Ammon Bundy, socialists in the church?

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Zero population growth is not the same as removing humanity.  It is maintaining as is.  Licensing of children still allows for children.

I agree it is a bogeyman and outside of the song from Saturday's Warror, I have never heard any promotion of zero population, let alone not allowing people to be parents if they so desire, which is what would be required to remove population significantly.

From what I've read, a lot of this started with the book The Population Bomb published in 1968.  There have been many people talking about over population for many years, and I'm sure they all fall somewhere along the spectrum as far as advocacy of specific remedies.  For those who are fearful of the religion of environmentalism, I'm thinking they mischaracterize the more extreme views as representative of the whole. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb 

[hope_for_things]

52 minutes ago, Calm said:

The most conservative right people .I know are growing their own food and setting up alternative energy sources so they can live as healthy and cheaply as possible.

They aren't antienvironmentalists, but antibig gov.

Ammon Bundy is anti government as well.  

[hope_for_things]

46 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

IMHO and in my limited experience, LDS people have a slight tendency to support the local political view (Dem (which is a somewhat diluted socialism, not the Nazi type or the USSR type or the Venezuelan type or the Cuban type but more a "Sure wish we were Europeans" type) or Repub).

Doesn't bother me.

Just makes me wonder: when food storage is needed and 50% at best of LDS memebrs have that storage, will they share with others like some did during Katrina and ala 1 Kings 17:16 or will it be more like the Parable of the 10 Virgins, with the response being, "Sorry. Can't share."

And the barrel of meal wasted not, neither did the cruse of oil fail, according to the word of the LORD, which he spake by Elijah.

 

Well, in the USA, LDS members are strongly Republican, according to this 2016 pew survey.  More Republican than any other religious group.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/23/u-s-religious-groups-and-their-political-leanings/

[hope_for_things]

42 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I see that much of the far right LDS church culture is dying out. Ezra Taft Benson had some conservative views that many did (and would today) call troubling.  He embraced McCarthyism, and was a strong supporter of the John Birch Society.  His comments about civil rights and Martin Luther King Jr. are appalling to me.

Perhaps many in his generation of apostleship and presidency embraced similar ideas in an effort to follow the example of their leader. But, this seems to be waning. Ammon Bundy and ideas like his in the church are dying out.  He’s attacking a straw man.

I think you're right, these views are literally dying out as the older generations pass on.  I'd like to know if there is any evidence that older people are changing their minds on these issues, but I doubt that is the case.  

[hope_for_things]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not storing foor "for the apocalypse."  I'm thinking more of A) an unexpected and extended period of unemployment, B) an short- or intermediate-term (days or weeks) disruption of food distribution systems (earthquake, widespread social unrest, EMP, etc.), C) the Church has encouraged us to do it, D) I found I did a poor job of "cycling" through canned foods, and E) it just feels nice to know I have it ("food insurance").

Plus there have been a few dozen instances where we have dipped into our food storage for everyday uses.  Freeze-dried ham gets reconstituted for Baked Potato Night.  Freeze-dried Parmesan cheese gets pulled out when we are out of it and don't want to run to the store (or it's a Sunday).  Freeze-dried ice cream or pineapple or mango for road trips or when the cousins come over and need a quick snack.  Freeze-dried chicken gets reconstitutes for chicken salad sandwiches or chicken soup with rice.  Chicken tika masala or Tom Ka Gai soup for road trips.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thats cool.  I still have fond memories of bottling as a kid, and I typically make bottle a batch of salsa every year.  Haven't tried the freeze dried stuff much, but I've heard good things.  

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Meh. I’m a high priest, so obviously the bar is set pretty low. 

Are you still a high priest though, I thought with the new changes that unless you're actively in a calling that requires the rank, that all the HPs are considered Elders.  I'm curious too because I'm a HP too, but I'm not sure that ranking holds anymore with the recent changes.  Does anybody know?  

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Are you still a high priest though, I thought with the new changes that unless you're actively in a calling that requires the rank, that all the HPs are considered Elders. 

The "office" of High Priest still exists.  Those who have been ordained to it are still High Priests, and certain callings (High Council, Bishopric, Stake Presidency, Patriarch, area and general authorities, etc.) still require that an individual in those positions/offices first be ordained as High Priests.  But there is no longer a stake-level quorum for High Priests.  Instead, there is only an Elders Quorum.

