selek

Contrary to the caricature offered up, no one here is opposed to unions- where they workers choose to unite voluntarily.It is only where membership is compulsory, and employment is conditional upon swearing fealty to the brotherhood, that we have a problem.

A couple of things need to be noted very clearly: First and foremost, the "pro-union" voices are beating up on a strawman. No one here- and none of the legislators who passed the laws which created this tempest in a teapot- have advocated for the abolition or outlawing of unions. None. But they would (rather understandably) prefer to talk about anything other than the legion of excesses and abuses commited by the unions- including the blatant racism, blatant lawlessness, and destruction of property that attended the recent union protests. That is why they cast this argument in terms of "union=good/management=bad". Because painting anyone who opposes union abuses with a simplistic Snidely Whiplash caricature is the only way they can win this argument. Note that with the exception of Prison Chaplain's admission about political donations, they have consistently refused to address or even acknowledge the lengthy lists of abuses perpetrated by the unions. Nor have they acknowledged that- where they are given the opportunity to do so- the workers themselves are abandoning the unions in record numbers. They simply retreat back to the idea that "the union knows what is best for the workers better than the workers themselves, and therefore membership must be mandatory". They have consistently refused to answer any questions, or to address the similarities in tactics, motiviations, and outcomes between organized labor and organized crime. Instead, they have played the race card, the class envy card, and the populist "if you don't like unions, you're un-American card". Not once have they acknowledged the very real problems- and very real abuses- which attend compulsory union membership. Not once have they addressed what this argument is really all about: our First Amendment freedoms of association and free speech. They talk if flowery terms about the "good" that unions do- but they consistently shy away from addressing the price Americans pay for that alleged service. Not once have they acknowledged that compulsory membership- in any organization- violates not only our First Amendment rights, but the eternal principle of free agency. Instead, they argue that these freedoms and principles must be sacrificed on the altar of the kollective. That the "greater good" can be served only when individual conscience and individual choice are sacrificed in the name of "unity". Students of history will find such sentiments ominously familiar.

Just for grins and giggles, let's turn this argument around for a minute. Let's assume for a moment that under the 28th, 29th, and 30th amendments to the Constitution, the government suddenly "discovers" the right to assign customers to a particular grocery store. By law, they are not allowed to shop elsewhere (their membership is compulsory). By law, they are not allowed to grow their own food (since this represents competition with the government-approved shop). By law, they are not allowed to "vote with their feet" and go elsewhere. How responsive do you think the store will be to customer complaints? What effect do you think this compulsory allegiance will have on the quality or goods and services offered at the store? How is compulsory union membership any different? Can anyone seriously argue that a union to which one must belong is intrinsically stronger, healthier, or more unified than one which must win the support of potential members?

This line contradicts all of your previous talking points. If the worker can vote a union in, how, then is he FORCED to stand alone? Even if the union cannot compel his membership, he still has the choice to join if the union serves his interests. The unions want closed shops for the same reason East Germany wanted the Berlin Wall- to prevent the mass exodus of talent and initiative from their compulsary worker's paradise.

Technically correct. They voluntarily trade their labor to their employers in exchange for wages and benefits.Under "closed shop" rules, they are forced to exchange a portion of their wages for the promise of better working conditions- and are shackled to the union's political agenda whether they agree with it or not. None of which is relevant to the topic at hand.No one is suggesting that unions be abolshed- only that their compulsory and extortionate practices be amended. A non-sequitor. True unity is not enforced at the point of a bayonet, a bullet, or the threat of termination. Thank you for not dragging this discussion into name-calling and character assassination. On the contrary, unions have been losing membership because they now exist to serve their own ends rather than those of the workers.The Wisconsin Recall and the Michigan Constitutional amendment debacles are cases-in-point. The unions were universal and united in demanding the recall and destruction of Governor Walker and the enshrining of collective bargaining in the Michigan Constitution. But when the union rank-and-file were safely in the sanctity of the polling booth, they broke with their union bosses in massive numbers. The dirty little secret is this: If the unions were what they and their apologists pretend they are, if all of the union solidarity propaganda were true, then they would not need compulsory membership and closed shops to maintain their stranglehold on power. If the situation were as dire for workers as the propagandists were wont to pretend, the workers would be unanimous in expanding their union support. They are not. The workers themselves have been voting with their feet for decades- and it's been an overwhelming vote of "no confidence" in the Tamany-Hall style political machines which are the modern-day union.

