bytor2112

I tend to think God loves us unconditionally. Does he love the wayward person, living a life of sin and transgression? Surely, he does or he would not bless us all so very much. We are his children and just as Enoch witnessed him weeping for his children, surely he weeps for us know. Will he reward us unconditionally? No. Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ. We must all repent or suffer for our own sins, suffer as Christ suffered.

Day light savings.......means more golf:)

Growing up in the church doesn't necessarily mean that someone has been faithful to the Gospel all their lives. It is certainly easier to have a relationship when both parties are members of the Church. I have seen what happens when a faithful member marries a non-member, sometimes things work out, but from what I have seen it presents a problem. As far as transgressing....Latter Day Saints can be just as guilty, sexual sins included, and just as forgiven. If the Lord has forgiven and forgotten, we MUST do the same.

We love the Bible...it is the word of God. But God has chosen to give us more.....more of the words that lead to Eternal life. Why are you so put off by the idea that maybe, just maybe, God has more to say? Why wouldn't that excite you? If you knew anything about God at all, you would know that his words never cease....... From the Book of Mormon: 3 And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible. 4 But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles? 5 O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have cursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them. But behold, I will return all these things upon your own heads; for I the Lord have not forgotten my people. 6 Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews? 7 Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth? 8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also. 9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever. 10 Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written. 11 For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written. 12 For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it.

Next time he's in Utah for a game, he could have one of these.....

Little Nipper, I am really surprised to find that you are 55 years old, seriously, I thought you were maybe 17. I don't mean that disrespectfully, it's just that your posts tend to not be discussions.......just declarations that don't really respond to anything.

1. I have a fam’ly here on earth. They are so good to me. I want to share my life with them through all eternity. [Chorus] Fam’lies can be together forever Through Heav’nly Father’s plan. I always want to be with my own family, And the Lord has shown me how I can. The Lord has shown me how I can. 2. While I am in my early years, I’ll prepare most carefully, So I can marry in God’s temple for eternity. AND As I have loved you, Love one another. This new commandment: Love one another. By this shall men know Ye are my disciples, If ye have love One to another.

Likewise......I enjoy your posts as well, always seem to put a smile on my face!

The lamp in the story was of course the Bible. The new lamp that offered more light is the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. If you focus on Christ through the Bible only, you will be missing much of the view. The view provided by ALL of these scriptures is indeed inspired by God and meant for all of us....even you Little Nipper.

I have noticed that as well...... and though I am happy to believe it, I am always curious as to why. What makes people tick, politically, socially, morally. I posted this on another thread.... This is off- topic a bit, but I often ponder over why so many members of the church identify themselves politically as conservative and/or Republican. Religious people in general seem to. I admit that I am a "right-winger" ........not very happy with the Republican party, yet they are the only party that somewhat represents my values that could actually win an election. My guess is that many see the Democratic Party as a group that embraces things that religious people morally oppose, like abortion and gay marriage. I think they are also seen as the anti religion party....especially the Christian faith. Add to that my strong dislike for big government, hence my disdain for Republicans a well, and the uber love of higher taxes for funding wasteful pork and government programs that either have out lived there usefulness or were never useful to begin with and the incessant race card and class warfare tactics and the Democratic Party has no appeal to me and most religious people and other conservative types. No offense to Democrats, if that's how your wired...... but many of us right wingers struggle to get past these issues. Again no offense to Democrats, liberals, socialists or whatever. Just curious. If everyone were the same and had the same beliefs, it would be a boring world with no creativity or checks and balances. __________________

I think people said quite a lot about Bush....some true and some not so much. That's politics.

Imagine for a moment that your home has always been lighted by the same lamp. It is a beautiful lamp and gives off a very warm ambient light and seems to be sufficient to your needs. Everyone else enjoys this same lamp and agrees. One day you are approached by someone offering you an additional lamp to light your home. No thank you, I have all the light that I need is the reply. But the stranger persists and explains that this new lamp will light your home in ways you can’t imagine. Wisely, he accepts the strangers offer and tries the new lamp and discovers that it fills his home with more light than he ever imagined possible. This new lamp amplified the old lamp and lighted areas of his home that were previously darkened and the man was greatly pleased that he was approached and offered this wonderful new light.

