"definitive Conclusion By Logic"

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by curvette@Feb 10 2004, 12:46 PM

This thread seems to be hopelessly deadlocked. I never get used to listening to American citizens who are blatently Anti American. Something I meant to mention earlier in the thread is the fact that our late prophet Howard W Hunter was a lawyer as well. I wonder if he is considered unworthy.

Only when he acted as a lawyer...not when he acted as a prophet.

[Guest curvette]

But "all lawyers are garbage." How could garbage be called as a prophet?

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by curvette@Feb 10 2004, 01:41 PM

But "all lawyers are garbage."  How could garbage be called as a prophet?

"weak and foolish things'? What about Judus? Are not the apostles considere prophets, seers, and revelators? Judus was one for 3 years.

[Guest curvette]

I don't understand what you are saying. Are you comparing President Hunter to Judas Iscariot?

[Cal]

Beh--You are simply wrong about due process, even when the IRS is involved. Before the IRS even gets to the point of taking your property you ARE afforded a hearing as to whether the assessment is correct. Also, there IS a tax court in which you can challenge IRS rulings. YOu are simply ignorant of these things or chose to ignore them in order to further your argument for anarchy.

It would be nice if we lived in a world where everyone would VOLUNTARILY obey the laws of the land. WE DON'T. So the laws must be enforced by force. Obey the law, and stay out of trouble. It's simple! Be negligent and injure your neigbor, break the speed limit, run traffic lights or don't pay your share of taxes, then I hope the government DOES force you to pay the price. Thankfully we HAVE a government, and maybe the best ever devised. Too bad you can't recognize that!

[Cal]

Peace--you know, President Hunter never "repented" of being a lawyer, in fact, several times he mentioned being proud to help his clients navigate the intricacies of the law. Since he didn't "repent", according to you he must have been called by God inspite of his SINFUL state. Is that what you are saying? Apparently being a lawyer is no big deal to god. He has called numerous GA's as apostles and even a prophet.

[Behunin]

Originally posted by curvette@Feb 10 2004, 01:46 PM

This thread seems to be hopelessly deadlocked. I never get used to listening to American citizens who are blatently Anti American. Something I meant to mention earlier in the thread is the fact that our late prophet Howard W Hunter was a lawyer as well. I wonder if he is considered unworthy.

Are you accusing me of being Anti-American?

Also, prophets are not perfect. Alma the younger was the vilest of sinners and he repented and was reborn; that's the good news, or the Gospel; though we are "fallen" we can awake. Prophets are not exempted from the fall.

[Behunin]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 10 2004, 06:29 PM

Beh--You are simply wrong about due process, even when the IRS is involved. Before the IRS even gets to the point of taking your property you ARE afforded a hearing as to whether the assessment is correct. Also, there IS a tax court in which you can challenge IRS rulings. YOu are simply ignorant of these things or chose to ignore them in order to further your argument for anarchy.

It would be nice if we lived in a world where everyone would VOLUNTARILY obey the laws of the land. WE DON'T. So the laws must be enforced by force. Obey the law, and stay out of trouble. It's simple! Be negligent and injure your neigbor, break the speed limit, run traffic lights or don't pay your share of taxes, then I hope the government DOES force you to pay the price. Thankfully we HAVE a government, and maybe the best ever devised. Too bad you can't recognize that!

Apparently you have never been involved with the IRS.

You forget, those so-called "laws" are imposed by force by a group of men and women who impose themselves on the people without their consent. Yeah, use the Gambino union and stay out of trouble. It's simple!

What I recognize is a group of men and women who impose themselves on others. Too bad you can't recognize that. You don't recognize a man/woman's right to say no.

Best ever devised? Please, even the best form of slavery is still slavery. How about the same services provided on a voluntary basis? Why impose a service on someone against their will?

[Behunin]

Originally posted by curvette@Feb 10 2004, 02:41 PM

But "all lawyers are garbage." How could garbage be called as a prophet?

Alma the younger was the vilest of sinners.

