W. Cleon Skousen, Henry B. Eyring Witness Experiences of God Inspired Unity

[80sJerm]

All lovers of truth seek The Prince of Peace, Lord of Lords, Savior, and Redeemer of the world, Jesus Christ, our Mediator, Creator, our Advocate with the Father, the Great Exemplar, who showed us THE WAY, by being THE WAY!!!!!!! God bless our leaders to continue to follow the promptings of the Holy Ghost as they lead His holy work on this earth. Building up the kingdom of God on the earth must be done in unity & all of us have different experiences, perspectives, knowledge, convictions, etc.

[mitt008]

Skousen and Eyring give such great insight into how the Lord gives his stamp of approval onto the doings of men! Beautiful description on how unity occurs in decision making in the counsels of the Church! This footage is a treasure of knowledge!

[MacGyver1776]

President Eyring has taught us a valuable lesson. It is so important to wait until there is unanimity.

[awolLDSasap]

Mormon doctrine leads straight to bondage where tears arise from religious strife.

[awolLDSasap]

Evidence free spiritualism never came from God. Go ask Opra. Through feelings, man can wish up anything he wants, "even become a god" The Almighty is going to crash this party.

[GohModley]

W. Cleon Skousen explains groupthink.

[orlovna2]

Skousen looks like Jimmy Durante, to me.

And, "....there is consensus". Yeah. Brilliant! George Bush thought he was the "master of consensus building", when in the Whitehouse!

The God of the Bible was not into "consensus-building", like these Top-Fifteen Freaks, in the Mormon Crutch!

God spoke, and the "prophet" (usually only one, like Jeremiah) relayed it, to the people.

Of course, those "Top Fifteen" are so hard of hearing, that they "prophesy by committee", if at all!

[firstbaldwin]

listen to skousen pat himself on the back, trying to convince all the MORmON members that he is a de facto general authority. this guy is so full of himself !

& Hinckley .....what a joke !

[COMALiteJ]

Ah, yes. The man who, in "The Making of the Nation," called black children "pickaninnies," said that slaveowners were the main victims of slavery, and also how "...[slave] gangs in transit were usually a cheerful lot, though the presence of a number of the more vicious type sometimes made it necessary for them all to go in chains."

Ah, yes, such pleasure cruises those slave ships were!

What a great guy!

[SeraphimTheApologist]

YOu know we tend to pass on what we ourselves were taught. W Cleon Skousen was a close personal friend of Eldridge Cleaver amung many other black people. He was not a racist. The chapter you are refering to mostly ATTACKS slavery from an economic standpoint, the then includes an article by FRED ALBERT SHANNON which he hoped would illustate his point that Slavery was not a good economic policy. The words you cite belong to Fred Albert Shannon not W Cleon Skousen...

[COMALiteJ]

Ah, yes, the "he had a black friend so he can't be racist" excuse.

I'll check the reference to see if he was indeed quoted out-of-context re: the slave ships (the source did say that he was quoting Shannon, but not that he was rebutting him — if that's the case, I'll object mightily to those who quoted him out-of-context — I don't tolerate that from anyone for any reason, ESPECIALLY if they're on my "side"), but I'm pretty sure the "pickaninnies" was his own words.

[SeraphimTheApologist]

Simple logic here, why would he hang around people he hated? Racists don't keep company they object to. I can't find the use of that racial slurr anywhere in the aforementioned book, please provide me a page number. I can assure you that he selected Shannon's article to illustrate the point Slavery was not good economic policy. In Provision 264 (Beginning page 728).

[SeraphimTheApologist]

I suggest at least reading the entire chapter for the appropriate persepctive. Page 728 Skousen comdemns slavery as "The most degrading bondage," he then spends the next two [aragraphs illustrating that America is far from alone in slavery, and talks about the different cultures and countries that have had slaves and points out that the slaves have been a variety of different peoples from different origins.

[SeraphimTheApologist]

He then points out that since different coulturs all had different people as thier slave slavery "isn't a racial problem. Its a human problem." Do you find that objectionable? Because its a simple reality.

