Trump's turn: Deseret News publishes his exclusive op-ed piece

[waveslider]

2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I'm not talking about the illegitimate state that the Federal Government of the United States has become, so neither of these sold out politicians even have the same values as the founding fathers anyway. So your post here isn't what I was talking about.

The separation of Church and state doesn't mean to take God out of the picture. It means that one religion, shouldn't be favored over any other, and that men are free to worship how they want. If you actually look into the founding documents, and even quotations of the founding forefathers of this once great nation of ours, you will quickly see that they had no intention of keeping God out of the government. On the contrary they intended to have God in the government, just not any one particular state endorsed sect:
 

" When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation." The Declaration of Independence.

" We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...." The Declaration of Independence.

"Appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World” The Declaration of Independence.

"With a firm Reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence” The Declaration of Independence.

Although the body of constitution of the U.S. doesn't make reference to God it does honor the Christian Sabbath, in Article 1, Section 7, Clause 2: “If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law,”

Note the words, "Year of our Lord," in reference to the Christian calendar, as found when they signed the constitution. This is found in Article 7 which in part reads: “Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names, GO WASHINGTON–Presidt. and deputy from Virginia”

Here is a list of quotes by the founding fathers that might raise eyebrow or two if you think that they wanted to keep God out of the government: http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755

[waveslider]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

That is not a suicide pact.

What are you talking about? I was only stating that Trump talked, like he has always talked since running for president, about getting the, "illegal," aliens out of out country. So getting rid of a bunch of Church members out of Southern California, and back into Mexico is a moot point because Church member aren't supposed to be criminals in the first place, that all illegal aliens are. Illegal is the very definition of criminal.

[waveslider]

3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

"And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift." 

4 Ne. 

Well that can't happen under any man made governmental socialistic system that has ever been devised, because the consolidation of power ends up in the hands of very few, and eventually only one very flawed human, that ends up so corrupted by all that power, so that the rest of the people don't have all things in common with that ruler/rulers. Zion being led by direct revelation from God is the only way that this type of having all things in common can work, because God isn't corrupt, and won't become corrupted by that power.

Edited August 17, 2016 by waveslider
Not good sentence structure

[thesometimesaint]

11 minutes ago, waveslider said:

I'm not talking about the illegitimate state that the Federal Government of the United States has become, so neither of these sold out politicians even have the same values as the founding fathers anyway. So your post here isn't what I was talking about.

The separation of Church and state doesn't mean to take God out of the picture. It means that one religion, shouldn't be favored over any other, and that men are free to worship how they want. If you actually look into the founding documents, and even quotations of the founding forefathers of this once great nation of ours, you will quickly see that they had no intention of keeping God out of the government. On the contrary they intended to have God in the government, just not any one particular state endorsed sect:
 

" When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation." The Declaration of Independence.

" We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...." The Declaration of Independence.

"Appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World” The Declaration of Independence.

"With a firm Reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence” The Declaration of Independence.

Although the body of constitution of the U.S. doesn't make reference to God it does honor the Christian Sabbath, in Article 1, Section 7, Clause 2: “If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law,”

Note the words, "Year of our Lord," in reference to the Christian calendar, as found when they signed the constitution. This is found in Article 7 which in part reads: “Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names, GO WASHINGTON–Presidt. and deputy from Virginia”

Here is a list of quotes by the founding fathers that might raise eyebrow or two if you think that they wanted to keep God out of the government: http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755

Are we still at war with England?

[waveslider]

2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Many US politicians want abortion to be illegal in all circumstances, religion the only reason. 

The younger generations don't want religion in politics 

 

And that wouldn't possibly be because of the indoctrination of these young people by a predominately liberal leaning, politically correct, unrealistic view of everything needs to be fair, viewpoint?

[thesometimesaint]

8 minutes ago, waveslider said:

What are you talking about? I was only stating that Trump talked, like he has always talked since running for president, about getting the, "illegal," aliens out of out country. So getting rid of a bunch of Church members out of Southern California, and back into Mexico is a moot point because Church member aren't supposed to be criminals in the first place, that all illegal aliens are. Illegal is the very definition of criminal.

Illegal aliens is a misnomer. BTW Show me your papers please.

SEE

 

[waveslider]

7 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Are we still at war with England?

If you look at who is in control of the issuance, and contraction of our currency, one might argue that we are under subject of England.

