A CALL TO UNITE!

[kingbmmcaptain of 100]

Yes, we are divided politically. There's absolutely no doubt about it. Some of us are social conservatives and feel that Libertarianism is wrong,
and the majority on the this forum feel Libertarianism is right and support Ron Paul.

THIS IS OK! WE DON'T HAVE TO AGREE!

I for one am tired of fighting this political battle. I'm tired of the back and forth, and I'm tired of the division. I have come to the realization that our political differences simply don't matter. The Lord expects better from us. His Kingdom on earth is currently being persecuted, and we all know that there is much more to come in the near future.

It's time to stop the silly bickering-myself included. I'm asking all the brothers and the sisters who participate on this forum to join me in uniting together! Let's stop barking on the few things we disagree on, and focus on the great truths that we have in common.

We all sustain Thomas S. Monson as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, along with 12 Apostles who are special witnesses of Jesus Christ. We aware of our awful situation, and understand the necessity of spiritual and temporal preparation. We understand the prophecies about this chosen land of promise, and have made solemn covenants to consecrate everything to the building up of the Kingdom of God, and to the establishment of Zion.

No pride.... let's come together and brainstorm on how we can bridge our differences so that we can unite and accomplish great and marvelous things! Who's with me?

[jonesdecaptain of 1,000]

As long as opinions are not enforced by violence, then I agree... we don't have to agree. That's the beauty of voluntary interaction with other people.

As soon as a policy is enforced by violence then the stage is set for two guaranteed outcomes:

1. those who are harmed by that violence are suddenly forced to disagree and fight the policy
2. once the system of violent enforcement is in place, it can be turned on those who originally used it for what they considered to be "good" to actually disallow that "good"

As long as we agree to live in peace, we can disagree about pretty much everything else and still have a stable and free society. When I say peace I mean peace as the path, not peace as the goal... justifying force to pursue peace is not peace at all.

That said, I'd be surprised if "we" as people who participate in this forum can even agree to this... and for those who don't agree with peaceful voluntary interactions as opposed to force, they are the ones who force confrontation over disagreement.

[davedancaptain of 1,000]

W Cleon Skousen quotes J Ruben Clark about how we can unite.

The enemy uses the tactic of "divide and conquer". Satan is attacking us on so many fronts, it's nearly impossible to get the people to unite in a conserted defense against any one attack. We should still try and stand for truth and right.

However. Babylon is going to fall. No one can stop that. J Ruben Clark said the enemy has built a train on track 1, and if you try and get in the way, it's just going to run you over,

So what do do? J Ruben Clark said. Build another train on a different track going in the opposites direction. Track 2 is Zion.

So while I'm not saying we give up the fight against pornography or traditional marriage or whatever other issue. The truth is, the best defence is a great offense. The most productive thing that we could do to fight against Babylon is Labor for Zion.

Babylon will eventually burn. It has to fall. And then the Gentiles will finally seek Zion and flee to Zion for safety because it will be the only thing left standing.

[Randcaptain of 1,000]

Davedan, I couldn't agree more. As we establish zion in our own lives, and that begins to filter throughout the church, we will become what we are suppose to be. There is no candidate or political party that will fulfill that potential. Zion is and should be our goal. Well said. J. Reuben Clark was a very bright man.

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

I agree, and I think that in order to unite we need to go back to very fundamental principles and focus on those things that we all can (or should be able to) agree on. The ten commandments. The basics.

Once we all agree on those things, not just in principle, but that we are committed to living those things we can move forward into more complex things and start seeking to understand the mysteries together. And not wanting to cause another fight, but one problem that we have is people who seek the mysteries who do not understand or fail to apply the very basics - the ten commandments!

When people fully embrace the ten commandments, and also fully understand the idea of government by the people and for the people, you understand as many prophets have taught that you cannot direct the government to do something in your behalf without accepting the moral consequences for those actions.

The ten commandments say thou shalt not kill. We know that exceptions are made for self defense. But we cannot send govenrment to use deadly force for any reason other than legitimate self defense without consequences.

