Capitalist_Oinker

I'm sorry I missed it. My life is always getting in my way.

I find this interesting. The Church has prohibited scouts from collecting money for a long time. How long had that been going on? ...he asked the ward council and their presidencies to go out and collect donations. I've been doing FOS drives for longer than I can remember, and I've done pretty much the same thing. I divide the ward directory up and then assign those connected with scouting (YM presidency and advisors, bishopric second councilor, scoutmaster, and Primary presidency) a certain number of members to call. We also have a list of non-members associated with scouting or who have donated in the past that are included on those lists. I found out last night from an LDS/BSA Relationship meeting where Elder Bourne from the Seventy spoke (along with the Primary General President and the Young Men's General President) that FOS donations were down this year church wide. It would appear from the above that my experience wasn't an anomaly. I appreciate the info. One of his main messages to all those in attendance was that we should be "anxiously engaged" and not be as concerned about things on the periphery of the scouting movement. I don't see how the the recent decision regarding homosexual leaders can be described as the "periphery" of scouting, but whatever. The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of members are very unhappy with it, and I had a large pile of very skimpy checks to prove it. Based on what I saw, the average donation this year was half what it was last year. It will be interesting to see if that changes in 2016. Most of us have short memories.

An argument that I'm delusional could certainly be made, but that I have delusions of grandeur---not so much.

Yeah, I'd say it's a tie. Both reprehensible.

No I haven't. But then I don't consider that a "pro-gun" position. Penalizing someone for not carrying a gun is just as reprehensible as penalizing someone for carrying one.

No, no, no, no, and no.

I completely agree. Too many times as Church members we read a faith promoting story by a General Authority and subsequently insist on applying the lesson to ALL people and ALL circumstances. For whatever reason the Lord didn't want Elder Oaks to act in a defensive way in that particular event. To suggest that He would require the same response at every other time or place is hard to justify considering the individuals you mentioned. Joseph Smith said: "It is the duty of all men to protect their lives and the lives of their household when necessity requires it..."; and the Lord Himself stated: "Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies."I believe that applies to prophets and apostles as well as the rest of us.

I haven't watched a movie in years, and the last time I watched television was over 10 years ago while I was convalescing in a hospital bed following a motorcycle accident. And frankly I don't feel like I've missed a thing. We have one rule in our house regarding television and movies. If you would feel uncomfortable inviting the Savior to watch it with you---then don't watch it.

Oh Oh, it’s a gun thread! The last time I participated in one of these I got put on probation. Should I or shouldn’t I? Okay here goes. Keep an eye on me, Pam. I seriously doubt (strike that, I KNOW), there isn't anyone here who is more "pro-gun" than I am. My views on gun laws would probably be considered extreme even to those who consider themselves "pro-gun". Having said that, and despite the fact that I simply DO NOT understand the Brethren's gun ban, I feel obligated to honor their wishes. Hence I will not bring my gun into a church building. It's the Lord's Church and they are His buildings, and if He doesn’t want me in them with a gun---so be it. The odds are it won't matter anyway, but if it turns out someday that it costs me my life (or someone else's life that perhaps I could have saved) I expect that God will make it alright in the end.

I'm with Pam, here. I'll have to look it up when I get time, but I believe it was Joseph Fielding Smith who said that members of the Church should not justify themselves in not paying tithing on taxes that are withheld from their paychecks. I believe he said that tithing should be paid on GROSS income, but I also believe he was speaking for himself rather than the Church. Frankly, I don't worry too much about it. If it turns out that by paying on my gross income I am paying more than I am required to----so what? I'm confident I cannot possibly pay so much that God will be in my debt. If I overpay, I suspect that He will overbless.

I'm on your side Carb. I can answer each question with an unequivocal "NO"!I absolutely detest Communism, Socialism, Fascism, and any other statist "ism". Perhaps my revulsion derives from pre-mortal activities during the "war in heaven". My Patriarchal Blessing states that I was "valiant in the fight for agency" there. I can see no reason why I should abandon the fight here.

Well, you wouldn't have to worry about dinner appointments.

Your statement reminds me of the argument (within the Church) regarding "government" schools in the early 1900s. President Joseph F. Smith consistently warned the Saints not to turn over the education of their children to the government, but it was a losing battle and I believe he knew it. Private schools simply could not compete with "free" government schools even for "faithful" Saints. The Prophet's warning that [if they supported government schools] the Saints would see the day when God would be completely eliminated from their child's education has certainly come to pass, hasn't it?

