Secret Combinations Vs. Conspiracy Theories:

[Ahab]

That is not hard! If Linux is better than Windows, why are 90% of computers worldwide running on Windows, and around 1% running Linux?

Free bundling with most computers, for starters, and then some advertising to back that up, along with making Windows "easier to use" than Linux.

Here are some stats for you to consider. Do you think all those hard nosed commercial companies would be willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars licensing Windows when they could get it for free in Linux? Do you think all those cash strapped schools and charities would be crazy to license Windows if they could get it for free in Linux? Even the Church prefers to use Windows! A few months ago when I visited the temple I was invited to go into their offices to help me sort out a problem I was having with the genealogical data I had entered on the Church's website. I noticed that they were still using Windows XP! So it seems the Church prefers to pay for the use of an outdated version of Windows rather than using the latest releases of Linux for free! So if your son is so smart, perhaps he should go and save the Church a lot of money by persuading them to abandon Windows and adopt Linux instead!

The Church uses Windows because the majority of the population like and prefer Windows over something better and more complex to use, not because it's the best platform. I liken it to why the Church started out using the KJV, and still uses it.

It's not because it's the "best" way to access the teachings given through the Holy Spirit.

That is a typical response one expects from Linux fans. A good operating system is one that is intuitive to use and just works, without you having to worry about what is under the hood. It is like a good, well designed car. All the controls are well placed and intuitive, and it just works, without you having to be a mechanic to be able to drive it. Linux is made by geeks for geeks. They are only interested in themselves. They are too arrogant to think about the non-technical housewife, the grandmother, the schoolteacher, or the company employee. They are like the arrogant car mechanic who thinks that anybody who can't fix cars like he can doesn't deserve to own or drive a car! It takes a commercial organization like Microsoft to worry about needs of its customers rather than the selfish instincts of its software engineers. That is why they can produce something that everybody wants, rather than something that is clunky and hard to use, and is only good for the geeks that made it.

The fact that something is "easy" to use doesn't make it "better" than something else.

A lot of people prefer using "money" instead of simply extending and accepting "charity", when charity is the best possible option.

And if there was a limited supply, who would decide who gets a share and who doesn't?

The person currently in "possession" of the resource.

Suppose I have something, and someone else comes along who wants it. If I felt that I "needed" it, myself, I'd likely keep it, unless I felt that someone else "needed" it more than I did. If I had plenty to spare, though, I could either give it away, or sell it.

Now you tell me: Why would I sell it when I could simply give it away?

Hint: My answer is that I wouldn't, unless I really "needed" something I hate called "money", otherwise I would give it away.

And where would the investment come from to build the expensive plants and acquire the expensive and specialized heavy duty machinery to manufacture more of the goods that are of greatest demand?

From people who were both willing and able to "give" of their resources, including their own ability to do some actual work.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Ahab

[Ahab]

You clearly do not know what money is.

Lehi

You apparently believe I do not know what money is.

Actually, I do.

[Jeff K.]

I refer you again to the two YouTube videos posted here. That is the kind of thing I was referring to. His advocating of the book None Dare Call it Conspiracy for example leaves question marks over the depth of his thinking, or even prophetic insight into the subject. That is a very cheap, shallow, superficial book. If he was impressed by that book, then I would say that his message was not very reliable (to say the least), neither intellectually nor prophetically. Similarly, his paranoia over Communism reveals the same lack of depth in his thinking at that time. As events proved those fears were unfounded. The real threat came (and is still coming) from elsewhere. His saving grace was that he did change his rhetoric after he became the President of the Church, which means that he was capable of doing better all along.

Your loyalty to the memory of a former great prophet and Apostle is certainly commendable, and I admire you for it; but I also reserve the right to object to being fed with what is after all a load of crap. More importantly, I reserve the right not to feed the same load of crap to others who are still riding the "conspiracy theory" bandwagon inspired by his (earlier) incorrect teachings.

If I might, communism was a very real factor and one that did indeed cause a great deal of trauma. Stalin, the day of his death urged the bombers to "fly" and planned to give orders the next day. Mysteriously he died, probably by Beria's hand. I do not necessarily like the McCarthy hearings, but they were not inaccurate in their portrayal either. Of course growing up in a city surrounded by a wall built by the people set upon conquering and taking my rights away from me, I am a bit jaded on the subject. The Venona transcripts bear this out along with other files made public when the Soviet Union fell. By then it was dismissed as old history and never fully given the correction it deserved.

Are you or have you ever been a member of the Whabbist movement seeking the destruction of American democracy? The war against such groups is overwhelmingly in US favor (believe it or not), and the tools of warcraft (horde and alliance you might say) are not nearly as powerful as many fear. But if they achieved a level of parity that allowed extremists to be a threat and made inroads into our society, we as a society I believe would also want to know as we strip naked to get on airplanes and wish we were Nigerian for the huge discounts.

Which reminds me, I got an email today about some bank issues there, looks interesting.

The context of the times.

[zerinus]

Free bundling with most computers, for starters, and then some advertising to back that up, along with making Windows "easier to use" than Linux.

Large corporations don’t obtain their Windows that way. They license it directly from Microsoft. The licensing terms allows them to install their copy of Windows on so many numbers of computers—whatever number they have, or expect to have. They have large IT departments run by professionals, and these advise the management on their IT requirements. (I guess the Church office building has such an IT department, and they license Windows from Microsoft in the same way). These licensing terms can cost large corporations hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. If they could do it with Linux for free, take my word for it, they would!

