LeSellers

According to the various assurances and promises the other side have given they will not compel religious groups.  So it should never happen.  Of course many of us believe that is like listening to a scorpion promising not to sting you if you try to pet it.
 
When it comes to performing marriages the church has an out.  The leverage is that the Government has is that marriage is a legally licensed act which they authorize religious leaders to perform and oversee, thus subject to Government rules and oversight.  The out would be for the Church to get out the marriage business entirely.  This would mean that couple would need to have a civil marriage under the laws of the land first and then have a totally religious only sealing that has no Legal force.  By stopping all legal marriages done by the Church.. then the Church can't be attacked as discriminatory through that line.  The Church already has such separation of civil and sealings in a few countries outside the US.
 
As for losing temple recommends or excommunication it depends on your definition of "support" as the Folk Prophet says

As another example, I had a judo instructor who, upon learning I was LDS, said, "You know, I'm a Mormon, too." He had been baptized as a teen-ager, and had not seen the inside of a chapel in decades, He was in his sixth decade, loved his beer, talked like a sailor -- but still considered himself a Mormon. So not all inactives are anti-Mormons who "don't want to give the Church the satisfaction of credibility." I suspect such people are relatively few in number.

The disconnect isn't really that hard to understand.  Different Churches get compared all the time.  A common metric is membership number.  A number that has to be provided by the different churches.  The problem is the assumption that the churches will use the same metric to figure this out.  They don't.  If you ask the different churches to provide a membership record numbers and one church reports total members on record (which is how they count it), another church counts it based on butts in the pews on Sunday (which is how they count it) and another Church the number of people who have donated money to the church in the last year (which is how they count it), you will get three "membership" numbers.
 
Then you take those number and compare them and try to draw conclusions based of them and you come to false conclusions.  This happens repeatedly in Church comparisons.  Its not surprising that there would be people that want a more accurate apples to apples comparison.  Rather then watermelon, to orange to grape comparison that we currently get. 
 
And the LDS church does take a count of members who attend church on Sunday,  The monthly averages are reported and are used to determine the Wards budget. And I am also positive they have a number of people who donate money too.  So the LDS church already has the numbers.  So the people making the comparison could (in theory) get that number if they they knew the right way to ask for it.  However as long as they ask for membership number, the LDS church is going to give them the number of people it thinks of as members  

Entitlement programs in the USA - a short historical summary:
 
In the year 1960 the most complete census ever in all of history was taken in the USA.  One discovery from that census by progressive liberals was that a transfer of 2% of the gross national product in the USA would eliminate poverty.  The conservatives did not have a good argument for ending poverty so with a Democratic President and control of congress the Democrats  launched a brave new experiment in economics called "The Great Society" - this title was later changed to "The War on Poverty" and by the mid 1960's legislation was passed that was intended to redistribute 2% of the gross national product to the poor to end poverty forever.
 
But it did not quite work out.  The argument presented by the progressive liberals is that the rich still had too much and the poor too little.  The solution was to increase taxes (primarily on the rich) and expend programs for the poor increasing the 2% redistribution.
 
Over the more than 50 years of economic experimentation - the progressive liberals have continued to increase taxes as well as broader programs for the poor.  What has been the result of this economic experiment to end poverty?
 
#1. The current redistribution of wealth had been increased 6 fold (600%!!!!!) - Six times what was initially argued as the max needed (not the minimum) to completely end poverty in the USA.
 
#2.  There has been no decrease in poverty - in over 50 years there is no measurable decline in poverty - In fact it can be argued that poverty is worse today than it was in 1960.
 
#3.  The middle class has been devastated.  The disposable income reported for the middle class in the 1960 census has decreased by almost 90%.  The middle class is being phased out of existence and being forced into near poverty levels.  The largest single cost of living increase to the middle class has been health care costs.  Health costs were so low in 1960 that fewer than 40% of the middle class had or thought health care insurance as a necessary cost.  over 95% of the middle class that had health care insurance - it was only provided as a benefit through through their employer.  On average a family of 4 paid less in health care than what is paid out as co-pay or deductibles today.   This is not in dollars but percent of a families income.  We can go deeper into this abyss if we calculate the health care costs compared to the gross national product.
 
#4.  The gap between the middle class and the wealthy class has increased.  In short the rich are getting a lot richer and the middle class is stuck - forcing the lower middle class into poverty.   I find it interesting that progressive liberals are even arguing that the minimum wage needs to be increased because it is the wages of poverty and that a person starting out in semi skilled labor force has been so devastated by stagnant economy that they are forever stuck in poverty - despite the fact that they are working as much as 80 hour weeks.
 
