• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    MrShorty reacted to NeuroTypical in The gift of Aaron   
    No really Vort, if Jonah wants to turn Thirdhour into a searchable database of well-answered topical issues, that's his business.  
  2. Like
    MrShorty reacted to NeuroTypical in The gift of Aaron
  3. Like
    MrShorty reacted to Carborendum in Eternity, infinity, and limits   
    I think the basis of disagreement is founded in conflating an asymptotic limit vs a dimensional limit.
    I had thought the limit of a Telestial was like a really, really big box.  The Terrestrial is just a much bigger box.   I'm thinking this is wrong.
    I'm now thinking the Telestial is more like being stuck on a line that goes on forever.  A train track on a long journey that goes on forever.  As long as you keep moving along that train track, you can continue to improve.  But you only have one dimension, the track.  An infinitely long track.  But a single dimension.
    The Terrestrial would be infinitely wide plane or even a universe.
    The celestial would not only have an infinite universe.  You'd have infinite numbers of infinite universes. 
    (I'm shorthanding my more complete explanation above).
  4. Haha
    MrShorty reacted to Carborendum in My Dog Is Trans   
    That's gotta be some kind of joke.  Tell me the guys who run really didn't believe it would be a good idea to have it re-direct to
  5. Like
    MrShorty reacted to Vort in Eternity, infinity, and limits   
    I haven't watched this Numberphile (yet—great channel, btw), but given the assumptions that the trees extend infinitely in both directions on a perfectly Euclidian plane and that the tree trunks and the laser beam are all infinitesimally narrow (and that the tree branches, leaves, etc. aren't part of the question), I'm going to say yes, you will always hit a tree. My sense is that such a problem is like saying, "If you pick any real number at random, will you get a rational or an irrational?" The set of irrationals is so much larger than the rationals that it becomes infinitely improbable that you would end up with a rational. Similarly, I'm guessing it's infinitely improbable that you point the laser in exactly a "rational" direction such that you avoid all the infinite tree trunks.
    But if it's infinitely improbable, isn't that the same as saying it's impossible? Yet we can see that e.g. if you point the laser exactly parallel to a row of trees, that it will never hit a tree trunk. So what does "impossible" mean in this case? What do probabilities mean? It becomes practically a philosophical conundrum, at least for someone as tender and innocent in the arcane ways of mathematics as am I.
    EDIT: Wow. I was exactly, 180° wrong, and for exactly the reasons I discussed. I wonder how I missed that. The trees represent, in effect, the rational set of numbers, so as long as you pick an effectively "irrational" direction, you'll miss the trees. So with infinitely thin trees and an infinitely narrow laser, it is in effect impossible to point the laser in any direction on the plane and hit a tree.
  6. Like
    MrShorty reacted to Carborendum in Eternity, infinity, and limits   
    Yes, this is what I had heard about before.  I understand Aleph0.  I don't get what comes next.
    I see you had the same problem I had.
    I was actually told differently.  I was told that all those things I spoke of were all Aleph0. And there were more things in Aleph1.  But as I said, I have no idea what that means.  The person telling me all this struggled to explain it himself. And the example he gave me was something I disproved in a couple minutes.  Maybe he didn't know either.
    I'm essentially saying something along the lines of...
    That is what I was saying about the various infinity^n.  I don't know how it could be ineterpreted any other way.
    This is how I was describing achieving perfection in this life, where x = time in mortality.  Some argue that this is also how we progress eternally through the Telestial and Terrestrial.  I'm toying with the idea that this notion is not correct, hence, my three dimensions and infinite dimensions pradigm. I did not realize that McConkie agreed with me.
    I don't see this as much different than the original 3-d and infinite-D model.  Sure there is a numerical difference.  But conceptually, they're pretty much the same.
    BTW, I liked the Numberphile link you provided.  I've been a fan of that channel. But I never saw that video before.  One thing that he brought up, but didn't get into much: Something I believe to be at the root of why sealing is so important.
    When you add dimension to the trees or the laser, it really doesn't really matter how much dimension it is.  The original analysis was based on the trees and laser being of zero dimension.   But once you give both of them any measurable dimension at all, then anywhere you point will eventually hit a tree.
    I believe that this concept is why we need to be sealed.  I believe sealing is the "dimension" of eternity.  I know that makes no sense as a point-for-point allegory.  But conceptually interpreting the math, that is the closest thing to where sealing falls into eternity (off the top of my head postulate).
