Backroads

I agree. Just because Happy Harry is rich doesn't mean he's smart enough for Harvard.

According to your definition being "equal opportunity without to parent's economic standing", it does suggest that all babies at birth should have the exact same economic opportunities. I don't know if that's what you mean or not, but even if you were to give every baby X amount of dollars, it's up to the parents' to spend that money, not baby. I have no idea how to start everyone out equally in such a way. Some babies are born into rich families, some babies are born into poor families. Economic status does have an impact. I see no problem with Rich Baby going to fancy expensive private school and Poor Baby going into public school. I think both babies should have an opportunity for education, but I don't think Poor Baby is automatically entitled to Rich Fancy Expensive School. But yes, I fully believe in equality of opportunity. I see it more as prevention, though. There would be no laws obstructing Baby from trying to do whatever he wants. Baby should have opportunities to schools. Nothing should stop Baby from choosing to get a job. Question 2: If yes, can it be achieved without destroying initiative? How? I guess my above answers slipped into this. Yes, it can be done without destroying iniative. No laws or anything should prevent Poor Baby (or Rich Baby, for that matter) from going for an education if he chooses, a job if he chooses. Now, I can't guarantee either Baby will get the jobs they want, the school they want, etc. But I think if laws keep everything open, that will suffice.

Same here. I figure one day we can know all the particulars, but until then I'll file it under "cool story, don't necessarily believe it."

Didn't see anything until this last post, but I agree with you in essence. I'm sure what people really want is a lot more complex than this, but to me it seems to be the basic idea. A lot of people say we have a moral obligation to help others in need and I agree. I think more highly of people who do share than those who don't. But who am I to demand they share? Forced charity is not true charity.

Fascinating. Thanks for sharing.

I'm still a temple newbie, but I don't think I've had any significant revelations in my life as a result of attending the temple. Then again, I've never been prone to any of the visions/voices/deep epiphanies, etc. I do like the temple, though. It clears my mind.

So... I'm on good terms with family again. I've kept husband and family separate. I'm feeling pretty good about everything, and family even says they are okay with everything. That's what they say. In the same breath, my mother has said she is good with everything but also wants to tell my husband off. She's willing to debate if that is a good idea or not, but the fact that it is something on her mind leads me to serious doubt to if she has actually forgiven him. She wants us to come to dinners and such, but I'm afraid it will just be an opportunity for her to pull my husband aside and start World War III. What's the best way to tell if family can coincide again?

I doubt anyone on this board is anti-charity or anti-kindness. But I am against someone who feels entitled to free coffee and donuts, who insists that free coffee and donuts is necessary to his existence. I might be totally taking your post of context, but I'm having trouble grasping what you mean.

I do have to wonder how much quality is in the free college education. Lots of poor people come up with ways to pay. When I started college, I was working below minimum wage. I found scholarships and loan and gran options. My parents did not contribute to my college. I'm sure if I tallied up what I made, I would be well beneath the poverty line. Plenty of college students are on the same level as the "too poor to go to college". I don't understand how being poor is an excuse.

That's a bit low... let's accuse the Savior of things He never said, shall we? Very tactful. Higher education is a priviledge. How exactly do you guarantee free college to everyone? And how do you guarantee "play money" when other people are starving? No one is stopping poor people from getting an education. There are scholarships and grants available to anyone who bothers to actually look for them. Now I'm as big a supporter of educational reform as anyone, but no poor person has the right to say he can't go to college when he doesn't even bother to try.

...or is merely biding their time before the human sacrifice...

I know this is slightly off the current topic of this thread, but I was just talking with a woman who is big on these protests. She really believes that all college students should not only be guaranteed a cheap college education (which I suppose is arguable) but should be GUARANTEED EXTRA PLAY MONEY so they can have a "fulfilling" college experience. To her, no college student should have to work hard to put himself through school.

Happy birthday!

Supposedly it goes to help the Scouts. But, to be honest, it usually just goes to paying people. Which in essence is fine, because you can't realistically expect people to just volunteer full-time service hours. But... I think it gets abused a bit.

Neither do I. For me, if male and female can be mentioned in Chapter 1, then a male and female can be mentioned again and by name in the 2nd chapter.... shouldn't it be just as valid the idea of a man before Adam? Why does this prove a Lilith? Still, I suppose from a purely storybook perspective it's a fun idea.

The best I've seen for "evidence" is scripture wording From Genesis 1 Then, after referring to woman once, in the next chapter we have... From Genesis 2 The idea being that a woman was referred to once before the mention of Eve. Don't know if it's accurate--this was an explanation I saw years and years ago--but for me there are far too many holes.

I've seen little girls with the name. Still around. Keep in mind, many people find the concept of Lilith as something to celebrate.

Si, an old Jewish legend. Also the name of an awesome demon character on Supernatural.

Symbolism in stories. Parables rarely stated the gospel principal; rather, a story more applicable to their lives and experiences were used. Once they had that background knowledge, Christ was free to expand on the gospel meaning.

I deeply apologize. I was trying to summarize the movement, which is what I assume you were defending. Here's where I got my thoughts: You feel no one really needs billions upon billions of dollars. You're not against Joe Anybody starting a successful business and making a few million dollars or whatever--as long as he did it with reasonal ethics. You are suspicious of the ethics of those who do have billions upon billions of dollars and wonder if any laws were tiptoed around. You think certains laws should be tightened/altered/created in order to keep in check those who are putting money over morals. You feel it would be nice for American job opportunies to stay in America.

All right, my council has just begin the chartering process for the 2012 Scout units and I'm pretty sure I now comprehend every possible issue. If anyone just so happens to be doing rechartering at this time, I am available for questions. Don't know if this counts as spam.

While it's understandable, getting scared... I just don't think this qualifies as a 911 emergency. I'm a little POed they did that.

Okay, Spartan, I'm going to throw a summary at you; please correct me if I'm mistaken. You're not against Joe Anybody starting a successful business and making a few million dollars or whatever--as long as he did it with reasonal ethics. You are suspicious of the ethics of those who do have billions upon billions of dollars and wonder if any laws were tiptoed around. You feel no one really needs billions upon billions of dollars. You feel it would be nice for American job opportunies to stay in America. You think certains laws should be tightened/altered/created in order to keep in check those who are putting money over morals.

Actually, that made perfect sense to me. Okay, I"ll accept a lack of structured purpose now that I get the ideal.

I love how you and MoE have worded this conversation. I really do think there's a gap between the publicized, everyday Church ideal that is perceived (even if that's not how it's intended) and the actual Gospel and intended set-up of the Church. I do believe the concept of the Church and how it should function is perfect, but it doesn't seem to function correctly--or at least somewhere our perception doesn't match up with the actual and/or intended function.