yjacket

And that is where tithing gets interesting-especially running a personal business. You expense everything. The easiest way if you have a personal business is to pay tithing on the AGI . . .but when you expense everything your AGI can be really low-even if you had a good year. So now you have to calculate two things, AGI for the government and then what you think your actual income is??? I guess my point is that for many business if you paid 10% on any income that you had come in, you could easily go broke. Many business live on tiny margins but make up for it on value. So you really have to factor in all your costs before you can pay tithing.

This is one of those things that I would say take to the Lord about. I have thought about this. The scriptures say 10% of your increase and the Church says this is interpreted as 10% of your income, interest, increase, etc. So that's pretty cut and dry; the rub (IMO) comes with inflation. Regardless of inflation states, housing inflation is much, much higher than regular inflation. Housing inflation is ~5%/year, where as CPI says it's only 2%/year. Obviously the law of returns says something is out of wack here. Housing can't go up @5%/year while wages stagnate or go up 2% a year . . .eventually most people get priced out, you have a housing collapse, etc. So for example, say I bought a brand new house in the mid 1970s and never moved until now. Say I bought the house for 60k in 1975 and now I'm selling it to live somewhere else and now I sell it for 350k. If I simply go by the CPI calculator: https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=60&year1=1975&year2=2017. 60k in 1975 is worth ~270k in 2017 money. So on an apples to apples at best I have an increase of 70k. But then what if I had a mortgage for 30 years?? In 1975, the rate was ~10%. After 30 years I would have paid 130k in interest payments. So now if I factor that in, did I really have an increase??? But at the same time, I also probably dropped thousand and thousands of dollars into repairs, maintenance, etc. Okay, so over the long horizon it get more complicated . . .but what if I was simply fortunate to buy before a bubble hit and now I've lived there 3 years. I've done nothing to the place-I haven't improved, I've just lived in it and after 3 years b/c of a housing bubble now the house is worth twice what I paid for it? Should I now pay tithing on the increase?? And this gets to another philosophical point, a house an expense not an investment. Just like renting is an expense or buying a car is an expense. If you want a house as an investment then you buy a property you can rent out (and that for tithing I think would be a lot more cut and dry). I guess the bottom line is. I have no clue. It is probably up to each individual to determine what they think their increase is and take it to the Lord.

Amen . . .one of those things that they don't teach in school that in some ways I wish I knew more about. "How to play office politics ethically, while at the same time crushing your enemies who don't!!!" :-) Major, major bubble bursting when you realize that even though you were brought up to be honest, have integrity, etc. when a lot of people around you don't.

And Trump is seriously ticking me off. 1st month was great. OCarelite, bombs Syria . . . .if that is what we wanted then we should have elected Jeb Bush.

I'd like I said, you don't need 60 votes to pass legislation you only need 50+1

I'd rather have nothing, let OCare collapse than pass a rotten bill that is just OCarelite. Do what is right, let the consequence follow! :-),:-).

Hmm . . . I hadn't thought about it that way; interesting insight. In my experience, I generally think most RS Pres. have kids, I'd probably say less so for YW/YM and Primary Pres. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing; my wife and I were called to be primary teachers before we had kids. I guess in some ways good to give exposure to kids, maybe some ways bad as I'd hate to stick an individual who hasn't had teenagers in as the YW pres. (but they do seem to do it more frequently).

lol . . . just b/c I think it is the best doesn't mean it is the only way. I'm glad that it isn't requisite . . .but if I'm King for a day who knows! :-). But you will notice that in general, the vast majority of Bishops, SP, GA, etc. have kids. But that could be more correlation rather than causation.

Exactly right; giving them enough rope to hang themselves, but not too much rope where they will actually kill themselves. It's a tough balance.

