JohnsonJones

Well, there are some Mormons in the Marijuana business in California (though I understand they lost over 1/4 of their crop to fire recently). I'm not your judge is what I'm saying, and unless I was your bishop I really don't have any thoughts on whether you are good or not good in doing so. What I do know is that there are those who have done that (or at times, much worse) in the LDS church that have been called to prominent positions of authority and are LDS in good standing. Who are we to judge what another does when it is not expressly forbidden by scripture? In those instances, it is between them and the Lord (or sometimes, them and their ecclesiastical leader). We should also keep in mind that though we have the Word of Wisdom as some grievous thing in our minds, it is actually quite minor on the list of things that would be "bad" in regards to spiritual items. It is made for the least of those out there...but at the same time, it, in and of itself is not half as major an item as we make it out to be. On such a minor thing that can be highly personal in the reasons behind them, I'm not going to go out on any limbs and try to apply my personal opinion (which is actually very much in line with the LDS cultural traditions) to anyone not in my arena of leadership (at least currently in this thread, who knows what the future holds). What we can do, however, if we are going to try to discuss it, is utilize very real examples of those who have held church positions of prominence and relate it to what they've actually done in their businesses. I brought up the Marriott's (and Bill Marriott more specifically) due to the items discussed in this thread. I wanted someone that people might recognize and discuss, but not a General authority so high up in the church that people start condemning the church because of predisposed opinions on LDS doctrine that they fall away because of what General authorities have done prior to being General Authorities. AKA...a sort of middle ground of prominence, to illustrate someone who had authority in the church but was engaged in a lot of what people are condemning in this thread. If we are going to analyze what is doctrine and what is not in regards to the LDS church's judgment, we can use someone that anyone can look up, read about, and see all what that individual and their businesses did while at the same time being a minor General Authority as they were a part of the 7th and 8th quorum of the Seventy. I am very much in agreement culturally with many, but at the same time I recognize that there is a HUGE difference between our cultural and traditional LDS ideas and that of what is actual doctrine (which is where my personal take on caffeine comes in, aka...don't drink it. Obviously a personal cultural thing on my part more than hard doctrine).

What does it say in the Scriptures. In regards to tobacco and alcohol, what does it say in Section 89? That's doctrine. Vs. our own opinions on what we should or should not do, including whether we work at a restaurant that may sell alcohol, are a hotel manager, or any other sort of thing where we may brush up against traditional ideas rather than reality of what one has to do to make a living. (To be perfectly clear, in some ways the church tends to be more lax on these ideas than they were 50 years ago. In a similar manner, Spencer W. Kimball himself spoke out against caffeinated drinks, as opposed to today where, as we've seen recently, BYU is now serving them. I personally am very much a cultural Mormon in this aspect, and do NOT drink caffeinated drinks...however I see this as my own personal opinions and the LDS culture and traditions more than anything with the reality of LDS doctrine today).

I would hope not.

Since we bring up gambling...let's use another real world example, once again our beloved friend Marriott. Marriott resort and stellaris casino Aruba Marriott resort and stellaris casino St. Kitts Marriott resort and the royal beach casino As a note, Marriott has done great things for the church and it's leaders with the wealth that he and his father have gained. Something more to contemplate for any who have problems with the Marriotts...this is small change to what some other General Authorities have been engaged in at times, up to and including some apostles. However, I think this is a hard thing for some to tackle, and instead of seeing it as a way to strengthen their testimony, it may do the opposite. As such, this is about as far as I'm going to use for an example, because if I went with General authorities that are a little more seen within the church, it may do more harm than good. So why do I post these examples? We need to divide what is actual doctrine, from LDS culture and traditions. I am very LDS in my culture and traditions, but I have no problems with the Marriotts or what they've done. It is up to the church leadership and the Lord in regards to individuals.

I have found ways to have less risk of doing so (how many historians do you know that go around growing tobacco and such?), but one never knows what the future holds. It seems to me that many who swear to do something soon thereafter have the adversary attack and at times the very thing they swore not to do is the only path they have to feed themselves or any number of other terrible choices. There are members in my ward that would not want to work Sundays, or would prefer to do something other than what they are doing, but it is the only way they can currently get any money to put food on the table or any other sort of thing. I am not the Lord, I will condemn no man or woman for what they have to do in order to survive. I'll leave that up to the Lord...for all I know, I'm in more trouble than they ever will be. For all I know, tomorrow I'll be out of work and no one would hire me...what would I do then? I don't know what the future holds and so will avoid bringing in the greater temptation by vocally stating something that could be utilized by the adversary against me. Instead, I'll do my best to do what's right, and strive to be the best individual I can.