    The orchard problem also brings up another interesting point.The fact that the zero dimensions will only hit on rational numbers says something.  We mortals try to fit everything into neat little rational boxes.  We have a mind, we therefore must be able to understand all the things of God with using our intellect alone.
    Compared with the Lord, our intellect is infinitesimal (i.e. has zero dimensional width).  So, we limit ourselves when we depend entirely on our rational mind alone.  Certainly the rational mind focuses and provides some framework.  But if we are to understand eternity and infinity, we must look at and make use of the irrational numbers.  By the orchard analogy, we know there are infinitely more irrational numbers than rational numbers.  And some of the most important numbers like pi and e are irrational. And they govern the design and intent of so much in this universe alone.
    Why do we limit ourselves when the Spirit is right there waiting for us to simply listen?  Listen, and we had some dimension to our being.
  7. Haha
    MrShorty reacted to Vort in Eternity, infinity, and limits   
    mordorbund mulls math mysteries.
  8. Like
    MrShorty reacted to mordorbund in Eternity, infinity, and limits   
    I'm not sure what you mean by [infinity]n, so I'm going to propose a few models and we can discuss them.
    Usually when we talk about different infinities we are talking about the cardinalities of some infinite set. We start with all Natural numbers [1, 2, 3, ...] and we know there's infinitely many of them [inf]Nat. We compare that against a set that only contains even numbers [2, 4, 6, ...] and our instincts say this should have 1/2 the cardinality of [inf]Nat, but it turns out that for every element in [inf]Nat there's a matching element in [inf]Even.[inf]Even[k] = 2*[inf]Nat[k]. So the cardinalities are exactly the same. This is expressed as Aleph0. (Hebrew - for when your math exceeds Greek notation). Similarly, sets of odds, squares, and primes all have this same cardinality. Even the set of all rationals (Natural + fractions) have this same cardinality. It's all Aleph0. The set of all irrationals, on the other hand, does not map back to the set of Natural numbers so it has a different Aleph (I couldn't tell you what it is, as I've reached the limit of my knowledge on this subject) as does the set of all Reals which subsumes it.
    A models come from this knowledge. First, we can say that when you say infinity you really mean Aleph0, infiinity2 is Aleph1, and so on. In this case I'm not sure what infiintyinfinity means. This model suggests that Telestial progress is unbounded as far as formal limits go, but vastly smaller than any others. I'm unfamiliar with other Alephs so I can't add anything further here.
    Second, we could say that when you say infinity, you mean the infinity of a specific infinite set. We'll say that's [inf]Even and infiinty2 is [inf]Nat and infinity3 is [inf]Rational.Additionally, we'll say infinityinfinity is [inf]Real. Again, the implication is that Telestial progress is infinite, but now each kingdom's elements (or experiences, or achievements, or glory) is a subset of the kingdom above it. Additionally, this shows some commonality between the first three (all are countably infinite) and a special state of the highest degree (uncountably infinite). If you want to bring immortality and eternal life into the discussion it would work well. An additional implication is that the lower kingdoms move "faster" than the higher. The kth even element when charted on a number line is farther along than the kth natural which is farther along than the kth rational and so on. You can tease some meaning out of that, but don't know how relevant it would be.
    A third way we could view it (similar to the 2nd in implications) that lines up more with what you cited to McConkie is to use a number graph. Every degree adds another axis. The x-axis (Telestial) progresses infinitely, and go move along however fast or slow you want it to. But it never enters the y-axis (Terrestrial). y=0. Always. But that's okay, because x- knows nothing of y. A 2-D graph is quite literally infinity2 so it matches up with your naming convention. The Celestial then is 3-D. The advantage of this model is that it's probably more approachable to the (mathematically) lay person than the others.  For the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom I would perhaps model it as having Dimensions upon Dimensions added upon it because, as God offers another Dimension the Celestial person never says no.
    The next 2 don't apply to your model but I mention them just for completion.
    A fourth way that your modeling is contrasting (but which I'm going to include since that's the one sometimes used for this discussion so it gives a baseline to the discussion) is asymptotic progression. In this one you can view the positive quadrant for 

    and then just change that first 1 value for Kingdom Max. The first 3 all have some max that is ever approached but never reached, while Exaltation is not asymptotic.
