JohnBirchSociety
-
Posts
424 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by JohnBirchSociety
-
-
JBS,
Hmm.... I think I understand what you are saying. I am saying it is a logically inconsistent position. You are essentially saying taxation is not theft when it is for a reason you deem a "proper function of government." I am saying taking money from one person by force is theft, no matter the reason and no matter how little the amount. It is always taking from someone against their will. If it were truly voluntary, it would not be a tax.
If I took money from you (against your will) and said I am going to use it to directly benefit you, it is still force. Otherwise it would be called a trade, and force would not be necessary.
IMO, you concede too much to the socialists. They are saying a proper function of government is to "help the poor" or "redistribute the wealth." You are just saying that is not the proper function and justifying what you think is proper. However, you are now arguing over the ends. Neither position justifies the means--taxation is still theft.
Hope this helps explain the inconsistency in your position.
The proper function of government was known long before I was born. I didn't create it. So it's not something that I've just made up to support my position. In fact, it isn't really my position to make.
The position was laid in solid granite 230+ years ago by the Founding Fathers. I'm just repeating it. I'm just repeating scripture that supports them as being inspired in that activity. I'm just showing the complete lack of support for Socialism in the Constitution or by our Church leaders.
None of this is of my own creation. And, furthermore, I have opinions on these matters that differ from the conclusions of the Founders. I've not shared any of my personal opinions on these matters.
-
I stand by my previous post regarding this issue:
This is the equivalent of saying that slaves who use their master's toilet or eat their food shouldn't feel bad about being slaves. In fact, you are saying they should feel guilty for not being slaves if they benefit in any way from their master.
Perhaps you think slavery is sensationalizing the issue. Slavery can be defined as: "A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force" (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language). In most countries there exist tax-payers and tax-consumers. Tax-consumers are essentially parasites, those living off of the money stolen from tax-payers. Tax-payers are the "principal work force," those engaging in productive activities. Tax-payers spend a large portion of their time each year to earn money which is stolen by tax-consumers (govt). Assuming an annual income tax rate of 33%, a tax-payer would have to work 4 months a year as a slave. This is justified because the slave gets to flush a toilet?
Perhaps you could respond to my slave/master analogy?
If you don't believe their exists a proper function of government, then your argument may hold some merit.
However, there is a proper function of government. It is in the protection of life and property. To do this there is a proper degree of taxation, insomuch as it maintains the ability of government to carry out its' proper function.
When the government over-steps its' proper function, such taxation becomes theft.
If you don't believe in a proper function of government, then what do you believe in? Are you a relativist? An anarchist? What then?
I believe in the proper function of government. The protection of life and liberty, that is more easily fascilitated through government than through "every man for himself" anarchy, is the proper function as defined by our Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.
Socialism is not part of that equation and has been universally denounced by the Church.
So here's the case:
1) Government is necessary to civilization.
2) There is a proper function for government.
3) Government requires financial means to carry out the proper function.
4) Taxation is the usual method of getting the financial means to carry out the proper function of government.
5) There is proper taxation.
6) Improper taxation is when the government acts outside of its' proper function in the protection of life and property.
I can't possibly be more clear or in better agreement with the Founding Fathers or with all Church leaders.
-
I'm not saying we should all become marxists. I'm not advocating socialism in that sense. The topic was how I admire the European social welfare system. I won't use the world socialism on here anymore because I don't mean it in the pure theoretical sense. I'm talking about the UK, France, Sweden etc that provide a safetly net, health care, and help to everyone. Yes, this is done by taxes.
I find it radical that anyone would think taxation is theft. I find it radical that someone would find social programs funded by the gov't to be theft.
You say our church leaders don't condone any form of socialism but Pres. Uchtdorf is GERMAN and they have one of the more generous welfare systems in Europe. But then again, i don't consider Germany socialist, I just advocate their system, as I've been saying.
It doesn't matter whether we do or don't consider them socialist. If they fit the definition (which neither of us created) then they are socialist.
They fit the definition. France is most certainly socialist (having lived there for a few years). They have a vastly larger number of unemployed. They have a lower standard of living than we do. Their health-care system is inadequate (that's why people come here from all over the Earth for good health-care). Therefore, they are socialist.
Socialism has ALWAYS been denounced by the Church as a counterfeit to individual liberty. Always.
