bythelake

Just in case it is still sounding confusing, I thought I would clarify it a little. If your children are sealed to you, they are sealed. What you are worrying about cannot be an issue for a woman, only for a man. Women can only be sealed to one man. So if a woman marries in the temple, and is later married a second time, she cannot be sealed to the second spouse (unless the first sealing has been cancelled). When children are born to her and the second spouse, they are born under the covenant that she has, which is to the first spouse. Otherwise, they wouldn't be sealed at all, or have the blessings that come with that.

Well, I think your point of view is valid. But I wonder, where do you draw the line? In other words, let's say you aren't for abortion, but you are pro-choice. But it seems that liberals are often for choice in some things but not in others. In other words, it's ok to choose to kill a fetus. But I shouldn't be able to choose whether or not to wear my seatbelt. How do you know what it's ok to impose, and what is not ok to impose? (And, by the way, I always wear my seatbelt. I'm just not in favor of having that forced on me by law.)

Well, technically, if an atheist were to do it in that manner, he would be acting in accord with our constitutional form of government. The constitution makes provision for amendments. They usually don't try to do it that way, though, since it is (intentionally) difficult to amend the Constitution. ;-)

Why do you suppose it was that they were quiet?

Well, what we vote for might be influenced by religion, but we don't vote based on only religion. For example, we believe in paying tithing, but we don't vote to make tithing paying mandatory. The word of wisdom prohibits drinking coffee, but we wouldn't try to make coffee illegal, even if a majority of the citizenry were LDS. That is because we don't have a theocracy, we believe in freedom of religion, and we believe in free agency. (Without free agency, we couldn't even grow.) So what justifies the force of law? The Declaration of Independence says we have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So someone can have their life, liberty or property taken if they infringe on the life, liberty, or property of another. This is where a lot of crimes come into play. They might have been learned from religion, but not only religious people believe in the concept. So, outside of that, where does our religion influence our vote? The Church doesn't speak up politically on many issues, but when they do, it is normally a moral issue. It is based on the idea that some things don't just influence the individual, but the society. For example, they support a constitutional amendment to say that marriage is between one man and one woman. If this basic concept is changed, the long term effect will be the destruction of our society. If you look at societies in the past in which homosexuality has become rampant, that was the result. So we may vote based on our beliefs (religion), but so does everyone vote based on their beliefs, whether they gained them from religion or elsewhere. Even atheists may vote, based on their belief in no god, to deny others their freedom of religion by prohibiting public prayer. I guess what I'm saying is that we should vote, not just based on our religion, but our form of government. It's not bad to vote based on religion, as long as our vote is compatible with the principles on which our constitutional government was founded. It's wrong to vote based on beliefs if it conflicts with our form of government. Like the atheist who wanted to abridge religious freedoms.

I think we benefit by seeking both to understand and to present things in an "audience-accessible" way. We are accountable for our approach to both. But no matter how we present things, someone may take offense or not understand. How "understood" we are will also depend on those hearing/reading. As long as we do our best, we aren't responsible for their lack of understanding. If we are seeking the truth, and seeking to understand, we have more control over our own ability to understand than we do over whether others understand our viewpoint. Also, I guess it's important to be prayerful, because it can increase both our ability to understandable and to understand.

I might add, that Moroni would also have been working on the Star Wars program. He was all about defensive strategy and being extremely prepared for an attack. His strategies were aimed toward winning when attacked with the least amount of bloodshed.

The corruption was not brought about by the freedoms and "flawed experiment" of constitutional government. It was brought about by the erosion of those freedoms and by not following the constitution. As George Washington said in his farewell address, "And if there be changes (in the Constitution), let it be by amendment and not by usurpation." He called usurpation "the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." We are at the point now where both of the Bill of Rights and the balance of powers is under attack. As our government becomes more powerful, corruption increases. Think of the sayings that "Power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely" and "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will begin to exercise unrighteous dominion."(D&C 121:39) Also, as the populace becomes more wicked, they are more likely to elect corrupt leaders.

Politicians often use the the term mandate to justify what they are doing or want to do. In other words, if they win the election that means that people agree with their positions on the issues and what they want to do. If it is an incumbent, they may use re-election as an indication that they are on the right track.

