yjacket

And the Book of Mormon has condemned it too! When the Lord commands that it is practiced then it is acceptable; otherwise it is not. This isn't a hard concept. Since 1910, the Lord has banned the practice of polygamy and therefor it is condemned. At some point in the future, the practice may be re- instituted. This is why we believe in Living Prophets, i.e. a man who has the authority to be God's mouthpiece on the Earth. If God commands it to be practiced, then it will be so, otherwise not. 27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; 28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. 29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. 30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these thing

No problem, apologies for coming off very short and terse; I personally have grown very frustrated with "believing" members of the church who want to pick and choose which parts of the restored gospel to believe in. When the gospel conflicts with culture or society, they are apt to condemn the Church and former prophets rather than wonder if their own cultural bias and thinking is the thing that is wrong. My apologies for lumping you into that group.

Do we really know or do we just think we know? The problem with modern society is that we have so much hubris that we set at naught the laws of God. Homosexuality is another example, we are so much more "evolved" that perversion of every kind is called good. I'd rather not trust current societies evolution that has destroyed the family. We are such a sanctimonious society, we think we know so much better than past generations, yet if we actually look good is called evil and evil good. I'll trust the prophets rather than current society thank you very much.

Jacob had 4 women who he had sex with . . .riddle me that. And being tricked into it is now a legitimate excuse? I don't think so. It is just amazing to me that a founding principle of the LDS church is tossed away so easily with the "I've prayed about it and I think it's wrong". Real cognitive dissonance going on that people can believe JS was a prophet yet he erred on this subject. Sorry folks, not true and if you believe it then you would be the ones standing in line to have killed JS when he was alive. D&C 132:1 1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines— JS was lying here? Or was he just lying here and then purported to get revelation from God everywhere else, but in this one section he was lying? Was all the other revelation true revelation, but he just lied in this section? Either JS was a prophet and this is true or it's all false, no other way around it.

a) b/c I've prayed about it and b) I'm not so egocentrical to believe that I know more than the prophets of old.

Well that's great; you have the comfort and luxury of a fall-back position. You probably won't have any additional employees for a while b/c you're not making enough money to support yourself. The platitudes of "I wouldn't consider hiring anyone until I could pay a fair wage" are a lot of hot air." Let's say you make a bunch of phone calls all around the country and you need some help organizing things. What's a fair wage? 5/hr, 10/hr, 15/hr. You can say 15/hr and that's all great and dandy, until you realize that is more like 18/hr and to hire someone full-time will cost you around 40k a year no benefits, more like 60k/year with benefits. And then you realize, that unless you've got miracle grow, you start to realize that it becomes harder and harder to support just one other person. What about if you just need someone part-time for 10/hours a week to help you organize? According to you, you wouldn't hire them until you can provide a fair wage? Again, you haven't lived in the real world of a small business-you like to think you have-but you haven't. And I guarantee you there are plenty of people who are willing to take the part-time work or even full-time work with no benefits just to have a job. My wife did it when we were first married, made something like 8/hr just being a temporary secretary no benefits. Worked out great. The problem with liberals is they live in this idealistic world where everything is perfect and it just isn't so.

Nope, you are wrong on this issue. The scriptures say as much. So if you are right then that means you know something many other prophets before you have said is morally acceptable when God commands. Polygamy existed in ancient days, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob- many of the great Prophets of the past. I highly doubt that God would command these great prophets to do something that if wrong would be so fundamentally wrong as Adultery is the 3rd greatest sin beside murder and denying the Holy Ghost And if it is wrong, then I highly doubt that God would have ever called them to be prophets considering how grave the sin of adultery is.

