Engkei, the photo is from the LDS Newsroom Blog, under the entry "Mormon Images Available for Use." You can find it here: http://newsroom.lds.org/blog/mormon-images-availa...

Once more we disagree, Mutu. You think I’ve engaged in sensationalistic deception and I think I’ve presented a reasoned and logical set of ideas. Mr. Paredes mentioned the persecution of Mormons “in American history” and the persecution of the Jews “in world history.” To me, that includes all of it and I find no reason to exclude the depredations against the Jews during WWII. It was the Salt Lake Tribune report of Mr. Paredes’ lecture that placed the Arizona DVD distribution in the immediate context of Mr. Paredes’ remarks regarding parallels between Jewish and Mormon persecutions (parallels between Jews and Mormons “everywhere and on every level”). My point was that “a comparison between Mormon and Jewish persecution only serves to demean the awful atrocities against the Jewish people.” I stand by that.

As for the anti-Semitic quotes you supplied, as I said in the original post, “Christians are obligated by Scripture to reject anti-Semitism as well. Anti-Semitism exhibited by Christian bishops or anyone else is wrong. Period.” It was wrong for Martin Luther, and it was wrong for Brigham Young.

I have witnessed other Mormons who, like you, try to make excuses for Brigham Young’s comment. You claim it is not anti-Semitic; I disagree. Brigham Young called for the missionaries to “leave them…for they must suffer and be damned…. come away from that people, and leave them to live and die in their sins and ignorance. For the sins of their fathers are a sweet morsel to them, and they take pleasure in their wickedness.” Brigham Young is speaking of an entire race of people here. They take pleasure in their wickedness? The sins of their fathers are a sweet morsel to them? Mutu, do you really want to argue that Brigham Young was “likely speaking from first-hand experience”?

At any rate, my point was not, as you claim, that Mormonism has a history of anti-Semitism, but rather, as I said, that Mormonism has anti-Semitism in its history. There is a difference. And again, I stand by that.

You're of course free to believe (naturally, as a Protestant) tht by reminding his Mormon flock of their obligations to their covenants, Heber had led them to trust in faithfulness to commandments (rather than trust in Christ) & had therefore imprecated them by getting them to trust in dead "law" rather than in the living Son of God. But you're guilty of "twisting" Heber's words specifically because Heber never set up this dichotomy of "law" versus "Christ", nor did he in the least imply it.
Mutu, I did not “set up this dichotomy” that HC Kimball taught “law vs. Christ” or “obedience vs. faith.” You did. This is what I wrote:

Mr. Kimball’s teaching is a far cry from the comforting idea being promoted by many lay-Mormons these days that God (according to Mormonism) does not require perfect obedience, He only asks for sincerity and good effort. Some Mormons like to say, “If I try my best, Christ will do the rest.” Well, according to LDS Apostle Heber C. Kimball, God is not going to do “the rest.” If you, Mormon, have covenanted in baptism to keep the commandments; if you have covenanted in the temple to obey the law of God; if it takes ten thousand years, you are required by God to do it yourself.
I did not address the idea of law instead of Christ, only that HC Kimball taught that God will require people to live up to all of their promises (baptismal and temple covenants, etc). From everything you’ve written, it looks like you agree.

The whole idea that Judaism was wrong because it was based on a system of outward deeds (ritual "works") rather than faith in the free gift of grace, is an inventive reading of Luther.
For an informative appraisal of E. P. Sanders’ (and others) teachings regarding the new perspective on Paul offered here by Mutu, see “Was Luther Right?” by Thomas Schreiner.

(Sorry for the multiple attempts at getting this link right, friends. Sigh.)

“You can twist Heber's words to mean that Mormons have hopelessly imprecated themselves before an all-holy God by taking upon a perfectionism that they can never possibly achieve, but that is not Mormon faith or expectation at all. Nor was it Heber's.”

Again, I do not believe I have “twisted” Kimball’s words at all; but I have brought his (and other LDS leaders’) teaching to a logical conclusion. It seems to me that it is the conclusion with which Mutu disagrees. Of course Mormons (including Kimball) do not believe (or expect) that their situation is hopeless or impossible. If they did, they would (and sometimes do) leave Mormonism for the free gift offered by Christ in His Gospel. Kimball expected to be able to achieve the perfect obedience he pledged--some day--and he called others to strive for that same goal, making it perfectly clear that this is what God requires from them.

And indeed, this seems to be what Mutu is arguing for – that Kimball taught a two-edged sword “involving God's promises to us, but also his requirements from us.” Mutu punctuates his agreement with Kimball by repeating Kimball’s question: “Do you expect to go into heaven if you do not do God's will on earth?” In the context of Kimball’s discourse, the requirements implied in “God’s will” are comprised of covenant keeping, commandment keeping, and obedience to LDS leaders (no matter how long it takes to achieve).

The Bible tells me that I can have complete assurance of eternity in Heaven (in the presence of God)--not based on my obedience to laws and ordinances, but based on Christ’s perfect obedience on my behalf (2 Cor 5:21; Rom 5:18-19; Rom 4:23-25; Gal 2:15-16; Gal 3:24); this is the mercy and grace of God. Try as I may, I will fail; but Jesus never fails.

I don't agree that Heber Kimball's point was to "underscore the eternal & uncompromising nature of God’s word." The context was obedience, pure and simple. Immediately preceding the paragraph quoted above Kimball said, "I would like to see all this people do right, and keep the commandments of God. I would like to see them fulfil (sic) their covenants, and live up to their vows and promises, and fulfil (sic) their obligations, for they have obligated themselves before God, and before angels, and before earthly witnesses, that they would do this. [Next paragraph] What you have agreed to do, God will require you to perform, if it should be ten thousand years after this time."

When I summarized that Kimball said people are required to keep the commandments ("vows," "promises," "obligations") "by yourself," please understand that this is in the context of God requiring people to perform all they have freely agreed to do. Kimball says they are to do it -- "God will compel you to do it." Later in this discourse Kimball says that God will help people keep the commandments, but he never says they are not required to actually succeed at doing all they promised to do (i.e., "I do my best and Christ makes up the rest."). They will have ten thousand years to work on it if need be.

Applying Kimball’s words to salvation is not much of an imposition (if an imposition at all). The speech, as quoted in the Ensign, begins, “I ask you, brethren and sisters, if you expect to go into heaven, if you do not do his will on earth…I do not expect it, and when you depart from this state of existence, you will find it out for yourselves.”

You are very gracious, Aaron. But as the scheduler, the post stops here. ;^)

Praying for you, your family, and your neighbors, Martin. May God's tender care see you all through.

Jon, I don't know what setfree had in mind, but Joseph Smith's Lectures on Faith (1835) Lecture Fifth states:
There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things--by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space--They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image;--he is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father: possessing all the fulness of the Father, or, the same fulness with the Father; being begotten of him, and was ordained from before the foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins of all those who should believe on his name, and is called the Son because of the flesh--and descended in suffering below that which man can suffer, or, in other words, suffered greater sufferings, and was exposed to more powerful contradictions than any man can be. But notwithstanding all this, he kept the law of God, and remained without sin: Showing thereby that it is in the power of man to keep the law and remain also without sin. And also, that by him a righteous judgment might come upon all flesh, and that all who walk not in the law of God, may justly be condemned by the law, and have no excuse for their sins. And he being the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fulness of the glory of the Father-possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son... http://www.mormonbeliefs.com/lectures_on_faith.ht...

Thank you, friend. We very much appreciate you and your partnership as we serve our Lord together.

We're closing comments on this thread and moving on to Christmas. Merry Christmas, everyone!