LeSellers

GEDCOM GEnealogical Data COMmunication. A database format developed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to make it possible to transfer genealogical data between users, computers and large databases. It is supported by most genealogical database applications. Here's a sample {The stuff in curly braces — {---} — are explanatory notes): ===================================== 0 HEAD {from here to the next line labeled zero "0" is a "header": it tells the reader what this file is.} 1 SOUR PAF {the program that generated this GEDCOM file (down to the next 1)} 2 NAME Personal Ancestral File 2 VERS 4.0.3.23 2 CORP The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 3 ADDR 50 East North Temple Street 4 CONT Salt Lake City, UT 84150 1 DEST PAF 1 DATE 17 FEB 2001 2 TIME 12:43:01 1 FILE sample.ged 1 GEDC {this line tells the reader that this is a "real" GEDCOM file} 2 VERS 5.5 2 FORM LINEAGE-LINKED 1 CHAR ANSEL 1 SUBM @SUB1@ 0 @SUB1@ SUBM {this section (to the next 0) identifies the researcher} 1 NAME John Apperson 1 ADDR 123 Sample Drive 2 CONT Sample City 1 CTRY USA 1 _EMAIL [email protected] 0 @I1@ INDI {each entry for a person starts with a 0; the digit is the ID for this person} 1 NAME Happy /Smith/ {each piece of information about the person starts with a 1; this one is his name} 2 GIVN Happy {both the "given name" and the "surname" appear twice: once here and once above} 2 SURN Smith 1 SEX M {only two options for "SEX", so there is only one line for this information} 1 BIRT {this one starts all the birth information} 2 DATE 1 JAN 2000 2 PLAC Los Angeles,California 1 FAMC @F1@ {this identifies the marriage that produced this person (his parents); both people in this marriage have the same FAMC code} 1 CHAN {I have not been able to figure this one out and can't find anyone else who knows, either} 2 DATE 17 FEB 2001 3 TIME 12:42:42 0 @I2@ INDI {next person} 1 NAME Daddy /Smith/ 2 GIVN Daddy 2 SURN Smith 1 SEX M 1 BIRT 2 DATE 1 JAN 1975 2 PLAC Los Angeles,California 1 FAMS @F1@ {identifies the marriage of this person} 1 FAMC @F2@ {child of this marriage} 1 CHAN 2 DATE 17 FEB 2001 3 TIME 12:29:33 0 @I3@ INDI 1 NAME Momma /Moore/ 2 GIVN Momma 2 SURN Moore 1 SEX F 1 BIRT 2 DATE 1 JAN 1975 2 PLAC Los Angeles,California 1 FAMS @F1@ {this person was married to the other person in @F1@} 1 FAMC @F3@ {this person is the child of this marriage} 1 CHAN 2 DATE 17 FEB 2001 3 TIME 12:29:39 0 TRLR {this is the end of the file} ================================== Death information, christening information and all the other kinds of data have their own codes (DEATH, etc), and the formats for each are about the same. TMI, perhaps, but I find this kind of thing fascinating. Lehi

There are two general answers to this. 1) Government exists to protect rights. When a contract is breached, the injured party would apply to government to enforce the terms of the agreement. The folks are government minimalists. 2) The injured party should hire a private enforcing and arbitration agency. Loser pays for the breach (if it existed) and the entire cost of enforcement. These are anarchists. There are a myriad of other options, but they fall into one or the other of these classes, or somewhere in between. Lehi P.S: "Libertarian" is not the same as "libertarian". The upper-case "L" indicates membership in the Libertarian Party. Lower-case "L" indicates a political/economic philosophy. The two overlap, but they are not synonymous. LS

My experience is that there are a lot more of them than either we or the antis would believe. I once ran into a guy who told me he was a "member of the 'Mormon Elder' church." He would not have passed the smell test to be a faithful, Temple-worthy Saint, but he was a member of the Mormon Elder church, nonetheless. When I lived in Salt Lake City, most inactive people were antagonistic, but even there, a sizable fraction were just inactive. I've lived in several countries, many stakes, dozens of wards and branches. In each one, there was a sizable number of people who were not active, but who were still, in their minds at least, Mormons. I felt they were, too, especially when I home taught them for 19 years. It seems that any of us, Saints or antis, or anyone in between, should be reticent about labeling anyone as being belligerent and "worthy" of excommunication. Lehi

It was that talk I alluded to. There are revelations and REVELATIONS. This kind might be insignificant to some people, but it is overwhelming to me. Lehi

Obviously, I didn't know the day this happened. My point was that there are revelations and REVELATIONS. Assigning missionaries probably seems pretty mundane to most people. But I have seen too many miracles that affect this "trivial" process to believe it is not a series of continuous and continual revelation. Lehi

