JohnsonJones

I haven't any good ideas on it that sounds better than your idea. Sounds good to me.

The thing that struck me oddest had nothing to do with greeting people. Many Non-LDS churches have a social hour or other such thing and they have small snacks or coffee and other such sundries. They normally have a fund which they collect money in to pay for the supplies of such social mixing. However, it sure appeared they actually were selling stuff in one of those churches in something that appeared to be an actual coffee shop in a church. That's a new one. I know some Christian churches would be scandalized (too close to the Sellers in the Temple type idea to them) so was surprised to see that represented in the video. I wonder if this is something new in some churches. Having a coffee shop that actually sells things in the church itself.

Wait a second, did I just understand what you wrote!? 1. You tell your Mother that you'd like to eat Sunday dinners at your own house from now on (though she does not realize you mean HER Sunday dinners at your house). 2. She expects that you'll make your own dinner at your house and eat it, not show up at her house and take the dinner home. 3. You show up at her house, she's kind of confused at what you are doing there. 4. You proceed to start taking things off the table and piling it onto the plate, telling them you love them, but you are not going to eat here with them, even though you are taking the food with you. You are taking all that home so you can eat it there. 5. You then grab dessert as well, and your brothers are like...what??? You're already here, why not stay!? 6. You then leave with the meal in tow and go back home. Is this what happened? I'm not sure whether to laugh or not. Did you really do this? You do this every week!? Are you pulling our legs or is this for real! I know if my kids did this, I would love them to death, but I'd be confused as heck. I'd be utterly perplexed at this. I think over time I'd get used to them doing this, and love them tremendously. There are times they come over and I hope it's for a visit, but then they do their laundry and leave. I suppose it's sort of like that, but never had one that came to take dinner and then leave without eating it with me. Interesting story.

I'm old school and I watch it normally (and these days on TV). However, I am more of a reader and after the talks are printed I prefer reading them in the Ensign.

Absolutely, we are in complete agreement in that.

In preparation for General Conference I was browsing various materials on the LDS website. It is probably that I'm just slow in this regards and everyone here has already known about what I'm about to mention for a long time. As I was looking at different conference talks through the years I found this All Conferences And then I found even more! Ensign Which floors me. It has all the conferences and Ensigns back to 1971! This is awesome! This prompted me to open my tablet which I recently got and put the Gospel Library on, and lo and behold it had the same thing on it as well! You can have all that with endless reading material! I think it is very cool. It does raise an interesting question though. Now that I've discovered this, do I need to continue a subscription to the church magazines? If I stop subscribing, is this a trend that others are also doing. If so, would that indicate that eventually they might stop publishing the actual hardcopy of the magazine? As a historian, this makes me somewhat sad. For a historian, we are all about books and documents, most of the time hardcopies of items. It seems so easy for electronic items to be lost if some event happens, or even something slight like a media change or an update to the program that opens a specific type of media. However, it is personally cheaper and easier to rely on the electronic than the hardcopy in this instance. It is wonderful that these are available to the world via electronic means, especially with such a back history of issues and conferences.

That sounds like a good message.

I remember the Terri Schiavo situation, but not something from Hinckley specifically addressing it. There is a quote from Hinckley that sounds like what you refer to, but from a funeral address in 1996. Other than that, I have nothing, sorry.