Despite the flowery rhetoric, what Prison Chaplain is really arguing is that unions should be awarded worker fealty automagically and unceasingly, rather than forcing them to win the hearts and minds of their constituents. Rather than allowing workers the choice to freely support or freely oppose the movement of the Kollective, allegiance- and tribute paid- must be compulsory as a condition of employment rather than a matter of individual conscience. The argument assumes that workers are too stupid, too venal, or simply too cowed to unite on their own, and require the benevolent protection of the union (for a small monthly consideration, of course). Contrary to the hysteria, grievance mongering, and end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it hyperbole, there is nothing in this legislation that prevents people from forming unions. It simply removes the ability of unions to compel membership at the point of a pink slip. In that sense, compulsory union membership is a form of serfdom in which your ability to labor for the support of your self and family are tied to the good graces of the ruling class. In the same sense, compulsory union membership is economic servitude- your ability to labor for the support of yourself and your family is tied to a portion of that labor being appropriated (without your consent) to the ambitions, agendas, and maintenance of a separate class who profess to speak for the workers. The veracity of that claim is subject to considerable debate- but what is NOT open to debate is that the "voice" of the workers have grown very wealthy on the sums appropriated from the actual laborers... Orwell spoke rather eloquently about the phenomenon in Animal Farm....

Yes.We engage in this sort of thread necromancy just to annoy you.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, businesses were required to pay a small fee to various NGO's in order to operate in cities such as Boston, Chicago, and New York. Their ability to remain open, productive, and profitable was conditional upon their paying those fees in a timely fashion. On the New York docks in particular, individual workers paid the same sort of fees as a condition of their employment, and were shut out of the workplace for non-compliance. In exchange for these fees, both the businesses and the workers were offered protection from "unlicensed" competitors and from an extraordinary range of unfortunate random happenstances such as arson, riot, personal assault, workplace "accidents", and even murder. This was a good investment, as such ills befell those who chose not to invest with startling regularity. The NGOs then turned around and reinvested the funds in both private businesses and political machines to ensure that politicians were elected and laws passed which served the interests of the "business community" in general and the NGOs in particular. Among their other ventures were high-profile charitable donations and public relations campaigns. Among the perks of membership in these NGO's were "tariff-free" goods such as alcohol, opulent life-styles, on-call female companionship, and even high "elected" office. Of course, the model fell into some disrepute when one of it's leading proponents was convicted of tax-evasion in Chicago and spent eight years jailed in Alcatraz. Despite that setback- and the occasional trial for racketeering, murder, and mob violence- the NGOs succeeded in having the business model codified as "the way things get done" by the government during the depths of the Great Depression. And thus it has lasted- with almost no change in the business model- from that day to this. The only difference is that in the 20's and 30's the NGO's operated outside the law. Today, they enforce their compulsory dues with the complicity of the law.

There are a number of aspects of this debate that are being (deliberately, IMO) ignored. First and foremost, the right to work does not prevent anyone joining a union if they feel it is in their best interest to do so. It simply prevents the unions from threatening their employment in order to compel them to join. This legislation does nothing to prevent the unions from lobbying for any particular legislation, or for any particular work-place conditions that they choose. It simply prevents them from picking the pockets of those who do not agree with them in order to pay for it. In every instance where right-to-work laws have been passed, the workers themselves have "voted with their feet" and fled the unions. This is analagous in many ways to the plight of East Germans before the fall of the Berlin Wall. You worked for the collective or not at all. Part of what you earned was confiscated (as a condition of employment) and spent to enrich the appartchik and to advance their political goals instead of yours. No dissent was tolerated- and thugs, brutality, and even murder were used to enforce solidarity. Those who did not lend their whole-hearted voice and solidarity to the collective were abused, denigrated, and punished for their ideological impurity. When given the chance to do so, people fled those conditions. Why should a union autoworker be denied the same opportunity?