In some countries like the Middle East, the Far East, the Indian subcontinent, and several other countries of the world, they mostly use pirated editions of Windows. In some countries they couldn’t use Windows legally even if they wanted to, because they are under US economic sanctions; and Windows is a US product. So basically they either have to use pirated copies, or do without. But they prefer to use the pirated copies of Windows rather than use Linux. And guess what, Microsoft doesn’t try very hard to stop them! Go figure!

The Church uses Windows because the majority of the population like and prefer Windows over something better and more complex to use, not because it's the best platform.

Well, people are voting with their feet (and wallets) in favour of Windows; so I wouldn’t take too seriously the claims of Linux fans that it is any “better,” just less easy to use. Windows is better and easier to use.

I liken it to why the Church started out using the KJV, and still uses it.

It's not because it's the "best" way to access the teachings given through the Holy Spirit.

I am going to have to disagree with you on that one. I believe that the KJV is indeed “the ‘best’ way to access the teachings given through the Holy Spirit”. It is not perfect by any means; but a better one has not been made—with the exception of the JST.

The fact that something is "easy" to use doesn't make it "better" than something else.

No matter how good it is, if it is unusable by most people who need to use it, then it is to that extent useless. They do pretty much the same thing though, except that one is easier to use (and maintain).

The person currently in "possession" of the resource.

Suppose I have something, and someone else comes along who wants it. If I felt that I "needed" it, myself, I'd likely keep it, unless I felt that someone else "needed" it more than I did. If I had plenty to spare, though, I could either give it away, or sell it.

That is not what I meant. If there are 300 computers available in the market place, and there are 500 people wanting one, who decides who gets one and who doesn’t? In a market driven economy, if a commodity is in short supply, the price goes up, and only those who can afford it, or those for whom it is important enough, will spend the money to buy it. Then when manufacturers discover that something is in demand and in short supply, they rush to mass produce it, and then the price drops down dramatically, and everybody can afford to buy one.

From people who were both willing and able to "give" of their resources, including their own ability to do some actual work.

I still don’t understand how large manufacturing concerns could be financed, developed, and accounted for without the use of money, if nothing else as an accounting tool.

Edited June 30, 2011 by zerinus

[LeSellers]

You apparently believe I do not know what money is.

Okeh, have a go at it.

What is money?

Please show why people believe that money (not just paper, fiat money) accept it in trade for their goods and services. Why, after thousands of years, people have never come up with a better solution to the problem of no one's being able to be self-sufficient in meeting all of his needs and wants.

Lehi

[Ahab]

If they could do it with Linux for free, take my word for it, they would!

I'm sure you believe that, but I know better than to believe that, myself. There is a lot more at work in the world than you seem to realize.

I am going to have to disagree with you on that one. I believe that the KJV is indeed “the ‘best’ way to access the teachings given through the Holy Spirit”. It is not perfect by any means; but a better one has not been made—with the exception of the JST.

Heh, with the exception of the JST, huh. Why do you think they're not using the JST, then?

I still don’t understand how large manufacturing concerns could be financed, developed, and accounted for without the use of money, if nothing else as an accounting tool.

Because it doesn't take any money to do the actual work, which is where all the real power is.

Take someone with a million dollars and someone with anything of real value... like some food, for example.

Who is better off, in your opinion: the person with a million dollars or the person with something of real value... like food, or clothing, or shelter?

You can't eat money. You can't wear it, or sleep in it. It doesn't make you healthy. It's good for nothing except to trade it away for something else of real value, but what if nobody wanted that thing called "money" because they all realized how worthless it is, in itself?

The person with food is better off than a person with a million dollars unless the person with a million dollars can somehow convince someone with food to trade their food for some or all of that "money".

Can you see that?

Now suppose you want someone to do some work for you, and all you have to give him for his work is some "money". Unless that person can trade that money for something, that money won't do him any real good, so why not just give people what they want instead of making them have to go out and "trade" for the things they really want to have in the first place?

The way of the world is a big sham, I tell you, and there is a much better way to do things.

[Jeff K.]

Actually money is simply a convenient and more efficient substitute for barter.

When we barter for things there is an inherent inefficiency because bartering implies single objects that cannot be reduced. A car for example for a motorcycle. A person with one car may be exchanging too much of a car for a motorcycle he wants, so he willingly gives away a surplus beyond trade worth in order to obtain the motorcycle. Now one could argue that by agreeing to the exccess, the person has established the price he wished. However that begs the question of alternatives. If an alternative to more precisely trade an item or service for the motorcycle, would the individual use it? Yes. Money allows a more precise exchange of labor, or goods, for other goods. Money more precisely allows us to capture the percieved value we have. It isn't a sham, it is a better measuring device of our desires.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

I still don’t understand how large manufacturing concerns could be financed, developed, and accounted for without the use of money, if nothing else as an accounting tool.

Because it doesn't take any money to do the actual work, which is where all the real power is.

Take someone with a million dollars and someone with anything of real value... like some food, for example.

Who is better off, in your opinion: the person with a million dollars or the person with something of real value... like food, or clothing, or shelter?

You can't eat money. You can't wear it, or sleep in it. It doesn't make you healthy. It's good for nothing except to trade it away for something else of real value, but what if nobody wanted that thing called "money" because they all realized how worthless it is, in itself?

The person with food is better off than a person with a million dollars unless the person with a million dollars can somehow convince someone with food to trade their food for some or all of that "money".

Can you see that?

Now suppose you want someone to do some work for you, and all you have to give him for his work is some "money". Unless that person can trade that money for something, that money won't do him any real good, so why not just give people what they want instead of making them have to go out and "trade" for the things they really want to have in the first place?