[thesometimesaint]

5 minutes ago, waveslider said:

If you look at who is in control of the issuance, and contraction of our currency, one might argue that we are under subject of England.

Not the question I asked. Anywho; The Federal Reserve as delegated by Congress, through the Office of Engraving and Printing, controls the issuance of paper currency. The valuation of which is controlled by the market. We are constitutionally bound to honor all debts occurred by our government.

[TheSkepticChristian]

28 minutes ago, waveslider said:

The separation of Church and state doesn't mean to take God out of the picture. 

Dude! Religion is well protected in the USA, that means you can practice your religious beliefs. No one is against religious freedom! 

So there is no need for religion in politics. Religion in politics is about imposing your religious beliefs on others. Just live and let live! 

You are against gay marriage? that is fine, but let others have the liberty to get married. Here is the definition of marriage 

"The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law" https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/marriage

23 minutes ago, waveslider said:

Well that can't happen under any man made governmental socialistic system that has ever been devised

You said, "that has ever been devised" I agree, but  how do you know there is no possible governmental socialistic system that can work for everyone? 

I suspect a Humanist socialistic government could work, that has never been tried. 

[waveslider]

17 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Not the question I asked. Anywho; The Federal Reserve as delegated by Congress, through the Office of Engraving and Printing, controls the issuance of paper currency. The valuation of which is controlled by the market. We are constitutionally bound to honor all debts occurred by our government.

The Federal Reserve isn't supposed to be delegated by Congress to do that:

"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
 To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;"
U.S. Constitution, Article 1

How does congress fix the Standard of Weights and Measures, if we have delegated that responsibility to an international banking cartel, and have never even so much as audited that entity even once, in the more than a century of it fixing the Standard of Weights and Measures instead of our congress? How does congress coin (meaning create, not metal discs of monetary units, as in the term, "coining a phrase.") money, when they allow this to be done by this unconstitutional entity called the Federal Reserve?

I think you should dig a little deeper and realize that we have basically lost the war to be out from under the rule of England. Not by violent war, but by subversion and deceit inflicted upon the American people, by a corrupted legal system that doesn't follow the constitution so much so that it has become an illegitimate state, constantly power grabing the power of the states, and people.

Edited August 17, 2016 by waveslider
mispell

[waveslider]

20 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

You said, "that has ever been devised" I agree, but  how do you know there is no possible governmental socialistic system that can work for everyone? 

I suspect a Humanist socialistic government could work, that has never been tried.

Answer these questions and you will see the flaw in the plan; Who is the person who inflicts the socialistic values upon everyone so that everyone is treated fairly? Who gets that position when the first person dies? I am quite certain that there are a few very rare and unselfish people who wouldn't become corrupted by that power, but eventually someone will get that position who is going to be corrupted. What happens when a psychopath ends up in that position? This type of position would attract all types of psychopaths and sociopaths, like moths to a light. It will inevitably fail each and every time. I felt like I needed to answer this question first so that you could see all the other answers to your statements in light of these very realistic views.

20 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Dude! Religion is well protected in the USA, that means you can practice your religious beliefs. No one is against religious freedom! 

Religion isn't well protected if you own a cake bakery. It is enforced by the government.

20 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

So there is no need for religion in politics. Religion in politics is about imposing your religious beliefs on others. Just live and let live! 

There is a very real need for morals in government! If it isn't God who is making the moral decisions, then who is it that gets to make these decisions? The only answer can be a flawed human being, and once corrupted he/she will be just as ruthless as every other dictator that socialism has paved the path to leadership has/will produced/produce. Either that or it has to get back to the people as a group making these moral decisions, but our over reaching government has made that possibility a thing of the past, as was illustrated in one judge forcing SSM upon the whole nation, in one sole decision.

21 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

You are against gay marriage? that is fine, but let others have the liberty to get married. Here is the definition of marriage 

Again an over reaching government is to blame for this ignorant question. There never used to be such a thing as a marriage license until after the civil war. The Democrats(South), wanting to prevent interracial marriage, made it so that everyone has to get a marriage license to get married at all. If the government stayed completely out of marriages, and what is deemed a legal marriage, or not, then SSM could happen in any church that would be willing to perform such a union. Government didn't perform marriages at the time. I wouldn't try to stop it, and I don't think most people who identify as conservative people would either. It would all be a moot point.

21 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

"The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law" https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/marriage

Again, refer to the above statement.

