Darren10 Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 I bet you can buy this at Walmart:http://i.walmartimages.com/i/p/00/03/98/97/17/0003989717911_500X500.jpg 1
theplains Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 I very much like the application of "power" to the word "church" in Nephi's account of the church of the devil. I think I'll start sharing that insight with others.Doctrines and Covenants 1:30 says, "And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually".Does the term "speaking unto the church collectively" represent the body of true believers across allchurches claiming to be Christian or does it only represent the body of true believers within one particularsect of Christianity? That is ... if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints represents the only trueand living church with Christ at its head, does this mean Christ is also the head of non-Mormon churchesor does it mean that the Devil is their head?Thanks,Jim
The Nehor Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 Yeah, Walmart keeps its employees by treating them badly. They are even forced to work there. They can't leave, Walmart won't let them. I call that slavery. Slaves can't quit, they have to be sold.Agency is overrated when the choice is between homelessness and a Wal-Mart job.I despise the company. I am pretty sure the second great commandment is not revoked just because you are paying someone a wage (especially a low one). 1
Darren10 Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 Doctrines and Covenants 1:30 says, "And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually".Does the term "speaking unto the church collectively" represent the body of true believers across allchurches claiming to be Christian or does it only represent the body of true believers within one particularsect of Christianity? That is ... if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints represents the only trueand living church with Christ at its head, does this mean Christ is also the head of non-Mormon churchesor does it mean that the Devil is their head?Thanks,JimGood cross reference and question, Jim. I think that, yes, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the one and tru living churhc and has Christ as its head. That said, I think that while this, by default, means that no other church has Christ as its head, I do not think it wise nor justified to conclude that the devil is the head of all other churches. While anything that strays away from the straight and narrow pat of God's true doctrines, worship, and faith, I thin kthat the essential line to jdge others is that of them worshiping according otthe dictates of their own conscience. I think that anyone who is genuinely doing this is not part ofthe church of the devil to a degree. And this includes me. Moral choices accompany and determine where one stands before the Lord. No matter what their conscience, ifthey are choosing wrongly, they must repent or be damned. Again, I absolutely place myself in this category.Speaking collectively, yes, the LDS Church is Christ's church and as such should believe in loving and serving their neighbors. That's hard to do when one is busy declaring others as part of Satan's church. While I do think that Christ is the head of the LDS Church and not any other, that doesn't mean that other churches do not do Christlike things nor does it mean its members do not live as Christ would want them to live.
canard78 Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 Doctrines and Covenants 1:30 says, "And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually".Does the term "speaking unto the church collectively" represent the body of true believers across allchurches claiming to be Christian or does it only represent the body of true believers within one particularsect of Christianity? That is ... if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints represents the only trueand living church with Christ at its head, does this mean Christ is also the head of non-Mormon churchesor does it mean that the Devil is their head?Thanks,JimHi Jim, I think the covenant people in the CoJCoLDS are different to those who follow the Lamb and are subject to his power/teachings/call.The same chapter of 1 Nep 14 has verse 14:14 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld the power of the Lamb of God, that it descended upon the saints of the church of the Lamb, and upon the covenant people of the Lord, who were scattered upon all the face of the earth; and they were aarmed with brighteousness and with the cpower of God in great glory.By saying "and upon" we could infer that there's a difference between being a) the covenant people of the Lord to being to b) the saints of the church of the Lamb. If they're two distinct people (or over-lapping people) that means that some of the church of the Lamb are not necessarily the covenant people of the Lord.I do not believe for a moment that those without the LDS covenants of baptism/sacrament/temple are in the Devils church. By their fruits we can know them. I've met too many wonderful non-mormons to even consider that they are automatically following the church/power/teachings/call of the Devil.While I agree that LDS is the only true and living place to take the covenants needed to be the covenant people, I do not believe it's the true and living way of engaging in a meaningful engagement with Deity nor the only way to practice the principle of loving god and loving ones neighbour.
mfbukowski Posted January 5, 2013 Posted January 5, 2013 It certainly promotes materialism.... There is no such thing as immaterial merchandise, but some is more refined. You got your motor oil and then you have your lighter fluid and your charcoal starter. Big difference. 2
mfbukowski Posted January 5, 2013 Posted January 5, 2013 (edited) Slaves can't quit, they have to......Pay their union dues.I just wonder for all those benefits why they don't contribute freely. Why would you have to force someone to take such a great deal? Edited January 5, 2013 by mfbukowski 1
thesometimesaint Posted January 5, 2013 Posted January 5, 2013 A good reason is that the average union worker is paid more than the average nonunion worker.