The way of the world is a big sham, I tell you, and there is a much better way to do things.

A corporation is difficult to run when inefficiencies exist. Money allows us to measure performance in many ways. And it allows laborers to divide their labor more precisely, as it does corporations. In fact, money is one of the tools that allows laborers to judge the corporations view of them to be acceptable or not.

[zerinus]

I'm sure you believe that, but I know better than to believe that, myself. There is a lot more at work in the world than you seem to realize.

Well, I can go by my own personal experience. I don’t claim to be an expert Linux user; but I know enough about using computers to know which one I like best; and I choose Windows any day.

Heh, with the exception of the JST, huh. Why do you think they're not using the JST, then?

In a way they are using it—as footnotes, in the appendix, and in the Pearl of Great Price. As to why they are using it in that way, rather than publishing it as a book, I can think of several good reasons. (1) Joseph Smith did not really complete it (although he completed it enough to consider publishing it). (2) Publishing it as footnotes enables the reader to compare the two, and notice the changes that were made, which is a great learning experience. (3) Publishing it in that way prevents the critics of the Church from accusing it of “changing the Bible,” thus causing investigators to mistrust the LDS edition of the Bible. They successfully level that accusation against the Jehovah’s Witnesses—with some justification I might add.

Because it doesn't take any money to do the actual work, which is where all the real power is.

Take someone with a million dollars and someone with anything of real value... like some food, for example.

Who is better off, in your opinion: the person with a million dollars or the person with something of real value... like food, or clothing, or shelter?

You can't eat money. You can't wear it, or sleep in it. It doesn't make you healthy. It's good for nothing except to trade it away for something else of real value, but what if nobody wanted that thing called "money" because they all realized how worthless it is, in itself?

The person with food is better off than a person with a million dollars unless the person with a million dollars can somehow convince someone with food to trade their food for some or all of that "money".

Can you see that?

Now suppose you want someone to do some work for you, and all you have to give him for his work is some "money". Unless that person can trade that money for something, that money won't do him any real good, so why not just give people what they want instead of making them have to go out and "trade" for the things they really want to have in the first place?

The way of the world is a big sham, I tell you, and there is a much better way to do things.

I am sure you have reasons to believe all of that; but I remain to be convinced.

[LeSellers]

You apparently believe I do not know what money is.

Okeh, have a go at it.

What is money?

Please show why people believe that money (not just paper, fiat money) accept it in trade for their goods and services. Why, after thousands of years, people have never come up with a better solution to the problem of no one's being able to be self-sufficient in meeting all of his needs and wants.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Money is simply a means of exchange. ALL money is fiat money. It's the value someone puts on some object, be it silver, gold, paper or even clam shells.

Suppose I have a bushel of wheat, and you have a bushel of gold. You are hungry. Who is more wealthy?

[Jeff K.]

Okeh, have a go at it.

What is money?

Please show why people believe that money (not just paper, fiat money) accept it in trade for their goods and services. Why, after thousands of years, people have never come up with a better solution to the problem of no one's being able to be self-sufficient in meeting all of his needs and wants.

Lehi

Well, there's "credit".

Next we will discuss default

[blarsen]

There are just as many articles and videos debunking the conspiracy theories of "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth". Here is one:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=G8yfNLSp_Pw

Wow! This thread really went off the track.

For those reading this who may be interested, a few things are worth noticing about zerinus’ post shown above.

First, he once again, sidesteps my request, nay, my plea, to provide evidence for what I’ve said being a conspiracy theory, using either the dictionary definitions he originally cited, or using his own definition. Why is he avoiding providing this evidence?

Second, once again he missuses the term ‘conspiracy theory when he labels Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth as dealing in “conspiracy theories”, when all they are doing is calling into question the official explanation of what caused the collapse of the WTC buildings on 9/11. They are providing an alternative hypothesis for HOW the buildings collapsed, not who planned and carried out the collapses. They are posing very legitimate scientific questions; and have cogent reasons doing so.

Third, zerinus’ providing the two videos he did, is rather red-herring-ish in my view; coming across as avoiding answering the questions I've posed to him. The first video calls into question the collapse time of Building 7, etc., in a very nasty, profanity-laced tone; and essentially calling Richard Gauge a deceiver and liar. This tactic and attitude is widespread among sites and individuals opposing 9/11 truth. Zerinus used the same accusations against David Chandler.

The collapse time measured by Chandler is the global collapse time of WTC 7 measured from the onset of collapse of the main roof line; you could also back it up to the onset of the collapse of the ‘Penthouse wall’ and the west Penthouse, which moves the total global collapse back to about 7 seconds.

For those interested, detailed discussion for the collapse of WTC 7 can be seen in mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti’s recorded presentation at: http://911blogger.co...y-tony-szamboti

and in an article by Kevin Ryan titled: ‘The NIST WTC 7 Report: Bush Science reaches its peak’ at http://911blogger.com/node/17704

They go into quite a bit of analytic detail regarding the several failures of the Final NIST report and how it is totally inadequate. Szamboti addresses the East Penthouse issue, as Kevin may do, as well.

