Diversity In The Church

[thesometimesaint]

It is like an orchestra. Individually each instrument makes their sounds. When under the direction of the skilled conductor, and combined with the harmony and melody they make beautiful music. The violin can not say to the cello you do not sound like me, so you can not be in the orchestra. The piccolo can not say to the flute my voice is sharper than yours, so be off you have no place here. All the voices are needed for the music to happen.

[The Nehor]

So you are suggesting it should be removed? Whether or not Joseph "signed off" on it is not really the point, it is in the standard works therefore it is true and binding on the Church. Joseph was not the last Prophet of the Church so I really do not see how you can call it "second-class canon" when the canon is still open to this very day.

Nope, I don't think it should be removed. I take it with a grain of salt. This is not the only passage of scripture I do this with.

[Mark Beesley]

Just some random observations after reading through the thread:

Funny how someone thinks that asking me about my stand on Proposition 8 was relevant.

I'm not just sitting around waiting for a better government to come along. I'm working to create a Socialist State.

I feel your pain semlogo. He wouldn't provide specifics in the other thread either.

I apologize for starting this thread. The moderators are invited to close it.

[talisyn]

Nope, I don't think it should be removed. I take it with a grain of salt. This is not the only passage of scripture I do this with.

I gave up and actually read D&C 134. Good stuff, idk how I forgot about it when the prop. 8 stuff started happening. Also, the Church apparently has always been supporters of the 2nd amendment: 11. We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded

[talisyn]

Just some random observations after reading through the thread:

Funny how someone thinks that asking me about my stand on Proposition 8 was relevant.

I'm not just sitting around waiting for a better government to come along. I'm working to create a Socialist State.

I feel your pain semlogo. He wouldn't provide specifics in the other thread either.

I apologize for starting this thread. The moderators are invited to close it.

No!!!!! Don't close it! This is the most fun I've had this morning!

[Lightbearer]

I'm not just sitting around waiting for a better government to come along. I'm working to create a Socialist State.

I apologize for starting this thread. The moderators are invited to close it.

I hope the smiley means you are joking, because I will fight any attempt at the creation of a Socialist or Communist State... I await the Lord establishing the United Order under the instructions of the Priesthood, not some godless political hacks trying to overthrow the freedom of all nations. Oh and if serious you are making a good start restraining free speech is the first step toward a Socialist State... just as free speech was the first step in the demise of the old soviet union.

[daz2]

Presdient Eyring's talk in conference, "Our Hearts Knit as One", indicates how diversity contributes to unity, and unity to diversity. http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5...-947-21,00.html Among other things, he states:

"To be that peacemaker, you need to have the simple faith that as children of God, with all our differences, it is likely that in a strong position we take, there will be elements of truth. The great peacemaker, the restorer of unity, is the one who finds a way to help people see the truth they share. That truth they share is always greater and more important to them than their differences. You can help yourself and others to see that common ground if you ask for help from God and then act. He will answer your prayer to help restore peace, as He has mine.

"That same principle applies as we build unity with people who are from vastly different backgrounds. The children of God have more in common than they have differences. And even the differences can be seen as an opportunity. God will help us see a difference in someone else not as a source of irritation but as a contribution. The Lord can help you see and value what another person brings which you lack. More than once the Lord has helped me see His kindness in giving me association with someone whose difference from me was just the help I needed. That has been the Lordâ??s way of adding something I lacked to serve Him better." (bolding added)

[semlogo]

I hope the smiley means you are joking, because I will fight any attempt at the creation of a Socialist or Communist State... I await the Lord establishing the United Order under the instructions of the Priesthood, not some godless political hacks trying to overthrow the freedom of all nations. Oh and if serious you are making a good start restraining free speech is the first step toward a Socialist State... just as free speech was the first step in the demise of the old soviet union.

Freedom exists independently of monetary systems. Capitalism and socialism isn't a dichotomy between freedom and unfreedom. It's just about how the money is organized.Are you going to wait for the second coming to apply every gospel principle to human affairs?

So you are suggesting it should be removed? Whether or not Joseph "signed off" on it is not really the point, it is in the standard works therefore it is true and binding on the Church. Joseph was not the last Prophet of the Church so I really do not see how you can call it "second-class canon" when the canon is still open to this very day.

I like this part: 9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

I feel your pain semlogo. He wouldn't provide specifics in the other thread either.

Interesting. Could it be he's just trying to deflect and not explain what he means by sending me on a wild goose chase?

