a-train

This thread is a year old. A free-market economy is simply defined as one wherein all transactions within the system are based on mutually agreeable terms. In such a system, no person is compelled by violence. A state socialist economy is defined as one wherein transactions are evaluated by a government entity, and if thought beneficial to THEIR understanding, are accomplished via compulsion. What occurs in such a system of compulsion are shortages and surpluses. Parties on the benefiting side of compelled transactions will maximize that benefit (if they are allowed to get a certain amount of clothing at the cost of others they will take the maximum amount allowed). Parties on the paying side of compelled transactions will look to minimize that payment (they will look for every means to lower their tax burden, just as millions of Americans do today, and to take advantage of any applicable benefits). Without free-market mechanisms, the governing body in this system is unable to make good decisions about supply and demand (they don't know if the people taking the clothing are really using it all). If they aren't, a secondary market emerges (an example is the large black market for food stamps in the United States) wherein the surplus is liquidated below par (the secondary food stamps are sold much cheaper than face value because the sellers paid nothing for them). Shortages occur when government underestimates the demand for a given socialized product or service. The governing entity, not having a price system to evaluate supply and demand may underproduce (or call for underproduction) unwittingly. In this case, a secondary market emerges wherein products are sold above par value. This actually limits the allocation of this product to only the direct recipients designated by the government and then a secondary group willing and able to pay much higher prices than free-market equilibrium (the rich). The design of state socialism is claimed to be the maximization of overall public benefit in the production and distribution of goods and services from scarce resources. The trouble is, without the necessary tool of a free-market price mechanism all the shortage and surplus causes state socialism to actually prevent such a maximization. Resources will be wasted. For this reason, socialist countries actually use free-market analysis of non-socialist countries to evaluate their allocation of resources! This is true! The USSR did so! If we want to maximize the total economic output of our system, and therefore provide the maximum benefit for the most amount of people, a free-market is the best way to do so. On the subject of the United Order, it was competely voluntary, a participant could withdraw without the threat of violence or imprisonment at any time. Under state socialism this is not so. -a-train

So I haven't been around for a while, I have been to busy with school. I see we have no shortage of trolls. Anyone else in school? What are you studying? Educational goals? -a-train

No, that was back in summer of 2005.Burger King opens first outlet in China - World business- msnbc.com -a-train

Well, China IS getting a FedEx hub! We gotta start somewhere! -a-train

Abraham 3 Moses 4 Revelation 12 Jude 1

The trouble arises when a Mormon says "Jesus is not God" or "we don't worship Jesus, we worship the Father". Finer details about how we worship are a moot point once such mistakes have been made. It matters not whether we address the Father in the name of the Son to those who think we believe Jesus is not God and/or that we do not deem Him worthy of our worship. Also, to Mormons interacting with fellow Christians who pray to Jesus, it is a terrbile error on the part of Mormons to seem disturbed. I served my mission in the South and virtually every house I entered contained families that often prayed "Dear Jesus" all the while repeating "thankyou Jesus!" I witnessed missionaries who thought this a great error. That said, nothing in my directions from any Church leadership counseled me as a missionary to address that issue directly or to correct individuals who do it. These are people who love Christ our LORD and who are seeking to come unto Him, we should not feel compelled to hamper them with some point as insignificant as this. If our faith is so small that we believe that God does not hear their prayers, it is we who need counsel, it is we who need correction. Take a good hard look at the dedicatory prayer of the Kirtland Temple offered by the Prophet Joseph Smith (D&C 109). While He addressed the Father in the name of the Son, he also addressed Jehovah. Also, it was a common occurance in the Gospels for the Saviour during His ministry to accept worship. In 3 Nephi 11:17, the Nephites "did fall down at the feet of Jesus, and did worship him." He did not refuse them as did the angel which appeared to John at Patmos in Rev. 19:10. What did the Nephites do at Jesus' feet? As a modern Mormon, should I feel these were in error? The Jews for centuries worshipped the Great Jehovah and we know well this was Jesus, were they in error? Paul said: "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Phill 2:9-11) Every knee will bow to Jesus and every tongue shall confess His Lordship. We have nothing to fear from those who are ready and willing to offer such worship even at this moment. -a-train

Dr. T is right. God has no creator, the idea is a false doctrine completely in objection to LDS teaching. God is eternal and was not ever created. He had no beginning and he shall have no end. -a-train

