Leaderboard

I think this is good summary of how I feel - I also think the warnings the Savior gave to those who are blessed with wealth are real and all of us will be held accountable for what we did with the things we are given. I feel when I vote for more welfare, I'm voting for the following - empowering the gun that is held against the head of each of individual by government - encouraging government dependence - securing the position and wealth of modern day slavers Abraham Lincoln also had this to say

I see potential red flags with the bolded part. Make how? Rob/steal from those you think have more to give to those you think have less? Criminalize the successful people??? Tax them into poverty because they did well? The only real way I see this working is if the people choose to give it up. Any other method comes up against the Rights to Life, Liberty and Property. Let me put this another way... 2ndRate you are clearly from a 1st world country.. You have access to the internet and the time and energy to discuss highbrow questions. Therefore it is safe to assume that you live like a king compared to your brothers and sisters in Africa or the Philippians or just about any other third world nation. So being wealthy yourself answer the question of how you would like to make the World a better place. How would you like to have your wealth and property taken from you to support the poor and needy? Will you give it up voluntarily? Do you want to be taxed so much your lifestyle degrades to third world status? Do you want to be thrown in jail? What is the method if redistrubition you want used against you? If your answer is any form of leave me alone and don't touch my stuff then you aren't motived by social justice. You are more likely motived by envy, greed, or jealously. You want someone to give you a bigger piece of the financial pie but you aren't willing to share yours. If this is true then you need to deal with your own hypocrisy rather then discuss social reform.

The only way to bring fairness and equality in this life is to preach the gospel of Christ. If everyone accepted it and truly lived according to it's principles, then all would be equitable. That's it. That's the only way. And so, we go and we preach the gospel. It is through this means that we strive to solve the world's problems. I'm not saying there aren't political ideas that might help here and there. But I agree that forcing everybody to be equal is a horrible idea. Add to that, it would never work. Not without people actually being Christlike. It would force poverty upon us all, and certainly lead to an uprising ultimately to throw off government oppression. If everyone on the earth accepted Christ's teachings and actively went about feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, etc., then the problems would be solved.

Guys and gals, This thread has proven, for me anyway, considerably more fertile than some others I have spawned. There are many issues I want to take up with you all, and I will do that, in due course. Right now, I need to sign off for the moment, and get some sleep. I am not ignoring you, just ensuring I will be on my best mettle to respond to you. Best wishes, 2RM

I don't know how much it really helps, but the scriptures do describe an almost hypothetical ideal. A concept that we refer in LDS circles as "Zion" (See Moses 7:18 in the PofGP). According to scripture, there have only been two societies to successfully understand and live these principles -- the city of Enoch and the Nephites in the period immediately after Christ's visit. These societies are described as having "no poor among them" and "they had all things common among them." Scripture does not describe in great detail the legal and political elements that regulated and facilitated the flow of wealth from the haves to the have nots. The Book of Mormon explains that this ability to freely share wealth came from the love of God (and by extrapolation, fellow man) that they developed. How we apply this in a fallen world and society that is far removed from the idyllic conditions described in these scripture accounts, I don't know. It seems to me that, as LDS, our ultimate goal is to realize this kind of society where the "rich" share with the "poor" so freely that the distinction between rich and poor ceases to exist. Getting fallen people to reach this ideal seems to be a rare feat.

I view this kind of inequality thusly: "ye have the poor with you always" (found in Mark, Matthew, and John) Matthew 6: "Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly." Basically, we're commanded to help the poor. But we're also pretty clearly commanded not to do it openly. Forcing the rich to be less rich, so the poor can be less poor, isn't a notion found in scripture. Matthew 26: A woman anointed Jesus' head with an expensive ointment. His disciples freaked out, calling it a wasteful act, noting she could have sold the ointment and given the money to the poor. Jesus gave them a verbal smackdown for that way of thinking. It's good reading, 2ndrate. Interesting to note how clearly and directly Jesus opposed his follower's misguided and wrong notions about wealth and fairness and whatnot. Finally, The Gospel Principles manual, chapter 27, Work and Personal Responsibility. From where I'm standing, the Lord condemns idleness, and pretty clearly refutes the modern notions of people having a right to stuff. I always wonder at Christians, who purport to believe a book telling them that man is to work to eat, having opinions about how food/healthcare/jobs/paid time off/etc is a basic human right.