That's not really what I said, but it may be what you understood me saying. In response to each of your paragraphs... 1. Government itself is merely a reflection of the people themselves, if the people (collectively) are moral or immoral. Sometimes that occurs NOT because of what people SAY they want, but is reflected by immoral actions on their part (supporting welfare because we support a corrupt way of pay and employment, or the disintegration of the family unit). It is NOT an individual thing or individual decision. It is a collective reflection of the society itself. This is true in our time, and was true in the Nephite times (as the people became more wicked and corrupt, that unfortunately also started being reflected in their government). 2. Most people don't pay enough taxes to make a difference in whether the government spends their money or not. You normally have to be in the top 10% to actually make even a small difference in whether you are supporting government programs or not. Normally, people don't pay enough to cover the costs of their percentage of the government. Each person's portion that they pay of the budget would be about 10K a year in Federal taxes just to break even, and then whatever percentage of their state budget divided by the number of people "paying" taxes in that. Once you get above that range, when you hit about 20K-30K in taxes, you are actually paying for those who pay less taxes or who through exemptions do not pay taxes at all. I suppose in theory that could occur at 100K if you took NO rebates, no exemptions, no nothing and paid straight up taxes on that 100K (though I do not know why anyone would do that, that's not charity or anything else, but there could be those that do that). You referred that you would do better with your money. That may be true. I am NOT talking about the 90% who do not have as much of an expendable income. This is specific. This is a we for me and those in this situation. This is not a YOU if you are not in that situation. As I said, even if you were completely charitable and lets say you made a million a year and donated all but 75K (after taxes)of that to those in need, the elderly, etc, it still doesn't matter whether what you specifically want. The moral implications are a reflection of society, not individuals in that society. It is society (a we, as in We the people) that I am referring to in a general sense and to myself. 3. No, I don't consider you uncharitable necessarily (and most likely what I said had nothing to do with you). I don't think I called you that, but I did refer to LDS people (us) and society that could be more charitable. In this I was referring to those like me, that could can afford it but choose wants over aid. If you are one of those, and my situation applies to you, then indirectly I suppose I was stating that. In my opinion, the REASON these government aid programs exist is because of a society that does NOT act like a terrestrial (much less a celestial) where it ensures there are no poor among them. We, the people (speaking as a society now, not individuals), are the cause of that through our own choices and immorality. However, the greater the ability, the greater the offense. As I tried to show in response to your paragraph 2, very few actually have the funds to do this (though those that do, when you start looking that way, have over 80% of the money in less than 10% of the population). If you took what the top 75 individuals in the US made each year and had them contribute what they didn't need to help the poor instead of a welfare security net, there would be NO NEED for that government security net in the first place. Even with taxes, with the sums we are talking about, it is very possible to enact this and have many of these programs go away. Their greed is a mirror of the entire mindset that pervades those in the arena who make enough money to actually change things in our society (aka, WE, as in we the people). This is especially prevalent in those who make more money, especially the top 10% and those close to it. If that is why you have taken offense, because you fall in that group, than I suppose we may have to agree to disagree on this. Other than that, have no more quarrel with me and go your way in peace. Even then, I believe I stated right at the beginning, we can all have different opinions and still be good LDS members. We have different opinions, and what I said is a reflection of my own thoughts in regards to me, those LDS in that type of situation, and society as a group at large (we, as a people, not you as a person). We can each have different opinions on what is good or bad and all still be good members of the LDS church. Our differences make us stronger together. I appreciate your opinion and am glad you have shared it.

Now for a different slant. Sometimes after looking at Psalm 82, many look at John 10:34 and revert that to try to indicate that it is talking about earthly judges and magistrates. This IS a COMMON acceptance of John 10:34. You have explained it well. However, does it make sense in the context of John 10 and Psalm 82? Instead of one verse, let's look at the context of the scripture I would say, though it is a popular Christian explanation, in light of the Psalm itself, there is an alternate explanation that could also be used. Once again, I think the NIV illustrates an alternate Christian viewpoint much better then the KJV does. So, here you see what he is stating...he has just stated that he, himself, is the Father. This was considered Blasphemy and the Jews are about to stone him. In his defense he states he has done good works and asks which of those they are stoning him for. This is stating that these works can ONLY be done by the power of the LORD. However, the crowd does not get the hint, or purposefully ignores it. They state they are NOT stoning him for that, but for blasphemy. In response, the Lord points out Psalm 82. Why would he state this in that context defending himself. These are NOT rulers, they are NOT judges, and they are NOT magistrates. These are the Jews. However, let's say they were the judges at that point, that the Jews were not going to simply lynch him, but had bound him and taken him before a judge. In this context he isn't defending himself, he's doubling down if one goes that he's talking about the Psalm stating he is over Judges and Magistrates. To double down and not defend himself seems to go against what he does in relation to other judgments when he allows the rulers themselves to state who he was and merely states that the rulers are the ones stating it, not himself. It seems against his character, either here, or when he is before the ruler of Israel at his trial before the crucifixion. It would seem more that he is referring to this scripture in regards to what was actually stated. The Psalm calls false idols Deities. If a false idol can be considered that, then how is it a sin for one whom has shown the power of the Lord to also call himself in a similar fashion. If they feel he is also a false deity, and those deities were also called as such in Psalms, then it cannot be a sin. If he shows that he has the power of the Lord through his works or miracles and power, then that itself is self-evident that he is telling the truth, as he pointed out to them at first. I think in both the Lord is referring to false idols, one in showing that he is superior to them and the True Lord, and the other showing that they were referred to such titles as false idols, and thus if they feel he is false, they should still find him innocent due to the same terminology and idea. However, he also points out at the first, and the latter that his works speak as too whom he is. The LDS take on both scriptures is far different though, but I think most here have already delved into that idea.