[annewandering]

QUOTE(Mark Beesley @ Dec 2 2008, 11:10 AM) *

I feel your pain semlogo. He wouldn't provide specifics in the other thread either.

Interesting. Could it be he's just trying to deflect and not explain what he means by sending me on a wild goose chase?

i suspect he just couldnt remember where it was either.

[annewandering]

Presdient Eyring's talk in conference, "Our Hearts Knit as One", indicates how diversity contributes to unity, and unity to diversity. http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5...-947-21,00.html Among other things, he states:

"To be that peacemaker, you need to have the simple faith that as children of God, with all our differences, it is likely that in a strong position we take, there will be elements of truth. The great peacemaker, the restorer of unity, is the one who finds a way to help people see the truth they share. That truth they share is always greater and more important to them than their differences. You can help yourself and others to see that common ground if you ask for help from God and then act. He will answer your prayer to help restore peace, as He has mine.

"That same principle applies as we build unity with people who are from vastly different backgrounds. The children of God have more in common than they have differences. And even the differences can be seen as an opportunity. God will help us see a difference in someone else not as a source of irritation but as a contribution. The Lord can help you see and value what another person brings which you lack. More than once the Lord has helped me see His kindness in giving me association with someone whose difference from me was just the help I needed. That has been the Lordâ??s way of adding something I lacked to serve Him better." (bolding added)

wasnt that a great talk? i hate to admit i really just discovered his wisdom in the april conference. of course i knew he was an apostle but he really stood out for me then.

[LeSellers]

I know he wasn't referring to political beliefs. He's talking about giving freely. I meant it tongue in cheek.

Well, if you want me toi believe that Joseph (or any of God's prophets commended) the use of lethal force to generate the funds from which bureaucrats can "give freely", I am prepared to listen.

If there is anything that indicates that families should off-shoulder their duty of supporting their members, please post.

If there is a statement advocating governmental interference in choosing and funding a charity, where is it?

I have never seen any such pronouncements. Just as we have not seen here the most trivial of hints that LDS parents should allow their children to attend government-run, tax-funded, welfare schools.

Liberalism is a hypocritical philosophy. Instead of doing charity, liberals use the force of government to coerce others to be "charitable". Liberals believe that doing good is good, but only as long as everyone, willing or no, must "contribute. Rather than searching for opportunities to serve, they set up bureaucracies to seek them out.

They do not allow others to find their own means of doing good, they set up another bureaucracy that commandeers the bulk of available (and sometimes unavailable) resources that would otherwise go to a wide range of true charities in order to fund their "one, true" (re)distribution effort.

As I have often said, I am not a conservative. But torn between two opposite government uber alles political positions, I prefer conservatism because, while they interfere in personal habits, they leave us alone in determining how to disburse the fruits of our labors. On this, most freedoms depend. Liberals make us slaves. Conservatives only intrude on our actions, liberals control our thoughts.

In my perfect world, there would be a very tiny state, one whose only function would be to enforce contracts and protect all other individual rights. Leaders would pay for the privilege, and would be chosen by lot from among those who put themselves forward. There would be no taxes, but user fees and subscriptions would cover all necessary costs. And there would be no governmental "charity" of any sort.

Since we are in a world where some people believe themselves to be superior to others because their motives are "better" than those of others. and who decided whose motives are good and whose bad? Well, it is the self-anointed, and they are so much better than others that they get to impose those determinations on the rest of us.

Lehi

[talisyn]

I hope the smiley means you are joking, because I will fight any attempt at the creation of a Socialist or Communist State... I await the Lord establishing the United Order under the instructions of the Priesthood, not some godless political hacks trying to overthrow the freedom of all nations. Oh and if serious you are making a good start restraining free speech is the first step toward a Socialist State... just as free speech was the first step in the demise of the old soviet union.

You know, pure socialism or even communism really isn't that bad of a thing. It's when you get people involved that it gets all messed up. Sort of like what we're seeing now with the financial markets, pure capitalism isn't bad in and of itself, it's when people decide to go nuts and stop using personal restraint and responsibility that we have problems.

[annewandering]

in other words you do not believe the constitution is what we should follow in this country?

[LeSellers]

Freedom exists independently of monetary systems. Capitalism and socialism isn't a dichotomy between freedom and unfreedom. It's just about how the money is organized.

"How the money is organized" determines whether you ar free or not.

Money is a representation of your life. You get it by trading your time, talents, and efforts for it. If someone, no matter how high-sounding a title he may have, take it, he has made you a slave for that period it took to earn it.

