President Nelson and AoF 10

[longview]

12 hours ago, cinepro said:

We're all going to pay for it one way or the other.

Building the wall will be a HUGE benefit in terms of saving untold Billions in the next several decades - - -

https://cis.org/Report/Cost-Border-Wall-vs-Cost-Illegal-Immigration?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIvuuBsaKk3QIVybXACh1xDAQ2EAAYBCAAEgJh6fD_BwE

"The findings of this analysis show that if a border wall stopped a small fraction of the illegal immigrants who are expected to come in the next decade, the fiscal savings from having fewer illegal immigrants in the country would be sufficient to cover the costs of the wall."

"Based on the NAS data, illegal border-crossers create an average fiscal burden of approximately $74,722 during their lifetimes, excluding any costs for their U.S.-born children. If a border wall stopped between 160,000 and 200,000 illegal crossers — 9 to 12 percent of those expected to successfully cross in the next decade — the fiscal savings would equal the $12 to $15 billion cost of the wall. (Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said Congress would appropriate $12 to $15 billion for the wall, though he gave no time frame. As the senator is in a key position of authority to determine appropriations, his estimate seems a useful starting point for estimating what the federal government will spend on the wall.)"

"A large share of the net fiscal cost of illegal immigrants is at the state and local level, not the federal level. The costs of building the wall will be borne by the federal government."

"Finally, there is the question of the difference between the net fiscal impact of all immigrants (legal and illegal) by education level, which is what the NAS estimated, and the fiscal impact of illegal border-crossers. In Table 2 we adjust the fiscal impact of illegal border-crossers significantly, reducing the costs of less-educated illegal immigrants relative to immigrants of the same education by almost 24 percent. If we more than doubled this reduction to 50 percent for all educational categories, the net fiscal costs of border-crossers would still be $48,879. Under a 50 percent reduction, each 100,000 illegal immigrants still create a cost of nearly $5 billion, a very sizeable impact.18 Like the other assumptions, the adjustment factor matters, but the education level of illegal crossers drives the results and the fiscal balance is decidedly negative."

https://fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-united-states-taxpayers

"At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens. That amounts to a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of $115,894,597,664. The total cost of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers is both staggering and crippling. In 2013, FAIR estimated the total cost to be approximately $113 billion. So, in under four years, the cost has risen nearly $3 billion. This is a disturbing and unsustainable trend."

https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/study-of-staggering-and-crippling-costs-of-illegal-immigration-stirs-controversy

"According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the cost incurred by the federal, state, and local governments to provide services to the undocumented and their children far outpaces any funds they put back into the system through taxes."

"The study by researchers Matthew O’Brien, Spencer Raley, and Jack Martin calculates that taxpayers spend a total of approximately $134.9 billion to cover the expenses produced by the presence of 12.5 million undocumented immigrants and 4.2 million U.S.-born children, while those immigrants pay about $19 billion in taxes, for a net cost of $115.9 billion. FAIR describes this figure as “staggering and crippling.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/352869-the-cost-of-illegal-immigration-to-taxpayers-is-growing

"The majority of the costs to taxpayers, $89 billion (66 percent), are borne at the local and state level. This means that American taxpayers are forced to bear the costs of the federal government’s failure to secure our borders every time they pay school taxes, local tolls, sales and excise taxes. It also means that illegal migrants get a lot of benefits that they don’t pay for."

"When states offer financial support to illegal immigrants, and protect them from the federal immigration enforcement efforts, it’s the law-abiding residents who suffer the financial consequences. New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois and Virginia are all far from the southern border, yet they are still popular destinations for illegal immigrants because welfare programs are easily available, even to those unlawfully in the United States."

"The state and local costs of illegal migration are amplified by the fact that illegal immigrants remit much of their earnings to their home nations. FAIR estimates that nearly 20 percent of the average household income of illegal immigrants is remitted back to their home nations. Annually, this totals approximately $7,200 per illegal immigrant household that is not spent in the United States, and therefore is not subject to the sales or excise taxes that fund state treasuries.""This study confirms what we already know — that the cost of incentivized illegal immigration is unsustainably high, and continues to grow at an alarming rate."

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

The biblical prophecy is silly in today's world.  Back then tribes could break up and move off on their own, claiming special or particular heritage, but over centuries new tribes break off, form and merge with others....soon the distinctive heritage of a tribe (which itself was kind of silly considering the mix that had happened for centuries before) is diluted to nothing.  

Your premises are false.  Ergo, your conclusions are false.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, blueglass said:

..................... 

