Leaderboard

So I've recently ordered myself a moderately nice record player with the intention of starting a record collection. I also purchased my first 3 record (Metallica's Death Magnetic, and used Mormon Tab albums (The Lord's Prayer 1 and 2)). None of my family and friends seem to get it. They all respond to me when I tell them like I'm a weirdo. But for some reason it just seems cool to me. I think it's probably mostly sentiment. But I also like the idea of having the physical medium, the decorative nature of the "old school" record player in my home, etc. So what say ye? Cool retro or lame hipster move? For anyone who's interested, here's the player I ordered:

Not to pick on Rob, but this is manifestly untrue. Assuming we have already made our temple covenants, we most certainly do have to live the law of consecration to enter the temple. No ifs, ands, or buts about that. It's one of our temple covenants, and if we do not live up to those covenants, we are unworthy to enter the temple. I second (or third) what Carb wrote. The law of consecration is a sincere attitude: All we have we consecrate to the work of building up the kingdom of God (aka the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). Everything we do, whether work, family time, buying a house, or anything else, is done with an eye toward building the kingdom. No exceptions. And if the bishop happens to ask us to sign over the deed to our house, of course we will immediately do so. Because it is not our house; it is the Lord's, and the bishop is the authorized agent to act in the name of the Lord in temporal matters. I don't claim to live this law perfectly. I doubt I live any celestial law perfectly. But I pay my tithing, which is a really easy and clear-cut way to live at least one aspect of the law of consecration, and I make honest effort to live the rest. My leaders seem to be under the impression that this makes me worthy of going to the temple, and their say-so is what gets me in. So I accept that.

"Call to repent" - twice, yikes It is interesting how different folks do things, thanks for sharing this. In my earlier years I can recall doing thought processes like this. Now in life, when assigned a topic, I think about that topic, what it means to me personally and how I've been affected by it. I wait and ponder, wait and ponder and I wait and ponder some more. Without fail, inspiration will come to me and give me the direction I should go. Once that comes, regardless of what it is, I follow it, believing it to be the direction the Spirit wants me to go in rather than the direction my intellect would have me go. I never worry about giving a talk and always have 100% confidence that if I follow that prompting it will be the "right" message versus "my" message.

How dare I approach God? How dare I ask for help, for mercy, for forgiveness? What makes me think the God of the universe would condescend to care about me? The Psalmist David answers: DON'T ABANDON ME FOR YOU MADE ME. This is why God-as-creator is so important, and why skeptics are so opposed to the discussion.

Cool website that takes you through the D&C and tells you where the events took place! http://www.dcsites.com/dc004.htm

Elder D. Todd Christofferson and Elder Gary E. Stevenson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles will be at the Inauguration. Church Newsroom: Two Mormon Apostles to Attend 2017 US Presidential Inauguration Also, this: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormon-leaders-presidential-inaugurations

Yesterday, in church, I had what I think is a good idea on how to prepare talks. I’m putting it up here on lds.net partly in the hope that it might be of interest to someone else and also in the hope of getting some feedback and comments that might make it even better. I was going to present this in an attached Word document, but then I remembered that some people access this site through their phones and I wasn’t sure if everyone can access a Word document through their phone so I’ve set it out as two lists. The first list could be headed Objectives, and the second list could be called Tools. The objectives list is a list of the objectives or outcomes that the person giving a talk might want to achieve. The tools list is list of the tools or techniques that the person giving the talk might want to use to accomplish their objectives. The basic idea is, when you are assigned to give a talk, look at the objectives list and decide what you want to accomplish with your talk, and then look at the tools list and decide what tools you want to use to accomplish your objective. This process can be applied to each of the various parts of the talk – the introduction, each of the main points, and the conclusion. I suspect that this is what most of us do subconsciously, but I thought it might be helpful to make it more explicit. Prison Chaplain, as one who frequently prepares and delivers sermons, II am particularly hopeful that you might feel inclined to provide some feedback. Objectives Motivate Teach Inspire Call to repent Change/influence attitudes, beliefs or actions Comfort Counsel Rebuke Call to repent Reinforce an idea or point (for conclusion of talk) Build interest and attract the attention of the congregation (for introduction of talk) Tools Personal anecdotes and experiences Scriptures Talks from conference or other sources Expressing opinions, personal viewpoints and conclusions Giving explanations Asking rhetorical questions Giving challenges and invitations to act Reading from Bible Dictionary or Encyclopaedia of Mormonism Tell a joke or funny story Share/express feelings

I'm not claiming any special or inside knowledge here... but if the protests turn to riots, and these two are killed in the scuffle, then you've got 3 1/2 days to get it together.

