David13

This is a testimony of how God has worked in my life. You seem to be reading it as an argument. I did not share this to argue that my "religion is superior to that of others." It is a testimony, not an argument.

Traveler, Steve is not saying that his religion is superior to others. He is sharing an experience he had that testified to him that peace comes from God.
M.

How very, very sad. I don't know your circumstances, but I do feel that in general as a society we have seriously messed up our family priorities.
Society teaches that the fathers and mothers must be constantly involved in their children's lives. That if parents aren't taking kids to soccer practice, club meetings, etc. they are being a bad parent.  I have learned that it is really the opposite.  The absolute best thing a father and mother can do for their children is to make their relationship; the husband/wife relationship the #1 relationship.  Nothing in the family is more important then that relationship. Children should not be allowed to interrupt or come between the husband/wife relationship. The marriage existed prior to children and should exist after children and as such it should always be the #1 focus.
Too many husbands and too many wives put their role as husband/wife aside when children come and become father/mother 1st rather than husband/wife 1st. If a wife always puts on her role as wife 1st, i.e. her husbands needs are met prior to anyone else's needs and if a husband always puts his role as husband 1st (her needs are met before anyone else's) then there would be no need for divorce.
The challenge in the modern age is that many years ago, husbands implicitly understood what their role was (provider/leader/head) and wives implicitly understood their role (nurturer/supporter/heart) and today husbands and wives can't seem to figure out what their role is except that "love" will conquer all. When people don't know what their role is or when they compete on roles then everything just falls down.
I wish you the best of luck and use this as a learning experience. 

The reminded me of a story from my childhood.  When I was about nine years of age, I was with my mother in a shopping mall.  There was the token LONG line of bored looking parents and children foaming at the mouth waiting to see Santa Claus.  I asked my mother if I could please speak with Santa.  I remember her clearly saying, "Whatever on earth for?"  I told her in my nine-year-old way that that was for me to know and him to hear.  She grudgingly agreed to stand with me in line.  I am sure we got more than a few odd stares at a sour-faced mother and a little boy wearing his kippah standing in line to see the Man in Red.  When I finally got to hop up on Santa's lap, I asked softly if it would be at all possible for him to visit our house for just one night of Chanukah.  He smiled, but before he could respond, my mother grabbed my arm and led me away.  Apparently I hadn't asked quite as softly as I'd thought I had.

My concern is the result.
No beast in the White House.  (After the current one leaves, I mean.)
dc

Well, more specifically, I mean does it matter if they vote for him because they think he's a great guy, or whatever, or just that they don't want the hella beast?  I don't think it matters. 
dc
 

Different.  Each one is different.  Some are ok.  Some, I can take them or leave them. 
dc
Mostly friendly or at least somewhat responsive.  Of course my interaction has been limited to law students, lawyers, and Judges.
 

My concern is the result.
No beast in the White House.  (After the current one leaves, I mean.)
dc

The short hair and no beard i think actually dates back to Roman soldiers, in the day before the day, before ... way back there.
I have only been in the church one year.  I have short military style hair but a full neatly trimmed beard.  I know, as I have been informed that to serve as Bishop I may need to be remarried (i"m working on it) and shave.  And also to work in the Temple.
And our ward Patriarch (before he moved on to Utah) I think itched to get me to shave, tho' he only talked about it, and didn't tell me to shave.
One member in our stake told of being in SLC and Elder Ezra Taft Benson getting into the elevator with him.  He (our member) had a mustache at the time (70s or so?) and Elder Benson merely said "mustaches are inappropriate".  To this day our brother is clean shaven.
It's obedience, it's conformity.  Which I think is a good thing.  If you are a member, walk, talk and act like it.  And wear the robe like all the others do, also.
My only problem is I don't think I look good without a beard any more.  All my youthful good looks have worn off.
dc

But this is not BYU's fault. I went to BYU for many years -- frankly, a lot longer than I should have -- and I don't recall ever once thinking that someone was a sinner for sporting facial hair. It's a dress and grooming standard, nothing more.
On my mission, the mission president had a summertime rule that the sisters needed to shave their legs and armpits if they wore dressed that revealed, well, their legs or armpits. I doubt anyone had any delusions that body hair was evil, and the country we served in (Italy) was not especially known for scrupulous feminine depilation. But those serving in the mission were expected to conform to grooming standards, which included shaving for both sexes (though of different body parts).
I think it's unfair to blame BYU or its Honor Code for one's personal shortcomings. I see this done often, by many people, and frankly I think it's a copout.

Phil Robertson?  Is that you? 

