srmaher

Dennis Prager, a nationally syndicated radio host posed this question on his show last week, “what is the essential ingredient for happiness? Allot of people called in and made great arguments for what they believe is the "essential ingredient" for happiness. What do YOU think? In your opinion, what is the essential ingredient for happiness? Don't write a one word answer; give the reasons behind your answer. UPDATE, UPDATE! Happiness Defined Several people have asked me what I mean by happiness. Now, I am assuming that 99.9% of people who come to lds.net are actually LDS. That being said, when I refer to happiness, I am referring to the same concept that the Brethren refer to in their talks. For example, Elder Holland just a few days ago gave a talk about happiness. I doubt that anyone who read his talk asked themselves, "I wonder what he means by happiness." The happiness that I am refering to is the same as in Elder Hollands talk, and every other talk given to us from the Brethren that reference happiness!

I chose the word evil because its what prophets int he BOM used. What do you think they mean when they refer to us as Evil?

Woudent you say the constant struggle to remain clean, repent, and remember God, and indication that mankind is not inherently good? This doesnet mean we dont have good intentions or that we don't try our hardest to be good and obey, but that our natures are such that we are prone to wander for more easily than we are drawn to that which is good. No?

I completely agree, i have written in several places that I wish i would have chosen a better word than "evil," I did so because it was the word used in the BOM to describe our fallen nature. You pretty much make my point, our nature is such that if we do not keep ourselves in check, we will inevitable forget God, become prideful which than results in God having to humble us. this is one of the central messages of the scriptures, from Gen to section 132, we are prone to rebellion against God. This is the point; our natures are not good, if it was than remembering god, humbling ourselves would be easy.

Here is that link you asked for, also, Bush didn't collude with "big oil" to lower the prices. The price reduction came, as you said correctly, as the result of the recession. FYI, the insurance companies were on board with the ACA, Caremark for one. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-insurance-bailout-20140521-story.html#page=1

MOE, if you go back and read the article, my point is that liberals hate big business the way conservatives hate big government. The difference is that the left, through their polices make the government more expansive and powerful, as a result it creates the very thing it hates. Both the left and the right agree that big business is an enemy to liberty, but the left is unable to see the connection between the size of government and the size of "big business." Tell me MOE, if President Bush had the oil companies artificial lower the price of oil during a midterm election, what would the media have done?

In what way have I promoted my blog? I don't include any links on my posts because i don't think it would be appropriate.

Isn't that the reason for these forums, to share ideas?

Yes, and Approachingjustice.net I think these ideas are worth sharing and want to get them in front as many people as possible.

Imagine how the mainstream media would react if the Bush administration colluded with “Big Oil” to artificially lower the price in order to help the Republicans in an election year? According to the L.A. Times, this is exactly what the Obama administration is doing with the insurance industry. The popularity of the Affordable Care Act is going to hurt the Democrats this fall, and the administration knows it. To hold onto as many seats as possible the insurance companies have agreed to keep premiums artificially low, and in return they have received a guarantee from the Administration to be bailed out if they incur any financial loss. Many have bought the false narrative that corruption in Washington stems from lobbyist and special interest groups influencing politicians. In reality, the L.A. Times provides a perfect example in how both big business and big government work together to further their agenda. This false narrative has resulted in the American people believing that removing money from politics will result in the politicians being free to serve the people. While this theory is quaint and sounds great on paper one significant detail seems to be consistently overlooked, politicians use big business as much as big business uses the State. In many instances, the politicians have more interest in companies than the companies have in Washington (i.e. Microsoft and Apple). As the government gets bigger so does the opportunity to make money. As a result, instead of focusing their attention on innovation or creating products, they spend their time and resources lobbying members of Congress that can and do help their bottom line. This no doubt is true, but its only half of the story. The mainstream media and the left give the impression that lobbyist are trying to influence the government to remove regulations and obstacles that make doing business difficult. In fact, the message coming from the left is entirely wrong. In reality, big business is one of the biggest advocates of regulation. Why would they support regulations you ask? Well, it is simple; regulations quite often eliminate the smaller competitors of big business that simply cannot afford to comply with the steady influx of new regulations. Conservatives understand that regulations don’t hurt large corporations but small businesses. For example, the “Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (FSPTCA)” which was signed into law in 2009. President Obama claimed that this law was a victory in the “war on tobacco.” In the most basic sense, this law created regulations in regard to the production of tobacco products. One of the main advocates of this law was Philip Morris, the largest Tobacco Company in the country. They had been lobbying for this when it was first introduced fifteen years ago. What an interesting dilemma…why in the world would Phillip Morris support a law that would only make doing business harder? To eliminate competition from smaller companies who can’t afford to comply with the new regulations. By taking advantage of government’s power, they create for themselves an economic environment where competition does not exist. General Electric provides one of the best examples of big business merging with government to further its own agenda. Right before Obama took office in 2009, CEO Jeffrey Immelt sent a letter to stockholders that included the following. “The global economy and capitalism will be “reset” in several ways. The interaction between government and business will change forever. In a reset economy, the government will be a regulator; and also an industry policy champion, a financier, and a key partner…Successful companies won’t just “hunker down”; they will seek out the new opportunities in a reset world.” The kind of world Jeffrey Immelt is glorifying is the kind of world that kills innovation, limits economic development, and greatly reduces the freedom of the American people. It is the limited government that has made this country as prosperous as it has been. For a moment let’s reflect on the history of this nation. In 1893, the Federal Government turned to the private sector for what could be considered a bailout. What transpired was J.P. Morgan lending the government $100 million (3 billion today) in order to stabilize the financial crisis that was spiraling out of control. Ironically enough, a little over 100 years later the federal government has become so large that the private sector now turns to Washington to be bailed out. Newt Gingrich made an insightful observation about the detrimental effect lobbyists can and typically do have on economic progress. “If we had today’s government in the 1800s, stage coach lobbyists would have fought for a law saying that trains couldn’t go faster than a horse because it’s unfair.” There is a lot of truth in this; in fact Germany has laws prohibiting businesses from being open past a certain hour because it is “unfair to their competitors.” When it’s all said and done, what is the best way to reign in this kind of corruption? Without question, the only way to resolve this issue is to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. This places Liberals in a tough situation because on one hand they believe in big government and at the same time they fear big business. In a very ironic way, Liberals end up creating the thing they fear the most by voting to give more power to the federal government. Is anyone shocked that under President Bush and Obama big business has grown in proportion to the size of government? This incident reported by the L.A Times is a perfect example as to why Conservatives advocate for smaller government.