You could just pretend to be Elphaba and call me obtuse and call the article a straw man. Then copy and paste a few quotes that support your view point, rail about Bush, the Iraq war and mention poor people and finish with some kind of people uniting happy flourish or tongue in cheek sarcastic yet humorous comment and add a happy icon like and you got it.:)

Wait till they show him on a cigarette break.......

Oh and I heard it was an import.....

Being critical of the President and Congress for doing things you disagree with is n ot bashing. What kind of question is that? If everyone were "rich", why would that matter? Do you think the "rich" are less deserving of representation than the less fortunate? Or do you believe that their wallets should be more accessible to others, particularly Uncle Sam? Nearly half the voters thought someone else would have been....... Would be people be critical of McCain if he were President, of course. It's the nature of political discourse. Many of the criticisms have to deal with the outrageous spending. Huge pork laden bills that do not address the crux of the economic crisis, but instead satisfy the wish list for the Democratic party for the past 40 years. It's politics a usual. Obama is Bush on steroids when it comes to spending. Bush spent like a drunken sailor.......Obama is spending like a fleet of drunken sailors. I hope everyone will pray for the President......that everyone will pray for our country. Being critical of our elected leaders helps keep them accountable. Remember they work for us and serve at the pleasure of the citizens of the United States. And yes , write the Whitehouse, writes your congress people and tell them...... close the dang check book.

Courtesy of FAIRLDS: Why does the Book of Mormon say that Jesus would be born in Jerusalem? (Alma 7:10.) D. Kelly Ogden, associate director, The Jerusalem Center for Near Eastern Studies. Let’s look more closely at Alma’s wording: “He shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers.” (Alma 7:10.) Notice two points: first, Jerusalem is referred to as a land rather than as a city. Second, Jesus’ birth would occur at Jerusalem. The Land of Jerusalem. Towns and villages which surrounded larger demographic or political centers were regarded in ancient times as belonging to those larger centers. For a major city center such as Jerusalem to be called not only a city but also a land was standard practice. El Amarna letter #287, an ancient Near Eastern text, mentions the “land of Jerusalem” several times. 1 And—like Alma—the ancient writer of El Amarna letter #290 even refers to Bethlehem as part of the land of Jerusalem: In this letter is recorded the complaint of Abdu-Kheba of Jerusalem to Pharaoh Akhenaton that “the land of the king went over to the Apiru people. But now even a town of the land of Jerusalem, Bit-Lahmi [bethlehem] by name, a town belonging to the king, has gone over to the side of the people of Keilah.” 2 Hebron, almost twenty miles south of Bethlehem, was also considered part of the “land of Jerusalem.” 3 The Book of Mormon is internally consistent in using the wording “the land of Jerusalem” to refer to the place from which Lehi and his family had left, where the Savior would appear as a mortal, and to which the people of Judah would eventually return. 4 Modern revelation given through the Prophet Joseph Smith perpetuates the expression and its ancient meaning. In Doctrine and Covenants 133:24, [D&C 133:24] we read that when the continents are reassembled and again become one land mass, “the land of Jerusalem and the land of Zion shall be turned back into their own place.” Several other scriptural cities are also labeled at times as lands. Ammonihah was a city (see Alma 8:6), but it was also a land (see Alma 14:23). The area surrounding the city of Ur was also known as Ur. We read that an idolatrous shrine stood by Potiphar’s Hill, which “was in the land of Ur, of Chaldea.” (Abr. 1:20.) And in Abraham 2:4, [Abr. 2:4] we learn that Abraham and his family left “the land of Ur, of the Chaldees” and transferred to the “land” of Haran. The Damascus Rule (also known as the Zadokite Document—part of the Dead Sea Scrolls) twice refers to the “land of Damascus.” 5 At Jerusalem. Alma stated that Jesus would be born of Mary not in Jerusalem, but at Jerusalem. Dictionary definitions of at include the words close by and near. Certainly “at Jerusalem” could be interpreted “near Jerusalem.” There is another example in the Book of Mormon in which the word at may mean “near.” The record does not say that Lehi and his family lived in Jerusalem, but at Jerusalem: “My father, Lehi, … dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days” (1 Ne. 1:4); “he returned to his own house at Jerusalem” (1 Ne. 1:7.); and “I, Nephi, have … dwelt at Jerusalem” (2 Ne. 25:6). That Lehi and his family may indeed have lived outside of Jerusalem proper is evidenced in the account of the sons’ attempt to secure the brass plates with their abandoned wealth: “We went down to the land of our inheritance, and we did gather together our gold, and our silver, and our precious things. And after we had gathered these things together, we went up again unto the house of Laban.” (1 Ne. 3:22–23; italics added.) Lehi could have lived several miles away and still lived at Jerusalem—just as Jesus could be born several miles away in Bethlehem but still be born at Jerusalem. Joseph Smith, of course, knew well that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. If he had been the author of the Book of Mormon he would have so stated the fact, since any deviation from the well-known setting would certainly draw objection and accusation. However, Joseph Smith was merely translating a geographical note from an ancient writer—a note which in itself is another evidence that the Book of Mormon derives from a Semitic background. Thus, Alma’s prophetic preview of the setting of the Savior’s birth is not erroneous or contradictory. It is compatible with similar biblical and extra-biblical figures of speech—evidence, in fact, of the passage’s authentic ancient origin.

