palantir

< Agrees with Funky :)

I'm not a subscriber to the view that aliens visit our planet. In the first instance I can see no purpose for it, and in the second any claims of such creatures seems misguided as their appearance would be the same as us - being in the likeness of God. I believe there was an expereince in early Church history where some people witnessed lights and moving objects in the sky - and Joseph Smith said it was of the devil. People have claimed in the past to have seen goblins, etc. I think UFOs (where not something from our own technology) are in the same category. This is, of course, an opinion.

Nice video. I'm a modder myself (though retiring this year after almost 4 years). I mod the Total War engine. It's a fun hobby, though extremely time consuming. I was lured into it through a Middle-earth idea for a mod that I eventually became the coding manager for and then team manager ('04-'07). There's a video at the official site here: The Fourth Age: Total War official website - Game Trailer I then made several mods on my own (one of which was featured on the PC Gamer UK magazine coverdisk) and recently completed the mod I always wanted to do - one based on the Book of Mormon - see here: http://www.bookofmormonbattles.com/TOL/tol.html I have learned so many skills in doing this, it's a great pity they are free - we've had 220,000 downloads of the Middle-earth mod and it was the only TW mod to make it into the Top 100 mods of the year at moddb.com, and made it into PC Gamer mag Good luck with your release!

And it is just one of the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto that modern governments have implemented....

I agree with how Ezra Taft Benson summed up the purpose of government, quoting the Alabama Constitution: "That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression." (Art. 1, Sec. 35) And with Jefferson who wrote: "the idea is quite unfounded that on entering into society we give up any natural right." So I would disagree with your definition, which probably means we may never agree. We have no common starting point here. Government is no more than a small group hired to constantly protect our property and the means to punish those who do not respect property in body, liberty and possessions. Yes, but I did not imply or say that. Liberty is that state of freedom in which we do not violate the exercise of the rights of others. People can be punished via the people (through Juries assenting to the same), preserved by Government, for the very reason that an individual has the right to protect his life. The individual right to self-defence is the basis for this just power afforded by government (which is the organized right to self-defence on a large scale of those individual rights). Imposing restrictions on liberties - except perhaps in temporary or very extreme situations such as invasion - is certainly not the role of government. OK, let's look at this from another angle then. Would you go to your neighbour and threaten them with prison unless they paid for your children to go to school? Do you not see that in supporting redistribution of wealth you are essentially getting government to do the same thing on your behalf? Well, I actually was saying that force was the method of the Adversary. I agree with social contracts - that people choose to give up, or not give up, as they so please but this is not the way it works in our society. People are forced. Indeed, unless someone has committed a criminal act (and by that I mean a malicious violation or attempted violation of another's rights), then no one should be forced to do anything. Of course, they may agree to act in a limited way when such contracts are *freely* made. Examples of this of course exist in the business world. This leaves liberty intact, but unjust government often violates that right to contract freely about our own affairs. Would that be graduated tax/tax banding? I would support a flat tax for the reasons already mentioned. Though I think that beyond the military and provisions for courts there would be very little to be taxed for in a truly free and just government similar to the one established by the Framers of the Constitution (and sadly ignored or twisted for the past century). Again, it is not the role of government to tell employers how much they pay either themselves or employess. I cannot tell you how much to pay your babysitter, and in like manner cannot therefore delegate any such power to government. Government must be based on principle if you believe that growth in life comes from making free choices and being wise stewards. And, as I implied before, when force is used people just become tools of those in power and growth and happiness decline.

I can understand that a large separation between rich and poor can cause an environment where wicked people stir things up to cause problems (which was the case in the French Revolution - by a very small group I mght add) - but that justifies nothing. These are requests, though and even in those circumstances where the Lord might direct someone or group to give more as a matter of commandment then that is His right as we are but stewards. But Government is not God and has no such power. It derives its power from the people, and just as I cannot force someone to give me money then neither can the government acting on my behalf. The Church also would not throw you in prison or curtail your liberties The problem with "compromise" is that you violate the principle. There are many arguments for forcing people to do the right thing but they invariably lead to more misery because such action runs counter to the purpose of life which is to grow from being responsible and choosing to do the right. Being forced to be "charitable" is thus counterproductive and seems founded upon the ideas of the Adversary. It is pretty darn hard to be responsible when we do not have the choice. And to have that choice property must first be secured.

I agree - the gospel teaches us that we should be tidy, clean, respectful, love God's creations, use them as was intended, and be wise stewards. Most extreme movements and false philosophies and practices use good things like this (as a goal) to justify their methods. But in the methods they seek to accomplish something very different... Being wise stewards requires having a stewardship - it is critical. But bad environmental movements teach that we should have less of a stewardship (property) by either having government take it from us or pass regulations that place it beyond out full control (ownership is meaningless if you cannot control your property).

It's a simple principle, imho. Everyone has an equal right to own and control their own property. When you demand a greater percentage of that property from one group than another you cross into a state of injustice and violate the very purpose of government's existence. Tithing is 10% for all, for a reason. It's a good pattern for taxes. Though the taxes themselves also need to be just, but that's another thread

Man-made global warming appears to be, like so many politicized "science" issues today, another unscientific theory. Looking at who gains from the promotion of such an unsound idea we find that... * the idea of a threat justifies or excuses more laws to be passed to "protect" us. Governmental power thus increases and reaches further into our lives even to the point of a secular religion. * like other such ideas, it is used to set up a mentality of self-righteousness among less-minded people. It sets those who take such an attitude against those who question it. It causes division and ultimately will cause persecution. This is already beginning to happen. This again plays into the hands of those who would wish to control our lives. We've had enough clues from the fraudulent and baseless teachings of the environmental movement; the fact that a top Green Movement woman turned whistleblower and wrote a book about the real nature of the movement ("communism with a face lift" was how she described it) should alone have been enough to make thinking people wake up and stop being hoodwinked by the same perverse philosophies simply because of a change in name and stated focus. But people never seem to learn from history