I can certainly appreciate where you are coming from. I, for one, am not one who likes to hide in ambiguity or think that things are ‘various shades of gray’; however, things often appear gray until I understand a principle – although in reality they are not. I can also appreciate how you have chosen to use a different topic in the gospel to correlate to our previous discussion on principles concerning health-care.

Polygamy is a sensitive issue, especially in Utah. I have had, what I consider, the good fortune to speak to a few practicing polygamists in my life, and I consider those who I have met to be very upstanding individuals. Although I disagree with their arguments for continuing plural marriage outside the Church’s sanction – and I would never perform the rite myself without Church sanction (not saying I would be comfortable practicing it with Church sanction – it would be the most difficult thing I think I could ever be called to do) – I would fight like hell for their ability to practice it civilly.

I have met many people who are troubled in many ways over the issue of polygamy, but I think you’re closer to my own views but with one very large exception – I find absolutely no disparity between Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, or Joseph F. Smith over the issue of polygamy, nor do I believe that any prophet is guilty of any form of apostasy. Nor do I find any disparity between what presidents Brigham Young and John Taylor said about the evilness of public education with the words of presidents Gordon B. Hinckley or Thomas S. Monson. Furthermore, having said what I did about fighting for a polygamist’s right to civilly practice a religious rite, you would probably find great irony and disparity with my support of Proposition 8 – again, I see no such disparity. The rest of this post will explain why. Please forgive me for my long post, but I am being as thorough in this issue as I can be.

The Definition of Law and of Truth

In philosophy, which I study at BYU, it is stated that you cannot know of a substance ‘in-and-of-itself’ (Kantian philosophy) – you can only know of something by its attributes. You can only know something by its color, its tastes, its texture, its usefulness, etc. For instance, eternally there exists no object known as ‘chair’, but yet after crafting wood together in a particular form I am able to recognize what I call a ‘chair’ because of my association and application to the chair’s attributes – i.e. I sit on the chair, I use it for reaching objects on high shelves, etc. I attribute what I conceive of as an object that I sit on and stand on as a ‘chair’. Some people, however, use a chair for different reasons – e.g. as a dance prop. Each individual in this life will use an object differently and associate a certain value and usefulness to it themselves that is different than anyone else. We attach an idea shared by people around us to a common word in order to communicate, yet even in our language we are not capable of nailing-down what exactly a ‘chair’ is eternally; all we have done is associate a temporal and conditioned application to a particular word.

The early definition of ‘law’ held by many cultures throughout history is this: Law is that entity that defines everything for what it is – not simply by what we want it to be or by its perceived attributes. Today, this understanding of law is all but forgotten, yet it still exists in my philosophies dealing with what we call “Natural Law”. The American founders, specifically Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, spoke concerning this idea of natural law in the Declaration of Independence when they declared that an appeal to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” was all that was left them in their quest for freedom and liberty. Under this understanding of law they held certain “truths” to be “self-evident” (Franklin’s terminology); in other words, they stated that they had defied the philosophy of man to not know something ‘in-and-of-itself’ and declared that there are certain things that are ‘self-evident’ to our senses for us to know of itself intrinsically. Namely, that we are created equally (not an economic statement, but a statement rejecting privileged societies where bloodlines were an applicable hierarchy) because our right, power, and authority comes from our Creator. God is, after all, no respecter of persons.

No one since the Declaration of Independence has made such a remarkable claim concerning ‘self-evident truths’ in government as our founders, based on the premise that we are equal because all necessary rights are given by God. Truth, therefore, is the claim of every good law. If truth is to know things as they are – that is, to know of things in-and-of-themselves – then it is the law that defines truth. With this understanding of law, we can see a great principle open up concerning Christ’s role as the Lawgiver. The Lawgiver is a key of priesthood – just like Elder, Teacher, Priest, or Deacon are keys of priesthood – that gives the agent authority to define things by what they are inherently – not merely by their attributes. This means that the Lawgiver defines truth — not just things as he wants or wishes them to be.

Are There More Than One Type of Law?

If law is simply what defines things for how they are, there should only exist one type of law – right? No. Even the Lawgiver speaks of different forms of law in defining things for as they are. Furthermore, man, in a corruptible state, also has the ability of defining things. Men have laws too, in that they define how things exist in their state of reference. Man has organized law into many categories: physical law, natural law, human law, divine law, God’s law, positive law, judicial law, scientific law, etc. Sometimes there are competing laws. For instance, while natural law seeks to define what things are of themselves, positive laws reject natural law and merely consider law as a set of ‘rules’ that people fabricate and follow for a particular purpose. My point here is that man has the ability of defining things for himself in whatever way he wants – whether it is truth or not is a different story.

As I said, even the Lawgiver speaks of different forms of law. Why? Because there are various forms of law. What are those forms? The Doctrine and Covenants says,

All kingdoms have a law given; and there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom. And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions. All beings who abide not in those conditions are not justified. (D&C 88:36-9)

In LDS theology we believe in three separate heavens: Celestial (the glory of the sun), the Terrestrial (the glory of the moon), and Telestial (the glory of the stars). How do things exist in these different kingdoms? Well, that question necessarily presupposes the law. In other words, the question as to ‘how things exist’ must necessarily suppose that there is something that can answer how those things exist – or rather, it necessarily supposes the law exists. The law must define how things are. D&C here says that there are various laws given to every kingdom. Well, this makes perfect sense if each kingdom is different and acts on different principles than the next. Indeed, we are told they do. I will leave D&C 76 for your own study to discover (or rediscover) what these differences are. If there are differences in how each kingdom natural operates, then there must necessarily be different laws defining how those each kingdom differentiates from each other.

Furthermore, we know that there is a higher and a lower law. The lower law was far more positive (legal definition referring to rules) and established a list of rules that intended people to travel to the higher natural law where men would follow the truth by merely understanding and knowing what it was. The higher law says “be good”, but the lower law is for a more wicked society that needs it spelled out for them what it means to “be good” – this usually comes in the form of specific functions to perform. God says “I’m a respecter of life”, and the lower law says “thou shalt not kill”. Does this make sense? One is a statement of principle; the other is one of a thousand applications to that eternal principle.

Are There Competing Truths? Does Law Change?

The answer to both of these questions is an absolute NO. Truth is eternal and does not contradict each other, nor does the definition of law change. What we notice and perceive as change, however, is in reference to the various laws associated to the kingdoms of heaven. Whereas the laws of consecration (United Order) and polygamy are Celestial laws, these do not exist in a Telestial or even Terrestrial kingdom. I ask, will God command a person who only desires to live a Telestial life to abide by a Celestial law? Absolutely not, this would instantly condemn a man because he is not able to even abide by a Telestial law – how then could he abide by the Celestial?