 
So my question to those that support any of the programs to help the poor over the last half century - how bad do these programs have to fail the poor and devastate the middle class before you will admit that the economic experiment is a failure?  The so called liberals are only making matters worse - and their only excuse (which is valid BTW) is that the conservatives really do not care that much about the poor.  It is true that for the most part conservatives do not care at all for the poor - but the programs of the progressive liberals are such a failure that the poor are just as well off or perhaps even better off with conservatives that do not give a crap about them - and it appears that the middle class is too stupid to realize that their standard of living is rapidly disappearing into a liberal economic experimental abyss.  As bad as all the programs are - no one has the intelligence to say - it is time to end all (let alone even one) of the programs that do not work and are a complete failure! 

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

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

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

PC, I have encountered a disheartening number of incompetent and even vicious teachers. Not a majority by any means, but enough that I find it discouraging and frightening.
 
Having said that, I do agree that expecting teachers to be among the top 5% of their classes in the GRE or something is both unrealistic and unhelpful. When I was first learning physics, it occurred to me that I didn't need Albert Einstein or Richard Feynmenn to teach my introductory classes in mechanics. Rather, I needed someone who understood the basics and could convey them to me. This is what I expect of any teacher at any level. If s/he can manage to be inspiring and can perhaps know and convey to certain students way more than what the class covers, well, that's a wonderful bonus. But that basic competency* is all I really expect, and what I too often find lacking.
 
*Competence refers to overall understanding and ability in an area. Competency, a relatively recent word, refers specifically to the legally or formally required abilities necessary to fill a job or position. For example, I consider the following to be minimal competencies for various high school teachers:
For any science teacher, regardless of the specific subject -- a broad, basic knowledge of all areas of science: physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, geology, etc. For any math teacher -- a solid understanding of all aspects of mathematics through algebra, geometry, trigonometry, and probably at least an introductory understanding of limits and very basic calculus For any English teacher, no matter whether the class is literature, composition, or anything else -- a solid understanding of all major aspects of English grammar, a reasonable background in English classical works such as Shakespeare, and a respectable vocabulary For any foreign language teacher -- a reasonable fluency (say, at bare minimum a B-1 CEFR rating), solid understanding of the vocabulary and grammar being taught, and at least a bit of experience using the target language in a real-life setting These things seem to me like very reasonable expectations. I am not saying a teacher ought necessarily to be fluent in all such ancillary areas, but if a student asks a question outside the specific class material, the teacher should be able either to give an intelligent (AND CORRECT) response, or at least point the student to where such information exists and how it is determined. It amazes me how often school teachers lack these basic competencies in the areas they are getting paid to teach our children about.

This is called socialism.

Government simply steals the necessary funds from those who don't consider them rights.  They just call it taxes.

Riots like in Greece, then eventually revolution and lots of death. Indeed it is the inevitable result of the government trying to provide too much. 

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

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. 

Hi Lehi--
 
That still leaves the Articles of Faith a creed--with a distinction.
 
Lehi--my argument is not that the Articles of Faith are looked at differently from the creeds of man. They are.
 
But that does not mean the Articles of Faith cannot qualify under the term "creed". They can.
 
The difference I see in the creeds of the various faiths--and the creed found in the Articles of Faith--is that one has man-made doctrines within(maybe along with some truth)--the other(Articles of Faith)--I believe reflects eternal truths.

Houston, we have a problem: The words of the Declaration of Independence are not always the words we'd use today. Thomas Jefferson wrote it in his own language: that of a well educated (but largely unschooled) man of the XVIII. The word 'inalienable" to him meant something different from what either of you has stated. It meant "cannot be given away." We have rights that are as much a part of us as the heart or toe nails. They are, we must note as well, not "free": each comes with a responsibility (or many of them).
We have the right to defend ourselves, for instance, because we have an obligation to defend our families and ourselves. We have the right to think or believe as we choose because we have a responsibility to make of ourselves something better than a slave. We have the right to be safe in our homes because we have a duty to raise children who are good, upstanding people. (None of the duties listed here is exhaustive: there are others associated with each.)
When we abrogate our duties, we forfeit our rights. Thus, the Constitution is a document for a government of a righteous (not necessarily a religious, but almost always so) people. When people neglect the responsibility to be charitable, the government must impose welfare (we ignore, for this discussion, that the government makes it harder to be charitable). When we fail to educate our children as God has required, the government steps in to do it "for" us (with the same caveat).
We forfeit them, they are not taken from us, nor do we specifically give them away. If we want rights, true rights, we must attend to the obligations that go with them. And, we must defend our right to perform them, not for the right itself, but for the duty.
That said, when people insist that government abridge their rights, they don't want it to be only their rights: they want the government to infringe on yours and mine, as well. That is a problem
Lehi