So again, back to the question. Doesn't it even give you pause that there is universal condemnation of Socialism by Church leaders?
The ideal of human liberty, as created by the effort of man is embodied in the United States Constitution. That is church doctrine. It is church doctrine that the principles of the US Constitution are for the entire world. It says this in the Doctrine and Covenants. It also says that anything more or less than it "cometh of evil".
Pres. Uchtdorf will not be giving a discourse espousing the greatness of the German Socialist government. He'll most likely remain silent on that matter, because he is German. However, I'm assured that if you spoke with him on the matter of liberty he would full-heartedly concur with all previous and current leaders of the Church that have held up the US Constitution and the principles embodied therein as the ideal.
FINALLY, AGAIN, I DO NOT think all taxation is theft. There IS a proper function of government, of which taxation is necessary. That proper function of government is enshrined in the United States Constitution. God says that document is inspired. That document allows for PROPER taxation. THEREFORE, some taxation IS proper and NOT theft.
AGAIN, I do NOT think all taxation is theft.
-
How disheartening. While I appreciated learning those bits of church history from you, I find it sad that Pres. Benson dissaproved of food stamps. This was probably said by him when I was a little toddler living off of food bought for me with food stamps. And my parents aren't church members so I didn't have the church help feed me,either. I'm thankful for those gov't programs. Even if feeding a poor little child with gov't welfare is satanic and theft.
Oh, and you told me to study this deeply and well....I am about 5 months away from my BA in Political Science so I've studied political systems quite thoroughly and I stand by my opinion that the 'socialist' style democracy practiced in Europe is akin to how I feel the Savior would have us be.
I think there is a big difference between traditional socialism, communism, and just having a good welfare system.
This is so unfortunate.
Socialism is theft. It is wrong in all its' forms.
Our church leaders have never at any time condoned any form of Socialism.
Does that not trouble you?
-
if you have ever flushed a toilet, used a road, the police, obtained a driving licence etc not to pay your taxes is theft because you are taking what you have not paid for. Even visitors to a country pay airport taxes and are liable for custom charges, sales tax etc
-Charley
You are correct. There is a proper function of government. When we abuse the "general welfare" of proper government, as you indicated, we are stealing.
-
JBC,
I agree with you on most of your posts. I only single out this one to show how, while you are correct in saying that "the issue is theft," taxation IS theft, and thus you are wrong in saying taxes are "just." By your own admission, "pretense is of no consequence." In other words, you need to go a bit farther in getting rid of theft.
To say that people should be forced to pay taxes for a common defense/military does not change that it is still theft. You have repeated that it doesn't matter whether it's the government or an individual--it is still theft.
You cannot even assume everyone benefits from such a "service" (in economics jargon, we are talking about externalities and spillover benefits, typically associated with defense, roads, street lights, etc.). In the case of defense, perhaps someone is a pacifist and does not believe in defense. They are also forced to pay for something they do not only not benefit from, but stand in direct opposition to.
It is also a bit strange to set up a monopoly govt agency (military/defense) which uses force (taxes) to "protect you." Isn't it supposed to stop people from using force against you? Yet that is how it obtains its "revenue."
You have nailed it with this paragraph.
Thanks so much for your response.
The devil is in the details of what I've said.
There is a proper function of government where taxation IS justified and appropriate. I've consistently said and demonstrated that this is not theft.
The theft occurs when property / wealth is taken by force of government to be directly given to another person, or to be used in activities that are not a part of the proper function of government.
I appreciate your response, but you missed the nuance of what I've been saying.
Socialism is not a proper function of government and is therefore theft.
-
Thing is that many programs were created out of necessity. I like the idea of recipients of programs helping out to some extent like the Church does, however that really is not possible for some seniors and disabled people, as well as children. I like to frame the debate over a more essential question and that is, should we help one another.
But there is no debate here on whether we should help one another.
The debate is, despite the attempts at diversion by yourself and others, theft.
I know it makes you uncomfortable, but the facts cannot be avoided.
You have no inalienable right to the property of others or the fruits of their labors. Neither do a group of people (government / nation). Nobody does alone, nobody does as a group.
Whether I, or you, or the government take by force that which is not ours to take, and disburse it to another individual, that is theft.
Theft is the issue at hand, not giving.
By the way, you cannot give what is taken by force.
-
Thanks a-train,
I understand the context under which the leaders were talking about communism and socialism (the Cold War) and their statements make sense.