The eternal principle is established in Isaiah, the Book of Mormon, and in the Doctrine and Covenants that we are to live “line upon line, and precept upon precept” (Isaiah 28:10; 2nd Ne 28:30; D&C 98:12, 128:21). Furthermore, we’re commanded to “not run faster than we have strength” (D&C 10:4). Finally, we are told that the Lord will not give us a law or temptation above which we can live (1st Ne 3:7; 1 Cor. 10:13). Yet, we see that the even in Church history that the Saints could not abide by the law of consecration and that contentions quickly arose. It was therefore suspended until the members were capable of abiding by the higher law. Is there a contradiction? No. There is no disparity here. The law of consecration defines how things exist Celestially, yet the membership as a whole is incapable of living according to this principle because they desire something of a lower kingdom.

Pattern Established

There is a pattern established throughout scripture that the Lord gives (or, better said, he allows) his people what they want – even if it is not the higher way. After Moses led the House of Israel out of Egypt, the people were ruled by a theocratic regime under the Priesthood judges. What better form of government could we as Latter-day Saints think to have than to be ruled by men we believe hold the Priesthood keys of God? Yet the House of Israel didn’t want to be ruled by the priesthood judges anymore. Why? Their stated reason was that they wanted a king to be “like all the nations” (1st Samuel 8:5). That was their reason, they didn’t want God to judge them any more under the priesthood, and they wanted to be like every one else. To be honest, Samuel’s sons – the two who would follow in his stead – weren’t the most outstanding of men. This, however, grieved Samuel the prophet greatly and he took his sorrow to the Lord. The Lord responded,

“Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken unto their voice…” (1st Samuel 8:7-9)

Notice here that the ‘voice of the people’ does not constitute a moral claim. Although the Lord accepts the decision made by the voice of the people, he also says they are an idolatrous people who have denied their God – notwithstanding everything he had done for them. Concerning idolatry today, I would suggest President Kimball’s masterful article in the Ensign called “The False God’s We Worship”.

President Eyring said that “Our Heavenly Father has at different periods adjusted what he asked has asked of his children because of choices they made…” The Lord and the truth are eternal and constant, it is us who changes. Our choices and the things we accept in this life will change what the Lord requires of us. Our choices and what we accept determine whether we want to abide by a Telestial law, a Terrestrial law, or a Celestial law. Why? Because our choices and what we accept will either lead us “line upon line, and precept upon precept” to grow to finally accept and live the principles and laws of the Celestial kingdom, or they will lead us to a Telestial law. The Lord’s “work and glory” is “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39). He is anxiously engaged in us, but we still have a choice. We often look with sadness when we don’t think someone will make it to the Celestial kingdom, yet we forget to see the mercy of God in allowing men and women to be where they choose to be comfortably. How many times have we sinned where we feel that we would wither away in guilt in the presence of our Heavenly Father? Notwithstanding his love, I know I would not feel comfortable in a Celestial glory if I only ever wanted to live Telestial law. As said, not only is God active in us, but we are active in ourselves too. The Lord will always lead us to the next level of truth that we are willing to accept, but he will not force us to the next level (as it were). That is the glory of agency, for it is within us to choose who we are and what we will be. Yet we always have an infinitely loving heavenly parent who will always be there for us when we choose to grow.

Transgression is what made this life possible. Transgression is the choosing of a law lower than what we are now living. We say that Adam transgressed the law, and we are right. Adam lived in a higher glory and abided by a higher law than what he accepted through partaking of the fruit. He entered a life of a lower glory than what he previously experienced. As we have already discussed, the House of Israel did the same thing as they rejected God’s principle for man’s government.

The Law of the Land and the Constitutional Law of the Land

Doctrine and Covenants gives a very, very interesting rule in determining the “law of the land” and whether a law is Constitutional or not. In the legal world there exists a concept that a law can be passed which is unconstitutional – even if it passes every branch of government. The problem that exists here is that if every branch of government accepts an unconstitutional law, then how are we the people supposed to find absolution on the issue?

“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed” (Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p.442).

D&C 98 gives us the parameters concerning what constitutes the law of the land and Constitutional law.

“And now, verily I saw unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.
“And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
“Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;
“And as pertaining to the law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.
“I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free…
“And I give unto you a commandment, that ye shall forsake all evil and cleave unto all good. (D&C 98: 4-8, 11).

Here the D&C says that there are two types of law: (1) the Law of the Land which is the Constitutional law that supports the principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, and (2) the law of men that denies the principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges. This is important to note, especially concerning the quote from President John Taylor that you gave from the Journal of Discourses.

There is a lot to be said concerning the Church’s attitude toward the law of man during the time when plural marriage was an issue. I have written concerning civil disobedience and the Church’s stance on the issue here, and will refrain on speaking much more on the subject unless necessary. To reiterate my own blog, I openly reject my own conclusion as I explain in the post.

Official Declaration #1 and a Prophet’s Role

The first Official Declaration of the church is rather a controversial piece – not quite as controversial as it once was. Yet for those who study law it still sparks a few flames. Further arguments concerning the Declaration are just as you have noted – was it revelation, was it inspiration, or was it merely the opinion of Wilford Woodruff? The same questions are and have been asked concerning the second Official Declaration – but we’ll leave that to another discussion.

As a sub-category of the Official Declaration, we have to discuss what it means that ‘the prophet will never lead the people astray’. We have all been told this from our days in primary, but few of us look at its meaning beyond fringe support of Church leaders and the popular interpretation concerning the basic infallibility of our prophet. Yet, there appears a plainer, simpler, and more humble response that garners much more love and respect for a prophet than what is thought when we misplace our perception concerning his infallibility.

There is one recorded case where a prophet has been removed. Joseph Smith lost the gift of translation when he denied the Lord’s will on two separate occasions and gave Martin Harris the 116 pages of the Book of Mormon. On the third request, the Lord followed the same principle held time-and-time again and he told Joseph to do as he desires. Joseph did so to the loss of the first 116 pages to the Book of Mormon. Because Joseph put himself before the Lord’s will, he was removed from his calling in that area.

Lest we believe in the infallibility of the prophet, there is yet another example of the Prophet Joseph when he went to the New England area in search of gold so that he could pay off the Church’s debt. The Lord had commanded Joseph to not worry about the debt of the Church saying that he (the Lord) would take care of it, yet Joseph still sought to acquire the gold for this stated purpose. The endeavor was futile and Joseph returned empty handed. Was he a lost, fallen, or false prophet because he denied the command of the Lord in an endeavor that turned up futile? Absolutely not! The Lord chastised Joseph, yet the Lord did not remove Joseph from his place because Joseph’s heart was not to do his own work – but to do the will of the Lord. The Lord recognized this and allowed Joseph the ability of working out details concerning the Church.

On this understanding of Joseph, it appears a near futile question now to ask whether the Official Declaration was then an inspired, revealed, or merely a mentally fabricated choice of President Woodruff. At all times President Woodruff sought to do the will of the Lord. By virtue of the keys of priesthood which he had, he also had the authority to know the heart of the Lord. After all, the prophet has all keys of priesthood necessary for God’s children to return; furthermore, the prophet has the keys of priesthood necessary to interpret the way things are according to the Lord’s desire. This tells us that the prophet may well use the keys of priesthood pertaining to the Lawgiver. Who would argue that the prophet has the authority to define things as they are exactly? Who would argue that the prophet does not have the authority to define what is truth? By very definition from what we have already discussed, the prophet has the inherent ability through virtue and authority of the priesthood keys he holds to define truth through the law.