I'll second that motion.....

This from Meridian magazine....Meridian Magazine:: Family Leader Network: Stimulus Bill is “Generational Theft”

Unless and until....we come unto Christ.... 32 Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.

That's an interesting phrase........when I think about how truly imperfect and broken I am, and really recognize just what Christ did for me at Gethsemane and at Golgotha, I feel like I am getting off pretty easy. D&C 19: 15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not. 16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; 17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; 18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

Given the population of Utah versus say...California or other big states........I rather doubt it.

How Government Prolonged the Depression Policies that decreased competition in product and labor markets were especially destructive. By HAROLD L. COLE and LEE E. OHANIAN The New Deal is widely perceived to have ended the Great Depression, and this has led many to support a "new" New Deal to address the current crisis. But the facts do not support the perception that FDR's policies shortened the Depression, or that similar policies will pull our nation out of its current economic downturn. The goal of the New Deal was to get Americans back to work. But the New Deal didn't restore employment. In fact, there was even less work on average during the New Deal than before FDR took office. Total hours worked per adult, including government employees, were 18% below their 1929 level between 1930-32, but were 23% lower on average during the New Deal (1933-39). Private hours worked were even lower after FDR took office, averaging 27% below their 1929 level, compared to 18% lower between in 1930-32. Even comparing hours worked at the end of 1930s to those at the beginning of FDR's presidency doesn't paint a picture of recovery. Total hours worked per adult in 1939 remained about 21% below their 1929 level, compared to a decline of 27% in 1933. And it wasn't just work that remained scarce during the New Deal. Per capita consumption did not recover at all, remaining 25% below its trend level throughout the New Deal, and per-capita nonresidential investment averaged about 60% below trend. The Great Depression clearly continued long after FDR took office. Why wasn't the Depression followed by a vigorous recovery, like every other cycle? It should have been. The economic fundamentals that drive all expansions were very favorable during the New Deal. Productivity grew very rapidly after 1933, the price level was stable, real interest rates were low, and liquidity was plentiful. We have calculated on the basis of just productivity growth that employment and investment should have been back to normal levels by 1936. Similarly, Nobel Laureate Robert Lucas and Leonard Rapping calculated on the basis of just expansionary Federal Reserve policy that the economy should have been back to normal by 1935. So what stopped a blockbuster recovery from ever starting? The New Deal. Some New Deal policies certainly benefited the economy by establishing a basic social safety net through Social Security and unemployment benefits, and by stabilizing the financial system through deposit insurance and the Securities Exchange Commission. But others violated the most basic economic principles by suppressing competition, and setting prices and wages in many sectors well above their normal levels. All told, these antimarket policies choked off powerful recovery forces that would have plausibly returned the economy back to trend by the mid-1930s. The most damaging policies were those at the heart of the recovery plan, including The National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which tossed aside the nation's antitrust acts and permitted industries to collusively raise prices provided that they shared their newfound monopoly rents with workers by substantially raising wages well above underlying productivity growth. The NIRA covered over 500 industries, ranging from autos and steel, to ladies hosiery and poultry production. Each industry created a code of "fair competition" which spelled out what producers could and could not do, and which were designed to eliminate "excessive competition" that FDR believed to be the source of the Depression. These codes distorted the economy by artificially raising wages and prices, restricting output, and reducing productive capacity by placing quotas on industry investment in new plants and equipment. Following government approval of