    A fifth model which this stands in contrast with is the one that seems to come to mind simply because of math ignorance. It has Telestial = x, Terrestrial = x2, and Celestial = x3, (and maybe Exaltation is nx?). These are unbounded, but their differences are simply the rate of progression.
  9. Like
    MrShorty reacted to laronius in Baptism of the Holy Ghost?   
    Little children who died before the age of accountability don't need to be baptized. So it's possible that the Holy Ghost also doesn't need to be baptized unless there is some scenario where it is requisite for him also to "fulfill all righteousness" like it was with Jesus. But I do believe that Joseph Smith did say that at some point he would be an exalted being with a body. But that in and of itself does not automatically necessitate baptism. There is much we do not know in this regard.
  10. Like
    MrShorty got a reaction from JohnsonJones in Samuel the Lamanite and rocks above the Earth   
    @laronius That might be the most reasonable interpretation. A different use of the preposition "above" -- I usually use "above" to mean something higher than "sitting on top of," but that is just me.
  11. Like
    MrShorty reacted to Traveler in Samuel the Lamanite and rocks above the Earth   
    Although I agree with you thinking - I am of the mind that we will not really understand until we can have a talk with one of our ancient brethren of that lost civilization.    Maybe one our our Lamanite survivors may have some insight.
    I thought I might add that a road side sign that says "Watch for falling rocks" may be similar?????
    The Traveler
  12. Like
    MrShorty reacted to Carborendum in Eternity, infinity, and limits   
    Once upon a time I mused about the rate of improvement I was making in overcoming my weaknesses and faults.  Yes, I actually spend some time pondering "what lack I yet?" and how much further I have to go, what I need to repent of.
    I had made a meaningless calculation that I could possibly achieve perfection in another 400 years.  But that was really off because of a simple mathematical thing known as "asymptotes."  I believe our improvement in this life is largely asymptotic.  That is why it is so difficult to be perfect.  Yes, the scriptures speak of "perfect men" who have been purified in Christ.  But I'm still wondering what that means.
    It seems almost paradoxical that as our improvement in this life is asymptotic, the progression in eternity is not limited in any way.  And I'm beginning to wonder if that is so in the lower kingdoms as well. 
    Pondering the three kingdoms, I wondered: Are the Telestial and Terrestrial really "limited"?  The "progression between kingdoms" crowd speak of the lower kingdoms trailing behind the engine of the celestial. They get to the same point, just a bit later.  I rejected that notion.  But what is the alternative?  Either there is a cap on where the other kingdoms go, or...
    Bruce R. McConkie says that "they don't even go in the same direction."  Still not sure what that means.  But when thinking of it from a mathematical perspective, I considered: What if
    Telestial = infinity. Terrestrial = infinity^2. Celestial (lower levels) = infinity^3. Celestial (highest degree) = infinity^infinity. Then even the Telestial is not "damned" because there is still no cap.
    I'm fairly certain that most people won't see the difference because they don't understand the nature of the exponential infinities that I just posited.  Beyond that, there are higher levels of infinity (beyond infinity^infinity) that I was recently introduced to (a few years back) that I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around.  But regardless of the nature of these infinities, it is interesting that such concepts are talked about in math, but don't quite make it into gospel discussions.  I wonder if any of this could clarify some doctrinal questions.
  13. Like
    MrShorty reacted to Carborendum in Samuel the Lamanite and rocks above the Earth   
    The underlined part indicates they knew about plate tectonics.  Verse 22 seems to indicate that after the death of Christ, there were many more plates than there were before.
    It looks like they had some knowledge of these sciences.  But Samuel, himself, only had a high school level education on the topic, so some of the message wasn't completely clear from a technical standpoint.  But since he was speaking to the common man, it was an easy way to say.
    Major Earthquakes ==> Massive changes to the land as we know it.
  14. Like
    MrShorty reacted to Just_A_Guy in Kissing and making out before marriage? My friend told me that I should accept his standard on this   
    The part I’ve bolded, is the part that caught my attention.
    How many girls have you had “kissing sessions” with?
    Of those girls, how many of the relationships turned out to be “secure”?
    Answer:  unless you are now married, the answer is zero.  You didn’t have a secure relationship with any of those girls.  If you had, the relationship wouldn’t have ended.
    So now, you’ve got a bunch of failed relationships where either you, the girl involved—or both of you—thought it was serious and committed, and it really wasn’t.  And so the breakup becomes, not an amicable parting of two good people who on further investigation simply turned out to be incompatible; but a betrayal, a reminder of unmet expectations and unkept promises.  All of that leaves a mark, psychologically and spiritually.  It impacts the way we bond, and the quality of future relationships. 