Lest this not be enough, we also know that the Lord spoke to President Woodruff in a dream telling him the consequences that would happen should the Saints continue to practice plural marriage. The consequence was the absolute destruction of the Saints. Therefore, the prophet, having the keys of priesthood – and through being a Seer – was capable of knowing the heart of God (God’s will) and the future course of the Church should the Church continue on in plural marriage. Should the Church be destroyed yet again and the priesthood lost to the earth, as it was after Christ, then Christ becomes a liar – for it was promised through John the Baptist that the priesthood “shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness” (D&C 13:1).

Should not the Lord have protected his Saints in living a supposed Celestial law? If the people are living this law, are they also not righteous enough for the Lord to save them as the scriptures and prophet said he would? We forget that plural marriage was not extended to the general membership of the Church to do so at a whim, but that individuals were called specifically to the ordinance. Some of the more specific numbers say that no more than 3% of the Church actually practiced plural marriage – I would be interested in any other numbers anyone has that is documented. This hardly shows a general consensus for the righteousness for the Saints at large who are actively living a Celestial law. Truly, if the whole membership of the Church abode by the higher law, then John Taylors quote – as you provided us – is exactly true! The Lord would have protected the Saints, because, like the people of Zion in Enoch’s day, they would merely to of spoken the words of God and the earth itself would have protected them.

As John Taylor says, the Lord will not allow ‘lawmakers to hedge up’ the way of the Saints; nevertheless, it is largely up to the Saints how much they are willing the Lord to fight their battles for them. As President Taylor continues, the Lord “allows His people to be tried to see whether they will trust Him and have faith in Him, or whether they will deny Him, whether they will deny their covenants and their principles through fear of the power of the wicked, through fear of oppression, through fear of prisons or of death”. Yet, this being said, President Woodruff states, in his personal journal entry that appears in the Official Declaration, that

“inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws… And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.”

What did we learn was the ‘law of the land’? It is that Constitutional law that promotes the freedom and liberty of all people (D&C 98:5). Yet President Taylor says the actions of men in government were to forbid the Latter-day Saints from practicing their political and religious freedom. This, using D&C 98 as our example, means that such laws are strictly UNconstitutional. Therefore, any laws prohibiting religious practice, so long as the religious practice did not infringe upon the rights of another in the process (D&C 134:4), are inherently UNconstitutional and not the law of the land. Yet President Woodruff states that these laws “have been enacted by Congress” that have “been pronounced constitutional by the court”; furthermore, it appears that these laws are the ‘law of the land’. There appears to be contradiction here, doesn’t there?

The contradiction is solved if we take the premises of these arguments but change our conclusion. Our premises are these: (1) the law of the land that is the Constitutional law of the land is that law that supports the freedom and liberty of all people, (2) constitutional law is not simply what the government says it is, but it must necessarily support the principle of liberty and freedom, otherwise it is a law of man, (3) Wilford Woodruff, as prophet, seer, and revelator, had the priesthood keys to know the will of God concerning the positive application of a Celestial principle, (4) and that we have been promised that the an abusive government that violates the premise of constitutional government will have no power over the Saints if they were righteous, and that the Lord would fight their battles for them (D&C 98:37). The question here boils down this question: Does Wilford Woodruff’s ‘submitting’ to the laws of men who have misinterpreted the constitutional powers show that the ‘law of the land’ is simply whatever the government says it is? Absolutely not!

As we saw, the prophet, seer, and revelator has the priesthood keys necessary to see the consequences of what would happen to the Church had plural marriage continued. Many General Authorities, and even President John Taylor, went into hiding rather than abide by the ‘law of man’ (D&C 98: 7,11), and they would have continued to have done so until the end – unless the Lord commanded otherwise. However, the righteousness of the Saints was not sufficient to maintain the principle – the Lord could not uphold our 4th premise. As such, the people transgressed what they had been given. The Lord showed President Woodruff the consequence, and only then did President Woodruff submit to the will of the Lord freely in withholding the priesthood keys necessary to perform plural marriage. In this way, President Woodruff maintains consistency with how he uses the term ‘law of the land’ with how it is defined in Section 98, while also differentiating between those laws of men that had been enacted by Congress and unjustly supported as constitutional by the courts. There is no contradiction here. Merely by changing our conclusion that the Saints themselves were incapable of living the higher law to be preserved by the hand of the Lord through his promises we see perfect harmony with all points of doctrine.

Practicing Polygamists

There is a lengthy debate concerning whether John Taylor could have secretly passed on the keys of priesthood necessary to certain Bishops to continue after the Church officially renounced it, yet these arguments – much longer than even my own post here – amount to little more than he-said-she-said arguments.

As for the scripture in Jacob concerning marriage, it is easily explained in the context of the law we have now established – the people were commanded only to have one wife, because they had not yet received the line-by-line principles that would have made them ready. Participating in the ordinance, according to scripture and our prophets, while not being prepared to live it Celestially is wrong.

Plural Marriage and Prop 8

How can someone support the civil practice of plural marriage and also support Prop 8 without contradicting themselves? The issue, once again, comes down on the issue of law. I’m not going to go over my stance for Prop 8 here, but if you’re thus interested you can read it here.

The United Order

Anyone who remotely associates socialism (in any form) to the United Order is purely ignorant to the eternal principles established by the prophets. There differences are too many to list here, but if anyone is interested there are several books that show the Church’s official position and why it is against socialism and communism in all forms.

Founding Fathers

The founding fathers were not around with Joseph Smith and the Church. Abraham Lincoln is not a ‘founding father’, nor, in my opinion, is he worth my while. I have several issues with Lincoln that I will not address here. When I said “even Lincoln said…” I was referring to my disbelief that even he gets the idea that most socialists today are blind to.

Agency and Choice

I am shocked that you are taking the implicit stance of those who persecuted and took away the freedom of the Church. Your entire argument hinges on the fact that “the government took away rights from our Church, but they acted in a certain way… so, therefore, when I vote to take away your property, you can go into hiding just like John Taylor – or else you can go to jail”. Are you serious? This is the most demented argument I have ever, ever, ever heard. You may have the ability of destroying someone’s freedom, but you do not have liberty or right to do so. I may have the ability to murder someone, but I do not have the liberty or right to do so. You may combine with the mob to tar-and-feather me, but this does not constitute a moral prerogative. I am not justified giving my money to charity, if I have taken 10 men to steal it from one person – this is morally wrong, no matter how you look at it. The moral beggar in this situation will refuse such money when it is offered. No honest man or women would ever take charity that was ripped, taxed, extracted by force, or coerced out of their fellow man.