Yeah, it's funny how the only country they have to put a wall around to keep people IN is ... "the socialist workers ... PARADISE?"
DC

If Cruz was leading in the Republican primaries this thread would not be needed.  The Republican Party will be in good hands with Cruz.  Or even Kasich.  But, as it stands right now, Donald Trump has a higher chance of winning the nomination.
If Donald Trump becomes the Republican Nominee, the only thing that can make him lose in the general election is the Republican NeverTrumpers - he's basically gonna be eaten by his own.  This will be like the Republicans getting handed the football on the 10-yard-line in the Superbowl and they stop running and hand the ball back to the Democrats and guided them to the end zone.  There's a reason Trump is resonating with a lot of people including ultra-conservative Tea Partiers like Jeff Sessions, evangelists like Jerry Falwell, etc.  It's easy to dismiss them as stupid and angry, etc., but that's not the case.  It's good to point out that the people that are closest to him and know him best - the people of New York and Florida where he is a homeboy - solidly support him.
Please take a few minutes to watch this Town Hall from April 12.  It's the Donald Trump that I know.
Minute 1-11 is the usual Trump stump statements... on Colorado/Cruz/RNC stuff... on details on his plans, etc.
Minute 11:30 his family joins him.  Each kid plus Melania answers how they felt about Trump announcing his candidacy.  Don Jr., explains why this is the best time for Trump to run.
Minute 15 Ivanka and Eric answers the reason why they can't vote in New York Primary.
Minute 19 Audience starts asking questions to Trump and his family starting with Eric and what bond he has with Trump.
Minute 22 Audience question about Trump's tone in the campaign trail and what his family thinks about it.
Minute 26:30 Audience question to Ivanka on her friendship with Chelsea Clinton and another question about Trump's relationship with Women.
Minute 30:  Question to Melania on her views on kids and social media.  And additional question on Trump's use of social media in the campaign.
Minute 35:30 Question to Don Jr. about Trump's divorces.  Eric also chimes in.
Minute 38:  Question to Melania about being a Mom.  Ivanka chimes in.
Minute 40:  Question to Ivanka and her conversion to Judaism.  Segwayed into a question on Trump's relationship with his in-laws.  Tiffany chimed in about introducing her boyfriend to the family.  My favorite part of this interview is on 43:38 when Eric quickly touches Tiffany's knee after the 2 older brothers pulled some "he'll have to go through the older brothers" muscle.  Tiffany reaches to touch Ivanka's shoulder.  It's a very natural expression of support from the brothers to signal that they're just ribbing her and a natural reaction of Tiffany reaching to her sister for female solidarity.  I found this special because Tiffany didn't grow up with the 3 older kids as she grew up with her mother in California yet it is evident that she is still quite close with the other siblings.
44:  Question to Don Jr. about what he learned from Trump on how to run a business and how tone is important (honey versus vinegar).
46:  Question about alcoholism and how Trump instilled personal responsibility in his kids and what he says to parents with kids struggling with addiction.
49:20 Question about top 2 financial advice he gave to his children (this gives Trump's answer to a thread we have here about Education).
50:30 Question to each kid and Melania about what new thing they learned about Trump in the election cycle.  Also question to Trump about what he learned.  Trump answered that he learned about how his family gives him the balance that he needs in politics.  Minute 54 is special - Trump says the most important thing in life is Family and how the most happy people are those with good families.
54:20 Question on which is tougher - business or politics.  Minute 56 delves into delegates.
 
 

Not at all. Still isn't, though I'm willing to take your word for it.
No. I disagree with what seems to be your implicit characterization of those who don't see things your way as somehow unChristlike.

You keep harping about "people".  But I suggest you don't know what you are talking about.
Are not the ceos people?  Are not the stockholders people?  Are not those who profit also people?
Or do you mean only those certain people who you decide should matter?
Is there such a thing as a profit without a person, or "people" behind it?
Does not the system reward "people" according to their productivity and social value? 
Do you not understand you can pay "people" to produce something useless, that cannot be sold, to your heart's content.
Or you can do something with your life other than seek profit all you want.
But where do you come off thinking the world has appointed you to impose your misguided ideas upon others?
dc

No economic system in the history of the world is more "on the side of humanity" than capitalism. For some reason, we must modify this so people know we are not speaking of crony capitalism, which isn't capitalism at all, but simple corruption, as seen when O'bama gave billions of tax borrowed dollars to his bundlers like the heads of A123 and Fisker and Solyndra.
The profit motive has given more people life and health than any other motivation. It has fed more people, kept them safe from the elements, educated them, given them leisure time, even the poorest in those societies wise enough to get out of the way.
So, if one wishes to err on the side of humanity, it would be a good choice to support capitalism and the profit motive above all other systems.
Lehi

You don't need business to fulfill covenants.  You don't need business to serve.
When you do engage in business, it is for profit.  There is NOTHING wrong with that.  Unless you can feed 5,000 with 5 loaves and 2 fish by praying to the Father for it, starting a business to make a boatload of profit to turn your 5 loaves and 2 fish into more loaves and fish is your surefire avenue to be able to perform that kind of miracle.

