LDS Plan

[talisyn]

I think he would understand

You didn't finish the quote.

[talisyn]

"If Christ asked you today why you didn't help your fellow man what would you say?"

This is a much deeper question than it first seems to be. When I was RS president I started out wanting to answer all pleas for help with a resounding "Yes". I quickly learned that one of the worse things you can do to someone is to give them something for nothing. They will keep coming back for more and want every desire they have met by you and will take up all of your time and then scream for more. It makes them weaker people.

If you want more out of life than what you already have, then work for it if you are able. Go to college, work two or more jobs for a while. Hard times are something humans need to go through. They make us rely on God for comfort and strength and we gain our own strength and knowledge by working our way through them.

Wow, talk about a blanket statement (first paragraph).

So you're basically taking the position of Job's friends, that this is God's challenge and if you interfere you're blocking God's work?

BTW thank you for your work as a RS president, I'm sorry you got burned out.

[Just_A_Guy]

You may want to do some reading on your perfect system....

Health care system in Japan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Would that be the same Japan whose public debt stood at 218% of its GDP as of 2009? (By the way, Germany was at 78%. We were at 84%--the year previously we were at 70%, and that was including vast quantities of military spending that benefit much of the western world.)

Edited March 26, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[MarginOfError]

Not sure I understand your point. Are you suggesting that all morals are relative and Christ doesn't care what we decide?

That's not what she's suggesting at all. What she's suggesting is that the relationship between moral constructs and political expression of moral constructs is not one-to-one.

In essence, she is saying that being opposed to abortion does not map directly onto the pro-life nor the pro-choice political platform.

Likewise, being a follower of Christ does not map directly onto single payer nor onto privately funded healthcare. You can very easily be a follower of Christ and support either.

So when you as, "Are you suggesting that all morals are relative?" the answer is no. But the political manifestations of those morals can be a much more vague and diverse issue.

When you ask, "Christ doesn't care what we decide?", the answer is 'what do you mean by decide?' He cares what choices we make. But I don't he cares much what political platforms we take up.

[mnn727]

Not necessarily.

Okay, let's dive into one of the most controversial ones:

Abortion -

diametrically opposed platform issues: Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life

So, you're saying, if you are a strong follower of Christ you have to be Pro-Choice? Wrong.

Or, you're saying, if you are a strong follower of Christ you have to be Pro-Life?

Still wrong.

Another one:

Healthcare

diametrically opposed platform issues: Single-payer (government being the payer) vs. Privately funded

So, you're saying, if you are a strong follower of Christ you have to be single-payer supporter? Wrong.

The opposite is just as wrong.

You can list anything else here... smoking, drugs, gun ownership, gay rights, etc. etc. etc.

You are giving YOUR opinions, not Gods

Besides, I am talking compassion here. I could no longer be the "everyman for himself" "I've got mine, now go get your own" republican that the GOP has become in the last 50 years

[MarginOfError]

You are giving YOUR opinions, not Gods

Besides, I am talking compassion here. I could no longer be the "everyman for himself" "I've got mine, now go get your own" republican that the GOP has become in the last 50 years

Would you care to elaborate on what God's opinion is then, since you seem to know so well.

[Guest]

Not sure I understand your point. Are you suggesting that all morals are relative and Christ doesn't care what we decide?

That's not what she's suggesting at all. What she's suggesting is that the relationship between moral constructs and political expression of moral constructs is not one-to-one.

In essence, she is saying that being opposed to abortion does not map directly onto the pro-life nor the pro-choice political platform.

Likewise, being a follower of Christ does not map directly onto single payer nor onto privately funded healthcare. You can very easily be a follower of Christ and support either.

So when you as, "Are you suggesting that all morals are relative?" the answer is no. But the political manifestations of those morals can be a much more vague and diverse issue.

When you ask, "Christ doesn't care what we decide?", the answer is 'what do you mean by decide?' He cares what choices we make. But I don't he cares much what political platforms we take up.

Thank you MoE! You nailed it right on the head and very eloquently too. I don't think I could have put it as clearly.

In addition -

It is not what political platform we take up that Christ cares about - it's our reasoning or what's in our hearts that makes us choose which political platform that He cares about.

