CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

Would you sustain Harry Reid

by mizzoucoug · 11/20/2013

Sponsored Advertisementad content
B
BoiseBYU
CF87. Well said. Let's start our own party to vote the bums out! wait.... ;)
M
mizzoucoug
BoiseBYU wrote:
BoiseBYU wrote:
mizzoucoug wrote:
I have been in the same quorum as HR and have followed his political history for about thirty-five years. Let me just say that PT Barnum has nothing on Harry.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">


Do you have anymore insight into what he's like in that capacity? I'd love to hear that I am wrong about him.




Thinking back on it, I don't remember what callings he held. He never had a calling in which I reported to or worked with him. I do remember trying to follow his logic in a talk or class. I remember him acting like a GA and inviting himself to sit on the stand. That always bugged me. I heard a rumor once that a bishop asked him to take a seat in a pew. I hope it is true.



He is a guy that has never had a private sector job. He tells a story that he was a poor kid from Search Light, NV. He is now the wealthiest senator in DC. Figure that one out.



He started his political career on the Clark county commission supposedly running the mob out of LV. In case it isn't obvious, the mob never actually left.



Wasn't it just a couple years ago he gave a talk at BYU and totally trash talked Pres. Benson?



He like many other LDS democrats that I know try to sell socialism as the Law of Consecration. I see it as an attempt to replace the gospel with the adversary's plan but call it the gospel.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">


The LDS democrats I know do NOT try to sell socialism as the Law of Consecration. I know I don't. I'm not sure how much of a democrat I am these days, but I think it wrong to collectively define all or most people of a political persuasion in a spiritually negative way.


Sure it is. Name one single Democrat policy that is in alignment with the Gospel.


Let's be precise. TWW said LDS democrats equate the Law of Consecration with socialism. I am not aware of a faithful LDS democrat who does that. Not one. The law of consecration is a sacred covenant. To equate a failed man-made political/economic system with a sacred covenant and say LDS democrats do that is poor form and your zeal in painting LDS democrats as not in alignment with the gospel is polarizing and unrighteous judgment. I am a "soft" democrat. That said I have no obligation and will not dignify your challenge with a response. If you really wanted to know, you could figure it out pretty easily, because I know you are not stupid, just someone with a made-up mind and an agenda.


My mind sure is made up and my agenda is to expose the leftist ideology for what it is.



And I have not condemned anyone's soul for being a Democrat. If you vote that way that's fine, but you ought to b well aware of the existence of the LDS Democrat stream of thought that has been so duplicitous. Most prominent among its disciples was Hugh Nibley. If ever there was a socialist dummy it was him (everything else he wrote about was brilliant though). And with his prominence he has gained many followers over the decades. Thankfully, many articles exist (including the one I linked) that have absolutely destroyed his leftist opinions.
V
valleus
Reading this post has been surreal.



"I have heard he made deals the rest of us couldn't make."

Well, I've heard all sorts of outrageous things about Joseph Smith. Surely we should not trust him. Since when is is hearsay grounds for, well, anything?



"My cousin claims that there are people that leave the temple when Reid shows up."

How Christlike of these temple workers! Always heartwarming to see the devout who can spend 80 hours a week in the temple but are incapable of reading Matthew 5-7.

In any event, what does this statement demonstrate beyond phariseeism? If Harry's at the temple, doesn't this mean he has a recommend? I'm sure he lied on all the interview questions, so it is of no matter.



"I have always said that some leaders are called to guide and help us while others are called to test our faith and patience."

In other words, when a man or woman is called whose assumptions and analysis on economics I find disagreeable, this must mean he/she was called to test my righteous faith and patience. Of course, it is possible you are one who tries others faith and patience and he is one called to guide, but such a thought would not be ego-syntonic.



"I think this man is pure evil"

Based upon what? What evidence that he is evil? Good grief.



"...Most prominent among its disciples was Hugh Nibley. If ever there was a socialist dummy it was him"

Nibley, a socialist dummy? I've read about 30 books by Hugh Nibley, and this claim is laughable. He was not a libertarian conservative, but he was certainly not a socialist. Even in Approaching Zion. Endorsing a progressive taxation scheme does not make one a socialist.



