SCOTUS - Oral Argument on Abortion Rights Case

[BRMC]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

And what is your explanation then for the lack of fundraising and volunteer contributions in this consistently underfunded area as it is fairly well known it is an overburdened system?

Great question.  I don't necessarily have an explanation.   I don't have answers for everything.  As someone who has knowledge of the foster system, I can say that in my state it's broken.  Good people who look to enter the solution process often back out before completing it because it's so broken.

[BRMC]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I think it more often means they have very bad priorities.

I don't agree.   Many people who oppose forced redistribution still contribute greatly in time and money to charity.   Unfortunately, a single individual can't always give significantly to every charity.   They have to prioritize.  People's priorities are different and whether or not we think those priorities are good or bad depends on our own priorities.

[The Nehor]

58 minutes ago, BRMC said:

I don't agree.   Many people who oppose forced redistribution still contribute greatly in time and money to charity.   Unfortunately, a single individual can't always give significantly to every charity.   They have to prioritize.  People's priorities are different and whether or not we think those priorities are good or bad depends on our own priorities.

Well, the children may suffer but at least your weird fetish for thinking taxation is theft and that caring for orphans is extortion is satisfied so I guess everyone is a winner. Except the orphans and abused kids of course. Sucks to be them.

[BRMC]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Well, the children may suffer but at least your weird fetish for thinking taxation is theft and that caring for orphans is extortion is satisfied so I guess everyone is a winner. Except the orphans and abused kids of course. Sucks to be them.

Which organization do you volunteer with?

[kimpearson]

3 hours ago, BRMC said:

Not supporting the forcible taking of funds from one person and giving it to another doesn't always mean people don't care.  Sometimes it just means people don't support redistributing funds by force for everything.

Do you think tithing is a forced taking?  It's not against the law but you lose temple privileges and other privileges if you don't pay?  That feels like some level of forced redistribution of funds.  What about the military?  Is it OK to force redistribution of funds for that purpose?  Is there any justification ever for forcing the redistribution of funds?  I guess I look at taxes just like tithing.  Both are used to run institutions that work to benefit human kind.  Both have inefficiencies (based on 30 years of Church audit experience including public accounting audits of the Church).  What would have happened to the Church if no one ever paid tithing in the past?  Of course tithing is no longer needed to run the Church but it is still a requirement I guess so that the Church can have even more reserve funds in the future.  Is that a higher cause than the redistributing funds to try to help the unfortunate?     Reserves with no announced purpose versus funds to help the needy.  Think about it.

[BRMC]

9 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

Do you think tithing is a forced taking?  It's not against the law but you lose temple privileges and other privileges if you don't pay?  That feels like some level of forced redistribution of funds.  What about the military?  Is it OK to force redistribution of funds for that purpose?  Is there any justification ever for forcing the redistribution of funds?  I guess I look at taxes just like tithing.  Both are used to run institutions that work to benefit human kind.  Both have inefficiencies (based on 30 years of Church audit experience including public accounting audits of the Church).  What would have happened to the Church if no one ever paid tithing in the past?  Of course tithing is no longer needed to run the Church but it is still a requirement I guess so that the Church can have even more reserve funds in the future.  Is that a higher cause than the redistributing funds to try to help the unfortunate?     Reserves with no announced purpose versus funds to help the needy.  Think about it.

No.  Tithing isn't forced taking.  The Bishop won't show up to my house with a gun if I don't pay tithing.  

[rodheadlee]

On 12/4/2021 at 11:29 AM, california boy said:

If Row V Wade is modified or overturned by the Supreme Court.  Could Congress pass a law making abortion legal again?  

I believe so.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, BRMC said:

No.  Tithing isn't forced taking.  The Bishop won't show up to my house with a gun if I don't pay tithing.  

But you won't get to live with God, which is worse?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, BRMC said:

No.  Tithing isn't forced taking.  The Bishop won't show up to my house with a gun if I don't pay tithing.  

Indeed. Imagine the horror of spending a few years in jail for avoiding taxes vs being damned to eternal torment for avoiding tithing. 

[JustAnAustralian]

3 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Of course tithing is no longer needed to run the Church but it is still a requirement I guess so that the Church can have even more reserve funds in the future. 

It's also still a commandment last I checked.

[webbles]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Indeed. Imagine the horror of spending a few years in jail for avoiding taxes vs being damned to eternal torment for avoiding tithing. 

I don't think the comparison is really good.  With the church, you can stop believing in it, no longer worry about eternal torment, and not have any worry about being forced to pay tithing.  But if you stop believing in the government or declare some sort of independence, you still have to worry about going to jail.  In the former, it is in internal belief that keeps you in line.  In the later, it is an external threat that keeps you in line.