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by Jenda@Feb 9 2004, 04:04 PM

Cal, I am not sure from reading your posts that you believe in any God at all. You attack anyone who claims to believe in a God and refuse to answer questions where you are asked to describe the God you believe in. If you believed in a God, I would assume that you feel some pull towards believing in some concept of a society where all are equal, there are no homeless and poor, and which everyone treats each other with love and respect (a society which the Mormons/Restorationist religions call Zion.)

We all know the problems inherent in the government institutions of the different societies present here on the earth (kingdoms, communism, democracy, etc.), so maybe you could define just how you view that type of society. What it would look like, how it would be governed, how you would guarantee peace, etc.

I don't think it is fair of you to pick apart someone elses personal view without defining your own so we have the same advantage.

If you think your ideas are sooo much better than those presented here, I am all ears.

Um, Jesus himself said that the poor will be with us always.

Dream on, folks!

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by curvette@Feb 10 2004, 12:46 PM

This thread seems to be hopelessly deadlocked.  I never get used to listening to American citizens who are blatently Anti American.  Something I meant to mention earlier in the thread is the fact that our late prophet Howard W Hunter was a lawyer as well.  I wonder if he is considered unworthy.

Peace thinks he's evil. She thinks ALL lawyers are! It would be interesting to see how she dealt with the cognitive disonance! LOL

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by curvette@Feb 10 2004, 12:46 PM

This thread seems to be hopelessly deadlocked. I never get used to listening to American citizens who are blatently Anti American. Something I meant to mention earlier in the thread is the fact that our late prophet Howard W Hunter was a lawyer as well. I wonder if he is considered unworthy.

Peace thinks he's evil. She thinks ALL lawyers are! It would be interesting to see how she dealt with the cognitive disonance! LOL

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by Behunin+Feb 10 2004, 11:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Behunin @ Feb 10 2004, 11:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Feb 10 2004, 06:29 PM

Beh--You are simply wrong about due process, even when the IRS is involved. Before the IRS even gets to the point of taking your property you ARE afforded a hearing as to whether the assessment is correct.  Also, there IS a tax court in which you can challenge IRS rulings. YOu are simply ignorant of these things or chose to ignore them in order to further your argument for anarchy.

It would be nice if we lived in a world where everyone would VOLUNTARILY obey the laws of the land. WE DON'T. So the laws must be enforced by force. Obey the law, and stay out of trouble. It's simple! Be negligent and injure your neigbor, break the speed limit, run traffic lights  or don't pay your share of taxes, then I hope the government DOES force you to pay the price. Thankfully we HAVE a government, and maybe the best ever devised. Too bad you can't recognize that!

Apparently you have never been involved with the IRS.

You forget, those so-called "laws" are imposed by force by a group of men and women who impose themselves on the people without their consent. Yeah, use the Gambino union and stay out of trouble. It's simple!

What I recognize is a group of men and women who impose themselves on others. Too bad you can't recognize that. You don't recognize a man/woman's right to say no.

Best ever devised? Please, even the best form of slavery is still slavery. How about the same services provided on a voluntary basis? Why impose a service on someone against their will?

WHO will volunteer? WHO will pay for the street lights? WHO? How does your "voluntary society" function? I'm truly curious how it would work and what it would be like. Please share. I would like to live in a Utiopia, too. I simply believe it is not possible, given human nature.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by curvette@Feb 10 2004, 04:26 PM

I don't understand what you are saying. Are you comparing President Hunter to Judas Iscariot?

Well you do have an interesting thought process Curvette.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 10 2004, 05:33 PM

Peace--you know, President Hunter never "repented" of being a lawyer, in fact, several times he mentioned being proud to help his clients navigate the intricacies of the law. Since he didn't "repent", according to you he must have been called by God inspite of his SINFUL state. Is that what you are saying? Apparently being a lawyer is no big deal to god. He has called numerous GA's as apostles and even a prophet.

Doesn't mean he was a lawyer 24-7. And you know we live in a wicked day....God knows we need fire to fight fire.

