Jump to content

Let's try this again. President oaks nailed it imo.


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

That post will likely get this thread shutdown.

For the record, as someone who has extensively audited internal controls, and who is an actual Certified Fraud Examiner, I find the allegations of "overwhelming FRAUD" to be utterly laughable.

So would you consider yourself an expert in Dominion systems and other voting machines?  Do reports of crisp "mail-in" ballots (unfolded, without lines, as you would expect for ballots to be creased and inserted into envelopes) by the hundreds of thousands not disturb you?

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, longview said:

So would you consider yourself an expert in Dominion systems and other voting machines?  Do reports of crisp "mail-in" ballots (unfolded, without lines, as you would expect for ballots to be creased and inserted into envelopes) by the hundreds of thousands not disturb you?

As to your first question - No.  I'm not an expert on Dominion, but I am on general controls such as those placed around the Dominion system. Moreover, I've read the audits of the Dominion system and find them credible.

As to your second question - I have seen no credible evidence of any of what you are talking about. A lot of conspiracy theory nonsense, but nothing credible.

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, ttribe said:

As to your first question - No.  I'm not an expert on Dominion, but I am on general controls such as those placed around the Dominion system. Moreover, I've read the audits of the Dominion system and find them credible.

As to your second question - I have seen no credible evidence of any of what you are talking about. A lot of conspiracy theory nonsense, but nothing credible.

How about the Nixon / JFK election?  Would you also dismiss allegations of Mob involvement in the Chicago precincts that gave Kennedy enough votes to win a razor thin victory?  Do you deny what occurred in the 2000 election?

Before I retired, I remember taking company mandated classes on SOPs (standard operating procedures).  All it was providing paper documentation filed in proper booklets and folders.  But it is no guarantee that fraud or cutting corners did not occur.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't think members of the Church outside the U.S. will construe Pres. Oaks's talk as "aggrandizing" the United States.

Some will based on my experience.  They have so much baggage already from Americans coming in and insisting they adapt to the American way rather than the reverse, including using charity/aid as a tool to force compliance, including from American members insisting on things like playing The Star Spangled Banner on their own country’s Independence Day, it is hard for them not to see such mentions as American centricism.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Years of violent protests/demonstrations/riots in the United States

The demonstrations took place all over the world this year. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

As someone whose name ends with "S" I hate seeing the double s.

Me too. It looks fussy and unbalanced. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Rivers said:

Except for that “autonomous zone” in Seattle. What was it called again? CHAZ or something like that. Something similar happened recently in Minneapolis.

It is a common silliness amongst ‘intellectual’ anarchy types. It wasn’t the main event or the purpose of the protests. There is another autonomous zone in Belgium if I remember right that has gone on for years. They usually collapse in a few months. It did. It was no threat.

Link to comment

I propose that we marvel at these words of our brother Russell Marion Nelson:

God has given his children moral agency -- the power to decide and to act.  The most desirable condition for the exercise of that agency is maximum freedom for men and women to act according to their individual choices.  “Then”, the revelation explains, "every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment."  "Therefore," the Lord revealed, "it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another".  

He then declared that what our Lord obviously meant by the words “no man should be in bondage one to another” is that human slavery is wrong and according to the same principle, it is wrong for citizens to have no voice in the selection of their rulers or the making of their laws.

Imagine the condition of any society which recognizes and allows for maximum freedom!

Freedom to act according to each individual’s choices with no one in bondage to another!

President Nelson then said the (U.S.) constitution was not "a fully grown document," also said President J. Reuben Clark.  "On the contrary," he explained, "we believe it must grow and develop to meet the changing needs of an advancing world".

And then Russell shared his own belief that the United States constitution contains at least five divinely inspired principles, while talking about each one.

Some here have wondered how the U.S. Constitution could be usurped or maligned, or conversely saved from those actions.  How could a document which constitutes all of the principles governing everyone in a society not be accepted while allowing everyone maximum freedom to act according to individual choices? 

Who can override anyone else’s agency? 

Who can make it impossible for someone else to choose to do something they can do?