The Difference in Prophetic Utterance

The Lord is willing and desires us to progress in every possible way. Yet, as the Elder Eyring stated, the Lord adjusts what he requires of us based on our own choices – whether righteous or wicked. When we transgress the law of a higher kingdom, the prophet – as the only one with the priesthood keys to know – will interpret the law accordingly. When the Church collectively wants to live a Telestial law after a Celestial law has been given, then it appears to be a contradiction – it is not.

When Brigham Young and John Taylor spoke against public education, the principle whereon they spoke did not change, but what the Lord required of his people with what they choose changed. President McKay, Romney, Clark, and Benson spoke of a principle against socialism for thirty years, and they also spoke of the consequences that will happen with a society that will accept socialism. EVERY SINGLE CONSEQUENCE SPOKEN OF BY THE PROPHETS CONCERNING THE SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE OF SOCIALISM IS READILY PRESENT IN OUR OWN SOCIETY (and every other that has accepted socialism) – IN FACT, THE CONSEQUENCES OF SOCIALISM WAS WHAT PRESIDENT HINCKLEY SPOKE OF POINT-FOR-POINT FOR OVER 10 YEARS!

Simply because the prophets appear to contradict themselves, they don’t. Truth is eternal, and so is the law. What changes is us. What we perceive as a contradiction is simply transgression from one higher law to a lower law.

The Prophets have not led us astray. Even through their mistakes, they keep an eye-single to the glory of God. Should they ever lose that perspective then the Lord will remove them like he removed Joseph Smith for a time after losing the manuscripts. There is no form of apostasy whatsoever from our prophets. If there is apostasy, it is within us when we transgress from one kingdom to another.

Any other area where there has been ‘change’, you can most assuredly associate it to the lack of faith and unrighteousness of the Saints collectively from transgressing what they have already been given. After all, that’s what the prophets have associated it to. Ever wonder why we’re still under condemnation as a Church for not reading the Book of Mormon and using it like we should to dispel the false philosophies and sophistries of our day?

I see that my time spent here with you has been futile. You have not read the material I and others have pointed you to, you have not engaged in a discussion of the many specific items brought up as rebuttals and points for consideration, and you have not sought at all to “first understand, then seek to be understood”—a key component of having a productive discussion.

Your polygamy comments illustrate your desire to tangentially carry this thread wherever you will in an attempt to not be proven wrong. You repeatedly insist that you “KNOW” you are right, and when challenged, you sidestep the argument and then bring up something altogether different.

I’m not playing along anymore.

Yes, I believe you are wrong about the polygamy issue. I have quotes, scriptures, and historical documentation that proves my point, and rebuts your assertions made above. But sharing them with you would only invite yet another comment from left field that would not resolve the underlying issues in this discussion. In fact, it strikes me as curious that you think your characterization of events above is the key issue upon which you can prove that there are no enduring principles, no consistent doctrine, and no black or white interpretation of any scripture or principle whatsoever—all to be vindicated in your support of social welfare programs that rely upon confiscatory taxation.

In short, I am done. I have better things to do, you are not convincing anybody here, and recent comments of yours have shown that the reverse is likewise true. Happy new year.

I proved, very intelligently and through Prophet’s examples, like Joseph Smith who died for what he believed in and John Taylor who did the same that you ALWAYS have a choice. That choice might be prison, it might be death. Our government does not technically enslave you. But, if you STILL believe it is all evil, then even so, you STILL have a choice to stop paying your taxes and stand up for what you believe in. As in:

Ok, so good point there, yes we could all just quit paying taxes so we dont have to support the socialized health care, and then Connor, me and Co. can just go to prison. That is some choice! Gabby you have just admitted that socialized heathcare is tyranny, yet you continue to support it!

Hows this for fair play: My nieghbor just lost his job, and I being very Christlike want to help him so he can buy food for his family. I dont have the cash but maybe you do. I need your address so i can come to your house to collect $100 per week. I’m sure you’ll be glad to help. By the way if you dont hand me the cash (I will also be skimming $75 dollars off the top for my services in collecting said cash, leaving $25 for my nieghbor) I am prepared to take it from you by force ( i have an engine block i’ll leave in your yard and chain you to it as punishment.) Sound good? This is no different than what the government would do under ObamaCare so i’m sure you’ll be joyfull to receive me!

So, what is your address again?

Comment #77 was not about my testimony, I challenge you to read it again if you think that was my point – I was being sarcastic. I have a strong testimony.
My point was that if Connor & Co are so RIGHT in their arguments against health care then they prove that word is law and does not bend based on the quotes they use. So then, everything Ezra Taft Benson and all the other prophets they quote must always be dead on. Well, this proves our very church and wisdom of those prophets untrue based on my points in # 77.
I wonder if Connor & Co are intelligent enough to truly see the points I make here. For as educated as they are, they are very ignorant if they think scriptures have only ONE interpretation and that they are always right in every situation because they can find a scripture or five that matches their argument.
For:

Lean not unto thine own understanding, Prov. 3: 5
Let us reason together that ye may understand, D&C 50: 10-12, 19-23.
The works and mysteries of God can only be understood by the Holy Spirit, D&C 76: 114-116.
If we say that we have no sin, the truth is not in us, 1 Jn. 1: 8.
The guilty take the truth to be hard, 1 Ne. 16: 2.

I proved, very intelligently and through Prophet’s examples, like Joseph Smith who died for what he believed in and John Taylor who did the same that you ALWAYS have a choice. That choice might be prison, it might be death. Our government does not technically enslave you. But, if you STILL believe it is all evil, then even so, you STILL have a choice to stop paying your taxes and stand up for what you believe in. As in:

O, my beloved brethren, remember the awfulness in transgressing against that Holy God, and also the awfulness of yielding to the enticings of that cunning one. Remember, to be carnally-minded is death, and to be spiritually-minded is life eternal. 2 Nephi 9:39

So this “government is bad” blog is doing nothing for people. It’s just causing more hatred and arrogance. It does not bring people together.

I challenge you again, to read my comment #77 and tell me you still have valid arguments if, as you say, our prophets words are literal law. In doing so you prove our very dear church untrue.

After reading this and comment #77 I ask you: could it possibly be that you do not fully understand the whole health care/welfare battle and are being a little harsh on the topic?

Love Gabby

Elder Robert D. Hales of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

“Self-reliance is a product of our work and undergirds all other welfare practices. It is an essential element in our spiritual as well as our temporal well-being. Regarding this principle, President Marion G. Romney [1897–1988] has said: ‘Let us work for what we need. Let us be self-reliant and independent. Salvation can be obtained on no other principle. Salvation is an individual matter, and we must work out our own salvation in temporal as well as in spiritual things.’ . . .

“President Spencer W. Kimball [1895–1985] further taught concerning self-reliance: ‘The responsibility for each person’s social, emotional, spiritual, physical, or economic well-being rests first upon himself, second upon his family, and third upon the Church if he is a faithful member thereof.’ “

Notice there is no mention of government aid in our temporal matters? Gabby, correct, it is up to God to determine the correct way to help our less fortunate brethren, and according to the above, govt does NOT play a part in this! Notice that Kimball says that church welfare is only extended to faithful members? That is way more restrictive than an all out welfare/healthcare benefits to all no matter wether they are worthy or not.