I have yet to see one post demonstrate, beyond hearsay, that this man is an unworthy LDS. Most of you have no idea just how much Harry has done for the Church behind the scenes. I have been in this man's ward for four years, I have heard his testimony. He believes. I do not vote democratic, but I have seen nothing and have read nothing to convince me that he is not a man of personal integrity. The scriptures are a guide for personal living. They do not obviously or explicitly comment on 21st century government. It goes against the teachings of Christ to deign to not sustain a brother because his opinions and assumptions on relatively unimportant, wordly, transient items of government and economics are different from your own. One dec 22 2012 how many of you would've eagerly sustained Mike Crapo?
B
BroncoBot
valleus wrote:
Endorsing a progressive taxation scheme does not make one a socialist.
Uhhhh... to me it does.


It goes against the teachings of Christ to deign to not sustain a brother because his opinions and assumptions on relatively unimportant, wordly, transient items of government and economics are different from your own.


indeed. Show me in the scriptures were a war was fought over differences in ideas concerning liberty, freedom, independence. Much less a war that was led by Christ himself. I can't think of a single example. :roll:



The problem I have with HR is that nearly all of his decisions have made Americans more dependent, more socialistic, less free and in the long run less self reliant. But I suppose all of those things could be considered relatively unimportant, worldly and transient items of government and economics. He has lead the movement to make the US government "god" for a large aspect of the American people. Instead of using his position to champion the LDS view that we are to be a self reliant and willingly charitable society he has attempted to FORCE certain groups of people to pay for the "rights" of others, which has only further entiltled and made the recipients more dependent.



But then, there are few republicans except from the same criticism.
N
nuk13
In further thought I would do a lot of praying to sustain Reid. I would ask the authorities some questions. What I am still wondering about is what he and other LDS are thinking in proposing or backing increased taxes and regulations. This takes our agency to choose. It is clear to me that in the preexistence the Savior stood up to oppose Lucifer in this matter. I am very uncomfortable with a government that is doing this and increasing in it's size and power. These acts are taking the power from the people which is where the government is supposed to get it's power. I am more concerned with these questions because I am very doubtful that I'll ever live around Reid but I do have the consequences of his and others acts to deal with no matter where I live in the U.S.A.



I have heard there are other LDS that do not have the opinion of the "War in Heaven" that I have stated. If that is true I would like to know why. Some of you have made reference to this but I am still wondering.
Sponsored Advertisementad content
M
mizzoucoug
valleus wrote:



"...Most prominent among its disciples was Hugh Nibley. If ever there was a socialist dummy it was him"

Nibley, a socialist dummy? I've read about 30 books by Hugh Nibley, and this claim is laughable. He was not a libertarian conservative, but he was certainly not a socialist. Even in Approaching Zion. Endorsing a progressive taxation scheme does not make one a socialist.


He absolutely was a socialist. That article I linked alone has quite a few instances of his socialistic bent. And that's just from one of his books. The thing about Nibley is that he makes these remarks quickly in passing, but never as a well though out argument so they're hard to catch. Here's a few for everyone's enjoyment--you tell me what these sound like.



“Why does it always come that two hundred million

people sacrifice and fifty-thousand at the top are never called upon to

sacrifice?”



“Before

the 1974–1975 mini-depression, all financial poverty could have been

eliminated at a modest shift of $10–15 billion to the poor from the

rest of the community. 15 billion is less than 1.5% of the GNP, about

the size of one of the cheaper weapons systems.”



practicing the law of consecration looks

“suspiciously” like “equalizing the wealth.”



"a frenzy of privatization now insists that the only public institution with a reason for existence is the military, to defend us against societies more committed to sharing." (stated during the Cold War)



But hey this isn't about Nibley, it's about a man in the top rung of power in the U.S. government who essentially has piggy-backed off Satan's plan for mankind.
S
snoscythe
I disagree with many who label any attempt to level the playing field as "socialist" and of the devil. Until the 1950s, many LDS leaders advocated positions like this:


But since all capitalistic systems are founded upon the institution of private property, inheritance and the profit motive, great inequalities of ownership and income inevitably result. …Among the more plausible suggestions offered to correct existing abuses without adversely affecting the productive system, is to continue the socialization of our service institutions through a system of progressive taxation based upon ability to pay…taking the bulk of their [captains of industry] profits to finance free education, free libraries, free public parks and recreation centers, unemployment insurance, old age benefits, sickness and accident insurance, and perhaps eventually free medical aid and hospital service. …The average family may not have much more money, if any, to spend under such a system than now. But…then the meager family income can be devoted entirely to the necessities of life, plus some of the comforts now enjoyed by the higher income classes. …To finance all of this, of course, will necessitate huge sums of money. …And it will also require a carefully worked out tax system so that every one will contribute according to his financial ability. Inheritance and estate taxes will become progressively higher, until the present system of permitting large fortunes to be passed on from generation to generation will become extinct. And incidentally, the so-called idle rich who have been living on the earnings of past generations will be no more.


It was only during/after the red scare that every statement about leveling wealth with government policy became stuck with the label socialist, and many who attribute to Lucifer any such plans don't realize that they attributing to the Adversary plans recently advocated by Latter-day prophets as worthwhile. The above quote was from President Heber J. Grant and was even published in the Melchizedek Priesthood manual for the church in 1938, but many would be quick to label it today as the plan of the Adversary.
T
tww
What does it mean when an attorney uses a loosely referenced and vague "what if" statement, that amounted to absolutely nothing, as the basis for his argument? I think it means he is going to rely on a very impassioned closing statement to win his case.



Sorry Sno but this has about as much strength as a "Jesus drank wine" argument.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">
B
BoiseBYU
Advocating a progressive tax structure does not make you a socialist, unless the term socialist has come to simply constitute a pejprative epithet for someone you dislike. In that instance it is just spewing venom instead of trying to articulate something of meaning and makes meaningful discussion vacuous. You may strongly oppose a progressive tax structure and I would respect that position. But to somehow call someone who does a socialist just defeats anyone seriously taking you seriously.



It is hard for some too I know, but just because someone's politics may be differ from yours does not mean he is unworthy to serve in the Church. This is going to come off as self-righteous patting my shoulder, but I share nonetheless for your consideration. I disagreed (albeit very quietly) with President Benson's politics. I did not let it stop me from sustaining him as an apostle and then Prophet of the Church. He was our prophet and I sustained him and to my amazement it proved to a great blessing for me. He taught some wonderful things that I at least needed to hear, particularly on pride. mothers, and the Book of Mormon. I'm glad I did not let his politics get in the way of my sustaining him because I am the better for it now. Maybe a democrat will be presented in your neck of the woods, a prominent one at that. Consider that you might be blessed by sustaining him and allowing the spirit to inspire this man in his ministry. OK I will get off my soap box. I just get worked up because I see the nastiness of politics creeping into the church. Our tent is bigger than that.
S
snoscythe
tww wrote:
Sorry Sno but this has about as much strength as a "Jesus drank wine" argument.


When is the last time a sitting president of the Church not only advocated the "Jesus drank wine" argument, but also included it in Church manuals of instruction for chruch-wide dissemination and instruction?



I have to say that your response doesn't surprise me. Generally when I've brought up these arguments to those who are quick to screed any government effort to mitigate the disparity between the wealthy and poor, they have no response other than yours--to dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't fit with the narrow worldview they have created where anything other than laissez faire capitalism with a "fair" tax is somehow a plan of the devil, even though the Lord's prophets have advocated for the same.
Sponsored Advertisementad content
B
BroncoBot
snoscythe wrote:
Sorry Sno but this has about as much strength as a "Jesus drank wine" argument.


When is the last time a sitting president of the Church not only advocated the "Jesus drank wine" argument, but also included it in Church manuals of instruction for chruch-wide dissemination and instruction?



I have to say that your response doesn't surprise me. Generally when I've brought up these arguments to those who are quick to screed any government effort to mitigate the disparity between the wealthy and poor, they have no response other than yours--to dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't fit with the narrow worldview they have created where anything other than laissez faire capitalism with a "fair" tax is somehow a plan of the devil, even though (SOME OF the Lord's prophets have advocated for the same.
T
tww
snoscythe wrote:
Sorry Sno but this has about as much strength as a "Jesus drank wine" argument.


When is the last time a sitting president of the Church not only advocated the "Jesus drank wine" argument, but also included it in Church manuals of instruction for chruch-wide dissemination and instruction?