each industry code, industry prices and wages increased substantially, while prices and wages in sectors that weren't covered by the NIRA, such as agriculture, did not. We have calculated that manufacturing wages were as much as 25% above the level that would have prevailed without the New Deal. And while the artificially high wages created by the NIRA benefited the few that were fortunate to have a job in those industries, they significantly depressed production and employment, as the growth in wage costs far exceeded productivity growth. These policies continued even after the NIRA was declared unconstitutional in 1935. There was no antitrust activity after the NIRA, despite overwhelming FTC evidence of price-fixing and production limits in many industries, and the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 gave unions substantial collective-bargaining power. While not permitted under federal law, the sit-down strike, in which workers were occupied factories and shut down production, was tolerated by governors in a number of states and was used with great success against major employers, including General Motors in 1937. The downturn of 1937-38 was preceded by large wage hikes that pushed wages well above their NIRA levels, following the Supreme Court's 1937 decision that upheld the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act. These wage hikes led to further job loss, particularly in manufacturing. The "recession in a depression" thus was not the result of a reversal of New Deal policies, as argued by some, but rather a deepening of New Deal polices that raised wages even further above their competitive levels, and which further prevented the normal forces of supply and demand from restoring full employment. Our research indicates that New Deal labor and industrial policies prolonged the Depression by seven years. By the late 1930s, New Deal policies did begin to reverse, which coincided with the beginning of the recovery. In a 1938 speech, FDR acknowledged that the American economy had become a "concealed cartel system like Europe," which led the Justice Department to reinitiate antitrust prosecution. And union bargaining power was significantly reduced, first by the Supreme Court's ruling that the sit-down strike was illegal, and further reduced during World War II by the National War Labor Board (NWLB), in which large union wage settlements were limited by the NWLB to cost-of-living increases. The wartime economic boom reflected not only the enormous resource drain of military spending, but also the erosion of New Deal labor and industrial policies. In Today's Opinion Journal By 1947, through a combination of NWLB wage restrictions and rapid productivity growth, we have calculated that the large gap between manufacturing wages and productivity that emerged during the New Deal had nearly been eliminated. And since that time, wages have never approached the severely distorted levels that prevailed under the New Deal, nor has the country suffered from such abysmally low employment. The main lesson we have learned from the New Deal is that wholesale government intervention can -- and does -- deliver the most unintended of consequences. This was true in the 1930s, when artificially high wages and prices kept us depressed for more than a decade, it was true in the 1970s when price controls were used to combat inflation but just produced shortages. It is true today, when poorly designed regulation produced a banking system that took on too much risk. President Barack Obama and Congress have a great opportunity to produce reforms that do return Americans to work, and that provide a foundation for sustained long-run economic growth and the opportunity for all Americans to succeed. These reforms should include very specific plans that update banking regulations and address a manufacturing sector in which several large industries -- including autos and steel -- are no longer internationally competitive. Tax reform that broadens rather than narrows the tax base and that increases incentives to work, save and invest is also needed. We must also confront an educational system that fails many of its constituents. A large fiscal stimulus plan that doesn't directly address the specific impediments that our economy faces is unlikely to achieve either the country's short-term or long-term goals. Mr. Cole is professor of economics at the University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Ohanian is professor of economics and director of the Ettinger Family Program in Macroeconomic Research at UCLA.

Sure.

