Capitalist_Oinker

And I'm sorry for being so caustic. On hindsight there was no reason for me to respond to your post. I don't have a dog in the fight, and the premise, while interesting, really doesn't matter. I guess the reason it piqued my ire was the slight against President Joseph Fielding Smith. I went back and read through your blog, and aside from what I believe are a few too many assumptions, my first reaction was, "do you really believe that President JFS was unaware of all this?"I mean this was a man who is considered by most in the Church to be its greatest scriptorian and gospel scholar. A man who was taught extensively by his father---the same man you propose knew that baptism was required for entrance into the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms. Is it logical to presume that Joseph Fielding just didn’t get it? That this great scriptorian and scholar, through 90+ years of life just plain "misunderstood" the scriptures, and just plain didn't know what other prophets (and his own father) had taught?I don't believe so. While what you present is plausible, I have a hard time believing that Joseph Fielding, of all people, didn't understand. Perhaps as a prophet of God he had just a tad more insight into scripture and doctrine than you and I put together. And if not, and it turns out you are correct, I guess the laugh will be on him and me. But until the Church makes an official declaration on the subject, I'm going to stick with the last prophet who did.

No it doesn't, lagartaaz. The Declaration of Independence preceded the UN Declaration of Human Rights by 170+ years. What's more, the UN Declaration fundamentally proclaims that "rights" are derived from government, while the Declaration of Independence proclaims that rights come from God. If a right derives from government then it can just as well be prohibited by government. Ergo, UN "rights" are NOT inalienable, and in reality are no rights at all! You'll note that in virtually every instance where a right is proclaimed by the UN, there will be this caveat: "Except as prescribed by law". Contrast that to our Constitution which reads, "Congress shall make NO law". Not specifically as it's stated in the sources above, but I believe both the Bible and the BoM make it clear that human beings were created in the image of God and are of infinite worth. The Savior's life and example was centered around upholding with compassion the dignity of all human beings, of service to others, of valuing the poor and oppressed, no matter if they were lepers, children, widows, tax collectors or prostitutes. He taught us to care for the downtrodden. Yes he did. But did he teach anywhere or at any time that we should FORCE each other to care for the downtrodden? Or that we can steal money from each other to provide for the downtrodden?Or that we can jail or otherwise punish someone who doesn't wish to provide for the downtrodden? The UN Declaration describes human rights as 'inalienable' - whether men can take those rights away or not is hardly the point. What????? Whether men can take those rights away or not is PRECISELY the point!!If men can take them away then they are NOT inalienable, are they??Sheesh! I couldn't disagree more. As a civilized society, and more importantly as people who have been enlightened by the Christlike attribute of charity, we should protect the basic rights of every individual to at the very least, food, shelter, education and healthcare.In turn, we too should expect to be taken care of should we become vulnerable at some point in our lives. And I couldn't disagree with you more! Those who have been enlightened by the Christlike attribute of charity understand that Charity CANNOT be forced! Otherwise it isn't charity, is it? Otherwise it deprives an individual of his/her agency. As a member of the Church is that really what you advocate? Aside: That's just really rude - don't speak to me as if you know anything about my church membership or that I'm somehow not a good enough member if I don't have the same views as you do. No it isn't rude. It's a legitimate question to ask, so I'll phrase it as a question instead of a declaration."As a member of the Church, do you believe you have a God-given right to the capitol or labor of another person?" Back on topic: Do you have children who attend public schools? If so, then you must believe you have the right to the capitol and labor of every taxpayer whose money goes into paying for your children's education. Shame on you then, for thinking you have that right - right? How so, lagartaaz? I pay a tremendous amount in property and other taxes to pay for my child's education. And if what I pay isn't sufficient to cover the cost I am more than willing to pony up the difference, provided that everyone else does the same. I do not now, nor have I ever believed that someone else has the obligation to pay to educate my children. What would you do if the government decided that from now on, all elementary and high-school education should be paid for because after all, they decide, 'education' is not a right. What would I do?I'd probably do cartwheels in the street and throw some sort of celebration. Because education ISN'T a right, and no one should be forced to pay to educate my children, nor should I be forced to pay to educate theirs!In my opinion, public (government) education should be eliminated entirely! So your scary scenario is lost on me. Anyone who insists that education is a right must be relying on some esoteric perspective that is not grounded in human logic or spiritual understanding. I love it when an argument ends in agreement.

I agree with Windseeker---your claim is patently false. Regarding "thick skulls" there is no skull thicker than one which tries to equate conservatism with crony capitalism. They are NOT synonymous! And as far as "corporations controlling everything", they can't control anything absent the heavy hand of government. It's government which gives them whatever coercive power they possess.