Here is another short discussion arguing why the collapse of the East Penthouse atop WTC 7 was a separate event:

http://georgewashing...e-of-wtc-7.html

Finally, here, is David Chandler giving a detailed explanation of his finding that the near-initial 2.5 seconds of the global collapse of WTC 7 was in free-fall time, and what the implications for that are. This 2 to 2.5 second free fall time was admitted to by the NIST report and included in one of its appendices, sans explanation of it.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=mSyqfM-Rgy0

So, for those of you who go through these links with a thoughtful, understanding and open mind, you will see that this topic is very controversial and for very good reasons. It is not worthy of dismissal by calling people liars, questioning their motives, or dismissing what they have to say by spitting out ‘conspiracy theory!’, which, I think I have shown, is used too often in a way meant to end any reflective consideration of anything so-labeled. Zerinus has used the term several times in this discussion in this manner.

Finally, here is a video voiced by Ed Asner, as part of a series of short ~30 second adds being pushed to explain the alternative explosive/incendiaries hypothesis for what brought down the 3 WTC buildings on 9/11. Watch the first part of this especially and ask yourself whether you are seeing a gravity-driven collapse or explosive events. Also watch for what appear to be segments of columns/beams exuding what appears to be white smoke as they fly through the air. White ‘smoke’ or dust, is one of the main by-products in a thermitic reaction, consisting of Al2O3.

http://911blogger.co...pics/ae911truth

While I was looking, I found the following video of a TV news reporter interviewing one of these conspiracy nuts by the name of Jesse Richard, editor of TvNewsLIES.org. The interesting part of this video starts about half way down in the middle of the interview, when the reporter asks Jesse Richard to provide some detailed facts behind what he thinks is wrong with the Government report on 9/11. He doesn't provide anything by way of facts and figures, but just wild fantasies which better fit in a fairy tale story than credible argument. This is the typical mindset of a conspiracy theorist. No brains, just fantasies. The interview can be seen here:

http://www.youtube.c...=1&feature=fvwp

People who discover that the official story has gaping holes are apt to fill the vacuum and start theorizing about who did it. No mystery there. Doesn't really warrant name calling.

Once again, zerinus chooses to spit out his discussion-killing epithet, 'conspiracy theorist'. A very serious question for you,Zerinus: Do Kevin Ryan and Tony Szamboti in what they have presented above, warrant your label of having "the typical mindset of a conspiracy theorist. No brains, just fantasies." Dig into what they are saying and come up with evidence for such an accusation. Are you projecting again, maybe?

Edited July 2, 2011 by blarsen

[LeSellers]

Money is simply a means of exchange. ALL money is fiat money. It's the value someone puts on some object, be it silver, gold, paper or even clam shells.

Your first and third sentences are true. Fortunately, however, the second is not.

"Fiat" (from the Latin) means by diktat: Paper fiat money (the most recognized kind) has no intrinsic value (except as fuel or tinder, or perhaps as wallpaper), it is "valuable only because the government dictates that it has. There is a new, even less valuable kind of money: electronic money. You can do nothing with it at all, and, from the government's perspective, it's even better because, while a dollar bill costs about 7~8¢ to make*, an electron is essentially free (and the state can track it, so it knows who has it, and where he's holding it, for not much more). You do not have the power to refuse paper money as payment for "all debts, public [or] private." That's the fiat. If someone offers to buy my services for tea or rice, I can refuse. I must, under the threat of the law (i.e., the use of lethal force against me), accept his offer of fiat money.

fiat

–noun

1. an authoritative decree, sanction, or order: a royal fiat.

2. a formula containing the word fiat, by which a person in authority gives sanction.

3. an arbitrary decree or pronouncement, especially by a person or group of persons having absolute authority to enforce it: The king ruled by fiat.

Origin:

1625–35; < Latin: let it be done, 3rd singular present subjunctive of fierī to become

—fiat. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fiat (accessed: July 03, 2011).

diktat

–noun

1. a harsh, punitive settlement or decree imposed unilaterally on a defeated nation, political party, etc.

2. any decree or authoritative statement.

—diktat. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/diktat (accessed: July 03, 2011).

* The profit (90+¢ in the case of a dollar) is called "seignorage", and is another way the central banks of the world make money. They produce a "product" and sell it (by force of the state) to us for much more than it is worth, even as the commodities of which it is composed.

"Money", in whatever form it takes, is a certificate that you (the holder) have performed some service or at one time has held some property that another person valued more highly than anything else for which he could have traded his own money (also representing the production of a valuable good or service). (This is true if you hold the money legitimately, i.e., you did not steal it, nor take it by fraud. If your father did the work, and gave you the money, it still represents the value of the good or service he traded to get it. Force, theft, and fraud negate the value of money, but fortunately, they are, so far, a fraction of the private economy.)

We are told that money represents a store of value, and this is true for all kinds of money except fiat money, which only has the value it is allowed to have by the Law of Supply and Demand, and, as fiat money can be produced without being backed by earlier production of a valuable good or service, there is more money than desired products. that means each existing unit of money is now worth less than the same nominal unit was before the new "money" flooded the market.

Money is, as others have pointed out, a unit of account. That means when you "make" a "profit" by selling something with real value (let's say gold or silver), that government can say, "Well, you bought that ounce of gold for $700, and you sold it for $1,500. You owe us 30% of $800." The problem is, you didn't make a profit at all. Why? Because with the $700 you used to buy the gold, you could have bought 300 loaves of bread, and with the $1,500 you sold it for, you could buy 300 loaves of bread. the value of the gold did not rise, it was the value of the dollar that had fallen. So, in effect, the government just stole $240 (the tax). which is why governments love inflation: it allows them to steal the wealth of the people silently, without passing any new tax laws.