[COMALiteJ]

The slavery that Africans endured at the hands of Europeans and their American colonists was different from, and far worse than, the slavery of, say, Africans among each other, or the Hebrews at the hands of the Egyptians in early Exodus, or the serfdom of the feudal system of Europe, or the indentured servitude of whites in Europe and America. All of those involved forced and unpaid labor with restricted liberty, but Europeans and Americans OWNED Africans as PERSONAL PROPERTY. CHATTEL slavery.

[COMALiteJ]

Racism does not mean hatred. That's bigotry. Racism means the belief that some races are superior or inferior to others in at least some respect. When Skousen wrote that book, nearly every LDS member, and the LDS faith itself, was racist by that definition, denying Priesthood to blacks.

A statement can even be true and still be racist. "Blacks are susceptible to being born with Sickle Cell disease" and "Whites are susceptible to being born with Cystic Fibrosis" are both racist, yet 100% true.

[SeraphimTheApologist]

Forced labor is forced labor. Slaves are property of whoever is behind the whip, to write off and dismiss the slavery of other civilizations in order to demonize the white guy specifically is whole heartedly wilfully ignorant. Slavery is slavery, and slavery is wrong. Slavery is a human problem. The only reason it becomes racial is for politics. Also, the Africans, the Moores, the Egyptians, and the Romans were beyond epic in thier brutality. American slave owners were tame by comparison.

[SeraphimTheApologist]

That being said all of these slave owners are going to burn in hell, as are the socialists, the communists, and anyone else who stands in the way of man's God given inaliable rights. Slavery is wrong. Also if you don't associate racism with hatred then perhaps you should explain the problem you have with Skousen's chapter on slavery which may be naieve, but is far from racist, and even true ion some plantations (like Thomas Jefferson's)

[SeraphimTheApologist]

Many American slavers did take care of thier slaves, much like the government is trying to "take care of" us now. However, educated people know better than to let people put chains on them. Jefferson was amung the first abolitionists. Hypocritical, perhaps, but at least he was a step in the right direction. Even though he had slaves he knew that this country would never achieve his vision for it while there was a single person in bondage.

[SeraphimTheApologist]

Its a bloody shame that slavery is making a come back. Endentured servitude through government control of student loans... "We'll pay for your education, but you have to work for us for ten years w/o pay! Its called service!" But if Obama has his way there will be no private loans as an alternative and the ONLY way to pay it off is through ten years of "service." Are you okay with that? I'm not. I'm against slavery whatever form it takes. So too was Skousen.

[COMALiteJ]

If I could take a time machine into the past and change one thing, knowing it would wipe out my own existence and that of everyone I know and love, it'd be a toss-up between two things.

One is to convince Jefferson to free his slaves. Then, when the Southern Colonies insisted on slavery, his example would provide the moral backbone to say, "What part of `ALL men are created equal' did you not understand?'" And if they insisted, "¡Adiós! Çiao! And don't let the door hit you on the way out."

[SeraphimTheApologist]

Yeah. I agree, they should have been more adamant about ending slavery back then. Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson were particularly insistant, but the matter got tabeled just to get the Declaration of Independance and later the Constitution done. Sadly Jefferson's writings reveal that his slaves were tied into his mortgage because he was not very good at managing his personal debt. As much as he wanted to free his slaves the law at the time made it impossible to free them before paying his debt.

[COMALiteJ]

All of the communists are going to burn in hell? Even Peter and the Apostles of Christ's early Church, who practiced a system that Luke himself summarized in almost the exact same verbatim words that Karl Marx would use 1¾ MILLENNIA later to describe Marxism? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Compare Acts 2:44-45. Then read Acts 4:31-37 which has more detail and an example. Continue across the chapter boundary into Acts 5:1-11 in which God ENFORCES it!

[SeraphimTheApologist]

3 fallicies to correct: 1) Communists are athiests. They tried to wipe out the Christians in Russia, remember? 2) The system you described revolved around volunteerism, not government. 3) property was not owned collectively. How else do you account for the situation in Acts 5:4. If the property had been owned collectively they would have had no need to try and figure out how to decieve Peter.