I’ve seen people attempt to override someone else’s choice to do something, and attempt to make others do something too.  Christian coalitions attempting to force people to make “Christian” choices while limiting alternatives.  Atheist or Agnostic coalitions likewise attempting to force people to take “Christian” choices off the lists of possible choices.  But it has never prevailed because each of us has always retained our own agency. 

All we can do is make our own choices and recommend to others what we think they should do, too.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Zeniff said:

I propose that we marvel at these words of our brother Russell Marion Nelson:

God has given his children moral agency -- the power to decide and to act.  The most desirable condition for the exercise of that agency is maximum freedom for men and women to act according to their individual choices.  “Then”, the revelation explains, "every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment."  "Therefore," the Lord revealed, "it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another".  

He then declared that what our Lord obviously meant by the words “no man should be in bondage one to another” is that human slavery is wrong and according to the same principle, it is wrong for citizens to have no voice in the selection of their rulers or the making of their laws.

Imagine the condition of any society which recognizes and allows for maximum freedom!

Freedom to act according to each individual’s choices with no one in bondage to another!

President Nelson then said the (U.S.) constitution was not "a fully grown document," also said President J. Reuben Clark.  "On the contrary," he explained, "we believe it must grow and develop to meet the changing needs of an advancing world".

And then Russell shared his own belief that the United States constitution contains at least five divinely inspired principles, while talking about each one.

Some here have wondered how the U.S. Constitution could be usurped or maligned, or conversely saved from those actions.  How could a document which constitutes all of the principles governing everyone in a society not be accepted while allowing everyone maximum freedom to act according to individual choices? 

Who can override anyone else’s agency? 

Who can make it impossible for someone else to choose to do something they can do?

I’ve seen people attempt to override someone else’s choice to do something, and attempt to make others do something too.  Christian coalitions attempting to force people to make “Christian” choices while limiting alternatives.  Atheist or Agnostic coalitions likewise attempting to force people to take “Christian” choices off the lists of possible choices.  But it has never prevailed because each of us has always retained our own agency. 

All we can do is make our own choices and recommend to others what we think they should do, too.

This is an odd first post and why did you replace President Oaks with President Nelson?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, longview said:

How about the Nixon / JFK election?  Would you also dismiss allegations of Mob involvement in the Chicago precincts that gave Kennedy enough votes to win a razor thin victory?  Do you deny what occurred in the 2000 election?

Before I retired, I remember taking company mandated classes on SOPs (standard operating procedures).  All it was providing paper documentation filed in proper booklets and folders.  But it is no guarantee that fraud or cutting corners did not occur.

I'm not sure what you're on about regarding the 2000 election.  Nevertheless, no system of internal control is 100% effective against fraud.  When I speak on the topic to small business owners (100 employees or less), I point out that they can "internal control" themselves into oblivion and that the only way to have 0% chance of fraud is to go out of business altogether; obviously not an optimal solution.  Therefore, every internal control system has some level of risk deemed acceptable and yet also reasonably effective.  I suspect that your "SOP" classes only provided you a mere glimpse of a very small subset of the internal controls in place to prevent and detect fraud and that you're assessment of their effectiveness is based on a very incomplete understanding of the entire system.

That being said, I never said there was no fraud, whatsoever, in this last election.  That would be impossible.  Every election has some amount of fraud in it.  The question is whether there is enough to actually sway an outcome.  So, I go back to my previous statement that I find the notion of widespread fraud utterly laughable.  Not only would the fraud have to overcome numerous DIFFERENT internal control systems across numerous states, it would have to be orchestrated by a small army of people.  When it comes to collusion to commit fraud, let me give you a rule of thumb - For every additional co-conspirator in on the fraud, reduce the probability of the long-term success of that fraud by 50%.  Most real conspiracies collapse because people can't keep their mouths shut.  There is no mysterious puppet master pulling the strings of the election; that's the stuff of James Bond films, not reality.

Edited by ttribe
Link to comment
23 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I think somehow we have come to associate April Conference with Easter.
It's NOT an Easter meeting, even if it falls on Easter.  It's a Conference of the Church and all the topics that are included in that.
There is no obligation to make Easter the focus of April conference sessions.