The real problem with fiat money is that it does not represent true value. Both you and Ahab have hinted that money itself is not valuable, that its only use is to buy things people want. This is true of the only money our children have ever held in their hands because "Johnson nickels" (the clad quarters he introduced) are essentially without value, even as metal. He took the silver out of our coinage, just a Roosevelt took the gold out of our currency. And both men were thieves on a colossal scale because of their calculated confiscation of the wealth of USmericans through their debasing schemes. I use the word "debase" here not only because it is the formal term for what they did, but because it sounds like the very evil they perpetrated.

Whether we return to a gold standard or any other standard where the money is not controlled by the whims of men in power, no matter the short term turmoil (much less than what will inevitably happen unless we do, just further down the road), we will all (except bankers, bureaucrats, and politicians) be much better off.

Suppose I have a bushel of wheat, and you have a bushel of gold. You are hungry. Who is more wealthy?

Suppose, in addition, that you are gluten intolerant. Your wheat is of even less value to you than my gold to me: I may be hungry without your wheat, but you will die if you eat it.

Your situation has no practical application because you do not have the only wheat, and if there is anyone who does have wheat, but would rather have shoes or firewood, he'll trade me some wheat so he can easily trade his new gold (that used to be mine) for what he wants.

Money is, as you hint here, a commodity. And while gold, unlike paper, has intrinsic value (we use in computer circuits and for space station shielding), you cannot eat it. That does not make it worthless. Because even if you had the only bushel of wheat on the planet (which would mean you'd die from hunger two weeks after the rest of us), you'd freeze because Ebedoulos has the only firewood, and your feet would bleed continuously because CV75 has the only shoes.

The value of money is set, irrespective of government diktat, by the Law of Supply and demand, just as the value of anything is set. The more there is, the less valuable it becomes. The easier it is to make the representation of money (a dollar bill or a silver dollar), the faster all similar representations, including the new one and all the existing old ones, loses true value.

Money is many things, but fiat money is only a faint echo of real money, and it is destructive to those forced to accept it.

Lehi

Edited July 3, 2011 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

b

[HeatherAnn]

I have a theory that you all are theorizing because you theoretically fear theory.

Is that a conspiracy theory? lol

Secret combinations seems to imply what many conspiracy theories do.

We just don't know the actual combinations.

Yet it doesn't take much to know that there is often corruption when people get a taste of money & power.

What we can each do...

1. Be informed, as much as possible, learn from past - keep growing intellectually (but don't get obsessed!)

2. Vote & get involved

3. Stand up for what's right

4. Learn to trust & act on spirit, be aware - keep growing spiritually

5. Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst

[blarsen]

I have a theory that you all are theorizing because you theoretically fear theory.

Is that a conspiracy theory? lol

Secret combinations seems to imply what many conspiracy theories do.

We just don't know the actual combinations.

Yet it doesn't take much to know that there is often corruption when people get a taste of money & power.

What we can each do...

1. Be informed, as much as possible, learn from past - keep growing intellectually (but don't get obsessed!)

2. Vote & get involved

3. Stand up for what's right

4. Learn to trust & act on spirit, be aware - keep growing spiritually

5. Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst

That's a good list. But we can do more.

Picking up on what Pres. Benson said about a single secret combination increasing their power and control in this and many other countries, we can look for such groups and people who seem to be doing this. A key indicator would be those who are taking action that weakens, supercedes and even does away with our Constituional government and our individual liberties. One suspicious movement consists of those who are calling for and acting in ways that put in place more global control, both financial and political; control that is more and more unaccountable to the people, and in effect, end-runs the Constitution.

The main thing is that we should not be detered from thinking about what Pres. Benson was testifying about. We shouldn't be ashamed to think, theorize and investigate such things; in a word, to ponder them; not being deflected by the embarrassment and shame that have been attached to the terms: 'conspiracy theory, or conspiracy theorist', which zerinus so loves to use. This is especially true of LDS. who have been powerfully and specifically warned about such groups and the danger they pose by Moroni and 23 years ago by President Benson.

A conspiracy theory by the dictionary definition supplied by zerinus, is simply an idea that hidden groups may be behind certain nefarious public events. The theory may or may not include very good evidence for who may be members or agents of such groups. But a hidden group bent on planning and carrying out evil or unlawful activity is a conspiracy. Such groups are also known as secret combinations in an older usage; one incorporated into the Book of Mormon accounts of such groups. One could maybe use 'secret combination theory' to end-run the approbrium attached to 'conspiracy theory'. The worst and most insidious of these, in my view, are those that are oath-bound and more politically oriented, not just the criminal mafia groups; though the latter can segue into or be used by the former.

In my own case, I am directly involved in 9/11 scientific research. I think there is overwhelming evidence that the official story of what brought down the WTC buildings on that day is wrong. This would strongly imply that we have not gotten to the bottom of discovering all those involved in the events of that day. That is why we are calling for an independent investigation to really drill down into all the documented anomalies surrounding 9/11; many of which were entirely ignored by the 9/11 Commission, the FEMA and the two NIST reports. What was promulgated in those reports would have never flown if they had been subjected to outside scientific review.

This is an EXCEEDINGLY important subject. Very important to an LDS discussion forum. Any body else willing to come out of the blogosphere woodwork on this subject? LDS need to start waking up a la the Lords commandment in Ether 8.

Edited July 4, 2011 by blarsen

[HeatherAnn]

That's a good list. But we can do more.

Picking up on what Pres. Benson said about a single secret combination increasing their power and control in this and many other countries, we can look for such groups and people who seem to be doing this. A key indicator would be those who are taking action that weakens, supercedes and even does away with our Constituional government and our individual liberties. One suspicious movement consists of those who are calling for and acting in ways that put in place more global control, both financial and political; control that is more and more unaccountable to the people, and in effect, end-runs the Constitution.