It's also foolishness to think this type of stuff hasn't occurred in the past with other Presidents or wealthy people; JFK, shoot the entire Kennedy family, Clinton, etc. If you are looking for a saint for President you won't find one-we are too corrupt as a people. We expect our leaders to be paragons of virtue, yet what do we as a people do? What are the statistics on porn usage? 60, 70%? What is the statistics on affairs, 30%? What kind of movies do we watch? Take a look at cable shows, how many regular tv shows are vulgar, crass, degrading to men, women etc? The left, Clinton has the faux hypocrisy of decency? Feminist want men to say nice things about them, but yet at the same time want women to be who they are and defend the actual women who make pornography? From one of my favorite movies.

Don't be so sure about that MG; yes Trump is vulgar; I don't like it, obviously don't support it, but the guy was on Howard Stern for many, many years. Anyone with half a brain, knows the kind of stuff Stern does so it's not surprising in the least. We shall see how this affects things (and be sure, Trump may be very vulgar, but Clinton is corrupt and leaves a trail of bodies all over the place). This in a culmination of a lot of factors-but don't blame those individuals who voted for him (I voted for Rand, thank you very much). If you want to blame anyone blame the Republican Establishment for rolling over to Bush II, starting multiple wars, passing legislation like a Democrat. Then blame the Establishment for pushing idiots like McCain and Romney (Romeny was no conservative-he passed ObamaCare lite in Massachusetts). Blame the Republican Elite for pushing idiots like Bush III and Rubio. Trump was on Stern for many, many years and you're telling me that no other candidate out of 17 could get this stuff out in the open in the Primary season? We've seen that the Republican Establishment the like of McCain, Romney, etc. have lined up behind Clinton. And please spare me it's b/c she's a better "conservative" than Trump. If Clinton has a "conservative" bone in her, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. There is a lot more to meets the eye than the surface information. Yes, Trump is vulgar; but there is a bigger reason why both R & D establishment hate him and want to take him down-b/c he is a huge threat to the status quo. He isn't a member of the Skull & Bones, the CFR or any of the other secret societies at the top of the government. As Carol Quigley said (Bill Clinton's mentor): The argument of two parties should represent opposed ideas and policies, one perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinate and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. The policies that are vital and necessary for America are no longer subjects of significant disagreement, but are disputable only in details of procedure, priority, or method.” I don't like Trump in the least bit; I don't believe I have ever said I have liked him; but he has done something that hasn't been done in a very, very long time and that is coming very, very close to the Presidency without being a member of the modern day Gadianton Robbers. But given the times we live in; I guarantee you it is nigh impossible for a moral individual outside of the Gadianton Robbers to make it to the top; they are all corrupt-it's just a matter of what type of corruption it is.

Like I said, I assumed correctly, you've never run a small business nor been involved in business decisions. Your dad has, but you haven't. Big, big difference. And for the record, yes, I own part of a small business (not the full owner, but a significant portion). As spoken like a true liberal living in an ivory tower. You'd rather people have no job, then a job with no benefits. You'd rather then suck off the government than actually provide value in life. Yeah it's 100% desirable to provide a "living wage" and "health insurance" and all the wonderful benefits. But sometimes it's just not possible; the vast majority of small businesses run on extremely thin margins where the actual owner themself is making maybe 100k. If you have 10 employees making 40k and now you have to spend an extra 2k a year per employee providing insurance that's 20k a year, now you're making 80k. At what point does the boss say screw it, I put in 100 hours a week, I take all the risk, I put my blood, my sweat, my money into this sucker, to heck with this, it's just not worth it? Typical ivory tower, liberal, inexperienced, the world owes me everything, I deserve it all, response. Come talk to me when you actually have to try and make payroll. The stupidity is that if the laws were relaxed many small businesses would have an easier time getting started and while at first they might not be able to provide insurance, etc. as they grew and became stronger then could . .. but typical liberal response-got to have it all right now and they end up cutting off their nose to spit their face.