You can continue to kick at the pricks so to speak, but it will not be to your benefit.

I *KNOW* I’m correct here, technically. So we need not argue further. Your government is NOT technically enslaving you. People on welfare do NOT enslave you. You just AREN’T WILLING to accept your free agency and make your own choices in those cases. Just because YOU don’t want to pay taxes doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have to. IF YOU DON’T WANT TO PAY TAXES SO PEOPLE CAN GET WELFARE (here I will insert that the LDS added to its three part mission of the church that we would help the poor and needy. It’s not up to you to judge how it’s done, oh righteous truth speakers. It’s up to God.) If you don’t like taxes or welfare programs then go make those other choices then, where you won’t have to pay taxes. I listed several options. No one is stomping on your free agency or enslaving you.
Case closed.

Gabby, by extension if the govt’places me and my family in a prison camp and gives me a choice: Either work breaking rocks all day or we will kill you. Are you saying that this would not violate my agency? If you are then you do not understand agency at all. It still sounds like you are more interested in a preconceived notion that anything govt does is ok and the lord approves of it and this is pattenly false. This Blog is for the coming together of like minded people and espouses a particular point of view. You obviously dont share the commom point of view. I am not sure why you come here instead of some more liberal Blog where others who share your viewpoint might be benefitted? It seems you are here just for the sake of argument and not to pursue learning.

True principles can sometimes seem contradictory and that is what I sense you are feeling from your post. I too have those conflicts from time to time, and this normal. We just have to keep searching for understanding when a seeming conflict arises. Usually their is no contradiction in these true principles but often times a hierarchy of principles, where one principle overrides onother. Both principles are true but one is higher in priority.

Example would be the commandment to renounce war and proclaim peace which the church always does. But when a nation goes to war, even when the war is unjust the church will encourage the members in each nation to align themselves with thier respective nation in prosecuting the war. I dont really understand why this is so but this seems to be the lords pattern via the teachings of the prophets over the years. Nevermind the fact that i dont fuly understand this seeming contradiction, i have a sure witness that the church is true therefore i follow in faith and continue searching and studying to understand how it fits together. Someday i will understand.

Sounds like you are very young and perhaps have a budding testimony. Have patience, it took the saints 40 years to build the salt lake temple. Keep studying, pondering and praying and you will find the answers you seek. Eventually it will start to make sense.

I recommend Jacob 2: 25-32 and Official Declaration 1 for your reading.

Reading through these words carefully and more than one time, pondering the words and praying about it. God will answer your prays.

I have a testimony of living prophets, from Joseph Smith to the present; the chain of authority has not been broken. I know it through the power of the Holy Ghost.

A testimony takes work and is your individual responsibly to obtain and maintain one. Others can help, but it ultimately the responsibility rests upon you

I have to know these things to proceed as a church member and know I am following the true church, then. If you are correct in using examples like Brigham Young saying that public schools are evil, then I cannot understand how our very church is not in a sort of apostate state at this time, having been led astray by Prophet Woodruff:
If polygamy was truly commanded by God to Joseph Smith, then we should never should have stopped practicing it because Prophet Wilford Woodruff clearly writes he was making the decision as a man, not a prophet, in his journals:
Below he speaks of his own actions as a man, not having been inspired or commanded of God:

He wrote in his journal on Sept 25, 1890,

“I have arrived at a point in the history of my life as the president of the Church…where I am under the necessity of acting for the temporal salvation of the church.”
“Inasamuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.”
In the October 6 session of the general conference of the church, the congregation “unanimously sustained” this declaration as “authoritative and binding.” Polygamy no longer had official sanction.

If polygamy was NOT commanded of God, then our Prophets can and have led us astray. If it WAS commanded of God all Prophets from Woodruff’s time have led us astray and the church is in an apostate state.

Woodruff Wilson’s manifesto was NOT inspired of God – as I point out below, as well. You’ll see he actually speaks of enduring and standing up for what God has commanded of us here – he knew that polygamy was a commandment yet chose to not follow it. He knew, for example:

“And what I the Lord say unto you mine Apostles I say unto my servants the Seventies, the High Priests, the Elders, and the Priests And all my servants who are pure in heart and who have born testimony unto this nation. Let them go forth and cleans their feet in pure water and bear testimony of it unto your Father who is in heaven. And then saith the Lord unto mine Apostles and mine Elders when you do these things with purity of heart and the Lord will hear your prayers and am bound by oath and covenant to defend you and fight your battles. As I have said in a former commandment it is not my will that mine Elders should fight the battle of Zion for I will fight your battle. Nevertheless, let no man be afraid to lay down his life for my sake for he that layeth down his life for my sake shall find it again and have eternal life.” 26th ofJanuary, 1880, in Sunset, Arizona

As we see, we should never have allowed our Government to make that decision for us, whether we went to prison or not. In fact, numerous scriptures point out that following the commandments of the Lord ARE THE ONLY WAY to salvation. In practicing United Order, we knew we were practicing God’s true law. Why EVER follow government that would cause us to NOT follow God’s true law? Why did the Saints not flee to Canada or Mexico (as many did) to continue polygamy? Why did our Prophet lead us astray? We should have let our God fight that battle, just as John Taylor did, (he died in hiding, practicing the commandment) just as my point that you Libertarians could very well stop paying for what you don’t believe in, because God will fight your battles, whether you go to prison or not. You still have a choice, was my argument. You don’t like the choice, but hey, it’s still a choice, not force.

Per our Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, a polygamist, then, we are damned for having followed our Prophet Woodruff Wilson because his journal clearly states he was making the decision of his own accord, not from God. So we should all be practicing polygamy now despite what the government tried to force. We SHOULD have fought against it and continued to practice it anyway, no matter what our government did to us. As in:

“Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential, to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. There is no blessing promised except upon conditions, and no blessing can be obtained by mankind except by faithful compliance with the conditions, or law, upon which the same is promised.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.28 – p.29, Joseph F. Smith

In fact, we also should have followed our Prophet James Taylor, who died in hiding because he would not denounce polygamy. He continued to practice it until his death. Or we should have fled the country – anything but follow our government into sin.

It is a fact, per Woodruff Wilson’s journals and teaching that he knew what was right; he knew polygamy was commanded of God but that he was, as a man, leading his group to follow the law of the land, not the commandment of God.
So here is an instance where the statement that “our prophets will never lead us astray” is indeed false. So IF polygamy was TRULY commanded of God then why not allow Gay marriage to pass as a bill since Supreme court battles would likely allow polygamous marriages shorlty after that and then we can begin to practice it and follow that commandment of God, again. I don’t even know if any of you can fully answer this question without also doubting the church.