 

[thesometimesaint]

Take it up with Congress. Congress created the Federal Reserve and Congress can eliminate it at their desire. But be aware that there were several Panics(Depressions) prior to the introduction of the Federal Reserve.

Weights and measures is unrelated to the printing of money.

Take it up with the USSC. SEE http://www.pragcap.com/common-myths-about-the-federal-reserve/

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was established via Congress.  But this wasn’t the first time the constitutionality of the nation’s central bank had been tested.  On many occasions the constitutionality of a central bank has been questioned and continually upheld by the Supreme Court:

• The most famous instance was McCulloch v. Maryland in which the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the Second Bank of the United States was constitutional.
• The case was affirmed in Osborn v. Bank of the United States.   The decision was upheld under the justification that the nation’s central bank provides necessary support in aiding the power to tax, borrowing money and regulating interstate commerce.
• Nixon v. Individual Head of St. Joseph Mortgage Company upheld Federal Reserve Notes as Legal Tender.

Then change the legal system under which the US operates instead of venting your spleen with propaganda.

Edited August 17, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[Calm]

13 hours ago, waveslider said:

That would be because the church members aren't supposed to be illegals. We believe in being subject to the rule of law.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/avoiding-being-judgmental-immigration

Quote

 

Responsibility of Church Members: Avoiding Being Judgmental

The First Presidency has for many years taught that undocumented status should not by itself prevent an otherwise worthy Church member from entering the temple or being ordained to the priesthood.

Bishops are in the best position to make appropriate judgments as to Church privileges.  Meanwhile, Church members should avoid making judgments about fellow members in their congregations.

 

 

[waveslider]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/avoiding-being-judgmental-immigration

 

It says nothing about the responsibility of the president to deport any illegal aliens who are found to be here illegally though. So perhaps since there may be some bishops and stake presidents who are willing to over look illegal activities, I may be wrong about Trump not wanting to deport members of our church, but he still stated that, "While we embrace our nation’s history of legal immigration, we cannot allow illegal immigration to continue jeopardizing our nation’s safety and upending the economic well-being of our middle class." So I guess he did mention something about deporting Mormons, who am I to judge.

[thesometimesaint]

2 minutes ago, waveslider said:

It says nothing about the responsibility of the president to deport any illegal aliens who are found to be here illegally though. So perhaps since there may be some bishops and stake presidents who are willing to over look illegal activities, I may be wrong about Trump not wanting to deport members of our church, but he still stated that, "While we embrace our nation’s history of legal immigration, we cannot allow illegal immigration to continue jeopardizing our nation’s safety and upending the economic well-being of our middle class." So I guess he did mention something about deporting Mormons, who am I to judge.

Obama has deported more people than any other president.

Trump is a demagogue who will say anything he thinks you want to hear. Ever hear of The Ship of the Damned?

[waveslider]

6 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Obama has deported more people than any other president.

Trump is a demagogue who will say anything he thinks you want to hear. Ever hear of The Ship of the Damned?

Obama has also allowed far more to stay in, than he has ever deported. Perhaps it is Obama, and Hilary to continue after Obama, who is at the helm of the MS St Louis ocean liner, not Trump: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/10/border-patrol-ordered-to-release-illegals-still-so/

 

[BlueDreams]

On ‎8‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 5:44 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

Last week, I started a thread linking to the Deseret News's exclusive op-ed piece written by Hillary Clinton.

It was noted then that an exclusive piece by Donald Trump would be published this week by the newspaper. Here it is. Online only, for now. I understand a printed version will follow in this Sunday's edition of the newspaper.

Please note: In the interest of avoiding getting this thread shut down prematurely, as the thread about Hillary Clinton was, I suggest that the comments here be confined to the matter of Mr. Trump's policies and campaign strategy as they pertain to Mormons and Mormonism, particularly as reflected in the op-ed piece linked to here. We all know that it is the kiss of death to a thread here to turn it into something purely political without regard to Mormonism.

 

Probably depends the Mormon. This brown Mormon with immigrant and Mexican American family and a diverse friend base can't think of a way Trump could ever court my vote. He lost me at rapist and it's been down hill ever since. This message, as usual, makes me nervous and queasy.

