FunkyTown

Yesterday was the day Russia lost the economic war with the US. Now, we're just watching to see how he responds. Siege economy tactics? Let the Rouble free-fall and hope for a rally on the energy sector? What he does next could show his hand. If anything, it'll be useful to know if he planned war from the beginning or if he just planned on saber rattling to get his nation more respect and power on the international market. If it's the second, things'll get back to normal first. If it's the first, expect a very strong response. The problem is that if it's the second, Mr. Putin will be shown as weak. Russia has never traditionally worked well with weak leaders. Expect big changes regardless. Unless Putin is smarter than me(Which he is) and he sees an option I don't see.

Those durn kids. Always gittin' on mah lawn. GIT OFF MA LAWN, YA NO GOOD VARMINTS! *shakes fist*

  I am not being silly.You understand, of course, that these people do not have millions of tons of wheat stored? Nor concrete, steel or clean water? You understand they are most likely not engineers nor architects, welders nor farmers. They are completely irrelevant to the problems at hand. They are a paper tiger whose 'wealth' is utterly beside the point to the problems at hand. If you took 4% of their wealth, you would not solve the worlds problems. Could not, in fact, because 4% of their wealth is 4% of a balance sheet. Unless the worlds problems involve a lack of 0s in their life, they won't be resolved. If you look at Germany pre-World War II, they were given large chunks of money. There was a major influx of money in to the system and costs skyrocketed - Businesses simply changed prices in accordance with the available funds. People were bringing their paychecks home in wheelbarrows. Due to the reparations forced on Germany, the government decided an influx of hard currency would be the way to resolve the issue. This resulted in massive hyperinflation. And companies simply upped their prices. Parents who had saved their whole lives suddenly were watching their children starve on millions of Marks. That isn't to say that nobody made money off of the back of this hyperinflation, however. Some made fortunes. If you simply take 4% of the wealthiest people's wealth, then you will simply change who is wealthy. That's it. It won't solve the problems you want. It will simply change power dynamics. To enact meaningful change requires an awful lot more than juggling numbers in a ledger. Do you understand what I mean when I say that I do not want to destroy the wealthy, but simply render them meaningless now? I don't care if someone owns a mansion in Beverly Hills. Good for them. That's not what I want, nor what I care for. I was not being silly when I asked that. You kept repeating the 'Eat the rich' mantra, when 'The rich' are simply irrelevant to the problems of the world except insofar as we enslave ourselves to their whim.

That's just it. You seem to almost be deliberately misinterpreting us. Willfully so. So I'm trying to get a feel for your understanding of wealth, so I will be even more specific: If I were to go to Warren Buffett's house, how many tons of concrete and steel could I cart off? Please be as specific as possible. If I were to go to Oprah Winfrey's house, how many tons of wheat could I expect to get? Please be as specific as possible.

I did not, as a matter of fact, use an ad hominem. An Ad Hominem would have been if I had said "You aren't volunteering at Habitat for Humanity, therefor your arguments are irrelevant." I simply pointed out that your view on how to solve humanity's issues was flawed. So, I will instead explain as best I can. This will require a set of answers from you. The 225 wealthiest people in the world. What percentage of wheat do they own - Not in vague promissory notes, but in a very concrete way: What percentage of the worlds wheat do they own?

But it is not the excess of wealth that is the problem. It is the lack in Bangladesh, not your surplus. It seems obvious that, like a lack of water in one area can be overcome by diverting a river to another area, so the stem of wealth can be redirected. It is not, however. Many have discussed that, so I would ask this: You have options - Right now - That can change the world. You can make a difference in a single life. You could work with Habitats for Humanity. You could go to a poverty-ridden place and teach people how to overcome, survive and prosper. Or you could be one of the many hundreds of thousands currently working on improving productivity to make goods and services more accessible, or you could work on a new economic system that created a better and easier flow of goods and services- Something fairer than our current, flawed system. With so many options, why concentrate on the one that requires the least investment from you, personally?