And this very principle is the reason why I don't vilify anybody for supporting ANY political platform if they have put much thought into the matter beyond the kool-aid. It gives me a bigger incentive to try to understand where they are coming from - so that even if we are on opposing sides of an issue (e.g. Elphaba and myself on abortion), I maintain respect and compassion for the other side. It's a better discussion - even a more Christian one - than the very brain-numbing "you must not be Christian!" mantra.

[Palerider]

As a person who is a Republican, I am not one of those who think "how could you be a Democrat and be a member of the church". I also do not believe ,how could you be a republican and be a member of the church?

What everyone needs to realise is , we have several GA's that are on both sides of the aisle. In the past we have had Prophets that are Democrats and Republicans.

[vestig8or]

That's not what she's suggesting at all. What she's suggesting is that the relationship between moral constructs and political expression of moral constructs is not one-to-one.

In essence, she is saying that being opposed to abortion does not map directly onto the pro-life nor the pro-choice political platform.

Likewise, being a follower of Christ does not map directly onto single payer nor onto privately funded healthcare. You can very easily be a follower of Christ and support either.

So when you as, "Are you suggesting that all morals are relative?" the answer is no. But the political manifestations of those morals can be a much more vague and diverse issue.

When you ask, "Christ doesn't care what we decide?", the answer is 'what do you mean by decide?' He cares what choices we make. But I don't he cares much what political platforms we take up.

Thanks! I knew I wasn't understanding what point she was making.

[InquisitiveSoul]

Part of the problem is any time the Government involves itself in private industry, they screw it up. If they didn't try to reinvent the wheel it may go better.

Take Health Insurance, eliminate the restrictions on companies competing across state lines, pass some reasonable tort reform so Doctors don't have practice defensive medicine, and see how things go from there. Reasonable steps first.

The truth is, it's not about Health Care, it's about "transforming" America into something it was never intended to be. In the end we will have only rich and poor in America as the middle class rapidly disappear. Of course I don't expect Wayne to understand any of this, he's simply a sheep being used by those who want to ruin America. They become caught up believing things like Health Care is a human right when it's a privilage.

Wayne, there is a book called Animal Farm, I recommend it to you. It may help you see the role you have taken on.

[vestig8or]

"If Christ asked you today why you didn't help your fellow man what would you say?"

This is a much deeper question than it first seems to be. When I was RS president I started out wanting to answer all pleas for help with a resounding "Yes". I quickly learned that one of the worse things you can do to someone is to give them something for nothing. They will keep coming back for more and want every desire they have met by you and will take up all of your time and then scream for more. It makes them weaker people.

If you want more out of life than what you already have, then work for it if you are able. Go to college, work two or more jobs for a while. Hard times are something humans need to go through. They make us rely on God for comfort and strength and we gain our own strength and knowledge by working our way through them.

Is this what you mean?

D&C 75:29 and D&C 42:42

I don't understand why this idea makes some people so angry and gets labelled as "selfish" or "uncharitable." havejoy isn't talking about letting someone starve. It's the idea of teaching a man to fish rather than simply giving him the fish over and over and over again. Too much "help" takes away a person's free agency and opportunity to grow in this lifetime. I don't call that charitable.

[NeuroTypical]

I could no longer be the "everyman for himself" "I've got mine, now go get your own" republican that the GOP has become in the last 50 years

So you decided to become the "That guy has his, let's go take it under the threat of force and give it to [supposedly downtrodden minority x]" democrat that the other side has to offer?

Also, I've been a staunch supporter of these principles long before "I had mine". My little family of 4 is still scraping at the lower-middle class line, and I still want the govt not to take from the rich and give to the poor.

LM

[Bluejay]

Hi, Webbwayne.

You're getting a lot of stiff replies here, so I thought you could use something softer for a change.

I think there's a lot of misunderstanding between what amounts to be two entirely different views on life. People on the right wing, who always argue for personal responsibility, are generally people who do not like being dependents, who like to feel like they can manage (or be empowered to manage) the challenges that come before them.

I feel absolutely worthless when I have to ask my parents for help, even though I'm a doctoral student with a wife and a two-year-old and barely enough stipend money to pay my rent and car insurance. I vehemently hate having to ask other people to help me for anything, because there is some switch in my head that goes off and makes me feel like I'm weak, imcompetent, and unable to provide and take care of the family that I am determined to take care of. Incidentally, I've recently been forced to accept Medicaid to pay for some medical expenses that my stipend and insurance can't cover, and it absolutely kills me.