Not really getting into LDS doctrine on this post, but addressing the Psalm itself. PC take on it is a little different than many. Let's view the psalm itself in the NIV version As you can see there are some very distinct differences between the NIV version and the KJV version, though both are saying the same thing. Non-LDS interpretations that I've heard still state that these are deities that are being referred to in this verse. It is stating that the Lord is above any of the Pagan deities. The Catholics may not say deities, but define it as divine beings that the Lord had delegated authority too. However the Lord is over all of them. This is a rebuke to them for not helping the poor and protecting them from evil and danger. Their blindness to the needs of those they should protect have made the Lord toss them down, now as mortal. The Lord rules over all of them and all nations. It could be referring to the false idols of other nations, or it could be referring to angels or other heavenly beings. Irregardless, it is referring them to being his sons, but due to their wickedness, they will die like men do and fall like all other rulers do except for the Lord. A Non-Christian take would be as follows, but still using the deity idea. In Ancient society each city or state had it's own deity. AS one nation or state conquered another, they would add that pantheon to their portfolio. Typically, the diety of the nation that was the winning side would have their deity as the dominant deity, with the conquered nations deity being the one that fell in a inferior position in the spectrum. The most powerful of these in Southern Europe was Zeus or Jupiter, who also was the deity of the Roman Empire. David was a conqueror of other nations as were his sons in their various empire. This would be showing that the Deity over Israel had dominance over the deity of any of those that they ruled, that those other deities would die off and only their deity, the Lord of Israel would rule. The only place I see that one could surmise he is referring to mortal Kings would be from the KJV listed which states Even there, it doesn't say they are Mortal Kings or princes, but shall DIE like them, as in a metaphor or similar fashion. One could surmise this, but I think from a Non-LDS view it would be more addressing the pagan deities of others and their inferiority to the Lord. I think the normal Christian view is that this is referring to Idolatry of other nations and kingdoms, and the false Deities they worshipped. It is noting how they have no power to do anything that a real deity should, and that it is the LORD who is the true Deity, as these deities have no ability, power, or any way to do the things attributed to them or a true Deity. Catholics have a similar idea as well, but rather puzzling to me as if they are actually acknowledging the real existence of fake deities. Their page Catholic Bishops Psalm 82 in the footnotes has some puzzling items. However, as you can see, they also have what I would say is a prevailing idea that this is referring to the false deities of other nations and how the Lord is who rules over all rather than they do, instead of merely referring to mortal kings (unless that King is also considered a deity such as...maybe...pharaoh or the like). Taking a more LDS slant, I could see how it may be referring to mortal kings, but then those kings would be being chastised in this psalm, but at the same time it would also be calling the Sons of God, but showing how they would be more fallen because of their lacking the duties which they were assigned. However, I would think that is more a distinctly LDS idea that the majority of Christians, but, obviously I am mistaken a lot about things so may be mistaken on this as well.

The furthest east I've been has been Greece and Romania in Europe itself. In those areas, you'll need to be in one of the LARGER cities typically to find a ward. If you search on the LDS website it can show you where the wards are. The number of wards in an area is a good indicator of how many active members are in that area. In smaller cities there may be no ward close by. The smaller the town or more rural the area you get, the harder it will be to find a ward. Good Luck.

This is something I sort of dealt with tonight. I visited a family where the father works at the local grocers. He doesn't make a ton of money and so the family lives in his parent's basement. They STRONGLY feel that the mother should stay at home and take care of the children. They are very poor. It is a hard situation, but the children also definitely gain something from having their mother around and taking care of them. She is multi-talented and bakes, sews, and other household things that half our ward have forgotten how to do. Then there was another family in a very similar situation. Seven kids and an income around 31K a year. Money is extremely tight in that household. They also feel that the mother should stay at home and the father works his normal job (college two year degree even which is the minimum requirement for the position he holds) and then works other odd jobs also. The children are awesome and she is an excellent mother. She sews everything for them off material she can find, as well as bakes and is extremely conservative in money and saving. In fact, I have many families that I visit that are like this. The benefits of a stay at home mother seem very apparent to me when I visit, however, they are in a lot of need much of the time.