As for his op-ed. Both Clinton's and Trump's are pandering, obviously. They're running elections, that's what they do. But Trump's doesn't show much nuance as pertaining to mormons and Mormonism. Most references to utahns or messages of religious freedom aren't all too unique to indicate any form of basic knowledge of said demos. You could switch out UT with TX and it would read about the same. Likewise his religious freedom and abortion rhetoric would also fit and evangelical or white southern with not even one word being changed to "connect" with them. That includes messages that aren't popular for Mormons such as building a wall. His campaign strategy rides on fears and anger as well as disenfranchisement of some sort. To me basing a campaign and fear is not what very congruent with Mormonism. Some of these emotions aren't even factually accurate.

For Mormon people, he still has a problem. There's a chunk of the LDS population that may be ok with his message. But his message hasn't changed in the least. And furthermore he's using that disconnect/dislike to better connect with a body he feels probably that he has a better chance with (evangelicals). So not really fixing the divide but potentially inflaming it. Which is basically his problem all the time.

[halconero]

39 minutes ago, waveslider said:

It says nothing about the responsibility of the president to deport any illegal aliens who are found to be here illegally though. So perhaps since there may be some bishops and stake presidents who are willing to over look illegal activities, I may be wrong about Trump not wanting to deport members of our church, but he still stated that, "While we embrace our nation’s history of legal immigration, we cannot allow illegal immigration to continue jeopardizing our nation’s safety and upending the economic well-being of our middle class." So I guess he did mention something about deporting Mormons, who am I to judge.

*cough* Genearl Authorities too *cough* Both from official acts of the Church and my own anecdotal experiences as a missionary in Arizona interacting with a few 70's and a member of the Twelve.

[waveslider]

6 minutes ago, halconero said:

*cough* Genearl Authorities too *cough* Both from official acts of the Church and my own anecdotal experiences as a missionary in Arizona interacting with a few 70's and a member of the Twelve.

Are you saying that there are General Authorities who are here illegally?

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, waveslider said:

Are you saying that there are General Authorities who are here illegally?

It has been reported that bishops/branch presidents have been called who are illegals themselves.  GAs would have to be aware of that.

Also there have been missionaries called who are illegals.  They don't get called to missions outside the US.  My memory says they are given permission to use different forms of transportation than other missionaries to avoid problems arising from their status.

https://bycommonconsent.com/2009/04/25/undocumented-missionaries/

The Church is not an enforcer of governmental policy.  They are here to serve God's children and to help them serve others.

Edited August 17, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

 

"There's been an ongoing discussion of this for 15 years. These kind of incidents, or anything like it, would continue that discussion," said Holland, who is a member of the Missionary Executive Council. "We're always trying to do, always and forever, exactly what's legal, and in the spirit of that, be fair to everyone on the religious side, on the spiritual side, to have the spiritual benefits of [serving a mission]." 

The reason, according to Holland, is simple. 

"A mission is so fundamental to our blessings." 

The LDS Church has changed its policies about mission calls for undocumented immigrants over time. Previously, they had to return to their country of origin for extended periods of time and then could serve. However, U.S. Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, inserted language into a 2005 agricultural bill that absolves religious organizations of criminal liability for allowing their undocumented members to perform volunteer service, including mission work....

"They go knowing themselves that they're at risk, and nothing in our mission call changes that," Holland said. "They know that, and we know that, and we work within those parameters to have them be constructive, honorable, faithful, spiritual, religious emissaries for that period of service."...

"Clearly we do take and always will take a great sense of responsibility for the safety of our missionaries in any part of the world. ... We're not agents of the immigration service and we don't pretend to be, and we also won't break the law. We didn't bring them here. We quite overtly discourage that."

Jeffrey R. Holland, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, a governing body of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/News/ci_12223689

Edited August 17, 2016 by Calm

[carbon dioxide]

On 8/16/2016 at 9:08 AM, Meadowchik said:

Trump has recommended use of religious tests for Muslims, which we should all find troublesome.

Maybe.  We should remember that non-citizens who live in other countries have no rights to come to America and any test can be used to screen or keep people out.  I am sure that any Muslims that find themselves excluded by the official routes to get into the US will have no problem with going to central America and crossing the border.  In some ways, it probably is faster.

[waveslider]

Thanks for the clarification Calm. I was unaware of these things.

[Duncan]

I got into a bit of a tiff with a former mission guy a tick ago. He's all for deportation but I reminded him of his baptizing illegal people in our So. Cal mission days and encouraging us to do the same. I asked him if you feel this strongly about deportation today would you go back and not baptize those brothers and sisters back then? I am still waiting for an answer