    God doesn’t want us to play around with people’s emotions like that just for the sake of a cheap semi-sexual thrill.  And we aren’t really doing ourselves any favors with that kind of thing, either.
    I’m not saying we should never kiss anyone we don’t plan to marry.  But I am suggesting that physicality cannot be cavalierly transactionalized without, to some degree, stunting our ability to form and enjoy and maintain meaningful relationships in the future.  Fully restoring that ability—viz, repentance—is not an easy or a pleasant or a short process.
  15. Like
    MrShorty got a reaction from dprh in Samuel the Lamanite and rocks above the Earth   
    I guess I'm a little behind in Come Follow Me, but I was recently reading the account of Samuel the Lamanite. In describing the events that would occur around the death of Christ, he talks about the rocks upon the face of the Earth, both above and beneath (see Helaman 14:21 and 22). The amateur geologist in me initially was thinking in geologic terms, but the idea of rocks above the earth did not make sense. I could understand rocks beneath and rocks on the face of the Earth, but those above?
    But, one does not need to read the text as if it is about geology. Maybe it is just a "fancy" way of talking about all of the rocks (something about the number 3, so that we talk about 3 types of rocks instead of 2)? Or is there another ancient meaning or context for talking about rocks above the Earth? Could "earth" be used here more to talk about "our level" and "rocks above" could refer to high mountains (though high mountains are usually associated with geologically active regions which doesn't match with the rocks beneath being a solid mass, but there I go again, talking about it as if it is geology and not something else)?
    It's a small thing that really doesn't change Samuel's overall message, but does anyone have any insights on the concept of "rocks above the earth"?
  16. Like
    MrShorty reacted to dprh in Samuel the Lamanite and rocks above the Earth   
    I hadn't thought of it before, that I recall.  I'd go with it meaning mountains. 
  17. Like
    MrShorty got a reaction from dprh in Samuel the Lamanite and rocks above the Earth   
    I guess I'm a little behind in Come Follow Me, but I was recently reading the account of Samuel the Lamanite. In describing the events that would occur around the death of Christ, he talks about the rocks upon the face of the Earth, both above and beneath (see Helaman 14:21 and 22). The amateur geologist in me initially was thinking in geologic terms, but the idea of rocks above the earth did not make sense. I could understand rocks beneath and rocks on the face of the Earth, but those above?
    But, one does not need to read the text as if it is about geology. Maybe it is just a "fancy" way of talking about all of the rocks (something about the number 3, so that we talk about 3 types of rocks instead of 2)? Or is there another ancient meaning or context for talking about rocks above the Earth? Could "earth" be used here more to talk about "our level" and "rocks above" could refer to high mountains (though high mountains are usually associated with geologically active regions which doesn't match with the rocks beneath being a solid mass, but there I go again, talking about it as if it is geology and not something else)?
    It's a small thing that really doesn't change Samuel's overall message, but does anyone have any insights on the concept of "rocks above the earth"?
  18. Like
    MrShorty reacted to priesthoodpower in Elder Holland and Dr. George Wood of Assemblies of God   
    When asked about different faith groups becoming friendlier with each other - Dr. Wood: "Im old enough now that I trust the holy spirit."
    I feel that the increase of evil and attack on religion over the past couple of decades is helping/forcing christian faiths to unite and look beyond their differences. Yet another example of the pride and stubborness in christianity that stands in the way of the work going forward. All denominations including LDS have a lot more growing to do.
  19. Like
    MrShorty reacted to JohnsonJones in How would you answer this?   
    U.S.A, U.K, France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Canada, Switzerland, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Spain, and many other nations have adopted Socialism in one way or another...some more than others. 
    I'm not seeing their implementations as much evil or not.
    The USA today has it's military on an almost pure socialistic program...which is more socialistic than most other nations that have some socialist tendencies.
    Of course, many today also mistake that the US is a purely Capitalistic nation as well...which it is not.  Corporatism is perhaps a greater threat to capitalism in the US today than it's socialist policies, which has led more to Corporate Socialism (which some WOULD say is pretty evil...where things are considered to big to let fail) than letting capitalism do it's thing.