The species is eternal: a notion incomprehensible to those whose faith is based on the primum movens, or prime mover, philosophy. The logical end of this philosophy is creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing). By this Aristotelian logic, we linearly consider the cause of each movement, looking back through time until we arrive at an uncaused cause, a prime mover. This mover is believed to be God.While this is faith promoting philosophy to some, it is nonscriptural and simply loaded with trouble. Joseph Smith plainly taught that there is no time where God resides: "the past, the present, and the future were and are, with Him, one eternal "now;"" (TPJS p220). Figure 1 on facsimile 2 in the Book of Abraham is said by Joseph Smith to signify "the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God. First in government, the last pertaining to the measurement of time." When we take away the linear confines of time, the whole primum movens philosophy falls apart. Joseph Smith explained plainly: "The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal with God himself. I know that my testimony is true; hence, when I talk to these mourners, what have they lost? Their relatives and friends are only separated from their bodies for a short season: their spirits which existed with God have left the tabernacle of clay only for a little moment, as it were; and they now exist in a place where they converse together the same as we do on the earth. I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it had a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven. I want to reason more on the spirit of man; for I am dwelling on the body and spirit of man--on the subject of the dead. I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man--the immortal part, because it has no beginning. Suppose you cut it in two; then it has a beginning and an end; but join it again, and it continues one eternal round. So with the spirit of man. As the Lord liveth, if it had a beginning, it will have an end. All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation, who say that the spirit of man had a beginning, prove that it must have an end; and if that doctrine is true, then the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the house-tops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself." (TPJS p353-354) This is faith shattering blasphemy to those who cling doggedly to philosophy for their faith. What the philosophers for Christianity fail to understand is that if philosophy is worthy to prove God, it must also be worthy to disprove Him. If indeed God is eternally passing through the linear confines of time and He alone is eternal: the First Mover, then he must therefore have traversed an infinite period to arrive at His first creation, his first movement. Otherwise, He would have always been moving and therefore movement would have been co-eternal with Him. Either way, the linear First Mover philosophy is exploded by philosophy itself. No wonder so many doubt this form of faith. What Joseph Smith pointed out is that time is only a perception associated with mortality. We will some day pass back through the veil (our "rings" will be "joined again") and there possess our eternal mental faculties. We will ultimately go back to our state outside of time. We are eternal beings and eternal children of our Eternal Father. The pain of eternal damnation and the happiness of eternal life becomes extremely poignant when considering the eternal nature of man and his relation to God. -a-train

Its amazing how virtually identical it is to a bill Bush signed into law last fall. Perhaps we aren't getting much 'change' after all... -a-train (that rhymes = bonus points)

I hope that the spectrum is not one of theological beliefs, but of definitions of the term "monotheism". I would wager that is the case. Many LDS persons could not tell you the difference between henotheism and monotheism without a dictionary.It is official LDS doctrine that man and God are of the same species. This by definition excludes any ability to appeal to the term "monotheism" insofar as it denotes a Diety of unique species. -a-train

"And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out." (2 Nephi 25:29) In our services we sing: "I believe in Christ- my Lord, my God! My feet he plants on gospel sod. I'll worship him with all my might; He is the source of truth and light." (I Believe in Christ, Hymn 134 third verse) Worship is not exclusive to the Father according to Nephi or Bruce R. McConkie. If you saw the PBS special: The Mormons, President Hinkley said plainly: "we worship Christ". This was quoted on the Church News Website. To be frank, I am somewhat befuddled by the confusion among members. Conversely, it only makes sense that non-members question our beliefs about Jesus when members are confused about whether Jesus is God or whether we worship Him. Back in 1998, President Hinckley said this in Conference: "Are we Christians? Of course we are Christians. We believe in Christ. We worship Christ. We take upon ourselves in solemn covenant His holy name. The Church to which we belong carries His name. He is our Lord, our Savior, our Redeemer through whom came the great Atonement with salvation and eternal life." Now look, I'm not trying to get into your bonnet, but this is a serious issue. Just look at the context of Hinckley's talk! He is talking about his answers to non-members! If he answers the question that way, is this answer not good enough for us? I strongly encourage you to take a good hard look at the scriptures and the talks of our modern prophets. MORMONS WORSHIP JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE ETERNAL GOD. This is not a mystery. This is not new doctrine. This should come as no shock to any Mormon. But, so long as Mormons seem to be confused about the issue, I suppose the non-Mormon community will remain so as well. -a-train