I have to say that your response doesn't surprise me. Generally when I've brought up these arguments to those who are quick to screed any government effort to mitigate the disparity between the wealthy and poor, they have no response other than yours--to dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't fit with the narrow worldview they have created where anything other than laissez faire capitalism with a "fair" tax is somehow a plan of the devil, even though the Lord's prophets have advocated for the same.


Well considering our perspectives that probably isn't a surprise. You get paid to use outliers to extend a debate. I get paid to eliminate the outliers and find the meat. You knew it was an outlier, that is why you brought it up. I think we both see it the same but come from separate disciplines that dictate what we do with it.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">
S
snoscythe
tww wrote:
tww wrote:
Sorry Sno but this has about as much strength as a "Jesus drank wine" argument.


When is the last time a sitting president of the Church not only advocated the "Jesus drank wine" argument, but also included it in Church manuals of instruction for chruch-wide dissemination and instruction?



I have to say that your response doesn't surprise me. Generally when I've brought up these arguments to those who are quick to screed any government effort to mitigate the disparity between the wealthy and poor, they have no response other than yours--to dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't fit with the narrow worldview they have created where anything other than laissez faire capitalism with a "fair" tax is somehow a plan of the devil, even though the Lord's prophets have advocated for the same.


Well considering our perspectives that probably isn't a surprise. You get paid to use outliers to extend a debate. I get paid to eliminate the outliers and find the meat. You knew it was an outlier, that is why you brought it up. I think we both see it the same but come from separate disciplines that dictate what we do with it.


I was unaware that we could dismiss statements of prophets as "outliers" when they don't sit well with our worldview. I'm just asking you to explain how you resolve some of the views in this thread with the statement of a prophet who was the prophet at the time he made the remarks and who directed their inclusion in church curriculum.



So far, your answer seems to be "if it doesn't mesh with my worldview, I label those statements 'outliers' and reject them without further consideration." I was unaware that we could apply statistics to priesthood leaders. What's President Monson's RPI rating this year?
B
BroncoBot
snoscythe wrote:
snoscythe wrote:
Sorry Sno but this has about as much strength as a "Jesus drank wine" argument.


When is the last time a sitting president of the Church not only advocated the "Jesus drank wine" argument, but also included it in Church manuals of instruction for chruch-wide dissemination and instruction?



I have to say that your response doesn't surprise me. Generally when I've brought up these arguments to those who are quick to screed any government effort to mitigate the disparity between the wealthy and poor, they have no response other than yours--to dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't fit with the narrow worldview they have created where anything other than laissez faire capitalism with a "fair" tax is somehow a plan of the devil, even though the Lord's prophets have advocated for the same.


Well considering our perspectives that probably isn't a surprise. You get paid to use outliers to extend a debate. I get paid to eliminate the outliers and find the meat. You knew it was an outlier, that is why you brought it up. I think we both see it the same but come from separate disciplines that dictate what we do with it.


I was unaware that we could dismiss statements of prophets as "outliers" when they don't sit well with our worldview. I'm just asking you to explain how you resolve some of the views in this thread with the statement of a prophet who was the prophet at the time he made the remarks and who directed their inclusion in church curriculum.



So far, your answer seems to be "if it doesn't mesh with my worldview, I label those statements 'outliers' and reject them without further consideration." I was unaware that we could apply statistics to priesthood leaders. What's President Monson's RPI rating this year?

Monson's RPI was far and away #1. ;)
B
BroncoBot
Just some reading material...



And I agree with the current Church teachings that encourages self reliance, which is different from "individual independence" (isolationism). Love that the church teaches that when we have the capabilities, it is our responsibility to teach and help others achieve their own self reliance. As far as I can tell, the church is not currently teaching that the government is the driving force in helping the poor and needy, instead, it is to be performed on a much more personal level. This is not seen in the world, and is certainly not what Mr. Reed is serving up. The way he has turned government into a "savior/god" for so many people is a disgrace. He is encouraging the dependency/whining group of people out there who are only hurting themselves and their families for generations to come by depending on handouts and taxes (including the progressive tax pyramid scheme) to support their lifestyle.