Quote

I'm curious too because I'm a HP too, but I'm not sure that ranking holds anymore with the recent changes.  Does anybody know?  

You are still in that office.  The office of High Priest hasn't been dissolved.

Stake-level quorums of seventy were dissolved in 1986.  "The church encouraged local leaders to have ordained seventies meet with the local elders quorum or to ordain them as high priests."  As it happens, our ward has an older brother who refused to be ordained as a High Priest.  His church records still show his "Priesthood Office" as "Seventy."  Is he still in that office?  Or has his priesthood officed devolved (to Elder)?  I'm not sure.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 20, 2018 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The "office" of High Priest still exists.  Those who have been ordained to it are still High Priests, and certain callings (High Council, Bishopric, Stake Presidency, Patriarch, area and general authorities, etc.) still require that an individual in those positions/offices first be ordained as High Priests.  But there is no longer a stake-level quorum for High Priests.  Instead, there is only an Elders Quorum.

You are still in that office.  The office of High Priest hasn't been dissolved.

Stake-level quorums of seventy were dissolved in 1986.  "The church encouraged local leaders to have ordained seventies meet with the local elders quorum or to ordain them as high priests."  As it happens, our ward has an older brother who refused to be ordained as a High Priest.  His church records still show his "Priesthood Office" as "Seventy."  Is he still in that office?  Or has his priesthood officed devolved (to Elder)?  I'm not sure.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for the clarification, so it sounds like to receive a calling like (High Council, Bishopric, Stake Presidency, Patriarch, area and general authorities) you need to be ordained a HP first.  What if you're already a HP, I'm assuming you don't need to be ordained again?  

[Nofear]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 But there is no longer a stakeward-level quorum group for High Priests.  Instead, there is only an Elders Quorum.

 

[smac97]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for the clarification, so it sounds like to receive a calling like (High Council, Bishopric, Stake Presidency, Patriarch, area and general authorities) you need to be ordained a HP first. 

Yes.

Just now, hope_for_things said:

What if you're already a HP, I'm assuming you don't need to be ordained again?  

Correct.  For example, our ward's bishop was ordained a High Priest so he could serve on the High Council.  Then he was called into the bishopric as a counselor, and then later ordained as bishop.  But he only needed to be ordained as a High Priest the one time.  On the other hand, our ward's bishopric second counselor had been an Elder, so he needed to be ordained a High Priest prior to being set apart as a counselor.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Quote

But there is no longer a stake-level quorum for High Priests.  Instead, there is only an Elders Quorum.

But there is no longer a stakeward-level quorum group for High Priests.  Instead, there is only an Elders Quorum.

Actually, I think I had it right the first time.  See here (emphasis added):

Quote

Current records do not specify when high priests were first organized as a quorum, but it apparently was before January 1836. For a period of time, high priests quorums were organized in each ward with their own presidencies, but in 1877 Brigham Young indicated that stake presidents had responsibility over these quorums. In December 1975 the First Presidency clarified details of the current arrangement under which ward high priests groups function as units of the stake high priests quorum, with the stake president as the president of the quorum and ward high priest group leaders functioning under his direction. 

This is why we had ward-level "High Priests Groups" rather than "Quorums."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[LoudmouthMormon]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not sure how you can contest that the conservative right is much more anti environment.  

Oh, I can help you out there.  Here's a brief sampling:
- Equating anti-environment with against-increased-EPA-regulations is a big pile of horse hockey.  You've either fallen for, or a willing participant in, mis-defining terms in order to forward one sides' agenda.
- Exploiting resources sensibly does not equate to being anti-environment.
- Acknowledging and dealing with increasing energy demands of a country openly, rather than behind back doors, does not equate to being anti-environment.
- Pedantic namecalling is a schoolyard tactic used to help a side forward their agenda by making uninformed people in their base have bad feels about the other side.  We're supposed to be grown adults here.

There's four ways I do it.  Has your lack of understanding been remedied?

[Stargazer]

36 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Are you still a high priest though, I thought with the new changes that unless you're actively in a calling that requires the rank, that all the HPs are considered Elders.  I'm curious too because I'm a HP too, but I'm not sure that ranking holds anymore with the recent changes.  Does anybody know?  

You're still a high priest, as am I. If you were to be called to a position that required that office, you wouldn't need to be ordained to it.  

[hope_for_things]

54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.