On this matter, I would vote that you are libertarian. Many other libertarians would say no. Libertarians adhere to the "non-initiation of force" principle: no one (including government) has the right to initiate force against anyone else. He may protect himself, he may retaliate, but he may not start the fight. Aside from that, there is no central philosophy that defines libertarianism. If you believe it, that's you. Lehi

This is a public forum: the discussion "between" two people is not between them alone. We write knowing that others are watching over our shoulders. There are times that I write to the greater audience. This was one of those times. One can be compassionate, vigilante and wary at the same time. One can be compassionate, vigilante and wary at the same time. As do I. He was breaking the law, but it was an incredibly stupid law (as most are). You did not raise this issue, but in the political environment we face today, it is important to recognize that the lieutenant who supervised his death was black. His death, however senseless, was not racist. We agree here, except, perhaps, that this rehab should be paid for by the addict, his family, or his friends, not by taxation. With this declaration, you identify yourself as a classic liberal, not a modern one. The correct modern terminology is “libertarian”. Welcome to the elite. Lehi

I got tax credits for the solar panels I had installed. If your assumptions were correct, I could have gotten the same tax credit for a perpetual motion machine. The thing is, the government sets the criteria for tax credits in exactly the same way as for vouchers. If the "education" you are providing your daughters does not meet the standards the bureaucracy and political system requires, you will not get the credit. The fact that the money does not come back to you in one form, but does in another, makes no difference to the politicos. Lehi

There are so many options when it comes to education that the answer to this question would take twelve reams of paper to print out. Good teachers are few and far between. Fer cryin' in a bucket: there are few exceptional anythings, that's why they are exceptional. The problem is that the good teachers are dragged down by the rest, by the system, and by the idiotic laws and rules they must work under. Government-run, tax-funded welfare schools are, for practical terms, monopsonies. Good teachers have no real options outside the system. If there were no grtf-welfare schools, the good teachers would open their own schools. They would make more money, and they would be able to control the working environment so their students could learn better, faster, and more in depth. Everyone seems to worry about the poor students. The fact is that the poor students are getting the shaft under the current system: 50% illiteracy is incredible, but that's what the grtf-welfare system is churning out. It must be by design because no one would continue doing the same thing year after year, decade after decade, and accept these depressing results. Under a parent-controlled system, with no government involvement, the parents could, and would choose what they felt would best suit their children and they could afford. We already have private schools that cater to the poorer student, the handicapped student (many grtf-welfare schools contract these students out to the private schools). Where there is a market, there will be a supplier. Let's assume that the poorer students would get a "3" level school, due to parental poverty. Let's further assume that the richest students would get an "8" level. Huge disparity. But compared to the current system, that "3" is 50% better than the "2" these students get now, and those in the "8" level schools would be getting a four-fold increase in education. The question is, would you deny the poorer student the better-than-current result because the richer student is getting a much, much greater benefit? If so, if you would limit both to that "2", then there is nothing more to be said. We've mentioned scholarships for K~12 students. So, no parent would be limited to the worst schools because of lack of funds. Finally, the paradigm of schools is fatally flawed any way. The first sentence in this post tells why: there are a myriad of alternatives to the current system. There reason is there are a myriad of ways children learn, and when a child is forced into a system that does not meet his learning style and interests, the best teachers in the world cannot help him learn. That's why grtf-welfare schools fail to educate: they are cookie factories, where every child must go through the same process, and when he cannot meet the standard, he is pulled of the line and "remediated". It's not the child who is defective, it's the system. A private system would better meet the needs of individual children because there would be as many schools as there are method of learning. When ever there is a problem in the grtf-welfare schools, there is an excuse for the failure: parents are unsupportive, there is no money, the children are hungry, the children don't get enough sleep, the teachers are underpaid, et cetera, etc., &c. No one accepts poor performance from a private company. When they fail, the customer goes elsewhere, or does it himself. Lehi

Please re word. I'm not making sense of this. The point is that there are too many restrictions on the good teachers (which I agree do exist), and the whole system is designed to achieve what Horace Mann wanted: to divorce children from their parents, and, particularly from their parents' religious values and mores. We look all around, and see that this goal has been achieved, or, at least, it is well on the way. Lehi