Not sure what WND is....... Is CATO suitable for you? How FDR's New Deal Harmed Millions of Poor People by Jim Powell Jim Powell, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, is author of FDR's Folly, How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression (Crown Forum, 2003). Added to cato.org on December 29, 2003 This article appeared on cato.org on December 29, 2003. Democratic presidential candidates as well as some conservative intellectuals, are suggesting that Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal is a good model for government policy today. Mounting evidence, however, makes clear that poor people were principal victims of the New Deal. The evidence has been developed by dozens of economists -- including two Nobel Prize winners -- at Brown, Columbia, Princeton, Johns Hopkins, the University of California (Berkeley) and University of Chicago, among other universities. Jim Powell, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, is author of FDR's Folly, How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression (Crown Forum, 2003). More by Jim Powell New Deal programs were financed by tripling federal taxes from $1.6 billion in 1933 to $5.3 billion in 1940. Excise taxes, personal income taxes, inheritance taxes, corporate income taxes, holding company taxes and so-called "excess profits" taxes all went up. The most important source of New Deal revenue were excise taxes levied on alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, matches, candy, chewing gum, margarine, fruit juice, soft drinks, cars, tires (including tires on wheelchairs), telephone calls, movie tickets, playing cards, electricity, radios -- these and many other everyday things were subject to New Deal excise taxes, which meant that the New Deal was substantially financed by the middle class and poor people. Yes, to hear FDR's "Fireside Chats," one had to pay FDR excise taxes for a radio and electricity! A Treasury Department report acknowledged that excise taxes "often fell disproportionately on the less affluent." Until 1937, New Deal revenue from excise taxes exceeded the combined revenue from both personal income taxes and corporate income taxes. It wasn't until 1942, in the midst of World War II, that income taxes exceeded excise taxes for the first time under FDR. Consumers had less money to spend, and employers had less money for growth and jobs. New Deal taxes were major job destroyers during the 1930s, prolonging unemployment that averaged 17%. Higher business taxes meant that employers had less money for growth and jobs. Social Security excise taxes on payrolls made it more expensive for employers to hire people, which discouraged hiring. Other New Deal programs destroyed jobs, too. For example, the National Industrial Recovery Act (1933) cut back production and forced wages above market levels, making it more expensive for employers to hire people - blacks alone were estimated to have lost some 500,000 jobs because of the National Industrial Recovery Act. The Agricultural Adjustment Act (1933) cut back farm production and devastated black tenant farmers who needed work. The National Labor Relations Act (1935) gave unions monopoly bargaining power in workplaces and led to violent strikes and compulsory unionization of mass production industries. Unions secured above-market wages, triggering big layoffs and helping to usher in the depression of 1938. What about the good supposedly done by New Deal spending programs? These didn't increase the number of jobs in the economy, because the money spent on New Deal projects came from taxpayers who consequently had less money to spend on food, coats, cars, books and other things that would have stimulated the economy. This is a classic case of the seen versus the unseen -- we can see the jobs created by New Deal spending, but we cannot see jobs destroyed by New Deal taxing. For defenders of the New Deal, perhaps the most embarrassing revelation about New Deal spending programs is they channeled money AWAY from the South, the poorest region in the United States. The largest share of New Deal spending and loan programs went to political "swing" states in the West and East - where incomes were at least 60% higher than in the South. As an incumbent, FDR didn't see any point giving much money to the South where voters were already overwhelmingly on his side. Americans needed bargains, but FDR hammered consumers -- and millions had little money. His National Industrial Recovery Act forced consumers to pay above-market prices for goods and services, and the Agricultural Adjustment Act forced Americans to pay more for food. Moreover, FDR banned discounting by signing the Anti-Chain Store Act (1936) and the Retail Price Maintenance Act (1937). Poor people suffered from other high-minded New Deal policies like the Tennessee Valley Authority monopoly. Its dams flooded an estimated 750,000 acres, an area about the size of Rhode Island, and TVA agents dispossessed thousands of people. Poor black sharecroppers, who didn't own property, got no compensation. FDR might not have intended to harm millions of poor people, but that's what happened. We should evaluate government policies according to their actual consequences, not their good intentions.