I had to laugh at your post, gator. Your wife sounds just like my wife. She was raised by a father who was a handyman par excellence, and he taught his daughter well. There is little my wife cannot do when it comes to fixing things. She does almost all of the maintenance around the house, and she maintains all of our vehicles. When my truck dies I open the hood and look for a giant on/off switch. ("There’s the problem right there---the switch is off! I’ll have this baby running again in a jiffy.") When I can't find the switch I turn the problem over to her.

I came to this forum at the behest of a friend of mine who has been a long time member. For whatever specious reason he was convinced that I could offer valuable insight into certain doctrinal principles which he had seen discussed from time to time. I checked the forum out and became a regular lurker, but was reluctant to participate due to time restraints. Eventually I gave in to his badgering and joined. Since then I've answered a couple of questions to the satisfaction of a few, but whether I've offered anything of real worth is debatable. There are times when I have something to say, but I don't say it because I know I won't have time for the ensuing debate. If you had read, you would have found quotes from prophets and scriptures showing that Joseph Smith 'contradicted' himself after learning more from God; and Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith reinforced the doctrinal correction through both statements and canonized revelation. If I had read I would have felt obligated to dissect your treatise, and as I said, I simply don't have the time. If you've managed to effectively correct the "misunderstandings" of a prophet of God---good on ya! No doubt God will continue to rely on your talents in the future. As for making myself look bad, well, it keeps me humble.

I have. My very own, in fact. Here are the exact words: "By virtue of the holy Melchizedek priesthood and as a patriarch in Zion"... It seems to me that the words "virtue" and "authority" (in the context of a blessing) are pretty much synonymous. D&C 121:41 reads: "No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned" If you substitute the word "authority" for "virtue" in this scripture, I can't see how it would change the meaning at all? I realize the instructions today are to always use the word "authority", and I'm certainly not advocating anything else; but I don't believe it would invalidate a blessing if the word "virtue" was used instead.

"And it came to pass on the other hand, that the Nephites did build them up and support them, beginning at the more wicked part of them, until they had overspread all the land of the Nephites, and had seduced the more part of the righteous until they had come down to believe in their works and partake of their spoils..." I believe this is an apt description of Latter-day Saints who embrace and sustain modern day liberalism. But I think the key words in that sentence are "seduced" and "righteous". Based upon those two words I don't believe these Nephites were evil people despite the fact that their actions had evil consequences. I believe they were good members of the Church who loved God and were striving to keep His commandments. However, they were "seduced" into believing that it was okay to "partake of their [government's] spoils" (accept money or goods forcibly taken from someone else) in order to satisfy their needs or the needs of another person. Members of the Church who advocate many "Liberal" programs and principles seem to have forgotten the command, "thou shalt not steal". There was never any qualifier (unless it's for a good cause) attached.

I'm curious where this "inalienable right" came from, lagarthaaz? Did it come from God? And if it didn't, can you explain how it can be "inalienable"? I mean if we acquired that right from men then it certainly can't be described as inalienable, can it? What men have the right to bestow, they also have the right to take away. The fact of the matter is, there is NO SUCH THING as an inalienable right to the basic necessities of life. Otherwise you must argue that you have the RIGHT to force someone to supply you with whatever it is you believe you're entitled to; that you have the RIGHT to forcibly conscript someone to do your bidding. How any member of the Church can believe that they have a God-given right to the capitol or labor of another person is beyond me.

Like cdowis said, the Church is very fortunate to have men like you who can ride to the rescue whenever a prophet "misunderstands" doctrine. As for reading your blog post, I am an extremely busy man. I have a full time job, a full time family, and a FULL time Church calling. I simply don't have time to waste reading dissertations that: A. Don’t really matter. And B. Contradict prophets of God.

Hmmmm? Who should I side with? A guy with a user name and an avatar... ...or a prophet of God? That's a tough one. I'm gonna go out on a limb and side with a prophet of God. Baptism is only necessary for the Celestial Kingdom.

A few days ago Rousey endorsed a Socialist for president. This fight was just Karma redistributing her title.

On the bright side, our home teaching percentage just went up.

So I don't give Pam a headache I’ll not relate how I really feel about these whining brats, but the story does have some comic relief. Apparently the irony of demanding "free college" is lost on the associate professor who gets paid to teach at one. An intellectual giant, eh? http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37340016&nid=148

Looks like my experience in our district wasn't an anomaly. http://www.sltrib.com/news/3170060-155/utah-boy-scout-donations-plummet-will