Like this one, that looks shockingly like @MormonGator wandering the compound...

My suggestion: Take out tell a joke and funny stories. If you like, you can change personal experiences and anecdotes to add - Anecdotes can be funny stories but need to remain reverent. There's a big difference between trying to make people laugh and trying to maintain interest. Trying to make people laugh is fine for Sunday School but not for Sacrament Meeting. President Monson has this style of telling personal stories that can bring a chuckle or two, but he always maintains reverence.

The war is on the way. So, I spent an hour watching the first Trump Press Conference since the conventions last year. And the one take-away I got out of it was... the media will not win this. This is just going to put the Democrat Party lower and lower and lower on the totem pole. Trump called out the media - both Buzzfeed and CNN - for the Buzzfeed Fake News debacle, as deserved. But then, some guy from the media (I don't know who it is) started a shouting match, shouting out questions after Trump has already moved on trying to egg something on... Trump told him to be quiet and not to be rude but he continued. Trump pointed to him and said, "You're Fake News". Either that shut him up or he was shut up by his peers. We couldn't see the press. And it just happened so no Youtube videos yet. If the media doesn't start employing journalistic ethics, they will be no more valuable than the telephone book pages lining my birdcage (yes, they still make telephone books! And I still get them!). Yes, it is unfortunate that the good journalists get swept with the bad. But that has to happen before change can ensue.

@zil 95% of deviant dosage!

That's a deviant who falls within 2 standard deviations of the average deviant.

Correct. As with Vort, it is probably "the secular conditioning of godless years of schooling" (perhaps irredeemably so), but the extrapolation from our observations back to a beginning for both space and time seems pretty good. In the absence of any kind of observation suggesting that time extends backwards indefinitely and that space extends outwards indefinitely, the extrapolation from the known observations into the unknown back to a single starting point/time seems to make the most sense of the observations.

Whoa, number 7. Why... you're gonna fit right in with the Mormons! Congratulations!

I accept neither idea. Even if you want to interpret Genesis, Moses, Abraham, and the endowment presentation as a literal mechanical account of the order of creation, it's clear that man came last, not first. As for Noah's flood, the ancients who wrote that account (probably handed down from what I assume was Moses' original) did not understand the spherical nature of the earth. There are many instances in scripture of the narrator saying that thus-and-such occurrence covered 'the whole earth", when what is clearly meant is that it covered the entire area under discussion, not the whole globe -- a concept with which the ancients would most likely not have understood. In short, I see no reason to believe that Genesis' particular usage of "the whole earth" regarding Noah's flood should be interpreted to mean the entire planet. That is a markedly anachronistic interpretation. like saying that the division of the earth in Peleg's time refers to continental drift. Just does not make sense in context.

One of the avenues I have long wondered about is the enigma of "intelligence" from a purely scientific view. Sure, in religious belief we know tge source of this intelligence comes from spirit matter. But in purely a secular scientific way, there is no answer to explain the existance and rise of intelligence. We can look at all forms of life and nature, even the galaxies in the universe and see order, purpose and design elements. Even right down to the DNA itself, it being a coded intelligent blueprint for making life, we can see the elements of design, purpose and order. But, taking to that understanding level of without "intelligence" itself existing, none of it makes any sense. For instance- The DNA itself does not encode for the intelligence required to build such life form. Its kind of like a blueprint for a building- the blueprint is true but without an intelligent operator or intelligent entity to read and understand fully what it is the blueprint itself cannot just spontaneously build buildings. The blueprint and instructions may even specify how certain tasks are to be completed but without an intelligently trained operator it still means absolutely nothing. And so it is with life, the protein builders themselves, made from the DNA itself are not programmed with an intelligent operation that tells them how to operate and function in regards to carrying out the work itself. For, if that were true, then intelligence is nothing more than a mathematical equation applied to chemistry. But that isnt true, matter, being acted upon gains no intelligence by itself. Properly understood, the protein itself requires an external component of intelligence in order for it to work. Nature itself cant create this intelligence that understands and comprehends and is self aware, so where does it originate? Science, by itself, without God, will never ever know.

