Replies

Aren't you one of the posters that complain about others reading your minds?

Yes, because people try to tell me I am not a Christian, while I am saying I am.

How do you know what Mitt or the prophet would do in this case?

I know because Mitt is a reasonable person. If he did such a thing in his first term, he’d be so toast running for the second. If he did such a thing in his second his legacy would be sealed.

I do not believe the prophet would call with anything more than he would do with any other president.

You do know that after Bill Clinton signed the “family act” president Hinckley called him to congratulate him and he rescinded it a few days later, right?

Yes, I believe that Mitt would be unduly influenced to sign a bill by a call from the prophet.

If for a moment we assume you are right, what bill would the prophet use this on-time shot on, remember, it would have to already be passed in the house and senate. If Mitt signed some extra constitutional executive order, he would be impeached so fast it would not matter.

The state church comment is ridiculous and you know it.

Yes, that is why I was saying please tell me you do not believe this.

The oath states "for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.

Is it Christian belief that God wishes to "build up His kingdom on earth and establish Zion?" State your source for this

How about Daniel 2:37-45: (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dan/2/37-45#37)

37 Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.
38 And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.
39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.
40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.
41 And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters’ clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the airon, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.
42 And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.
43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.
44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.

The kingdom of God will fill the whole earth and when that time comes I am pledged to dedicate all I have to it’s building, until then, I can help with Zion

A mormon would certainly be a better President than a democrat, I agree.

I have a hard time thinking of a worse president elect than Hitlery

I said:that you have the effect of temple covenants on a Mormon’s life all wrong.

In what way? Are you saying that they don't mean anything and are just a pro forma response?

Mormons who attend the temple are not some mind numbed robot; they are earnest seekers of God’s will. If you have someone who is a regular temple attendee, they will develop a relationship with God that can only enhance presidential performance.

That's certainly news to me. Remember I am a former mormon, coming from a mormon dominated area.

Just about any member could have told you that “the kingdom” is the kingdom spoken of by Daniel.

From my earlier post: Is it Christian belief that God wishes to "build up His kingdom on earth and establish Zion?" State your source for this
How about Daniel 2:37-45: (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dan/2/37-45#37)

My question to you: Is it Christian belief that God wishes to "build up His kingdom on earth and establish Zion?" State your source for this.

Here is the pertinent clause in the oath: "do accept the Law of Consecration as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.

Now, if you care to interpret this as referring to the Daniel source, go ahead. Other's interpretation could be that since it states "according to the Law of Consecration in the D & C, and the FIRST recipient of "yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you," is the LDS church, the Kingdom of God and Zion just might relate to something much more recent.

I guess you would claim that "Zion" doesn't relate in any way to the mormon church either.

Which interpretation do you think the clinton/media crime machine will chose?