I cannot (try as I have) understand why other people do not think the way I think about this issue: why are so many other people so willing to ask for help and care, when it seems like such a demeaning and pathetic thing for me to do myself?

People who think like me in this matter and are more politically minded than am I, will tend to speak out and try to explain why our way of looking at the world is better. Often, the worldview is not transmissible as easily as we think it is, so we get frustrated and resort to passionate squabbling and cynicism, just as you seem to have on this thread toward us.

I'm confident that there is a way for us to figure out how to get along together, but it seems we have a long way to go. In the end, it wouldn't kill any of us to realize that "compromise" is not a vulgar word: we can't all get everything we want, because we all want such different things. The best we can do is follow (I think it's Gwen)'s tagline, and just deal with people's "issues" while trying to work out the problems.

Balancing everybody's worldviews is more important than winning any particular debate.

[InquisitiveSoul]

Hi, Webbwayne.

You're getting a lot of stiff replies here, so I thought you could use something softer for a change.

I think there's a lot of misunderstanding between what amounts to be two entirely different views on life. People on the right wing, who always argue for personal responsibility, are generally people who do not like being dependents, who like to feel like they can manage (or be empowered to manage) the challenges that come before them.

I feel absolutely worthless when I have to ask my parents for help, even though I'm a doctoral student with a wife and a two-year-old and barely enough stipend money to pay my rent and car insurance. I vehemently hate having to ask other people to help me for anything, because there is some switch in my head that goes off and makes me feel like I'm weak, imcompetent, and unable to provide and take care of the family that I am determined to take care of. Incidentally, I've recently been forced to accept Medicaid to pay for some medical expenses that my stipend and insurance can't cover, and it absolutely kills me.

I cannot (try as I have) understand why other people do not think the way I think about this issue: why are so many other people so willing to ask for help and care, when it seems like such a demeaning and pathetic thing for me to do myself?

People who think like me in this matter and are more politically minded than am I, will tend to speak out and try to explain why our way of looking at the world is better. Often, the worldview is not transmissible as easily as we think it is, so we get frustrated and resort to passionate squabbling and cynicism, just as you seem to have on this thread toward us.

I'm confident that there is a way for us to figure out how to get along together, but it seems we have a long way to go. In the end, it wouldn't kill any of us to realize that "compromise" is not a vulgar word: we can't all get everything we want, because we all want such different things. The best we can do is follow (I think it's Gwen)'s tagline, and just deal with people's "issues" while trying to work out the problems.

Balancing everybody's worldviews is more important than winning any particular debate.

This is why States Rights are so important. Then the people who want the help can go live in a State where the Government is more involved and those of us who don't, we can go live in a State where we can be left alone.

[InquisitiveSoul]

Another thing I'm bothered by is people who invoke Jesus in political discussions in order to manipulate those of us who are Christian. Jesus hasn't forced anything upon us. Let's keep in mind who tried to force us to comply with the plan, it was Lucifer. Now in the temporal life who is trying to force their will on us? Big Government.

[MarginOfError]

Another thing I'm bothered by is people who invoke Jesus in political discussions in order to manipulate those of us who are Christian. Jesus hasn't forced anything upon us. Let's keep in mind who tried to force us to comply with the plan, it was Lucifer. Now in the temporal life who is trying to force their will on us? Big Government.

Explain to me how exactly invoking the name of Jesus in political discussions to manipulate those of us who are Christians is any different than invoking the name of Lucifer in political discussions in order to manipulate those of us who are Christians?

[InquisitiveSoul]

Explain to me how exactly invoking the name of Jesus in political discussions to manipulate those of us who are Christians is any different than invoking the name of Lucifer in political discussions in order to manipulate those of us who are Christians?

It's not! It's return fire satire! - Probably gets lost in translation on a message boad.

Edited March 26, 2010 by InquisitiveSoul

[MarginOfError]

It's not! It's return fire satire! - Probably gets lost in translation on a message boad.

Well satire I can live with. Thanks for clarifying. You've earned yourself a laugh!

[ZSEdwardson]

There is a old saying, those who are not liberal and under thirty have no heart, and those who are not conservative over thirty have no brain.

