Previous 11 - 20 Next
loisoo01: (Part 2) It is impossible for the Law of Consecration and Communism to coexist, because the Law of Consecration presupposes that there is private property. Private property is undefined in communism. Another point is that the Law of Consecration is a system of stewardship, voluntarily entered into. Communism is a system of redistribution, forcefully executed.
loisoo01: (Part 1) Probably the best way to answer your question simply is to compare the Law of Consecration (actually United Order) with Communism. Why? Because Communism is recognized to be the most fundamentally inconsistent with Free Market Economics. In communism, you never give anything, because nothing was ever yours to give in the first place. The force of government always can and does take it away. In the Law of Consecration, it is all private property, and there is no force of government that can force you to hand it over. Only you can consecrate your own property. Not only that, but you can’t consecrate another person’s property either.
I am amused that some of you can spend all day long posting your dislike of Mormonism. Your life truly revolves around us. Some of your posts were accurate, but you do so much misrepresenting and obscuring facts, that to go through it all and sort it out would be a big fat waste of time. You aren't worth straightening out. You are willfully ignorant, and you probably deserve to remain so. Obscure quotes, and out of context citations do not make you a Mormon expert. You are more like a National Enquirer Pseudojournalist. You know how to shock and sensationalize with a bunch of disjointed citations, but you don't demonstrate an understanding that I can respect.
That is a fair summary of the endowment. The endowment is among the most profound experiences of my life. In ancient times, they were called the mysteries. It is Christianity alright, but perhaps not your watered down and gutted version.
Hey Louie, I am a Freemason too. Boo.
In faith, there are just some things that you aren't going to be able to explain to the satisfaction of all. Show me the person who CAN explain everything then there is a good chance he is either wrong or He is God. If you dismiss Romney as an idiot and unfit for the presidency exclusively for his Mormon beliefs, then you should remember that YOU, yes YOU, have beliefs that to some would be considered "irrational" too. Be modest and ask yourself if you would like the standard applied to Romney to be applied to you too.
Andy, he is not saying there is no light and dark. He is just warning of the slippery slope of dismissing a person just because their beliefs are "irrational". The problem with that reasoning is that two can play that game. Prager’s point is that judging a person for the rationality of their beliefs alone is an unreasonable standard. Instead, he asks us to evaluate their fruits. Remember Jesus said, “By their fruits, ye shall know them.”
Dude, you really are bitter. Why?
I agree. I think my point is that we shouldn't avoid the appearance of irrationality at all costs. Rationality has its place and is important, but it also has its limits. Irrationality for irrationality's sake is not what I am advocating.
There are those who flatter themselves that if they just stay aloof from religion, they will remain rational. It is sad, because not only is shunning all irrationality unavoidable, it is also undesirable. Many in this camp live a life that is unexamined and uninteresting. They have a resolve that is untested.
Those who find no direction from outside this sphere of existence are slaves to the prevailing whims of the age, which change constantly. You are nothing but a drone, although you may flatter yourself that you are smart, independent and open minded. Actually, you are none of these. Absent revelation and inspiration from outside this world, you will attempt to fill that void. Many choose to become a part of the collective, gaining false security and inspiration from an imaginary friend named We.
Previous 11 - 20 Next