I'm just relieved to see that it doesn't say that taxation to help the have-nots is Satanic in its own right. I have lived in Europe and it is a Europrean style DEMOCRACY I advocate.
I understand many don't feel the same way. I grew up incredibly poor in a rural part of the midwest and if it wasn't for gov't sponsored programs such as Head Start and WIC I wouldn't have had any sort of leg up or probably not even my vaccinations. And I was a child so there was no way I could provide for these things myself with my own work ethic and will. I feel Heavenly Father blessed me with these gov't programs to help me on my way and now (again thanks to gov't Pell Grants) I am nearly a college graduate.
European style Democracy is unconstitutional. God has said that anything more or less than the constitution "cometh of evil".
If you are an American Church member, in particular, how do you get around this fact?
-
What is the best approach to cope with the ever widening gap between the rich and the poor? I hope nobody would suggest denial as the preferred coping mechanism.
The best approach is liberty. The least amount of government necessary to secure liberty.
Theft, no matter the pretense, is never right. It will never work.
Here's one reason:
Those you (or the government) are stealing from are going to be very *&%$#@! - off. They don't want to be stolen from.
Can begin to see how this, alone, is a problem?
-
If this is the case then we have long since slipped into Satan's plan....since taxation in general is not a voluntary thing but rather required. (no matter how small or how big our individual contribution may be)
Good try at diversion.
The issue IS NOT taxation. Taxation (where tax is collected and used for the proper and just function of the government, for instance a military for the common defense) is appropriate. By the ideals of the Social Contract if you benefit from such general welfare / protection and are able bodied / mentally sound, then you pay such taxes as are just.
The issue is THEFT. When, by force, whether individual (robbery) or government (plunder), the private property / wealth of one is taken and disbursed directly to another individual, that is ALWAYS theft. Pretense is of no consequence.
Tyranny is the summation of the best of unprincipled intentions.
Socialism is evil. And, besides that salient point, it has never worked.
-
It does not change what I see everytime I visit, to someone not used to seeing such poverty its heart wrenching and the difference between the Western European Cities I have visited over those in the US is startling. I know at least in the UK we still donate both to deal with poverty in the UK and abroad, despite paying taxes.
And I have to say I do not find my country or others I have visited in Western Europe to be even close tyrannical, far from it.
-Charley
Poverty is not really the issue. It is a diversion from the issue at hand. Poverty is to be had everywhere on this Earth.
Speaking of Western European cities, I've lived in a few. Mingled with the common folk (as a missionary). I've SEEN the poverty there, and it is NOT rivaled by what is here in the US. It was equal in my experience. Of course, personal experience is anecdotal (yours as well).
The issue at hand is theft. Thou shalt not steal. There are two connotations to this.
1) A prohibition against stealing by GOD mean that GOD recognizes private property rights.
2) Stealing is wrong, no exceptions. (I cannot find a single scriptural exception to the prohibition on stealing)
When you take, by force, whether as an individual, or as a group (government) you are stealing, no matter the pretense.
If you believe that government has the right to steal (Socialism) then it also has the right to take anything it wishes. In fact, the position of Socialism is the antithesis of individual liberty.
Our church leaders, in General Conference have declared, always, that Socialism is evil. They've never approved of it. Ever.
Doesn't that make you think about your position? Or don't you REALLY believe that our leaders speak the word of GOD?
-
I'm sorry but somehow I don't think social programs can be really compared to Satanic plans or Nazi regimes. The first seems a tad ridiculous the latter insulting to those who really did live and die under such an evil regime.
Or maybe I missed something?
Yes, you missed something.
What exactly do you think the Nazi ideology was? National Socialism.
It was Satanic. Socialism is satanic. Communism is Socialism to the extreme.
-
Your thinking is very linear. Here is a link to help you in thinking outside the “box”. It is a little introduction to Chaos theory and fractals:
World of Fractals - Fractals and Chaos Theory in the Real World
The Traveler
Ah yes, the ignorance of obvious cause and effect.
And, of course I'm in the "box" and you're outside of it. Don't we all think that way? Well, actually, not. To think that way is arrogance.
All I can do is look at the data (like increased ice in the South Pole) and reach conclusions.