Well, Marriott did for a while. They also did the same for alcohol. I think it is originally that when they built the first three hotels they were in states that didn't really have any issues with not selling alcohol, but when they came to the fourth hotel, they realized that they were going to need to build a bar (in truth, there was no need, but they felt due to the way the industry was, that the hotel would need one). Eventually the recused themselves from selling dirty films in their hotels, but for many years were also participating in that as well. Despite feeling at the time they needed to sell that terrible stuff, it is apparent to me that they were not being completely honest in their evaluation, or were completely off kilter in thinking that. They seemed to be fine. Of interests, while Marriott was selling pornography and alcohol, Bill Marriott was in church leadership (7th quorum of the 70 at first in 1997, and interestingly enough the 6th quorum up until October 2011, which is the same year in which Marriot pulled the dirty movies from it's roster). Just jumping off your comment because you bring up an interesting point that actually HAS a real world example of it. It is interesting who people choose and do not choose as their examples. If we are using examples, why not use real life examples instead of a made up farmer (or is this hypothetical farmer based on a real farmer, if so, I must have missed that). PS: I'm not condoning this action of Marriott in any way or condemning it, I'm merely bringing it up as a real world example. The word of wisdom, as far as I know, tells us what we can or cannot partake of, not necessarily what we should or should not invest in for our livelihood. There is a difference between what we ask in the interview, and what is typical LDS culture and tradition, as opposed to doctrines. Now, I may be somewhat hypocritical in this, as I, of myself, thus far in life (and we never know what the future holds, so crossing my fingers to hope I never need to make a choice between food on the table and this) have chosen to avoid any jobs where I would need to proliferate or be party to the consumption of tobacco or alcohol, which goes far beyond even the farming choice presented. I hope never to be in the position where I need to choose between food on the table by participating in some way in that promotion of those products, or starving. Thus far, I have been blessed to be able to keep my principles in avoiding even the appearance of evil and thus not coming anywhere close to needing to sell, promote (or grow) any tobacco products or alcohol, or coffee or tea. I have been blessed tremendously in that arena thus far in life.

Once again, the talk by President Uchtdorf (link posted above by me) is perhaps one of the more excellent talks on the subject of Grace that we've had in the recent few years, at least it's the one that really impressed upon me how Grace is defined and plays for the LDS in regards to salvation and exaltation. One could view the Pit parallel in several ways. One, from the view of salvation from physical death, in which case, it is the Lord actually coming down, tying the rope around us, and then physically hauling us up himself. The other one, still would have minimal action from the Lord. As President Uchtdorf points out in that talk, we can do nothing to save ourselves. We are not saved by our works, nor even because all we can do. One could even view it (my words here, not Uchtdorf's) that we are saved despite all we do to destroy our own salvation as we sin daily. What our actions do is to show our Love for the Lord, it is a natural recourse for our faith. Anyone who thinks that we our selves have any power to save ourselves, is ignoring the real power of the atonement. It is akin to the Jews when they lived the Law of Moses, and though they practiced the law, the did not understand the law nor it's purpose. They felt that it was the law of Moses that saved them, and the works that they did under that law. In truth, the entire law pointed to the law giver, who was the real power to save. However, in their haste to ignore the lawgiver, and to obey the law as they saw it, or do their works, they killed the lawgiver. They did not understand that works will not save them, nor will they save us. Works of themselves, have no power. The Lord, on the otherhand, has all power. He can set any standard he wants for us to be saved. As the one who has ALL the power and ALL the ability, he decides who is saved and who is not. We all fall short, not one of us even comes close to even succeeding in doing what he has commanded us (be ye therefore perfect). He can save whoever he wants to save. He does NOT need any of our actions to save anyone if he so desired, he could literally simply decide to save those who have no ordinances whatsoever if he so decided from what I understand. He does NOT NEED our works, but we NEED his grace. WE do not know all who he will save or exalt at the day of judgment, and it is not ours to decide. He will choose any who the Lord judges of his own, and save and exalt those who he (the Lord) decides. We have no decision in that process, but instead are as beggars who hope that he will judge us worthy, not just of salvation, but exaltation itself. He is the one that decides, and has all the power to grant or not to grant these rewards. I, as a sinner, can repent and hope to attain the great reward, even as I try as best I can, but it is on the mercy of the Lord that I rely entirely if I am to obtain not just salvation, but exaltation as well. However, he has set things for us to do, and by doing them we show our faith and love for him. We show that we are attempting to fulfill the things he has commanded us, even if we fall short doing them. However, the key difference between salvation in the pit analogy, and exaltation are different as this. In salvation, we are being hauled up with no conscious effort of ourselves overall. In it, we are simply taken out of the pit, we are rescued from the pit that we dug ourselves into. In exaltation, we are not only taken out of the pit, but raised to a higher station or power and glory to the one who saved us. This is far more than simply being taken out of the pit, as it is putting us in a better situation than we were before we even ended up there in the first place.

