Filthy Lucre

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, zil said:

I have to disagree on the Social Security - I worked for that money; they took it from me by force;

You did work for it and they have no right to take it away from you. Too bad it probably won't be around when we get old enough to need it. 

[zil]

16 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Too bad it probably won't be around when we get old enough to need it.

Since I'll beat you to it, if there's any of yours left, I'll just make sure they give it to me.  It's only right after all, for a husband to take care of his 4th wife (or was I demoted to 7th? it's so hard to keep track).

[Vort]

57 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I don't know. I find it very uncomfortable when people claim to know what Jesus would do in 2016 though. 

Yet we are required to come to know the mind of God, and we are to apply the scriptures to ourselves.

Did Jesus Christ reveal Section 89 to Joseph Smith?

Does Section 89 teach that "strong drinks" are not for the body or the belly (i.e. for drinking)?

Have we been told that "strong drinks" means alcoholic beverages?

Is it likely that Jesus Christ, having given a commandment, would immediately turn around and break it?

I believe the first three answers to be "yes" and the last to be "no". If you believe otherwise, I'd be interested to hear your take.

Still waiting for omega to explain the supposed "strawman" character of my questions.

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, zil said:

Since I'll beat you to it, if there's any of yours left, I'll just make sure they give it to me.  It's only right after all, for a husband to take care of his 4th wife (or was I demoted to 7th? it's so hard to keep track).

LOL You've been kicked out. You are no longer on the list. Sorry Zil. I had #3 pack your stuff. 

[zil]

7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

LOL You've been kicked out. You are no longer on the list. Sorry Zil. I had #3 pack your stuff. 

What!!!?  I want a refund!

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

. If you believe otherwise, I'd be interested to hear your take.

 

My take is that it's presumptuous for any of us to claim to know what Christ would do. 

[Vort]

59 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 I buy alcohol and cigars for my friends all the time. I don't use them personally. To me I don't want to damage friendships or seem like I'm suddenly pious or better than them. 

Do as you will, Gator. We are not criticizing you personally. But if you find yourself buying alcohol and smokes for your friends "all the time", perhaps you should rethink how you are getting in such a situation.

And by the way, being pious is a very good thing.

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

My take is that it's presumptuous for any of us to claim to know what Christ would do. 

Why? We make such claims all the time. It is part of the gospel.

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

Do as you will, Gator. We are not criticizing you personally. But if you find yourself buying alcohol and smokes for your friends "all the time", perhaps you should rethink how you are getting in such a situation.

And by the way, being pious is a very good thing.

I know you aren't. You also know I'm just showing you how someone else lives. That's it. 

Being pious can also be a bad thing. Being pious can lead to being holier than thou, which can lead to you thinking "I am better than all these other people" 

[Guest MormonGator]

11 minutes ago, Vort said:

Why? We make such claims all the time. It is part of the gospel.

Then go for it. I think it's arrogant and presumptuous of you. Keep thinking you can speak for Christ and yes, soon you will slide into pride and thinking you are better than all those other hell bound sinners. It will happen before you know it.

Edited February 27, 2016 by MormonGator

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Being pious can also be a bad thing. Being pious can lead to being holier than thou, which can lead to you thinking "I am better than all these other people" 

Being pious is never bad. Never. It cannot lead to pride and self-vaunting, because piousness is the opposite of those things.

There is a linguistic trend to use "pious" to mean its opposite, essentially to mean "hypocritical". I realize this is how you are using it, but I consider this a cynical usage that I totally reject. Black is not white, up is not down, and good is not evil.

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

Being pious is never bad. Never. It cannot lead to pride and self-vaunting, because piousness is the opposite of those things.

There is a linguistic trend to use "pious" to mean its opposite, essentially to mean "hypocritical". I realize this is how you are using it, but I consider this a cynical usage that I totally reject. Black is not white, up is not down, and good is not evil.

Great. So that's where we disagree. I think it'll lead to you (not you personally, royal usage) down the path of believing you are holier than everyone else. You don't. 

Edited February 27, 2016 by MormonGator

[Vort]

14 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Then go for it. I think it's arrogant and presumptuous of you. Keep thinking you can speak for Christ and yes, soon you will slide into pride and thinking you are better than all those other hell bound sinners. It will happen before you know it.