Slavery is, by definition, "unfreedom".

Lehi

[LeSellers]

You know, pure socialism or even communism really isn't that bad of a thing. It's when you get people involved that it gets all messed up. Sort of like what we're seeing now with the financial markets, pure capitalism isn't bad in and of itself, it's when people decide to go nuts and stop using personal restraint and responsibility that we have problems.

Just what makes you think that the current financial mess is a result of "pure capitalism"?

If socialists, in their effort to make sure that everyone got a chance to buy a house (irrespective of whether he could or should afford it), forced banks to make stupid loans. When those people couldn't make the payments, the housing bubble burst, and we have, as a direct result, the governmentally created financial crisis. (Which they will use to further curtail our freedoms.)

Don't blame this on "Capitalism". This is a socialist party, and now those who play are paying.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

in other words you do not believe the constitution is what we should follow in this country?

The same Constitution that the Lord has decreed was written by men He raised up for this very purpose. The Constitution that is more or less scripture; at least was scripture until the XII amendment.

Lehi

[annewandering]

Just what makes you think that the current financial mess is a result of "pure capitalism"?

If socialists, in their effort to make sure that everyone got a chance to buy a house (irrespective of whether he could or should afford it), forced banks to make stupid loans. When those people couldn't make the payments, the housing bubble burst, and we have, as a direct result, the governmentally created financial crisis. (Which they will use to further curtail our freedoms.)

Lehi

the government knew at least a year ago and tried to get the banks to stop doing this stuff. so yes it was the banks greed that got them into trouble.

[The Nehor]

If there is a statement advocating governmental interference in choosing and funding a charity, where is it?

"Now there was a great number of women, more than there was of men; therefore king Limhi commanded that every man should impart to the support of the widows and their children, that they might not perish with hunger; and this they did because of the greatness of their number that had been slain."

Mosiah 21:17

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

Is Alan Greenspan a good enough source?

http://www.truthout.org/102308R

Facing a firing line of questions from Washington lawmakers, Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman once considered the infallible maestro of the financial system, admitted on Thursday that he "made a mistake" in trusting that free markets could regulate themselves without government oversight.

A fervent proponent of deregulation during his 18-year tenure at the Fed's helm, Mr. Greenspan has faced mounting criticism this year for having refused to consider cracking down on credit derivatives, an unchecked market whose excesses partly led to the current financial crisis.

Although he defended the use of derivatives in general, Mr. Greenspan, who left office in 2006, told members of the House Committee of Government Oversight and Reform that he was "partially" wrong in not having tried to regulate the market for credit-default swaps.

But in a tense exchange with Rep. Henry A. Waxman, the California Democrat who is chairman of the committee, Mr. Greenspan conceded a more serious flaw in his own philosophy that unfettered free markets sit at the root of a superior economy.

"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms," Mr. Greenspan said.

Referring to his free-market ideology, Mr. Greenspan added: "I have found a flaw. I don't know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact."

Mr. Waxman pressed the former Fed chair to clarify his words. "In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working," Mr. Waxman said.

"Absolutely, precisely," Mr. Greenspan replied. "You know, that's precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well."

The oversight committee is holding hearings to determine what gaps in the regulatory structure abetted the crisis that has roiled the world's financial markets.

Mr. Greenspan appeared alongside Christopher Cox, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and John W. Snow, who served as secretary of the Treasury early in the Bush administration.

In his prepared remarks, Mr. Greenspan said he was in "a state of shocked disbelief" about the breakdown in the ability of banks to regulate themselves. He also warned about the economic consequences of the crisis, saying that he "cannot see how we will avoid a significant rise in layoffs and unemployment." Consumer spending will decline, too, he said, adding that a stabilization of home prices would be necessary to bring the crisis to its end.

Saying that his thinking "has evolved" in the last year, Mr. Greenspan also defended his record. "In 2005, I raised concerns that the protracted period of underpricing of risk, if history was any guide, would have dire consequences," he said. "This crisis, however, has turned out to be much broader than anything I could have imagined."

[LeSellers]

the government knew at least a year ago and tried to get the banks to stop doing this stuff. so yes it was the banks greed that got them into trouble.

CFR.

When, exactly was the Community Lending Act (or whatever, I can't look it up) repealed?

The only ones, BTW, who tried to get more control over the lending practices of the banks were Republicans, and Democrats blocked them. So, it is still a liberal mess, not a capitalist one.

