longview

Mollie Engelhart wrote a very powerful column that seriously question the overreach of bureaucracy in so many ways. See: https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/make-it-make-sense-why-are-we-punishing-the-farmers-doing-the-right-thing-5863593 She outlines very cogent points: Why is it that the organic apple must wear a label, pay a certification fee, and carry a price premium—while the conventional apple, grown with chemical fertilizers and synthetic pesticides, is simply called an apple? What if we flipped that? What if the organic apple was just an apple—and the one grown with chemical inputs had to be labeled chemically grown? Why does the burden fall on the farmer doing the right thing, while the one using harmful practices skates by without warning, cost, or consequence? Our rules make it harder to farm responsibly. A chemical farmer can spray right up to the edge of their fence line, but an organic farmer must give up 25 feet on all sides—and sell that buffer zone as non-organic. How does that make any sense? The system is rigged. It pushes farmers toward chemical dependency—not because they want to—but because doing the right thing is cost-prohibitive and over-regulated. Organic farmers pay annual fees and a percentage of their sales just to carry the label. They’re taxed not just financially, but logistically and emotionally—while conventional farmers get a free pass to pollute. Consider this: Research has shown that living within a mile of a golf course significantly increases your risk of Parkinson’s. Why? Because of a widely used herbicide that’s banned in other countries yet still sold here—often by foreign companies that won’t allow its use in their own homelands. Why do we allow that without tax, penalty, or even a warning label? Even within the regenerative and organic movements, we’re adding roadblocks. Equity audits have been folded into some certification programs. While I believe all men are created equal in the image of God, blending social justice metrics into a farming standard makes the transition away from chemical farming even less accessible to the very farmers we’re trying to reach. If we want to include social goals, let’s create a separate certification for those values. But let farming standards focus on soil, animals, and food. And here’s the bigger question: Why are we trusting distant bureaucracies to keep our food safe instead of trusting our neighbors and fellow American farmers? We’ve been conditioned to believe that federal regulation protects us, but often, it protects itself. Bureaucracy and red tape don’t make food healthier—they make it harder and more expensive to grow. They widen the gap between citizens and their food, and between intention and impact. We are so far removed from functioning as a constitutional republic that many Americans don’t even remember that’s what we are. But it’s time we return to that foundation—where power is decentralized, communities are strong, and individuals take responsibility for what they grow, eat, and support. We need less regulation and more relationship. We need to know who’s growing our food. We need to support local systems—small farms, medium farms, and large local farms that feed their communities. We need to rebuild a robust hub-and-spoke food network that serves people, not just centralized corporations. Why is raw milk illegal in many states, while shelf-stable, ultra-processed food-like substances—linked to chronic disease—are perfectly legal? We’re afraid of the wrong bogeyman. We’re being lulled to sleep by the illusion of convenience, but there are real consequences: to our health, our water, our soil, and the survival of the American family farm. If we want a food system that supports health, freedom, and regeneration, we must stop rewarding the polluters and punishing the protectors.

duplicate removed

Is it possible to accept both the 1886 revelation and the 1890 Manifesto as simultaneously true? Many Church members, from 1890 to the present, understand the following: (1) the 1890 Manifesto did not revoke any plural marriage sealings performed prior to its issuance—Church leaders and others continued living with their plural wives; and (2) the practice of plural marriage continued in a limited way. In mortality, a male member may be sealed to only one living wife at a time, but he may also be sealed to additional spouses who are deceased—before or after his current spouse—which does not violate legal standards.

Is it possible to accept both the 1886 revelation and the 1890 Manifesto as simultaneously true? Many Church members, from 1890 to the present, understand the following: (1) the 1890 Manifesto did not revoke any plural marriage sealings performed prior to its issuance—Church leaders and others continued living with their plural wives; and (2) the practice of plural marriage continued in a limited way. In mortality, a male member may be sealed to only one living wife at a time, but he may also be sealed to additional spouses who are deceased—before or after his current spouse—which does not violate legal standards.

The government does NOT need to regulate everything in sight. In the words of a wise man - - - “Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” ― Ronald Reagan

If an organization is dedicated to providing actual charity whether it is counselling or donating goods and services without charge, then the government needs to keep their cotton-picking fingers off it! The "employees" that make up the organization are more likely to be volunteers that are comfortable already having sufficient means for living independently. Others may have altruistic desires for serving the poor and the afflicted and are willing to live a more modest existence. I am retired and feel happy to serve without pay every couple weeks at the Denver Bishop's Storehouse. Interesting sidenote, this place used to have a thriving canning operation several years ago. But when busybody bureaucrats starting interfering with its traditional processes and mandating that the Church pay a stiff fee for "inspectors" to come to oversee the operation, then the Church decided to clear out the facility and bring the work to a screeching halt. Thus leaving only the shipping of goods from Salt Lake City for repackaging and transshipment to Wyoming, South Dakota, etc. It is a crying shame because there was a great deal of enthusiasm for members to engage in the canning process.