But there is no right to any of these things. The only rights one has are to his person and his labor and the property he has legitimately acquired. Rights come with concomitant obligations and responsibilities. If you have the right to food, for instance, you have the right to force someone else to give it to you, in other words, to make him your slave. If you have the right to housing, you must have the power to make someone else give it to you, or, in other words, to make him your slave.
In the case of health care (which is not the same thing as health insurance), in order to have the right to it, you must have the power to make a doctor, a nurse, a hospital give it to you, in other words, to make them your slaves. Absent that power, you must have the power to force someone else to pay the doctor, the nurse, the hospital when you use those services. In other words, to make him your slave.
I find no mention in scripture where it gives you or me or anyone the right to force others to pay for my education, for my food, for my home. There is no right to make others my slaves.
You bring up the abomination of "public" schools. (Please note I did not say "public education" because the laws pertaining to them require attendance, not learning.) The issue is that when Horace Mann imported schools from Prussia in 1852, he did it for one reason (and only one): to divorce children from their parents, from their parents' values and their religions. (See Mary Peabody Mann, Horace Mann: A Life.) Any education that happens in a government-run, tax-funded welfare school is purely by accident or is the bait to get parents to turn their children over to bureaucrats to raise them and instill acceptable value to those children. When John Dewey described the effects of grtf-welfare schooling, he wrote, "What can they do in their one hour of Sunday School when we have their children six hours a day?"
Charity stops being charity the moment it is forced. Welfare in any form is immoral: it takes from those who produce and gives a tiny portion of the proceeds to the group the government deems "needy" and keeps the majority for itself. Charity is vastly better than welfare. Welfare destroys, welfare weakens, welfare undermines the Family, God's fundamental unit of civilization. Charity builds up, ennobles, and builds the Family.
Finally, government is incapable of doing anything without taking something from someone, and taking it by (the threat of) force. The force is potentially lethal. All laws are based on lethal force and will be enforced by potential lethality. Government has perverse incentives. Government cannot make good decisions because it cannot understand all the parameters and cannot turn on a dime when that's the necessary action.
Lehi

I believe you are being sarcastic...
 
As I said  "Its just that this group offers no real answers"

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

Two important things to look at here that the extremely biased and prejudiced NPR would never reveal, is that almost all of the shootings and killings you are hearing about there in their "statistics" are not legally owned, registered guns.  They are illegal guns, in use by people who are PROHIBITED by federal law from owning guns.  So the truth that you miss here is that we citizens who CHOOSE to carry a gun can and should be able to do so to defend ourselves and our families from those PROHIBITED persons who have guns, because none of the governmental agencies here can nor will do that, not even by taking the guns away from those prohibiited persons.
 
Lastly, in your first paragraph, you say that you would feel most safe in a place where NO GOOD GUYS have guns and ONLY THE BAD GUYS have guns.  Does that not sound as perverse to you as it does to me?
dc

this outlines most of the issues with how we get people who do these types of things IMHO. I think there's one other, but it's just out of mental reach.

If feeling safe is what peoples do when they enter a gun free zone I'd best stop trying to invent guns that identify the target before they shoot. I may or may not then invent a non lethal bullet. I'm not sure how I would go about that. hmm. wonder if there's something else I should do. oh yeah, figure out how to not feel like I'm doomed if somebody pulls a gun while I'm in the area. (no offense to those people who do this and don't intend to hurt anybody)

Yep - the one vote deal, is because the third recall (Hudak) resulted in her resignation, so the Colorado legislature stayed on the blue side of purple by one vote.   2016, baby, 2016.

It is very sad.  In April 2015 the Colorado fifteen round magazine ban repeal came up for vote.  It was defeated by only a single representative's vote in favor of the ban.  It is a feel good law that only makes self defense for the law abiding more difficult.
 
Read about the vote here:  http://www.coloradoindependent.com/152586/colorado-gop-gun-rights-bills-go-down-in-lopsided-battle/comment-page-1#comment-1378358
 

Oh, that's arguable, but I can agree with you that Wiki isn't the end-all rock-solid source.  That said, as someone who lived through the events described, who was one of the throngs who poured into the streets and fought for the recall, I can vouch for the accuracy and relevance of what I've quoted here. 
 
Here's a semi-recent update on the Sheriff's lawsuit. 

Here in Colorado, after the Aurora theater killing, our blue legislature and blue governor went on a legislating spree and pushed through a bunch of horrible gun bills, including one of these 'high cap magazine bans'.  
 
Wikipedia has a fairly good summary:
 
What Wiki fails to mention here, is that just about every single county Sheriff in the state joined together in a lawsuit against several of these bills, especially the magazine limit bill.  Totally unenforceable.  It made just about every legal gun owner in potential hot water - including me.  Last I heard, the DA's office and law enforcement had a gentleman's nod agreement that everyone would just ignore these stupid bills and not bother trying to enforce any of them.
 
What Wiki also fails to mention, is that if we had recalled Hudak (which we were on track to do), the whole state legislature would have flipped from democrat to republican.  Hudak's resignation meant the dems could appoint their own replacement.   The whole issue made international news, and had a (welcome and needed) chilling effect on dumb gun control attempts across the nation.  
 
We sent a pretty darn clear message: "Hey politician!  You want to get in front of this gun outrage and start legislating from a position of emotional idiocy?  Well, prepare to spend some time running for your own job in a non-election year, because we'll fire you like we fired Morse and Giron."