james12

Members
  • Posts

    722
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by james12

  1. I would say these subsequent instructions were revelatory compromises with a fallen world. Yes, I could raise most of the constitution to that level as long as people recognize the many compromises in the document and not believe they were the final will of the Lord. They should also understand that the framers were people and as such the document contains some unclear wording and sometimes does not well define certain rights. The bill of rights should be evidence enough of that. I love the constitution and one of my deepest wishes is that our leaders would follow it. But I also believe it is important for people to understand this document. What was done well and parts that can be made better. When people start to believe a document is holy they can then start to think it is untouchable. We cannot make that mistake.
  2. JAG/Vort, For some reason the quote function is not working but let me address this issue about the 3/5 compromise. Certainly it is understandable how the 3/5 clause was added to the constitution and it indeed may represent the best compromise that could be achieved under the circumstances. But the constitution certainly does label a slaves as counting for 3/5 of a person. Of course no one specifically believe a slave was only 3/5 part of a whole person. But neither can we deny what the constitution says. At any rate, my response was in regards to askandanswers question wherein he said: The 3/5 clause is at best a compromise, not direct revelation. It does not represent what the Lord wished, for certainly he would that all men should be free. We must be careful about believing the constitution as approved by the states, was flawless. There were multiple problems: the manner of selecting the VP, judicial power extended to federal "inferior courts", and imprecise wording such as found in the general welfare clause to name a few.
  3. The constitution is not perfect, much less infallible. Some changes have been made over time which are necessary. One example that comes to mind is the Three-Fifths clause which says: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." Does anyone feel that it was wise to count slaves as three-fifths of a person? So what part(s) are inspired? Elder Marion G. Romney commented on this in a talk. He quoted part of D&C 98. Note his personal comments on this section: In so much as the constitution preserves freedom it is an inspired document. In preserving our freedom the constitution sets out important principles regarding separation of powers between different segments of the federal government, and also between the federal government and the states. However, over time the constitution and it's principles of freedom have been twisted until I think it is indeed fair to say that these principles, as defined by the founding generation, hang by a thread. The constitution is regularly disregarded by our leaders and we the people do not hold them accountable. How I wish that we had maintained the freedom that was once ours as given in this great document.
  4. Anatess, I have read over your comment but I don't believe I see a clear answer to my question: Should government seek to impose penalties on our actions so that our higher self has freedom? Laws, which must be ultimately enforced at the point of a gun, certainly can and do limit our freedom of action. As evidence I urge you not to pay taxes for a decade and see where you end up. Now, you can always banter around the term free agency and say that even locked up we are free to choose, but I think we both know that this is really outside the bounds of this conversation. I'm not sure how your comments here relate to mine, but in general I agree with you. It is not desirable, nor is it possible to enumerate every freedom. However, in certain situations it may be desirable to call out specific freedoms, particularly when they were once prohibited. This was done with our bill of rights, but in order to prevent people from assuming that the constitution or the bill of rights listed all our freedoms the 9th and 10th amendments were added. 9th: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 10th: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. If states agree to legalize marijuana I don't see a major problem in clarifying the law, particularly since this is a negative right.
  5. Anatess, The "freedom" you espouse here is not true freedom at all. For it appears that you agree with coercing someone to follow the law in certain instances. Said another way, it appears you would be in favor of forcing a person to do what he ought to do so that he doesn't become shcakled by chemical intoxication. I wonder if you or anyone else would agree to this statement by Thomas Hill Green who once said of prohibition in England: Should government seek to impose penalties on our actions so that our higher self has freedom? I say there is grave risk in such an action.
  6. Oh, I didn't see you say you were not voting for Trump. Well great. I actually, understand the thinking of voting for Trump. It's just become less and less compelling the further this race goes on.
  7. So we will both be voting for loosing candidates, but at the end of the day my candidate will be fit for the presidency and have integrity. Your's is neither. See, time to get away from the dirt and stink.
  8. So do you believe Trump is still likely to win?
  9. Sure, we will never get perfect. But it is important to support some with integrity. Clearly Trump is not that person.
  10. You indeed may do business with someone that is unethical, but would you chose that same person to rule over you? Why would anyone do such a thing? Because we have to vote as a block? Because we have to support the republican party? Because of a judge? Keep eating the dirt...