So if I am to believe that every Prophet spoke literal, unchanging truths from God as you claim in your arguments in which you say I am wrong because you can fling out a scripture or two, then we also believe that we SHOULD have followed this scripture which says you follow the covenant and commandment and lay down your life for the cause, regardless of death or persecution:

“11And I give unto you a commandment, that ye shall forsake all evil and cleave unto all good, that ye shall live by every word which proceedeth forth out of the mouth of God.
12 For he will give unto the faithful line upon line, precept upon precept; and I will try you and prove you herewith.
13 And whoso layeth down his life in my cause, for my name’s sake, shall find it again, even life eternal.
14 Therefore, be not afraid of your enemies, for I have decreed in my heart, saith the Lord, that I will prove you in all things, whether you will abide in my covenant, even unto death, that you may be found worthy.
15 For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me.” D&C 98

So then we should still be practicing only United Order. We should never have let government control us. And we should still be practicing polygamy.

And yet, it’s not so simple. For, we could interpret this scripture as both FOR (vs 30) and AGAINST (vs 26) polygamy:

“26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.” Jacob 2: 26-30

So based on how you use scriptures and quotes from your founding fathers to prove all your arguments as absolute truths, I am very confused to how Polygamy could have truly been commanded of God if our Church is also fully correct so as to not be polygamous in 2010?

I argue then that somewhere along the way, it was led astray and it is now in a state, of sorts, of apostasy. If polygamy is commanded of God (you’ll all agree, I hope, without my extensively quoting here, that Joseph Smith, Jr was commanded by God to take more wives) then President Wilford Woodruff led us incorrectly based on my quotes from his journal which specifically mention he was leading of his own accord (and thus our Prophets can and DO at times lead us astray, which now disrupts my belief in my Bishop for how could he truly be inspired of God if our very Prophets can and do lead astray?) and we are not following God’s true commandments today because we do not also follow polygamy.

This causes me to doubt our Prophets lead, and even the truth of the church from the time President James Taylor passed. How am I to know what’s truly right, in the examples I list?

I am interested to read your interpretations, here. I am no longer interested in debating health care because you all firmly say you are absolutely correct based on scripture and quotes from our founding fathers and Prophets. I have given you several examples and quotes of how, if you are absolutely correct and your truths are unwavering, then we are all damned today for not continuing to practicing polygamy.

I could mention here that the church, in the early days in the land that would later become that state of Utah DID indeed practice United Order. I suppose United Order was what I meant by allowing a form of “socialized” medicine – perhaps I wrote my words too quickly and swapped out the terms incorrectly. I do believe in United Order, however, and that it should be practiced again today because it was commanded of God. Give all you can and let the Lord sort out the rest, right? And I need not mention, but will anyway that the church added to its three fold mission just last month to “help the poor and needy”.
Yes, they added that mission as a fourth in addition to 1: perfecting the saints 2: redeeming the dead and 3: proclaiming the gospel. So here is an example of the church changing with the times.

Yet you argue that things never change, that whatever prophets like Brigham Young and Ezra Taft Benson say goes. Never changes. So which is it? I’m confused. Either it’s okay for them to change and perhaps you don’t know for a fact if health care is right or not, OR we are all sinners for not still practicing never changing commandments, like polygamy which all our early prophets agreed we should die for before giving up.

Based on the firm, absolute, unbending way you argue based on random scriptures to match your arguments then so also:

If United Order is the correct law, inspired of God, we should never even have had a Government, right? We should never have succumbed to a government body because WE ALREADY KNEW WHAT GOD WANTED OF US. So how, then, could the Government have been truly inspired of God if God had already commanded us to follow United Order? And why would any quotes from any founding father matter?

The fact is, we stopped following what we knew to be true because the Government was persecuting us….we failed here as a church, and people, at best. At worst, we are still living in sin by not following United Order and Polygamy. How (and why for that matter) would a government inspired of God overthrow the true church? How could a true, restored church know the correct law of God (United Order, Polygamy) and not be following it today, when they, say, could have fled the US and started their own country which would have its own, true law of God? To stay and follow the very government that overthrew polygamy & United Order shows we failed – our Prophets led us astray into a form of apostasy. You’ll forgive me, then, if I do not take every quote from our founding fathers as literal fact.

If you are correct, that a “socialized”, United Order style of medicine is absolutely wrong, then how am I incorrect in believing that our founding fathers were then WRONG and not truly inspired of God because they persecuted our very true church and did not allow for such a clause as polygamy in our godly inspired constitution? That they even followed a constitution was wrong – we should never have followed ANY government – we should have ONLY followed God and his commandments (United Order).

These are very large, broad questions I struggle with (and wonder if you’ll even be able to grasp being so firmly opposite in your political beliefs) and part of the reason why I am so liberal in so many of my thoughts… Because I CAN’T know those answers for certain and still be a good-standing Mormon – I should probably be a polygamist now, but I’m not. So, see, I choose to believe as open mindedly as possible so as not to judge others because I can’t KNOW for fact based on the flip-flops and differing interpretations of both man and Prophet.

If I am to believe our founding fathers truly were inspired of God, I cannot also believe they would be so against polygamy as to persecute the saints (which was the true church, restored) or that they would not have included polygamy as constitutional. And yet, if polygamy IS constitutional via a loophole, then so too is gay marriage.

If I am to believe our church is never led astray and that our Prophets are correct, we never should have followed a government in the first place – we should have continued only with what God taught us, which was United Order. But wait, didn’t Joseph Smith also speak of the Government as being true? So how can we have both and why did one overthrow the other? If our Prophets are of God, surely we should have endured to the end, following the commandments that God clearly stated, like polygamy.

If I am to believe our prophet will never lead us astray then why was polygamy commanded of God and why are we are no longer practicing it. Shouldn’t we have done everything we could to keep that commandment? Even given our lives as per the scriptures?

Many of you mentioned Abraham Lincoln in quotes, and you also mentioned our founding fathers were inspired of God. Then why would he and others like him, whose words you quote to bring truth to your arguments, have signed the Morrill Anti-Bogamy Act in 1862 which banned polygamy, which in turn overthrew our church so as to force us stop practicing the very commandments of God (polygamy/united order)?

Ah, but it wasn’t force. As John Taylor pointed out, in my quotes above, we had the choice to endure to the end, even to death, in which we would have been redeemed and yet, we chose not to.

How can you explain this and also explain how we are truly good-standing Mormons by not practicing polygamy today.
UNLESS… perhaps each scripture can be interpreted for specific situations and each Prophet was inspired for the specific time period they were living in…which makes all your arguments, at best, guesses, which in turn DOES NOT make my arguments completely incorrect, either. For, if I had a little more time (you’ll forgive me for my kids and husband have interrupted me so many times just on this post), I could certainly quote many scriptures which would further prove the points I made in my prior posts.

