The New Yorker: I, Nephi

[_huckelberry]

from the article,

"It’s unfair to say, as some might, that Mitt Romney believes in nothing except his own ambition. He believes, with shining certainty, in his own success, and, more broadly, in the American Gospel of Wealth that lies behind it: the idea that rich people got rich by being good, that the riches are a sign of their virtue, and that they should therefore be allowed to rule."

The article sensibly notes a bit how this sort of thinking appears all over American religion. One might suspect elsewhere as well. There are pieces of Mormon thought which gives special emphasis to the link between virtue and success.

At least Mormonism can be respected for not substituting believing harder and harder as magic for success in the place of actual practical focused effort. At least much of the time it does.

[_MCB]

actual practical focused effort. At least much of the time it does.

[_moksha]

I think the author misses the mark big time by equating with the wide circle of LDS business interests with the "gospel of prosperity" as taught by other faith traditions in their grow rich and prosper seminars. Sometimes the LDS Church speaks of wanting its members to be industrious and staying out of debt, but that is nothing like "open yourself up to abundance" which is the hallmark of the prosperity gospel. There is little evidence of things new age or organic (excluding the farms and ranches) in how the Church runs its many business.

[_huckelberry]

I think the author misses the mark big time by equating with the wide circle of LDS business interests with the "gospel of prosperity" as taught by other faith traditions in their grow rich and prosper seminars. Sometimes the LDS Church speaks of wanting its members to be industrious and staying out of debt, but that is nothing like "open yourself up to abundance" which is the hallmark of the prosperity gospel. There is little evidence of things new age or organic (excluding the farms and ranches) in how the Church runs its many business.

this is what I was thinking of when I mention that I respect the Mormon version in comparison to the believe harder magic practiced in some heretical circles. however The Christian tradition contains some tradition of teaching success through application of wise action.The prosperity gospel is to my view a gross heresy, degenerate Christianity.

[_Cicero]

I think the author misses the mark big time by equating with the wide circle of LDS business interests with the "gospel of prosperity" as taught by other faith traditions in their grow rich and prosper seminars. Sometimes the LDS Church speaks of wanting its members to be industrious and staying out of debt, but that is nothing like "open yourself up to abundance" which is the hallmark of the prosperity gospel. There is little evidence of things new age or organic (excluding the farms and ranches) in how the Church runs its many business.

I agree, and that is exactly why building a high-end luxury mall bothered me so much. It just doesn't fit.

[_Fence Sitter]

Plenty of reasons. But the sad truth is that he was not the only guilty party. If anything, he was less guilty than some.

Wasn't the reason he was being charged with treason because it was the only charge that would keep him in jail?

[_MCB]

Wasn't the reason he was being charged with treason because it was the only charge that would keep him in jail?

No. No further comment.

[_ludwigm]

The Articles of Faith 7 again: We believe in the gift of tongues...

In Hungarian, beginning a sentence with "I, (somebody) ..." is a plain rudeness.

With one exception
It can be used only in biblical environment: I am the Lord your God...

I, Nephi?
Are you, Nephi, that discourteous troglodyte?

_________________
If I had the [ img ] feature, here may be found an image to support my comment.

[_bcspace]

Like the Gnostics, the Mormons thought that the conventional texts had too much atonement and too little attainment.

I've never heard this sentiment in Church.

Mormonism objects to making a big deal of the morbid agony of Jesus on the Cross at the expense of the more cheerful apparition of Man-made-into-God. This is why there are no crosses on Mormon temples; our guy triumphed far more than he suffered.

There is MUCH more to the Atonement than the work on the cross. Many other christians are so focused on the cross and their own salvation they fail to understand the message of the Gospel itself.

[_BartBurk]

Like the Gnostics, the Mormons thought that the conventional texts had too much atonement and too little attainment.

I've never heard this sentiment in Church.

Mormonism objects to making a big deal of the morbid agony of Jesus on the Cross at the expense of the more cheerful apparition of Man-made-into-God. This is why there are no crosses on Mormon temples; our guy triumphed far more than he suffered.

There is MUCH more to the Atonement than the work on the cross. Many other christians are so focused on the cross and their own salvation they fail to understand the message of the Gospel itself.

My understanding is the Mormons accept all the suffering that Jesus endured on earth as atonement for our sins, but especially the suffering that began in the Garden of Gethsemane and ended on the cross. At least when you read of Christ's suffering in the Doctrine and Covenants it looks as if there is a real appreciation of what Jesus went through to atone for our sins.