And liberals (both Republican and Democrat) are still going to detroy this country's financial future. And use it to enslave us even more.

Lehi

[talisyn]

CFR.

When, exactly was the Community Lending Act (or whatever, I can't look it up) repealed?

The only ones, BTW, who tried to get more control over the lending practices of the banks were Republicans, and Democrats blocked them. So, it is still a liberal mess, not a capitalist one.

And liberals (both Republican and Democrat) are still going to detroy this country's financial future. And use it to enslave us even more.

Lehi

Another great example of the diversity and strength of the LDS church in the last few posts. BTW this financial crisis has a very tall family tree, progenitors from both sides of the aisle. There is more than enough blame to go around. I respectfully submit that the only people who are going to become slaves are those who used credit cards and refinanced their houses with impunity and glee. Those who took out sub-prime loans because they didn't make enough money to put 20% down first already were slaves to their paychecks and the American culture of home ownership. How's that for a conclusion?

[semlogo]

Well, if you want me toi believe that Joseph (or any of God's prophets commended) the use of lethal force to generate the funds from which bureaucrats can "give freely", I am prepared to listen.

If there is anything that indicates that families should off-shoulder their duty of supporting their members, please post.

If there is a statement advocating governmental interference in choosing and funding a charity, where is it?

I have never seen any such pronouncements. Just as we have not seen here the most trivial of hints that LDS parents should allow their children to attend government-run, tax-funded, welfare schools.

Liberalism is a hypocritical philosophy. Instead of doing charity, liberals use the force of government to coerce others to be "charitable". Liberals believe that doing good is good, but only as long as everyone, willing or no, must "contribute. Rather than searching for opportunities to serve, they set up bureaucracies to seek them out.

They do not allow others to find their own means of doing good, they set up another bureaucracy that commandeers the bulk of available (and sometimes unavailable) resources that would otherwise go to a wide range of true charities in order to fund their "one, true" (re)distribution effort.

As I have often said, I am not a conservative. But torn between two opposite government uber alles political positions, I prefer conservatism because, while they interfere in personal habits, they leave us alone in determining how to disburse the fruits of our labors. On this, most freedoms depend. Liberals make us slaves. Conservatives only intrude on our actions, liberals control our thoughts.

In my perfect world, there would be a very tiny state, one whose only function would be to enforce contracts and protect all other individual rights. Leaders would pay for the privilege, and would be chosen by lot from among those who put themselves forward. There would be no taxes, but user fees and subscriptions would cover all necessary costs. And there would be no governmental "charity" of any sort.

Since we are in a world where some people believe themselves to be superior to others because their motives are "better" than those of others. and who decided whose motives are good and whose bad? Well, it is the self-anointed, and they are so much better than others that they get to impose those determinations on the rest of us.

Lehi

What are you on about, then?

[semlogo]

CFR.When, exactly was the Community Lending Act (or whatever, I can't look it up) repealed? The only ones, BTW, who tried to get more control over the lending practices of the banks were Republicans, and Democrats blocked them. So, it is still a liberal mess, not a capitalist one.And liberals (both Republican and Democrat) are still going to detroy this country's financial future. And use it to enslave us even more.Lehi

By the time the legislation was up for a vote, it had been so watered down that it would have made the problem worse. Republicans did NOT try to help. I like the color of your Kool Aid! The CLA maybe resulted in 5% of the problem, BTW.

"How the money is organized" determines whether you ar free or not.Money is a representation of your life. You get it by trading your time, talents, and efforts for it. If someone, no matter how high-sounding a title he may have, take it, he has made you a slave for that period it took to earn it. Slavery is, by definition, "unfreedom".Lehi

That's a very interesting perspective.

[The Nehor]

In my perfect world, there would be a very tiny state, one whose only function would be to enforce contracts and protect all other individual rights. Leaders would pay for the privilege, and would be chosen by lot from among those who put themselves forward. There would be no taxes, but user fees and subscriptions would cover all necessary costs. And there would be no governmental "charity" of any sort.

In my perfect world there's an absolute monarchy ruled by God, an incredibly powerful state backed up by creation itself. There is no real property as all things belong to God and are lent to men for their use. Charity (both the pure love and helping others) is compulsory to avoid being cast out.

[semlogo]

"Now there was a great number of women, more than there was of men; therefore king Limhi commanded that every man should impart to the support of the widows and their children, that they might not perish with hunger; and this they did because of the greatness of their number that had been slain."

Mosiah 21:17

I believe the term I'm looking for here is....

Oh snap!