Very true.

I am also pretty sure that "celebrating" Easter is on par with Christmas. And Michaelmas, All Saints Day, Hallowe'en, and so on. I.e., there is no commandment to observe it. The only mandatory observation is the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or, in other words, the Sacrament, which is typically celebrated on Sunday. Note that this is not the only day on which it is celebrated. There is nothing that restricts it to Sunday only.

Note that I am not saying that Easter shouldn't be celebrated. Just that it is something we choose to celebrate. Or not.

Link to comment
23 hours ago, Freedom said:

I am conservative, but I despite their anti-science stances. For this I lean towards the more liberal parties.

What anti-science stances are you referring to? And do you mean the Canadian political party known as CPC, or the generic stance known as conservative?

I've looked at the current policies the CPC promotes (found HERE) and don't see any policies that I would call anti-science.

Note that I am an American living in the UK, so I have no dog in the hunt with respect to Canadian politics, so I'm asking out of curiosity.

Link to comment
58 minutes ago, Calm said:

The demonstrations took place all over the world this year. 

Good point.  So if members of the Church outside the U.S. take a "liken the scriptures" approach to Pres. Oaks's remarks, then those remarks will be useful outside the U.S.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This is an odd first post and why did you replace President Oaks with President Nelson?

First post.  Number #1.  Odd number, yes.  Prime number too.  

Dallin Harris Oaks under the keys of the authority delegated to him by President Russell Marion Nelson.  Spoken with the same authority as if Russell had said it himself, too.

Link to comment
23 hours ago, Freedom said:

but it is not scripture

It isn't? 

Of course the Constitution is not scripture. It is, however, the founding document of a system of government which the Lord claims to have had great influence over in its inception.

In this statement "...And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land..." the personal pronoun "I" refers to the Lord, clearly saying that He established it, "by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose". Having lived in Canada myself, and known many Canadians, I know perfectly well that the idea of the United States having a divinely established government would not sit well with many Canadians. Nor with many Americans, truth be told.

You can say that the US Constitution was written by men in the same way that it is said that the Bible and the Book of Mormon were written by men. From the plain language of the scripture mentioned, the Lord had a hand in the document's creation, through the human tools he created ("raised up") to do it with.

In other words, while the US Constitution was not written by the Lord, it was written by His agents in the matter -- and though it certainly is imperfect, it seems to have met His general standard for a government. At least according to what the scripture says.

President Oaks pretty clearly laid out why the US Constitution meets the Lord's needs. And it meets His needs because He inspired it. It is, therefore, not strictly a man-made creation, any more than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a man-made church -- for all that it was men who formed both of them -- because it was done at the Lord's direction.

In other words, those who were raised up for the purpose of creating the US system of government were not merely "clever". 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

President Oaks pretty clearly laid out why the US Constitution meets the Lord's needs. And it meets His needs because He inspired it.

The reasons the U.S. Constitution meets the Lord's needs was explained by what Elder Oaks comments regarding agency.  How each of us needs maximum freedom to exercise our agency and how the U.S. Constitution acknowledges and allows that.

We the people decide what we will do.  What we will and will not allow including whether or not we will allow others to exercise their maximum freedom to choose to do whatever they can choose to do.  Whether they will be good or evil.

Link to comment
22 hours ago, ttribe said:

Is there something other than the White Horse Prophecy that those things would be rooted in?

Lots.

Ensign, Various Authors, June 1976

[T]he time would come when the constitution and government would hang by a brittle thread and would be ready to fall into other hands but this people the Latter-day Saints will step forth and save it. —Recorded by James Burgess

Even this nation will be on the verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the ground and when the Constitution is on the brink of ruin this people will be the staff upon which the nation shall lean and they shall bear the Constitution away from the very verge of destruction. —Joseph SmithThe government is fallen and needs redeeming. It is guilty of Blood and cannot stand as it now is but will come so near desolation as to hang as it were by a single hair!!!!! Then the servants goes [sic] to the nations of the earth, and gathers the strength of the Lord’s house! A mighty army! And this is the redemption of Zion when the saints shall have redeemed that government and reinstated it in all its purity and glory! —Joseph Smith, recorded by Parley P. Pratt.