All I can do is look at how ozone in the upper atmosphere is created and realize that we have no means at our disposal of affecting that creation or lack thereof. I look at that data and realize the increase / decrease in ozone is a cyclical matter that has solely to do with the orbital patter of the Earth around the Sun.
All I can do is look at Commercial Electrical Generation via Nuclear Power in the United States and see that it is factually the safest, most environmentally responsible form of energy generation ever used in American History. All I can do is see that no person has ever died as the result of a nuclear accident at a commercial electrical generation nuclear power plant in the United States.
I don't fool myself or attempt to fool others by claiming that I'm outside the "box" in my thinking.
Its' plain scientific method. The opposition is making claims that man is destroying the global environment and global action is absolutely required. Such action involves the largest decrease in human productivity and freedom in mans' history on this planet. Yet, when I ask for examples that rebut the obvious science involving the SUN / Earth, for instance, I get that I'm not outside the 'box'?
Nonsense. It is clear that as to the global environment, the interaction of the Earth with the Sun in their respective orbits / activities has a nearly infinitely overwhelming effect on the global climate / environment. In fact, it is so overwhelming (for example, just the energy we receive from the Sun per second) that nothing man can do even shows up on the scale, unless you expand the scale to non-sensical absurdity.
You can gift-wrap that 'box' of yours...
-
It sucks when you read laws without a corresponding legal education. Let me show you what I mean.
One - Just because a piece of law isn't passed by the legislature doesn't mean it isn't subject to the judiciary. The only strength that is lent to constitutional law instead of legislative law is the fact that legislature of the same level can't override it except by another constitutional amendment and the the judiciary of the same level can't review it for validity. That's why I made it clear that California would need to petition for federal review.
Two - the tenth amendment was added circa 1787. The fourteenth amendment was added after much Civil War blood was shed in order to do away with a lot of that. Consequently, California is not its own nation regardless of how much the voters want it to be. You should read Amend. XIV sometime; it's a good read. The opening of its second line basically explains it all, "No State shall . . .". As in all constitutional law, treatise upon treatise have been written, revised and accepted based on a few simple words contained therein. The result is that states laws aren't beyond the purview of the federal government. Thankfully that's the case because if it weren't I've got the feeling that people in the south would still be living under Jim Crow and segregation laws. To rebut JohnBirchSociety, (Article III; §2) has to do with subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts, not what laws the judiciary has the "right" to interpret. The judiciary is the only body of government that interprets the laws at all, and so we would all really be hurting if no one had the right to do it - some of these laws are kind of difficult and need interpretation. Once again, I'm glad that only people with legal educations are allowed to practice in this country.
Three - I've gone over how the 10th is overridden in relevant part by the 14th. Furthermore, law is still law regardless of its source or its method of recording - Proposition 8 IS a proposed law. It aims to effectuate an amendment, barring judicial review at the state level, not the federal level. As for political suicide, thankfully the parts of the government who would be overturning Prop 8 won't be in any way electable by California voters - either federal legislative or federal judiciary. That's actually the reason why we have a federal system in the first place, to keep people who are ignorant of the law off the backs of the legislators.
And as far as voter referenda being the most basic form of full democracy we have left in this country . . . California wasn't created as a state with the right of referendum. The whole ill-conceived idea was the product of an activist segment of modern society that favored direct democracy over a republic. The framers of the constitution were actually very opposed to the ideas of referendum and recall, stating that it would lead to "majority tyranny". See Federalist Paper No. 10. That being said, there's probably plenty of room to overrule the whole referendum idea in light of what it's done to California politics. See Article IV §4. It states the federal government has a right to impose "republican form of government" upon the states. Referendum isn't a republican form of government; it's democratic.
Ironically therefore, if we heeded the prophets' counsel to read and study the constitution and support leaders who agree that it's divinely inspired we would be putting a referendum on the ballot to remove the referendum procedure from California government. Instead, we're oppressively using the device to advocate for our own moral agenda.
For the benefit of everyone, please kindly get an education in the law (and maybe history) before you attempt to make public statements about it.
On to the next topic:
I'm glad you made my point for me so that I don't have to reiterate it again - it was getting old. What I've been saying is that quite possibly the law and politics are areas for which neither we as a church nor the prophets have answers. That being the case, our own best efforts are going to have to be good enough.