So, it's hit the news what many expected, that Mantafort would be charged. His charges, from what I understand it is NOT actually directly connected to Russia, NOR is it a direct connection to the campaign. Instead, he is connected to the Ukrainian government up until 2014 (when the guy he was working for/contracted with ran off to Russia). In this, he was working with Ukrainian agents prior to working on the Trump campaign. Now, if anyone is listening, the Ukraine is definitely NOT Russia. The best they can say (and this is actually true from what I can tell) is that the government entities he was working for at the time were Pro-Russian (which, as I can tell, is true, as I stated). These guys and the US involvement in Ukraine politics is what sparked off an entire political unrest and border skirmish/war (depending on who you talk to) after the leader fled to Russia. However, claiming he was a Russian Agent in this instance is like claiming someone who is working for Bernie Sander's campaign in getting elected was a Swedish Agent rather than a campaign manager and planner for a US politician. This stinks to high heaven of political manipulation. I really am thinking that the FBI shouldn't go off a dossier paid for by an opposition party to the President, and in this case, it actually smells more like a Clinton-Russian connection. Think about it, who profits more from throwing dirt on the Ukrainian government prior to 2015...Russia or the Ukraine. Sure, there are those in the Ukraine that would want to discredit that government, but by doing so they also discredit the current government to a degree, and give credit to Russia's seizing of land and a naval port. On the otherhand, this can act like a validation for Russia's seizure of Ukraine interests, as well as their own interference. The fact that it is a connection to the Ukraine government directly, and not the Russian government, as well as it was acted upon by the FBI after the Democrats paid for this information from what appears to be individuals that may be Russian double agents (who also had contact with the Trumps, at least Trump Jr. and also who tried to weasel their way into the Clinton graces when she was SoS) seem to me to implicate the Clintons moreso than Trump. Add to that the recently come to light (at least to me) sale of US uranium assets to a Russian Company...and it seems pretty grim. What the heck is going on with the FBI. Right now it seems like they may be in the side pocket of the Russians. I am normally considered liberal on these boards (but I'd say I'm more centrist than anything in relation to the US), and I find this stuff alarming. If there IS corruption in the Democrat party, I want it rooted out as quickly as possible. A good cleansing, the quicker, the better (so it has less impact on the elections, and a lesser impact on the presidential election of 2020 is what I'd want...keep it around like they are it's just going to taint the party and everyone who runs under it). Plus, I don't want anyone who is complacent with a foreign nation in that way being part of the Democrats. I hope I'm wrong, but it really kind of smells like there are some major rats in the Democrat party with strong connections to Russia. From the information I've read about thus far (and granted, it's not much, the FBI hopefully has a LOT more than this, otherwise this looks a LOT like conspiracy of the FBI with Russia in collusion TBH), what comes out sounds more like it's connecting the Democrats with trying to manipulate the elections on behalf of Russia than Trump or the Republicans. (and that would probably stem to the Clintons more than Sanders...if it were Sanders, we're back to trying to implicate the Swedes...LOL). PS: It could be that this is the guy the FBI stated was already under investigation before they even started the work on the Clinton's campaign paid for work sheet. It still beggars the question in regards to the worksheet itself, and various other things that seem suspiciously to point towards Russia in regards to Democrat corruption. Some may say, protect the party at any cost, but I would say, get rid of corruption completely and then, hopefully, the rest will follow as people see the Democrats as more honest than others...personal opinion of course.