I believe it was Joseph who prophesied of 24 temples, and a city capable of holding 20,000 people.  

The current population of Independence, Missouri, is 117,000, and that doesn't even take into consideration the closely neighboring cities.

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, longview said:

Building the wall will be a HUGE benefit in terms of saving untold Billions in the next several decades - - -

https://cis.org/Report/Cost-Border-Wall-vs-Cost-Illegal-Immigration?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIvuuBsaKk3QIVybXACh1xDAQ2EAAYBCAAEgJh6fD_BwE

"The findings of this analysis show that if a border wall stopped a small fraction of the illegal immigrants who are expected to come in the next decade, the fiscal savings from having fewer illegal immigrants in the country would be sufficient to cover the costs of the wall."

"Based on the NAS data, illegal border-crossers create an average fiscal burden of approximately $74,722 during their lifetimes, excluding any costs for their U.S.-born children. If a border wall stopped between 160,000 and 200,000 illegal crossers — 9 to 12 percent of those expected to successfully cross in the next decade — the fiscal savings would equal the $12 to $15 billion cost of the wall. (Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said Congress would appropriate $12 to $15 billion for the wall, though he gave no time frame. As the senator is in a key position of authority to determine appropriations, his estimate seems a useful starting point for estimating what the federal government will spend on the wall.)"

"A large share of the net fiscal cost of illegal immigrants is at the state and local level, not the federal level. The costs of building the wall will be borne by the federal government."

"Finally, there is the question of the difference between the net fiscal impact of all immigrants (legal and illegal) by education level, which is what the NAS estimated, and the fiscal impact of illegal border-crossers. In Table 2 we adjust the fiscal impact of illegal border-crossers significantly, reducing the costs of less-educated illegal immigrants relative to immigrants of the same education by almost 24 percent. If we more than doubled this reduction to 50 percent for all educational categories, the net fiscal costs of border-crossers would still be $48,879. Under a 50 percent reduction, each 100,000 illegal immigrants still create a cost of nearly $5 billion, a very sizeable impact.18 Like the other assumptions, the adjustment factor matters, but the education level of illegal crossers drives the results and the fiscal balance is decidedly negative."

https://fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-united-states-taxpayers

"At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens. That amounts to a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of $115,894,597,664. The total cost of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers is both staggering and crippling. In 2013, FAIR estimated the total cost to be approximately $113 billion. So, in under four years, the cost has risen nearly $3 billion. This is a disturbing and unsustainable trend."

https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/study-of-staggering-and-crippling-costs-of-illegal-immigration-stirs-controversy

"According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the cost incurred by the federal, state, and local governments to provide services to the undocumented and their children far outpaces any funds they put back into the system through taxes."

"The study by researchers Matthew O’Brien, Spencer Raley, and Jack Martin calculates that taxpayers spend a total of approximately $134.9 billion to cover the expenses produced by the presence of 12.5 million undocumented immigrants and 4.2 million U.S.-born children, while those immigrants pay about $19 billion in taxes, for a net cost of $115.9 billion. FAIR describes this figure as “staggering and crippling.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/352869-the-cost-of-illegal-immigration-to-taxpayers-is-growing

"The majority of the costs to taxpayers, $89 billion (66 percent), are borne at the local and state level. This means that American taxpayers are forced to bear the costs of the federal government’s failure to secure our borders every time they pay school taxes, local tolls, sales and excise taxes. It also means that illegal migrants get a lot of benefits that they don’t pay for."

"When states offer financial support to illegal immigrants, and protect them from the federal immigration enforcement efforts, it’s the law-abiding residents who suffer the financial consequences. New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois and Virginia are all far from the southern border, yet they are still popular destinations for illegal immigrants because welfare programs are easily available, even to those unlawfully in the United States."

"The state and local costs of illegal migration are amplified by the fact that illegal immigrants remit much of their earnings to their home nations. FAIR estimates that nearly 20 percent of the average household income of illegal immigrants is remitted back to their home nations. Annually, this totals approximately $7,200 per illegal immigrant household that is not spent in the United States, and therefore is not subject to the sales or excise taxes that fund state treasuries.""This study confirms what we already know — that the cost of incentivized illegal immigration is unsustainably high, and continues to grow at an alarming rate."

Uh huh, problem is the wall can be easily circumvented via a trip to Home Depot. Just need a ladder and some rope. Anyone stopped by this wall is just a pathetic shell of a human being.