You have obviously never run a business (nor done taxes on one). It is criminal and immoral to make businesses into tax collectors. Businesses pay a lot in taxes; at least 15-17% for each and every employee. Quite frankly, there is a difference between a business that pays no tax and a successful business; whether or not a business pays income tax and whether or not the business is successful are not 100% correlated. There are businesses that go for years paying no income tax that pay employees, owners, etc. that are well alive-it is all about how well you use the tax code; and with the tax code being 75,0000 pages long! you can mortgage the house on betting there are plenty of ways to legally use the tax code (not cheating in the least bit) to reduce the amount you pay dramatically. The #1 reason the economy is stuck in limbo-it costs too dang much in taxes to have a small business and employee people; add on ObamaCare at 30 employees and you are in a world of hurt. It's why if a small business can do it they would much rather receive cash for jobs and pay employees in cash. Most small businesses run on the smallest of margins and the difference between paying 17% and failing or some other way and succeeding is razor-thin. Why do you think automation is being a huge thing? Because while you lay out additional capital as a business owner for machines, you don't pay a tax on it every year to produce something!

And as for a commentary on the criminal whitewashed act Hillary committed, please see http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/06/us/nsa-leak-booz-allen-hamilton.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/06/us/politics/harold-martin-nsa-contractor.html The criminal charges outline that he had 6 documents obtained from sensitive intelligence sources. This man took TS documents home to his house; at the moment it doesn't appear he did anything with them except collect them at his house. This man physically takes 6 documents (according to the report-he probably had more but 6 was enough to arrest him) puts them in his house and "stores them". In other words, the charges simply state that he took TS material and stored it at his house (that is it). What is the difference between that and Hillary instructing aides to strip the heading turn it into "nonpaper" and having TS documents stored on a server in an unauthorized location? Riddle me that Batman. Her supposed "I didn't know it was wrong"; if that is the case then she isn't qualified to lead jack-least of all the US. If she did know than it was a criminal act. There are no ifs ands or buts, no hearsay, no he said she said. It is clear, what she did was wrong, illegal and far less things land people in jail. Her get out of jail free card is "I didn't know". If that is the case, she is stupid beyond the pale. Anyone who has a security clearance knows you don't keep classified material anywhere except on classified systems, anything that classified material touches itself becomes classified. Your phone receives a classified e-mail-bye,bye phone it gets taken and destroyed. That Clinton didn't know that is quite frankly an admission of either stupidity or lawyer legalism to get out of jail.

I never said there was nothing wrong with rape; all I said is that the laws then are different than the laws today. That's not a comment on whether marital rape is good or bad, just simply a statement of fact. And as you know as a lawyer, the law is all about what is legal and/or not legal and it isn't a commentary on the moral goodness of the act. You are so blinded by hatred that you can't carry on a legalistic argument.

JAG, Do I need to put you on ignore? As you well know, many rape cases end up being a he said, she said affair-unless you have verifiable proof in the form of a rape it. You know this, to say otherwise is to give bad legal advice, and that's not you, that's not who you are.

The real sin doesn't have anything to do with R economics, it has everything to do with how the money is created in the first place. It's a very logical flow. Money is created by a) The Federal Government in the form of bonds b) the Federal Reserve who buys the bonds and c) commercial banks who create money out of thin air. Those who have 1st access to the money being created will always have a larger share of the pie- it's not a bug, it's a feature of the system. That is why wealthiest corporations are the banks, military contractor companies, and then to a lessor extent all the bubbles they blow on Wall Street.

You are very clearly unschooled in history. The Spanish-American War was not started for anything other then colonial expansionist desires. The US population already hated Spain at the time and then came the Maine . . ."Remember the Maine". Except that oh that's right, it was actually a boiler explosion rather than the Spanish destroying the ship. What a convenient excuse to go to war. Yes, let's talk about WW2, the biggest continuation of a failure and consequence of the US's mucking around. WW2 was a continuation of WW1, had the US stayed out of WW1, the European power would have come to an agreement (it was a stalement prior to the US entering), but thanks to world banking global desires, the US was goaded into WW1. Which then produced the Treaty of Vesailles, which was so extremely punitive to Germany (who really was just on the opposite side of the war for this one-neither side was morally good), that the populace hated France and Britain especially after France still occupied the Rhineland after the end of the war until 1930 and stripped it of it's mineral values. Ever wonder why the Germans hated France and occupied France-it was payback for occupying the Rhineland. So the German people punished by losing a war that should have been a stalemate had the US not entered fell under the sirens call of a new Third Reich. So yes, the world would have been much better off had the US just minded it's own business.

