Capitalist_Oinker

We don't disagree often, but here we definitely do.

The chapter heading and the subsequent verses appear to me to be CLEARLY talking about the millennium. I honestly don't see how it can be interpreted any other way? But if I'm wrong it hardly invalidates my assertion that there are more righteous women than men, and hence more women than men will qualify for Exaltation. We have no factual or revealed information regarding the comparative number of males and females who will be in the (highest degree of the) Celestial Kingdom (that I've ever heard, and I think this would be everywhere of late if there were such). I'm certainly not going to hold my breath until the Lord reveals the future numbers (why would He?), but I don't see why it's difficult to extrapolate when the current numbers are known.

I'm curious as to why you don't believe it?Have you observed anything inside or outside the Church that leads you to believe otherwise?I certainly haven't.In my ward there is a much higher percentage of active and faithful women than men. I can think of at least five women who hold temple recommends whose husbands are not active, while on the other hand there isn't a single temple recommend holding man whose wife does not also hold one.Not long ago I attended a meeting with our Area Authority Seventy, which dealt with the problems of member retention. The statistics were sobering, but two that stood out to me were the gender activity ratio (59% to 41% women to men) and the "singles over age 30 who attend Church weekly" (21 men for every 100 women). Leaving aside the fact that women generally live longer than men (affecting the latter ratio), I believe these statistics still prove my point; women in general are much more faithful than men.Which leads to the obvious conclusion that there will be a greater number of women than men in the Celestial Kingdom. In light of that fact, what would you have God do to rectify the problem? If marriage is necessary for Exaltation (and it is), and absent plural marriage, how would you propose solving the dilemma without violating the principle of agency? Also, I daresay that it's a principle much easier for men to accept than women. Oh, I don't know. Reading the accounts of the early brethren I don't see very many of them who were enthused with the idea. I certainly wouldn't be. I love my wife dearly and I'm not the least bit interested in sharing my affections with another woman. But after shrugging off this mortal coil with all of its carnal, sensual, and devilish baggage I expect to see things a whole lot differently than I do now. And I suspect righteous woman who oppose plural marriage now will see things differently then too.

I'll go with the Atonement also---not so much about the "why" of it, but rather the "how" of it. Regarding polygamy, though, I've never understood why so many Latter-day Saints find it troubling or mysterious? Look at it this way. It's clear (at least to me) from the scriptures, prophetic discourses, and empirical evidence, that women generally are much more inclined to be righteous than men are. The practical result of this fact is that many more women than men will qualify for Exaltation. The scriptures tell us that following the Second Coming "seven women shall take hold of one man, saying: We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel; only let us be called by thy name to take away our reproach". Or in other words, "we’ll pay our own way if you’ll marry us so that we can legally have children". And why would they be willing to do that? Because the number of men who survive the Second Coming will be a fraction of the number of women who will survive it, and if those women wish to have a family they'll have no other choice! If Exaltation requires being sealed to a spouse (and it does), how will all those surplus women (for lack of a better term) claim that blessing absent polygamy?? I believe the principle of plural marriage is an example of God's tender mercies. He is simply looking out for many of his righteous daughters who, because of circumstances beyond their control, will find themselves single and with no prospect of marriage, and hence would not be able to enjoy the blessings of Exaltation otherwise.

The appropriate response would have been to acknowledge his hypocrisy and in light of THAT, reevaluate his ideology. Instead he chose to run and hide.The dishonesty and dissembling from "liberal" Mormons wearies me. While failing to recognize the hypocrisy and contradictions in your ideology may be no sin, willfully ignoring them should be.

I have a great deal of respect for Elder Anderson, and I wholeheartedly agree with his postulation that we will be held accountable for how we vote. How can it be otherwise?? If we cast a vote for an individual who openly supports elective abortion why should God not hold us accountable for the subsequent slaughter of little children? If we cast a vote for an individual who openly advocates "redistribution of wealth", why should God not hold us accountable for the subsequent thievery on a massive scale? If we cast a vote for an individual who openly advocates homosexual marriage, why should God not hold us accountable for the subsequent breakdown of the family unit and all of the societal ills associated with that breakdown? The problem with the vast majority of "liberal" Mormons, is that they can never seem to understand or accept the fact that "legal" and "moral" are not synonymous! God isn't the least bit cowed because we make immoral principles legal, and I don't believe he will absolve us for supporting or fostering (via our votes) immoral principles simply because we have declared them legal. I once wasted several hours in debate with a leftist member of my ward regarding the principle of "redistribution of wealth", which he strongly supports. I asked him how he could possibly advocate stealing when God has explicitly forbidden it. He answered that it's not stealing because it's legal. I then asked him if a married Latter-day Saint could have sex with a prostitute in a licensed brothel in Nevada without it being considered adultery? He saw where I was going and immediately did what all "liberal" Mormons do when they find themselves stuck between a rock of their ideology and a hard place of our theology. He said he didn't want to talk about it anymore.