It would seem, based on my interpretations and based on early Prophets you say are completely true and absolute, that the Fundamentalist LDS church has the concept right since they still practice polygamy and yet we distance ourselves and say their church is incorrect. And yet, they continued with Prophet John Taylor’s advice to not give in and fold under government pressure. So why aren’t they considered the correct church? After all, they followed this advice, without fear of persecution:

John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, vol. 24, p.163
“Now, as I said to the Priesthood last night, we are arriving at a political crisis in our affairs. The priests and bigots of Christendom—and of America especially—are driving our law-makers into trying to hedge up our way and to oppress us politically as well as religiously. They are endeavoring not only to deprive us of religious freedom, but to deprive us of political freedom, and to bring us into bondage. Well, now, they will do it as far as the Lord will allow them and no further. He will block their wheels. He will throw obstacles in their way. He will stay their onward progress. But He allows His people to be tried to see whether they will trust Him and have faith in Him, or whether they will deny Him, whether they will deny their covenants and their principles through fear of the power of the wicked, through fear of oppression, through fear of prisons or of death. For we have among us those who will falter, those who will halt between two opinions, those who wish to serve the world. and who, at the same time, would like to serve the Lord a little. Well, can such people always continue in this doubtful and divided condition? No, they can not. They will be tried and proven, and by and by they must take sides one way or another; they must either turn their backs upon the wicked and cleave unto God and His people with full purpose of soul, or they will turn their backs upon God and His people and go down to perdition with the ungodly of the world.”

I expect you won’t reply with the concept that polygamy will be practiced in heaven, because based on the quotes and concepts I list above we will not get to heaven unless we practice polygamy here and now in 2010 whether it is legal or not. In fact, we never should have given it up, if we are to be good-standing Mormons.

And if you say “well, it’s not so black and white”, then you will also be acknowledging that I had some valid points when I spoke of things like health care. People are dying. Shouldn’t we help them, in whatever way possible? But you quoted Ezra Taft Benson as being an unchanging fact from the 60′s and 70′s. You also quoted Brigham Young as saying public schools are evil and yet…didn’t President Hinckley and President Monson (and many others) speak of education as being of God and righteous? It’s 2010.
Why do we get new prophets then? Is every word of every Prophet literally law (as you always seem to find a quote to match each thing you try to prove…so to I can find quotes to show that polygamy has large discrepancies at best and at worst proves our prophets and church untrue).

If we accept that the word is law we must accept that our prophets have led us astray. For they have certainly denied blacks the priesthood and we know in hindsight that black men DID hold the priesthood in the earliest days of the church when then it was taken away by Brigham Young. Was he mistaken then? Could he have been mistaken in saying public schools are evil? Or maybe those were correct philosophies based on HIS time. They have perhaps changed for 2010? Or based on my arguments above, was he even a prophet?

You can’t have it both ways. It’s either the word of God or it’s not, correct? Or…IT CAN CHANGE. But, as you argue, if Brigham Young said it or Ezra Taft Benson said it: it never changes (as you have made so many points such to say that all socialism and all public welfare programs – like public schools – are always wrong because Brigham Young or Ezra Taft Benson said so).
An argument that polygamy will be practiced in heaven cannot hold up here for if we are to even get to heaven we must be practicing this law today, in our current lives. And yet Woodruff’s manifesto shows that he and our entire church body folded under pressure.

I suppose these examples put into perspective what I meant when I said something to the effect of “Don’t pay your taxes then. No one is literally enslaving you to pay for welfare programs you disagree with. Do what’s right, as you say, and stand up for what you believe in – whether you go to prison or not, God will sort out the rest.”

I won’t even get into our temple garments changing with the times. That’s a whole, other, huge argument.

I look forward to your responses as more and more I cannot believe what you say to be absolute truths AND also believe our Prophets always lead the church the correct way or are always literally inspired by God based on the polygamy issue.
Can you see in my arguments why I get so emotional, now? It’s not so cut and dry one way or another. There has to be some leeway in some areas if I (and you) are even to be a good-standing member of the church. For if not, I fear you and I are surely going to hell for not practicing polygamy today.

On your mark, get set, go! I’m very interested to see how you interpret this. (And, hey, my husband will thank you kindly if you can explain it in such a way as to help my testimony grow!)

Sincerely,
Gabby

Oh, and do you care to elaborate on how requiring something for membership in a group is different from requiring something regardless of membership? (As relating to church membership and government ‘participation’.)

Gabriela, the rest of my post is mostly for you. Several individuals have pointed out that you tend to be quite emotional in your delivery, and that your arguments lack substance.

I appreciate emotion. I get pretty excited discussing governement as well. Just a week or so ago a friend of mine was talking with my wife. He said, “I love talking with Jon, because even though you agree with him, and he knows you agree with him, you still kinda feel like you’re getting yelled at.” My head turns red, and my blood pressure goes up. I freely admit it and I’ll even go as far as to say that I like that about myself.

I call it getting fired up. I love to get fired up. I loved one of your points too, Gabby. You asked us what we’re doing about it. I appreciate that, because just getting fired up does nothing except ensure my pharmacy keeps getting money for my blood pressure meds. Why get so emotional just to “be right.”

So what am I doing? I, for one, am going back to school. I have organized a grass-roots group to discuss the principles of liberty, educate others on liberty and the Constitution, and support/oppose legislation and candidates according to their adherence to the Constitution. I am seriously considering joining the Campaign for Liberty as a Precinct Leader. I also work full time as the sole provider for a family of 7, and we homeschool our 5 kids.

I wanted to tip the hat to you for that excellent point, but to be honest, you have said little else that I agree with, and that’s fine! I love disagreements, becuase they give me the chance to get fired up. I also like them because they keep me honest.

While debating with someone, I try to continually ask myself the following questions. Why am I so excited about this? Is my point of view based on correct principles? Or is it based on emotions, past belief, desire, etc.? If I feel it is a principle, how can I defend that principle? Can I quote a prophet, scripture, AND a founding father to support my claim? If the answer is no….it’s time to douse the flame. A nice cold bucket of slow down and decide if it’s time to change my belief to the truth, or study to be able to back myself up.

I invite you to grab a bucket. That may sound rude, but you rarely have solid information, quotes, etc. to defend your point of view. When others have asked for you to provide such a support to your point, or ask you to refute their well supported claims, you throw out excuses. I’ll admit freely that there is some validity to your excuses like being a busy mom. But if that’s the case, slow down, make a few quality posts rather than a bunch of posts full of capitalized words and sentences that come across as emotionally charged rants.

You are a daughter of God. Your opinion matters. I would love to see you support your arguments a little better so I feel more comfortable taking you seriously.

I think the more posts you’ve written, you’ve started getting into more examples and analogies (which is good), like examples of choices we make regarding our freedom, or tithing. But you couldn’t/didn’t back up those claims with something like teachings of our modern prophets.

Then, when Connor and others gave sound doctrine and principle to show why your points were flawed, you semi-coherently YELLED why you still felt you were right.

Back it up! I’ll admit that I haven’t looked at your blog, and maybe your posts there are more organized and supported, but if I had to guess, I’d guess that your blogs are a lot like your posts here.

I look forward to your next well written response. (I don’t mean that to be derogatory. I really want to see what your writing looks like when it is well prepared and delivered. Fueled by your passion, and reigned in and focused by preparation. I bet it could be quite powerful.)

PS, sorry for wall-o-text and no spell checker.