Note to self: Buy stock in Dewalt if this stupid wall is ever funded.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think Joseph Smith intended the doctrine of a "literal gathering" of Israel to mean that people should simply go to church in their area. I think he really intended for the tribes of Israel to be gathered "together" with the other tribes. For a tribe to gather with their tribe doesn't really seem like the gathering of Israel. Remember, the specific tribes of Israel are also literal tribes. I don't see how they can be literally gathered together if they are not "together". To me, it sounds like there is some significant justification for why "literal" doesn't mean "literal".

But like I suggested earlier, I think there's difference between belief of the literal gathering and the policy to literally gather at this point in time.

Whence the name and concept “stake of Zion” If Joseph truly believed the gathering would only ever be to one single geographical location?

[blueglass]

50 minutes ago, cinepro said:

It wasn't just a prophecy.  It was all planned out.

 

Relevant Podcast:

The Plat of Zion

Those black dots are the 24 temples?  With brigham modeling SLC after this plat design, did he still believe in the great temple complex of independence, MO, or did he believe God had moved the center stake of zion to utah?  Is the great temple where Jesus will appear the SLC temple or is it not built yet?   When Pres Hinckley announced the $170M conference center and said it fulfilled the fish ponds and gardens on the roof prophecy I was disappointed, I thought this prophecy had reference to a future temple in Independence.  

[blueglass]

33 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The current population of Independence, Missouri, is 117,000, and that doesn't even take into consideration the closely neighboring cities.

John Taylor had reference to a new city, designed and built under the direction of the Lord.  I thought the many acres owned by the church were empty and undeveloped, or sold off to other splinter groups over the years.   

[blueglass]

Found the talk by Pres Hinckley.  He felt the conference center fulfilled the Talmage "great pavilion" prophecy but the temple with fish ponds and groves on the roof remains 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2000/04/to-all-the-world-in-testimony?lang=eng

"We have not built a temple with trees and fishponds on the roof. But on this edifice we have many trees and running water. Brigham Young may have foreseen this structure very near the temple. We have what Brother Talmage thought of, and much, much more. "

 

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Those black dots are the 24 temples?  With brigham modeling SLC after this plat design, did he still believe in the great temple complex of independence, MO, or did he believe God had moved the center stake of zion to utah?  Is the great temple where Jesus will appear the SLC temple or is it not built yet?   When Pres Hinckley announced the $170M conference center and said it fulfilled the fish ponds and gardens on the roof prophecy I was disappointed, I thought this prophecy had reference to a future temple in Independence.  

Salt Lake City never was regarded as the prophesied center place. It was and will yet be in Missouri. 

All of the early settlements of the Latter-day Saints had this “plat of Zion” design. Anyone familiar with Utah cities and towns could see this. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It hasn’t been a policy in the Church since early in the 20th century. 

Brigham Young sent out plenty of colonies.  If Zion was everywhere he sent people, his vision seems to have included over half the US (California to Colorado iirc and then Canada to Mexico).

Edited September 5, 2018 by Calm

[Guest]

23 hours ago, cinepro said:

With all the recent discussion of the Articles of Faith, this recent comment by President Nelson is interesting:

Here's the 10th Article of Faith:

Do we not believe in the literal gathering of Israel anymore?  Or is it something that we are putting off to some future date (linked to Christ's reign)?  Or is it a vestigial belief that could possibly be removed from the Articles of Faith since we don't currently believe it?

I believe in the literal gathering, but first there must be the "Spiritual", or no one will know "where" to gather. 

Edited September 6, 2018 by Bill "Papa" Lee

[blueglass]

51 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Salt Lake City never was regarded as the prophesied center place. It was and will yet be in Missouri. 

All of the early settlements of the Latter-day Saints had this “plat of Zion” design. Anyone familiar with Utah cities and towns could see this. 

Do you see the growth or gathering of Israel to this center stake as an emergence of accelerated organic growth from the local stakes already existing in Independence, Kansas city area - or from migration by prophetic command to move to the area and to build up the center place?  

Edited September 5, 2018 by blueglass

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Do you see the growth or gathering of Israel to this center stake as an emergence of accelerated organic growth from the local stakes already existing in Independence, Kansas city area - or from migration by prophetic command to move to the area and to build up the center place?  

That's an interesting question.

It could be either -- or both -- I suppose.

It may well be that some are given divine command to relocate to the area to help build the "New Jerusalsem." But I don't see it ever being a mass migration of Latter-day Saints to the area -- especially if there is already a substantial population of worthy Latter-day Saints living there.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

John Taylor had reference to a new city, designed and built under the direction of the Lord.  I thought the many acres owned by the church were empty and undeveloped, or sold off to other splinter groups over the years.   