Mine is just a play on my user name, which was essentially given me by my niece. She is a militant socialist (bless her kind heart and addled brain), who says she loves me too much to call me a capitalist pig. So capitalist oinker it is.

We disconnected from TV several years ago because we couldn't justify the expense when neither my wife nor I ever watched it. My sons were a little bummed at first, but they've gotten used to it. I have never been a TV or movie watcher, and I couldn't care less about sports. I haven't seen a movie in years, and the last time I watched a TV program was over ten years ago while convalescing in a hospital bed after a motorcycle accident. However most days I'll spend several hours per day on the internet. I'm a news junkie and the internet is where I get it.

I very much agree with Vort here. Just as our mortal activities will most certainly influence our post mortal lives, our premortal activities "did and do influence our mortal lives". My patriarchal blessing states: "because of your valiant service in premortal life, you have acquired the gift of faith"...Obviously then, I would disagree with Jane's claim that pre-mortal actions don’t "directly influence our situation in this life in any categorical way our mortal minds can understand."

Two hours of FaceTime with my son in the mission field. :)

Remember one thing. A testimony comes from the Spirit. It always has and always will. Anyone who claims they have lost their testimony can just as well say they have lost the Spirit. And if they have lost the Spirit it's because they have either quit doing those things they are supposed to do, or they have started doing those things they're not supposed to do. The Spirit is grieved, He withdraws, and so goes the testimony. I know nothing about your father other than what little you have written. But I can confidently state that this applies to him, just as it applies to everyone else. As for you, I would just offer the same advice the Savior offered when confronted by skeptics. "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." (John 7-17) The natural man wants proof before he will act. With few exceptions, God's way is to require action before He provides the proof. (Take one step into the dark, THEN you will see the light.) If you really want to know, then "do his will", and in God’s own time you will come to "know the doctrine".

Please DO see your bishop and please don't procrastinate.I can confidently promise you two things.1. Your bishop will be understanding and will help you regain your worthiness to serve a mission. 2. If you don't see your bishop and make a confession, you will not be an effective missionary. You will not enjoy the companionship of the Spirit except to trouble your conscience until you finally do confess. Confession and repentance NOW will be much easier and rewarding than it will be after you've entered the mission field. Again, please don't procrastinate.

Where did you finally decide to settle, David?

Growing up I was the only one in my family who liked olives (black). Because everyone else hated them my parents wouldn't buy them. But every Christmas I would get a can of olives in my stocking. In addition to that, I LOVED to eat tuna right out of the can. But we didn't have a lot of money in those days, and since mom could turn a can of tuna into a dozen sandwiches I never got to eat tuna out of the can except on Christmas. I always found a can of tuna in my stocking in addition to the olives. :) Now I can eat them whenever I want, but for some reason they don't taste as good as they did back then.

Yes, I love the temple. I love participating in the ordinances, and I love the teaching, the learning and especially the revelation that occurs there. I can't think of anything I don't love about the temple except perhaps the fact that there are locks on the lockers. The need for that has always disappointed me.

As others here have already mentioned, there is nothing wrong with reciting words that you have mentally prepared in advance. Many times those words are given by the Spirit in advance. I've also had the experience of mentally preparing words in advance, and then never reciting those words in the dedication because the Spirit dictated otherwise. If your husband follows the outline in the handbook it will be difficult to go wrong.

One of the most overused and useless words in the English language. "Affordable"

If we can substitute the word "protect" for the word "provide" then I agree. If not, then I vehemently disagree.