This is uncharacteristically unfriendly of you, Gator. It also dodges my point: We do in fact speak for Christ. We have to. We are required to. That's what it means to take his name upon us.

[Jojo Bags]

34 minutes ago, zil said:

I have to disagree on the Social Security - I worked for that money; they took it from me by force; it's only right that they give back what they took from me.  (I'm open to argument about whether they also owe me the profit I could have made on it had they not taken it from me - and even if I get back more than the base I paid in, I doubt I'll be getting this much from them.  I'm also prepared to let it go without a fight or (further?) complaint, should they run out by the time I get there, or should I never get back everything they took; but it still seems only right for them to give it back.)

Let's say a person earns $30,000 a year for 35 years and then goes on SS.  At the current contribution of 6.2%, that would mean he contributed $65,100.  If he goes on SS at age 65 and receives say, $1750 each month and he lives till 80, he would receive $315,000 in 15 years.  That would mean he received $249,900 in money he did not earn.  Like I've said, SS is a Ponzi scam and anyone receiving proceeds from stolen money is receiving filthy lucre. 

[Guest MormonGator]

19 minutes ago, Vort said:

This is uncharacteristically unfriendly of you, Gator. It also dodges my point: We do in fact speak for Christ. We have to. We are required to. That's what it means to take his name upon us.

Royal usage of the word "you". Not "You" meaning Vort. Come on, you know that's not what I think of you. I've said on many other threads than I think you are a great guy. Still do. 

Does it dodge the point? Yes, because there is no point in further discussing. We both know where we disagree. Ironically it's because we are buds than I choose not to debate/argue further. 

Edited February 27, 2016 by MormonGator

[zil]

8 minutes ago, Jojo Bags said:

That would mean he received $249,900 in money he did not earn

But what if he had invested the money (even if only in long-term savings), and earned an honest profit on it for the whole time?  How much might that money have returned over all those years?  I don't know the answer, and don't feel like trying to figure it out - my point is that it seems like it might be fair for him to get back his stolen money "with interest", to make up for the loss.  That said, I agree one should not get something for nothing; and of course I also think the government had no business taking it in the first place - I could have done better with it without their "help".

Anywho, I agree with the principle - earn your way, be smart with God's blessings.

[Vort]

15 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Royal usage of the word "you". Not "You" meaning Vort.  Com on, you know that's not what I think of you. I've said on many other threads than I think you are a great guy. Still do. 

Which is why I found it uncharacteristic of you. "I think it's arrogant and presumptuous of you" does not read like an impersonal "you", any more than "I found it uncharacteristic of you" reads as an impersonal "you". But, as you know, your esteem is returned.

The point is that we take upon ourselves Christ's name, which means that we are required to speak for him in many instances. This is not pridefulness; it is humble obedience. For example, if you tell your friends that you believe God has commanded you not to drink alcohol, and that furthermore he has taught that drinking alcohol is something no one should do, there is nothing bad about that. That is simply teaching the truths of the gospel. (All revelation, both ancient and modern, including the Word of Wisdom, is included in the larger meaning of "the gospel".)

[Guest MormonGator]

12 minutes ago, Vort said:

Which is why I found it uncharacteristic of you. "I think it's arrogant and presumptuous of you" does not read like an impersonal "you", any more than "I found it uncharacteristic of you" reads as an impersonal "you". But, as you know, your esteem is returned.

 

No I know what you mean. Glad I had a chance to explain that it wasn't personal. Like I've mentioned, I think we need to be careful when we talk online. If someone is misundersood it's on BOTH parties. Sorry I wasn't clear. I mean the universal usage, not Vort in particular.  Seriously world, like I said I think Vort is a great guy and not pious in the least. 

Edited February 27, 2016 by MormonGator

[The Folk Prophet]

36 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Royal usage of the word "you". Not "You" meaning Vort. Come on, you know that's not what I think of you. I've said on many other threads than I think you are a great guy. Still do. 

Does it dodge the point? Yes, because there is no point in further discussing. We both know where we disagree. Ironically it's because we are buds than I choose not to debate/argue further. 