Our objective is Zion...the United Order. But the United Order and socialism are not the same, and church leaders have not espoused socialism. In a talk entitled, "Is Socialism the United Order", Marion G Romney talks about socialism, and the similarities differences between socialism and the United Order. I think you already know the similarities. Here are the differences, as he has explained well. **** Differences Now the differences: (1) The cornerstone of the United Order is belief in God and acceptance of him as Lord of the earth and the author of the United Order. Socialism, wholly materialistic, is founded in the wisdom of men and not of God. Although all socialists may not be atheists, none of them in theory or practice seek the Lord to establish his righteousness. (2) The United Order is implemented by the voluntary free-will actions of men, evidenced by a consecration of all their property to the Church of God. One time the Prophet Joseph Smith asked a question by the brethren about the inventories they were taking. His answer was to the effect, “You don’t need to be concerned about the inventories. Unless a man is willing to consecrate everything he has, he doesn’t come into the United Order.” (Documentary History of the Church, Vol. 7, pp. 412-13.) On the other hand, socialism is implemented by external force, the power of the state. (3) In harmony with church belief, as set forth in the Doctrine and Covenants, “that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property” (D&C 134:2), the United Order is operated upon the principle of private ownership and individual management. God-given agency preserved in United Order Thus in both implementation and ownership and management of property, the United Order preserves to men their God-given agency, while socialism deprives them of it. (4) The United Order is non-political. Socialism is political, both in theory and practice. It is thus exposed to, and riddled by, the corruption that plagues and finally destroys all political governments that undertake to abridge man’s agency. (5) A righteous people is a prerequisite to the United Order. Socialism argues that it as a system will eliminate the evils of the profit motive. The United Order exalts the poor and humbles the rich. In the process both are sanctified. The poor, released from the bondage and humiliating limitations of poverty, are enabled as free men to rise to their full potential, both temporally and spiritually. The rich, by consecration and by imparting of their surplus for the benefit of the poor, not by constraint but willingly as an act of free will, evidence that charity for their fellowmen characterized by Mormon as “the pure love of Christ.” (Moro. 7:47.) ****** Also, this quote from Joseph Smith: Joseph Smith “I attended a second lecture on Socialism, by Mr. Finch; and after he got through, I made a few remarks… I said I did not believe the doctrine.” (History of the Church 6:33)

Ok, the link is fixed. Maybe there are socialists that believe in the constitution, but I don't think they understand its principles. " The fifth and final principle that is basic to our understanding of the Constitution is that governments should have only limited powers. The important thing to keep in mind is that the people who have created their government can give to that government only such powers as they, themselves, have in the first place. Obviously, they cannot give that which they do not possess. "By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft, and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute money or property nor to force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will. Government is created by the people. No individual possesses the power to take another's wealth or to force others to do good, so no government has the right to do such things either. The creature cannot exceed the creator." ----President Benson (from the linked talk) ******* I was just looking at an interesting site. It is from World Socialist Movement (a pro-socialism site) and it's a pdf entitled "The Principles of Socialism". Among other things it says, "Socialists are materialists and are opposed to religion which has always been a prop to class society." I guess there are people who believe in different kinds and degrees of socialism, but this is interesting.

After President Benson was called to be the prophet, there were two topics he spoke on more than any others. One was the Book of Mormon. One was the Constitution. Around the two hundredth anniversary of the Constitution, he spoke at BYU. (I was there.) The title of his talk was, "The Constitution:A Heavenly Banner." In this talk, he talks about basic constitutional principles. Here is the text: Speeches Other talks on the Constitution can be found in conference issues of the Ensign during the time he was prophet. Near the end of the talk I linked to, he talks about the prophecy made by Joseph Smith. "We are fast approaching that moment prophesied by Joseph Smith when he said: Even this Nation will be on the very verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the ground and when the constitution is upon the brink of ruin this people will be the Staff up[on] which the Nation shall lean and they shall bear the constitution away from the very verge of destruction." He goes on to ask "Will we be prepared?" and lists the things we need to do to be prepared. Among the things listed he says: " 2. We must learn the principles of the Constitution and then abide by its precepts. Have we read the Constitution and pondered it? Are we aware of its principles? Could we defend it? Can we recognize when a law is constitutionally unsound? The Church will not tell us how to do this, but we are admonished to do it. " From a personal viewpoint it was some years before I got around to following that council. And it's my feeling now that we will have a different perspective if we follow that council than if we do not.

I know Hitler is the extreme example of an emotionally charged word. But it is unfortunate that sometimes the emotional associations that words acquire can interfere with intelligent discussion. Take the word "socialist". If you were to say that someone was a socialist, you would be thought to be engaging in name calling. And sometimes, it might be name calling, if the person saying it is just saying it, but doesn't have support for what they are saying. In some European countries, though, the term doesn't have the same stigma. People who advocate policies that could be considered socialist wouldn't have a problem saying they are a socialist. Here, people who favored the same types of policies would avoid being associated with the term, and would disavow it as "name calling". So it becomes something difficult to have a real discussion about. And, let's go back to Hitler. Comparing someone with Hitler comes across as really tacky, because of the atrocities he committed. But what about the concept of fascism...what it is, different types of fascism, things that allowed Hitler to gain the people's support (when they didn't know what he was up to) and to gain the level of power he did. Those things are entirely appropriate to discuss, or should be, because history repeats itself. Even more than a dozen years ago, I've heard about people who had lived in pre-WWII Germany and left there to come here, because they saw what was going on. Then, many years later, they said they saw us starting to go in the same direction; but they didn't know where to go. If this is true, then that is a discussion we should be having. But it's difficult to do.

I like Dravin's and jerome's suggestions. But you might also consider how much debt you have and how long it will take to pay it off. If you have only a small amount of debt, and it can be paid off in 2-3 months, pay it off first. But if paying off the debt is a long term thing, you will not want to wait until you are out of debt to start getting at least some food storage.

Well, I don't think Cathy's interpretation was "perfectly reasonable". But it seems like all of the three individuals said what they did, based on their own individual viewpoints. And all of the three are reacting to someone else's viewpoint. I don't see a problem, as long as they don't get too worked up about it. (But they could probably be more diplomatic, if their object is to be persuasive.) Hey, I'm extremely offended by that, since I'm also a Cathy. .................... lol..hehe...jk (not about being a Cathy, but about being "extremely offended").