You forgot iii) It's not ok that people should be rich, despite others starving, or living in want. But using force (which the government is) to correct the problem is also fundamentally wrong

Because drinking tea means to drink something made from the Tea Plant. Just like coffee is made from the Coffee plant. Wikipedia reference to Tea plant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camellia_sinensis In common use the name tea has expanded to cover any kind of herbal infusion that is made like Tea is made. But for the Word of Wisdom it is the Tea plant that is not allowed. If your herbal infusion does not have parts of the Tea plant in it then it is not Tea according to the Word of Wisdom even if we give it names like Herbal 'Tea'

I like what President Abraham Lincoln said. "G-d must love poor people because he sure made a lot of them.” Personally I have never liked the word fair because I believe it is misleading. I believe the proper question would be just. If we make broad judgments without understanding or considering the causes; then by definition we are pre judging or more commonly known as prejudice. Prejudice is not justice. We can no more justly condemn those that have wealth than we can justly condemn those that do not have wealth. One last point – the amount an individual has – has nothing to do with how kind compassionate or helpful they are. In scripture it is the widow that was willing to give of what she had that made her gift great. I can understand the idea that the wealthy should be more giving than the poor. But at the same time – to expect the wealthy to give without expecting the poor to give would be wrong. If we are all equal in the sight of G-d then that would mean that G-d expects all to give of whatever it is that we have. Those that believe money is the only asset or measure of wealth a person can – they are of all men the most foolish. What makes me sad about asking those at church to give is realizing the greatest giving will take place by those with the least to give. I believe this is a sad fact of life. Anytime we expect giving to be done; it will be on the back of the poor - not the rich simply because the rich can bare it more. We should be very careful when we ask for such things – especially realizing that when we ask for ourselves often those that give are just as or more needy than we are.

Being respectful is not how others perceive you. It is internal. If you are respectful but offend, that's on them. Our General Authorities are a prime example. They are always respectful in the way they addresses these issues. But read what the antis say about them. They may as well be a bunch of HItlers. The most evil, hateful men that ever lived. It is simple*. You speak the truth. Boldly. But you do so diplomatically, and with care in your wording. It's a skill -- one I don't have down yet, that's for sure. But when I have said something right and true and taken great care in how I say it, and I know I've taken great care, and then others come at me calling me arrogant, rude, inconsiderate, unkind, uncaring, and disrespectful, I know that they are in the wrong, not me. On the other hand, there are times (too many of them) when I have not taken great care about how I say things, and in those cases I am wrong too. But the solution is not to shut up. It is to take great care. The reality is that I see little difference in when I take great care and when I don't as to the amount of offense it causes when I stand up for truth. But I know the difference even if those offended don't. * edit: this is one of those examples of me saying things badly. It's not simple at all. I wish it was. But the idea behind it is simple. Do what is right, let the consequence follow...etc.

I take it as a compliment that the OP thinks us worth chastening.

This isn't intended to be snarky, so please don't take it that way . . . but situations like that are why I tend to include a healthy dose of "thy will be done" regardless of what I'm praying for. The "Samuel Principle" is a real thing.

The way this could be fixed (in America at least) is for our country to go back to following The Constitution: Much more corralled Federal Government and States with the power to run things how they want to which are small enough for individuals to have an actual affect on how things are ran. I am pessimistic about the federal government relinquishing that power though.

Letter of the law? Spirit of the law? Interpretation of the law? Which one ya want?

Sell all that thou hast and follow me. A lot of people want to claim discipleship, but can't seem to let go of their comfort. I'm not there myself, but I will say that the older I get the more I see the prosperity gospel as incompatible with the teachings of Jesus.