Jesus IS God. There are many verses which say so. The most prominent is the first page of the Book of Mormon which says plainly that the purpose of the Book of Mormon is "the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God". What?!? The purpose of Mormonism is to convince people that Jesus is God?!?!?!? YES. LDS persons have trouble with the Trinity for two reasons: first they don't understand Mormon theology, second they don't understand Modalism. Understanding the difference between Modalism and Trinitarianism is a huge help to Mormons. Most Mormons think Trinitarianism is Modalism. The Trinity is in fact much closer to LDS Theology than most Mormons think. Mormons should not feel compelled to somehow confine their theology to any distinct definition of Monotheism, just as the Trinitarians don't. Within Trinitarian theology, there is a sense in which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are plural and another in which they are singular. The same is true for Mormon theology. Mormons who understand LDS teaching will quickly agree with Trinitarians that the Father is not the Son nor is He the Holy Ghost. They will also quickly agree that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one. It is only the meaning of this oneness that is in question. Frankly, it is not required that a person come to any certain understanding of this definition to be baptized, or to accept Christ. Much of the early Mormon preaching which contrasted Mormon theology with then pervading Christian beliefs would be out of place today. Commonly accepted Christian theology has in many ways changed since then. Orson Pratt spoke out against the theology of a god which is "neither here nor there", which has "neither height nor depth", which has "no body, parts, or passions". These theological definitions, while still sacred to some, are not the pervading Christian theology today. Most Christians today believe in a physical resurrection of the Saviour and a bodily ascension to heaven. Trinitarians further acknowledge the Presence and manifestation of the Holy Ghost seperate from the Presence of the Son. The only limitation the Trinitarian theology would pose to a full acknowledgement of LDS theology is that it becomes by some rule impossible for the Father to have a body of flesh and bone seperate from the Son. Further, it is not believed that the Father and the Son have seperate histories. Thus the difference has become much more subtle than most understand. However, when asked if the Father and Son are one, or if Jesus is God, Mormons commonly answer "NO", which is simply incorrect and which only continues a legacy of misunderstanding. The LDS scriptures are unequivocal that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are all one and that they are God. The Father is God in both his status and species, as well is the Son and the Holy Ghost. Also problematic is the term "God". If it signifies a species, then the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are all "God". If it is a Pronoun, then the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are all "God". If it signifies status, then the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are all "God". Many LDS persons use "God" as a Pronoun referring directly to the Father. It is because of this sense that they say: "Jesus is not God". Bruce R. McConkie went into some detail about the Father's status being higher than the Son's. He appealed to that to justify a sense in which "God" could be exclusively applied to the Father. Through this sense it can be said that Mormons are strictly Monotheists, but that is only a technicality. Monotheism to some denotes the singular existance of God in His species. In this definition, there can be no other being of the same species of God. To this, Mormons are completely opposed. Mormon teaching is plain that God and man are the same species. Upon his birth in Bethlehem, the Saviour did not change His species, He is, was, and always will be human. The Father also is human. Although I cannot see how Trinitarianism explicitly indicates that God is not human, the notion is believed for the most part by Trinitarians as far as I can tell. Still, Trinitarians would doubtfully argue that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are of distinct species. Indeed they are of the same species. Thus even Trinitarians acknowledge that there does exist a sense in which three distinct persons are of the species of God, and thus a plurality of that species exists. However, they maintain that this plurality cannot be so stated that it would in some way depart from a strict monotheist view. Many Muslims argue that Trinitarianism is not Monotheist enough for this reason. Most Mormons have the difference between Trinitarianism and LDS theology overstated. This is our own fault. I hope that as we continue our vibrant history, we will better understand this issue. -a-train

A true free-market economy would not allow a single bail-out. The definition of a free-market economy is one wherein all transactions are based on mutually agreeable terms. A bail-out is nothing but the government taking without consent from one group and giving to another. -a-train

The only power government has in "creating" jobs is to spread work, they cannot create it. It will merely come at the cost of lowered real wages for everyone and a stifling of overall economic productivity. -a-train