[Guest Starsky]

Um, Jesus himself said that the poor will be with us always.

Dream on, folks!

Well.....only if we remain totally selfish and wicked as a world people.

4 Ne. 1: 3

3 And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Behunin@Feb 10 2004, 11:06 PM

Are you accusing me of being Anti-American?

Uh, yes.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Behunin --

Control (govern) is not necessary to protect property.

If someone steals my car while I'm away, how do I get it back? Under anarchy, I have to rely on myself. I can sneak up while he's not looking and steal it back. Or I can point a gun at his head and demand it back. Or, I suppose, I could ask for it back, really nicely, although I think I'd probably just get laughed at. I'm interested to hear some other suggestions.

A government is essentially a monopoly on the use of force in enforcing rights. Over the years, people have found this to be more efficient than allowing each person to use force to preserve his rights. The history of Western theories of government over the past several centuries has been the history of attempts to make the sovereign's monopoly on force as legitimate and respectful of individual liberty as possible, while still preserving the efficiency it is designed to protect.

Are you familiar with the economic concept of "free riders"? I'd be interested in hearing how you'd suggest solving the free-rider problem with respect to traffic lights, and also how you'd suggest enforcing private traffic rules. (And don't just point to toll roads as an example; in your system, not only a few major arteries but the whole street grid would have to be privately owned and operated.)

Peace --

4 Ne. 1: 3

3 And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift.

As with all descriptions of religious utopias, this is a little vague on the details. How did the system described in 4 Nephi work? How did people decide who got to live in Laguna Beach and who had to live in Norwalk?

[Cal]

Originally posted by bizabra+Feb 11 2004, 09:04 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bizabra @ Feb 11 2004, 09:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Behunin@Feb 10 2004, 11:17 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Feb 10 2004, 06:29 PM

Beh--You are simply wrong about due process, even when the IRS is involved. Before the IRS even gets to the point of taking your property you ARE afforded a hearing as to whether the assessment is correct.  Also, there IS a tax court in which you can challenge IRS rulings. YOu are simply ignorant of these things or chose to ignore them in order to further your argument for anarchy.

It would be nice if we lived in a world where everyone would VOLUNTARILY obey the laws of the land. WE DON'T. So the laws must be enforced by force. Obey the law, and stay out of trouble. It's simple! Be negligent and injure your neigbor, break the speed limit, run traffic lights   or don't pay your share of taxes, then I hope the government DOES force you to pay the price. Thankfully we HAVE a government, and maybe the best ever devised. Too bad you can't recognize that!

Apparently you have never been involved with the IRS.

You forget, those so-called "laws" are imposed by force by a group of men and women who impose themselves on the people without their consent. Yeah, use the Gambino union and stay out of trouble. It's simple!

What I recognize is a group of men and women who impose themselves on others. Too bad you can't recognize that. You don't recognize a man/woman's right to say no.

Best ever devised? Please, even the best form of slavery is still slavery. How about the same services provided on a voluntary basis? Why impose a service on someone against their will?

WHO will volunteer? WHO will pay for the street lights? WHO? How does your "voluntary society" function? I'm truly curious how it would work and what it would be like. Please share. I would like to live in a Utiopia, too. I simply believe it is not possible, given human nature.

Beh--biz has asked you a good question. Please answer it. This voluntary society you talk about, where has it EVER worked in a LARGE, complex society? Sure, it might work in a small town where people closely monitor eachother's behavior. But even there, when someone steps out of line, there are consequences, and they are not voluntary!

[Behunin]

Originally posted by bizabra@Feb 11 2004, 10:04 AM

WHO will volunteer? WHO will pay for the street lights? WHO? How does your "voluntary society" function? I'm truly curious how it would work and what it would be like. Please share. I would like to live in a Utiopia, too. I simply believe it is not possible, given human nature.

How does a voluntary society function? The same as it does now, with the exception of a so-called "state." You need me to point out how? Do you pay for your food? How do you pay for the services and products you use now?

