Diversity In The Church

[annewandering]

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

in that case you will agree that taxes are mandated to be used for the good of the people?

[thesometimesaint]

There is NO compulsion in heaven. ALL Power and Authority will flow to us without compulsory means.

[The Nehor]

There is NO compulsion in heaven. ALL Power and Authority will flow to us without compulsory means.

Yes, but I wasn't talking about heaven. I was talking about ideal earthly government.

Exalted beings create the same effect with no need for any compulsion.

[semlogo]

There is NO compulsion in heaven. ALL Power and Authority will flow to us without compulsory means.

There is no compulsion on earth either. Only consequences for breaking the law. Same as in heaven.

Unless that definition meets your idea of compulsion. In which case, there is compulsion in both heaven and earth.

[The Nehor]

There is no compulsion on earth either. Only consequences for breaking the law.

I said compulsory for those who want to avoid a certain consequence.

[LeSellers]

in that case you will agree that taxes are mandated to be used for the good of the people?

Not taxes. User fees and subscriptions. Even the Founders had a limited vision about how government could work, but they were hindered by having been subjects of a king.

I have a few issues with the Constitution, but were we ever to have a government that observed it, I'd be very, very happy. If we had taxes that did only the following, we'd be under the Constitution

• To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
  
• To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
  
• To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
  
• To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
  
• To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
  
• To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
  
• To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
  
• To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
  
• To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
  
• To provide and maintain a Navy;
  
• To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
  
• To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
  
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
  

There is no provision for welfare, for schools, for flood victims' relief, or for hundreds or thousands of things the Congress funds every year, funds without any constitutional authorization whatsoever.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

"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

1. Limhi was not a prophet.
   
2. This is not a declaration of what the Lord mandates
   
3. This was a specific reaction to a limited situation
   
4. The widows and orphans of fallen warriors are the burden of the state because they fell doing the will of the state; i.e., these were earned benefits, not freebies
   

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[LeSellers]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What's your point?

Do you know what "general welfare" is? Or even "welfare" (in the XVIII)?

Lehi

[The Nehor]

1. Limhi was not a prophet.
   
2. This is not a declaration of what the Lord mandates
   
3. This was a specific reaction to a limited situation
   
4. The widows and orphans of fallen warriors are the burden of the state because they fell doing the will of the state; i.e., these were earned benefits, not freebies
   

Lehi

Limhi was declared to be a righteous man. In the surrounding verses it is clear that the people of Limhi were well into the process of repentance when they did this.

No, it's fairly clear that they died because they wanted to fight. From the scriptures it seems that the people demanded that they go fight and Limhi acquiesced to their will. It was unlikely this was a regularly constituted army with death benefits and a pension (enslaved people don't usually have armies). It was a collected group of people with whatever weapons they could scavenge fighting a Revolutionary War.

I want to be clear that I am opposed to many government-supported 'charities'. However, I think it's wrong to put all of them under a blanket condemnation.

I wouldn't care much for a government that didn't react with food, water, and medical supplies to domestic tragedies. In fact, I think the leaders of such a government should be dragged out in the streets and shot.

[talisyn]

There is no provision for welfare, for schools, for flood victims' relief, or for hundreds or thousands of things the Congress funds every year, funds without any constitutional authorization whatsoever.

Lehi

You know, one of the wonders of the constitution is that it doesn't tie you down to what was available 233 years ago. That is one reason I believe it to be divinely inspired. So let's get rid of welfare, let's get rid of schools, FEMA, social security. Go hide in your bunker until all the poor and downtrodden and uneducated have died of starvation and disease. I wish you well in the world that comes after. It's gonna kind've make it hard to practice the traits of humility, charity, and Christ-like compassion though.

[LeSellers]

I wouldn't care much for a government that didn't react with food, water, and medical supplies to domestic tragedies. In fact, I think the leaders of such a government should be dragged out in the streets and shot.