Actually,  the LDS Church owns quite a bit of land  in Jackson County.  There is also some empty land adjacent to the LDS Visitor's Center next to the Temple Lot. However, I don't know the full extent of their holdings.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Brigham Young sent out plenty of colonies.  If Zion was everywhere he sent people, his vision seems to have included over half the US (California to Colorado iirc and then Canada to Mexico).

Bear in mind that, as originally contemplated, the Territory of Deseret "encompassed nearly all of present-day Utah and Nevada, large portions of California and Arizona, and parts of Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, Idaho, and Oregon." This, comprising most of what are now the western United States, was the "Zion" that Brigham had in mind. It was by federal government fiat that the territory was eventually whittled down to the area that is now Utah.

As for Canada and Mexico, those colonies were created because of the U.S. government persecution that beset the Latter-day Saints over the practice of plural marriage.

Edited September 5, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually,  the LDS Church owns quite a bit of land  in Jackson County.  There is also some empty land adjacent to the LDS Visitor's Center next to the Temple Lot. However, I don't know the full extent of their holdings.

True. There is also nearby Adam-Ondi-Ahman and other historic sites in locales in western Missouri, including Far West, Richmond, Liberty and Hawn's Mill.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

True. There is also nearby Adam-Ondi-Ahman and other historic sites in locales in western Missouri, including Far West, Richmond, Liberty and Hawn's Mill.

Yes, and the Far West Temple has yet to be built -- even though the site is dedicated and the Church has it well marked.  Liberty Jail is certainly worth a visit.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and the Far West Temple has yet to be built -- even though the site is dedicated and the Church has it well marked.  Liberty Jail is certainly worth a visit.

I was at both locations last year -- as well as Richmond, Hawn's Mill and Adam-Ondi-Ahman. It was a very memorable, two-day bus tour led by Alex Baugh of BYU following the Mormon History Association conference in St. Louis. It was the first time I had seen Far West or Hawn's Mill.

[Avatar4321]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

19th century or not, it is a matter of prophecy that the Great Temple of the LDS Church will be built at a specific location (the Temple Lot) in Independence, Jackson County, Missouri, someday.  That will constitute the Center Stake of Zion.  How and when that will take place has not been disclosed to me, but I believe that it will occur.  That does not mean to me that all Mormons will live in Independence, MO.  That would be as silly as supposing that all Jews must live in Jerusalem.

No Mormons will be involved. Not after President Nelson's directive to no longer refer to ourselves as Mormon

[Avatar4321]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Uh huh, problem is the wall can be easily circumvented via a trip to Home Depot. Just need a ladder and some rope. Anyone stopped by this wall is just a pathetic shell of a human being.

Note to self: Buy stock in Dewalt if this stupid wall is ever funded.

I suspect there won't be a wall, though I think it would help slow illegal immigration. The children of the Lamanites are to help build the city of Zion, or they are supposed to build it and we help them.

I suspect that regardless of what we do politically about it the Lord will lead the lamanites here

[Avatar4321]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Brigham Young sent out plenty of colonies.  If Zion was everywhere he sent people, his vision seems to have included over half the US (California to Colorado iirc and then Canada to Mexico).

Joseph said all of North and South America was Zion

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Joseph said all of North and South America was Zion

Yep.

[CV75]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yep.

It is interesting to me that the remnants of Israel have new "lands of their possession" apart from the Holy Land. For example, the remnant of Jacob/Jospeh in the the Book of Mormon has "this land" (Ether 13:6-8), and other remnants (sheep) have yet other lands (3 Nephi 16:1). So the gathering of Israel is not one nation with tribal inheritances in one geographical location, but wherever the Lord led them (Jacob 5).

[Avatar4321]

39 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It is interesting to me that the remnants of Israel have new "lands of their possession" apart from the Holy Land. For example, the remnant of Jacob/Jospeh in the the Book of Mormon has "this land" (Ether 13:6-8), and other remnants (sheep) have yet other lands (3 Nephi 16:1). So the gathering of Israel is not one nation with tribal inheritances in one geographical location, but wherever the Lord led them (Jacob 5).

I was listening to Ezekiel the other day about new allotments for inheritance in Israel. I suspect that after Israel is gathered together and the wicked destroyed, we will receive inheritance by tribe in the territory of the Holy City, throughout Israel itself and then globally. With Joseph receiving North and South America.

thats just personal speculation though

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

No Mormons will be involved. Not after President Nelson's directive to no longer refer to ourselves as Mormon

☺️