Sure, if you buy into the idea that Proposition 8 is simply a mirrored reflection of your ethical position on gay marriage then we do have answers: A Proclamation on the Family. If that's all it is then a yes vote is the right move. However, that isn't the case. There are two areas in which you can argue policy of law 1) on principle 2) in practice. Proposition 8 nails #1 but in respect to #2 it's probably one of the most juvenile and ill-considered attempts at law that I've seen (and that's quite a statement considering the long history of sloppy voter referenda in California).
As a quick aside, did you know that there's a referendum on the ballot to rename the San Francisco sewage treatment plant to the "George W. Bush sewage treatment plant"? That's the kind of puerile, sophomoric initiative that gets put forward with voter referenda.
Finally, one last hypothetical before election day. Let's say that Proposition 8 doesn't pass. How then does that impact the meaning of prophetic counsel to support it? Does it then just become some acid test to weed out those who are for gay marriage from those against? Sort of a way to strengthen the case at the judgment bar against those who wouldn't follow the prophet? Maybe I should vote for it then because I certainly agree with everything in the Proclamation on the Family. In fact, if I knew it was going to fail I wouldn't have anything against voting for it. That's kind of absurd to think about. It's also absurd because it requires us to ignore all of the sound policy reasons enumerated above for opposing Prop 8. A test of faith like that would only work for people who were ignorant of the law and its consequences, and that wouldn't make any sense against the backdrop of a religion that encourages education. If ignorance is a necessary part in the test for faithfulness, then I'm shooting myself in the foot for obeying the Prophet's counsel to get the highest level of education that I can qualify myself for. Either way then, I'm condemning myself either for being educated, for using my education to my best knowledge, or by "disobeying" the prophets counsel.
Kind of a wacky conundrum . . .
Uh, the Constitution does state what the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is. That's why I quoted it.
They (The Supreme Court) do not have the right to overturn a Constitutional provision of a State. Congress may, but not the Supreme Court, regardless of the 14th Amendment (which again, doesn't change jurisdiction limitations of the Constitution).
I'll freely admit to all that I'm no lawyer. I'll also freely admit to all that I've studied the Constitution to probably the point of going insane about it. I know it, and what the Founders intent was.
I'm no novice. And, if we wish to be insulting, we might read the Book of Mormon and see what opinion it posits on "lawyers"?
-
I have high hopes for the power source that was touted so often in my youth.
MIT opens new 'window' on solar energy - MIT News Office
'Major discovery' from MIT primed to unleash solar revolution - MIT News Office
SOLAR! I imagine a future free of power lines and power plants. Buildings will be self powered. Transportation will be electric. I think petrol was only a brief interruption in the electrical revolution.
-a-train
I'm very hopeful that petrol was an "interruption" as you put it.
As Solar Power advances, it should have great impact on us as a society.
We do have the answer, right now, for electric generation. Nuclear Power.
Just one pellet of uranium (2cm, squared) has the same power generation capacity as 100 Railroad-Cars of Coal! With no emission, other than water vapor from the cooling towers. With safe waste storage (in salt mines), with a nearly unlimited supply, domestically of fuel. It is the answer.
There's enough uranium, just in the ocean waters to fuel all of man's electrical needs for thousands of years!
-
To heck what every other member of the church feels about the signs in yard of Steve Young. Yes this will be forgotten soon, but for him to support his ETERNAL COMPANION will always be remembered.
If Steve were to ask for advice from the First Presidency what do you think they would tell him.
1. Use your authoritive position as leader and priesthood holder in your home and rip those signs down after putting your wife her family in their place.
OR
2. Use your priesthood to help you to know how this will best fit into the ETERNITIES.
He should be thinking of his family in this case and I support him in his right to do so.
When something is right it doesn’t mean that it is right for everyone.
How relativistic of you.
-
Central Banks?
They'll just print it...
Wow! I love getting a pay-cut...
-
1) Our climate is effected by the activities of man.
If you light a cigarette in your house, does it affect the atmosphere of your house? If you light a fire in your fireplace, does it warm the air?
It takes a lot more activity on our part to noticeably affect the earth's climate, but affect it we do.
2) Nuclear power is unsafe.
It is unsafe, if not done properly. And so is coal-produced power, if we don't control it properly. That's not to say we can't take appropriate safety measures and use these kinds of power. However, nuclear waste is a lot trickier to deal with than the waste from coal power plants.
3) Oil spills like the Exxon Valdez pose grave environmental disasters.