mfbukowski Posted January 5, 2013 Posted January 5, 2013 (edited) A good reason is that the average union worker is paid more than the average nonunion worker.That's a good reason to force people to pay dues because they are too stupid to figure that out for themselves?The question here is, if belonging to a union is such a good deal, why do people have to be forced to pay dues?My concern is the right to NOT join a union. I have no problem with people joining if they want to and think it's a good idea- but what about those who do NOT want to join? Should they be forced?I suppose this is a "derail", but at this point I don't think anybody cares. Edited January 5, 2013 by mfbukowski
thesometimesaint Posted January 5, 2013 Posted January 5, 2013 We don't make laws for those that will obey them anyway.Myself? I've never belonged to a union, but do understand their necessity. If corporations did the right thing by their employees no union would be necessary. It takes a big bad union to keep in check a big bad corporation.Actually it is illegal to force anyone to pay union dues. But the union is still required to represent them anyway. The non-payers are the moochers and freeloaders.There is no law forcing anyone to join a union. In fact just the opposite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act
ERayR Posted January 5, 2013 Posted January 5, 2013 We don't make laws for those that will obey them anyway.Myself? I've never belonged to a union, but do understand their necessity. If corporations did the right thing by their employees no union would be necessary. It takes a big bad union to keep in check a big bad corporation.Actually it is illegal to force anyone to pay union dues. But the union is still required to represent them anyway. The non-payers are the moochers and freeloaders.There is no law forcing anyone to join a union. In fact just the opposite. http://en.wikipedia....aft–Hartley_ActThere may not be any laws but have you heard of closed shops? 1
mfbukowski Posted January 5, 2013 Posted January 5, 2013 Actually it is illegal to force anyone to pay union dues.Question: Can I be required to be a union member or pay dues to a union?Answer: You may not be required to be a union member. But, if you do not work in a Right to Work state, you may be required to pay union fees.http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_1_p.htm
bluebell Posted January 5, 2013 Posted January 5, 2013 I've had jobs where you had to pay union dues or you did not work for that company. Frankly, it felt like extortion(sp?). It was about 11 years ago, but i was paying more than 100 a month and the union was using my money to throw keggers every month and stock the union fridge with beer for after work hours. Not my idea of money well spent.I'd much rather live and work in a right to work state where the worker has a choice to pay union dues or not. 1
thesometimesaint Posted January 5, 2013 Posted January 5, 2013 Right to work is more appropriately called right to work for less, and the states with RtW laws are at the bottom of the economic ladder. It really is a race to the bottom.Moreover outside of certain administrative functions you can't be compelled to pay union dues.http://aclj.org/workplace-rights/unions-union-dues 1
bluebell Posted January 5, 2013 Posted January 5, 2013 Right to work is more appropriately called right to work for less, and the states with RtW laws are at the bottom of the economic ladder. It really is a race to the bottom.Moreover outside of certain administrative functions you can't be compelled to pay union dues.http://aclj.org/work...ions-union-duesYou most certainly can be compelled to pay union dues, if the job you want is a union job. I was a gas meter reader in a non-right to work state and i HAD to pay union dues to have the job-there was no choice. I could not be hired without agreeing to pay.Wyoming is a right to work state, and it is absolutely not at the bottom of the economic ladder. The company i worked for when i had to pay union dues also operates in wyoming and those employed in that state made the exact same as those employed in mine. 1
thesometimesaint Posted January 6, 2013 Posted January 6, 2013 (edited) If you were required to it was in violation of the law. Edited January 6, 2013 by thesometimesaint
Darren10 Posted January 6, 2013 Posted January 6, 2013 Actually it is illegal to force anyone to pay union dues. But the union is still required to represent them anyway. The non-payers are the moochers and freeloaders.There is no law forcing anyone to join a union. In fact just the opposite. http://en.wikipedia....aft–Hartley_ActWhen I taught in illinois' public schools between 1997-2001, my options regarding union membership were as followed:a) Join and pay (around)$495 / yr and get full union representation.b) Don't join, pay (around) $492 / yr. since the union's efforts benefitted me, and get no union representation.Quaint.Michigian just became a right to work state. Nice!!! 1
Darren10 Posted January 6, 2013 Posted January 6, 2013 (edited) Toyota pays its workers a decent salary and decent benefits. And they're *VERY* anti-union. GM went heavy union and couldn't survive. Ditto for Chrysler. Let's go Ford!!! Edited January 6, 2013 by Darren10
Darren10 Posted January 6, 2013 Posted January 6, 2013 (edited) Right to work is more appropriately called right to work for less, and the states with RtW laws are at the bottom of the economic ladder. It really is a race to the bottom.It's also the right for the company's owners to make decisions that will help ensure the survival of the company. Ditto for public schools.UPDATE: Not too many people benefit from companies or schools that go under. Edited January 6, 2013 by Darren10
bluebell Posted January 6, 2013 Posted January 6, 2013 If you were required to it was in violation of the law.No, it wasn't. The company i worked for is huge (covers multiple states) and they are very conscious of the laws in that regard. And it's not just that company. My husband worked for a different company which was union, and he also had to join the union or he could not have the job. 1
Recommended Posts