Perhaps there's a better way of doing that. It isn't the money that's the problem. Money is irrelevant to the issue at hand. As stated: Money isn't starving. If people need food, perhaps you could start something easier. In England, there are allotments where people grow food together. There are "Earth Ships" where dependency on the local energy grid is minimized and output is maximized for their area. Best of all, most of it is made from recyled junk that people would pay you to take. Have you considered that rather than depending on somebody else's wealth to change things, you could help people become self-sufficient? For instance: www.earthship.com What if you pushed to have the local council(I believe you're British, correct?) allow those and you helped people build them? You would reduce dependency upon the government, the local energy grid, you would help reduce the need for public energy, which in turn would reduce the costs of ownership. They're simple, easy to maintain. This is a concrete, simple step you could take tomorrow to help make the world a better place. Simply juggling numbers on a spreadsheet will not do that. Of course, helping people build homes that would, in turn, allow them to become wholly self-sufficient and reduce poverty on a measurable scale is much harder work than simply passing a law, but helping people to be self-sufficient will change lives. Real lives. Heck, if you're interested, I'd support you on that: Spend a few weekends packing sand in to recycled tires. Lay down solar panelling(Which the government is even now allowing tax breaks for). That's just one idea. You remember the American ideal I mentioned? "Who plans for who? Do I plan for myself or leave the planning to you? We need plans by the many, not by the few." Making small, measurable, sustainable gains is the way to save the world.

Oh, I think you may have misunderstood. I'm not saying that it will fail because of wars and corruption, I'm saying that the attempt to push through social justice from a centralized standpoint will cause wars and corruption. If you want every man, woman and child to be fed - That's a laudable goal. But it needs to be resolved in a way that doesn't require a centralized control. Centralized control allows the corruption in most people's hearts. Look at the most powerful nations in the history of the world. How incorruptible were their leadership? How often did they use their ability to resolve issues to shore up their own power? Rome. The British Empire. The United States. The Soviet Union. Babylon. Egypt. The various Chinese dynasties. All had incredible power and a centralized bureaucracy behind them. All of them had powerful forces for good on their side - The Code of Hammurabi, the Mandate of Heaven, Social Justice, Civilization, Freedom - Their various rallying cries could have changed the world. Men are, at heart, wicked creatures. If you want to change the world, you want to change the heart. If you did, then it wouldn't matter if it were government or charity that you had distributing needs. If you change the heart, the rest will follow. It will require social evolution to achieve what you are looking for, not bureaucratic evolution.

That is a fair question, and I think I have a fair answer: The world has a tendency to throw scraps of colored paper at issues even though it is not the lack of colored paper that tends to be the problem. When there was massive starvation in Ethiopia, it was not due to a lack of funding. It was due to a lack of infrastructure because of a massive war. When someone in the US goes hungry, it is not due to a lack of funding. In 2012, the US alone provided over £300 billion to various charities. There were 1.5 million people living below the poverty line. Even assuming only 3% went to poverty-based causes, that would still be over $2000 in food alone per person. That is very conservative, and that's with current existing numbers. Canada allows thousands of tons of food(As do many first world nations) to go rotten every year so that farmers are paid a fair and living wage for their wares. Many still go bankrupt. The issue isn't with money. Frankly, if you want to solve this problem, you need to address the lack of will and the failure of our current economy to address fundamental concerns over its ability to do the one thing an economy is supposed to do: Allow the free and easy movement of goods and services. If all you do is take 4% of the worlds budget, you will change who is made rich and who will starve. That's it. Because it's not the money that's causing starvation and it isn't the money that is suffering from starvation. What needs to change is the economy. What's the answer? I don't know. I haven't been able to come up with a better answer than the free market even with all the pain it causes. There has to be one, but it would take a better man than me. Centralized wealth redistribution breeds corruption and political toadying, discourages innovation and has left whole nations starving under their ideology. The Free market is a wolf, taking down anyone it deems weak because that person does not have the friends and/or family to lift them up when they have fallen(For any reason at all). Centralized wealth redistribution is a fat tyrant giving gifts to all its friends and growing steadily fatter on the largess of workers until they're crushed under its corruption and bureaucratic bulk. Capitalism is a hungry werewolf whose only real advantages over the other is that it devours fewer people and forces those others to move faster. There is a better way. But it'll take a better man than me to figure it out.

How would he know I was a Robin Hood-esque character trying to take the only generator for hundreds of miles around to rescue a bunch of sick people? This is why God will be judging us. If I broke on to his property and he caught me, would he be justified? If he was omniscient? No. If he wasn't? Sure. I'm just some guy stealing stuff.