No duh. Of course they do.
4) We make too much green-house gases.
Most likely, yes. In any case I prefer erring on the side of caution.
5) We're polluting the oceans of the world.
How could anything possibly be more obvious?
6) The polar ice-caps are melting at an alarming rate.
You are clearly not alarmed, but I am.
7) The ozone layer is depleting / depleted by man.
Yes, it is.
Merely saying there is no problem won't make it go away.
1) This thread is about global problems. Back to the message. If the largest volcanic eruptions in recorded human history don't change the global environment for but a brief period (even though they spew hundreds of millions of tons of debris into the upper atmosphere), how can we say man does?
2) Commercial, electrical generating Nuclear Power Plants are the safest form of energy ever used in the United States. No person has ever died from a nuclear accident at such a plant.
3) Oil spills like the Valdez pose and do damage on a large scale to the local area where they occur. That damage does not linger for a long time, and has no global impact.
4) The amount of green-house gas we emit is minute in quantity to the natural environments emmissions, such as volcanoes and methane ocean release and animal / insect activity.
5) In totality we are not destroying our oceans. They are so massive we hardly show up on the scale. There are local issues. Some are locally devastating. There are no global issues.
6) Why are you alarmed? For instance, the South Pole Cap has more ice on it than in recent history.
7) The Ozone layer is cyclical in nature based upon Sunlight exposure. Ozone is created by the interaction of UV radiation from the Sun and Oxygen in our atmosphere. Nothing man does interferes with this process. Again, it is cyclical.
If you want a thesis paper in a forum like this, good luck. I've already given references for what I've stated. I've not declared things moot just by saying so.
-
CNN Breaking News -- U.S. government to borrow $550 billion over 3 months to support economic rescue plans.
Who are we borrowing from? Perhaps the Chinese Communists? Or maybe the Islamic Revolutionaries in the Middle East?
Wow.
-
I heard some guy on am radio read a report about there being more ice in one of the poles (I don't remember which one) than there has been in a decade. Then the guys says,"Good job, Al! You did it!!" HAHA
That would be the south pole.
-
[received e-mail]
Donald W. Parry, a Brigham Young University professor of Hebrew Bible studies, translates the familiar passage of Isaiah 29:14 not as "I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people, even a marvelous work and a wonder," but as "I will astound these people with wonder upon wonder."
"And the Book of Mormon does that," Parry said at the Book of Mormon Lands Conference on Saturday in Salt Lake City. "It has wonder upon wonder upon wonder. And the people who are humble enough to read it and research it will see the wonder upon wonder. Some of them are physical evidences; others are internal or external evidences. But certainly the most important are the spiritual evidences."
Parry presented several of these "wonders" at the conference - most dealing with his area of expertise in translation and biblical Hebrew.
1. Book of Mormon names:
For 130 years critics ridiculed the name "Alma" being used for a man in the Book of Mormon. According to Parry, the critics said it was a girl's name and obviously stolen from Latin, as in "Alma mater."
Parry projected a picture of an ancient land deed from the "Cave of the Letters" in Israel The land deed, as translated by the Jewish archaeologist Yigael Yadin, mentions "Alma the son of Judah."
2. Translation speed:
Parry is a member of the International Team of Translators of the Dead Sea Scrolls. About 65 members are working on the translation of the scrolls, into English. It has taken 50 years to translate 40 volumes, about 2,000 pages. This is approximately one page every nine days.
The King James Version of the Bible took 54 translators seven years to finish. That is about one page a day.
Parry contrasts the scholarship and painstaking efforts of large teams of translators with the efforts of the Prophet Joseph Smith, who finished the Book of Mormon in about 12 weeks. That is about eight pages a day.
3. Poetic parallelisms:
Isaiah is rich with what Parry calls poetic parallelisms. Isaiah would write a line, then repeat it in other words. Parry gave Isaiah 1:2 as an example: Hear, 0 heavens, and give ear, 0 earth. "Hear'" in line one corresponds with "give ear" in line two. Likewise "0 heavens" corresponds with its opposite"0 earth" in line two.
Parry said that sometimes parallel lines are restatements; other times they are contrasts.
Parallel patterns can also get more complex when several lines are arranged together in a sequence that repeats the lines' parallels in reverse order. These types of parallel structures are called chiasmus.