Lol . . .you are showing your bias. You don't know that and you know as a lawyer you can't say that. 1st off, the supposed instance occurred in 1989 prior to many current marital rape laws. The issues you bring up come into a he said/she said, which as you know are difficult to prove in a court of law. The e-mail scandal isn't a he said she said. JAG, you're aren't logical, you're emotional. You make the moral equivalent of the supposed things Trump has done to a woman who's very actions put operational CIA actions, officers and lives at risk. The simple fact that TS//SCI information was exposed on an unclassified server that the Russians, Chinese and everyone else could get access to, that she willfully disregarded any security protocols is undeniable. That she more than likely received TS//SCI e-mails from The President himself is highly likely. So go ahead and start defending Obama, b/c the moment you start defending Clinton is the moment you start defending Obama. You are emotional about this not logical.

JAG, You're all over the place. 1st you say you want to elect people that bring conservatism back, then you castigate others b/c they say Congress didn't do anything and you say that's how it's "supposed" to work. ergo, even according to your logic, nothing you can do matters b/c we are "supposed" to have gridlock. And saying that voting for third party is the same as a vote for so and so, is so incredibly logically inconsistent it boggles the mind. Here I will spell it out for you. 10 votes: R D L vs R D L 4 4 2 4 5 1 See simple math shows voting 3rd party is not the same thing as voting for so and so.

JAG, as an FYI, I've been involved in classified material, etc. I can say with 100% certainty had anyone else not named Clinton done what she did, they would be in jail. Have fun voting for a criminal!!!

For all your blather, your comments can be summed up in two words. Globalist vs. American. You think we are electing the leader of the world-we aren't. The world always has been and always will be a nasty place with bad actors and nothing we do will change that fact. What we can do is protect ourselves. If globalism is your brand of conservatism, no thank you-you can keep it and go vote Hilterly (she is definitely a globalist). You want to save the world at the expense of the US, I want to save the US, the world be darned. Voting for someone who domestically thinks we should give free college education, free housing, free everything, give free money to everyone else (foreign partners), provide free national security for the world, etc, etc. etc. Your conservatism is just socialism by another name. I'm an American first, we should take care of this country 1st. No other country is looking out for us, so we might as well do it ourselves. Free trade is a myth something purported by globalists at heart- the WTO, etc. are just organizations that promote graft, it's not free trade but managed trade for the benefit of the politically connected. Abortion . . .it is a wedge issue-I hate it, but get over it far worse things have been done in the name of your global brand of conservatism. Like I said, it is quite enlightening to find out who are the globalist/socialists and who are the Americans. This conversation is exactly why the elites, the pundits don't get, and haven't got this election. People are sick and tired of politicians trying to rule the world and sinking the US with it. JAG, I hate to break it to you but you're not a conservative-the globalist things you spout off are not "conservative" values, they are progressive,socialist, values. Your brand of "conservatism" doesn't bring a smaller government, but a much larger one with more power, more control, more ability to curtail freedoms and liberty to promote "world peace" or whatever other blather it is. Good riddance to the big government, spend, spend, spend, warfare elite neo "conservatives"!

Exactly why so many people are pissed off. My goodness, a double house win and in the past 2 years you haven't done squat to actually shrink government-you finally gave Obama his 1st veto, you pass all the spending bills with barely a fight . . .what a bunch of spineless weasels. I can name on one hand (okay maybe two), the number of actual congresscritters who put up a fight rather than just giving platitudes. It's actually really interesting the only people I've met in the "conservative" movement who hate Trump have been all the old establishment hacks who liked the status quo and Mormons (he is too "mean"/"nasty" for them). My brand of conservatism is less government across the board, more libertarian but hey I'll take smaller government anyway I can get it. If you are keeping bedfellows with the people who gave you this mess, you should wonder whether or not you are in the wrong bed (or maybe you really are part of the problem instead of the solution).