I certainly agree that we should render unto Cesar that which is Cesar's. But our bigger focus should be teaching our neighbor/family/community HOW to fish.





The following all comes from ...

http://www.josephsmithforum.org/research/faqs/26-taxes-are-high-taxes-a-form-of-bondage-are-they-a-sign-of-wickedness/#note-111-30" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;





Harold B. Lee



It is indeed a sad commentary on the loyalty and devotion of the citizens of the United States to those early American ideals if we have come to a time when it is thought that the distressed should look to a paternalistic agency rather than to their own for help in time of need; when it is expected that the cost of calamities must be compensated by the government or by some other agency. I fail to find in such attitudes of dependence on the government, which means an increasing burden of taxation, any show of patriotism and loyalty to this nation that characterized those who pioneered this great country. The first real step toward self-sufficiency and true patriotism is taken when a man resolves in his heart not only to be self-sustaining and independent, but also to aid others to be likewise. 1



We have come to a time when some seem to feel that because they have paid taxes in the past, now the government is obligated to care for them in idleness. We are also aware today that many of those with means have the feeling that they have discharged their full duty toward the unfortunate when their annual taxes are paid. 2



If we were united as a people in electing honorable men to high places in our civil government, regardless of the political party with which we have affiliation, we would be able to safeguard our communities and to preserve law and order among us. Our failure to be united means that we permit tyranny and oppression and taxation to the extent of virtual confiscation of our own property. 3



Those who refuse to honor father and mother in the way the Master explained 4 are jeopardizing their tenure upon this land which the Lord has given us. I have thought a great deal about that. I wonder whether that tenure shall be jeopardized because of the burdensome taxation that shall increase and grow until we are virtually displaced in our ownership, if we don’t take care of our own. 5

David O. McKay



Of all crushing taxes that impede the economic recovery of the American people, the crime tax is the greatest. 6



The burden of taxes and the proper distribution of wealth are questions perplexing the wisest minds. Truly, we are living in an age of shifting opinions, of swiftly changing human relations. Man’s wisdom is baffled. Obviously, there never was a greater need for anchorage to fixed principles, and never-changing truths. 7

Spencer W. Kimball



Men have tried through centuries to cure these evils and solve these problems and correct these crimes with police, courts, jails and penitentiaries. They have had blue laws to correct Sabbath breaking, obscenity, hedonism, immorality. They have tried wars to end wars. They have tried handouts and outright gifts to solve poverty, especially through taxation. They are trying numerous force and superficial ways to cure racism. They have used the law and the officers and the jails and systems of force to solve problems. Through the ages we have come to know we cannot legislate goodness….The world would legislate goodness and make men fear to do wrong. The gospel would cause men to do right because it makes them happy to do right. 8

Ezra Taft Benson



The Saints have been advised to pay their own way and maintain a cash reserve. Recent history has demonstrated that in difficult days it is reserves with intrinsic value that are of most worth, rather than reserves the value of which may be destroyed through inflation. It is well to remember that continued government deficits cause inflation; inflation is used as an excuse for ineffective price controls; price controls lead to shortages; artificial shortages inevitably are used as an excuse to implement rationing. When will we learn these basic economic principles? 9



History teaches that when individuals have given up looking after their own economic needs and transferred a large share of that responsibility to the government, both they and the government have failed. At least twenty great civilizations have disappeared. The pattern of their downfall is shockingly similar. All, before their collapse, showed a decline in spiritual values, in moral stamina, and in the freedom and responsibility of their citizens. They showed such symptoms as excessive taxation, bloated bureaucracy, government paternalism, and generally a rather elaborate set of supports, controls, and regulations affecting prices, wages, production, and consumption. 10 11



Even among free nations we see the encroachment of government upon the lives of the citizenry by excessive taxation and regulation, all done under the guise that the people would not wilfully or charitably distribute their wealth, so the government must take it from them. We further observe promises by the state of security, whereby men are taken care of from the womb to the tomb rather than earning this security by the “sweat of their brow” Moses 5:1; deception in high places, with the justification that “the end justifies the means”; atheism; agnosticism; immorality; and dishonesty. The attendant results of such sin and usurpation of power lead to a general distrust of government officials, an insatiable, covetous spirit for more and more material wants, personal debt to satisfy this craving, and the disintegration of the family unit. Yes, we live today amidst the times the Savior spoke of, times when “the love of many shall wax cold, and iniquity shall abound” Matthew 24:12. 12 13