Anne, I have to ask:Which is worse in your lexicon? A tongue-in-cheek prediction of mob (in both senses of the word) violence? Or the realization that the violence has already taken place? You seem far more outraged that we are talking about assault being commited on peaceful citizens than you are about the assault itself.

Already has.

From the same source as the link above: Book of Mormon/Textual changes/"white" changed to "pure" - FAIRMormon This change was originally made in the 1840 edition but because subsequent editions were based off the European editions (which followed the 1837 edition), the change did not get perpetuated until the preparation of the 1981 edition. The change is not (as the critics want to portray it) a "recent" change designed to remove a "racist" original. This change actually first appeared in the 1840 edition, and was probably made by Joseph Smith: 2 Nephi 30:6 (1830 edition, italics added): "...they shall be a white and a delightsome people."2 Nephi 30:6 (1840 edition, italics added): "...they shall be a pure and a delightsome people."The 1837 edition was used for the European editions, which were in turn used as the basis for the 1879 and 1920 editions, so the change was lost until the 1981 (current) edition. This particular correction is part of the changes referred to in the note "About this Edition" printed in the introductory pages: "Some minor errors in the text have been perpetuated in past editions of the Book of Mormon. This edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith." It’s doubtful that Joseph Smith had racism in mind when the change was done in 1840 or other similar verses would have been changed as well. Furthermore, "white" was a synonym for "pure" at the time Joseph translated the Book of Mormon: 3. Having the color of purity; pure; clean; free from spot; as white robed innocence....5. Pure; unblemished....6. In a scriptural sense, purified from sin; sanctified. Psalm 51.[1] Thus, the "pure" meaning likely reflected the original intent of the passage and translator. Mormonism and polygamy/Lamanites to become "white and delightsome" through polygamous marriage - FAIRMormon Critics cite a statement made by Spencer W. Kimball in the October 1960 General Conference, 15 years before he became president of the Church: "I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today ... they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people.... For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised.... The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.[7]" It is simply President Kimball’s own observation that he felt that the Indians were becoming a “white and delightsome” people through the power of God. Then-Elder Kimball was likely unaware that Joseph Smith had edited the Book of Mormon text in 1837 to say "pure and delightsome," possibly to counter the idea that the change referred to was predominantly physical, rather than spiritual. This change was lost in future LDS versions of the Book of Mormon until 1981. (See here for more information). This change actually first appeared in the 1840 edition, and was probably made by Joseph Smith: 2 Nephi 30:6 (1830 edition, italics added): "...they shall be a white and a delightsome people."2 Nephi 30:6 (1840 edition, italics added): "...they shall be a pure and a delightsome people."The 1837 edition was used for the European editions, which were in turn used as the basis for the 1879 and 1920 editions, so the change was lost until the 1981 (current) edition. This particular correction is part of the changes referred to in the note "About this Edition" printed in the introductory pages: "Some minor errors in the text have been perpetuated in past editions of the Book of Mormon. This edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith." It’s doubtful that Joseph Smith had racism in mind when the change was done in 1840 or other similar verses would have been changed as well.Furthermore, "white" was a synonym for "pure" at the time Joseph translated the Book of Mormon: 3. Having the color of purity; pure; clean; free from spot; as white robed innocence....5. Pure; unblemished....6. In a scriptural sense, purified from sin; sanctified. Psalm 51.[1]Thus, the "pure" meaning likely reflected the original intent of the passage and translator. As an honest observer of the facts can readily see, President Kimball's statement is open to interpretation. In order to approach the conclusion that the "change" in the Book of Mormon is in fact an error- and that President Kimball's statement was intrinsically racist- one must bring those assumptions to the table himself. The actual texts and statements themselves niether intrinsically demand nor explicitly support the critics interpretations.