I had great insurance before the ACA...then those of us that were 100% insured and were willing to pay the monthly rates...due to some ACA stuff that encouraged employers to drop that type of insurance, no longer even have the option to get it. I don't agree with the option to force people to pay to be alive (individual mandate, if you are born in the US, you owe taxes simply because you are alive, or you pay for insurance. Either way you owe money simply for being born). I don't agree with that part of the ACA. To be honest, this is the only REAL reason I've ever had against the ACA, but to me, that's a biggie. You don't just tax people because they are born, that's just wrong. In that light, they SHOULD simply repeal it post haste and then figure out what to replace it with rather than dawdling around like they have been. They had a LOT of successful votes when Obama was president to repeal the ACA only to be stopped by Obama and the Democrats. Now that they have the power to do it for real, they suddenly are slacking. It indicates every vote they made before was simply political grandstanding and the only reason they did it was to make the democrats look bad and to make them look good. They never had any intention of repealing it, it was just smoke and mirrors. At this point I'm beginning to think they have no intention to repeal it, or replace it for that matter.

In evaluations they can be words that bulk up a comment without actually adding anything. For example... John Doe expertly managed twenty-five 30 million dollar accounts insuring excellent percentage rate increases over the 10 percent range. In the above sentence expertly and excellent are both aerosol words. They add nothing to the meaning of the sentence in any real way. In a meeting you could have someone say the following... We need more synergy in our teamwork to collaborate more seamless interactions. Which could be simply stated We need better teamwork. Thus synergy, collaborate, seamless and interactions are all aerosol words. That's what I think it would refer to. Unfortunately, I bulk up my writing all the time, so I probably use aerosol words constantly out of habit.

What was the message?