Great. So you have somebody to blame and a lot of dead, formerly sick people. That's ideal. He doesn't care about assigning blame. In fact, neither do I. So: The answer to both your questions: "If there is a hospital and Bill Gates has 10 generators and the hospital none during a power outage and Bill refuses to part with any of his generators(Maybe he has a reason. I don't know), I would put out a general call. Maybe I have one. Maybe there's a family that doesn't care about being in the dark for 3 days to save a bunch of lives. I would go with them(Or give up my own), then refuse to buy any of Mr. Gates' products ever again. I would not invite him in to the community nor sell goods to him until I felt he learned his lesson, because he clearly isn't part of the community. If I had no other choice, I would take one of Mr. Gates' generators so the hospital had power, then turn myself over to police because what I did was essentially vigilanteism, which cannot be accepted in society."

Hidebound? Maybe. However, many people see government's role as a protector and provider for the least fortunate in society. He's British - That's a very British thing to think(Hence the NHS, which despite what a lot of American TV has said is actually pretty amazing). What he's saying sounds more like this is a cutural misunderstanding than having any particular view of Americans/Mormons. American Exceptionalism and a rugged Individualism colors the perceptions of most Americans in certain geographical locations of the US. It's ingrained in to the psyche that many take those things associated with American Exceptionalism for granted. I have a lot of respect for that philosophy. Regardless, I'm pretty sure his comments were colored by his cultural ideals - That everyone is responsible for everyone's well-being. Because the government is an existing infrastructure theoretically reigned in by 'Everyone', it's a useful tool for the distribution of needed goods and services to those least-fortunate people. That's not a bad philosophy, either. It all comes down to how you view government, not Mormons OR Americans.

I think you might be misinterpreting American Exceptionalism and Individualism. Many in the US have a severe distrust of national leadership. In fact, their whole modern nation began with a cry of 'No taxation without representation'. They aren't saying that they aren't their brothers' keeper: They're saying that the government isn't their brother's keeper. They aren't saying(Or most aren't), "We want no plans to help people in need." but rather they're asking, "Who plans for who? Do I plan for myself or leave the planning to you?" They might even say "We need plans by the many, not by the few." Many on this board give a large portion of their income to charity - Not just the 10% tithing, but actual charitable donations. Many help their next door neighbors. Their concern is not 'We should not help our worthless poor neighbors', but rather 'When centralized government controls the purse strings, it is inefficient and breeds corruption. By decentralizing solutions, you allow bespoke assistance to those in need. In theory. In practice, the US has a lot of people fall through the cracks. The UK does as well, though certainly not as many. However, as you have pointed out: They are the wealthiest nation on earth, so they must be doing something right.

That's a rough go. I've always felt God's love. Sometimes, I've felt pretty far from Him, or like I couldn't live up to my side, but I've always known He exists and loves me. But: I suffered from anxiety. For a very long time. It manifested itself in a mind-numbing fear of eternity - This niggling little feeling of 'What if I'm wrong?'At first, I used drugs to overcome it. Those drugs were amazing and helpful in letting me get past this feeling of tightness in my chest, a mild annoyance of everything that was even slightly off-putting and a feeling of emotional flatness. Eventually, the anxiety drained away for the most part. What was left is someone I feel much better about. It sounds like your issue is something on your part - The inability to feel the love of other people. There are numerous reasons that could be, but I won't speculate on that. Rather than thinking, "How do I feel that God loves me?" have you considered, "How can I help to fix whatever is helping me from feeling the love of other people?"

I'll be telling people that MOE is "Playing the Mind-crafting again." and judging people. If they try to judge me, I'll say "JUDGE NOT!" and point a big finger at those hypocrites. And if they point out that I'm judging them and so being a hypocrite, I'll say "THOU HYPOCRITE, WHO SWALLOWS A CAMEL BUT STRAINS A GNAT! GET THY BEAM OUT OF THY EYE, HYPOCRITE!!!!!!!" It'll be awesome. Kidding aside, I'd like to do missionary work and help other people. There would be a lot of people trapped by their own ideals and past. Maybe helping them would help me see the things holding me back. That would be amazing.

My wife and I have 2 Christmas Traditions: Once a year, we go to Harrod's. Harrod's is the really posh, expensive place that the super-rich go to - £45000($70000) purses and the like. We get a single, really good Christmas Tree ornament. We figure that we have an eternity of marriage, right? After only 50 years, we should have a fantastic tree.(note the Christmas ornaments are not nearly as expensive as the purses. ) The second Christmas tradition is that we get a goose for Christmas instead of a Turkey. I get really excited by this: Goose is fatty and delicious and you put it in the oven and let the fat drip down to the level below, drizzling over the potatoes. Goose fat potatoes are fantastic.

