objected to a few members trashing Abraham Lincoln. It was suggested that maybe he and those other than the above did not actually appear to Prresident Woodruff, and perhaps did not accept the work done for them. Lincoln's name appears of the record on baptisms somewhere in between Washington and Jefferson.

Does anybody have further insight as to whether or not the others actually were in the St. George Temple ?

In the Journal of Discourses, it states that Wilford Woodruff did ordinance work for all the signers of Declaration of Independence, and 50 others,--a total of 100 persons. There were 56 signers, so if he did all the signers plus 50 more--that would make 106--not 100. Therefore, what is to be believed? Either he did not really do all 56 signers, or only fifty of them appeared to him. We read:
In 1877 the Founding Fathers appeared in vision to Elder Wilford Woodruff, president of the St. George Temple at the time and one of the Twelve Apostles, and desired their temple work to be done for them:

Before I left St. George, the spirits of the [Founding Fathers] gathered around me, wanting to know why we did not redeem them. Said they, “You have had the use of the Endowment House for a number of years, and yet nothing has ever been done for us. We laid the foundation of the government you now enjoy, and we never apostatized from it, but we remained true to it and were faithful to God.” These were the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and they waited on me for two days and two nights. . . . I straightway went into the baptismal font and called upon Brother McCallister to baptize me for the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and fifty other eminent men, making one hundred in all, including John Wesley, Columbus, and others.

Does this help? :-w :-w

[freedomforall]

I spoken to two church members in recent weeks regarding the US Constitution.

One of the discussions arose when I met a member who was traveling home on the same bus as me. She was talking about her son's schooling an how well he is doing in Modern Studies. I asked her what exactly was involved in modern studies. She mentioned a few things including 'equality and diversity' and 'climate change'. I immediately replied that I don't believe in man made global warming. She was quite defensive of it. I probed her a little more about her general political beliefs and she said that she is 100% socialist and that all Christians must be socialist. I couldn't convince her that socialism is wrong and that church leaders have preached against it. She said that the church says we have to be socialists and support social services! She then went on about welfare giving people self-esteem. Our conversation was on a bus and there was a man sitting in a row ahead of us who kept on turning around and making snarling faces at me everytime I criticised socialism, so I decided not to push it any further.


The second discussion I had was in PH this Sunday. I took the lesson on sacrifice. I got one of the class members to read a paragraph from one of ET Benson's talks from 1976, where he spoke about the sacrifice made by those great founding fathers of yours. The EQ member said afterward that he didn't believe in the War of Independence or the US Constitution. It's strange how so many church members don't even support such basic ideas of freedom that is throughout the BoM. He didn't even understand that he wouldn't have the prieshood if America had remained a Crown colony.

I read about the Law of Consecration, but I honestly can't see it happening now if it couldn't even work in the early days when people were so much more informed than we are.

How is it that people who lean toward a socialistic lifestyle can become an LDS in the first place? How can they hold a Temple recommend? How is it they are not questioned as to their beliefs before baptism?
Zion is...The Pure in Heart. How is it that anyone can think or assume that socialism is desirable? Go figure!
God teaches liberty and freedom, not control.

[lundbaek]

To answer Freedomfighter’s question “How is it that people who lean toward a socialistic lifestyle can become an LDS in the first place?” I can only suggest that many people join the Church not understanding various principles of the Gospel to begin with. My wife, who grew up and worked as a nurse in Denmark before I came along, still has difficulty accepting that socialized health care is not right.

On a bit of a tangent now, the record book of baptisms at the St. George Temple shows baptisms were not done for John Hancock nor for William Floyd at the same time they were done for the other 54 signers. A film of that record book can probably still be viewed at the Family History Center in SLC. It’s worth having a look at if one gets a chance. Just ask for the film of the record of baptisms at the St. George Temple for 1877.