I stated in regards to the actual Welfare programs, but it seems that you are including a LOT MORE than what is simply the security nets or other items. From your statement I would assume that you conclude Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP as well as the ACA and Nation building (bases of our military in other nations and other locations) as immoral. I don't think all of those are immoral items. I do not think it is immoral for a government to go into debt to support those items as long as it is healthy debt rather than unhealthy debt. Having NO debt in the US, or close to it, has been shown to actually be absolutely disastrous for the US almost every time we've gotten close to it, to the point of people starving in the streets, people dying of exposure, and all sorts of inhuman and terrible things. On the otherhand, the US has never had to deal with bankruptcy yet, though California has had to deal with that (though in all honesty, California is one of the largest economies in the world and doesn't seem to be doing so badly economically speaking). A nation itself is a composition of the morality of those in the nation itself. I think it is MORAL to care for the elderly, poor, and disabled. This falls upon the responsibility of the nation itself. One compass of the nation is how well it does or does not take care of those in these situations. The government is, in and of itself, a non-entity. A Democratic Republic (such as what we live in the US) It is supposed to represent the collective will of the people that compose that nation. If the collective will of the people is that it is to take care of the poor and needy and it is through that government, I do not view it as immoral, unless the way the PEOPLE are supporting it is immoral. Hence, any blame of a government of the US ultimately falls back upon the people that government represents. If one finds things the government does is immoral, ultimately that is because those who back those policies and that government are immoral. Your question, if I boil it down, is whether it is immoral for a government to provide those items on the behalf of those who it represents, if it cannot afford to pay for it? As I said previously, that's tricky. Overall, I would say it is probably immoral, but not because of the government, but due to the immorality of the people who are supporting those policies, directly or indirectly. With welfare, I gave a direct example of how that type of support is immoral. The government itself giving out the support is not the immoral portion, nor are those who are receiving the welfare. The immoral first starts with those employers who rely on that system so that they do not have to support those who work for them. In a chicken and an egg situation, you can see those employers as one of the PRIMARY REASONS why welfare exists. When you have people working 50-60 sometimes 80-100 hours a week and STILL not able to support themselves, something is seriously wrong with the employment system that allows this type of abuse from employers. The Welfare system is something that is lobbied HARD on the behalf of some businesses, and a LOT of that has to do with the fact that as long as they do not have to worry about paying their workers a fair wage, they can pay something far below it because the government then takes up the slack. This then also reflects OUR immorality. Shopped at Walmart recently...congratulations, you have NO PLACE to complain about Welfare because you just supported that system. Our greed for cheap goods is one of the primary factors that drives many of these business practices. The blame, thus, for immorality is NOT completely on those employers, but the public that empowers those employers to do these types of abuses. THIS is immoral. If we had people making enough money so they could provide for themselves, that 34-35% of US citizens on Welfare would shrink to around 5% of Americans on welfare. That's a HUGE reduction and right around the unemployment numbers. This can be reflected upon other aspects. Let's take Social Security. Social Security as it is, is basically a Ponzi scheme. I can't say I'm entirely in favor of how it is designed. I AM in favor of helping our elderly and disabled, and as that is the main way to do it these days, I do not think it is immoral for a normal individual in need to utilize it. In fact, with how it is designed, I think it may be immoral to deny individual people who need it that benefit. It used to be that families supported their elderly and disabled. If your mother could not support herself, YOU took care of her. You did NOT discard her to the care of someone or something else. If your brother was mentally disabled, you did NOT discard him to someone else, you took care of him or her. It was a moral imperative that one takes care of their family. One who did NOT take care of their family was seen as immoral. Unfortunately, times and behaviors change. We would rather buy that latest hot car or large TV than take care of our parents in their old age. LIKEWISE, it was upon the elderly to ACCEPT that help from their families. Pride has entered into our modern society in a fierce way and there are elderly who refuse or would refuse that help even if offered. Part of the equation in the past was that the Elderly should expect and accept that their family would be there for them and be their support in their old age. Because of this, and the disintegration of the family unit as it used to be, the elderly were dying (and though not in the numbers they used to, we still have an occasional elderly die from lack of heating and cold exposure, or other items, even in our modern time). Social Security is the way in place to provide that backup for those who have no means to support themselves. It is not supposed to make them rich, but to provide a way for them to support themselves at least at a bare minimum when no one else will. Unfortunately, the way it was created is basically a Ponzi scheme. I think that method is not exactly the most moral, but once again, the entire reason Social Security is necessary in the US these days is because the immorality of the populace that allows it. If we all took care of our elderly and disabled, and the elderly and disabled allowed us to take care of them, Social Security would not be necessary. Once again, it is a reflection of the morality of the people. To accept it on an individual level considering the state of our world today is, in my opinion, moral, even if the backings of it and how it was instituted may not be. The same would apply to many of the medical programs for the exact same reasons. The military is far more tricky. Because of how tricky it can be to address it, I am not going to talk about it here right now. Overall, one can be perfectly moral and even more righteous than many around them (the Lord in his mortal ministry at times noted how much easier it is for the poor to obtain heaven than for the rich) and utilize these social programs of government aid in their life. The LDS church utilizes it in many locations. However, that may not mean the way or reasons they are there are exactly moral. I feel this is a direct reflection on the morality of the society they reside in. Even in the Days of Joseph Smith it was noted that the people there were as evil as they were in the days of Noah (think about what happened to them). It is much later and the people are even more wicked and evil today. It is probably like the Book of Mormon times that when the Lord came to America, it wasn't the righteous who were saved, as there were almost no righteous living at that time. It was merely those who were less wicked that everyone else. I feel we live in a perilous time very similar to that today. It isn't that we are righteous, we just happen to not be as wicked as everyone else. That brings us back to your original question. I think it is HIGHLY moral, in fact a moral imperative to take care of our elderly and disabled, and a commandment from the Lord to look after our poor and needy so that there is no poor among us. We need to do this one way or the other. It is a commandment and when we do NOT do this, we are joining all those who fight against the commandments of the Lord. It does not matter WHAT excuse we make up, we are still in the wrong. HOWEVER, it may matter HOW we do this. I think it is moral for a government to provide aid to their citizens. That aid should normally try to be within the restraints of reasonable spending. It should not be done in support of corrupt men who exploit those in need (such as in my welfare example above, or in the disintegration of the family that ensures people have to use Social security in many instances). When faced with situations in dealing with where we are at today, where spending is rapidly outstripping that of monies coming in, a moral look would be to see how to change that aspect to one that is more healthy and reasonable. We have done that in the past consistently (even up to 2000), and I would say we can do it again. I have my own ideas of how that might be done, but that isn't within the confines of the question you asked.