Amen. I have also found that being a father has made me more firm. I don't know if crusty is the right word for it.....I'm not sure what the right word is. Maybe more resolute, maybe more confident in my own abilities and authority? It is my belief that the best exercise in leadership, the best way to learn how to properly lead and guide is in being a parent. It is a 24x7 exercise in leadership. Because of that I've learned a lot of leadership principles and I believe in many ways I had a lot of things wrong when I was younger about leadership. As such and having been through some of the fires of early parenthood, I've seen how the world teaches parenting and leadership. And most of it in my opinion is completely wrong. I've seen the drastic difference it makes in my own children when I've parented & lead by the current world standards vs. old school standards of 40-50 years ago. And as such, I've also seen (and this isn't an insult to anyone), what happens when children who haven't been taught properly become adults. The vast majority, IMO, of SJW comes down to life isn't fair, I want life to be fair and therefore in order to make life fair I'm going to be hurt and upset and anyone who doesn't cater to my belief is an un-compassionate, insensitive jerk. I have almost had the exact same exchange with my children-sure the topic differs but the generalities is the same. Son, get xyz done or no abc. Or no I will not buy you an I-Pad (when will I . .. let's see when pigs fly!). I've had my children, cry and say to my face, "daddy you don't love me!!!" and I've laughed in their face about it (as it is the most ridiculous thing), or I've said "yeah, I probably wouldn't like me too much right now if I were you either, but such is life-deal with it". Least anyone be concerned, Authority without love is a tyrant and love without authority ends up being milktoast. It requires a balance. IMO, SJW need more of a dose of firmness than, "everyone loves you!". Because IMO what is more evident in the thread (and others like it), is an unwillingness to accept leadership and authority. SJWs are unwilling to accept Church leadership as it stands-that is the bottom line. When it comes down to that point, no amount of compassion or love is going to change that opinion. I have learned in my life, the only way to have authority/leadership in life is to act like it and to do so requires a specific tone, tenor, manner of speech, etc.. Of course, having a position that naturally has authority helps, but if one has that but doesn't act like it no one will respect it. But it is a delicate balance (love and leadership), one must balance them and sometimes it requires more love and sometimes it requires more firmness.

Big hug!!! :-)

anatess, Even though we disagree from time to time and we can really get into it. You are a cool cat. I'm glad to have a sparing partner from time to time :-). Chocolate chips are fine by me. My one vice . . .chocolate-oh how I love chocolate. A cartoon of oreos (or anything chocolate) gone in days!

Extremely wise man. One of the lessons I hammer home all the time to my kids. Life isn't fair, get used to it. The best we can do is take what we've got, use all our energy, might, mind and faith and make it better.

No, I just refuse to cater to the emotionally laden words that are used to back people into a corner so that the only "correct" response is the equivalent of saying "there,there, I'm so, so sorry about the bad man". If life is honest to goodness that bad where you felt pain and suffering over this issue-then I'm extremely sorry for that and I wish you were able to live a happier life (b/c I know that if this causes this much pain and suffering, tons and tons of other things must cause waaaaay more suffering than this). And life is just to short to be consumed with such pain. If all you really are doing is looking to vent against your perceived unfairness in the world; I got news for you life isn't fair-deal with it. As a member of the Church, I believe in the Prophets and Apostles, I believe they are given the keys to Revelation for the Church as a whole and are given the ability to pick and choose who should give Conference Talks. I sustain them, I support them-I don't agree with everything they do-I don't have to. I recognize as a principle of leadership, people in leadership positions will do and say things I don't agree with or like. That's perfectly fine and natural. If I'm ever in such positions, I might change some things (hopefully I'm not), until then they are my leaders and unless God directs me to move Churches or go another path any perceived unfairness I just learn to shut up about as in the long run it really doesn't matter.

And here we have it. Instead debating the logical or perhaps my illogical arguments (if they are) you decide to just simply throw them out. I'm obviously not a woman and therefore nothing I say could possibly have relevance to you or your life? Thus in your desire to not listen to my arguments, you have proven my point that some people only want to hear a message if is preached to them by the "right" person. The message doesn't matter, it is whether the person delivering them is male,female, white, black, etc. And those individuals-whether they know it or not are actually the worst sexists, bigots, racists, etc. Because what they are saying is that the message doesn't matters, what really matter is whether the person delivering the message is of the "right" type. ----- I mean this in all sincerity and honesty. I really do feel pity that you and/or your friends feel deep physic pain (i.e. are hurt) b/c there was only 1 female speaker in GC. Because there is whole lot of unfairness in the world; I look around me and at my life and boy I could sure feel quite sorry for myself and if I felt hurt at every slight and whim on life, I'd be quite miserable.

You wouldn't respect my opinion, regardless if I covered it with cherries.