The time will come when the government of these United States will be so nearly overthrown through its corruption, that the Constitution will hang as it were by a single hair, and the Latter-day Saints–the Elders of Israel–will step forward to its rescue and save it. —Joseph Smith, recorded by Eliza R. Snow.

When the Constitution shall be tottering we shall be the people to save it from the hand of the foe. —Joseph Smith, recorded by Jedediah M. Grant

Conference Report, Charles W. Nibley, October 1923

Brethren and sisters, let me say in closing that we have it of record, that the prophet Joseph Smith said the time would come when, through secret organizations taking the law into their own hands, not being governed by law or by due process of law, but becoming a law unto themselves, when, by those disintegrating activities, the Constitution of the United States would be so torn and rent asunder, and life and property and peace and security would be held of so little value, that the Constitution would, as it were, hang by a thread. But he never said, so far as I have heard, that that thread would be cut. I believe, with Elder Richards, that this Constitution will be preserved, but it will be preserved very largely in consequence of what the Lord has revealed and what this people, through listening to the Lord and being obedient, will help to bring about, to stabilize and give permanency and effect to the Constitution itself. That also is our mission. That also is what we are here for. I glory in it. I praise God with all my heart and soul that I am a member of it.

Conference Report, Ezra Taft Benson, October 1961

In connection with attack on the United States, the Lord told the Prophet Joseph Smith there would be an attempt to overthrow the country by destroying the Constitution. Joseph Smith predicted that the time would come when the Constitution would hang, as it were, by a thread, and at that time “this people will step forth and save it from the threatened destruction.” (Journal History, Brigham Young’s Speech, July 4, 1854.) It is my conviction that the elders of Israel, widely spread over the nation, will at that crucial time successfully rally the righteous of our country and provide the necessary balance of strength to save the institutions of constitutional government.

Conference Report, J. Reuben Clark, October 1942

You and I have heard all our lives that the time may come when the Constitution may hang by a thread. I do not know whether it is a thread or a small rope by which it now hangs, but I do know that whether it shall live or die is now in the balance. I have said to you before, brethren, that to me the Constitution is a part of my religion. In its place it is just as much a part of my religion as any other part. It is a part of my religion because it is one of those institutions which God has set up for His own purposes, and, as one of the brethren said today, set up so that this Church might be established, because under no other government in the world could the Church have been established as it has been established under this Government.

Journal of Discourses, Brigham Young 12:43

How long will it be before the words of the prophet Joseph will be fulfilled? He said if the Constitution of the United States were saved at all it must be done by this people. It will not be many years before these words come to pass.

Journal of Discourses, Brigham Young 2:32

Brethren and sisters, our friends wish to know our feelings towards the Government. I answer, they are first-rate, and we will prove it too, as you will see if you only live long enough, for that we shall live to prove it is certain; and when the Constitution of the United States hangs, as it were, upon a single thread, they will have to call for the “Mormon” Elders to save it from utter destruction; and they will step forth and do it. We love the Constitution of our country; it is all we could ask; though in some few instances there might be some amendments made which would better it. We love the Federal Government, and the laws of Congress. There is nothing in those laws that in the least militates against us, not even to our excluding common law from this Territory. I can inform our lawyers who plead at the bar here, that the Congress of the United States have passed laws giving us the privilege of excluding common law at our pleasure, and that too with out any violation of the Constitution, or general statutes. They have also given us privilege to stop drunkenness, swearing, and gambling, and to prevent horse racing, and to punish men for hurting and robbing each other. The Constitution of the United States, and the whole Federal Government, in their acts, have given us this privilege.