And I do not care much for people ("government") that would take money from some people and give it to others solely because they were involved in a "domestic tragedy".

What makes one group, say the New Orleanians, who suffered with Katrina and their idiotic government, more worthy of "assistance" than one family in central Kansas whose home was similarly destroyed by flood? The first are "victims" and we are all supposed to worship them, the second is not even mentioned in the morning news.

There is no provision in the Constitution for such "aid". USmericans are far more generous than the government wants us to believe. I have no doubt that there would have been far better assistance rendered had the government just stayed out of the whole affair.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

The courts(also a function of our government) have repeatedly said that as a general rule what is not specifically prohibited in the Constitution is allowable. IE. there is no specific clause in the US Constitution that prohibits the formation of the United States Air Force. Therefore we are allowed to have one.

[LeSellers]

You know, one of the wonders of the constitution is that it doesn't tie you down to what was available 233 years ago. That is one reason I believe it to be divinely inspired. So let's get rid of welfare, let's get rid of schools, FEMA, social security. Go hide in your bunker until all the poor and downtrodden and uneducated have died of starvation and disease. I wish you well in the world that comes after. It's gonna kind've make it hard to practice the traits of humility, charity, and Christ-like compassion though.

You have little imagination if you actually believe this.

FEMA has always been a disaster, it wasn't "Brownie" who failed.

Schools destroy far more than they help.

Welfare is a joke, and MedicAid and MediCare cost far more than would be the case without them.

AntiSocial inSecucurity was nothing more than a political ploy designed to keep Democrats in power for a generation or more (it worked), and now has made more people into dependents than anything else.

I can't hide. The IRS has my address.

The poor would fare better, the hungry be more filled, and the uneducated better learned without government interference in these areas than they are with it. Iit would cost less.

And we would all be freer.

Lehi

[hagoth7]

Diversity is full of epic win.

We all come from different places and backgrounds and cultural upbringings.

We are diverse.

We all unite under the gospel.

In that respect, the universal nature of the gospel unites us and binds us.

How our faith manifests though, because of our diversity?

Will come in all different shapes and forms.

And those different shapes and forms aren't deviations at all.

They are an opportunity for us to strengthen our testimony, by seeing the multi-faceted nature of faith in action.

Sometimes, I think people confuse the cultural manifestation of their faith with faith itself. I think that's where a lot of mischief comes in honestly.

And that goes for political diversity too, if that's the main point of this thread. It seems the idea that there is a one true party is very americana, because non-American Mormons tend to be somewhat confused by our tendencies within the states to fuse political affiliations with religious devotion.

kokaipo's post immediately rises to somewhere in my favorite one or two posts of everything I've had the privilege to read in this forum during the last two years.

Profound. Poetic. Gorgeous.

Brother/Sister, whoever you are, I love your soul!

[The Nehor]

And I do not care much for people ("government") that would take money from some people and give it to others solely because they were involved in a "domestic tragedy".

Okay, let's talk about a friend of mine. He has serious medical problems. He lives a fairly normal life but requires regular medical treatment or he will die. This treatment ranges from the high hundreds of thousands to over a million dollars a year. Throw away all government aid and he'll DIE. People will feel bad. You MIGHT get enough money raised for a year...maybe two before people lose interest. Then he dies. Is that right? Fair? Good?

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches

by John W Dean

Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush

by John W Dean

Conservatives Without Conscience

by John Dean

Just face it. You don't like government. Maybe you'd be better of living where there is no government. Good luck.

[talisyn]

And I do not care much for people ("government") that would take money from some people and give it to others solely because they were involved in a "domestic tragedy".

What makes one group, say the New Orleanians, who suffered with Katrina and their idiotic government, more worthy of "assistance" than one family in central Kansas whose home was similarly destroyed by flood? The first are "victims" and we are all supposed to worship them, the second is not even mentioned in the morning news.