Now you are not understanding my meaning. The scores I am talking about are the college and graduate admission tests. Historically, teachers and school administrators score the lowest (except for social workers) on these tests. I don't give a great deal of credence to standardized tests: they only measure what they measure, not necessarily what needs to be measured. However, we can make reasonably safe comparisons between one group, like teacher candidates, and another, like English majors, and see that, on average, teachers score more poorly than the others. The same it true of administrators. Of all graduate students, they score lowest on the GSATs. I will gladly grant that not all grtf-welfare school teachers are bad. I will, however, insist that even the best are shackled by a system designed around government-controlled curricula and standards, around bureaucratic time tables and schedules. Of the four classes of people harmed by grtf-welfare schools, I pity teachers the most, especially the good ones. They must abandon their dreams and knuckle under to the system. Again, I suggest that you read John Taylor Gatto's work: An Underground History of American Education. Gatto was thrice the NYC teacher of the year, and won the same award twice from NY state. Someone wondered if my sources were incompetent. I assure you, Gatto is far from incompetent. Read him and see. He wrote a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal the spring before he retired. In it, he said (my copy is out, so I'll have to paraphrase), "If you know of a job where I don't have to hurt children for a living, please let me know." Lehi

I have both empirical data and statistics to show this is not a pot shot: it is true. It would take a few days to go through the notes on my shelf and computer to find it, but assuming I have any credibility, please recognize that I am not making this up. Lehi

One of the other posters here, lagarthaaz, just wrote that he is going to take additional class work in order to get a higher paycheck. His experience is in Australia, but there is no reason to assume that USmerican teachers would not do the same thing. It is not mandatory, or even strongly likely, that a teacher would go for a higher paycheck, irrespective of his dedication to the "calling". Lehi

In some areas, it may be possible. In most, it's not possible. Yes, a district or a school may be "highly rated", but that is in comparison to other grtf-welfare schools, not to the potential of childhood education. As to whether a parent chooses to leave a private school because of a mediocre teacher, it's the parent's call. But it is not only possible, it is easy (quite unlike a grtf-welfare school, even the most "liberal" regarding where the child attends). Lehi

Does it matter? If the government is in control of what qualifies for the credit or voucher, it is in control, not you. Lehi

The origin and the idea are separate issues. If Einstein said them, they are true. If Joe Schmedlap said them, they remain true. Again, it does not matter if he said them or not. What matters is if they are true. Is it logical to do the same thing again and again and expect different outcomes? Is it reasonable to turn to the same type of thinking that produced the problem in order to solve it? Lehi

Yes, a pedestal. This discussion is an anomaly. I'm trained to be observant. It is not solely based on my experience in the classroom and the teachers' lounge that informs me. Lehi

It depends on your definition of "liberal". If you accept that it's okeh for government to confiscate one person's property and give it to someone else without compensation, that is just theft. Supporting theft is "liberal" (in the modern sense) and is not compatible with Gospel teachings. If you accept that it's okeh for a woman to get, or for a man to force her to get, an abortion, then that's liberal (in the modern sense), and is not compatible with Gospel teachings. If you accept that people should be able to be as stupid as they like without harming others, that is liberal, and in accordance with Gospel teachings. For each "liberal" (in the modern sense) position, one must ask, does it support the concept of agency? If it does (keeping in mind that no one has the right to harm another, except a consenting adult), then it is in accordance with Gospel principles. No one, whether Satan wanted to force people to live the Law or just remove the Law altogether, can claim to be "liberal" (in the modern sense) if he supports Satan's plan. When someone makes a poor choice, he, and he alone should pay the price for it. Forcing others to pay is inimical to fundamental Gospel principles. And government is based on force. Lehi

Indeed. That's about where I was coming from.Were it up to me, I'd excommunicate them all. I'm glad it's not up to me. They should be, also. Because just as it is much easier to have one's name removed from the records than to join the Church, it is much harder to come back after excommunication than from disfellowshipment or inactivity. There are a few reasons for that, some based on the loss of the Gift of the Holy Ghost, some procedural. Lehi

Is Thursday the day the Apostles assign missionaries to their fields?Lehi

The plan is to peacefully close all grtf-welfare schools by having people remove their children from the grasp of the state simply by disenrolling them and taking responsibilitty for them themselves. With no grist for their mills there will be no "demand" for the schools and they will have to shut down. Lehi

There for a minute, I was afraid someone else had said them. Turns out, my memory is not as bad as you feared. But even if it wasn't him who said them, does it matter? Both are irrefutable. Lehi