Journal of Discourses, Brigham Young 7:2

Will the Constitution be destroyed? No: it will be held inviolate by this people; and, as Joseph Smith said, “The time will come when the destiny of the nation will hang upon a single thread. At that critical juncture, this people will step forth and save it from the threatened destruction.” It will be so. With regard to the doings of our fathers and the Constitution of the United States, I have to say, they present to us a glorious prospect in the future, but one we cannot attain to until the present abuses in the Government are corrected.

Journal of Discourses, John Taylor 25:41

[I]t looks very much like as though the time was drawing near when this country will tumble to pieces; for if the people of this nation are so blind and in fatuated as to trample under foot the Constitution and other safeguards provided for the liberties of man, we do not propose to assist them in their suicidal and traitorous enterprises; for we have been told by Joseph Smith that when the people of this nation would trample upon the Constitution, the Elders of this Church would rally round the flag and defend it. And it may come to that; we may be nearer to it than some of us think, for the people are not very zealous in the protection of human rights. And when legislators, governors and judges unite in seeking to tear down the temple of liberty and destroy the bulwarks of human freedom, it will be seen by all lovers of liberty, that they are playing a hazardous game and endangering the perpetuity of human rights. For it will not take long for the unthinking to follow their lead, and they may let loose an element that they never can bind again. We seem to be standing on a precipice and the tumultuous passions of men are agitated by political and party strife; the elements of discord are seething and raging as if portending a coming storm; and no man seems competent to take the helm and guide the ship of State through the fearful breakers that threaten on every hand. These are dangerous things, but it becomes our duty as good citizens to obey the law as far as practicable, and be governed by correct principles.

Journal of Discourses, Orson Hyde 6:23

It is said that brother Joseph in his lifetime declared that the Elders of this Church should step forth at a particular time when the Constitution should be in danger, and rescue it, and save it. This may be so; but I do not recollect that he said exactly so. I believe he said something like this–that the time would come when the Constitution and the country would be in danger of an overthrow; and said he, If the Constitution be saved at all, it will be by the Elders of this Church. I believe this is about the language, as nearly as I can recollect it.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Zeniff said:

The reasons the U.S. Constitution meets the Lord's needs was explained by what Elder Oaks comments regarding agency.  How each of us needs maximum freedom to exercise our agency and how the U.S. Constitution acknowledges and allows that.

We the people decide what we will do.  What we will and will not allow including whether or not we will allow others to exercise their maximum freedom to choose to do whatever they can choose to do.  Whether they will be good or evil.

Of course.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Of course.

This is why I suggested we marvel at his words.  I see him as someone who was conveying a very profound and yet also a very simple concept.

Why America is so great is because of our Constitutional principles which allow us maximum freedom to choose to do and believe... whatever...

...whatever we believe is right, or good, or will lead to our own happiness.  With no one in bondage to another, because each of us is doing whatever he or she chooses or has chosen to do.

We choose our own leaders, or those we will follow, or those we want to represent us or our values to other people... our so-called elected representatives.  And we say when others do not represent us or our own interests, too.

What more can we do to uphold and sustain the U.S. Constitution and the principles it represents than to recognize everyone has the right to make their own choices, to believe whatever they believe, and to do what they do.

Even when others do not have the same beliefs and opinions and values that we do.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Zeniff said:

First post.  Number #1.  Odd number, yes.  Prime number too.  

Dallin Harris Oaks under the keys of the authority delegated to him by President Russell Marion Nelson.  Spoken with the same authority as if Russell had said it himself, too.

You should meet Ahab.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, ttribe said:

That being said, I never said there was no fraud, whatsoever, in this last election.  That would be impossible.  Every election has some amount of fraud in it.  The question is whether there is enough to actually sway an outcome.  So, I go back to my previous statement that I find the notion of widespread fraud utterly laughable.  Not only would the fraud have to overcome numerous DIFFERENT internal control systems across numerous states, it would have to be orchestrated by a small army of people.  When it comes to collusion to commit fraud, let me give you a rule of thumb - For every additional co-conspirator in on the fraud, reduce the probability of the long-term success of that fraud by 50%.  Most real conspiracies collapse because people can't keep their mouths shut.  There is no mysterious puppet master pulling the strings of the election; that's the stuff of James Bond films, not reality.