Lagarthaaz, I know this wasn't directed toward me, but I hope you won't mind if I make a comment. I know you're not much interested in a conversation, since you think I'm rude, but please hear me out. Considering your statement above, it appears you believe that "citizens" (I assume through some sort of democratic process) have the right to determine what should be considered "rights" for the body of citizens as a whole. Am I reading your thoughts correctly here? Let me explain why I think you're wrong, and why I believe no Latter-day Saint should embrace such doctrine.I'll explain my reasoning by way of analogy along with a related question for you. As a member of the Church, you know that we claim to have authority from God (Priesthood) to act in His name. Each Priesthood holder received that authority from another man who already possessed the authority beforehand. I can trace my authority through just 10 individuals (counting the Three Witnesses and Peter, James, and John as one each) beginning with the Savior Himself. I'm confident you would agree that if a man does NOT hold the Priesthood (authority) himself, he cannot bestow that authority upon another. I'm also confident that you would agree that if any two men do not have that authority, neither can they bestow the authority upon another. My question is this: Can there ever be a large enough number of men (having no authority themselves) who can then bestow authority? In other words, based upon sheer numbers alone, can they bestow authority they do not possess individually?Before hearing your answer I'm going to guess that it will be "No". And, of course, if that is your answer you are correct. Obviously the number of men is inconsequential. If none of them (no matter how many) have authority, it's impossible to argue that they can bestow that authority they do not possess upon someone else! The same principle applies to societal authority. If I have no authority to take money from one man to give to another, I certainly cannot bestow that authority upon someone else.If you and I (and ten thousand more like us) have no authority individually to take money from one man to give to another, then how on earth can we transfer that authority to someone else? It is simply impossible to argue that individuals who have no authority to do something, can by virtue of sheer numbers assume authority and subsequently bestow it upon another!Likewise, government cannot rightly claim the authority to do something that the individuals who make up the government have no authority to do themselves. Nor can a society transfer authority to government when the individuals who make up that society have no authority themselves. It makes reason stare to argue otherwise. God has issued an irrevocable command---"Thou shalt not steal".Nowhere in scripture or modern-day revelation are there any clairfiers ("unless it's for a good cause"; "unless the majority agree"; "unless it's made legal"). If I (by force, stealth, or fraud) take something that doesn't belong to me, with the intention of giving it to someone whom I deem worthier of it, I am no less guilty of stealing than if I had kept it for myself. I have no right to steal, and because I have no right to steal I cannot bestow that right upon someone else, whether inside or outside government.It makes no difference whether we are talking about health care, welfare, public education, or any of the myriad other services supplied by government which require forcibly taking capitol or labor from one person and bestowing it upon another.It is unrighteous, immoral, and a violation of God's law. I hope this explanation is sufficient to explain why I feel the way I do about "rights", forced charity, and the other things we discussed.

On Thursday I attended a regional training meeting with a member of the General YM presidency, a member of the YM General Board, and an Area Authority Seventy. The training was (obviously) in regards to young men, and concentrated on how to keep them active and how to prepare them to serve honorable missions. The thing that struck me was that the Scouting program was only mentioned in passing, while the Duty to God program was mentioned and discussed numerous times. I'm not suggesting this means anything, but I've attended numerous such meetings and the fact that Scouting was barely mentioned is unusual.

Jefferson used the words interchangeably.A draft of the Declaration in Jefferson's own handwriting has the word as "inalienable".

I'm fully aware of the "cannot be given away" argument, but I it's only HALF an argument. Jefferson not only understood the terms "unalienable” and inalienable" to mean the same thing, but more importantly he understood that both terms also meant "cannot be TAKEN away". To suggest that he believed both terms meant ONLY that you cannot voluntarily "give your rights” away", is to suggest that he believed there was no prohibition on someone TAKING them away. When we abrogate our duties, we forfeit our rights. Only to one extent. NATURAL rights can only be (morally) forfeited when we abrogate our duty to refrain from acting in a way that infringes on someone else's rights. That refrain is the ONLY duty we have. I may have a moral obligation to be charitable, but I have NO legal obligation, and government cannot (morally) require it of me. When people neglect the responsibility to be charitable, the government must impose welfare... It "must"??? A charitable citizenry or not, the government has NO RIGHT to legislate charity because you and I (and all of us put together) have no such right either.

Correct. And if government had no power to bestow favors on one group at the expense of another, lobbyists and campaign contributions would accomplish little or nothing.

Hey, who said I can't do things? You want me to track your wounded elk down and haul it out? I can do that.You want me to cape your coyote after the shot? I can do that.You want me to call in a turkey close enough that you can bop it on the head? I can do that.You want me to coax a flock of Canadas into your decoys? I can do that.You want me to put an edge on a knife so you can shave with it? I can do that.You want me to plot a route with a map and compass and get you safely home? I can do that. Just don't ask me to fix the plumbing or repair that broken chair, or build a deck, or install a fuel pump.For those things you'd better ask my wife.

Crony capitalism is a symptom of big government, NOT a symptom of big business. If you believe it's merely the result of a small minority taking control then I believe it's you who doesn't understand.I think you place entirely too much blame on business, Traveler. If government was prohibited from playing favorites (in all its myriad forms) it wouldn't matter in the least how much money a business had or how much control it desired. A business, no matter the size, cannot use force to get what it wants. Only government can do that.