[SeraphimTheApologist]

The collective would have owned the property in the first place, thus negating any need to buy sell or trade in the first place. God punished Ananias and Sapphira because they lied to Peter. "Thou has not lied unto men, but to God (A 5:4). Additionally, technically Ananias "gave up the ghost." He basically killed himself as it were. God didn't lift a finger there. Verse 9 indicates that the two had agreed to sell the land and donate all the procedes to the church.

[SeraphimTheApologist]

That they lied to God, not because they were refusing to participate in a redistributive scheme, but that they lied to God is why the two perrished. God ASKS us to give freely. Government takes by force. Communists go to hell because they deny people the liberty to choose for themselves, and do more to further impoverish the people than to lift them up.

[COMALiteJ]

They lied to God because they wanted the prestige that went with being seen as participants in the collective economy (the very definition of communism), without having to actually give up all their property. They were free to not participate at all, as Peter told them. But they wanted to have their cake and eat it, too. They wanted it both ways.

None of which changes the fact that the system was communist, or that God struck them dead, thus enforcing HONEST participation in the system.

[COMALiteJ]

I ran out of 500 characters before I could specify that it was HONEST participation in this system which God enforced in Acts 5. Yes, technically, it was lying that got Ananias and Saphira struck dead (and do you REALLY think that BOTH of them, completely independently of each other and at least several minutes apart, with Saphira stated as being UNAWARE of what happened to Ananias, just "gave up the ghost" OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL as soon as Peter pronounced them dead?).

[COMALiteJ]

#1: Communism has nothing to do with atheism. It's an economic system. Atheism is a belief system (or, rather, the absence of any belief system involving any sort of deity — it's no more a religion than "bald" is a hair color). Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. weren't even technically atheists. They had established CULTS of Personality centered on themselves, and ANY cult is BY DEFINITION a religion. But even so, those cults or the alleged atheism had zilch to do with the communism itself.

[COMALiteJ]

#2: Communism is an economic system (as I said before), not a political system. There is NO SUCH THING as a "Communist GOVERNMENT" any more than there's any such thing as a Capitalist Government. There are governments that preside over Communist or Capitalist economies. You can quite logically, if perhaps not feasibly, have a Democratic Republic presiding over a Communist economy, or a Totalitarian Dictatorship presiding over a Capitalist economy.

[SeraphimTheApologist]

Would you please explain that to the President then? I agree with you completely on that subject, the people on a local level should determine thier own economic systems rather than have one dictated to them by the government. Most Americans are happily capitalist and it seems that Communism, or marxist ideas are being forced on us by both political parties.

[SeraphimTheApologist]

I am not saying that all athiests are communists, and Communist countries have done away with religion. You are right in that they do establish personality cults. I am not talking about what is in theory, only what has happened historically. Communism is godless and evil. It is a counterfeit to God's plan.

[COMALiteJ]

Most MODERN IMPLEMENTATIONS of communism may be godless, but that doesn't make communism ITSELF godless, any more than the fact that most movies these days are in color means that being in color is part of the very DEFINITION of the TERM "movie," nor the concept thereof.

And I never said nor meant to imply that you said that all atheists are communists. You said the other way around: all communists are atheists. And that just ain't so. THAT'S what I was refuting.

[orlovna2]

@COMALiteJ

But, in Soviet Communism, God was removed, from The State.  "The State" became the "be all" and the "end all", to the people.

[COMALiteJ]

@orlovna2, first off, God was not removed from the Soviet state. Indeed, according to the first seven verses of Chapter 13 of Paul's Epistle to the Romans, that would be impossible, since ALL governments (yes, including Hitler's Nazi government, Stalin's USSR, even Obama) are PUT THERE BY GOD, and DERIVE THEIR AUTHORITY from God. ALL of them. Every single government that has ever existed. Even the ones you don't like.

Sorry, but Christians are supposed to obey WHATEVER government they're under.

[COMALiteJ]

@orlovna2, secondly, that is utterly irrelevant to what I said, which was that communism is not INHERENTLY godless, as the very early Christians outright practiced a primitive form of Marxism. That the USSR was "godless" has no bearing on this.