Chicken-fried elk steak and mashed potatoes smothered in gravy, with corn on the cob (in season) or garden corn from the freezer when out of season. Dessert will be banana cream pie smothered in Cool Whip. (Darn it, I just drooled on my keyboard)

Man it's been a hectic couple of months! Between a ward boundary change, six funerals, Elk hunt, Deer hunt, butchering animals, BSA chartering and FOS drives---I feel like a one legged man at a butt kicking party. Which is why I haven't been around for quite some time. (Not that I believe anyone cared or noticed.) Now that I'm back to work I have some time to get caught up and do some posting again. Anyways, I thought some of you might be interested in this year's FOS results; and rather than go fishing for an old thread on the subject I'm just going to start a new one. I just turned in $1500 and change this afternoon, which was substantially down from last year. The interesting thing is that we had about a dozen more individual donors than last year. The difference is that virtually all previous donors gave less (in many instances MUCH less) than they did last year. For instance, we have a Sister who has given $100 each year for as long as I can remember. This year she gave $25, and she made it abundantly clear that the only reason she was giving ANYTHING is because of her loyalty to the Church and the Brethren. I heard the same thing from many other loyal donors. They HATE the recent BSA decision regarding homosexual adult leaders, and they weren't the least bit hesitant to tell me how they felt. Out of all those who had donated last year who refused to donate this year, the reason was unanimous (the recent BSA decision). I heard similar stories from other ward leaders throughout the Stake. Based upon my experience this year, one thing is evident---when the Church finally walks away from BSA, the number of Church members who will continue to offer financial support to BSA will be truly negligible. If anyone else here was involved in your local FOS drive I would be very much interested in hearing about your experience.

I was hoping this thread wouldn't turn into a contentious debate since none of my questions can possibly have a definitive answer. It's all just speculation, but I've found the speculation interesting for the most part. Here's another something I've always wondered about? Alma 43:14 has always intrigued me. "Now those descendants were as numerous, nearly, as were the Nephites..." The descendants spoken of here are the descendants of the priests of King Noah, and Mormon tells us that these descendants are nearly as numerous as the Nephites! Think about this. While we are never told how many priests Noah had, we are told that they kidnapped 24 of the daughters of the Lamanites, and eventually made them their wives. Perhaps there were more priests than there were kidnapped women, but it seems unlikely there were TOO many more. According to the record, the priests of King Noah come on the scene around 148 B.C. We know that these priests had "wives and concubines" at this point, and we know that after they kidnapped and married the Lamanite daughters (approx. 145 to 120 B.C.) they had children by them. How many children at this point we don't know, but it seems unlikely that it was more than several hundred. And yet just 50 to 60 years later (two or three generations) we read that these descendants were nearly as numerous as the entire Nephite nation! I've always thought that was a little odd. How many Nephites were there? Did Mormon exclude the people of Zarahemla (the descendants of Mulek) when he referred to "Nephites"? If so, it means there must have been only a small handful of righteous Nephites who fled out of the land of Nephi with King Mosiah around 200 to 150 B.C. Maybe the Nephite nation had to essentially start all over again around this time? Maybe when Amaron wrote around 280 B.C. that God had visited the Nephites with "great judgment" and only the righteous were spared, he wasn’t kidding! Any thoughts?

Whenever I hear the word "intellectual" I always think of a particular college professor I once had. The man had a PhD and two Masters degrees, was fluent in four languages, and considered himself the smartest man in whatever room he happened to occupy. One fine winter day he slid his Lincoln off the road and into a ditch, and then asked me if I would be so kind as to help him out. I pulled my truck up next to his car, handed him the hook on the end of my winch while I rolled out 25 feet of cable, and then turned around and watched in utter amazement as he proceeded to attach the hook to the car’s hood ornament! Ever since then I’ve not been much impressed with “intellectualism”.

I'm reminded of an incident that occurred once when some friends and I were traveling through Arizona on our way to hunt Javelina. We stopped at a small gas station, and a very large, surely gentleman (I assume he noticed our Utah plates) challenged us and said, "you guys *&%$# Mormons?" One of my friends piped up and said, "Naw, we're just regular Mormons. The kind you're talking about all live in California." I've lived in Utah all my life, and it's always been those "California" Mormons to us. Now all of a sudden I find out there's a problem with Utah Mormons. Sheesh, who knew?