Your third 'graf kinda sortta refutes this statement. But, yes, I have considered it. Nonetheless, the danger is so stark that people must know. What they do about it is not up to me. But, when they rebut the evidence, and come up with none of their own, one must conclude that it is, as you imply, all emotional. I do not consider her a failure as a parent. I don't know her. I don't know her children. One might be the fifth-next prophet for all I know. But the fact that she (or anyone) accepts government-run, tax-funded welfare schools as the best way for society to fulfill our duty to the next generation is worrisome. Thomas Jefferson said it well. People get used to things, and it is only when they get too bad will they overthrow the established forms and institute new ones. Government-run, tax-funded welfare schools are part of the “established forms”. We have seven children and 33 grandchildren. I wish we could say that all were being Educated in the Families, but I cannot. And they are all great kiddos, F-CEd or grtf-welfare schooled. But it is a wonder to see how hard the daughters-in-law are willing to work to overcome the effects of grtf-welfare schooling (per your third 'graf) rather than do it themselves. We found it to be much less work to teach them correct principles ourselves, rather than unteach incorrect, even evil, principles when they got home. You are right. It is early. But we are not just talking about one family. We are talking about the entire culture in USmerica. We have 50% illiteracy, people don't know the Constitution, have no idea that it was Britain against whom our father rebelled. Math and science scores are dismal, at best. But it is not about “education” that I worry most: it's about the milieu, the environment in school. Brigham Young, in counsel no one has shown me to be revoked, told the Saints that they ought not send their children to grtf-welfare schools because they would be taught by unbelievers. Seminary was started in Magna, Utah, because young LDS students were coming home from high school swearing and smoking. I submit that it is far worse today. MIA Maids don't get pregnant because their parents taught them it was okeh around their dinner table. Priests don't get addicted to drugs (or become fathers) after their parents told them the wonders of heroine and illicit sex. They learn these things in school. Often not, but frequently, from the teachers. Well thanks, at least, for not seeing me as a liar. I assure you that those I read (except for the pro-grtf-welfare school types) are not lying, either, nor are they incompetent. John Taylor Gatto won three teacher of the year awards, and he's on this side of the argument. Boyd K. Packer was, too. David O. Mc[\u]Kay said the same things, as have the vast majority of the modern prophets Most parents have become lazy. In a way, we could compare them to men who have children by women to whom they not married: the government will pay for the maintenance of their offspring, why should they? It is a lot less expensive to have the state pay for educating your child than to do it yourself. Why bother? Well, I further submit that it's because it's wrong on a dozen levels. Not only is it breaking the VII and X commandments, but it's a huge disservice to both your children and your society. And how would you propose doing it? People used to take responsibility for their children more than they do today. One of the main reasons for this is the grtf-welfare school system. At the risk of repeating my self, it's just plain easier to let the state do it. So people have gotten lazy. They have bought into the lie that you cannot or should not do this at home. If we were to eliminate all grtf-welfare schools, the vast majority of parents would re-assume their God-given responsibility to educate their children. There would be, to be sure, some who would not. But if Mrs. Carson could teach her sons to read, being unable to read herself (even in a grtf-welfare school family), it would not necessarily be because they are incompetent. They are, as you say uncaring. But these are very rare. And there are alternatives. I point you to Mark Twains' Huckleberry Finn: the Widder Douglas got Huckleberry to go to school (again, though this was after Horace Mann had polluted the educational environment). She would have done the same thing had there been no school in town. This is not a hobby horse for me: it's life and death. We have too many grandchildren who will have to grow up in a world where so many people are illiterate after having spent 12 years in school, where people depend on the state for everything because they have learned that the state it the source of all things good. Lehi

"The population", in this case, is not the people, i.e., patients, but the insurance companies (for the most part). Third party payments always increase prices. In the case of insurance, it is worse, because people don't care about the price, but they are often forced to use the service. Insurance companies pay the "usual and reasonable" price the doctor/hospital/etc., charges. But the doctor is highly incented to charge as much as he can get (and more power to him). The patient does not care: the insurance company will pay it. The insurance company gets the bill and, as long as it is "usual and reasonable", they pay it. No one's asking, "Is this a good price?" So, the price continues to go up. As you noted, the cost of processing insurance claims is a large part of the required billing. Were we to get rid of it, and paid in cash (or chickens), the cost of running a practice would go down. Once again, we see the result of government interference in the market: with wage controls in WWII, employers had to offer something other than money to keep good workers. Medical insurance (which is a misnomer) became a lure for that purpose, especially when unions got the government to agree that the cost the employer would pay was not taxed on the employee, either. It it thus that health "insurance" is now connected to the employer. We don't have auto insurance paid for (and connected to) the employer, not home insurance, nor life insurance. All of the problems we have in our health industry are related to insurance itself, the government and its interference, and the faact that no one really knows what the provider will charge. This latter point used to be a matter of law: doctors could not post prices. Now it's more a matter of tradition, but the effect is the same. Lehi

Please show the scriptures that tell us that God created everything. Besides, what does it mean "to create"? There is a scripture that says that God created everything that was created, strongly implying that there are things that were not created. Lehi