Several items or thoughts today. First was in regards to the differences between wards and church buildings in the Idaho/Utah/Arizona areas and those in other parts of the world (for example, some rural areas of the UK and Ireland). Whenever I go to an LDS service, whether in an area where there are multiple wards and a heavy concentration of Mormons, or one that is a small branch in a nation that has a very small number of Mormons, I find the actual services to basically run the same. They have different speakers, and different individuals, but the feel and flow of the meetings are the same. In essence, it really is the same church. The difference comes into play when you have multiple wards in the same building. Out in the hinterparts of the UK, you many times have one ward (or branch) in a building. in that instance, you can use the building for whatever the ward needs. You only need to plan within your own ward, and normally that is easily done during ward council. It is pretty easy simply to use the building when you need it. I've found that in areas where you may have three wards in one building it becomes a lot more complex. The other wards normally are not in your ward council, so having a common point of contact (normally a building coordinator) becomes essential, as well as flexibility and other areas. I bring this up since we have a ward activity this Friday. It only occurred to me today to wonder if we had actually deconflicted with the other wards to be able to use the building this Friday evening. This is something I never had to worry about in other areas, so this is a new thing. It reminds me that no matter how long we've been in the church, no matter how much we or others may think we know, we are always learning something new. For me, it's now a little stressful in wondering if we actually have the chapel tomorrow evening, or whether the 1st or 7th wards or whoever else may also plan on using the building, or have another loud activity that could interfere with ours. I'm feeling a little stress over this, but if I have a little stress, the ones who are in charge of it may have a ton of stress. I am still learning more about the church and the gospel, and probably will continue to learn more until the day I die (and then probably will still learn more even after that). The second item I wanted to think about today is General Conference. There's not as many threads discussing this right now as I would think with it just around the corner, but that may be because it's still not here yet and discussions will abound when it's being broadcast this weekend. When I was young we'd all get dressed in our Sunday best to go to watch or listen (there was one location at least where we didn't actually get to watch it, but we could listen to it. I'm unsure if it was due to tapes being sent and we listened to it a week later or if we listened to it live via some other connection) to General conference. We would be dressed in our best for all of the sessions, and other people would join us. On Saturday it was a little sparse, but it was normally packed on the Sunday Morning Session. Now days it seems far different than that. Even if I go to the Stake Center it is locked up and no one is there. There is no need to run the recorders or hook anything up at the ward building. It seems in the areas of major LDS influence and population that it is expected that everyone either has an internet connection they can devote to this for a few hours, or a cable or satellite hookup that they can use. Unfortunately, there are a few members in our ward that do not have this luxury, so pondering what could be the right course of action. It appears the stake presidency itself is more encouraging people to watch it, but not to necessarily have us prepare the ward buildings except for the Priesthood session which will have the Stake Center open. If I open up the ward building, am I still supporting the Stake leadership or not? I'm not certain what we are supposed to do with those without access to watch it unless we invite people over to our home. It appears that I will have at least one set of missionaries with us this weekend. Maybe I should invite the others out there that do not have a way to watch General Conference on their own. I'm not sure I feel comfortable having a ton of people in my home for General Conference though. Maybe I'm just too prideful in that and shouldn't be so selfish? In conjunction with that, though I'll be dressed better this weekend most likely, also due to my pride of not wanting to be in PJs with others around, it seems when we watch it in our homes (at least that's the feeling I have with my extended family as well as mine) is that we don't get dressed up anymore to watch conference. It doesn't seem as special as it used to be with us being able to just flip on the TV and watch it in the comfort of our house (or, as we have a TV in the room, the comfort of PJ's under the blanket from our bed in the bedroom). I wonder how many others never get dressed to watch sessions of conference. Even crazier is when people don't even watch conference and consider this weekend as a time to vacation from church. That some consider it a time to not watch any conference and simply enjoy time off. We try to watch all of conference, but it gets hectic with all the sessions. I've encouraged people in my ward that we should try to watch at least one session this weekend if not more. For me, it should be an exciting time to hear from our Church leaders, and I am excited. I think perhaps to try to restore and make it more important would be to make a point of dressing up in Sunday Clothes when listening this year. This can be some of the most important instruction we receive, and I should treat it far more importantly than I have over the past few years. I'm excited about this weekend, and wonder who we will hear talk to us at Conference this year. Normally the Apostles get at least one talk, and the Counselors get two or three talks. I wonder if President Monson will be well enough to talk to us this year. If so it might only be one short talk, or it may be more. It could be interesting to see how it pans out. I wish I could actually go to see it at the conference hall in Salt Lake, but I didn't specifically ask for tickets to go this year, and have others who will be here this weekend. I hope anyone who reads this enjoys watching General Conference this weekend and is looking forward to it like I am.

I'm not certain we are discussing the same thing. Did you read the three posts I made? If you are focusing on the money we spend on welfare, (and specifically the government security net programs), read the second post of 3 again, as I'm not sure how your remarks relate to it. I don't think you've touched upon the immorality I've mentioned in regards to the actual welfare program I discussed there, which makes me think we are discussing two separate items here. In your second paragraph above, is very different than what the question I answered was. It wasn't whether it was constitutional, but whether it was moral. Very different points of view. The third question you posed is in regards to spending. Welfare is a very small amount of what the government spends, unless you include other programs in it (the aforementioned Social Security, the Medicare and Medicaid and CHIP programs, or even the defense budget that pays for people to be housed and fed when not waging a war which differs from what it was originally when the Constitution was written, and multiple other facets of the budget). It relates to what you ask, but without knowing what you personally define as social nets and moral, it is impossible to answer your original question. In regards to debt, it gets tricky because it's been shown that when the government has a healthy debt the US actually has a better economy, and when it decreases it's debt where it is not as much in debt, it forces the US into a recession or depression in many instances. I suppose it would depend on whether one considers debt immoral in any instance, or whether they consider causing a recession or depression on purpose moral or immoral. That's a very tricky question to answer for multiple reasons, and kind of a minefield in regards to a straight yes or no answer.