I can only answer for myself. It is personal and my individual effort while on the internet (not on all my writing) to keep sacred my references to G-d. Also from time to time I will receive input from individual (usually not from an English speaking country) trying to get religious information from "Christians". They thank me because they are not able to copy any text that spells out G-d. Thanks for asking and not assuming.

How much of this difficulty is because there is no real concensus in the secular literature on the topic (and how we sometimes tend to despise secular literature when we don't agree with its results). There's the Regnerus study that claims several measures of "worse" outcomes for homosexual parenting, but many others believe this study to be flawed. There's the Australian study that shows, if anything, homosexual parenting has slightly better outcomes than heterosexual parenting. And there are many others, and everyone who doesn't like a given study's results calls it flawed. In the political marketplace, do we need a better foundation to stand on before we can make these kinds of claims? Can we afford to wait until we have a better foundation? If there is little discernible difference between homosexual parents and heterosexual parents, is this a battle worth fighting? How shall we measure "successful" outcomes and "failed" outcomes?

Windseeker's post above cites to a couple of important scriptures. In addition to them you might look at Mormon 8:37, and especially D&C 49:19-20 which I'll quote here: The issue isn't whether Mormons agree that there's a problem; the issue is whether Mormons agree as to what to do about that problem. Compulsion is problematic, arguably deprives would-be humanitarians of much of the moral rightness of their cause, and may portend worse things, as explained in this video: For those of us who live within the bounds of the US: I think most of us (with some notable and important exceptions) feel that the existing safety net in this country, in conjunction with the opportunities that we still believe to be available here, are sufficient; and that in doing much beyond that, you might be creating a situation where the cure can quickly become horrifically worse than the disease. As for poverty abroad: I think you've really got to look at the places in question on a nation-by-nation scenario; because in some situations (certain Islamic countries, for example) there just isn't a heckuva lot you can do if you aren't willing to deploy troops as peacekeepers first. But--while I realize you took some umbrage at Estradling's comment above--I do think he had a good point: If I had enough cash to get a computer and pay for monthly internet access, I had more cash than a couple of dozen families in some third-world location. We cannot indict the Waltons or the Koches, without also indicting ourselves.

You choose the words you put in your post. You choose what you will and will not respond to. That is your right. But it is the right of everyone in the forum to form an opinion about you based on what you do or do not respond to and how you respond. When you keep asking the same question over and over. When you ignore questions asked of you... People are going to start forming opinions about what your motives might be. You can either choose to correct them or choose to ignore them. Either way you choose to respond you don't really control how those opinions about you or your motivations change, if they change at all

Then your problem is that you are looking at a dilemma and then wanting a simple scriptural answer to a question that has profound scriptural implications depending on how it is solved. We repeatedly discussed this but you keep returning to it because you don't want the other stuff that comes along with it.

Estradling75, my dear fellow, I had not forgotten your iii) at all. I just felt we needed to arrive at a principle, before we decided how best to implement it. And, I am genuinely interested by the application of scriptures to modern dilemmas. Best wishes, 2RM.

May I suggest you focus your attention on those that are doing something. Warren Buffett as well as Bill and Melinda Gates have given millions of their wealth to good causes. You can also look into "The Robin Hood Foundation". Aside from that I believe in hand ups, not hand outs. There is a big difference between the poor that don't have adequate food and water because of circumstance versus those that are poor by choice (i.e. they 'need' their fancy gadgets and cable tv but then expect others to put food on their table).

If I were not LDS I would almost certainly be atheist, or possibly agnostic. The LDS church is what has helped me find faith in God in the first place.

Okay, so I read the OP & the only thought that really sticks with me with all 3 points ... Can we ever really be happy & joyful for our own riches (however big or small they may be) if we can not be happy & joyful for others when they are able to accumulate such riches? If we can not experience happiness & joy for others then how can we ever expect to find happiness & joy (& in turn peace) with what all that we have?