To echo MoE's point above, the "unfinished" manuscript was dictated by Joseph to a variety of scribes, who then (IIRC) made a number of minor edits before it was sent to the printer. The printer produced a printer's manuscript (and made a number of minor edits of his own) before the material was reviewed. After the initial printing run was completed, additional edits were made. Critics of the Church are more than happy to exaggerate the number and effect of these edits- with claims ranging (depending upon the level of gnashing of teeth and foaming at the mouth being done by the critic) from several hundred to hundreds of thousands. The evidence- including side-by-side comparisons by reputable scholars- show that the corrections are almost invariably addressed spelling, punctuation, and grammar, rather than the substance of the sentence. For all the wailing and tearing of hair that the critics are wont to do, these are substantially less invasive (and indeed less common) than the various edits done to the Bible over the last four decades. It seems that most critics of the Church want to hold "our" holy book to a different and more stringent standard than they hold "their" holy book. Yet they explicitly state- and desperately cling to- the very same false premise of inerrancy of which they (falsely) accuse us. Funny, that.

You were misinformed (or perhaps misunderstood).The Church has NEVER claimed that the Book of Mormon is a "perfect" translation- as such a thing is a logical impossibility. To put it simply, there is no such thing as a "perfect translation" because any translation is automagically an interpretation. Moreover, the Book of Mormon itself refutes the notion by stating on the title page that "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ." This link (and others at the same website) can provide you additional scholarly information on the topic. The Book of Mormon vs. the Critics: Nit-Picking for Fun and Profit « FAIR I won't say the information is unbiased (another logical impossibility!), but it isn't being presented by people whose sole aim is to undermine testimonies and destroy the Church, either.

As a general rule, I agree- but this is a "fun" event, rather than a "courting" event, so group activities are still appropriate.Or as one of my daughers would say, "Dad, it's a date, not a 'date' date." Speaking strictly as an over-protective parent, in my opinion, throwing them together on a solo date has a number of drawbacks. First, it looks like "matchmaking", and while the yenta was a dear in Fiddler on the Roof, even they realized what a pain she could be. Second, a group provides "camouflage". There is also safety in numbers. One-on-one the onus is on the couple to make small talk and get to know one another. There are fewer "distractions" and any mistakes are more glaring. The group chatter provides more avenues for socialization and minimizes the apparent magnitude of any faux pas. If he and she don't hit it off, the evening is liable to be awkward and miserable- if they are in a group, they've got other people to turn to to help make the evening enjoyable. Group activities are harder to arrange, but they're also inherently safer on a number of levels. In the interests of full disclosure, I have four daughters ranging from 22 to 15. My oldest is getting married in 21 days. And single dates still make my fingers itch... ...that reminds me. The shotgun hasn't been cleaned since that feller with the sportcar came round....

Indeed- and given how many of the laundry list are speculative at best, one cannot help but wonder what the point of the exercise is. One can poll a thousand wandering lunatics and find a plurality who insist that the Earth is flat, but what would be the point? A consensus among flat-Earthers does not magically transmute the Earth from round to flat. Speculation and personal opinion do not change the facts- they merely obfuscate them. The results of this "poll" will not provide substance or insight. Given this: ....one might begin to suspect that you are push-polling in order to win a certain argument... Why not start with the post I quoted and leave the useless polling at the door?

I would suggest a group date, rather than a one-on-one. Otherwise, it looks too much like matchmaking. And stay away from the Hallmark and oxygen channels until at least new Years Day.