I had thought about going to see that with my kids and then a relative who knew about my concerns in movies at times warned me about characters and things. We didn't go see it.

Something wicked (meaning this is NOT what I believe, but it's a thought) came to mind. What happens if we are drugged? By that I mean that we may hate doing it if given our own devices, but due to some external influence (in this world it can be done with drugs, in the next probably much more effectively with other devices) we are given a high doing that thing? Is that good or bad? For example, if I could choose my eternity (and I may not be that wise about it) I would choose to be in a library full of books that are mine to read at my leisure (as a historian I get a tad anal about keeping old texts and such in very good shape with very careful handling of the books that most would think is extreme). What I hate in this life is the pressure to go do sales. I absolutely HATE retail sales and doing that type of work (I just don't feel right half the time with the upsale and other things they want). For me, doing nothing would be better than being a used car salesman. However, imagine in heaven, for some odd reason my ability to really do what I'd love to do is gone, and I have a compulsion (like drugs) to do the work assigned to be a used car salesman (I HIGHLY doubt they actually have a job of being a used car salesman in heaven...just for the record...this is hypothetical). I feel glorious for some odd reason (the drugs), but it's not true to who I am or who or what I would actually want to be doing if given the same free will I have on earth. Is that heaven or hell? Perhaps the concern expressed could deal with the idea that we may be doing work that if given the free will we have on earth, is something that would be sort of hellish to us in reality, even if we are filled with pleasure doing it. Now, just for the record, I DO NOT BELIEVE the above will be something that will happen. In reality I don't know what heaven is like (have this thing called a veil that made me forget some stuff, and I haven't been to heaven after that to see what it really is like), but I don't believe it will be like what I just described. It's just a thought that came to mind as I was reading this thread and thought...what if?

I'm glad someone other than my wife and kids also realize that I'm a bother. I actually like that terminology though! Yes, that is an oddity we also suffer from. We get assignments from higher up, and our ward never seems to be the lucky ones that get weekends. We normally end up with things like Wednesday or Thursday evenings (at least it's normally the evening than during the day, there are some wards that apparently get that assignment time) which can make it difficult for many except the retired or those who have the time off to get to the temple in time to do sessions.

I think I answered the question overall. Your question is too broad and without knowing what you mean, is impossible to answer. If you are referring to welfare itself, or the government security net, I answered it specifically on what was moral or immoral in my opinion in that regards (if you read my posts, you should see where I addressed what I may consider immoral on this specific program already, but I don't think it is the US welfare programs you are referring to perhaps)...however, WELFARE as put out by the US government isn't costing us trillions of dollars every year, or even every other year and is inconsequential compared to other programs. In fact, if we spent money like many other nations which actually spend more money on their social nets but less on military and other areas, we would have a surplus every year. I covered above how welfare actually is no where close to causing a deficit, and if the other larger programs were cut, we would actually have a HUGE surplus if we were just talking about welfare spending. However, discussing welfare itself doesn't fit with your question, which was That isn't applicable to the Government Security Net programs or Welfare as people put it in it's strictly confined box. it doesn't even make sense in the context of how much we spend on Welfare, Welfare isn't the program that's causing the US to be in debt at 19+ Trillion dollars. If you meant other programs rather than just what is straight up listed as welfare (for example, do you include Social Security which is perhaps the biggest and largest of the government programs), I need to know what exactly you mean by your statement, that is if you are referring to the US government. Determining which ones of them are or are not moral (because to get trillions of dollars you have to combine several of them) depends on what you are asking in regards to this. I've listed all the various different programs as well as links so you can peruse yourself to determine exactly what programs you are including in your question and what you think is moral or immoral so you can narrow it down more precisely. This is where my post above went, I need to know what programs that we spend money on are you considering in your question above, because with the commentary you included it can't possibly be on the actual defined welfare program as budgeted into the US budget.

Said some sarcastically dark humor pertaining to Noah and those around him, another on Onan, and yet another on Israel and the conquest of Canaan, probably too dark for the board. Self editing it out as it is probably the wiser course of action.