So, Estradling75, in polite (highbrow, as you put it) conversation, your line of questioning would be seen as ad hominem, against the proponent, rather than the argument. I might be as rich as Croesus, and have the Midas touch, but none of that would make any difference to the quality of any argument I might put for social justice. Such arguments should be assessed on their own quality, quite aside from the poverty of virtue I represent. Yet, I have enjoyed, and been educated by, your contributions elsewhere, and suspect others may be thinking along the same lines as you. So, I will entertain your line of enquiry. Yes, I am rich compared to third world contemporaries. And yes, I am poor compared to my compatriots. I am prevented from working for medical reasons, and have little income, and few assets. I do not own a house, or a car, or have a wife, or children, or own most other goods and chattels most other people would assume to be a fundamental desert by reason of existing. However, nor do I ask for any of these things by right, or for me. What concerns me directly is that some 2 billion people, who eke out meagre lives on less that $2.00 per day, who have little access to clean water, food, shelter, sanitation, primary healthcare, primary education, etc, should coexist with a wealthy (allegedly Christian) west. I just do not see how these occurrences are compatible. If by giving up some of my assets (such as they are!) and some of my benefits (such as they are!) I could alter this imbalance of wealth, I would do so without hesitation. As it is, I give what I can, when I can. Why this desire for social justice seems less urgent among the wealthy, and whether this lack should be assuaged by government action - well, that is the topic for this thread. And the place to start, surely, is why we tolerate such severe economic imbalances even within our own nations. Best wishes, 2RM.

yes there will one day be a reckoning. we are to share (actually in the end we have to be able to sacrfice everything)... however if that is forced upon us by the government then it is unjust. I don't have much to say about income inequality itself, as long as all parties haven't been engaged in illegal or sinful means of acquiring it. How the wealth is used after it is acquired can be very concerning however, again depending on how its used.

Traveller, as an aside, I have often wondered why people spell God as G-d. Perhaps you can tell me? Best wishes, 2RM.

2RM, this seems to be a repeat of your other posts. I wish you'd stop assuming Mormons all have the same political views.

In high school, I had a good buddy of the opposite gender who was not in my usual group of friends. We hung out together one on one. I developed a crush on him. Yes, those sappy love stories can happen in real life and far too often do. Don't hang out one on one.

Brigham Young has been done. The next one will be Ezra Taft Benson. It's already up on the website.

For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. - Moses 1:39

Our Bishop read a letter in Sacrament Meeting when I was almost 14 and Deacon's Quorum President, living in SE Texas. I remember it vividly, and remember thinking, "WOW! I just heard some real revelation from God being passed on to the members of the Church!" I really thought it was great!

My only suggestion (if you're dying to stick with this teacher) is to learn to play something other than finger-style country. I've been playing for a bit (not nearly as long as you) but already I've found how much learning a different kind of something can help me get better at something else I'd struggled with.

Some select areas will see a some differences in the curriculum for 2015, mostly in that they will be presented (taught) more in the same format of the youth program that was rolled out a few years back ... this is part of a development process for an adult curriculum change, though like LDSValley said, the material being taught is not changing so much as is the way it is being taught. The test is not on names & dates & places, rather the test is in our understanding & application of the Principles of the Gospel, our ability to incorporate them into our day-to-day lives and to teach others the Gospel not just by spoken word but also by actions/example, through the direction & guidance of the Spirit. My Stake President stated it very clearly ... Teach by the Spirit & teach the spirit of those things in which we are instructing. The Spirit giveth life, the word or getting hung up on the details taketh life. Many of the lessons I encounter tend to be full of speculation of what is/was meant by something & frequently veer off-topic& even offend some as a result ... I find it interesting that such emphasis is placed on the words rather then the spirit. The greatest strength in testimony does not come from someone else telling us or debating their belief or interpretation of the meaning, but rather through our own personal study and prayer seeking out the meaning. As for buying the Teachings of the Prophets series ... I don't think the church will ever do away with access to the electronic versions, rather just the opposite, they are promoting the electronic versions. Electronic format readily reaches beyond the membership much farther & faster then do the printed books. For me, I use the electronic versions all the time; however, I also have the complete set on the bookshelf ... I get a few reminders every year (severe spring T-storms & heavy winter snows that knock out the power for several days at a time), those electronic versions are not always accessible when you need or want them ... & without electricity & being snowed-in for several days, it gets pretty boring without board games to play (I HATE board games) & books to read.