I have shown you how government has usurped and copied Christ’s organization, thus validating the words of several prophets stating that the adversary now controls every government in the world — thereby destroying the principle of liberty and freedom. I have shown you how scripture and your own theocracy has been commanded of God to deal with the poor, sick, afflicted, and oppressed — while maintaining the principle of liberty. You have changed your argument from one stance that government does force you to another where you say government does not force you — you are inconsistent at best. I have given you primary sources and examples of real people who live their freedom and take care of the poor, and you have given excuses as to why you need to compel your neighbor to pay for your problems.

I look with sorrow to any person who argues that if you want your freedom, in supposedly the ‘land of the free’, then you’ll have to move somewhere else or suffer the consequences of living in a socialized America. You argue that government should grant ‘free health-care’, but nothing in this world is ‘free’ — you agree with a philosophy that necessarily creates class-hatred, creates social-inequality, and social injustice.

Several people on this thread have presented reasons why health-care needs reform, and they have presented ideas as to how to actually fix the root problems while maintaining the principle of liberty and freedom (not coercing one individual to necessarily provide for another) — yet you simply bark back in caps incoherent and inconsistent blather.

If you are so morally correct, please provide scriptural examples of the justness of your cause — please provide one instance where a free people have ever been morally coerced to perform their duty. If our Latter-day scripture is supposedly so appropriate for our day — and, as the prophets have said, given to us for the express purpose of dispelling the sophistry and damning philosophies of our current day — I would be more than certain something would be said concerning the necessary need to force society at large to provide for the poor and needy through government taxes. If you are familiar with your Book of Mormon, you will then know there is one single case that can almost back up your case — yet there are dozens of scriptures that help to clarify the one issue.

You did not address my analogy. You justify a society that condones a mugger to rob a passerby to give ‘charity’ to a beggar. To add insult to injury, you tell the mugger that it is his own fault, and that he should leave his homeland if he doesn’t like the fact that society accepts him being robbed. No one here is arguing against the fact that it is a moral duty to provide for the beggar, but your philosophy denies the United Order and the Law of Consecration. Your philosophy denies the UO and Law of Consecration because it denies the goodness of people to naturally provide for their neighbor outside a state of coerced extraction. Your analogy of tithing and income tax does not make any sense in this situation for reasons I have already stated. Those believers in freedom and liberty on this thread believe that we must provide for the poor and afflicted, but we also condemn a society that accepts and even praises thieves and muggers and their redistribution of property. We believe in and defend property rights. We believe in and defend liberty and freedom. We believe in and defend the ability of society to take care of its poor and afflicted. We believe that government is necessary for specifically required tasks, but that these are restricted to the active, intentional, and direct infringement on someone’s life, liberty, or property.

We have discourses, quotes, sources, prophets, scriptures, and the doctrines of our Great Creator to show the truth of liberty, freedom, justice, and equality.

You have provided us nothing but your own meandering opinions, fallacies, and emotionalism.

Perhaps I read too much into that option’s absence from your list, but to me, it is quite telling and very representative of the paradigm you have.

Apparently you haven’t yet read my latest comment, as it rebuts the points in the comment you just made. Sorry, but though you “know” you’re correct, you’re not.

And please stop using so many capital letters. (It’s widely perceived as shouting.)

Correct. YOU PROVE ME RIGHT. I STILL ask you how you are technically being enslaved? Any American is free to leave and go make their own choices to not pay into the American tax pool. YOU ARE NOT ENSLAVED. YOUR RIGHTS ARE INTACT. I listed MANY choices you could make that show you ARE NOT being enslaved by our government. YOU DO HAVE A CHOICE.
As Von Trapp so finely replied: well, what kind of a choices are those? Nevertheless, they ARE choices. YOUR FREE AGENCY IS IN TACT HERE AND YOU STILL GET TO MAKE ONE, even if it’s not one you might like. THAT was why I brought up tithing and you so finely proved me CORRECT – I don’t have to pay my tithing. But if I don’t, I’m no longer a good-standing Mormon. If *YOU* don’t pay your taxes you either leave the country or go to prison. NEVERTHELESS IT’S STILL YOUR CHOICE. NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO DO ANYTHING.
You people think we shouldn’t have universal health care because it’s taking all your rights away. I, too, think, well what are MY choices? I could A) vote for a democrat who pushes free health care, B) go without health care or C) accept it via charity. I choose A and C. NEVERTHELESS, Those are MY choices. We all get them. Free agency has not been taken away in this situation.
And further: OUR PROPHETS AND GOD TELL US NOT TO JUDGE HOW/WHO GETS/ACCEPTS CHARITY. So all your arguments, while intellectual are still false.
I *KNOW* I’m correct here, technically. So we need not argue further. Your government is NOT technically enslaving you. People on welfare do NOT enslave you. You just AREN’T WILLING to accept your free agency and make your own choices in those cases. Just because YOU don’t want to pay taxes doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have to. IF YOU DON’T WANT TO PAY TAXES SO PEOPLE CAN GET WELFARE (here I will insert that the LDS added to its three part mission of the church that we would help the poor and needy. It’s not up to you to judge how it’s done, oh righteous truth speakers. It’s up to God.) If you don’t like taxes or welfare programs then go make those other choices then, where you won’t have to pay taxes. I listed several options. No one is stomping on your free agency or enslaving you.
Case closed.

6 Therefore I write unto you, desiring that ye would yield up unto this my people, your cities, your lands, and your possessions, rather than that they should visit you with the sword and that destruction should come upon you.
7 Or in other words, yield yourselves up unto us, and unite with us and become acquainted with our secret works, and become our brethren that ye may be like unto us—not our slaves, but our brethren and partners of all our substance.

So here the GAd leader demands that the nephites turn over all possessions to the GADs. If they refuse, destruction is thier fate. If they comply with the demand and yield up their possesions they are then told that they “will become thier brethren, not slaves (a big lie) but brethren and partners of all thier substance”. (Thier substance is stolen goods, they are parasites producing no wealth, just a bunch of dang robbers)

This story really illustrates the heart of socialism. “turn over your goods to the state or be punished. If you comply and enter the “system” then you share the spoils of goods stolen from others. You become a slave but are not told that. You are told the opposite, that socialism makes you free becuase now someone else will pay for your benefit.

The problem with socialism is that it is cannabilistic in its nature. People lose incentive to work to suport themselves because everything is “free”, handed to you via the govt. The productive folks get taxed heavily to pay for the nonproductive folks and so they in turn stop producing or finds ways to get out of paying taxes for someone elses benefit. Soon the “system” is broke and collapses under its own weight.

Obama, Bush and these other politicians that have promoted socialism over the years are todays Gadiantons. Lying to the people promising a better life if they will just yield all their wealth up and join the “system”. They conveniently forget to tell us that the “system” is unsustainable and will eventually collapse. They work to make a society where everyone lives off the labor of everyone else.

These kinds of schemes have been tried time and again over the millenia and have always led to decay and collapse of nations.

Do we really want to go down that road again?