Speaking of making assumptions... First let me be clear that I couldn't possibly care less whether or not anyone agrees with me, nor do I have a "distaste" for anyone who does. I am in agreement with the Brethren; if anyone disagrees with me they should take it up with them. As for my observations, they are just that---observations. Assumptions and prejudice aside, I believe they accurately portray the situation. "Squealing" is an apt description of how most of the detractors responded to the policy announcement. Rather than wait for an explanation or clarification from official channels, they immediately threw a conniption fit and began name calling. "Bigoted", "Hateful", "Abhorrent", "Despicable", "Disgusting", "Spiteful", and "Vile" were just a few of the adjectives used by Mormons (the faithful kind I suppose) and non-Mormons alike in the news articles and videos which I have read and seen. So there are a lot of people who are genuinely concerned because it does effect them or someone they love personally. I acknowledged in my post that there may be some who are genuinely concerned for the children. But I maintain that the vast majority of detractors are only using the kids as sympathetic props. What they are really concerned about is that the Church has upset the LGBT crusade; a crusade that demands acceptance and tolerates no dissent. Why didn't anyone make a fuss about this policy for polygamist children? Easy, because polygamists have their own church and have no desire to attend our "fallen" meetings anyway. Just an assumption on your part. I personally know of a case where a woman left a polygamous marriage and took her children with her. She moved into the home of her sister who was an active member of the Church, and she began regular attendance. After a long court battle her husband was awarded joint custody, and despite the fact that the children (by that time) wanted to be baptized they were not allowed to do so until they turned 18. No doubt there have been similar cases elsewhere. Further we all know members of this forum who have children who are gay. What if they have children? The concern for these members is genuine and born of love not rebellion. Repudiating a unanimous decision by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve is a decision born of rebellion not love. I believe the Lord would want us to put a loving arm around (figuratively) around those who are struggling with this and try to help them. I'm not opposed to helping those who are "struggling" with the decision. But I haven't been talking about those who are "struggling". My comments have been directed towards those who have come out in open rebellion. And I have little regard for them.

I don't have any problem whatsoever with the decision, but I'd like to make a couple of personal observations regarding the controversy. The first is regarding those who have been squealing about how unfair this is toward the children. While there may be a few who sincerely feel this way, I believe the vast majority of them aren't the least bit concerned about the kids. They are merely using them as sympathetic props for their political and cultural agenda. If they ARE truly concerned about the kids, maybe someone can explain to me why they haven't made a peep about the children of polygamous parents? The same policy has been in effect for a very long time regarding THOSE kids, and yet as far as I know there hasn't been one word of outrage on their behalf. Those who are now feigning shock at the injustice perpetrated upon these innocent children are in reality just angry and frustrated that the Church has (as they see it) reverted to their past homophobic and bigoted policies, when (as they saw it) the Church was on the road to eventually accepting the LGBT agenda. Their ox has been gored and they aren't the least bit happy about it. The second is in regards to those who've been claiming that this announcement has driven a wedge between the Church and many of its “faithful” members. I propose if any member believes that the President of the Church and his two counselors along with the entire Quorum of the Twelve, after unanimously agreeing on this policy, are in direct conflict to what God Himself wants; that these men have made a major mistake and not a single one of them is sufficiently in tune with the Spirit to recognize that mistake---the individual who believes this, whether he/she attends every meeting and holds a temple recommend---is NOT a faithful member of the Church.

The only problem I have with your setup is an obvious shortage of handgun ammo. You might want to consider a larger safe.

He/she/it is definitely a real person and currently running for president. You may fill in the _____________.

I prefer a policy of honesty. You ask for what you want and then tell those who want to compromise to go pound sand.

Good. I feel better about ya. :) How about next time using one of those little winky faces for those of us who are just plain dense.

Thanks for relating your experience. Mine parallels yours. So many donors made the "only because the brethren still support it" declaration that I find it difficult to believe BSA will remain viable in Utah when the Church walks away. And I'm quite certain it's only a matter of time before that happens.

My sentiments precisely, and if I SHOULD feel guilty about it I wonder why I don't?

Donate or donate not; there is no "why".

I understood it wasn't your statement, but rather Elder Bournes. I'm not one to often disagree with General Authorities, but I certainly do in this instance. I say again that I don't understand how on earth the decision to allow homosexual leaders can be considered the "periphery" of scouting? The decision makes a mockery of the Scout Oath, which is the very foundation of Scouting!LDS young men are not so stupid that they don't understand that the Scout Oath has essentially been neutered. I have had numerous conversations with the youth in my ward since the decision and they DO understand the ramifications of the decision. As one of them said to me:"so we can now have a scoutmaster and an assistant scoutmaster in a gay relationship, and they can both stand and recite the Scout Oath and pledge to be "morally straight", and BSA now sees nothing wrong with that??? Man, that is messed up!!" Yes, that is messed up. But that's where we're at, and Elder Bourne's opinion notwithstanding, it AIN'T the "periphery" of scouting.

Seriously Carb, you need to think long and hard about your position. In an earlier thread (Are you a Closet Communist) you wondered if you were so Libertarian that you didn't belong here. I responded that I was on your side. But as a Libertarian are you going to seriously argue that the government should fine anyone who doesn't wish to carry a gun?As a Libertarian are you going to seriously argue that the government should have the power to force an individual to purchase a gun and learn how to shoot it, or deprive said individual of his/her right to vote?If so, you're a sort of Libertarian that I'm certainly not familiar with.