As predicted. "Rational" has been redefined to mean "in accordance with the Gospel According to Dawkins". Christyba75's story has now changed a third time. As far as your claim about Dawkins inconsistencies, I find the qualifier "as far as I could find" to be interesting and revealing. Google is your friend: just those three words "Richard Dawkins inconsistencies" turned up seven million hits, notably regarding his unwillingness to actually debate his belief. But then again, false prophets invariably insist that their views are both self-evident and beyond questioning- just as has Christyba75.

Interchangeable implies inconsequential. If one body is as good as another, then a specific body is of no importance. The key words there are resurrected and perfect[ed]. We are told that we will inherit the same body- restored and perfected, not a new one. Speculative, at best. You have no way of accurately quantifying the differences. Uncertain- we are assured, however, that we will be restored to our perfect frame. By definition, the answer is no. We shall inherit all that the father has- that would seem to include an understanding of how the universe works. The standard LDS answer would be "line upon line and precept upon precept". Why did you have to learn algebra before you could study calculus?No one here will denigrate a sincere quest to understand the mysteries of God- but we will aggressively resist the attempt to cheapening those mysteries to the merely naturalistic. No one here has smacked you down for trying to know God. All of the blowback you have received has been for attempting to "dumb down" what we know to make it palatable to those who reject the very concept of the divine. You will find I have little truck for Catholic bashing. You are also selective in your charge: you forget the last seven hundred years or so of Protestants and pagans attempting to do exactly the same thing- or worse, to redefine him to fit their prevailing orthodoxy. This is misleading, at best.Yes, to Mormons, God is a "glorified man"- but that is by no means ALL he is. He is GOD- something your minimalist approach consistently glosses over. Repeating a false accusation does not make it true.No one here has gotten angry with you for trying to understand God. We have objected to your attempt to redefine and (arguably) to minimize him. You are shifting the goal posts (another common rhetorical trick). Your OP asked us to evaluate your "beliefs" against those of the Church- now you are claiming it was all just idle speculation to begin with. You have (at least twice now) accused us of being angry with you when we are simply analyzing your statements and offering correction. You have (at least twice now) played the victim card when no one here has attacked you. None of these indicate an interest in serious discussion. Please come back when you're prepared to discuss the matter in good-faith. That is a falsehood.No one here has taken you to task for "asking questions you should not have". They have simply demonstrated where and why your assumptions are false.

No, I would not- for the reasons I have outlined above.You are striving- consciously or not- to downplay and dismiss the sacred and familial relationship between God and man. God is not a wandering stranger who paused to give alms to the beggar in the street, motivated by nothing more than perfect charity . He is our FATHER IN HEAVEN- our Lord, our creator, our companion, guide, and stay. Which is why I said "implied" rather than "stated".Your OP specifically requested that your "beliefs" be evaluated against LDS theology. It is therefor incumbent upon us to evaluate the implications of your beliefs, as well. Your beliefs, as stated, minimize the true nature of the relationship between God and man. They are, arguably, inaccurate, misleading, and even blasphemous, as defined above. Really? Pray, tell us how things really are, then oh great lawgiver! Gotta love the circular reasoning and hyperbole involved here. "If God doesn't strike me down on my timetable, then there IS no God."I will grant you one thing: the idea that God will not be mocked IS a statement of faith. On the other hand, so are the statements "If I step off a thousand foot cliff, I will be killed" and "Two plus two is four". All three statements are predicated on the UNPROVEN idea that the universe has immutable and observable rules of cause and effect.