I'm here. Been here for a long time. -a-train

Yes, I know that enemies of Israel get more, I already said that in a former post. That is why this is all so ridiculous. I would be happy with any reduction in foreign aid, but the best policy would be a total cessation of all foriegn aid for all governments whether it be Israel, Palestine, or whoever. And that is exactly what I am doing. I am standing on the side of what is right and calling any I can to stand with me. The right thing to do is to deescalate the situation, not perpetuate war and tyranny. Let them sort it out, we are only making the problem bigger and worse. If you believe that each state should define its own policies, then we are in agreeance. Deep down, I know there is NOTHING under the jurisidiction of the United States government in Palestine or Israel. Do you believe they should conduct their own investigations and pursue their own policies or not? What is wrong? The people of Palestine don't see Israel as containing and sanctioning them? We as foreigners CAN make the Palestinians see the situation differently? I agree that Israel has every right to close her borders and restrict trade however she sees fit and likewise do all other states. Parties? You mean on the Republicans and Democrats? I advocate the people of the United States coming to realize that our involvement in middle-eastern affairs is nothing but fuel to the fire and we introduce a new foreign policy of non-interventionism. We are occupying two middle-eastern states. In one, we have completely overtaken the government and have set up a new one. We impose sanctions on many states. Are you really saying that the U.S. is not making attempts to direct the affairs of foreign states? I didn't say they were. Yes and what in the blazes are the bureacrats in Washington D.C. going to do about it? They can't stop the funding of a multi-billion dollar black market for drugs within our own borders. Will they have some effect on middle-eastern crime funding? Just what are we going to do about it? Dump more money into their economy? That would seem like the opposite of what we want to do if our effort is to decrease the funding of crime in that region.-a-train

This thread just keeps repeating itself. Hey, fish has to stay. Tuna is too good. -a-train

Certainly I don't believe we should tell Israel what to do, but heavy bombing will not end this madness for them. I can't help but imagine the scenario of a random rocket attack in the United States.Let's say this attacker (or group) shoots the rockets from a house into a busy shopping district. What would be the response? Send gun-ships to destroy the whole block from which the rocket came? Bull-doze the whole block? We would have men on the ground seeking to investigate and apprehend the perpetrators. We would refrain from property damage. Perhaps upon getting close to the shooters, the police (or military) come under small arms fire and engage them. While it would be a real mess, I cannot imagine a scenario where our police start bombing entire residential structures or wiping out a block of houses. Wouldn't such activities make investigation MORE difficult? How can we be sure we got the perpetrators? Did some escape? Who is left to interrogate? Now, Israeli forces may know a lot more than we do, and I'll be fine to let them do as they please, but I see no reason for us to be involved or to come to Israel's rescue. Which makes it all the more ridiculous that Israel gets billions each year in aid from the United States. We give them between 1.5 and 2% of their GDP, a substantial figure. Now we can say that these funds are not spent directly on arms, just as we can say that about aid to Palestinians. However, it could free up funds elsewhere for that purpose.Still, that is besides the point. The aid essentially buys certain loyalty and the permission of politicians in Washington to have some pull among these states. They are OUR leaders, not Israeli or Palestinian leaders. They should not direct the affairs of other states. They should not be enabled to, via foreign aid, secure for their cronies, special licenses or accommodations for international business. It all amounts to tax-payer subsidized cronyism. At the end of the day, it escalates already tense relations. -a-train

I would reduce them all to ZERO. Certainly, let them. That is completely fine. Not for the Palestinians, they see Israel as the aggressor. They see HER as the invader. They see Israel in the same way that Serbia saw Austria at the Battle of Cer.And that is the problem, as uninvolved parties, when we choose a side and agree with them that the other was the first aggressor, we have taken the first step in the path to war. I am only talking about U.S. foreign policy. Which, I believe should allow Gaza, Israel, and every other state on earth to define their own policies. What I am advocating is not the status quo. The status quo is one of interventionism. We are increasingly taking on more and more responsibility to police the world and to direct the affairs of other states. We need to stop this before we enter major conflicts which cannot be avoided once begun. Enormous amounts of blood and treasure will be lost and all to reach a compromise that will still not please everyone. If it were my decision, not another penny of foreign aid would go to Palestine, or any other state for that matter. And yes, I applaud success of any state in capturing, trying, convicting, and sentencing terrorists, murderers, thieves, rapists, and the like. But those are concerns for those states in which these crimes are committed. Hamas rockets have not struck here. The issue is not in our jurisdiction.Much of Hamas's public approval is due to our involvement. We have become a scapegoat. With us gone, the people will begin to realize where the real problem lies, at least that the United States is not part of the problem. They will continue to blame Israel for everything, but I see little hope to convince them otherwise. Israel looks very guilty. Israel does not allow Arab Muslims to immigrate, she continually has leveled houses OUTSIDE her own borders, she has Gaza looking like one big concentration camp. But we, as foreigners, are powerless to better that perception. What I am advocating is: 1. No more foreign aid. 2. No more attempts to direct the affairs of foreign states. 3. The removal of our armed forces from middle-eastern conflicts. -a-train