There is no provision in the Constitution for such "aid". USmericans are far more generous than the government wants us to believe. I have no doubt that there would have been far better assistance rendered had the government just stayed out of the whole affair.

Lehi

I would have to agree with you about the response to Hurricane Katrina, the Church and Wal-Mart did a much better job helping people than FEMA did.

[semlogo]

You have little imagination if you actually believe this.

FEMA has always been a disaster, it wasn't "Brownie" who failed.

Schools destroy far more than they help.

Welfare is a joke, and MedicAid and MediCare cost far more than would be the case without them.

AntiSocial inSecucurity was nothing more than a political ploy designed to keep Democrats in power for a generation or more (it worked), and now has made more people into dependents than anything else.

I can't hide. The IRS has my address.

The poor would fare better, the hungry be more filled, and the uneducated better learned without government interference in these areas than they are with it. Iit would cost less.

And we would all be freer.

Lehi

Libertarians and communists truly are two sides of the same coin.

[thesometimesaint]

talisyn:

Deliberate criminal neglect is not a function of Government. The Bush administration deliberately ordered FEMA not to respond.

http://www.911kemet.co.uk/katrina.html

[semlogo]

And I do not care much for people ("government") that would take money from some people and give it to others solely because they were involved in a "domestic tragedy".

What makes one group, say the New Orleanians, who suffered with Katrina and their idiotic government, more worthy of "assistance" than one family in central Kansas whose home was similarly destroyed by flood? The first are "victims" and we are all supposed to worship them, the second is not even mentioned in the morning news.

There is no provision in the Constitution for such "aid". USmericans are far more generous than the government wants us to believe. I have no doubt that there would have been far better assistance rendered had the government just stayed out of the whole affair.

Lehi

[talisyn]

kokaipo's post immediately rises to somewhere in my favorite one or two posts of everything I've had the privilege to read in this forum during the last two years.

Profound. Poetic. Gorgeous.

Brother/Sister, whoever you are, I love your soul!

Thank you for reminding me about the intent of this thread, and I agree kokapo's post was awesome. *deep breath*

I am indeed thankful the LDS Church has a place for both LeSellers and myself, despite our political differences. And I am thankful LeSellers and I both want what is best for our fellow citizens. Our different views yet unity in the gospel of Jesus Christ will help to make us stronger in the face of adversaries. LeSellers, I would be happy to stand with you and defend the constitution of the United States of America to the death.

[BCSpace]

Yes. I gave you the link.

i am sorry but i think we are misunderstanding each other. i have no doubts about the marriage issue. and i support the efforts to keep the traditional definition of marriage.

some people in the church, good members, may well disagree about prop 8 while still agreeing with the doctrine of marriage. they may be wrong. in fact i think they are. that doesnt mean they are going against doctrine. it means they are going against prop 8.

i am not going to defend them except to say we are not robots. we have free agency to decide for ourselves if doctrine applies to a particular circumstance. clearly they feel it doesnt in this case.

one thing about it is it has helped us to solidify our own views on the subject. opposition has a tendency to make a person think and thinking is a good thing.

I said that the Church's support of Prop 8 was doctrine by definition. The definition, according to the Church, is that which is published by the Church is doctrine. The Church has published it's support for Prop 8, therefore, by voting against it, you are opposed to LDS doctrine in that case. It really is as simple as that.

[LeSellers]

Libertarians and communists truly are two sides of the same coin.

If you believe this, you know nothing about either communism or libertarianism.

They are not of the same coin, but totally opposite; one does not complete the other.

Furthermore, I see a Godwin's Law violation here. I am not a Communist, nor is any other libertarian.

Lehi

[semlogo]

If you believe this, you know nothing about either communism or libertarianism.

They are not of the same coin, but totally opposite; one does not complete the other.

Furthermore, I see a Godwin's Law violation here. I am not a Communist, nor is any other libertarian.

Lehi

Two sides of the same coin are by definition on the opposite side. But both libertarians and communists are just as clueless about how the real world works and about human nature.