Now, you could argue that not paying tithing does have an external threat because you would be prevented from going into the temple.  But, you can always lie for a temple recommend.  So it is still an internal belief, not an external threat.  Lying for a temple recommend will only result in you loosing your temple recommend.  Lying to the government will result in jail time.

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, webbles said:

I don't think the comparison is really good. 

I agree. But I also think it depends on the person which is the stronger threat. Physically, jail time is much more immediate a threat. 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

I don't think the comparison is really good.  With the church, you can stop believing in it, no longer worry about eternal torment, and not have any worry about being forced to pay tithing.  But if you stop believing in the government or declare some sort of independence, you still have to worry about going to jail.  In the former, it is in internal belief that keeps you in line.  In the later, it is an external threat that keeps you in line.

Now, you could argue that not paying tithing does have an external threat because you would be prevented from going into the temple.  But, you can always lie for a temple recommend.  So it is still an internal belief, not an external threat.  Lying for a temple recommend will only result in you loosing your temple recommend.  Lying to the government will result in jail time.

Nah, with the IRS gutted the way it is you will probably be fine not paying taxes if you do a semi-competent job of hiding it.

[BRMC]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

But you won't get to live with God, which is worse?

Irrelevant.  One is a choice.  The other is not.  That's how agency works.  

[Calm]

23 hours ago, BRMC said:

Irrelevant.  One is a choice.  The other is not.  That's how agency works.  

You can choose to pay taxes or not and face the consequences. Having no choice means having no control; no matter what you do, it is irrelevant to what happens to you.  You may not have chosen to give the government authority over you, but you didn’t choose to have God’s authority over you when you were created either. But then you choose to accept his law by obeying just as one chooses to accept the authority of the government or not.

Edited December 7, 2021 by Calm

[BRMC]

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

You can choose to pay taxes or not and face the consequences. Having no choice means having no control, no matter what you do, it is irrelevant to what happens to you.  You may not have chosen to give the government authority over you, but you didn’t choose to have God’s authority over you when you were created either. But then you choose to accept his law by obeying just as one chooses to accept the authority of the government or not.

God's law isn't synonymous with man's law.  One is an unchanging and just natural order.  The other is a fickle, unjust, creation by of flawed mortals.  It's odd to see someone even try to make this stretch to justify another mortal's right to what isn't theirs. 
 

 

Edited December 6, 2021 by BRMC

[smac97]

11 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Indeed. Imagine the horror of spending a few years in jail for avoiding taxes vs being damned to eternal torment for avoiding tithing. 

 Imagine just how patently and intentionally dishonest it would be for a person who knows better to characterize the Terrestrial Kingdom as "eternal torment."

Thanks,

Smac

[Calm]

4 hours ago, BRMC said:

God's law isn't synonymous with man's law.  One is an unchanging and just natural order.  The other is a fickle, unjust, creation by of flawed mortals.  It's odd to see someone even try to make this stretch to justify another mortal's right to what isn't theirs. 
 

 

I am merely pointing out poor logic, I was not trying to justify the right to tax by the government. That is a separate issue from what is technically a choice and what is not, imo. Being sent to jail is a horrendous thought for me and a huge amount of pressure, but there are worse situations that few would define as “no choice”.  If by my own actions, I can decide to endure or be protected from a consequence, there is a choice, even if the consequences I get to choose are neither very appealing. 
 

For example, one is given the choice of taking expensive and painful treatment for cancer or dying from cancer.  Some will choose the treatment, others decide that their choice is to accept death when it comes.  Few think of such a choice as the doctor forcing them to take treatment or something else forcing them not to even if it might feel that way due to despair.

If I was trying to do justify the right of the government to tax, I would point to:

 

Quote

12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

As well as 

Quote

Nevertheless, the Church authorities lend no support to these extremists, as was indicated by President Harold B. Lee at the October 1972 general conference when he instructed:

“Now there is another danger that confronts us. There seem to be those among us who are as wolves among the flock, trying to lead some who are weak and unwary among Church members, according to reports that have reached us, who are taking the law into their own hands by refusing to pay their income tax because they have some political disagreement with constituted authorities.” (Ensign, January 1973, p. 106.)

In the April 1973 Priesthood Bulletin the Church reaffirmed its position against those “who claim Church membership … making it appear as though their opposition to Federal tax laws is Church sponsored” by referring to President Lee’s aforementioned conference admonition and concluded with the following instructions to Church leaders:

“We ask priesthood leaders to be on guard against such persons. They are not to be invited to speak in priesthood or sacrament meetings, firesides, or other Church meetings in attempting to spread their propaganda. Priesthood leaders should also teach the necessity of abiding the law according to the revelations.