[quantumtronics]

@COMALiteJ - You are describing the principle of "comment consent" in the Bible (New Testament). There is also a social program enacted by Joseph of Egypt during the time of plenty and famine. However, there is NO relationship at the principle level of Marxism and the redistribution of property and wealth in the Bible. You described it earlier yourself, the disciples would voluntarily donate their property to the leaders for redistribution. Marxism demands force and coercion.....

[COMALiteJ]

@quantumtronics, as I understand it, Marx's long-term goal was a society in which no coercion would be necessary, that the statist coercive phase was intended as a temporary phase until the generations who were used to being selfish died off.

That said, coercion is no more part of the DEFINITION of communism than atheism is. I stand by my assertion: what the primitive Apostolic Christian Church practiced was basically communism, and a PRIMITIVE FORM of Marxism.

It certainly wasn't capitalism.

[quantumtronics]

@COMALiteJ Coersive and mandatory behavior within government with the people is not a principle of God. The descendants of Jacob and the 12 tribes did NOT participate directly in the social order of the Egyptians, this is very clear when they were "given" "donated" the land in Goshen. More over, Joseph of Egypts approach for the economic system was based on God's direction, it is my hope that the redistribution of property described in Genesis 41 to 46 was voluntary, but we do not have...

[COMALiteJ]

@quantumtronics, Joseph allegedly ruled Egypt as a sort of Prime Minister. His word was law, so if he told the people to store up their excess wealth from the seven years of plenty for future use and redistribution during the prophesied seven years of famine (which he allegedly did), that in and of itself constituted statist force and coercion to do so.

AFAIK, democracy doesn't exist ANYWHERE in the Bible. Nowhere is there even a vote, with the possible exception of Matthias's apostleship.

[otmjake]

@COMALiteJ I love how you end your democracy point with a point the contradicts your point perfectly!

[COMALiteJ]

@otmjake, no, it doesn’t contradict my point. I said “with the POSSIBLE exception of Matthias’s apostleship.”

That’s in Acts Chapter 1, starting with verse 15 through the end of the chapter. Someone had to replace Judas Iscariot among the Twelve, so the remaining eleven gathered together to choose between two candidates: Joseph Barsabas, and Matthias. Both were equally qualified as witnesses from His Baptism on.

They prayed for GOD to reveal the chosen, then “GAVE FORTH their LOTS” (KJV).

[COMALiteJ]

@otmjake, (cont.) Now, that COULD CONCEIVABLY mean a vote, using “lots” as in “voting balLOTS,” but the context makes this extremely unlikely. They weren’t asking to choose based on their own personal opinions, likes or dislikes, etc. They were asking GOD to REVEAL who was to be the new Apostle.

Other translations say that they CAST or DREW lots, which implies some element of chance, like flipping a coin or drawing straws, hoping for God to influence the “random” result to reveal His choice.

[COMALiteJ]

@otmjake, (cont.) NO major English translation that I know of translates this as the Eleven doing any sort of voting. The Greek word used there is “κλήρους” (“kleros”), which is Strong’s G#2819:

“1) an object used in casting or drawing lots, which was either a pebble, or a potsherd, or a bit of wood

“a) the lots of several persons concerned, inscribed with their names, were thrown together into a vase, which was then shaken, and he whose lot fell out first upon the ground was the one chosen”

[otmjake]

@COMALiteJ This is what the Lords 12 apostles do today, they do not vote as a democracy, they look for revelation and then talk about it. by the time they come up with what the decide, all of them feel good about it and get revelation that it is from God, just as we believe that Matthias was chosen

[COMALiteJ]

@otmjake, I’m well aware of that. What I was pointing out is that the Bible does not have DEMOCRACY in it. At all. Period.

Sorry, but the United States of America is not only NOT based on Biblical nor Christian principles, it’s actually based on ANTI-Biblical principles! Most notably Freedom of Religion: practically the ENTIRE Old Testament, from beginning to end, is one big “Thou Shalt NOT Have Freedom of Religion”! Merely NOT believing in God was a CAPITAL OFFENSE in II Chronicles Chapter 15!