Something else to consider if, ten years down the road, the loan is not paid off (not that you will ever be in that state). Or, the second option if you want a big boost at repayment if you don't repay the loan immediately. Student Loan forgiveness after paying 120 payments and working a government job Or, another even better option is Student Loan repayment by US government Jobs Which gives 10K a year towards repayment of the Loan incurred. I never got these programs (firstly, probably because I was blessed greatly and got out of school debt free and never had to take up a student loan), but I have known some acquaintances that have benefited tremendously from one or the other.

I am surprised, as I would have thought we agreed for the most part. I think we still agree for the most part, just not on our story of the pit, but most likely on salvation itself I think we probably agree for the most part. As Mormons, we believe in the principle of grace. It is something that some forget at times, to the point that even some other churches will point to Mormons and say they believe that works saves them, not grace. This idea of works saving us is incorrect, for we believe in the atonement as the central and essential part of our own salvation and exaltation. Indeed, we believe in James (and alma) rather than the Koran. As per our teachings, our works do not save us. There is no amount of work we can do that would save us. We could do works our entire lives, and it still would not be enough. There is only one mighty enough to save, and that is Jesus Christ. He alone has the power to save us from death and sin. Even the idea of tying the bowline may be too much credit to ourselves, as we ourselves, are powerless to do anything. We can do nothing of ourselves to attain our salvation, because we have not the power nor the strength to do so. Everything, and I mean everything, for our salvation is done by the Lord. Our contribution is so minimal as to be basically of no worth at all. What we do, is to show our faith in the Lord. It is our trust and faith in his ability to save that he asks of us. However, as it is pointed out, faith without works is dead. You can state you have faith, but our faith will be exhibited by works, or what we do will prove we have faith. In otherwords, actions speak louder than mere words. We deserve no credit in our own salvation. Any teaching that says that we have power of any sort to effect our own salvation on our own, by ourselves, or by our own works because the Lord only took us part of the way is a false doctrine, as we rely entirely upon the Lord. He is literally the way, the truth, and the light. No man comes to the father, but by him. No man has the works to save himself, for all sin and fall short. Ephesians 2: 8-9 and again, 2 Nephi 2: 5-8 Everytime you grab the rope, you try to climb, but you just slip that inch you tried and fall down into the pit of sin once again. YOU CANNOT climb your way out on your own, even with the rope right there. However, it does not mean that we do not take action. We MUST take action, for we believe in James and others who talk about our works, but it is NOT our works that have in any degree the power to save except to show our acceptance and love for the Lord. We cannot climb out, we need someone to SAVE us. However, if one has faith, you will be able to see that faith by the works that we do such as repentance, and then Baptism, and other ordinances that we have been commanded of the Lord. This is why I included the bowline on our part. It is because we obtain the knowledge, and then we are expected to apply it, and through that application, we show our faith that we accept that rope and want to be saved. We must show that by action on our part (the tying the knot) for us to be pulled out of the pit of sin, and even more, elevated beyond where we once were. Uchtdorf states And again from the same talk In fact, I believe his talk is the very essence of our belief as Mormons today. It is not that our works are useless, I would in fact state they are necessary facets, but they are not even half as useful as people may think. In fact, as I said, even attributing us to tying the knot maybe giving us more credit than is due. It is possible that the it is that he has a lasso and loops it around us. All we needed to do was to cry out to him to save us from our pit of sin, and then to not purposefully avoid the lasso or remove it from ourselves once it is in place. This talk of President Uchtdorf's, which I must admit encapsulates a LOT of my modern thinking (and I believe it was one that impressed me greatly when I originally heard it) is found here The Gift of Grace - By President Uchtdorf

AS others have already stated, savings accounts used to grow slowly. Long ago they had something like a 3% to 5% growth rate annually. Of course, that's when mortagages ran something between 7% and 11% annually, so they had something to counter off of them. After the housing crash of 2008, and the massively low interest rates, the Banks had no way of really earning income off the interest, and hence the savings accounts were also hit. Not of much use for college, but Roth IRA's are probably a better investment for retirement these days, or for shorter terms...CDs as mentioned above. Bonds may also be coming back for something to invest in, and in some situations can be a higher return than CDs if you have the right advice.

I believe it's a fulfillment of a little know prophecy that I heard (but I can't seem to find in the D&C right now, so probably not doctrine) to the effect that the descendants of Joseph's line would be leaders in the church (and I can't recall right now, but I'm not sure if it specifies if that refers to Jr. Or Sr. If it is Sr. than it actually follows another pattern that I might bring up in my personal thread that is around here somewhere). Some of the prophecies that people related to Joseph Smith Jr. actually apply to the line of his father, which is interesting in seeing the fulfillment of those prophecies typically occurring via Hyrum Smith's line (which actually makes a lot of sense if one looks at patriarchy) in some ways. That's not saying there will always be a descendant of the Smith's in the Church Leadership or General Authorities, but having them there could be seen as a fulfillment of prophecy of sorts.