[Behunin]

Originally posted by curvette+Feb 11 2004, 11:23 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Feb 11 2004, 11:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Behunin@Feb 10 2004, 11:06 PM

Are you accusing me of being Anti-American?

Uh, yes.

So it is anti-American to believe services and products should be provided on a voluntary basis? I guess the part in the declaration of independence about the protection of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness being by "Consent" was also anti-American.

You wrote I did not deserve to be a "citizen," well please tell me what a "citizen" is, or what you think it is and then I can respond.

[Behunin]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Feb 11 2004, 05:04 PM

Behunin --

Control (govern) is not necessary to protect property.

If someone steals my car while I'm away, how do I get it back? Under anarchy, I have to rely on myself. I can sneak up while he's not looking and steal it back. Or I can point a gun at his head and demand it back. Or, I suppose, I could ask for it back, really nicely, although I think I'd probably just get laughed at. I'm interested to hear some other suggestions.

A government is essentially a monopoly on the use of force in enforcing rights. Over the years, people have found this to be more efficient than allowing each person to use force to preserve his rights. The history of Western theories of government over the past several centuries has been the history of attempts to make the sovereign's monopoly on force as legitimate and respectful of individual liberty as possible, while still preserving the efficiency it is designed to protect.

Are you familiar with the economic concept of "free riders"? I'd be interested in hearing how you'd suggest solving the free-rider problem with respect to traffic lights, and also how you'd suggest enforcing private traffic rules. (And don't just point to toll roads as an example; in your system, not only a few major arteries but the whole street grid would have to be privately owned and operated.)

You are either pulling a lawyer tactic here or you just have not given any thought to the subject.

If your car is stolen you basically have the same situation as you have now. If you have insurance, they will either find the car or fulfill their agreement under your contract and make you whole again. What do the cops do? Nothing. The only difference is you are not forced to pay the cops to NOT protect you. You seem to not realize or understand the police, or the "state," are NOT there to protect you. You cannot sue the police for not protecting your property because there is no duty to protect you and your property.

Over the years people have found this is not more efficient, they are told there is no better way by those who have a vested interest in that coercive service. How can you force a service on someone and still be legitimate and respectful of individual liberty? Liberty includes the right to say no. Apparently you do not think men and women have a right to say no to a service.

All businesses have problems collecting. Not being paid on a small degree of accounts is a part of business. You think there are no "free riders" with companies like microsoft? This problem, like any problem, requires a creative solution to solve it. It certainly does not justify the imposition of a service by violence.

As a statist you speak of "free riders?" My gosh, do I really need to give examples of "free riders" with so-called "states?" "States" encourage "free riders."

[Behunin]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 11 2004, 06:38 PM

WHO will volunteer? WHO will pay for the street lights? WHO? How does your "voluntary society" function? I'm truly curious how it would work and what it would be like. Please share. I would like to live in a Utiopia, too. I simply believe it is not possible, given human nature.

Beh--biz has asked you a good question. Please answer it. This voluntary society you talk about, where has it EVER worked in a LARGE, complex society? Sure, it might work in a small town where people closely monitor eachother's behavior. But even there, when someone steps out of line, there are consequences, and they are not voluntary!

I did answer Biz. You speak of consequences not being voluntary, are you familiar with Alternative Dispute Resolution? Mediation does not involve coercion.

Most people interact with others on a voluntary basis now. Like I wrote before, there are two groups of men and women who provide their services on a compulsory basis: 1) the mafia and 2) the other mafia called "government."

You believe men, women and children need to be controlled against their will. I believe in freedom and liberty. You believe in slavery by majority consent. I believe you should have 100% control over your life and property 100% of the time and 0% control over other people's lives and property. You believe your life and property should be controlled by someone else. And that is fine, but why do you insist that others should not have 100% control over their lives and property 100% of the time? If you want others to control your life and property I say GREAT! Run with it, just leave me alone, I don't want or need someone to control my life and property.