  11. You know if more people would stop eating dirt sandwiches and holding their noses we might have a leader that doesn't stink to high heaven. Maybe it's time to trust the Lord and vote on principle not based on rhetoric. There is much more to the presidency than picking judges. The Lord has said, "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn." (Proverbs 29:2). Judges do not change the truth of that scripture.
  12. Let me suggest something to you or others who might read this. If in order to perform an action you feel like your eating a dirt sandwich or have to hold your nose to get through it, then the Lord has already answered your prayer and told you what not to do. Don't fight against it.
  13. Elder Christofferson a couple of years ago gave a talk in General Conference entitled "Free Forvever, to Act for Themselves", where I believe he addressed this concern. He started by citing a portion of Shakespear's, The Life of King Henry the V. In the play two soldiers are discussing the serious battle that is to take place the following day. King Henry, who is in disguise, wanders to these soldiers. If the cause be wrong does obedience wipe the crime of it from us? Elder Christofferson continues: We are not puppets and the prophet is not the "puppet master". Therefore, consider well the prophets council, pray about it, and vote according to the spirit of the Lord which is in you. In so doing you will be blessed.
  14. Yea, I was going to vote for Johnson but I like a couple of things about voting for McMullin. For one, I live in Utah and even if he loses it would be nice to see McMullin take our state instead of Trump or Hilary. It would be talked about for years and we will have actually made some impact on the race. The other reason is what JAG just said above. There is a slim chance and at least it is a vote more in keeping with my principles. At this stage I'm going to see how it plays out before placing my vote but it will be for Johnson or McMullin.
  15. For me it's not just an issue of marijuana and the damage it can cause to a person taking it. Instead, it's about allowing a person the freedom to do what they want with their life. I don't force an obese person to eat fewer calories even if those calories will kill him. I expect government to stay out of such a personal matter. Government should only get involved when externalities cause risks to a third party. In the case of marijuana these externalitites may include certain aspects of advertising or driving under the influence which may harm another person among others. For that reason I have said that it makes sense to control the distribution and sell but that an adult should be free to take marijuana. It scares me when a person advocates that the "intelligent" group forcing the "unintelligent" group to do what they say. Where does such a belief end?
  16. I have to add a great article I read here, which I would encourage anyone who is interested in this issue to read. It seriously looks at problems with marijuana and suggests what a believe is well thought out path forward. The Real Dangers of Marijuana To summarize, after reviewing statistics on marijuana and it's use, the author presents four real dangers to continued use: It is a performance degrader it is dependence-inducing. Marijuana is not crack, but marijuana dependence is nonetheless a real and not-uncommon consequence of prolonged use. Marijuana is, for the most part, not directly harmful to third parties. Most of marijuana's direct harms fall on its users, and the families and friends who care about them. Its health harms are, for the most part, minor. The evidence suggests that marijuana can trigger mental-health problems, But the scale of those harms per unit of use does not distinguish it from other permitted recreations, including skiing and sky diving. He concludes with the following recommendations.
  17. You must not have seen very many of my posts. In the grand majority I quote sources. I assure you I have studied this matter as well, including claims and details from both sides. A few books i would suggest are: Marijuana Debunked: A Handbook for Parents, Pundits and Politicians Who Want to Know the Case Against Legalization In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters with Addiction Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs El Narco: Inside Mexico's Criminal Insurgency Please note that these books are not one sided. They include many sources and much information. Now I see some more bias here as you try and link psychotic paranoia with the Black Lives Matter movement. I'm no fan of the victim mentality they push nor their bully tactics but neither do I agree with the broad accusation you made above. To prove my point I will consider this question you pose, "When has any person (Black or otherwise) been deliberately targeted and shot while at work coconsciously doing their job – excluding drug dealers and Mafia hit men." I need look no further than July of this year when an autistic man's therapist, who was black and on the job, followed him out into the street to make sure he got back inside. As he was in the street police came on the scene and told both men to get down. The black man laid on the street with his hands up. The autistic man sat there playing with a truck. One of the police officers shot three times and hit the black man in the leg (see http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article94009242.html). I urge you to better consider both sides of a matter. Including this issue with marijuana. In particular, I would ask you to be very careful about deciding that your way is the intelligent way and that others simply do not understand.
  18. Wow. When will all the side effects be known? Who are these more intelligent people and why should they control what another person decides to take in their own body? What if these lesser intelligent people don't want protection as provided by the intelligent class?