As if agreement is the point. The point is what Christ himself said and taught. He taught us to follow Him, do as He did, know Him, and follow His Spirit in all things. To claim we cannot do that is contrary to what He Himself taught. So claiming otherwise is really disagreeing with Chris, if one wants to really discuss it in terms of agreement.

[Vort]

42 minutes ago, Jojo Bags said:

Let's say a person earns $30,000 a year for 35 years and then goes on SS.  At the current contribution of 6.2%, that would mean he contributed $65,100.  If he goes on SS at age 65 and receives say, $1750 each month and he lives till 80, he would receive $315,000 in 15 years.  That would mean he received $249,900 in money he did not earn.  Like I've said, SS is a Ponzi scam and anyone receiving proceeds from stolen money is receiving filthy lucre. 

I agree with this. But let me point out that Social Security need not be a Ponzi scam/scheme. If all the money collected were invested, e.g. in government bonds*, that should produce enough to make the payouts. Let's do a bit of back-of-the-envelope math:

Assume the average person pays into Social Security for 45 years. Assume you can make 3% off of long-term government bonds. Assume that the average person's average salary in his working life is $50,000, 12% of which goes to Social Security. (It's actually 6.2% from the worker and 6.2% from the employer, but just call it 12% and let the "extra" 6% from the employee represent other losses.) If we assume $15,000 in other income-based taxes per year, that leaves $50,000 - $6,000 - $15,000 = $29,000 per year take-home, or a bit under $2500 per month. That's the living wage we're trying to replace.

Using any available compound interest calculator that Google offers you (e.g. this one), $6000 per year each year for 45 years at 3% will give you north of $570,000. That's twenty years of replacement income! Most people will not live 20 years past retirement age.

Now, of course, my übersimplified example does not account for negative factors such as inflation (very important) or for lower earnings earlier in one's career, nor does it account for positive factors like monthly installments, interest compounded more than once a year, or continued interest during the payout period. So it's only a rough guide. But it is that, a rough guide, and it demonstrates that if the cursed politicians would keep their filthy hands off the collected money, it would be self-sustaining.

*Of course, government bonds (which I used as my safe and low-interest investment example) are an example of deficit spending, which is itself not a wise or a good thing. (Please don't quote Paul Krugman at me. I know that Krugman won a Nobel prize. So did Obama, Yasser Arafat, and other laughable examples. Krugman is a moron.) The point is not that government bonds are a good idea in principle (no pun intended), but that Social Security need not be a Ponzi pyramid.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Vort

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, Vort said:

Krugman is a moron.

My goodness , we agree on that 200%. 

[Jojo Bags]

10 minutes ago, Vort said:

*Of course, government bonds (which I used as my safe and low-interest investment example) are an example of deficit spending, which is itself not a wise or a good thing. (Please don't quote Paul Krugman at me. I know that Krugman won a Nobel prize. So did Obama, Yasser Arafat, and other laughable examples. Krugman is a moron.) The point is not that government bonds are a good idea in principle (no pun intended), but that Social Security need not be a Ponzi pyramid.

While I agree with your post, I will point out that government bonds are also stolen money used to finance other stolen money. 

[zil]

Some verses for pondering (emphasis mine). I think it best to let the scriptures speak for themselves.

Moses 5:7 And then the angel spake, saying: This thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace and truth.

8 Wherefore, thou shalt do all that thou doest in the name of the Son, and thou shalt repent and call upon God in the name of the Son forevermore.

[The Folk Prophet]

13 minutes ago, zil said:

Some verses for pondering (emphasis mine). I think it best to let the scriptures speak for themselves.

Moses 5:7 And then the angel spake, saying: This thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace and truth.

8 Wherefore, thou shalt do all that thou doest in the name of the Son, and thou shalt repent and call upon God in the name of the Son forevermore.

Here's some more:

 

“It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God.”  Joseph Smith

Mosiah 5:13  "For how knoweth a man the master whom he has not served, and who is a stranger unto him, and is far from the thoughts and intents of his heart?"

John 17:3 - "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

John 17:20–23 “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

“And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

“I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one”

[Guest MormonGator]

26 minutes ago, Jojo Bags said:

I will point out that government bonds are also stolen money used to finance other stolen money. 

That's the innate flaw of government, isn't it?