This one time, the gummint man came by my house and he was all breathing my air. Air what was on MY property. I hit that gummint man wif my car. And they call ME the criminal.

*munches on popcorn and watches*. Must be a full moon tonight.

YAY! We're in to logical fallacies. The argument you're saying here is what would be called a non-sequitur, or 'It does not follow' fallacy.However, can you point out who made that argument and where? I would suggest humbly that if you can not, you are using what is called a 'Strawman' fallacy. Me, I say it's okay to be a liberal Mormon because you can believe in the prophets, apostles, Jesus Christ, tithing, the Book of Mormon et al without being a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. There is nothing stopping a liberal from being Mormon doctrinally. Only socially. But I am interested to see where you saw someone argue that 'Because liberal Mormons are judged by conservative Mormons, it's okay to be liberal'. I obviously don't want to call out a strawman if I'm wrong and I'd love to be able to say "Wow. Was THAT person wrong. That's not why it's okay to be liberal at all. That's a meaningless argument. It's okay to be liberal for an entirely different reason.'

In a case like that, think of how the Savior taught Nicodemus. There was a man asking questions of controversial things that could be argued. Nicodemus came with the right spirit, to one who had authority. So, in a case like that where what you are taught might not be considered doctrine, you must ask: 1) Do you have authority to speak this? In this case, it's simple. The first Christians taught controversial things - They taught of the Son of God to a nation of unbelievers. But because they had knowledge of these things and it was simple and true, they taught of it. The Savior could speak of things like marriage in Heaven, Hell and all things in between. Others could not. 2) Is it necessary to salvation? Think of Paul, who avoided all the extraneous stuff that others thought so important. "I am of John." and "I am of Cephas". He counselled understanding and care for one another. He repeated the basic doctrine again and again. Ultimately, because you are not the Saviour nor a Prophet, you have authority to speak those things you know are true. You can talk of baptism, prophets, apostles, resurrection. Things that will keep you busy for all eternity. Anything more complex, stick to 'Line upon line and precept upon precept' when teaching. Why teach advanced nuclear physics to someone who doesn't know basic math?

Skalenfehl: I've read your links. They're good works and definitely enlightening. But: They are not scripture. They are plain, they are precious and I don't see anything wrong with them. I don't see these things being swept under the rug. Most of what I read - Such as the attributes of God - Are things we teach almost every week. If the brethren removed them, then there was a reason. These are not 'hidden truths'. Most of what I read had been paraphrased in other places or said in other ways. Those works were good and wonderful. But they are not scripture.

Culturally, some parts of the church are at odds with being both liberal and part of the church. Specifically in the US. Here in the UK, there are many people who love the NHS(National Health Service) who are members of the church. Strong members. There are many members who are anti-gun. Strong members. There are many members of all races, with many ideas on immigration and taxation. But the church is dependent on its members. If you're in a mostly Conservative area, it may be incompatible to be Liberal and a member of the church. Not because of the churches teachings, but because rugged individualism and American Exceptionalism is ingrained in to the psyche of those people. I'd suggest looking up cognitive dissonance and how it affects behaviour.

Are you? If so, we need an example.Both of my examples have been said to not be what you meant. Could you clarify and provide an example of where you offended by speaking the truth? That would be very helpful in providing meaningful insight. Without it, we'll just be coloring your answer with our own perception of what you mean.

In that case, it depends on what you're saying, in what context and to whom. Let's take this conversation: "Hey, Bob, I'm feeling a little down because my dog just died." "JESUS IS LORD!" "Thanks, Bob. It's just I -" "NOT MAMMON!" "But Bob... What does that have to do wi-" "YOU CAN CHOOSE WHOM YOU SERVE, BUT FOR ME I SERVE THE LORD!" "I just... Can you dial it back a bit? I don't really want to be shouted at." "I SPEAK ONLY GOSPEL TRUTHS! YOU SHOULD NOT HIDE YOUR LIGHT UNDER A BUSH!" "..." In this case, Bob is going to have very few friends.

Yep. Anatess, as always, is the Grand High Poombah of Most Right. Strive to speak the truth, but I have met far too many people who feel that the excuse "I was just being honest" covers for "I was just being mean." If you meet someone on the street and you say, "Wow! Your face is as ugly as a jarful of smashed, dirty buttocks." when they are, in fact, as ugly as a jarful of smashed, dirty buttocks - You are not 'Just being honest'. You are being hurtful. Even if it's the truth, it is a truth whose sole purpose is to be a bludgeon.