The thread isn't for trivia questions or doctrinal issues, but rather just questions of little importance that make you go, "Hmmmm?" As to my question, some of your answers were interesting. Thanks. Here's another one. We know that because of the "difficulty of engraving [their] words upon plates" (Jacob 4:1), the Nephites wrote only what they determined to be important. In light of this, I've always wondered why Mormon included the names of four men (Zeram, Amnor, Manti, and Limher) who went out to watch the camp of the Amlicites. (Alma 2:22). There doesn't appear to be any reason why their names would be important; the story doesn't require it, and they are never mentioned in the narrative again. Mormon could have saved himself the trouble of engraving an entire paragraph and nothing important (apparently) would have been lost. Any thoughts?

I'm guessing I've probably read the Book of Mormon from start to finish at least 50 times, in addition to thousands of individual subject and word searches. I love the book. All that reading over the years has generated a number of questions in my mind, and no doubt many of you have stumbled upon verses or stories that make you wonder also. I thought it might be interesting to start a thread where those questions are shared and discussed. For instance: Where did Mormon get the details of Abinadi’s message to King Noah and his priests after Alma was chased off? He certainly didn't get them from Alma's writings because Alma wasn't there to witness any of it. Was there another one of Noah's priests that (much like Alma) repented after Abinadi's death and subsequently recorded his words? Did Mormon just receive them via revelation? Any ideas?

Providing I don't get another one of these full time callings, I intend to find a nice shade tree, a comfortable chair, and a pitcher of lemonade; and then I plan on reading the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon, the Brass Plates, the records of the Lost Ten Tribes, and every bit of the 99% of the Nephite record that Mormon didn’t see fit to include in his abridgment. I can’t wait!

Strange as it may seem, there is nothing in either handbook stating that a temple recommend is necessary to hold a ward calling; not even for a bishop or his counselors. I think we can safely infer that if a man doesn't hold one he isn't going to be called to be a bishop, but I personally know a man who served as a bishop's counselor for three years and did NOT have a recommend during that time. No doubt that's unusual, but it did in fact happen. I also know a number of men who have served as ward clerks who did not have recommends.

I know I'm going to catch heck for this since your post has so many "likes", but I want to ask, "Merciful for whom?" It certainly isn't merciful for the plumber, the dentist, the owner of the furniture store, or anyone else who is ultimately robbed of their labor or capital. Bankruptcy laws are in many instances (particularly Chapter 7) nothing short of legalized theft under the guise of "mercy". If a creditor feels to extend mercy to the debtor he has every right to do so, but ONLY the creditor has that right! You and I (or all of us together) have no right whatsoever to legislate mercy, and if someone here can explain why we do have that right and how we acquired it I would dearly love to hear it.

I suppose my one "like" in this thread pretty much stakes out my position, so I'll just leave it at that. What I'd like to comment on is the blatant hypocrisy of those on the left (and no, I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here since most of you probably won't disagree). The current leftist argument is predominantly that she has an obligation to either obey the law or resign. The law is the law, and it doesn't matter in the least that she disagrees with it; she must either abide by it or resign!! And yet most (if not all) of these same individuals have turned a blind eye to the POTUS blatantly ignoring Immigration law, ACA law, Welfare law, etc. ---not so much as a peep from any of them suggesting that Obama should either obey the law or resign. These hypocrites are only concerned with the law when it's a law they're in favor of. Whenever they discover a law they aren't in favor of, they oh so conveniently forget about the "rule of law".

My wife and children are convinced that I'm from another planet because I don't like music. Music is just noise to me. All of it. Oh, I have some favorite hymns, but they’re favorites because of the lyrics rather than the music. I've never in my life owned any sort of music player (cassette, CD, MP3---nothing) I haven't a single song on my phone or my tablet or my laptop, and when I turn on a radio it gets tuned to a talk or news station or it goes off. Last fall I attended the Sterling Scholar competition in southern Utah, and I honestly thought if I had to sit through one more violin recital I'd go mad. If there is a more annoying instrument than a violin I don't know what it would be? Fingernails on a chalkboard are more pleasant to me. Maybe I should qualify by saying I don't like man-made music, because music made by a Meadow Lark, a Common Loon, a Swainson's Thrush, etc. is music to my ears, and I could listen to that kind all day long.