I should have clarified in my post that the choice to use the word evil is because its the word used in the BOM. I think what you are saying is absolution true in that we are inherently self-centered. perhaps that would have been a better way of saying it.

yjacket "Ideologies such as communism, socialism, and fascism most definitively do not believe that mankind is inherently good but that man is a beast that must be controlled and tamed. They believe that it is only by force that mankind can be induced to do good." They most certainly do, the genesis of this idea comes from Rousseau philosophy that inspirited the French Revolution who latter influenced Marx and Engels. This idea permeates modern liberalism which provides the motivation for bringing about social justice. "I personally reject the notion of mankind being inherently evil. We are gods in embryo and being inherently evil to me does not fall in line with this. I believe within each of us is the capacity for tremendous good and evil." I have no problem with people who differ on this issue, but being a latter day saint, what are your thoughts on the many scriptures provided that confirm our nature in mortality. That being said, we do not know what life was like in the pre-mortal life. Keep in mind, Satan and his followers were made from the same light and truth that you and I are made from, and in the they chose their path of evil. Now, were we inherently evil in the pre-mortal world? I haven't the faintest clue, but as to mortality, there is no question that our nature is evil. Thank for taking the time to respond.

I think this generation has forgotten that this country was build on the notion that mankind is inherently evil and that is why need religion, in particular the God of Israel that empowers us to overcome our nature. We live in an age, where "Korihors" run the media and academia who teach that mankind does not need religion because after all, we are good. Don't underestimate the power of these forums my friends :)

Which is what.. that you quote scriptures out of context?

Don't be going all psychology on me now :) its funny you say this because i was going to write something very similar to another member who posted something. Actually, the topic of evil has preoccupied my mind with what is happening in the world. To your point. You are correct in part, section 93 teaches that our spirits are eternal and made from light and truth, which is the same material of our Christ. When we come into Mortality we are then “clothes” in a tabernacle of clay which infringes upon us a nature that must be overcome. This is the context i am speaking of, I figured the many scriptures quoted would have made them point self-evident, I was not talking out the inherent goodness of our eternal nature (created from light and truth). This is why we need a Savior, It is only through Jesus Christ that we can overcome the flesh and become like “God,” perfected i think is the word i used in the post. If we were inherently good, than why do we need a Savior (or a God for that matter) to make us good?

Perhaps your projecting your own feelings about this issue. Theres nothing pessimistic about this idea at all, and if it wasn't important, then why does the Book of Mormon devote so much time to it? I would argue that its among the most important ideas in mortality, after all, over 100 million people died in the 20th century because of the ideologic belief that mankind is inherently good, Ideologies such as communism, socialism, and fascism.

Seriously! Do you even know what Moroni 7 is all about. The first part of the book deals with how to make righteous judgments. It has nothing to do with "where we came from." Talk about trying to "prove" your point with scriptures, the difference between the two of us is that i use scriptures in the proper context, but nice try.