Thanks to Anddenex for the explanation. I'm actually in agreement with much of what Rob says (assuming Anddenex's explanation is correct). I get mighty tired of atheists using evolution as a weapon to rub the faces of believers in their atheism. Their dishonesty in doing so is breathtaking. But the appropriate response to such actions is not to wage a holy jihad on organic evolution. It is to separate out the facts from their lies, and then demonstrate that one's beliefs are not in opposition to fact, and that the other implications are indeed lies. For the record, I reject what I consider the Watchmaker Fallacy. Yes, if I see a watch on a forest path, I don't assume it evolved by natural means. But if I see a tiny cog in a watchmaker's factory, I do assume it's part of the factory and not that it was brought it from outside the factory in a separate special creation. Our bodies are part of the world around us, made from the world's elements, and existing in the milieu of the biology and microbiology of the world. Nature is the canvas upon which we are painted. We are made of the same genetic material as the animals (and plants!) around us. There are even animals that look astoundingly like us, and that share the vast majority of our genome. We see animals exhibit love, devotion, loyalty, anger, betrayal, guilt, shame, and hatred. These things are a part of our biological heritage, not just our spiritual heritage. The ability to feel such emotions is a function of how our brains work -- a point we share with the "lesser beasts". People with brain damage or malformations in the areas of such emotions can be rendered unable to function on that level, not because they're evil, but because they're damaged. The evidence for organic evolutuion is overwhelming. The evidence for it in our own bodies is overwhelming. If there were a valid religious reason to reject organic evolution, I might do so despite this evidence -- but there is no such reason. Latter-day Saint theology vs. organic evolution is not a choice that has to be made.

Its an entire movement that is trying to remove God from every aspect schooling, belief, society, etc. Is it possible another human intelligence brought life to this planet? Yes. But science will never accept that possibility because that "human intelligence" may be thought of as "God" by some people. This really points to the underlying problem being not so much about science (science, by itself, unbiased doesnt care if there is a Creator or not) but rather a philisophical belief regarding the existance of deity. Of course we all know Satan wants to teach that there is no God and any belief in such is heresy.

I also have never heard of the "law of biogenesis" except through "intelligent design" arguments. My intent was merely answering the first question; however, from Rob's words I don't see any of his discussion specifying "out of thin air." Rob appears to point out two factors the intelligent design arguments are countering: 1) Evolved life was solely through random unguided events of universal laws 2) Complex structures are able to evolve without any intelligent designer The majority of my encounters with "evolutionists" is life evolved without any deity involved, thus they hammer the Intelligent Design proponents (To be fair, the majority of "Intelligent Design" proponents I have read do not in totality disagree with organic evolution, they disagree with "macro" evolution and accept micro evolution). It happened through random events over a long period of time. Rob appears to be conflating two independent studies (abiogenesis and evolution -- @Rob Osborn feel free to correct my misunderstanding), thus the notion that evolutionists haven't provided any overwhelming evidence for evolution (void of a intelligent designer) as it begins with life from no life -- inorganic to organic -- whereas the "law of biogenesis" argues that life in no way could have commenced without an intelligent designer and it is through an intelligent designer that any evolution could exist because life results from life. As pertaining to abiogenesis there is no evidence that life randomly, unguided, came into existence. So as to the last statement, yes it is a creationist argument that evolutionists are still wanting in proving life began without a creator, thus life could not evolve without a creator. Evolutionist arguments remove "deity" all together; unless you have read a science book (in school) that purports life possibly could have begin and evolution commencing with a creator. I have never read it.

Thanks. This is number 7. LOL I will need a new car now. .................................................. so many diapers.......................... God will provide.

Hi Jane, I'm going to eventually respond to your posts, but I've been broad sided by an announcement from my wife that involves two red lines. This will take me some time to process.... ] Blarg~!~~~~~~!!!