“The Lord has said:

“‘Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

“‘Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet.’” (D&C 58:21–22.)

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1976/01/i-have-a-question/what-can-you-tell-me-about-the-federal-income-tax?lang=eng

The original 72 conference talk is here and had a comment I thought interesting but off topic, so just posting but would suggest someone starting a new thread if they want to discuss it.

Quote

Others have tried to marshal civilians, without police authority, and to arm themselves to battle against possible dangers, little realizing that in so doing they themselves become the ones who, by obstructing the constituted authority, would become subject to arrest and imprisonment.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1972/10/admonitions-for-the-priesthood-of-god?lang=eng

Edited December 6, 2021 by Calm

[BRMC]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I am merely pointing out poor logic, I was not trying to justify the right to tax by the government. That is a separate issue from what is technically a choice and what is not, imo. Being sent to jail is a horrendous thought for me and a huge amount of pressure, but there are worse situations that few would define as “no choice”.  If by my own actions, I can decide to endure or be protected from a consequence, there is a choice, even if the consequences I get to choose are neither very appealing. 
 

For example, one is given the choice of taking expensive and painful treatment for cancer or dying from cancer.  Some will choose the treatment, others decide that their choice is to accept death when it comes.  Few think of such a choice as the doctor forcing them to take treatment or something else forcing them not to even if it might feel that way due to despair.

If I was trying to do justify the right of the government to tax, I would point to:

 

As well as 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1976/01/i-have-a-question/what-can-you-tell-me-about-the-federal-income-tax?lang=eng

The original 72 conference talk is here and had a comment I thought interesting but off topic, so just posting but would suggest someone starting a new thread if they want to discuss it.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1972/10/admonitions-for-the-priesthood-of-god?lang=eng

And I'm merely pointing out your claims of poor logic is false and your reasoning flawed.  
 

No worries.  

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, BRMC said:

And I'm merely pointing out your claims of poor logic is false and your reasoning flawed.  
 

No worries.  

That was not terribly convincing. Rather disappointed.  Was interested in an decent discussion. Something challenging. 
 

One more example occurred to me that demonstrates to me at least that using the terms “forced” or “no choice” for paying taxes because the other option is potentially jail time is incorrect. 
 

We can choose to steal or not based on the knowledge that if caught we will go to jail. Would anyone here claim we are being forced to be honest if we choose not to steal for that reason? Or would you describe it as a choice to be honest for perhaps not the best reason, but still a choice?

I know I may have a wider definition of choice than many and I find it interesting to explore where the line for “no choice” actually exists.  I think it is quite distant as I believe mortality was set up to give us massive amounts of opportunities to make all sorts of choices, including difficult or unjust vs unjust ones.  Mortality is meant to teach us what agency truly means, the responsibility of it including its impact on ourselves and others…and how our choices have a much wider effect than we realize, but that is something I think we won’t learn completely until we are in the spirit world looking back with much greater awareness. 

Edited December 6, 2021 by Calm

[BRMC]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

That was not terribly convincing. Rather disappointed.  Was interested in an decent discussion. Something challenging. 

Sorry.  I just don't see the point in contentious discussion when 2 people don't agree and no minds will be changed.  

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, BRMC said:

contentious discussion

If you think this is contentious discussion and see no point in it, I am wondering why you continue posting on the board. 
 

Minds may not be changed, but greater understanding of others’ reasoning, why they make their choices, how they see the world….I think there is great value in that, but it is not achieved by making an assertion and nothing more. 

Edited December 6, 2021 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

 Imagine just how patently and intentionally dishonest it would be for a person who knows better to characterize the Terrestrial Kingdom as "eternal torment."

Thanks,

Smac

Are you calling God dishonest? Really!? Wow. Pretty bold of you. Maybe take it up with him!
 

For, behold, the ^amystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am ^bendless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless ^cpunishment, for ^dEndless is my name. Wherefore—

11 ^aEternal punishment is God’s punishment.

Edited December 6, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Are you calling God dishonest. Really!? Wow. Pretty bold of you. Maybe take it up with him!
 

For, behold, the ^amystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am ^bendless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless ^cpunishment, for ^dEndless is my name. Wherefore—

11 ^aEternal punishment is God’s punishment.

By all means, continue.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 6, 2021 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

By all means, continue.

Thanks,

-Smac

I’ll take that as you conceding the point.