I agree, though I think it is more apt that we knew how to tie a bowline and the man throwing the rope to us was far stronger than anything we could imagine. We didn't have to even climb up the rope, just remember the things we were taught (how to tie the bowline) and apply it, the man actually did far more than just toss us the rope, he hauled us up once we got situated on the rope itself. Basically, he did all the work, what we did was minimal.

I'm thinking there needs to be a vetting process, but if their name starts with a C and they've been a general authority, I think they are warranting a closer look. However, the true people who know who is exactly being looked at (at least the preliminary records) would be those responsible for the background vetting at the COB, if they've gotten submissions yet. As it is so far out right now, probably won't have any definitive answers in that regards until at least a few weeks (if that) prior to April, though it could be solidly forming by December/January... Those are my thoughts right now...which means, even if someone is being looked at, it could end up being literally anyone from hundreds of choices (afterall, if a seventy or another is not affirmed to be the right choice by the Lord, then there are the area seventies, then districts, then Mission presidents and temple presidents...former MP and TP, etc...etc...etc.). Who knows, it may even be someone no one here as ever heard of...

Why would Japan ever nuke N. Korea. I can't see Japan doing that. 1. Japan LOATHES nukes. For some reason, hearkening back to the end of WWII, Japan has had a very hardline anti-nuclear stance among it's population. It shouldn't be any surprise to anyone. 2. Even if you get past that...the high altitude winds blow from Korea to North Japan typically. If they nuke N. Korea...Japan is going to get the fallout. I don't think Japan is going to be jumping for joy about a nuclear fallout including themselves. N. Korea can blast Japan and not worry as much (they'd probably get some fallout, but as the winds normally blow from their nation either to Japan's northern end, or if on the circular pattern, to the Eastern edge of China to Japan or South Korea...N. Korea doesn't have as much to worry about as Japan or S. Korea in that regards). Fat chance in heck that Japan wants to nuke N. Korea in my opinion. Unless all they want is S. Japan to be left standing, probably not the wisest idea to nuke N. Korea from Japan OR S. Korea. That may also be the reason why we didn't originally nuke them in the first place 60 some odd years ago. That's why, I don't think Japan's going to be a fan of it (nuking N. Korea)...much less be arming themselves with nukes to hit N. Korea with. PS: On the otherhand, I think the trade winds also blow the opposite direction off of South Japan (as opposed to North Japan), but they blow from S. Japan to S. Korea...which means if N. Korea nuked S. Japan...they'd get two for one in that they'd nuke Japan and portions of S. Korea (as opposed to N. Korea) would get the fallout.

What's been discussed is that they will delete the deductions for larger families, but at the same time, perhaps increase the child tax credit (thoughts are around $500) to compensate a little. The big difference is that while deductions supposedly are changed in regards to inflation (for example, last year it was supposedly around $4050, this year it would be $4150), the Child Tax credit does not. So while it may make up the difference for one year, if they change it, that will quickly lose value the rest of the time. The other alternative, is that some are looking to completely eliminate the Child tax credit, as well as change the existing 401K rules and/or traditional IRAs (basically, the idea would make 401K's a lot more useless, but in exchange they might make it so you can donate a lot more to a Roth IRA...which means they get tax money immediately rather than having to wait until you retire and cash out). Personally, I can't believe you have Conservatives that are actually considering some of these moves. I might not be a liberal compared to people here, but knowing somewhat how some conservatives think (I am Mormon...you know...and they are full of Conservatives in the church)...it seems incredible how they aren't throwing a massive row at their congressmen right now. This does NOT punish those on welfare in regards to taxes so much from what I can tell, it is targeted almost completely at the working class. Some states have already done assessments (I believe Florida figured it would actually raise taxes on it's general working populace somewhere between $700 and $900 rather than actually be a tax decrease) on how this actually would affect individuals. Single individuals who take standard deductions are not actually going to be hit that hard (but I don't gather they are really going to see any huge tax return that's massively larger than what they saw before) from it either, UNLESS they itemize. Those who itemize are actually going to be hit even harder than those who take the standard deductions. The funny thing, from what I've seen thus far, they aren't "simplifying" taxes as they claim, they actually are making it a little tougher for the middle class in many of the things they are doing, but it's going to end up being a HUGE tax cut for anyone who makes over 2 million a year (they are going to get rid of the Minimum Tax Rate, which is something which can affect someone making over 400K to 500K, but normally the ones who it REALLY hits are those who are making multi millions. Of an interesting note, of what we know of Trump...almost 90% of his taxes were paid because of the MTR...if he gets that taken away, he would have actually paid a 3.5% tax rate, despite what he says, this tax "break" is all about for the mega wealthy and not anything really about the middle class, or even those who are not making a million dollars a year (in fact, if you make over 150K, it starts to hurt even worse the more you go up until around that million dollar mark). Even the media, which is normally anti-trump seems to be eating it up and loving it and trying to convince the middle class that this is going to give everyone a bigger tax return. I asked my loving spouse why she thought it was, and she said simply...most of them are owned by really wealthy people...they probably want that mega tax break themselves no matter what the political affiliation, even if it means it will hurt anyone who is not rich. The more I hear about the plan, the more I can't believe the American people aren't outraged at what they are hearing...or maybe they are just so tired of it all at this point they've given up being outraged.