  19. The public needs to be educated on this matter. Lagalization does not mean right, and wrong does not mean illegal. Part of the problem is our laws have never been consistent in this regard. Certainly, the one thing we must not do is bow to this misunderstanding and make things illegal just because they are wrong. This cause countless problems and inserts the state into issues they should not be involved in at all, including religious freedom.
  20. Issues of individual rights, such as marijuana use have been on my mind lately. As you said, marijuana use is unhealthy and I would add addictive, and mentally damaging (particularly to children). So clearly it is self destructive to recreationally use marijuana. But more and more I believe people should have the freedom to do wrong, so long as what they do does not harm another person or limit another persons freedom. In some instances it pains me to say that, but every rule laid down by government ultimately must be enforced at the point of a gun. If I absolutely refuse to pay my taxes my free will must be taken away and I be forced, into a jail cell. The same goes for marijuana use, or prostitution between consenting adults if they are illegal. That is why it is important that personal moral issues not be mandated by the state. If a person smokes or views pornography, government should not prevent them from doing so. In such situations we must separate church and state. The state protects my freedom to life, liberty, and property but otherwise it needs to get out of my life. The church tells me God's laws and helps me live a moral life. I must be free to live these moral laws. On the other hand, the state should not get involved in religious matters. If a church does not want to marry a gay couple they are completely free to do so. The state has no right to mandate marriage requirements to the church. Now having said all that, I believe it is within the rights of the government to limit the sale of harmful substances. I do not want a big tobacco 2.0, or gummy bears laced with marijuana readily available, both of which put children at risk. So I would argue for the decriminalization of marijuana but not the legalization of it. In other words, the government should not be able to put a person in jail for using marijuana but companies should not be able to put out adds enticing people to buy it. This seems clear. I think it makes sense to push for education regarding the harmful use of marijuana. I also agree that rehab requirements should be in order for people who abuse the drug. Although, in reference to my earlier point about people having the freedom to do wrong, I am still working through some of this in my mind.
  21. When is it a waste of flesh? Are we ever unjustified in killing animals for food? After much thought on this subject I say yes there certainly are occasions. But as Zil said, we must come to this understanding on our own.
  22. Actually not enough said, you only quoted part of the complete thought, for the Lord continues: Why are we so quick to ignore the Lord's word in this matter? Is it because we care so much about our steaks? Note: I'm not a strict vegetarian but I think the Lord has been very clear and for some reason the few threads I've seen on this topic end up with people joking about eating meat.
  23. I've practically been telling everyone I know about VidAngel. $20 up front (which I believe is refundable if you end services) and then $1 for a movie thereafter. It's all online and the latest movies are on their site. Whats more, you can edit out inappropriate content. It gives you a list of all possibly offensive material and then you just select which you don't want to see or hear. It works great. Of course they are being sued by Disney, Lucasfilm, Warner Brother, & Twentieth Century Fox. With such massive players suing them I'm not sure they stand much of a chance. But I say, try it out now while they are still in business. I've loved it.
  24. Curious_Mormon, I did the searching for you. I thought LeSellers had some good insight into the history of how "no beards" came about. Here is his post:
  25. Sure, D&C 49 does say that animals are ordained for the use of man. This scripture was given in regards to questions Laman Copley had, who previously held beliefs of the Shakers. Some or that sect did not eat any meat and the Lord clarified that meat was given for the use of man. But it is very important to define what the Lord is concerned about. Verse 21 of the same section clarifies, "And wo be unto man that shedeth blood or that wasteth flesh and hath no need." If there is any doubt about the matter we have the Joseph Smith translation of Genesis 9. Here the Lord says, "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you: even as the green herb have I given you all things, But, the blood of all flesh which I have given you for meat, shall be shed upon the ground, which taketh life therof, and the blood ye shall not eat. And surely, blood shall not be shed, only for meat, to save your lives; and the blood of every beast will I require at your hands." (Gen 9:3, 10-11 JST). The Lord is concerned about us taking the life of animals wantonly. The question is, do we take the life of animals unjustifiably? Over and again the Lord clarifies what is unjustifiable for he says, "only for meat, to save your lives" or "only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine". Are we in first world countries suffering through famine? Do we lack food to eat? Moreover, is the way we treat the animals we eat justifiable before the Lord? I for one have felt that I am not keeping this commandment as I should.