The difference is that it's tyranny for the Government to make business decisions.  Protecting a natural resource that we all share is one thing.  Interfering with a company's internal business practices is quite another.  Sometimes layoffs are a necessity to keep a company solvent, and it isn't necessarily due to bad management.  Things change.  Supply and demand are not static.  The company's management isn't going to be improved by having Government pulling puppet strings and punishing people.  By this logic, the Government should monitor how you raise your kids, because they're people who shouldn't be exploited or abused and by your arguments it appears that you trust Government to oversee it.  Which evenings would you like to schedule your regular visits from Child Services?

I don't see this as an issue of valuing humanity.  If I were the CEO of a company and I had to choose between protecting what employees I could save or letting the entire company tank and putting them ALL out of work, I'd save as many as I could.  This satisfies both compassion AND self interest, as the more people you can retain in your company, the easier it will be to get things running smoothly again.

If a CEO is being paid according to his contract, then the Government has no right to interfere as long as those contract terms are legal.  Period.  Of course we agree that if something shady is going on and laws are being broken then somebody needs to go to jail.  The issue I have with your arguments is that they're highly subjective.  You really need to express, in a concrete way, what you mean by exploitation and abuse.  Some say any worker who is paid less than $15.00/hr is being exploited, regardless of what their job entails.  Others think $7.00/hr is a perfectly reasonable wage for someone whose skillset includes little more than running a deep fryer and pouring salt on french fries.  Unions often accuse companies of abusing their employees as a way to stir up emotion to strengthen their bargaining posture.     
There are existing laws already that afford protection to employees without playing Big Brother to corporate business decisions.  OSHA comes to mind as an obvious example.

Who's doing that?

Sometimes companies try to do exactly that, but often employees simply can't afford a deep pay cut and opt to try and find another job with a similar rate of pay to what they were making before.  I'm a Software Engineer.  If I had to take a pay cut down to the level of, say, a Software Consultant, I would have no choice but to start job hunting because I couldn't possibly cover my expenses at that level.  Mind you, this assumes that the company even has job openings to filter the workers into, which is never the case.  Your solution also doesn't work if an entire department has to be let go since there would be no lower positions at all. 

In what way do you think this sets you apart from others in this conversation?

There's only one object of our worship and that is God.  So I have no idea how you got worship on this discussion.
And no.  The objective of an economic principle is to be able to live in mortality in service of our God.  The service is the eternal stuff, not the economy.
The fact remains that when you have vast resources in your storehouse, you have a greater capacity to serve.  So that, a billion dollars can do a heck of a lot more service than a couple thousand.