I think the average LDS family is a little bigger than that though. I'd say the average is 3 kids over the US, and probably around 4-5 kids in the Utah/Idaho areas. Devout Catholics have similar dynamics, but all over the US. Evangelicals, probably are more in the large numbers in the Southern US. California's and the North East's one kid or no kid families do a lot to balance that out, but I'd say almost all those who have large families that are religious, are going to be Republicans that are going to wonder...what hit them. If I were a Congressman from Utah or Idaho...I'd actually look at my constituents and put my foot down and say no way, no how, am I going to vote to allow that to take place.

TBH, I think the much more concerning thing is the adultery. I find it remarkable that she stuck it out with her husband and already speaks about her incredibly wonderful character. IF he is sinking back into old habits, FAR more than pornography, I would be worried about adultery. Personally, no matter what the excuse, I just can't see any reason that could excuse that.

to clarify, though there is a significant difference between the Chinese and Us plans in one area. China, as opposed to the US, is communist, so even though they have some capitalism allowed these days, they are still very much communist and hence, those who would get a third child normally are those who have higher government connections and hence higher benefits and may be able to afford the penalties. In China, they would start losing the deductions they have already in regards to the family if they have more than one child (two children now if you qualify for that) in the past, while also having a stiff penalty added. The proposed US plan doesn't have a penalty attached at least. The Chinese plan HAS been seen as something that has adversely affected those who are religious still (not an easy thing to do in Red China, but there are pockets, and at times there have even been LDS service missionaries there). To those you single people, thanks already...you are already subsidizing our large families (7 kids), and theirs as well if you analyze the tax system today. AS kids left the house I seemed to pay more and more, though overall, my food expenses and such went down. (paying off a home and NOT getting another mortgage on it is ALSO a big plus in finances, probably a much bigger impact than taxes have been to be honest).

No, it means that each family gets a standard deduction in addition to those earning the wage. From what I understand from various news sources (and it's still a little hard to work out) The wage earner gets one deduction, from what I understand, then the household itself gets an automatic dual deduction, which means for a family of two workers, they would get a total of four deductions. That's it and standard across the board. If you have one child, but both work, you still get a bigger deduction. IF you have two children, you'll hit even with what happens now in taxes. If you have three children, your taxes will go up. One worker + spouse = 3 deduction Two workers = 4 deductions Two workers + one child = 4 deductions Two workers + 2 children = 4 deductions Two workers + 3 children = 4 deductions Two workers + 4 children = 4 deductions Two workers + 5 children = 4 deductions Two workers + 6 children = 4 deductions Thus, those with few children will have a higher reduction in their taxes, but those with more than two children will see their taxes go up. Bascially, its very similar to the China's population control plan, but phrased differently, probably to appeal to US citizens or something.