"There are 325 good examples (of chiasmus) in the Book of Mormon, "Parry said."This is one of the most remarkable internal witnesses of the Book of Mormon. Three-hundred-and- twenty-five! There is no way any of us in12weeks - I don't think even if you know what chiasmus is - could come up with 325 excellent examples."
4. Filling in missing parallels:
The Book of Mormon doesn't just quote long passages of Isaiah. Parry said that in at least 20 instances, the Book of Mormon fills in missing parallels - places where Isaiah in the Bible has a "line one" without a correspond "line two."
One example is in 2 Nephi 12:5. Isaiah 2:5 only has line one: 0 house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the Lord.
In 2 Nephi 12:5, line one is followed by a restored line two: Yea, come, for ye have all' gone astray, every one to his wicked ways."
“It's a perfect parallelism found in the Book of Mormon, 'but it is lost in the dead Sea Scrolls and it's lost in the King James Version," Parry said.
5. Literary forms:
A Bible scholar In the 19th century, Ethelbert Bullinger, identitified 20 different literary forms in the Bible. Parry said he has found 18 of them in the Book of Mormon so far.
One form is called "climactic poetry," where a passage will repeat key words to a climactic point. Mormon 9:12-13 follows this pattern:
Behold he created Adam
And by Adam
Came the fall of man
And because of the fall of man
Came Jesus Christ, even the
Father and the Son
And because of Jesus Christ
Came the redemption of man
And because of the redemption
of man, which came Jesus Christ
They are brought back into the
presence of the Lord . .
Parry joked, "Joseph Smith learned about (these patterns) when he was earning his Ph.D. at Oxford."
6. Double Meanings:
Parry said that sometimes the scriptures will intentionally use a word that has more than one meaning. He explained how Isaiah 53, also. found in Mosiah 14, has multiple occasions where a word has two definitions in the original Hebrew.
For example, in Isaiah 53:4 and Mosiah 14:4, it says, "Surely he has borne our griefs." The word translated as "borne" or "carry" also means "lifted up," a common phrase for the Atonement. Which translation is correct? Parry says both.
7. Testimony:
Parry ended his presentation by extolling the power of the Book of Mormon to bring the spirit to people and to help them in their lives. "Brothers and sisters, the Book of Mormon is the word of God. It was translated by a prophet, a seer and a revelator: the Prophet Joseph Smith. I know it."
Thank you.
-
IMHO the only reason to marry someone intially is because you love and adore them not because they are a breeding machine.
Exactly the same rights my Great Aunts had who didn't have children but were married, same rights couples who marry who never want children. What about siblings? now they can usually reproduce but don't have those same rights you do? I married my husband because he is a good man and I love - I would not feel any less married or love him any less if we didn't have children.
One gay ex-LDS raised an interesting idea - he had left the church through choice because although he knew it was true he felt mortality with his partner was better than no time at all. I can relate to that for me the idea of never having been married to my husband, spending time with him and loving him is abhorent and eternity would not be the same if he was not by my side.
Whilst I am not advocating same-sex marriage - I can understand why someone would want the chance to by the side of someone they loved. And their desire to use their civil rights they already have to have it become a right.
-Charley
Rights are inalienable and we are born with them. You cannot create them.
What you speak of are government granted privilege. What the government grants, it can take away.
-
Jesse Jackson is a scam artist. The Gay community is not limited to "white men crying", nor is it equal in magnitude to the slavery once forced on blacks, by sheers numbers. If their feelings are hurt because less peoples civil rights are being trampled now, then boo hoo, you can't argue with feelings, but you can marginalize and disregard them.
Wake up Black America: Jesse Jackson tries to "shakedown" BP Amoco
Correct, granting unconditionally the use of various legal vehicles, (in this case the state sanctioned contract of Marriage), is not the issue here. The issue is the condition itself of a couple's gender and being able to utilize that vehicle.
If I quote your conclusion, but substitute a few words perhaps you will see where your "analogy" fails: "The object and need for the"GAY "Civil Rights movement in America was to extricate the practice of denying such items from" GAYS "who indeed met all legal requirements but were simply denied on the basis of" SEXUAL ORIENTATION.
This is exactly their issue, that requirement itself is discriminatory based on sexual orientation. The US constitution grants the power to contract, and does not limit it based on gender, race, or sexual orientation.