Correct.  For example, our ward's bishop was ordained a High Priest so he could serve on the High Council.  Then he was called into the bishopric as a counselor, and then later ordained as bishop.  But he only needed to be ordained as a High Priest the one time.  On the other hand, our ward's bishopric second counselor had been an Elder, so he needed to be ordained a High Priest prior to being set apart as a counselor.

Thanks,

-Smac

Ok, so this doesn't really sound any different than in the past, other than the dissolving of the HP quorum, is that correct?  I somehow had gotten the impression that people like myself wouldn't be consider HPs anymore.  So I'm still a HP, they just don't have a quorum for us to meet with, is that correct?  

[strappinglad]

In this mortal world solar and wind power will always represent a tiny fraction of all the power needed to run human activities. If one wants to eliminate gas and oil and coal usage , one must make hydrogen and thorium viable. Meanwhile the environmentalists should work on ways to fund or monetize the cleanup of the ocean garbage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch

Why is it that third world peoples must forever remain trapped in poverty because they are denied the use of the forms of energy that allowed first world peoples to prosper ?

 

[hope_for_things]

54 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Oh, I can help you out there.  Here's a brief sampling:
- Equating anti-environment with against-increased-EPA-regulations is a big pile of horse hockey.  You've either fallen for, or a willing participant in, mis-defining terms in order to forward one sides' agenda.
- Exploiting resources sensibly does not equate to being anti-environment.
- Acknowledging and dealing with increasing energy demands of a country openly, rather than behind back doors, does not equate to being anti-environment.
- Pedantic namecalling is a schoolyard tactic used to help a side forward their agenda by making uninformed people in their base have bad feels about the other side.  We're supposed to be grown adults here.

There's four ways I do it.  Has your lack of understanding been remedied?

Thanks, you seem to have a very unique view of things for sure.  Definitely not representative of typical conservative Republicans as my links to Pew surveys attest.  Unless you have evidence to the contrary.  

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Ok, so this doesn't really sound any different than in the past, other than the dissolving of the HP quorum, is that correct? 

Pretty much.

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I somehow had gotten the impression that people like myself wouldn't be consider HPs anymore.  So I'm still a HP, they just don't have a quorum for us to meet with, is that correct?  

Yes.  Technically, the High Priests were organized at the stake level, with the stake president being the president of the quorum.  This is why wards had "High Priest Groups" and "High Priest Group Leaders."

The practical difference is that all the adult men meet together now, rather than the (generally) older brethren meeting separately.  I became a high priest in my young 30s, so I sort of felt out of place a bit (most of the High Priests in my ward were in their mid-40s all the way into the 80s).  I would often bring a baby with me to HPG meetings during the third hour (my fifth or sixth child).

So far the transition seems to be working well in our ward.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Actually, I think I had it right the first time.  See here (emphasis added):

This is why we had ward-level "High Priests Groups" rather than "Quorums."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Yes. There was never a ward level high priest quorum. As such we can't say there is "no longer” such an entity.  It is the high priest group that was done away with. The high priest quorum was always stake level and still exists.

We are probably trying to say the same thing and we both appreciate precision of language. ☺

[cinepro]

I've actually spent some time reading up on Ammon Bundy's "theories", and after a bit of study, I think he's underestimated the problem. 

If you read the materials here, it appears the socialist and environmental elements in the Church go back further (and much higher) than even he could have imagined.

[LoudmouthMormon]

30 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

In this mortal world solar and wind power will always represent a tiny fraction of all the power needed to run human activities. If one wants to eliminate gas and oil and coal usage , one must make hydrogen and thorium viable.

I wish more people understood this truth.  I sometimes wish Trump would say something against nuclear power, so everyone would immediately band together against him and build 1000 more nuclear power plants just to spite him.  This red line needs to go up.

 

 

 

 

[Danzo]

32 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks, you seem to have a very unique view of things for sure.  Definitely not representative of typical conservative Republicans as my links to Pew surveys attest.  Unless you have evidence to the contrary.  

I think each of us has unique views of things.

The "Typical Conservative Republican"  Is probably just as mythical as the "typical Liberal Democrat"

It is just a label we use to identify who is our friend and who the hoards of unwashed barbarians that we have to protect ourselves from are.

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I've actually spent some time reading up on Ammon Bundy's "theories", and after a bit of study, I think he's underestimated the problem. 