[Guest Starsky]

Peace --

4 Ne. 1: 3

3 And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift.

As with all descriptions of religious utopias, this is a little vague on the details. How did the system described in 4 Nephi work? How did people decide who got to live in Laguna Beach and who had to live in Norwalk?

Well, the founding phylosophy and principles are there and that should give you a major good idea of all the details.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Back to the original topic after an enlightening discussion of ordered liberty vs. radical libertarianism:

In this month's First Presidency message, President Hinckley seemed to back off a little from President Faust's apparent message that logic provides conclusive evidence that the Book of Mormon is true:

The evidence for its truth, for its validity in a world that is prone to demand evidence, lies not in archaeology or anthropology, though these may be helpful to some. It lies not in word research or historical analysis, though these may be confirmatory. The evidence for its truth and validity lies within the covers of the book itself. The test of its truth lies in reading it. It is a book of God. Reasonable people may sincerely question its origin; but those who have read it prayerfully have come to know by a power beyond their natural senses that it is true, that it contains the word of God, that it outlines saving truths of the everlasting gospel, that it "came forth by the gift and power of God . . . to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ" (Book of Mormon title page).

It is here. It must be explained. It can be explained only as the translator himself explained its origin. Hand in hand with the Bible, whose companion volume it is, it stands as another witness to a doubting generation that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. It is an unassailable cornerstone of our faith.

Like I said, President Hinckley only backed off a little, if at all -- the second bolded passage (that the Book of Mormon "can only be explained" as Joseph Smith explained it seems to contradict the earlier message that the Book of Mormon's origin can be reasonably questioned. But at least he's not saying unambiguously, "if you're not convinced by the rational evidence for the Book of Mormon, you're illogical and obstinate."

President Hinckley acknowledges that a testimony of the Book of Mormon must ultimately come "by a power beyond [the] natural senses." But then he says this:

but those who have read it prayerfully have come to know by a power beyond their natural senses that it is true

In other words, if you haven't come to know that the Book of Mormon is true, then you haven't read it prayerfully; President Hinckley didn't say "some of those who have read it prayerfully" have come to know, or that those who read it prayerfully may come to know. He said "those" -- i.e. "all those."

I have read the Book of Mormon several times. I have prayed before, while, and after reading it. I have not come to this knowledge, despite years of trying to receive it and a mission I chose to serve expressly because I wanted to know, and thought that taking that leap of faith would do the trick; that by preaching the Gospel I'd gain a testimony of it. (That was the suggestion of Boyd K. Packer in his "Candle of the Lord" talk, although I wasn't familiar with the talk at the time.) I sincerely want to know. I hope that it is true. But I have never sensed, with my natural senses or otherwise, any sensation that I can recognize as a confirmation of its truth, or for that matter any real sensation at all. I get more "tingly" at the end of "The Sandlot." I feel greater peace listening to Elgar's "Enigma Variations." What in the name of Mahonri Moriancumr can be wrong with me? Or is something wrong with the "read prayerfully, come to know" formula?

Unless I'm lying to everyone (and myself) about not having gotten an answer (and I don't think I am), to read the Book of Mormon prayerfully doesn't just mean to read the Book of Mormon while praying honestly to know whether it's true, because that's exactly what I've done. What else might "read prayerfully" mean?

Right now, my belief in the Church's teachings about its history and the source of its authority is essentially no more than a conscious decision to suspend disbelief and my usual means of evaluating evidence. Not only does that seem tenuous, and makes it hard to maintain enthusiasm for fulfilling the Church's heavy demands on my time and resources, it strikes me that this kind of belief can't be the right kind -- because the credit would all go to me. In other words, I owe my belief in the Church not to divine grace, but to my own will. And that seems a lot like relying on the arm of flesh, which is generally thought to be a bad thing in religious contexts. On the other hand, I do believe that my belief in God's existence and Christ's redemption of man is based on something more than just a choice to believe. I do believe that something beyond my natural senses is tryiing to tell me something, no matter how faintly.