Have you heard about the IRS being weaponized by Lois Lerner during the Obama administration?  Conservative organizations were denied taxing status normally given to non-profits, charities, and like foundations.  On the other hand, liberal and radical organizations were given preferential treatment.  How many of the IRS employees did it take to perpetrate this outrage?   One third?  Three fifths?  How much of the dominant media did it take to run cover for them?  Why did the Obama admin put up with it?  Or did they actively support them?

The Justice Department was politicized.  Remember the term "Operation Fast and Furious" ?  A conspiracy by Eric Holder cronies to falsely create a gun crisis by supplying automatic weapons to criminal cartels at the southern border.  But it blew back in their faces when our law enforcement personnel were killed in skirmishes with cartel criminals and the weapons were traced back to the Justice Department.  Eric Holder was held in contempt by Congress when he refused to comply with subpoenas.  He thumbed his nose at Congress and the American people.  When Loretta Lynch took over, she did plenty of shady things and still there were no accounting made of them.

What about the EPA being used by environmental extremists to punish ranchers, farmers and homesteaders?  For something as simple as heavy rain that turned a small depression on a part of their land into a pond.  Then the farmers would be charged for violating the clean water act or some weird regulations in the vast (often conflicting) code.  Who will speak for the land owners?  They are subjected to ruinous litigation while the government has massive resources.

Ammon Bundy (I know everybody here hates him) was unfairly treated by BLM (Bureau of Land Management).  He had the right for grazing his animals over open spaces.  It was supposed to be grandfathered (he had access for several decades).

Do you see the pattern?  The corruption is massive and unrelenting.  It is no big deal for the LEFT to marshal their forces to overwhelmingly subvert the rights of the people.  What is "utterly laughable" about this?

Link to comment
54 minutes ago, longview said:

Have you heard about the IRS being weaponized by Lois Lerner during the Obama administration?  Conservative organizations were denied taxing status normally given to non-profits, charities, and like foundations.  On the other hand, liberal and radical organizations were given preferential treatment.  How many of the IRS employees did it take to perpetrate this outrage?   One third?  Three fifths?  How much of the dominant media did it take to run cover for them?  Why did the Obama admin put up with it?  Or did they actively support them?

The Justice Department was politicized.  Remember the term "Operation Fast and Furious" ?  A conspiracy by Eric Holder cronies to falsely create a gun crisis by supplying automatic weapons to criminal cartels at the southern border.  But it blew back in their faces when our law enforcement personnel were killed in skirmishes with cartel criminals and the weapons were traced back to the Justice Department.  Eric Holder was held in contempt by Congress when he refused to comply with subpoenas.  He thumbed his nose at Congress and the American people.  When Loretta Lynch took over, she did plenty of shady things and still there were no accounting made of them.

What about the EPA being used by environmental extremists to punish ranchers, farmers and homesteaders?  For something as simple as heavy rain that turned a small depression on a part of their land into a pond.  Then the farmers would be charged for violating the clean water act or some weird regulations in the vast (often conflicting) code.  Who will speak for the land owners?  They are subjected to ruinous litigation while the government has massive resources.

Ammon Bundy (I know everybody here hates him) was unfairly treated by BLM (Bureau of Land Management).  He had the right for grazing his animals over open spaces.  It was supposed to be grandfathered (he had access for several decades).

Do you see the pattern?  The corruption is massive and unrelenting.  It is no big deal for the LEFT to marshal their forces to overwhelmingly subvert the rights of the people.  What is "utterly laughable" about this?

One, your latest post is filled with false equivalencies; it's impossible to begin unraveling your mess without investing a lot of time I don't have.

Two, none of these events involve a nationwide conspiracy which required bypassing multiple disparate control systems across numerous jurisdictions, almost simultaneously.

Three, your characterizations of the EPA and Bundy situations are decidedly biased and actually undermine the credibility of your argument, rather than add to its strength.

Four, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the concept of "Illusory Pattern Recognition."  The posts I've seen come from you on several issues indicate you are falling prey to this cognitive roadblock.

Edited by ttribe
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...