Anybody who thinks the GOP has been conservative in the last 25 years has been fooling themselves for a long, long time. With Trump, the ocean went out and we can all see who has been swimming naked the entire time. All I can say to those folks who think that hoping a Hillary win will bring the GOP back to it's roots is Good Luck! People who think Bush was conservative, McCain was conservative, Romney was conservative, but Trump isn't . . . .hahahah what a bunch of fools. If this is you-you are not a conservative. People don't like Trump's personality, that is really it. he is no better or worse than any of those listed above. He wants to build a wall, big deal. Tariffs, umm, last I checked the US was founded on the idea that the Government would be funded primarily by tariff. People say Trump is populist, yet they can't define it. I ask people to define what exactly they mean by populism? The cult of Personality? For the record, I wouldn't classify Trump as conservative, I'd classify him as a non-ideological pragmatic. I don't like a lot of his ideas, but they are better than what got us here. All I can say is if your version of Conservatism is Bush, McCain, Romney, Bye!!! and don't let the door hit you on the way out!! The rest of us will actually try and restore liberty to this country.

JAG, you are no conservative. You have absolutely no standing to claim yourself as a "conservative" when you are voting for the 2nd most (if not the most) liberal individual running for President on a major ticket in US history. You have no moral ground to talk about "conservative ideologies", you are a wolf in sheep's clothing. You are going to actively vote for someone who stands against pretty much every conservative principle out there. I get it you don't want to vote for Trump, I've got no problem with that-but for you to vote for Hillary when you know better, when you know what she represents-methinks you've been trolling us the whole time. You are written off on the conservative list. If you think Trump is worse than Hillary from a conservative perspective, quite frankly you aren't voting according to logic, you are voting with emotion b/c your guy lost. Like I said, it is quite refreshing to see where people stand in this election-you start to find out what exactly are their real political beliefs. You see the hypocrisy of the Bush's, Romney's etc. who every election say "you've got to vote R" and then this election when they didn't get their way actively vote for Hillary.

Wow . . .that is the epitome of cutting off your nose to spite your face. If Clinton wins . . .I'll just get to laugh at you and the evil you've brought to this country in 2020 by voting for her. Just don't come crying back in 4 years saying "what did I do???". Good luck with that sir! Clinton better than Trump . . .hahahhah that is a real good one. JAG, I'll give you a hint after voting over 15 years for someone besides the major 2 parties. If you're going to stand on principle, do it with class. Even in 2012, I couldn't stand Romney, but I knew Obama was worse, I just didn't vote for either. As far as the Republican party, welcome to the Club. You are only just beginning to see how corrupt both parties really are and how they are really just 2 sides of the same coin who both conspire together to keep the Deep State running. That someone other than Bush won the nomination is a testimate that people are really getting sick of the coin/con. You know in many ways it is actually quite satisfying to see so many so-called Repubs squirm b/c a guy won the nomination that they can't stand. It's even more enlightening to see what they do in reaction to it.

MG, I agree, but I wonder if it is more a symptom of our current society and the platforms we use such as FB, twitter, forums, etc. than it has with people who are specifically Trumpers. I can easily say the same thing about ardent supporters of Clinton too. I think it's always been like this to some degree and worse. The campaigns of Adams vs. Jefferson were horrible and who can forget https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_of_Charles_Sumner. I do agree that politics is the art of compromise, true compromise where everyone wins. When the issues run deep enough and there is too much daylight between opposing sides, bad things do happen. But things that worry me where I personally feel everyone can come together regardless of background are things like: http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2016/10/04/report-yahoo-secretly-scanned-customer-emails-for-u-s-intelligence.html Le sigh . . . .