Actually, you're relying on the definition of "conservative" that was created by liberals. Liberals do not know what makes a conservative a conservative so they tried their best at guessing and got it wrong. 
You've also used another definition from liberals and that is that Democrats stand for the little guys. But that really isn't true and that certainly is not a correct definition for liberals.
Simply put, a conservative is one that lives by principles. For them the definition of "morals" is how well one adheres to the principles.
A liberal is one that is primarily looking out for their self aka self centered but not being stated in a negative connotation.
That's the base distinction between the two and that's how two totally different perspectives are formed. Take the conservative, for example. The basic principle is the golden rule: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". They don't want their freedoms taken away so they don't take others' away. They don't like being financially destitute so they don't entertain the idea of making others destitute. They don't like it when others are irresponsible so they act responsibly. For them it is fairness across the board, even for their enemies.
Liberals, though, cannot live by principles because principles don't always support one's self interests. Simce there are no principles then every situation must be examined on a case-by-case basis.
Next comes the definition of "right" and "wrong". A conservative defines "right" as that which is in line with good principles or as stayed from God. "Wrong" is that which opposes good principles or as stated by God.
Liberals define "right" as that which supports their ideas and "wrong" is that which opposes them.
It would take a book to go in to the details of how this plays out between the two ideologies, but for one avenue consider freedom. And even at that only one avenue within freedom will be mentioned due to time and space constraints. 
A conservative only needs laws that lay out principles and then from there the principles are applied to all aspects. Take the principle of "don't steal". The conservative needs just that one principle to know how to act. What if the neighbor has two and they have one? Don't steal. What if they really could use it? Don't steal. What if they really need it? Don't steal. One principle is all it takes.
A liberal, though, examines everything on a case-by-case basis to determine what is in their best interest. So the same law is in place: "Don't steal". But what if they really want it? Gotta make a law to cover that scenario. What if they need it to go make money? Gotta make a law for that scenario. What if they are distitute and the neighbor has two loaves of bread? Gotta make a law for that scenario. What if they are destitute, the neighbor has two loaves of bread, but the neighbor is also destitute and it takes 3 loaves to feed their family? Gotta make a law for that. In the end the liberal will have to have dozens of laws to cover the different scenarios when the conservative needed just the one.
It is from that scenario that we see the 'big government vs small government' playing out. Each year the liberals have a myriad of new laws to introduce to cover different scenarios and each year the conservatives are saying there's already too many laws. Both are right depending on perspective. 
But now here's another given: each law brings reduced freedom. The liberals are willing to waive their freedoms to have clarity since there's no principles for their guidance. The conservatives don't need the clarity because they are already living responsibly and should be rewarded accordingly. But in the society it will simply boil down to less freedoms as society abandons principles. Thus, in reality, the liberals are injuring those that are principled and moral - there is no such thing as living in a vacuum. When I have a neighbor living without principles or morals then it IS my business because my freedoms are effected by it (contrary to the claims of liberals). 
One thing conservatives can do to regain their freedom is to teach the rising generation the good principles and to be moral. 
That was just one avenue in the differences in thought and the results. Every avenue leads to the same destination: liberalism will result in tyranny and death while conservatism will result in more freedom.

And here's another one.  Painting all CEOs as a cardboard box character.  This is just another flavor of wealth envy.
I'll give you a real-life example:
Winn-Dixie Grocery Stores hired Peter Lynch as the CEO and a few years later filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy.  Peter Lynch got millions of dollars for bonus.
The Florida newspapers excoriated Lynch, employees - especially the ones that got laid off - went screaming to the press, etc. etc.
Well, guess what.  Winn-Dixie got in the mess they were in from years and years of not being able to adjust to the demographics of their customer base.  This is not just a CEO thing... This is a Board of Directors thing and a market competition thing.  Publix takes the niche of the upper crust and Walmart SuperCenters took the lower crust.  Winn-Dixie was squeezed in the middle - not quite good enough to be Publix but not quite big enough to get Chinese products to compete with the price guarantees of Walmart.
So, they hired Peter Lynch to solve the problem and offered him $10 Million bonus if he can bring them back to black after years of being red.  Peter Lynch took the job, analyzed the situation, decided the best way to do so is to lay off a bunch of people then file for Chapter 11 to stay the creditors as he cleans up the place and reorganizes.  It took 3 years but Winn-Dixie remained in business even as they closed some stores and opened others.  They went in the black while still in bankruptcy and Lynch got his bonus per contract.  The press screamed and Lynch told Winn-Dixie they can keep his bonus until he gets them completely through the bankruptcy.  They got out of bankruptcy with a leaner and profitable profile, the Davis' who owned the place lost a bunch of money, Lynch got his bonus which he took a bunch of and invested in Winn-Dixie stocks as he believed in its profitability in the future.  The Davis' then decided to sell Winn-Dixie to Bi-Lo which crashed their stocks.
Peter Lynch earned every singly penny of that bonus and deserves a whole bunch more and it is so sad that his good name and character got skewered by a sensationalized media who has no desire to understand what it takes to run a business... or a bunch of liberals who like to skewer CEOs because they're rich.

The other problem they never address is, there is no such thing as equality.  No one is ever equal to any one other.  In many cases we compliment one another, such as husband and wife, but they are not equal and never will be.
We all have different talents, skills, and abilities and all use them differently.
But they like to impose this cookie cutter "equal" on everyone to force them into what they don't fit into.
And what happens is the cookie cutter cuts off a lot of the upper or better skills and talents and incentives in this false quest for "equality" which doesn't, in reality exist.
To use their own buzz word they engage in a "misguided effort" to pretend everyone is equal when they are not.
dc

I was out home teaching last month and my companion and I were mistaken for agents from the Probation Department. 
So, just a certain look that some people think they know.
dc

Maybe you know about making $20k a year, but obviously you don't know anything about making $2M a year.
And secondly, oh, so you don't believe everyone should pay their "fair share"?!
That seems a bit unfair, doesn't it?
dc