When we look at the Safety Net programs, where is it moral or immoral. Is it immoral to help those in need? Is it immoral to spend the huge amount of money we do? It isn't what is causing us to go into debt by itself, that would be the Defense, Medical, and Social Security programs. If we cut those we would have a surplus as we bring in around 2.2 Trillion dollars each year (but spend over 3 and half Trillion). Spending on Welfare literally only takes up around 1/6 to 1/5 of what we take in as income for the US government. Deviating from my open questions, especially as it sort of addresses the original question asked, I would say it is more immoral to purposefully pay your employees less money than required for them to live on. That is purposefully abusing the system of the safety net. It isn't those who are working and not making enough's fault, but those who would rely on the welfare system to cover the gaps for a living wage to subsidize their business. HOWEVER, the other side of the coin to this, is it KEEPS OUR costs down. Because those minimum wage employees at Mcdonalds are paid so low, and qualify for welfare, we have cheap Mcdonalds fare. Because those employees at Walmart are paid low enough that they need welfare in many instances, we have cheap goods from Walmart. In a way, our demands for cheap goods drives the prices low and thus the pay which in turn causes the business to purposefully rely on the idea that their employees can get by with the Safety Nets (government aid) that are in place. Are WE moral for supporting such a system in place? There are a whole bunch of quanderies in this regards when we consider what is moral or what is not. Welfare itself is not the driving force behind US debt. Even if we take what we spend over what we bring in (~3.6 Trillion vs 2.2 Trillion, so around 1.4 Trillion in overspending) and equate the entirety of Welfare to overspending, that still only makes up around 1/4 of the total, meaning that 3/4 of that debt being incurred are from other things entirely. To see this in action we'd have to turn to another nation, for example, a little place Called Deseret that was located in the Far West in the late 1800s. However, I'm not certain examining that would make people completely comfortable, but we can see the results from another nation that expends HEAVILY into social nets and overspending, Sweden. One of the happiest places on Earth according to recent surveys, and rather prosperous. Of course, the big question some are asking is how long they can keep it up. How long until this system they have collapses. Is this a temporary thing or can they actually last with their policies. Is what they are doing moral? Many nations around the world do not spend as high a percentage of their spending on the military, but make it up with spending it on social programs and government aid. IS this moral of them? Supposedly Welfare spending has decreased from 2015 levels in it's percentage down to 9% for 2017. I highly doubt our welfare programs are going to be the cause of our bankruptcy. Other spending comes in to smaller percentages, such as the Veterans Affairs which appears to be around 187 Billion for 2015. Is this moral? Is it moral to send our youth to war and have them injured, spending 600 Billion + on the military machine which does this damage to them, and then merely spend around 1/3rd of that for ALL the veterans that come back. We are talking YEARS of veterans as opposed to the current crop, and in that we are spending 1/3 to 1/4 of what we spend on defense. Is this moral? Some would see the VA as government aid and welfare. Does this make you outraged that people would call it that? Or do you think this is something that veterans should have and is underfunded and outraged over that? Or is it something that you feel neither way, at least to those extremes? What is moral in this instance? There are many smaller items there that take up the spending piecemeal and I'm only going to touch on a few more here. We have what I believe is Social Security disability which some may consider Government Aid. That accounts for a total of 29 Billion or 2.61% of discretionary spending or around 1% of the total budget. Is it moral to spend this money on this? I think this category is perhaps one of the first areas that will be killed off under Social Security reform, but it's not going to make a HUGE difference in saving Social Security. Transportation probably comes around 4% of the total spending, we all use roads, is this moral? International affairs which some think by cutting would save the budget is only around 3.67% of discretionary spending, or about 1.22% of the total spent. I'm kind of at a loss how that's going to save the budget if we cut it (Still, that small percentage is equal to around 41 BILLION dollars). When you ask the question as you asked, it's more complex of an answer. If one is merely meaning the Welfare system as in the government security nets system, or what most call welfare, I HIGHLY doubt that is actually the cause of the US debt. If you include Social Security in that, it is still questionable and falls under what you think is moral in regards to how it is run, created, and who it helps. If you include the Medical help we give to people, it becomes an even harder question, though if we take ALL of those away, then we probably would finally have a surplus in the budget. Probably not the answer you were looking for, but I think it covers a lot of area. Sorry for it taking several posts to cover it all, but the forum starts getting sticky (a delay between what I type and the words showing up on screen) after a while which makes it hard to type.