The question Trump should be asking is NOT the one he IS asking. It doesn't matter if Ward is more Trump than Flake, it doesn't matter if Republicans like her more than Flake, what matters is IF SHE CAN ACTUALLY GET ELECTED. Flake has shown election capability, Ward has not. If Flake leaves, and Ward goes to the election, and loses to a democrat, that's basically Trump sabotaging his own congress. In essence, getting a democrat in the place of Flake is hurting the Republican party and the Republican Congress. Of course, at this point, with the Congress no repealing the ACA, and basically doing nothing in regards to morality or any other supposed Republican ideal, one has to ask, what really is the difference between having Republicans or Democrats in there. AT least a democrat congress got things done. Overall, I suspect while Republicans have had a short term victory, that Trumps antics are going to hand Congress over to the Democrats in the next four years (and possibly the presidency after that unless a miracle happens with the Republicans)...but we'll see over time what really happens or not.

So, I've heard quite a bit about Trump's new proposed Tax Plan (or is that some of the Republican in Congress along with Trump?). On the face of it, the media has made it sound all nice and dandy, but there is a hidden thing in it (or not so hidden if you've heard all about it) that is very political, and in fact could hurt Mormon and Catholic families more than most. Before getting to that, let me talk about Red China briefly, from what I understand. For years, China, in an effort to curb their population growth had a one child policy. In essence, you were allowed one child. If you wanted a second child, you had to pay a lot more taxes. A third child was illegal without government approval, but if you were allowed, you better be filthy rich, because your taxes would be excessively high. IN essence, they utilized taxes on families with children as a way to control the population. So, how does that lie in the Tax proposals of the administration now. Their proposal would allow families a double deduction. That sounds good on the surface...right? Except, as I understand it, if you have more than two children...that deduction stays the same. You do not get any more of a deduction. Therefore, you will have higher taxes after this supposed tax reduction, than you did previously. Now, of my kids, all of them (which are married, one son isn't, he'd actually benefit from this tax change) have at least four kids themselves. Some have more than four children. This means, this new tax, will hit my family much harder than most. It actually could be seen as penalizing them, simply because they have more children. In essence, this new tax will hit Mormon and Catholic families (which tend to have more children than most others from what I've seen) very hard. If we relay back to the China principle, basically you use taxes to control how many children your families are having. I see that this tax can accomplish the same thing in the US, it means that it's trying to restrict the US to a two child principle (which is, ironically, the same principle China now has, as it loosened the strictures on it's child policy recently). How is this a Republican ideal? In fact, I'd think this was antithetical to Republicans and Conservatives in general. Now, the tax itself, could be seen as a political move in other ways. It proposes cutting out the state tax reduction. Now these taxes are typically higher in liberal states...which are seen as not having voted for Trump or Republicans in general. This means, they gain more taxes from these people, without supposedly hurting their base. At the same time, there is an idea that lower income families tend to have more children, as well as those one welfare and those in the ghetto areas of major metropolises. These are also seen as not having voted for Republicans...and hence, they gain a LOT more money from these individuals (if they can, I don't believe welfare is normally taxed, but those who are just low income, but high enough to pay taxes still, will be punished by a higher tax) without actually hurting the Republican voting base as well...at least in theory. In reality, from what I saw, a majority of Clinton's votes came from five urban areas (which also are some of the biggest cities in the US). The rest went to Trump, which means that Trump actually WILL be hurting his base (and he barely won last time, it was closer than most Trumpites would admit). I also don't think it's going to be benefiting the Republicans as much as they think it will. Mormons are very Republican, as are the more devout catholics (the ones that tend to have larger families, those that disregard Catholic dogma and doctrine tend to lean more democrat from what I've seen). In addition, there are some evangelicals that also have larger families, and he would be punishing these, which are also his base. However, I think overall, they are not looking at this aspect but still thinking that these new taxes will hurt those who would not vote for them anyways, but help those that do vote for Republicans and conservatives. Overall, I think the tax is going to cause many Mormons to pay higher taxes, as well as evangelicals and devout Catholics. I also see it as the same idea that China established with it's higher taxes if you have more children...a form of population control...just no one (that I've seen) has come right out and stated this yet.

It's not a bad thing for a US president to express their opinion. Most of the time the reasons they were elected were BECAUSE certain opinions and political stances they held. It's not that one expresses an opinion, but HOW they express that opinion.

This conversation sounds pretty bizarre. I suppose this may be how it feels when non-members listen to LDS members discuss very Mormony topics at times.

True, I wasn't trying to justify celebrities either, just come up with a reason why people may listen to them rather than a doctor. Obviously I still go to my doctors, but sometimes I wonder if I would be better trying to find the answers to some of my aches and pains (never get old...you get pain where you never thought you would) on my own.