The phrase federal aid to education is deceptive and dishonest. What is really meant is “federal taxes for education.” The federal government cannot “aid” education. All it can do is tax the people, shuffle the money from one state to another and skim off its administrative costs from the top. Only the people can aid education. They can do it safer, faster, and cheaper within their local communities than by going through the middleman in Washington. Federal taxes for education means federal control over education. No matter how piously the national planners tell us that they will not dictate policies to local school systems, it is inevitable that they will in the long run. In fact, they already are doing it. Whenever the federal government spends tax money for any purpose, it has an obligation to determine how and under what conditions that money is used. Any other course would be irresponsible. 14 15



The framers of our Constitution knew that many forces would be at work toward the concentration of power at the federal level. They knew that it somehow seems easier to impose “progress” on localities than to wait for them to bring it about themselves. Raids on the federal treasury can be all too readily accomplished by an organized few over the feeble protests of an apathetic majority. With more and more activity centered in the federal government, the relationship between the costs and the benefits of government programs becomes obscure. What follows is the voting of public money without having to accept direct local responsibility for higher taxes.



I know of no device of government which will lead more quickly to an increase in the number of federal programs than this. If this trend continues, the states may be left hollow shells, operating primarily as the field districts of federal departments and dependent upon the federal treasury for their support. 16 17



I maintain that every person who enjoys the protection of his life, liberty, and property should bear his fair share of the cost of government in providing that protection; that the elementary principles of justice set forth in the Constitution demand that all taxes imposed be uniform; and that each person’s property or income be taxed at the same rate. 18



I consider it a violation of the Constitution for the federal government to levy taxes for the support of state or local government; that no state or local government can accept funds from the federal government and remain independent in performing its functions, nor can the citizens exercise their rights of self-government under such conditions. 19



Only saved profit, not government, creates more jobs. The only way government can create jobs is to take money from productive citizens in the form of taxes and transfer it to government programs. Without someone’s generating profit that can be taxed, government revenue is not possible. 20 21



While politicians will continue to insist that our economy is not in the slightest danger, lest they be accused of being “negative,” or “spreaders of doom,” there is a sound and realistic course of action that we can follow to prepare for the coming readjustment period and to lessen the shock. As a nation, we must stop giving away money to foreign nations as though we had it. We should demand repayment of our loans to other countries-especially those which are making the heaviest demands upon our gold supply. We should cease giving them our gold until they pay their debts to us. We must stop the federal government from deficit spending, and begin immediately to pay off the national debt in a systematic fashion. This, of course, means increasing taxes or decreasing the size of government. It is doubtful that the American people can absorb more taxes without further injuring the productive base of our economy, but there is no doubt that government can be reduced without any such risk. 22 23



Taxes are necessary for defense and for some needful services that none of us would begrudge. But at the same time all of us are concerned about the expense of operating the government with our money. We must not let inflation impose further crushing burdens of cheaper dollars. 24 25



A category of government activity which today not only requires the closest scrutiny but which also poses a grave danger to our continued freedom is the activity not within the proper sphere of government. No one has the authority to grant such power as welfare programs, schemes for redistributing the wealth, and activities which coerce people into acting in accordance with a prescribed code of social planning. There is one simple test. Do I as an individual have a right to use force upon my neighbor to accomplish my goal? If I do have such a right, I may delegate that power to my government to exercise on my behalf. If I do not have that right as an individual, I cannot delegate it to government, and I cannot ask my government to perform the act for me. 26 27



Deficit spending and the inflation it produces constitute a hidden tax against all Americans-especially those who own insurance policies, have savings accounts, or who are retired on fixed incomes. Every time the dollar drops another penny in value, it is the same as if the government had counted up all the money that you and I had in our pockets, in savings, or in investments, and then taxed us one cent on each dollar. The tax in this case, however, does not show up on our W-2 forms. It is hidden from view in the nature of higher and still higher prices for all that we buy. 28 29