[otmjake]

@COMALiteJ O so you are all for uniform religion, ideally everyone would belong to The Lords Church, I agree with that. sadly this is not a ideal world. Its not that God wanted all the different religions, but that if he were to restore his church in a country that had uniform religion, the church would have been heavily outlawed and it would have started a lot slower then it did in the US where there was freedom of religion. But yes you are right God would rather everyone be part of His Church

[COMALiteJ]

@otmjake, no, please read what I actually wrote. I said nothing about uniform religion. I said that Freedom of Religion is ANTI-BIBLICAL, and it is. I said that DEMOCRACY is, at best, NON-Biblical, and it is.

The USA is not a nation founded on Christian principles. Quite the contrary.

I do NOT want the USA to be re-made into a Christian nation. I am a very big supporter of BI-DIRECTIONAL Separation of Church and State. A WALL. Not a gate, door, turnstile, etc. A WALL of Separation.

[Porojukaha]

@COMALiteJ Actually, nowhere in the constitution does it say ANYTHING about the separation of Church and State. to the contrary, the founders put God in there all over the place and openly declared in many documents that if our nation ceased to be a God fearing Christian nation that it would self destruct shortly after that. What it actually says in the constitution is that the government cannot make one state religion and make all the others illegal. like England did with the Church of England

[COMALiteJ]

@Porojukaha: “Actually, nowhere in the constitution does it say ANYTHING about the separation of Church and State.”

Not true. The First Amendment became part of the Constitution when it was ratified, and while it doesn’t contain the exact phrase “Separation of Church and State,” it DOES describe the CONCEPT. Your claim was that “nowhere in the Constitution does it say ANYTHING [UPPERCASE emphasis YOURS!] about the separation of Church and State.” And that just ain’t so. Sorry, but it ain’t.

[COMALiteJ]

@Porojukaha: “to [sic] the contrary, the founders put God in there all over the place and openly declared in many documents that if our nation ceased to be a God fearing Christian nation that it would self destruct shortly after that.”

If by “in there” you mean the U.S. Constitution, sorry, wrong again. There is not one single explicit mention of God in any of the legally active parts (Articles, §s, Clauses) of the U.S. Constitution. Not one, let alone “all over the place.”

[COMALiteJ]

@Porojukaha, (cont.) Oh, I can hear you thinking now: “B-b-but, In the Year of our LORD!!” Sorry, that was (A) NOT part of the LEGALLY ACTIVE PARTS (Articles, §s, Clauses) of the Constitution, but merely the closing formalities, (B) was merely the standard formal dating nomenclature used at the time for formal documents (which the U.S. Constitution most definitely qualified as, and how!), being merely the English translation of the Latin phrase “anno Domini” which “A.D.” abbreviates.

(cont.)

[COMALiteJ]

@Porojukaha, (cont.) Now some may claim that the use of A.D. in and of itself shows heavy Christian influence in society at the time. I do not deny that, but that’s a far cry from saying that the USA was intended by the Founders to be an explicitly and specifically Christian nation, which it was most definitely NOT.

Also, if we use that logic to apply to “A.D.” then it should apply to the rest of the calendar as well. Where do the names of the days of the week and many of the months come from?

[COMALiteJ]

@Porojukaha, (cont.) Answer: from PAGAN gods! Even the day that most Christians worship on, SUNday, is the Day of the SUN God! Monday is the Day of the MOON God. Trewes’s Day (a Norse god)! Woden’s (aka Odin, Wotan, etc.) Day. Thor’s Day. Frigg’s Day (Frigg or Frigga was Woden/Odin/Wotan’s wife). And a Roman god: Saturn’s Day.

January = the two-headed Roman god Janus. February = a Roman pagan ritual, Februa. March = Mars. April = Aphrodite. May = Maia. June = Juno (Roman version of Hera).

[COMALiteJ]

@Porojukaha, (cont.)

July and August are named for the first two Roman Emperors, considered demigods in human form: Julius and Augustus Cæsar, respectively. September through December are merely named for the numbers of the months that they originally were: seventh through tenth (e.g. septagon, octagon, nonagon, decagon).

So, if “A.D.” (and B.C.) are indications of Christian influence, then the weekdays and month names mean a FAR BIGGER influence by the Norse and Græco-Roman PAGAN gods!