If I had any teacher who even hinted that it was time for me to move on, I'd be out the door faster than you could strum a G-major chord. He may be uncomfortable with the situation and might feel guilty taking your money if he thinks he's not teaching you anything substantive. But this part about not needing a teacher strikes me as very odd. My piano teacher was very gifted and had been playing for 20+ years, and even he took lessons now and then from masters who had something to teach him. Stick with it, if you have the gift of music don't waste it. It's too precious.

No need to stress about this. It's quite normal to move beyond a teacher's ability to teach. My husband learned trumpet growing up and was told by a teacher that he couldn't help that much any more and it was time to find someone more advanced so he did and continued to progress in his talent. Just thank the current teacher, let him know you'll recommend him to others and call it good.

I would be an atheist, which is just about where I am already.

IIRC, several of the women who testified at the Temple Lot trial were about as explicit as Victorian women could reasonably be expected to be. I do think some of Smith's marriages were sexual; I just don't think we can generalize from that to conclude that ALL of them were. It never ceases to amaze me how many Mormons are utterly unfamiliar with D&C 132, or--worse--are familiar with it but are shocked to hear that its recipient was actually a polygamist himself. If I'm ever a general authority, and I want to hide a particularly bothersome issue . . . I think I'll write it up and canonize it. Then no one will ever hear about it again! Muahahahahaha . . . I see your larger point and agree with it; but it should also be noted that FamilySearch is frankly a mess. I searched for a Helen Kimball married to a Joseph Smith and got 190 hits--and the first hundred are definitely our girl and many of those do have the 1828 birthdate. Someone needs to do some MASSIVE merging--but now that the Church has basically threatened to yank the FamilySearch access of members caught accessing family lines unrelated to themselves; I doubt it will get done anytime soon.

Here's the other thing. The goal of preventing homosexuals from adopting is because you believe that it is not particularly healthy to raise a child in that particular environment. That argument has merit, but there are problems. As has been pointed out, single people have been adopting. That may or may not be worse, but also about 50% of the homosexual population are lesbians. For the most part, all they need is a donor and can have children. They don't even have to go through the state to do it. Now I'm not comfortable with homosexuals raising children (that is the crux of the issue, not adoption), but practical matters aside, to prevent it you would have to let the government decide who does and doesn't get to have children, and even the thought of giving the government that kind of power gives me the screaming willies.

I will only congratulate you if you take me for a ride in your invisible jetplane! Congratulations on your contribution milestone!

The logic is simple. A child is healthier when adopted into a home with a committed married couple (gay or otherwise), than being tossed around the foster system, in 10 different homes over the course of 18 years.

But will they be able to marry their burritos?

Mormons are not required to be right wing, certainly some are not. But there are certain principles which we believe are fundamental to the happiness of the individual and to society. Two of these key principles are work and self-reliance. We endeavor to support people, programs, and policies that foster these principles. Thus the church does not believe in systems which lead to dependence. Giving should be designed to help people get in a position to help themselves. If a system does not encourage a person to lift themselves above their circumstances, but instead enables them to live off others, then that program is not building up but tearing down. There are of course situations where someone is not able to support themselves. In such a situation we believe the responsibility lies first, where possible, with the individual, then his family, then the church. As a last resort, we may turn to the government.

Great debates happen when the argument and presentation of the facts are presented without insults. When insults are used one must assume that the debater has indeed run out of arguments and has resorted to bullying the other into agreeing with their beliefs. An ironical point when considering the topic currently debated.

I may get thrown under the bus, but, here goes. In my humble opinion, simply put, sex is an important part of marriage. Its an implicit part of marriage. It is an implied part of marriage. Other than children, its the only other reason to be married, or....you may as well just be friends. Sex builds intimacy, trust, friendship, and love. For many men, sex equals love, and feel very unloved and undesired without it. If it has been expressly and clearly stated that it is a need for one partner that has been ignored by the other, then yes, if it persists, is absolutely grounds for a divorce.