Howard W. Hunter



We don’t rely on taxation to take care of our people. We believe that we should take care of our own and not rely upon the help of others. These newspaper reporters were interested in how we build without having any debt. We have built thousands of buildings in the world, and every one is paid for in full. We have no indebtedness. The Church has always taught us that we should live within our income and be free from debt, and it practices what it preaches. 30
Sponsored Advertisementad content
C
Cougarfan87
I would propose that on political matters we remember the Church's official stance--neutrality. It is not neutrality with a wink and a smirk, but true neutrality unless an issue is a religious moral issue (Elective abortion, gay marriage, etc.). We have had prophets from both parties who, I am sure though they differed in what role they thought Government should play in the providing of services to the people, were able to serve the Lord with singular focus. If the Lord called Harry Reid to be bishop, I would support him. Politics cannot solve the great evils of this world. Only the gospel of Jesus Christ can solve them. If you believe otherwise, your faith is misplaced. That is not to say we are not responsible to pick good men who will protect our rights, especially our rights of worship, but I would not expect them to solve the ills of the world that have existed from time immemorial--poverty, violence, death. Those things will only be resolved in a glorious millenial future. In the here and now, we just do the best we can, and help as many people as we can along the way.
N
nuk13
Thanks Bbot. Those are very good quotes. It is good to have more than one viewpoint from the presidents.
N
nuk13
It's reported that Reid and his staff intervened to expidite visa applications for Vegas hotel investors.
J
jvquarterback
snoscythe wrote:
I disagree with many who label any attempt to level the playing field as "socialist" and of the devil. Until the 1950s, many LDS leaders advocated positions like this:


But since all capitalistic systems are founded upon the institution of private property, inheritance and the profit motive, great inequalities of ownership and income inevitably result. …Among the more plausible suggestions offered to correct existing abuses without adversely affecting the productive system, is to continue the socialization of our service institutions through a system of progressive taxation based upon ability to pay…taking the bulk of their [captains of industry] profits to finance free education, free libraries, free public parks and recreation centers, unemployment insurance, old age benefits, sickness and accident insurance, and perhaps eventually free medical aid and hospital service. …The average family may not have much more money, if any, to spend under such a system than now. But…then the meager family income can be devoted entirely to the necessities of life, plus some of the comforts now enjoyed by the higher income classes. …To finance all of this, of course, will necessitate huge sums of money. …And it will also require a carefully worked out tax system so that every one will contribute according to his financial ability. Inheritance and estate taxes will become progressively higher, until the present system of permitting large fortunes to be passed on from generation to generation will become extinct. And incidentally, the so-called idle rich who have been living on the earnings of past generations will be no more.


It was only during/after the red scare that every statement about leveling wealth with government policy became stuck with the label socialist, and many who attribute to Lucifer any such plans don't realize that they attributing to the Adversary plans recently advocated by Latter-day prophets as worthwhile. The above quote was from President Heber J. Grant and was even published in the Melchizedek Priesthood manual for the church in 1938, but many would be quick to label it today as the plan of the Adversary.


You've cited this before and I would like the full quote as I've been unable to find it. It is also discordant with President Grant's views on the dole and the many negative things he had to say during President Roosevelt's administration about the roles government assumed. For all we know in the next paragraph President Grant or J Reuben Clark or Harold B Lee specifically denounces the sentiment espoused above.



President Grant also said, "every faithful Latter-Day-Saint believes, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life are inherent rights that should never be deprived." (Gospel standards p 133).



That said, if HR were called to be my Bishop of course I would sustain him - it would give him less time to be up to mischief. I'd have a harder time sustaining any of BYU's assistant football coaches though.
I
imuakahuku
bigbluepuma wrote:
Excellent question, Mizz. I can't imagine how hard that would be for me. I might have to move to another ward just to survive. I think sno, schmoe, hawkwing and some others had good thoughts. Ultimately, we don't know why the Lord calls a given individual to a calling, and sometimes that is the test for us. A favorite scripture of mine: D&C 101:4 applies here; "Therefore, they must needs be chastened and tried, even as Abraham, who was commanded to offer up his only son". I think this would be an Abrahamic trial for me, because I think this man is pure evil, on a level with Nancy Palosy and our illustrious president. These three have our great country on the verge of complete collapse, and they are doing it on purpose.