I will agree with what I think is the basic idea of PC's OP -- there is significant value in recognizing and acknowledging that God is our creator. And not just our creator in the sense that He created everything, but that He created us in His image and likeness, which makes us unique among His creations ("I know I am somebody, 'cuz God don't make no junk."). Hopefully, this kind of belief allows us to see God as approachable and to get a glimpse into "the worth of our souls". The challenges that I see are trying to understand mechanics and truths around what it means to me to see God as creator. Sometimes, I see "God is my creator" meaning that God very specifically created me. This invokes in my mind a picture of God deeply and intimately involved in every detail of my creation, including His influence on which specific gametes joined together at my conception, His control and manipulation of the meiotic processes that generated those two specific gametes, long history of genetic manipulation throughout my ancestry that deterministically made sure that the specific genetic material needed to create "me" would be exactly in place at the right time, and that the other influences (embryonic and developmental and environmental) would all be perfectly in place to create "me". All of that without needing to exactly control my parentage (if this is what we mean when we say that we don't believe in soulmates or other forms of pre-destined marriages), and while making this perfectly deterministic process be mathematically indistinguishable from a random process. Certainly an omnipotent and omniscient God can do this, but does He do this? Some variations of this suggest that, while God is not deeply involved in every detail, He initiated a chain of events that, would deterministically culminate in "me", again while appearing indistinguishable from random processes. How far back do I need to go to find the most recent tweaks God made in my creation? Does it go back several generations? Perhaps to Adam and Eve? Perhaps to the origin of life on Earth? The creation of the solar system? The formation of the galaxy? The Big Bang? I have frequently found some commentors claims that "God created men/women to be (fill in stereotype here)" interesting. As I see some of these stereotypes "debunked", I have often thought that, if God were truly manufacturing men/women to fit certain stereotypes, His manufacturing tolerances could stand some improvement. Just another thought train that gets me wondering exactly what the process of creation really looks like. I don't claim to know anything about these answers, nor do I feel that they are ultimately important to the OP's starting point. I believe that I am one of God's creations, and one of His "children." I believe that God is approachable and that I have worth.

That was specifically for you Zil

They do not reject intelligent design; they reject Intelligent Design. intelligent design: "God is the Creator and stands behind all that happens." (Note that this is not at all incompatible with organic evolution.) Intelligent Design: "There is no possible way the eye could have evolved incrementally. Ergo, organic evolution is a false idea." Intelligent Design has nothing directly to do with religion; it is a pseudoscientific effort to discount evolutionary theory, mostly by handwaving arguments.

Belated Happy Birthday! May all your birthday wishes come true except one - so you'll always have something to wish for.

WOOT WOOT WOOT! I just had this feeling that you'd love it. It just seems so "Vorty" to me! But yeah, now I can tell you what I liked and didn't like about it without worrying about spoiling it for you. YES YES YES about the ending. I was starting to suspect it around 3/4 of the movie but couldn't quite reconcile it until the very end. What I didn't like - and never really got a resolution - is why her husband left them. I don't like husbands leaving wives and more so fathers leaving daughters and even more so fathers leaving dying daughters. The guy didn't seem like a wimp in the movie that couldn't handle illness...

Belief in the Creator= LDS beliefs Belief in the Creator= Belief in Intelligent Design Its interesting though that a lot of LDS reject intelligent design. To me its the grand paradox how the two could possibly coexist.

I'm glad you have a Stake President that you can go to and ask questions of.

@Sunday21 Favorite hymn: Rock of Ages (Def Leppard version) fav. Temple: me I am a bluegrass fan my mission was in the south! I use to love Kiss... but haven't listen to them in a while so I don't know anymore I absolutely love potlucks as long as there aren't an over abundance of cheesy potatoes. Both a tried and tested/bring something new, I mix things up Favorite "my calling made me grow". I was the Seminary a Council President in high school and that forced me to shapen up a bit, learned how to lead council discussions and make decisions that effect large groups of people Taught primary once a bunch if 7 year olds!! favorite vacation: Glacier National Park / Yosemite