I should hope that my first couple of paragraphs were not taken in any unkind. The later portion-I do not intend to be ugly in any sense. I just find completely illogical, unnecessary and if fact melodramatic every time someone uses the phase "I was hurt" b/c of ..... and instead of referencing something horrible someone said (i.e. "cops are pigs"-no offense to mirkwood) but they reference a cultural setting. And I must genuinely take these individuals at face value when they say they are hurt. I don't get it, I really don't, how simply by the cultural setting causes some amount of physic pain to these individuals that they must proclaim they are hurt. And to me, the only logical thing to say is I'm incredibly sorry, you must live an extremely depressing, demoralizing pitiful life that every time a social setting doesn't conform to what you'd like, you have such massive physic pain that you must proclaim you are hurt. And yes, this occurs frequently with my children-they don't like the setting whatever it is and then they pout their lips, cry, if they are older stomp their feet say "this isn't fair". And I say, I know it isn't fair, get used to it. If you go around your entire life getting upset and being hurt every time you think life isn't fair to you-you are going to lead a pretty miserable life. And if they aren't leading a miserable life, then that means either a) they really aren't hurt, they just want to proclaim they are to garner praise, attention, and draw out that "life isn't fair" and everyone should acquiese to their demands or b) they have a very interesting sense of fairness, b/c I see that life isn't fair, "equal, etc. all around me, all the time, every day and I guess that means they only see it at certain points and are blind to all the other unfairness in life.

In some ways, I do like the rough and tumble politics of the 1800s. I do enjoy this one from Leaping Lincoln. It actually showed his true colors-use every means available to avoid the majority rule. He would later use this to ensure that everyone would bow to his rule . . . In November 1840 Legislators convened in the cramped quarters of the Methodist Church while workers were completing the statehouse a block away. "The House of Representatives was crammed in a room barely large enough for members to turn round in, having no tables to write upon, or space to move from one part of the house to another," newspapers reported. These conditions added to the confusion Lincoln encountered as leader of the minority Whig party. On December 5, when the Democratic majority was about to pass a measure that threatened the State Bank, Whigs conspired to prevent a legal voting quorum by staying away. Only Lincoln and a few lieutenants remained to observe. Suddenly it became evident that democrats had rounded up enough members to form a quorum. "Mr. Lincoln came under great excitement," Democrats mocked. Blocked from the door, he "unceremoniously raised the window and jumped out." The Democratic measure passed anyway. An embarrassed Lincoln ever after resented references to what he called that "jumping scrape."

Please don't carry water for Ryan. The bill had 17% approval. The Freedom Caucus did Trump a big, big favor by not passing that rotten, pile of garbage. That any conservative would sign onto that bill is just astounding. It didn't represent conservative values, it just made Obamacare less bad.

The nuclear option has nothing to do with State's Rights. As I've repeatedly said, the stronger the minority the more they can gunk up the works, but ultimately the will of the majority in both the US legislative branches hold out. As I have clearly stated, it does not require 60 votes to pass in the Senate-you have repeatedly stated the opposite-you are clearly wrong. Voting to close debate, is much different than voting on the passage of the bill. So flipping what if the Rs don't have a 60 vote majority. A strong majority that sticks together will overcome cloture. It literally becomes a battle of wills. And I guarantee you, a majority that is firm enough, resolute enough will outlast the minority. The Civil Rights Act was passed after 60 days of filibuster. The idea that one must have 60 votes to pass a bill in the Senate is simply not true. It makes it much, much harder. And the more resolute the minority the harder it is, but ultimately a resolute majority will win out. If the Rs in the House passed a full repeal and the Ds in the Senate gunked it up to were nothing else was passed for 6 months . . . they would have some major political fallout.

Now we get to the heart of the matter. You believe we need more female leadership and are upset that we don't. 1) Why do you think we need more female leadership in the Church? Is it out of a need to feel like women are adequately "represented"? Is it a desire to ensure "equality"? What is the basis for this idea? 2) What would you do to create more female leadership? Young Women's is exclusively women. Primary is almost exclusively women. Relief Society is exclusively women. Out of the major Church organizations at a local level (YM/YW,Primary, RS, EQ, HP, Bishop) 42.8% is women lead and run. The same is true at the Stake level (if you add in High Counsel the percentage drops a bit). So what exactly do you propose to add in more female leadership? The only way you could create more female leadership is either to a) create another organization for women to lead/run or b) give women the Priesthood so they can lead/run Priesthood organizations. The entire 70s, GA, etc. all come from the Priesthood as in, it is the authority to actually you know run the Church. This idea that people were "hurt" by only 1 speaker. Come on please give me a break. That is something my 6 year old says when she doesn't like what I tell her to do. Did any speaker say anything nasty about women? Did any speaker denigrate, demean, call names about women? Did any speaker say anything that in anyway could be made to seem as if they do not respect and honor women? But just because there was only 1 female speaker they are "hurt". (Nothing about the message, again only b/c there wasn't another woman). Man, if that is your idea of hurt these people must walk around being "hurt" every second of every day of their lives. I bet they have no time to think about uplifting others, spreading the Gospel message, about raising a righteous family because they are so "hurt". I actually feel quite sad for them b/c their lives must be so completely horrible as they walk around expecting everyone else to cater to their every whim b/c if they don't they are "hurt". Quite frankly, that has got to suck b/c I know if I were "hurt" every time something happened I didn't like I'd be living a miserable life. I actually pity people who are like that-life is too dang short to go about being "hurt" every time something doesn't go your way.