The ten commandments say thou shalt not steal. Yet many even among the saints have no proglem sending the government - as their representative - to take by force money from some to give to others. They may say that it is "for the children". They may say they need the money themselves to get by...again we must erturn back to the fundamentals and ask "does this action that I want to do, or that I want government to do, go against those basic principles?"

If we cannot agree on the basic principles, the very bedrock foundation of who or what we are as a society, then we cannot be one.

If we agree on the principles but then find various reasons to abandon those fundamental principles, then we cannot be one.

Some here accuse others of being fanatical about various gospel hobby horses. The fact is, for me the constitution was the first real attempt in the modern era to establish a rule of law that would permit a ZION society to exist. For those that say it is a hobby horse, I respond "Is trying to understand Zion principles and working to establish a Zion society something that anyone can pay TOO MUCH attention to? I don;t think so!

And as Ron Paul points out - liberty unites people! It brings people together and allows each person to have their "hobby horses" but when we respect each others agency, as long as no one else's agency is being infringed upon, we love and respect each other more, and we unite. The preamble says the Constitution was established to form a more perfect union - sounds like the founders were trying to bring us together to "become one".

I definitely agree with the OP - we need to unite. And that unity MUST come from a basic agreement, which really should not be that hard, of some foundational principles. But I don't think we can just overlook "differences of opinion" on those foundational principles. Because to do so would be to build Zion on a foundation of sand.

Certainly people of good intent may come to a different conclusion of which candidate should be supported. But that is not to say that there is not one candidate objectively superior to another - it is just to acknowledge that we don't all have the same understanding.

If the Godhead particpated in voting (or of who they approved of) it is ridiculous to suggest that Christ might favor one candidate, and God the Father another, and that it was alll fine because it was just a difference of opinion, like preferring one flavor of ice cream over another. In all things that are based on principle, there is one correct answer that we should all be striving to bring ourselves into alignment with. As long as we are actively striving to do that, we will naturally become united.

[natashacaptain of 1,000]

Yes, we are divided politically. There's absolutely no doubt about it. Some of us are social conservatives and feel that Libertarianism is wrong and the majority on the this forum are Libertarians and feel that Ron Paul is absolutely the best man for the job.

THIS IS OK! WE DON'T HAVE TO AGREE!

I for one am tired of fighting this political battle. I'm tired of the back and forth, and I'm tired of the division. I have come to the realization that our political differences simply don't matter. The Lord expects better from us. His Kingdom on earth is currently being persecuted, and we all know that there is much more to come in the near future.

It's time to stop the silly bickering-myself included. I'm asking all the brothers and the sisters who participate on this forum to join me in uniting together! Let's stop barking on the few things we disagree on, and focus on the great truths that we have in common.

We all sustain Thomas S. Monson as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, along with 12 Apostles who are special witnesses of Jesus Christ. We aware of our awful situation, and understand the necessity of spiritual and temporal preparation. We understand the prophecies about this chosen land of promise, and have made solemn covenants to consecrate everything to the building up of the Kingdom of God, and to the establishment of Zion.

No pride.... let's come together and brainstorm on how we can bridge our differences so that we can unite and accomplish great and marvelous things! Who's with me?

Great post...thanks for the new thread. A year or two ago I posted a reply to a conversation that was only acknowledged by Mark....which is fine....I don't need acknowledgement, but it made me think that possibly it fell on deaf ears. I really don't know. As a few of you know, my husband is a Sioux Indian...grew up on a reservation in South Dakota. His take on the history of his people in the Book of Mormon is revealing. If you recall, at first the "divide" was just the Nephites and the Lamanites. If you study the Book of Mormon in depth you will soon realize that the Lamanites divided into many factions. When Columbus arrived here, there were over 5,000 tribesl...all relatively different and few getting along with each other. Today there are only about 200-250 recognized tribes...and the last stat I saw said they were less than 1% of the population. Had they been a united people when the Europeans arrived here, I wonder if the story would have been different? Hard to know...especially since this continent was set apart for greatness and the restoration of the Gospel. My point is that the tactics of the adversary have not changed. He loves the "divide and conquer" technique. The gospel is the thing that unites us....and the four-fold mission of the Church is what can save us. If we can succeed at that, it won't matter what is going on around us. The Savior will return when His Church is prepared to receive Him. God bless.