Hi Kyrie, I grew up in a large devout Catholic family tutored in Catholic Schools from Kindergarten all the way through 5 years of undergrad in a country where 80+% of the population is Catholic (Philippines). I was Roman Catholic to the bone. I went through a "ripping apart" in my life when I started to seriously study Mormon teachings. I had Catholic beliefs that the Holy Spirit has testified to me is true and so I had to figure out how they all reconcile with truths I found in the Mormon faith. My experience is that Mormon teaching did not make my Catholic testimonies false, rather, Mormon teaching made them clearer, but I had to first go through the "ripping apart" experience where I was very scared. Until today, my mother still submits my name to the Carmelite sisters to pray for my salvation. She loves me and fears for my soul. Anyway, as far as post NT writings, my suggestion to you is to tackle what we call the Quad - Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price in addition to the Bible. The material in those books are so rich it takes quite a while to get through them. As far as the writings of the early Church Fathers, Mormons don't really study them as part of Mormon teaching, rather, they study them simply for its academic value. The foundation of the Mormon faith is that it is a new dispensation of the gospel to follow the dispensation of the Apostles. It is, therefore, a Restoration of the teachings of the Apostles rather than a Protestation of Catholic teaching. The Mormons believe that the keys of Peter to the Church did not pass to the Bishop of Rome. Apostles have different authority than Bishops and that this authority died with the last of the Apostles. As Pope Linus never received apostolic authority from Peter, the Magisterium, therefore, is run by philosophies of men rather than God. Of course Mormons do not believe that the Catholic Church is evil or anything like that. Rather, we simply believe that the Catholic Church did the best that they can do without Apostolic Authority to light the way and some precious truths did not survive the tempest even as many did. These truths were restored in these latter-days together with the Apostolic keys passed from Peter to Joseph Smith Jr. So, in the study of the teachings of the faith, there is what the Catholics were able to preserve and then there are the teachings restored in the latter days which can be found in the Quad, some of which coincide with Catholic teaching as philosophized by the early Church Fathers, and others that do not. Trying to bring these puzzle pieces into a full picture is a matter of Faith seeking humbly and honestly and diligently with pure intent the intercession of the Holy Spirit. Modern LDS teachers try to philosophize these teachings but they are simply for academic study and not a matter of Church teaching even if the person who did so is an Apostle. We do have several books written by latter-day Apostles. They're not part of Church teachings. They're simply academic study. We have quite a bunch of these discussions in Mormonhub - academic and speculative. An article of faith in the Mormon church is that there are still many truths that God have not revealed. We are very comfortable with saying - "we don't know but we can speculate" - and let our philosophies of men go into all out discussions. Hope this helps.

So Enquiring minds want to know! Do you have a favorited hymn? A favorite temple? Are you a bluegrass fan? You don't like KISS, do you? (We have filled our quota on that one!, note @MormonGator you broke the mold. No more applications accepted from the KIss-lovers Society!) What are your views on potluck's? Do you bring a tried and tested or go for gold and bring something you have never made before? Favorite 'my calling made me grow' story? Ever taught primary? Boy there's a calling for you! I spent one class consoling a poor bullied 3 year old girl with stories of her evil brother languishing in a lower kingdom while she lived it up in the Celestial! What else do we want to know? Hmmm....favorite vacation?

Lol . . .I think you misinterpreted The Traveler's remarks-he was being sarcastic. I guess no one remembers history, but MLK was anything but 100% faithful to his wife. It is fairly well documented that he was an adulterer who (IIRC) spent the night before he died with a mistress.

^ belated , after the fact. + n days, where n is approximately 7, give or take an unknown number.

You sir, "get it"! As Peter Pan would exclaim, BANG-A-RANG!! On a footnote: I don't agree that she has any say in his career decisions beyond helpful input, for this is within the dominion of a man to walk his career path as he sees fit, and each their own calling, after all, for richer or for poorer. My wife would live in a box with me. Christ himself, nor his apostles, had wealth of money or possessions. Of course, I say this after having bought a new car in November.

Matthew 19:24 " And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God".