Socialism (as these three advocate), differs diametrically from the United Order in the two central tennets of both. First: socialism takes by force, the wealth from those who have, and gives to those who have not, while the UO is lived voluntarily, and provides for the needs and wants of all. Second: Socialism leaves it at that: (we have helped the poor), while the United Order requires all to share in the work. All may not be able to do that which creates the wealth, but all are able to contribute to the well being of the community. Socialism creates indolence, while the United Order fosters industry. Beyond that, socialism NEVER does what it claims to do, which is redistribute the wealth to make all equal. Those who advocate socialist reform paint the rich as evil usurpers who have stolen their wealth from the people, then by revolution or legislation, endeavor to take the wealth from the those currently in power and put themselves in the position of wealth and power. Look at any successful socialist revolution and you will see that it never does away with the wealthy, it just changes the faces. In the United Order (the Lord's kingdom), all share equally. Ultimately, if we live worthy, partake of his atonement and endure to the end, we will share all with him, even his glory. we will be "even as he is."



Back to the original question: I have had many good bishops, and a few who have tried my faith. Sometimes I have really wondered why an individual was called. The toughest bishop (for all the ward) I have had was a really good man who was called at a young age, and was very dogmatic in his approach to his calling. He really tried the ward and drove some away. Many wondered why he was called, and why he remained in his calling for so long, while his flock suffered. I believe in this case, he was called to train him for the next time he is called, when his strength, spirituality and knowledge will really be needed, coupled with the wisdom he will have gained from looking back on his first experience and realizing the mistakes he made. There are troubling times ahead, and this man will now be prepared to lead his flock through them.



In another case, I know a man who was swindled out of a lot of money in a business deal, by a member of his ward, who was just plain dishonest and unscrupulous. Shortly thereafter, the man was called to be my friend's bishop. This would have had to be a Harry Reid type of deal for my friend and for many others in his ward. My friend's wife left the church over this calling, but when I last saw my friend, he was still active, and the man was still the bishop. I don't know why this man was called. It seems impossible that the Lord would call such a man, but the Lord sees far beyond what we can see. Maybe this was the thing that made the man turn his life around. Maybe he was called because he was the only one who could help a specific person or group within the ward, or his family, or elswhere, and the Lord had another plan to help those who the man hurt. Maybe he was the Abraham moment for someone in the ward. This might simply be the Lord's way of allowing this man to have his own Abraham moment, and repent...or seal his own fate.



I only hope that I am never faced with the dilema of sustaining or not sustaining someone like Harry Reid.




One thing you guys seem to be forgetting is the sustaining vote. It is not a show vote. As Pres. Uchtdorf stated, "the church is not run by perfet men". It is very possible that one of you may know more than your stake president, the 12, and the prophet concerning a person being called as your bishop or any calling for that matter. When asked to sustain the person if you raise your hand to the contrary and meet with the stake pres and he hears your reason and agrees then it is possible to remove the calling from the person. We are not told nor taught to stay quiet when we have cause to raise the hand in opposition.



My previous boss is LDS. He became "insulted" when I attempted to transfer to another department. I had been told by his boss (shortly after a realignment that basically showed me no chance for advancement) that I had no future (that's another story). So, I applied for a director position in another department and almost got it. Immediately my boss began to sabatoge me. He did enough to get me removed from my manager position and eventually had me terminated in "company layoffs". Just before this happened he was called as my in-laws bishop. The December prior to the lay-offs he told them that layoffs were coming and he had no control nor idea who would be layed off and it was not his fault. He told us in Jan at work that he had heard nothing about any layoffs and didn't know any were planned (he told my in-laws to keep quiet about it so they never told me or my wife-which would have actually helped me because I could have left before getting walked out). So the layoffs came and of course I got the ax. My in-laws were livid with him and he pulled them into his office and started to say things about me that were very wrong (things like I almost got him fired, I did poor work, I never completed any asignments all complete lies- I acutally carried his group and had a reputation throughout the company of being the guy who got things done). Needless to say, if I were ever asked to raise my hand to the square for him it would be in opposition. I was personally in a much better position than any other living member of the church (save maybe the three Nephites and John as they are probably in near constant communication with God) into the character of this "bishop".
Page 2 of 6
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.