It is a concept you are using incorrectly. More on that, below. Thank you for a clear statement of a priori dogmatism."all reasonable definitions" is both hyperbole and a rhetorical device. It is not a statement of fact. "alien" is defined as follows: a·li·en(l-n, lyn) adj. 1. Owing political allegiance to another country or government; foreign: alien residents. 2. Belonging to, characteristic of, or constituting another and very different place, society, or person; strange. 3. Dissimilar, inconsistent, or opposed, as in nature: emotions alien to her temperament. n. 1. An unnaturalized foreign resident of a country. Also called noncitizen. 2. A person from another and very different family, people, or place. 3. A person who is not included in a group; an outsider. 4. A creature from outer space: a story about an invasion of aliens. 5. Ecology An organism, especially a plant or animal, that occurs in or is naturalized in a region to which it is not native. The only possible definition by which God could be considered "alien" is the fourth- "a creature from outer space"- but that definition cannot be said to apply to the Earth or its creator. In the first instance, we DO NOT KNOW God's origin. There is much speculation, but no fact available to classify his precise origins. In the second, God is the creator of the Earth and all its inhabitants. By definition, it is peopled with people created in his likeness and image, and endowed with his potential. Let's put it another way: you labor long and hard to build a house. You craft the walls, the ceilings, roof, doors, floors, and rooms. You stock it with furniture made by your own hands. You people it with your children and grandchildren. Under what "reasonable" definition can you be considered "alien" to the home you have built? Using that logic, under what condition can God be considered "not of this Earth"?

People always seem to assume that because I am blunt, that I am angry or irritated.That is not the case. It is simply my habit to speak plainly. No- I mean the cultish adherents who insist that "natural philosophy" is the end-all and be-all of the human quest for knowledge.I mean those who reject God out of hand because he does not fit into their pre-defined, mechanistic ideology. Dawkins is (was) a prominent cantor of that particular faith. Contrary to their catechism- and your recitation of it- they do not hold a monopoly on "reason", despite the dogmatism with which they pretend otherwise. Clearly, you are adverse to offending those who considered themselves "learned".You are trying to rationalize a belief in God to accomodate their catechism, rather than God's. Yes- blasphemous: defined as follows, blas·phe·mous(blsf-ms) adj. Impiously irreverent.

Do you want the short list? Okay: False prophecy Blasphemy Supplanting the foolish notions of men for the truth of God. Pride Hubris Arrogance Foolishness Church Dissension Apostacy

To be honest, My first response was to hearken to 2 Timothy Chapter 3: You seem to want to believe in God- but you want to define him in terms that are acceptable to the Pomp of Babylon. You seem to want to believe in God- but you also want to avoid the jeering and mockery of the Great and Spacious building. You definitions are (at best) a case of special pleading). At worst, they are blasphemous. In no case do they accurately reflect LDS theology. God is not an "alien". He is our Eternal Father. He is not "interested in our species welfare"- he created us, nurtures us, and tests us that we might become as he is. Your definitions imply that we are rats in his maze, rather than his sons and daughters- inbued with a spark of the divine, and divine in potential. Your Schwarzenegger-esque speculation ignores a number of fundamental aspects of LDS theology, which (as a general rule) defines the soul of man as both spirit and body united. I grant you that spirit and soul are used somewhat interchangeably- mostly as an artifact of translations done by others. As spirits, we are incomplete. It is only when we become spirit mated with flesh that we become whole. To suggest, as your speculation does, that our physical forms are then interchangeable and inconsequential is baseless, if not contrary to the Scriptures themselves. Your analogies are a form of reductio ad absurdem, which seek to reduce the true relationship between mankind and God down to an unobjectionable lowest common denominator- truly "having the form of godliness, but denying the power thereof". You are, in essence, denying the magesty and wonder of God in order to appear high-minded and learned in front of those who chose NOT to believe (and it is a choice). You are striving to sacrifice wisdom itself achieve the appearance of wisdom- and placing the approval of fallen men before the justice of God. Or as it was put in Paul's Epistle to the Romans (Chapter 1): Your speculation is both a repetition of history and a fulfilling of this prophecy. For although you profess to acknowledge God, you fail to glorify him AS God, and to dillute his glory and cheapen his throne to terms acceptable to fools and false prophets. And no- one cannot teach heresy and yet proclaim himself to be a true, faithful Mormon.

I'm inclined to agree. Knowing, however, what they tried to pull, I believe that the birth father would be well within his rights to tell the Freis family to drop dead. Given what they've already done to undermine his relationship with his daughter, he has no guarantees they won't switch to subtler means of driving a wedge between father and daughter.