I am familiar with the Hyde Amendment. I am also aware how the Left has feverishly attempted to find ways around it--not the least of which is via Obamacare (http://www.obamacareabortion.com/), and things like Medi-Cal, as Bad Karma pointed out. Another way around it is to fund organizations that provide other medical services besides abortion (like Planned Parenthood), under the guise of only funding the non-abortion services, as if that ultimately makes any difference. But, this is heading us a bit into the weeds. My main point is, whether intended or not, most atheists have supplanted worship of God with worship of the state. As Stefan points out, the latter is potentially far more imposing on opposing views. Religions can't force atheists to attend church against their will, but atheists can force Christians to bake cakes against their will. A secondary point is how the liberals, after realizing they haven't a rational leg to stand on, are left to play emotionally-charged word games, with the hope of creating the illusion of moral superiority and virtue, whereas in reality it is just the opposite. The misleading way in which the abortion debate was framed (as women's health issues) is just one case in point. Another is the claim that atheists lean Left because conservatives, "marginalize anyone who doesn't identify as a heterosexual in the traditional sens"--they push government "into the bedroom." This is leftist-speak for the Right being against using the government to corrupt longstanding social morays as well as the fundamental institution of society, with the end goal of forced legitimacy and promotion of sodomy. Far from keeping the government out of the bedroom, liberals call for the state seal of approval on what happens in homosexual beds. It also calls for government benefits for what happens in the homosexual beds. Does it get much more intrusive than that? And, this is not all. it requires the government force people who believe differently to celebrate the state seal of approval on what happens in the homosexual bed. In both cases (abortion and same-sex marriage) do you see how the Left offers up the seeming lofty illusions of looking out for certain minorities and preventing government intrusion into private lives, while doing just the opposite? Do you see how the Left pretends to the virtue of protecting homosexual rights, while in reality disgustingly making gays indentured servants of the state and shredding the moral and institutional fabric of society? The gays, like blacks and women before them, are being used as pawns to further ingratiate and empower the political elite. In other words, If atheists have been leaning Left for the reasons you suggest, they may wish to cut through all the linguistic smoke and mirrors (propaganda), pull back to see what is really behind the political curtain, and realize that they are getting the opposite from that which they presumed to pay. Just saying. Thanks, -Wade Englund

Trump wasn't my first choice, but I have enjoyed watching the show. As an east coaster, a lawyer, a corporate stooge before going into academe, I know Trump types. He doesn't bother me because I know that's how those people act. It's like Chris Christie. I liked him fine because I don't have a problem with his brashness, etc. On the other hand, I know people who get their knickers in a twist because they think these guys aren't 'nice people.' So what? You don't have to be a nice person to get the job done. That said, I've certainly learned more about Trump's niceness and generosity than I have about Hillary's (non-existent). I found the term 'Mormon Social Justice Warrior' to be interesting. My son has been asking me about a church to join that would support his family. Obviously, I would like him to be Mormon, but he thinks that the Church is too 'feminine,' too willing to roll over in the name of being nice (or diversity, or immigrants, or women, you name it). I wouldn't have used the term 'Mormon social justice warrior,' but yeah, it fits. We have to deal with SJW garbage almost daily being academics and he doesn't want to have anything to do with people who think that way. He's looking at the Orthodox Church because it is has stayed true to its conservative beliefs (and he is Greek on his grandfather's side, with an ethnically Greek name, so it's not as odd as it may seem.). Most people here can probably separate their religion from their politics. I have a difficult time doing so (hence my being attracted to the LDS because of its history in America and its generally conservative nature). Personally, I was shocked when many of my RS sisters said they would vote for Hillary, who was in favor of 3rd term abortion and other matters that are so anti-LDS. I don't know how they could do that. Politics and religion are interlocked, but maybe that's just me. I'm going to do some thinking about Mormon SJWs and what that means.

If only he could do that to Putin.

I don't know if that is true or not. IMO, Jesus would go about doing good (when that included healing the sick, He would heal them). He would hang around with any and all who would accept His presence. You focused on "despised" classes of people, which many frequently note that Jesus spent a lot of time among the despised classes of His day. A question: Is that because Jesus saw greater value in visiting the despised classes, or is that because the despised classes were more likely to invite Him into their presence? Would he have spent more time with the Parisees and the ruling classes if they had been more accepting of Him?