    When people refer to pure socialism, that has never existed in any nation in the world thus far, though there have been several societies that have tried it.  Ironically, one of the societies that came closest to complete success was the early Mormon branches that were in the Utah Territory.  Roosevelt and others actually turned to the Church (some good people like Roosevelt, others not so good like the Nazi's) for inspiration and instruction on how to construct programs that were similar to ones the Church ran in prior times, as well as the descendants of those programs that were run by the Church at that time.  (And it should be noted, early welfare under Roosevelt was VASTLY different than what we have today...and was more similar to what some think a program like that should be where they had people work for the assistance they were given).
    This is where I see a LOT of people today (Especially in the Church) get confused.  The church has always been against a specific form of socialism or a specific form of Communism.  It was very much PRO-Socialism...especially in the late 19th and early 20th century, and many of the socialistic programs that were formed at the time were actually directly inspired or created by the Church itself. 
    HOWEVER, Marxism, or Marxist Communism was abhorred for multiple reasons.  It is almost always the quotes that are warning against this great evil that people take out of context (though I think it is that they simply did not understand what was going on at the time, nor why it was specifically this type of government that was so evil and was being warned against) today in arguing against socialistic policies or what they call socialism.
    There were several bad things that were going on with this type of Communism, which normally was simply called Communism. was understood at the time when they talked about Communism they were directly referring to the type of Governments that were set up in the USSR and then China and their influence to spread that type of government throughout the world.  We all knew who they were talking about and referring to.  They weren't talking about the government in Japan and how they had socialistic policies, nor were they talking about our friends up North in Canada.  It was talking about the Communist societies in the USSR and how their influence was changing programs in the US (for example how the above mentioned welfare established under Roosevelt was transformed into the welfare system that we have today).
    Second, the big and great evil of these Communists were that they enforced atheism.  They were avowed to destroy the gospel and the things of God.  If there were things of good and religious value, they were set to try to destroy them.  If the Reds (as Communists could be called) took over the world as they intended, it would destroy the work of the Lord.  In fact, if any threat in the 20th century could be considered the greatest threat to the Church and the work of the would have been that type of Communism.  It literally was a war (though cold) between the forces that would support the work of the lord and those that sought to destroy it.
    Third, they did not use inspiration from the Lord, or values of hard work and charity and love to give necessities of life to those in need.  Instead it was a more mechanical system governed by an Oligarchy (which is not really a socialism or socialistic ideal) of men...normally evil men...grinding away those who worked hard to help society while uplifting at times those who did not care about society.  At the same time, because it was an oligarchy it rewarded corruption and wickedness more than virtue and love.
    Everything about Marxist Communism was evil and the Church and Church leaders stood against it.  It was clear when they talked about the evils of Communism WHO and WHAT they were talking about.  We, who were alive, knew who they were referring to.  It wasn't our friends in NATO, or the governments were created overseas, or our friends up was specifically the Reds...and the threat of them was VERY real in our lives (from Nuclear war, to the threat of them taking over our government in secret).
    It was NOT in reference to the idea of socialism of which one could point directly at the church at times as having been the actual inspiration behind some of the programs (and thinking the church would call the things it created itself as evil...I find rather ridiculous...but seems to be popular among some in the Church today for whatever reasons).  It's not some of the ideas behind socialistic policies (or socialism...though not really pure socialism, but the idea that we can help those that are in need as a society by providing them the necessities of life, as long as they are willing to also help society in working to further and help that society) that the Church was against, but against specific evils that some forms of socialism, or more specifically, Red Communists, were advocating at the time.
  20. Like
    MrShorty reacted to Midwest LDS in Neuro's seitch for fremen fanboys   
    You're not the only one. I'm super excited about the movie for all the reasons you mentioned. Now if they can just get a cameo with Patrick Stewart charging into battle holding a pug😉......
  21. Haha
    MrShorty reacted to NeuroTypical in Neuro's seitch for fremen fanboys   
    The multi-decadelong fanboys like me will compare it against previous attempts.  This trailer does several things for me:
    - They got ornithopters right!  Dragonfly wings!  I'm in heaven.
    - The music is a remake of Pink Floyd's Eclipse.  The never-made Jodorowsky's attempt at Dune, was planning to approach Pink Floyd for the soundtrack.  All the spice and spice trances and spice visions and spice consciousness transformations seem to demand nothing less.  