I believe another poster on this board already addressed the "why" or policy behind the need in detail, basically to afford a great number of rights to same sex couples that come with that contract, division of estates, wills, medical benefits from the military, etc.
This is where i agree with you, a gay couple cannot naturally have a family. This is the only reason I can see to limit their legal rights. Specifically their right to adopt children, of course we can let them Marry, but not adopt children, this is a somewhat separate issue. I would think much research is being done on sociological implications and psychological ramifications of children being raised in same-sex couple homes.
Just as slavery was only painted with the bigotry brush by ITS enemies. If our society was successful in the preservation of established roles, women would not vote, we would still hold slaves, the caste system would still be in play etc. At some point we have always had to balance the preservation of established roles, and the rights of equal treatment under the law.
The policy behind the contract of marriage extents many more rights that just expansion of the family. Those are the rights the gays want. Paying homage to things "descended to us from antiquity" is a horrible reason, have you ever heard the quote "when religion ruled the world, they called it the dark ages."?
The contract of marriage is not a right granted by nature, neither is the right to purchase a car, buy land, etc. These are all man-made rights.
At last you get to the issue directly! Well put!
And this is where the critical fault in your logic jumps off the screen and slaps me in the face. This is a basic logical fallacy "appeal to tradition", and an "argument from antiquity". Would you have shifted the "burden of proof" to theJews who were killed in the holocaust that they should prove to Hitler they were equal? Would you go back in time and put the burden of proof on the blacks that they should have equal protection under the law and not be forced into slavery? Here, this elaborates on your fallacious arguments a bit more...(but with less dramatism as the former examples :) )
The Appeal to Tradition is perhaps most often used when it comes to discussions about social matters - when someone wants to preserve some long-standing tradition or institution, the very fact that it is traditional is commonly cited as a reason to keep things the way they are. For example:
Marriage is one of humanity’s oldest institutions, and it wouldn’t have survived so long as an integral part of every culture if it were not for the fact that it is vital for our survival. Therefore, we shouldn’t tamper with it or do anything that might harm it.
One obvious flaw in this argument is the fact that, although marriage is very old, it hasn’t always taken the same shape and form. By starting with the marriages of antiquity and concluding with the marriages of today, the argument commits the Fallacy of Equivocation.
But even if we ignore that, we find a fallacious Appeal to Tradition: because things have always been done a certain way, they should continue to be done that way. Don’t rock the boat by trying to change things. Of course, the above argument could also be made about prostitution, couldn’t it?
Where the Argument from Tradition differs from the Argument from Antiquity, however, lies in a somewhat subtle distinction. Whereas the latter reaches its conclusion of value merely from the age of the practice or object, the former asserts that a particular tradition provides particular knowledge and information.
With the above argument, for example, there is a clear appeal to age, but there is also an implicit appeal to the idea that the institution of marriage has something important to tell us about ourselves. It isn’t good simply because it is old, but also because it has played a central role in culture or experience.
Indeed, the tradition being appealed to doesn’t even have to be old — every time someone has said “but that is the way we’ve always done it,” it’s an appeal to tradition, even if it is a “tradition” of just a couple of years. "
Society will be less discriminatory, and don't forget the gay population is part of that "society" you mention, not separate from it.
Dec
This may seem completely off the wall to you, but I really am interested in a follow through to your logic.
What of Pedophilia?
In what I can only consider the fringe of academia there is discussion, using the logic you espouse, that pedophilia isn't wrong.
-
"I have long feared that my sins would return to visit me, and the cost would be more than I could bear." -Benjamin Martin (The Patriot)
Warning: Sensitive political question
in General Discussion
Posted
Ideally we would vote for the Candidate who would follow their oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution. Any other issue is seconday to that oath (and there is a reason for that).
In this past cycle, the only Candidate who even came close to being able to do that was Dr. Ron Paul. Unfortunately America picked the idiots, again, and now we are going to live through the fruit of that stupid decision.
When God says that anything more or less than the Constitution "cometh of evil", I personally find that to be some strong language.
Yes, we will answer to GOD for our actions on behalf of our liberty. Yes, we will answer to GOD for our actions on battlefields. I don't believe the members of the German army that knew of the evils of Hitler but "just were following orders" will be held blameless by GOD in the last day...I don't think we can hide behind the "just following orders" or the 12th Article of Faith.
The Book of Mormon says we are to defend our liberty by the shedding of blood if necessary.