[kingbmmcaptain of 100]

As long as opinions are not enforced by violence, then I agree... we don't have to agree. That's the beauty of voluntary interaction with other people.

As soon as a policy is enforced by violence then the stage is set for two guaranteed outcomes:

1. those who are harmed by that violence are suddenly forced to disagree and fight the policy
2. once the system of violent enforcement is in place, it can be turned on those who originally used it for what they considered to be "good" to actually disallow that "good"

As long as we agree to live in peace, we can disagree about pretty much everything else and still have a stable and free society. When I say peace I mean peace as the path, not peace as the goal... justifying force to pursue peace is not peace at all.

That said, I'd be surprised if "we" as people who participate in this forum can even agree to this... and for those who don't agree with peaceful voluntary interactions as opposed to force, they are the ones who force confrontation over disagreement.

Jonesde,
I believe that the those who have been spiritually born again will seek to put the Kingdom of God before anything else. This includes political differences, candidates, and philosophies. I'm only talking about us on this forum for right now...I truthfully feel that we can overcome this division based on our foundation of Jesus Christ. Do you not feel that this forum is capable of that?

[happy@lifecaptain of 100]

I agree and appreciate this thread! Thanks for the input so far. It would be great to list formost things we can unite in. Some great things have already been mentioned. I like the brainstorming idea!

Natasha I appreciate your insite on the lessons to be learned from the Book of Mormon peoples. We need to learn from that today. Ihe division of our people is becoming sadly evident. Which reservation did your husband grow up on? I have loved visition SD.

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

And I hope my post is not seen as a call to division - not my intention at all.

What I am pointing out is that some of the "superficial" differences, such as political candidate, actually go down to a much more foundational level - questions such as "when is it permissible, thru government, to send our soldiers with the intention of killing others on the other side of the world?" need to be answered, and if we are divided on such fundamental questions, there can be no union.

To say "But let's just all unite in our faith in Christ!" is to paper over a significant chasm - there must be a fundamental agreement on the rock upon which society will be structured. To say that we can unite in commonly held "faith in Christ" while such fundamental differences remain is pablum and dooms the enterprise to failure.

Would we say, regarding abortion - "Oh well, pro-life or pro-choice - there is no need to agree, we just need to all get along!" ? I hope not.
Because certainly there will be differences of opinion, but surely there is a law irrevocably decreed in heaven, and therefor there is only one right answer. And a society that deviates from that right answer will also bear the consequence of that choice. As our current situation proves.

So I am all for unity. But it has to be a true unity, as the Father and the Son share, not some "anything goes, just so long as we stick together" unity.

[kingbmmcaptain of 100]

Yes, we are divided politically. There's absolutely no doubt about it. Some of us are social conservatives and feel that Libertarianism is wrong and the majority on the this forum are Libertarians and feel that Ron Paul is absolutely the best man for the job.

THIS IS OK! WE DON'T HAVE TO AGREE!

I for one am tired of fighting this political battle. I'm tired of the back and forth, and I'm tired of the division. I have come to the realization that our political differences simply don't matter. The Lord expects better from us. His Kingdom on earth is currently being persecuted, and we all know that there is much more to come in the near future.

It's time to stop the silly bickering-myself included. I'm asking all the brothers and the sisters who participate on this forum to join me in uniting together! Let's stop barking on the few things we disagree on, and focus on the great truths that we have in common.

We all sustain Thomas S. Monson as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, along with 12 Apostles who are special witnesses of Jesus Christ. We aware of our awful situation, and understand the necessity of spiritual and temporal preparation. We understand the prophecies about this chosen land of promise, and have made solemn covenants to consecrate everything to the building up of the Kingdom of God, and to the establishment of Zion.