The main thing is that we should not be detered from thinking about what Pres. Benson was testifying about. We shouldn't be ashamed to think, theorize and investigate such things; in a word, to ponder them; not being deflected by the embarrassment and shame that have been attached to the terms: 'conspiracy theory, or conspiracy theorist', which zerinus so loves to use. This is especially true of LDS. who have been powerfully and specifically warned about such groups and the danger they pose by Moroni and 23 years ago by President Benson.

A conspiracy theory by the dictionary definition supplied by zerinus, is simply an idea that hidden groups may be behind certain nefarious public events. The theory may or may not include very good evidence for who may be members or agents of such groups. But a hidden group bent on planning and carrying out evil or unlawful activity is a conspiracy. Such groups are also known as secret combinations in an older usage; one incorporated into the Book of Mormon accounts of such groups. One could maybe use 'secret combination theory' to end-run the approbrium attached to 'conspiracy theory'. The worst and most insidious of these, in my view, are those that are oath-bound and more politically oriented, not just the criminal mafia groups; though the latter can segue into or be used by the former.

In my own case, I am directly involved in 9/11 scientific research. I think there is overwhelming evidence that the official story of what brought down the WTC buildings on that day is wrong. This would strongly imply that we have not gotten to the bottom of discovering all those involved in the events of that day. That is why we are calling for an independent investigation to really drill down into all the documented anomalies surrounding 9/11; many of which were entirely ignored by the 9/11 Commission, the FEMA and the two NIST reports. What was promulgated in those reports would have never flown if they had been subjected to outside scientific review.

This is an EXCEEDINGLY important subject. Very important to an LDS discussion forum. Any body else willing to come out of the blogosphere woodwork on this subject? LDS need to start waking up a la the Lords commandment in Ether 8.

Thanks, BLarsen. That was informative.

(Had to look up Ether 8... part of the summary..."Modern Gentiles are warned against the secret combination which shall seek to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations & countries.")

You also motivated me to study more about our rights, the constitution, etc.

I do think it's so important to stand up for our rights, & not get blinded or side-tracked.

I too, would be interested in anyone else willing to come out of the woodwork on this subject.

There have been interesting quotes, throughout history, mentioning a new world govenerment, or similar references...

http://www.freerepub...c/1145562/posts

Has anyone heard of the Georgia Guidestones - (anonymous doner, goal to maintain humanity under 500,000,000 & written in different languages)...

http://en.wikipedia....gia_Guidestones

Edited July 4, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[blarsen]

Regarding my thesis that the term 'conspiracy theory has been basically preempted to mean a crazy idea about the cause of some nefarious public event, and which is used to ridicule and shut people up who question official theories or those generally accepted by the main stream, here is an article by Paul Craig Roberts who identifies the same problem.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is a former head of policy at the Department of Treasury. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand.

A link to one location of the article is here: http://www.prisonpla...acy-theory.html

Article follows:

While we were not watching, conspiracy theory has undergone Orwellian redefinition.

A “conspiracy theory” no longer means an event explained by a conspiracy. Instead, it now means any explanation, or even a fact, that is out of step with the government’s explanation and that of its media pimps.

For example, online news broadcasts of RT have been equated with conspiracy theories by the New York Times simply because RT reports news and opinions that the New York Times does not report and the US government does not endorse.

In other words, as truth becomes uncomfortable for government and its Ministry of Propaganda, truth is redefined as conspiracy theory, by which is meant an absurd and laughable explanation that we should ignore.

When piles of carefully researched books, released government documents, and testimony of eye witnesses made it clear that Oswald was not President John F. Kennedy’s assassin, the voluminous research, government documents, and verified testimony was dismissed as “conspiracy theory.”

In other words, the truth of the event was unacceptable to the authorities and to the Ministry of Propaganda that represents the interests of authorities.

The purest example of how Americans are shielded from truth is the media’s (including many Internet sites’) response to the large number of professionals who find the official explanation of September 11, 2001, inconsistent with everything they, as experts, know about physics, chemistry, structural engineering, architecture, fires, structural damage, the piloting of airplanes, the security procedures of the United States, NORAD’s capabilities, air traffic control, airport security, and other matters. These experts, numbering in the thousands, have been shouted down by know-nothings in the media who brand the experts as “conspiracy theorists.”

This despite the fact that the official explanation endorsed by the official media is the most extravagant conspiracy theory in human history.

Let’s take a minute to re-acquaint ourselves with the official explanation, which is not regarded as a conspiracy theory despite the fact that it comprises an amazing conspiracy. The official truth is that a handful of young Muslim Arabs who could not fly airplanes, mainly Saudi Arabians who came neither from Iraq nor from Afghanistan, outwitted not only the CIA and the FBI, but also all 16 US intelligence agencies and all intelligence agencies of US allies including Israel’s Mossad, which is believed to have penetrated every terrorist organization and which carries out assassinations of those whom Mossad marks as terrorists.

In addition to outwitting every intelligence agency of the United States and its allies, the handful of young Saudi Arabians outwitted the National Security Council, the State Department, NORAD, airport security four times in the same hour on the same morning, air traffic control, caused the US Air Force to be unable to launch interceptor aircraft, and caused three well-built steel-structured buildings, including one not hit by an airplane, to fail suddenly in a few seconds as a result of limited structural damage and small, short-lived, low-temperature fires that burned on a few floors.

The Saudi terrorists were even able to confound the laws of physics and cause WTC building seven to collapse at free fall speed for several seconds, a physical impossibility in the absence of explosives used in controlled demolition.