Authors note: For clarification, the use of the word evil in this post refers to the inclination of mankind to be selfish, greedy, ungreatful and entitled to what others have. I chose the word evil, because its one of the words used in the BOM to describe our nature. The question of whether or not mankind is inherently good or evil has been debated for centuries. Fortunately for Latter-day Saints, the Book of Mormon provides the answer that yes, mankind is inherently evil. The Book of Mormons prophets describe mankind as lost, fallen, carnal, devilish, sensual, and evil. That doesn’t sound too “good” to me. From First Nephi, all the way through Moroni, the Book of Mormon is saturated with examples of “mankind’s” utter failure to be good, not to mention Heavenly Father having to step in to humble his people so they will repent and obey. I am sure many are thinking, “How can you believe that we are inherently evil after holding a baby in your arms?” First of all, we are born innocent, not evil. It is our natures that make us evil. Anyone who has kids understands that it takes a tremendous amount of effort to teach them to share, be kind, be honest, treat others with kindness, to sacrifice, to serve others, to delay gratification, and the list goes on. Despite parents’ best efforts, this battle over the “flesh” is never ending; it will be with us for the rest of our lives. Below I have proved a list of scriptures from the BOM that show we are by nature, evil. Those who believe in the goodness of man (secularists) attribute evil behavior to external forces, such as poverty, racism, and inequality. They reject the idea that mankind is “free to choose,” to rise above their circumstance and fulfill their potential. It is ironic that the belief in the goodness of mankind undermines our ability to grow spiritually. One of the unintended consequences of the secularist belief system leads people to transfer their personal responsibility onto others in order to exonerate them of their “bad” behavior.Belief in our inherent goodness acts as a stumbling block to spiritual progression. Who is more likely to humble and submit one’s will to God, someone who thinks highly of oneself or someone who believes like the brother of Jared, “that they are evil continually?” One of the easiest ways to justify bad behavior is to judge ourselves by our intentions, rather than by our actions. This form of self-delusion comes as a result of thinking we are good, after all, our intentions are good, or at least we convince ourselves to think this. This false doctrine comes from the father of all lies, who believed he was so good, so superior to both God and the Christ that he sought to "fundamentally transform" the plan of Salvation, to ensure that everyone would be saved. No doubt Satan had high self-esteem that I am sure played a role in his unwillingness to submit to Gods will, after all, why would he need to. The belief in the goodness of mankind is contrary to the Gospel because it undermines mankind's gift of agency, the very foundation of what God’s plan is built upon. This doctrine is empowering. Without it, nothing would exist. Believing we are inherently "bad," is liberating. It means we have reached a point where Christ can make us into his image. To be molded, shaped and perfected according to his will. When we understand our true nature, then we will automatically become better parents, because we will help them to fight the greatest battle in life is which is within themselves. Remember the words of the Brother of Jared, one of the greatest prophets to ever grace the earth, "we know that thou art holy and dwellest in the heavens, and that we are unworthy before thee; because of the fall our natures have become evil continually." If feeling this away about himself is good enough for him, it’s sure good enough for me!

This sounds very similar to the claim that 1 in 5 women on college campuses are sexually assaulted. I looked at the link you provided and I was unsure if they are talking about the same thing (i.e., sexual assault on campus). That being said, here are a few sources debunking the myth that 1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted on campus. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/377492/obama-administrations-deserving-victims-heather-mac-donald http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-college-become-the-victims-of-progressivism/2014/06/06/e90e73b4-eb50-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html http://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-myths-that-will-not-die/

No fair, you cant quote scripture to prove your point :)

We would do well as a people/individually to keep in mind Clayton Christianson's (area authorty 70 in Boston, Author of "how will you measure your life) counsel that truth is always consistent with Truth. I can see a shift in the church (for the better) in that many are looking outside the traidtional BYU/CES sources that we find at Deseret Book. Now, i am not disparaging these sources because they have bless many peoples lives, my only point is that there is so much wisdom and insight out there from non-member sources that can enhance our understandng of Gods plan, doctrine and principles, if we dont seek these great minds out, we are liminting ourselves to be taught by the Lord, I trully belive that. Someone should start a new topic in a forum (not sure which one) where members of LDS.net can post great books and other sources from non-members who they consider to fit into the catagory of "the best books."

I completely agree, God bless! I look forward to more Conversations.

Gummy/Estradling I could not say it any better (estradling75), Unfortunately those like myself cant get away from the indoctrination that comes from the left. They run the educational system and the media, perhaps if i was really interested in feminist theory, i would have to "Search" it out because you will not get these "ideas" from academia or the media. Actually, they do talk about them but in a mocking way. The examples i give are things I come across in the news, i dont have to seek them out, their like low hanging fruit, easily debunked. I forgot who said this, "there are things so ridiculous that only intellectuals believe them." Behold, modern feminism.

A few comments mentioned that there are different strands of feminism, i am sure there is truth to that, but the institutions that shape public opinion and social norms (i.e., the media and academia) openly advocate radical feminism, so the other "strands" never get to voice their opinion.

This is just a thought/observation. I am continuing my thought from a previous comment on this topic (Quote above). One is a behavior and the other a belief system, and this is why i believe that Max Hall is being treated better in the media/online then Kate Kelly was by members of the church, Max' issues are behavioral white Kate Kelly's ideological. I may be wrong but its just a thought.