Please don't throw emotionally laden passive aggressiveness around. I'm sure you care plenty about women's feelings; I guarantee as a husband I care plenty about women's feelings, I'm sure the GA's and prophets care plenty about woman's feelings (they are 50% of the population and without whom we won't be here!). It's not that at all; it is the explicit idea that the only way to show that we "care" about woman's feelings is to ensure that more than 1 (what the right number needs to be, I don't know) of the speakers is a woman. In other words, simply by the virtue of a speaker being a woman conveys that the Church cares about women. She could stand up and say nothing inspiring, but b/c she is female, the Church now "cares". My guess is that if one actually does a study of General Conference talks one will find a plethora of talks given to, given about, and giving direction to women. The idea espoused is this perverse idea that only by having someone who is a physiological representative can show that someone truly cares. It boils down to the idea that because I'm not a woman I don't have the right to give advice to women, because I'm not a cripple I can't give advice to cripples, because I'm not homosexual I can't give advice to homosexuals, because I didn't grow up in the ghetto, etc. etc. In other words, if I haven't gone through exactly what you have gone through, I have no right and my advice is considered dross, b/c "I don't know how you feel". The idea is perverse and immature. My advice might be better because I have gone through a very similar trial . . .but it might also be much, much worse. I have found in my life to learn to take good advice and consent from wherever it may come from. I have learned someone doesn't have to be a man to give me advice (in fact some of the best advice comes from people who are completely different than me) I have learned the best way to get advice and counsel in all things, spiritual or temporal is to find people who have succeeded, who I respect, who have wisdom, who have the Spirit of God-regardless of whether they have been through something similar. I find GC one of the best times to find counsel and advice from men and women who have succeeded-especially in the realm of the Spiritual. If GC had 10 women speakers, great if it had none great-it doesn't matter. What matters is whether the individuals speaking have the wisdom and are spiritual ready to give counsel and advice to the General Body of the Church. Part of giving that counsel and guidance is the Power and Authority of the Priesthood-it is one of the rights and duties of the Priesthood-it is an obligation. Rather than lagging the woman-men are called to be the Spiritual leader of their household. It is a shame that as a Mormon culture we have to many degrees we denigrate (not sure if that is the right word . .. maybe scoff at??) the sacred responsibility of Husbands to be the spiritual leader in the home.

Why is that? Do we go to conference to hear the Word of God through His chosen leaders, or do we go to only hear the Word of God through the eyes of a social agenda? Why is it that everything is so politicized these days? Oh my goodness there was only 1 female speaker!!!! The Horror!!! Oh, if only there were 2 that would make it better? Not 2 what about 5? Not 5, well then what exactly is the "right" number of female speakers? Is it that one can only hear God's will as spoken by His leadership if they are of the same gender? I've seen exactly where this line of thinking leads-I've seen in it in business and in the government. Where I used to work, rather than ensuring the absolute best person obtained the job it was an unwritten rule that there must be an equal number of male and female supervisors. If there is an XO, then the XO and chief must be male and female (and it rotated-if the Chief was male- the next Chief would be female). On every promotion board there is a "female advocate" and a "minority advocate". All based on the premise that men and women are "equal", i.e. that they are the same and therefore if there isn't an equal amount of supervisors who are male/female it must mean there is discrimination. But no one wants to consider the alternative-men and women are different and unique and as such have different strengths and weaknesses. That might actually mean that men are more well-suited for supervisory roles. So instead of focusing on the actual content that matters, what kind of a supervisor, how well will you do the job, etc. people focus on the fluff-making sure that an equal number of men and women get into supervisor roles, get promoted, etc. etc. etc. Unfortunately, it actually does the opposite of promoting "equality"-people aren't stupid and they can very well see when individuals are more a "political" appointment vs. not. Quite frankly? Who gives a rip and why in the world does it matter? Do we go to Conference to hear a political agenda or to hear the Word of God?