The story that the government and the media have told us amounts to a gigantic conspiracy, really a script for a James Bond film. Yet, anyone who doubts this improbable conspiracy theory is defined into irrelevance by the obedient media.

Anyone who believes an architect, structural engineer, or demolition expert who says that the videos show that the buildings are blowing up, not falling down, anyone who believes a Ph.D. physicist who says that the official explanation is inconsistent with known laws of physics, anyone who believes expert pilots who testify that non-pilots or poorly-qualified pilots cannot fly airplanes in such maneuvers, anyone who believes the 100 or more first responders who testify that they not only heard explosions in the towers but personally experienced explosions, anyone who believes University of Copenhagen nano-chemist Niels Harrit who reports finding unreacted nano-thermite in dust samples from the WTC towers, anyone who is convinced by experts instead of by propaganda is dismissed as a kook.

In America today, and increasingly throughout the Western world, actual facts and true explanations have been relegated to the realm of kookiness. Only people who believe lies are socially approved and accepted as patriotic citizens.

Indeed, a writer or newscaster is not even permitted to report the findings of 9/11 skeptics. In other words, simply to report Professor Harrit’s findings now means that you endorse them or agree with them. Everyone in the US print and TV media knows that he/she will be instantly fired if they report Harrit’s findings, even with a laugh. Thus, although Harrit has reported his findings on European television and has lectured widely on his findings in Canadian universities, the fact that he and the international scientific research team that he led found unreacted nano-thermite in the WTC dust and have offered samples to other scientists to examine has to my knowledge never been reported in the American media.

Even Internet sites on which I am among the readers’ favorites will not allow me to report on Harrit’s findings.

As I reported earlier, I myself had experience with a Huffington Post reporter who was keen to interview a Reagan presidential appointee who was in disagreement with the Republican wars in the Middle East. After he published the interview that I provided at his request, he was terrified to learn that I had reported findings of 9/11 investigators. To protect his career, he quickly inserted on the online interview that my views on the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions could be dismissed as I had reported unacceptable findings about 9/11.

The unwillingness or inability to entertain any view of 9/11 different from the official view dooms to impotence many Internet sites that are opposed to the wars and to the rise of the domestic US police state. These sites, for whatever the reasons, accept the government’s explanation of 9/11; yet, they try to oppose the “war on terror” and the police state which are the consequences of accepting the government’s explanation. Trying to oppose the consequences of an event whose explanation you accept is an impossible task.

If you believe that America was attacked by Muslim terrorists and is susceptible to future attacks, then a “war on terror” and a domestic police state to root out terrorists become necessary to make Americans safe. The idea that a domestic police state and open-ended war might be more dangerous threats to Americans than terrorists is an impermissible thought.

A country whose population has been trained to accept the government’s word and to shun those who question it is a country without liberty in its future.

Edited July 7, 2011 by blarsen

[zerinus]

Regarding my thesis that the term 'conspiracy theory has been basically preempted to mean a crazy idea about the cause of some nefarious public event, and which is used to ridicule and shut people up who question official theories or those generally accepted by the main stream, here is an article by Paul Craig Roberts who identifies the same problem.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is a former head of policy at the Department of Treasury. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand.

A link to one location of the article is here: http://www.prisonpla...acy-theory.html

Article follows:

There are "conspiracy theories," and there are "conspiracy facts". The question is, how do you tell them apart? The deception occurs when a conspiracy theory is misjudged to be a conspiracy fact, or when a conspiracy fact is misjudged to be a conspiracy theory. A lot of the time, it is only by the light of the Spirit that we can tell them apart. I am of the opinion that a lot of the talk on this subject involves one kind of deception or the other.

Edited July 7, 2011 by zerinus

[Ahab]

I too, would be interested in anyone else willing to come out of the woodwork on this subject.

Okay, I'll come out a little bit (more?)

What I get out of our Lord's warning to beware of evil and conspiring men seeking to control [things] is pretty much in line with what I get out of our Lord's message to not be of the world... even though we live in it and the elements of our physical bodies are composed of the dust of this Earth.

In other words, watch out to make sure we don't become "worldly", or like those "of the world" who, as I see it, primarily concern themselves with "getting gain" and exercising some kind of "control" in this world which I see as usually being accomplished through politics which affects systems of economy.

My favorite example is how our "worldly" economic system now requires the use of "money"... which can be used in a good way too, I know, but which more often than not involves some type of oppression. People should do things for others simply because they want to do things for others, when motivated out of the charity of their own hearts, rather than because they need some "money" to survive in this world.

Satan is the one who introduced the concept of money, you know, and how people can get anything in this world with it.

Those who follow the Lord aren't motivated by any love or high regard for "money", and they don't really want to exercise power over others, either.

edited by Hestia. Deleted line not appropriate.

[LeSellers]

our "worldly" economic system now requires the use of "money"... which more often than not involves some type of oppression.

This is false!

"Money" does not involve oppression "more often than not"!

"Money" is completely neutral, like a loaf of bread. How individuals use money may be a different story, but yours is a gross overstatement.

Legitimately acquired money, like any other form of wealth (and it is but one of a myriad) is quite the opposite of your caricaturization: it is the evidence of work well done or the transfer of other legitimately acquired property to a second party who wanted it more than he wanted anything else available at the time.

Satan is the one who introduced the concept of money...

Your expunged, because directly against forum rules, "evidence" for this is a gross misunderstanding of the source.