    - I remember spending the '80's and '90's, sad that human technology just would never progress enough to be able to do justice to the Lord of the Rings.  Then computer CGI and Peter Jackson gave us the gift of ten thousand orcs laying siege to Minas Tirinth.   Watching this trailer and seeing the worm devour the spice harvester, watching the shields, the look of the Sardukar troops, well, I'm hopeful.
    I'm tired of being the underdog, hoping for a fandom boost.  Now, if they can just get Feyd's outfit right...

  22. Haha
    MrShorty reacted to JohnsonJones in Neuro's seitch for fremen fanboys   
    I'm not someone who watches movies regularly, or is much into the entertainment scene these days...but...
    Is this just a trailer to announce another trailer which is to announce a film?
  23. Like
    MrShorty reacted to JohnsonJones in Alma 30:7-11   
    In a moral society, one should vote for moral laws.  This means in a society based upon the laws of Christianity or the Laws of the Lord, than one must select laws based upon the laws the Lord has given.
    The United States Constitution is not based upon such things necessarily, but grants certain rights to people.  They have the right to religion and to believe as they want.  This means that many things we find immoral, are perfectly constitutional among the citizens of the United States.
    This could mean that someone who believes in ritual sacrifice of human beings, in theory, is allowed to believe this way.  However, this also creates problematic issues if they practice this.
    Thus another interpretation of these rights, are that one has the freedom to practice their rights until they infringe upon the rights of another.  Thus, though they could believe in murdering others....if they actually practice this it is an infringement upon the rights of another.
    This can get tricky in regards to immorality, for immorality can include more than one individual.  Where does one draw the line between Constitutional rights and Morality?
    This is not something the Church really dictates to us, but allows each of us the free agency to choose what we feel is the right course of action. 
    While some may feel that Constitutionally they should allow others to do as they wish  (for example, polygamy.  The early church was prosecuted for it's practice, but in theory, the Constitution should protect those who religiously practice such a thing.  How then does one feel about how far others should be allowed to practice odd marriage beliefs.  Should polygamy be allowed...or other forms of weird marriages such as Gay Marriage?), some think that we need to take into consideration the morality that our Fore Fathers would also have expressed (meaning such things as Abortion, or Gay Marriage are things they probably would not have approved of in their mindset).
    It may seem a simple question on the root of it, but can get far more complex the deeper you dive.
  24. Like
    MrShorty reacted to Fether in Alma 30:7-11   
    “there was no law against a man’s belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds ... Now if a man desired to serve God, it was his privilege; or rather, if he believed in God it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him... But if he murdered he was punished unto death; and if he robbed he was also punished; and if he stole he was also punished; and if he committed adultery he was also punished; yea, for all this wickedness they were punished. For there was a law that men should be judged according to their crimes. Nevertheless, there was no law against a man’s belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on equal grounds.”
    This section seemed to be referencing both the current law of the land as well as the laws of G*d.
    It seems that man can believe what they want but they are To be punished Civilly if their belief leads to actions that are contrary to G*d.
    Now to my question along with some context. 
    I was debating with a friend of mine that bill in CA that “legalized pedophilia”. Now it doesn’t do that, far from it actually. But the reality of the bill is still not moral. It allows consensual sex between a 14-17 year old with someone that is less than 10 Years older than them. It is seeded in immorality that puts off the commandment of not committing adultery or doing anything like unto it.
    This law is based in different beliefs on morality, and there is no law of G*d that tells someone what they must believe. this is the same with LGBTQ rights and laws.
    If we live in a nation where many are on the LGBTQ spectrum and differing views on sexual morality, would it be against the laws of G*d to vote in laws that prevent others from living according to their belief? Or would it be against the laws of G*d to vote for laws that allow those of opposing belief to break commandments? 
  25. Like
    MrShorty reacted to Jane_Doe in How would you answer this?   
    Before getting into quotes, we need to first define what is meant by "socialism" in the questioner's context.  The USSR's version of socialism is not the same as Barnie Sander's version, and the questioner likely has a different version as well.
    Rather than talking about an entire nebulous package, I find it's best to talk about individual principles.   Let's take the importance of work for example.    There are plenty of quotes out there along the lines of "by the sweat of your brow, thou shall eat bread."   There's also lots of quotes about caring for the needy.  And a HUGE thing that's been stressed lately by the Brothern is financial responsibility and self-reliance.   
    <Sorry Pam, I know you were looking for a Ask Gramps style answer, and not the discussion-based one I gave>