Not at all, the cloture vote (aka vote to close debate) exists in every body, it requires 2/3rds to close in the House too! The difference is in how debate is implemented. If you are looking for the Senate as a representation of States, that ship sailed a long, long time ago (17th amendment). The Senate doesn't represent the states, it represents the people of the states-it's a glorified House of Representatives with longer terms and that's it. Like I said polarization and balkanization of politics. Obamacare was passed with NO R votes, it was a modern day version of what the Republicans did to the Democrats in the late 1850s-just ram it down their throats. Never before in the history of this country (excepting maybe the Civil War) has such a large piece of legislation been passed by a single party. That vote and the way it was passed was a crossing the rubicon moment, IMO. It signaled a new phase in modern politics. That phase is marked not by principle, but by tribal instinct. It's not going to stop. Using the rules this way, is legit, it is legal, there is nothing shady about it. It is why I said, you only need 50+1 votes to pass. I saw a great chart a while back http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2015/04/24/political_partisanship_in_three_stunning_charts_109196.html It's only going to get worse until either one party completely dominates the other or it breaks up.

The nomination is quite fascinating now with the Rs pulling out the so-called nuclear option. https://t.co/Ckua4dQtn7 gives a good description. Having been involved in some local political conventions, I actually like the parliamentary games that are played-if done fairly. In conventions the set of governing rules is Robert's Rules of Order (or some derivative-yes even House/Senate-which are ongoing sitting conventions really). The rules are set up to ensure a couple of things, #1 the will of the majority is carried out #2, the will of the majority does not become tyranny of the majority. Having had my fair share of parliamentary games played on me, I understand a bit about the process. The bottom-line is, that even with the protections of the minority in the rules, 50+1 rules. If you have 50+1, you can do whatever you want-yes it becomes more difficult without a 2/3 majority, but in the end it doesn't matter. Ideally, the rules are set up so that with a very strong minority, i.e. greater than 1/3rd, the majority has a very strong incentive-if not imperative to work with the minority to get things done. Normal Robert's Rules of Order (nothing special) dictate that closing of all debates requires a 2/3rd majority vote. The Senate has this same rule. It's not a special rule for the senate-it's just an extension of RROO. For debate on any question to be closed a 2/3rd majority vote happens. This applies to the House too. http://www.rulesonline.com/rror-07.htm 1. The limit of time should vary to suit circumstances, but the limit of two speeches of ten minutes each will usually answer in ordinary assemblies and, when desirable, by a two-thirds vote it can be increased or diminished as shown in 30. In the U. S. House of Representatives no member can speak more than once to the same question, nor longer than one hour. In the Senate there is no limit to the length of a speech and no senator can speak more than twice on the same day to the same question without leave of the Senate, which question is undebatable. So how does one get around this. Well there is something that can be used, but is not often used-which is to Challenge the Ruling of the Chair. Basically, any member has the right to challenge whatever ruling the Chair of the convention decides. It can be about most anything (a few things are not challengable). When a vote to close debate occurs and fails to pass the 2/3rd vote the chair rules that closing has failed. A member can then challenge the ruling of the Chair. Now I have done this a few times . . .and unfortunately the parliamentarian of the convention has shot me down-but it is totally legit. When the Chair's ruling has been challenged, the issue is taken to the body of the convention for a vote-they decide on the challenge by a 50% vote. So one can get around the 2/3rd vote to close by challenging the chair and then have a majority vote that overrules the Chair on their ruling that debate is not closed. Here's the thing, it's not really precedent (i.e. every time you want to do this-you have to execute this method-which requires a lot of moving parts). The only way to make it permanent, i.e. that a 50% vote closes debate vs. 2/3rd is to formally re-write the rules-which requires a 2/3rd vote. In my convention dealings, what I have found is that the more balkanization there is between two opposing forces, the more likely legal parlimentary tricks will be used to accomplish the will of the majority. Ideally, the majority and strong minority would come together to determine a solution. But such is life, it has happened before and will happen again. The start of the Civil War is a fascinating study in this; the Rs in Congress were unwilling to negotiate with a very strong minority the southern Ds and eventually things broke apart. It is the nature of all politics . . .once a divide becomes so large it is better to split apart rather than attempt to stay together with one party or the other holding the sickle of demeter above the other when they get into power.