If you read the materials here, it appears the socialist and environmental elements in the Church go back further (and much higher) than even he could have imagined.

Personally, I find socialism and communism to be distortions of correct principles.  And high-minded pretextual justifications for state-sponsored violation of personal property rights.

The Law of Consecration has essentially nothing to do with socialism/communism.  The latter is a funhouse mirror reflecton of the former.

Venezuela.  Zimbabwe.  Cuba.  North Korea.  U.S.S.R.

My parents are currently serving a mission in Zimbabwe.  They have been their less than a year, and they will probably be cutting their mission short by six months because the cost of living there has skyrocketed, such that their expenses are now equal to or exceed those paid by senior missionaries living in the most expensive parts of the world (London, Tokyo, etc.).  I have no idea how the wonderful people in that country can survive.  They've suffered hyper-inflation since 2009, such that the national reserve bank has issued one hundred trillion dollar notes:

Thanks, Socialism!  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 20, 2018 by smac97

[clarkgoble]

42 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I wish more people understood this truth.  I sometimes wish Trump would say something against nuclear power, so everyone would immediately band together against him and build 1000 more nuclear power plants just to spite him.  This red line needs to go up.

The time to go nuclear really was the 70's and 80's and maybe early 90's. Had all the people upset about global warming pushed for nuclear we'd probably not have the problems we have now. However as much as some like to try to use global warming as a wedge issue, the reality is that the left really wasn't wiling to make sacrifices for it either. At best we got the idea of a carbon tax. That, while good, was also wrapped up with just wanting higher taxes. Even in Europe which had been much more embracing of nuclear power we have rapid movement away due to public fears thanks to what happened in Japan. The reality is that while natural gas is better than coal, it's not the clean fuel some portray it as.

All that said though solar is now cheaper than oil for power production. There are ways to store the energy. I suspect over the next decade we'll see much more power production via solar. Those who say it's not enough I'd probably disagree with. The main old problem was its cost. However there's really no reason not to put massive solar farms in eastern California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico.

At this stage the opportunity for nuclear is dead. There's just too much fear amongst the public.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

The time to go nuclear really was the 70's and 80's and maybe early 90's. Had all the people upset about global warming pushed for nuclear we'd probably not have the problems we have now. However as much as some like to try to use global warming as a wedge issue, the reality is that the left really wasn't wiling to make sacrifices for it either. At best we got the idea of a carbon tax. That, while good, was also wrapped up with just wanting higher taxes. Even in Europe which had been much more embracing of nuclear power we have rapid movement away due to public fears thanks to what happened in Japan. The reality is that while natural gas is better than coal, it's not the clean fuel some portray it as.

All that said though solar is now cheaper than oil for power production. There are ways to store the energy. I suspect over the next decade we'll see much more power production via solar. Those who say it's not enough I'd probably disagree with. The main old problem was its cost. However there's really no reason not to put massive solar farms in eastern California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico.

At this stage the opportunity for nuclear is dead. There's just too much fear amongst the public.

I have a friend who has been doing a lot of work evaluating thorium reactors.

Thanks,

-Sac

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I wish more people understood this truth.  I sometimes wish Trump would say something against nuclear power, so everyone would immediately band together against him and build 1000 more nuclear power plants just to spite him.  This red line needs to go up.

 

 

 

 

The funny thing about this hydroelectric trend is that so many environmentalists want the the dams to be torn down so the rivers will be freed.  Which means that we have to burn more coal and natural gas to make up for it.

Because of the UK being surrounded by ocean, we get good amounts of wind. So there are a LOT of offshore wind farms (and some onshore ones).  They just put a new offshore farm near us, we're on the southern coast -- we can see them churning away when we drive to town.  It's the Rampion wind farm -- named for the flower which is Sussex's official flower.  The day before yesterday I was out at a hill that overlooks the coast, and inspected the field of windmills using my binoculars.  There they were, rotating merrily away.  There were a few which weren't turning -- maintenance? breakdown?  no idea -- but the vast majority were generating.  In a sense these things are a bit unsightly, but they're far enough out that they really aren't all that overbearing.  I've driven through parts of southern California where the darned things clutter up the landscape horribly. I gather that 18% of the UK's electricity is generated by these windfarms.

Here's the video I took at the time I was scoping out the windmills:

\

Edited July 20, 2018 by Stargazer