Satan did not "introduce the concept of money". Money is the natural outgrowth of agency. If you own yourself (or, on the LDS take, if you are steward of your own life), then anything you do is yours. If you give it away, that’s your call. If you trade it to someone else for whatever reason, that's also your decision. If that trade involves some sort of money, it was not Satan who inspired you to accept it, nor was it he who made your partner in the trade offer you money, rather than shoes, or a haircut. or a back rub.

You hate money, I must surmise, because you haven't any. Those who get it legitimately do not hate it. They use it as a tool, which is all it is.

How does one acquire money legitimately? That's the easiest question you can ask. The answer is to make as many other people as happy (or, if you prefer, "well off") as possible. That's how the proverbial Bill Gates got his money, it's how I get mine: I make my boss happy, and he, in turn, realizing that he is better off, gives me money for my product. The same is true of anyone who has money: he made someone better off, happier, than he was before the trade.

Lehi

Edited July 7, 2011 by LeSellers

[Deborah]

If money is so evil why has the Lord allowed his prophets like Abraham and Isaac to become so wealthy? So does the church oppress to get its wealth in it's business ventures? Hardly. It seems to me that those who accumulate wealth actually make great sacrifices to do so. They work hard, often have to invest money to begin with, thereby taking sometimes great risks, and as a result of their efforts are able to offer goods and services others want and jobs that enable people to buy those goods.

[Ahab]

"Money" does not involve oppression "more often than not"!

Yes it does. Ask everyone you know who works for money if they would still do that work if they were no longer paid with any money, and most of them will tell you that they would rather do something else, instead. I know some people are fortunate enough to do some type of work they would still do even if they didn't get paid any money, but most people who work for money do that type of work just because they need some way to make some money to get the things they want in this world.

"Money" is completely neutral, like a loaf of bread. How individuals use money may be a different story, but yours is a gross overstatement.

It's the plain and simple truth, Lehi.

People work for someone else who pays them with money because they don't have enough resources of their own to get what they want and/or need in this world, and because money is almost a necessity to be able to get anything in this world. I know there are those who give to others based on the charity in their own hearts, but most people don't get enough of what they need without needing to work for money, which means they then need to find someone to do some work for who will pay them some money for work. And at that point, what you have is an employer/employee relationship, where the employee is subservient to the employer. That's oppression, bro, even though some people willingly sell themselves into that type of slavery.

Legitimately acquired money, like any other form of wealth (and it is but one of a myriad) is quite the opposite of your caricaturization: it is the evidence of work well done or the transfer of other legitimately acquired property to a second party who wanted it more than he wanted anything else available at the time.

Yes, and the goal of most employees is to try to please their masters well enough to get what they want to get from their masters... whether it be money, or health benefits, or whatever other kind of perks the employer is holding out to them as a carrot to induce them to work.

Satan did not "introduce the concept of money".

Yes he did.

Money is the natural outgrowth of agency.

Money wouldn't be necessary if people did what they did out of charity.

If you own yourself (or, on the LDS take, if you are steward of your own life), then anything you do is yours. If you give it away, that’s your call. If you trade it to someone else for whatever reason, that's also your decision. If that trade involves some sort of money, it was not Satan who inspired you to accept it, nor was it he who made your partner in the trade offer you money, rather than shoes, or a haircut. or a back rub.

There's a whole lot of stuff going on in this world that you don't seem to realize. The "world" is the way it is because of Satan's influence, and he has been very busy.

You hate money, I must surmise, because you haven't any.

That's not why I hate it, and I have sufficient for my own needs and the needs of my family. I hate it because I want to totally get rid of all that I have in exchange for something better, given the fact that I can see it's pretty much worthless, in itself.

Those who get it legitimately do not hate it. They use it as a tool, which is all it is.

Most who "use it as a tool" use it in trade to someone else in exchange for something else they want, instead.

Do you want someone to do some kind of work for you? Well, you could offer some "money", but on the other hand you could just ask if someone would do it for you.

Most who love money really don't want charity, though... which is sad, because charity is a whole lot better.

How does one acquire money legitimately? That's the easiest question you can ask. The answer is to make as many other people as happy (or, if you prefer, "well off") as possible.

Yeah, sure, just sell yourself into some form of slavery while hoping your master will be well pleased with what you do for him, or offer to him.

Personally, I'd rather be in a situation where I do only what I want to do out of the charity of my own heart.

Edited July 7, 2011 by Ahab

[Ahab]

If money is so evil why has the Lord allowed his prophets like Abraham and Isaac to become so wealthy?

To get rid of all or at least most of all they have to do something good with it.

Money is pretty much worthless unless you trade it for something else of some real value, and since the real value is in the work that people do, you can get to the point where you don't need any money at all and instead you have people who willingly work for you out of the charity of their own hearts.

So does the church oppress to get its wealth in it's business ventures?

Would the people who work for the Church still do the work they do for the Church, willingly and joyfully, if the Church didn't pay them any money for their work?

If they would, then it wouldn't be oppression, because they would be working, and presumably are now working, out of the charity of their own hearts.

Hardly. It seems to me that those who accumulate wealth actually make great sacrifices to do so. They work hard, often have to invest money to begin with, thereby taking sometimes great risks, and as a result of their efforts are able to offer goods and services others want and jobs that enable people to buy those goods.

People who do things that are evil make sacrifices to do their evil deeds, too, so the question shouldn't be whether or not it is a sacrifice. Even extending charity can sometimes be a sacrifice. The question should be: Why are you working? Is it because you really want to help someone by doing that work you are doing, or are you somehow almost forced into it to be able to get what you need?

Edited July 7, 2011 by Ahab