[COMALiteJ]

@Porojukaha: “What it actually says in the constitution is that the government cannot make one state religion and make all the others illegal. like England did with the Church of England”

No, that’s not true. It says that Congress shall make NO law RESPECTING an establishment of faith, NOR prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

What did “respecting” mean? About what it meant in King James English, as per “God is no RESPECTER of persons.” It means showing FAVORITISM to some over others.

[COMALiteJ]

@Porojukaha, (cont.) Namely, the First Amendment expressly forbids the Federal Government (and the Fourteenth later extended this prohibition to the States) from showing ANY FORM of favoritism for or against ANY religions.

Jefferson assured the Danbury Baptists that this erected a WALL of Separation. Not “door” nor “gate.” WALL. He chose his words VERY carefully. Show me a WALL existing in the Founders’ day that blocks passage in only ONE direction while freely allowing it in the other.

[Porojukaha]

@COMALiteJ Freedom of religion is not anti biblical. The idea that all the people who worship those various religions will all recieve the same degree of salvation IS antibiblical. We cant look at mosaic law and say that that is bibical law because its not anymore. Christ gave us a NEW law. But before christ, TO PEOPLE BORN JEWISH in a nation of ONLY JEWS it was illegal to worship other Gods, but lets remember that at that time the other Gods demanded the bloody sacrifice of women and children.

[COMALiteJ]

@Porojukaha: “Freedom of religion is not anti biblical.”

Oh, yes it is. And how!

“The idea that all the people who worship those various religions will all recieve the same degree of salvation IS antibiblical.”

Not talking about salvation. The subject is government.

“We cant look at mosaic law and say that that is bibical law because its not anymore. Christ gave us a NEW law.…”

That’s not what HE said. Matthew 5:17–20, et al. Have Heaven and Earth passed yet? No? Then it still applies.

[COMALiteJ]

@Porojukaha, (cont.) Besides, my statement was that Freedom of Religion was anti-BIBLICAL, NOT that it was anti-NEW TESTAMENT. The Old Testament remains the CONSIDERABLE MAJORITY of the Holy Bible, thus anything and everything in it is BIBLICAL. That’s what the word means. Deal with it.

Pretty much the ENTIRE Old Testament was one big “Thou Shalt NOT Have Freedom of Religion”! It’s even the First Commandment of the list commonly (but erroneously) accepted as the Ten Commandments!

[COMALiteJ]

@Porojukaha: “…but lets remember that at that time the other Gods demanded the bloody sacrifice of women and children.”

About that: read Judges Chapter 11 — the WHOLE CHAPTER, so no claiming “out of context.”

Just so you know what you’re up against: I know the Bible VERY well. I’ve read it all the way through, from Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21, inclusive, multiple times in several versions, and have the majority of the KJV memorized.

[Porojukaha]

@COMALiteJ When Christ came he said that we should not judge anyone. He was giving us the higher law. You see, the Jews were SO disobedient and wayward that they had to be given a rediculously restrictive law to keep them from sacrificing their women and children and sleeping with camels and praying to golden idols. By the time Christ came along the jewish nation was SO WICKED that they murdered their messiah in cold blood. So Christ took the good people out of it and began anew with new laws.

[Porojukaha]

@Porojukaha thats why he gave the parable of the new wine and the new bottles. Mark 2:22And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles

[quantumtronics]

@COMALiteJ that depth of knowledge nor description in the Bible to clarify. In short, when Jesus was on the Earth, he showed the respect to the government at the time with the example of the coin and the superscription, denoting the recognition of seperation of church and state, however, all his examples for government and Pharisiacal behavior showed voluntary empathy and service for the poor and needy and did not ask once why the Roman government could not do that work on behalf of society.

[quantumtronics]

@COMALiteJ Iused to be fan of Keyensina economics and socialized redistribution of wealth until I realized that there is ample evidence to show that marxist, communistic, socialistic forced redistribution of wealth adds to spiritual apathy, over dependance on non human kind based authorities using pencils and paper to mark off a list of compliance issues for welfare assistance as opposed to voluntary charity organizations who use choice and conviction as the modus operandi. Its Gods principle.