You can be Christian (and Mormon) on both sides of the political spectrum. Mormons have a tendency to be more conservative then some other churches due to the concept of personal responsibility more then group responsibility. However, the mission to take care of the less fortunate does strike a bell deep within all those who follow the Gospel. I am concerned personally that the government is trying to eliminate personal choice and trying to eliminate the responsibility of people choices. (for example, bailing out companies that made bad choices, and not letting people make a choice on if and what type of health care they want. (I for example cannot buy a less expensive policy that does not cover substance abuse, even though I follow the words of wisdom and do not smoke, drink, drink coffee or tea (or caffeine for that matter) )

That, and i am sick of tired of people saying I am being mean since I didn't like the health care bill, I agree that health care needed reforms, just the reforms enacted I dislike.

[havejoy]

I think you need to learn more of the Churches welfare system, its not a giveaway, people are supposed to work for what is given, this is in the form of public service (either church related or elsewhere) While there are guidelines as to what fast offerings can be used for, you also are not to be "money police".

The Church Handbook of Instructions is pretty specific and every Stake that I have been in has welfare training also.

As RS president all I did was fill their needs as directed by the Bishop. It's the Bishop who ask them to do work. Most of them would say they were going to clean the church on Saturday and then not show up.

Some were asked to go to the Bishop's Storehouse and work 6 or 8 hours. They would say yes and then not show up.

Some would lie about health issues to keep from doing work.

And for this they got food for months. It was frustrating.

The book 'Pure Religion' by Glen L. Rudd is an excellent source on the church welfare system and how it should work. It just doesn't work the way it should all the time.

[havejoy]

Is this what you mean?

D&C 75:29 and D&C 42:42

I don't understand why this idea makes some people so angry and gets labelled as "selfish" or "uncharitable." havejoy isn't talking about letting someone starve. It's the idea of teaching a man to fish rather than simply giving him the fish over and over and over again. Too much "help" takes away a person's free agency and opportunity to grow in this lifetime. I don't call that charitable.

Thank you, this is what I meant. Personally, I take dinner to or give someone a ride somewhere nearly every week. I'm not against helping people.

There's a story about a baby chick that my Bishop told me. He said that if you help a baby chick get out of its egg it will die. If you let it work its way out by itself it will be strong enough to live.

The was the lesson he and I both had to learn while I was RS pres.

[havejoy]

Wow, talk about a blanket statement (first paragraph).

So you're basically taking the position of Job's friends, that this is God's challenge and if you interfere you're blocking God's work?

BTW thank you for your work as a RS president, I'm sorry you got burned out.

I think we sometimes block God's work by stepping in too soon and doing too much for some people. There is a fine line between giving someone a hand out instead of a hand up. Situations like these kept me on my knees or in the Temple a lot when I was RS pres. It's so hard to know where that line is and I had a tendency to do too much for people and it hurt them spiritually.

Haven't you ever had a challenge that you thought was too hard and then you were able to make it through? The feeling is amazing and I don't want prevent someone from having that opportunity. I would never let someone go hungry though.

Edited March 26, 2010 by havejoy

[marts1]

I think we sometimes block God's work by stepping in too soon and doing too much for some people. There is a fine line between giving someone a hand out instead of a hand up. Situations like these kept me on my knees or in the Temple a lot when I was RS pres. It's so hard to know where that line is and I had a tendency to do too much for people and it hurt them spiritually.

Haven't you ever had a challenge that you thought was too hard and then you were able to make it through? The feeling is amazing and I don't want prevent someone from having that opportunity. I would never let someone go hungry though.

I would not let anyone go without the necessities of life no matter who or what they do. We are all beggars when you get right down to it.

[Bluejay]

Hi, InquisitiveSoul.

This is why States Rights are so important. Then the people who want the help can go live in a State where the Government is more involved and those of us who don't, we can go live in a State where we can be left alone.

I'm not sure I understand the States' Rights argument.

Won't you still have the same issue within a state that you have between states?

If government is centered at the State level, there will still be people who want to argue for Cities' Rights or Counties' Rights within the State.

Whose side would you take in that debate?

[InquisitiveSoul]

The Consitution of The United States protects States Rights under the 10th Amendment. Unfortunetly law makers tend to forget about this Amendment which is why many people believe the State Legislator, not the citizens, should once again select the Senators sent to Washington.

As for issues with each State, the State Constitution defines how the State will be governed which should give the necessary guidlines for each City or Muncipality.

Again, if you don't like the powers delegated locally in your State you are free to move to a State where things are done differently. You feel taxes are too high in your State? Find a better State. Each State is free to govern yet the US Constitution protects each citizen and their right to live free.