To reinforce the Point made by Anatess... There is worlds of difference between someone that gets knocked down and needs an hand getting up (or simply needs help getting started). And someone that chooses to stay down. Very few people have any issue with first and most of the church programs are geared to exactly that. Many government programs (including this government guaranteed income that we are talking about) are geared to the latter and in many cases encourage the latter. Now is it possible that someone could take this "guaranteed income" and use it to pull themselves up? Absolutely in fact that would be the ideal... But reality tells us that JAG is correct that there would be some people that would take this "guaranteed income" waste it and then be in absolute poverty until the next check comes in which would again be wasted. In between checks they would starve, which is what the program is suppose to prevent. The bottom line is you can't build massive government program based on an "ideal" of what you think people should and would do with the handout. Because many will not live up to the "ideal." You have to build it to "worse case" and that is a much more expensive and intrusive proposition

I don't deign to speak for JAG as he is quite capable of defending himself but I would just like to point out that nothing in JAG's post indicated that ALL poor people are unable to get their lives in order. I just read it again. Twice. And I still don't see where you got that conclusion from. Rather, what I read is that JAG stated that there are those who squander their resources and end up poor. He didn't say that those who are poor squandered their resources. Big ginormous difference between those two sentences. In light of that, my experience in the Philippines point to one plain truth. It takes a certain skill/knowledge/experience to stay out of poverty. Giving cash to poor people who has no skill/knowledge/experience to stay out of poverty would only give them a party season then back to poverty. Therefore, the best way to get a person out of poverty is to give him skill/knowledge/opportunities for experience needed to stay out of poverty instead of giving him cash. This also applies to those who have skill/knowledge/experience who, by unfortunate circumstances, end up in poverty. Give a guy cash and he'll eat for a day. Give a guy a job and he'll eat for a long time.

Swedes work quite hard, yes. It is a cultural thing from their mainly Protestant upbringing. They're quite a homogeneous society. But even then, their Democratic Socialist experiment failed them. The Swedes have been trying to fix this for the past 10 years so much so that they almost - as in by a smidgen! - succeeded in throwing out their EU-friendly government last year.

The issue is not whether you would choose to work or not work. Yes, most everybody has a desire to work. The issue is WHAT you choose to work on. A society does not function just by people choosing whatever they want to work on. Rather, a society functions by people doing the work that is needed by society. Yes, most everybody would choose to work. Now, how many people will choose to work collecting garbage? This is the paradigm of a socialist society - the government assigns the work. The Canadian basic income paradigm is not that. Mixing socialism with capitalism does nothing but move money from the productive to the non-productive. I choose the word productive instead of work for a reason. Working on cutting grass is fine and good but is not productive if there is no need to cut grass.

There is nothing "neutral" in above ideas. If anyone espouses those ideas and claims to be neutral, they're either a liar or incapable of clear, logical, rational thought.

Loud Mouth Mormon?

Of course, @Larry Cotrell has to say this. He lives in Ogden, and his neighbors will beat him up if he doesn't. Me, on the other hand...living in the anti-Bible belt, as I do, can tell it like it is. 'cept that I work for the government, ergo I can neither confirm or deny ...

Dude! Relax.

As an unbiased third party, I would say most Mormons seem relaxed. There's always that one guy though (cough, cough, @MormonGator, cough) *Totally joking, if you weren't relaxed I couldn't say things like that But yes, usually religious people in general are more relaxed. I've found that Mormons are almost always enjoying life.

I have a Bhuddist-ex-Mormon client who insists that life is so much better now that she is away from Mormon oppression. But, you know what? In between all her meditation, her life is an ever-loving mess: multiple criminal charges for intoxication, multiple incidents where her minor daughter was legally removed from her custody, a divorce, another adult daughter from whom she is estranged, and--topping it all off--she faces imminent deportation in about a month. She is utterly unwilling to pay the price it would take to get her life together--she's a "good person inside", so she says; and sooner or later the world will naturally give her what she deserves. But as for us: we're Mormons. We build things; and part of that building process naturally entails stepping back to make sure you're doing it right; and some of us do get overly wrapped up in that self-criticism until we internalize the true scope of Christ's atonement and enabling power. By the way, Utah's depression/suicide stats are of a piece with those from other Mountain West states whose LDS populations are much lower. The causes for this are not entirely understood; but the factors already mentioned (altitude, willingness to seek treatment through medical caregivers, reluctance to immediately self-medicate with illicit substances) probably do play a role in conjunction with genetics (Scandinavians have higher suicide rates and there are lots of Scandinavians in Utah).