[COMALiteJ]

#3, the pre-Paul Early Church property was bloody well too owned collectively. This is explicitly stated, twice: Acts 2:44 and 4:32 (the latter of which makes it very explicit that its PROPERTY [defined as that which someone OWNS and/or POSSESSES] that was in common). Yes, they had to sell the property and donate the money, for the reason that the Apostles were not a civil government and were under the Roman and local governments and thus COULD not simply declare it all common property.

[COMALiteJ]

(Ack! Misspelled "it's"!)

I agree that all MODERN versions of Communism (with the possible exception of Joseph Smith's attempt at the United Order as described in the Doctrine & Covenants, which was based on the system in early Acts and was likewise a COMMUNIST economic system BY DEFINITION) used government force, but Communism itself is not DEFINED BY it, any more than a Constitutional Representative Republic is DEFINED BY having a red, white, and blue flag with stars and stripes.

[SeraphimTheApologist]

But again that does not explain why two people had to sell THIER property to make the donation. Why was there buying and selling going on in a collectivist community anyway? Marxist philosophy is that goods are created for the common good. The goal of communism is a governmentless and moniless sociaty. Had they been practicing collectivism there would have been no need for any exchange to take place at all.

[COMALiteJ]

You're operating under the mistaken and unfounded assumption that the property was being sold only to other Christians who were in the communist system. That is not stated nor even implied in Acts.

The clear implication is that they sold their property to OUTSIDERS, gave the money to the Apostles, and the Apostles used that money to buy necessities (again from OUTSIDERS) to distribute to all according to need.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." — Marx

[COMALiteJ]

Forced labor is forced labor, but not all slavery is chattel slavery. The idea that one person can own another as personal property struck at the very heart of the founding principles of this nation ("We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that ALL Men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.").

I wish Jefferson had had enough belief in his own words to free his own slaves.

[Bobob49]

LDS - 19th century scientologists.

[Bobob49]

From HuffPost: "By 1963, Skousen's extremism was costing him. No conservative organization with any mainstream credibility wanted anything to do with him. Members of the ultraconservative American Security Council kicked him out because they felt he had "gone off the deep end." ... William C. Mott, the judge advocate general of the U.S. Navy. Mott found Skousen "money mad ... totally unqualified and interested solely in furthering his own personal ends."

[LukeAir2008]

Bobob49, thats the funniest thing Ive heard for ages...what garbage. Cleon Skousen was one of the best and most qualified men to walk the planet! FBI Agent, Law Degree, Chief of Police, Professor of Religion...

[SeraphimTheApologist]

Agreed. Skousen and his family are wonderful. As Eldridge Cleaver put it, "What we need is a thousand Cleon Skousens."

[SeraphimTheApologist]

As if Huff POst is reliable. Its not even a news site, its a blog. Come on people!

[SonOfAdam777]

So funny when Gordon B Hinckley said 'Is that new to you?' They really are Apostles and Prophets of God. Thank heaven for the LDS church.

[SonOfAdam777]

I wouldn't have put this on here. This is so sacred. But yes, its wonderful. I love Cleon Skousen. A true man of God, a man of inspiration who has taught me so much.

[canadianbacon007]

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Authority

(n.)

The power derived from opinion, respect, or esteem; influence of character, office, or station, or mental or moral superiority, and the like; claim to be believed or obeyed; as, an historian of no authority; a magistrate of great authority.

(n.)

That which, or one who, is claimed or appealed to in support of opinions, actions, measures, etc.

(n.)

Testimony; witness.

[TrueSaintsLDS]

W. Cleon Skousen was a scholar and a gentleman.

What a great speaker and knowledgable person. He was truly a great man. God bless this man!

[DefendingMormonism]

Very cool. Thank you!

[princessjenny01]

Aw, this is my grandpa. I miss him!

[apologiamixer]

This is the same Skousen nut job who endorsed the Moonies Causa organization years ago. I was in a meeting of several hundred people about a third were Mormons. The rest was a mixed bag of civic leaders and Moonies.

[mandybare]

I loved this!! It makes me want to counsel more with my husband and make sure that we are always in agreement.

[pencil2pen]

What an amazing video on how the leadership of the LDS church works. Thank you.

[12345fraser]

This is really a great video!! Thank you for sharing this!.