Great movie. I own it. I have many WWII movies including The Great Escape, Where Eagles Dare, and The Eagle Has Landed. -a-train

Great. Where do we come in handing out millions/billions of dollars to all these parties? Israel should be independent and allowed to handle her own foreign policy. If she is at war, let her wage it. If she is making peace treaties, let her do so. If she perpetuates war or peace, it is her decision.If she is constantly bombarded with rockets and goes hunting to stop the assault, let her do so. Our close alliance with her in such endeavors could rally bigger enemies behind those she invades. Where does everything go from there? This whole thing is one big mess and our involvement only makes matters worse for all parties. -a-train

And there you have it: the modern Christian crusade. Many crusaders centuries ago thought they were doing God's will in bringing about prophesied events while fighting wars with Muslims for power over Palestine.The gathering of the Jews to Israel and their taking up of the political reigns of government IS indeed the fulfillment of prophecy. However, it is not necessary that we give foreign aid to the enemies of Israel. That actually would seem very counterintuitive if our endeavor is to support her. It is further not necessary that we intervene in her affairs or those of her enemies. That only multiplies the problems. That is, in fact, why there was a 9/11: American involvement in middle-eastern affairs. Further, if you actually believe the prophecies of the rise of Israel, you will notice that when the whole world turns against her and goes down to crush her she will not fall, her LORD and Master will save her. Supporting a policy of war toward the Muslim world is not the act of faith but of fear. Further, western power-seekers understand this whole dynamic of the western Christian people's support for Israel based on their belief in scripture and these power hungry bureaucrats are using that to engage in self-aggrandizing and self-enriching political moves. The real fallacy that all of this revolves around is the notion that we can make decisions for others better than they can for themselves. This was the Satanic falsehood upon which the third part of the host of heaven stumbled. We need to step back and let Israel and Palestine sort out their differences and refrain from bringing more millions of people into the conflict. We do not run the world, nor can we. We will only bring upon ourselves our own ruin if we continue to meddle in middle-eastern affairs. There will come more 9/11 events. Hitler invaded Poland on the assumption that he was preventing the advance of communism. His efforts proved to be fatal in the end. He could have allowed Poland to make her own decisions, but he thought he was better informed, better suited to make those decisions for the Polish people. After Franz-Ferdinand was assassinated in 1914, Austria-Hungary demanded that Serbia investigate, seek out, and destroy the terrorist groups among them. They threatened to hold the Serbian government accountable for the terrorist groups in their state. (Sound familiar?) When Serbia failed to meet the demands in the July Ultimatum, Austria-Hungary withdrew her ambassador and ultimately declared war on Serbia. Because of treaties and compacts with other nations, both Austria-Hungary and Serbia had allies fighting with them, the rest of the story is known as World War I. Here we are almost a full century away from that time and we seem to still not get it. -a-train

Your teething!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!-a-train

No, of course not. Have you looked at my position? I assume you are addressing me. What I would object to in such a scenario is Russia giving Canada anywhere from $150 million to $300 million a year in foreign aid while such a conflict goes on and on for decades.-a-train

So if letting one country invade another is not right, then surely you would prevent Israel from invading Gaza.Do you really think the Palestinians are even half as powerful as it would require them to be to invade Israel and kill all Jews? You would rank them as a world power capable of some great take over? That is a lot of credit for a people numbering less than the population of many major U.S. cities and living in near poverty on what amounts to a giant concentration camp. (Some reports claim the per-capita income of Palestinian people is around $1,200 a year). And, if we are trying to prevent middle-eastern states from invading Israel, why are we giving them foreign aid? We give MORE foreign aid to the enemies of Israel than to Israel. These are not world powers, they are living in third world conditions. I am not in any way saying that any nation not defend itself against invasion. If Palestine is the "player", why are we giving them hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars each year? If they are the modern NAZI's, the modern empire of evil seeking world domination, why are we subsidizing them? My position is that we cease from such foreign aid. Don't count your chicks before they hatch.-a-train