No pride.... let's come together and brainstorm on how we can bridge our differences so that we can unite and accomplish great and marvelous things! Who's with me?

Great post...thanks for the new thread. A year or two ago I posted a reply to a conversation that was only acknowledged by Mark....which is fine....I don't need acknowledgement, but it made me think that possibly it fell on deaf ears. I really don't know. As a few of you know, my husband is a Sioux Indian...grew up on a reservation in South Dakota. His take on the history of his people in the Book of Mormon is revealing. If you recall, at first the "divide" was just the Nephites and the Lamanites. If you study the Book of Mormon in depth you will soon realize that the Lamanites divided into many factions. When Columbus arrived here, there were over 5,000 tribesl...all relatively different and few getting along with each other. Today there are only about 200-250 recognized tribes...and the last stat I saw said they were less than 1% of the population. Had they been a united people when the Europeans arrived here, I wonder if the story would have been different? Hard to know...especially since this continent was set apart for greatness and the restoration of the Gospel. My point is that the tactics of the adversary have not changed. He loves the "divide and conquer" technique. The gospel is the thing that unites us....and the four-fold mission of the Church is what can save us. If we can succeed at that, it won't matter what is going on around us. The Savior will return when His Church is prepared to receive Him. God bless.

Very interesting... I have never considered that point of view before. I think we can study history and learn the most effective ways to unite as people. The gospel can and it will unite us, I truthfully believe this as well. I have learned within the past week that Satan is just as powerful in deceiving people with principles of liberty, as he is with deceiving people with principles of law and government. He works from every single angle possible, and once someone is off balance, he will take control of their heart. This is happening more than we realize. The solution is Christ and the leadership is provided by a living Prophet of God.

[kingbmmcaptain of 100]

And I hope my post is not seen as a call to division - not my intention at all.

What I am pointing out is that some of the "superficial" differences, such as political candidate, actually go down to a much more foundational level - questions such as "when is it permissible, thru government, to send our soldiers with the intention of killing others on the other side of the world?" need to be answered, and if we are divided on such fundamental questions, there can be no union.

To say "But let's just all unite in our faith in Christ!" is to paper over a significant chasm - there must be a fundamental agreement on the rock upon which society will be structured. To say that we can unite in commonly held "faith in Christ" while such fundamental differences remain is pablum and dooms the enterprise to failure.

Would we say, regarding abortion - "Oh well, pro-life or pro-choice - there is no need to agree, we just need to all get along!" ? I hope not.
Because certainly there will be differences of opinion, but surely there is a law irrevocably decreed in heaven, and therefor there is only one right answer. And a society that deviates from that right answer will also bear the consequence of that choice. As our current situation proves.

So I am all for unity. But it has to be a true unity, as the Father and the Son share, not some "anything goes, just so long as we stick together" unity.

I appreciate your insight. I'm not worried about issues regarding abortion, gay marriage, socialism, comnunism, etc.
Libertarians and social conservatives like myself agree on more things than we disagree on. We both have to accept that we ultimately seek the same things-just different approaches. This was hard for me to accept as well O.I...we have to get over it though...let's find what we agree on AND UNITE!

[Randcaptain of 1,000]

Great post...thanks for the new thread. A year or two ago I posted a reply to a conversation that was only acknowledged by Mark....which is fine....I don't need acknowledgement, but it made me think that possibly it fell on deaf ears. I really don't know. As a few of you know, my husband is a Sioux Indian...grew up on a reservation in South Dakota. His take on the history of his people in the Book of Mormon is revealing. If you recall, at first the "divide" was just the Nephites and the Lamanites. If you study the Book of Mormon in depth you will soon realize that the Lamanites divided into many factions. When Columbus arrived here, there were over 5,000 tribesl...all relatively different and few getting along with each other. Today there are only about 200-250 recognized tribes...and the last stat I saw said they were less than 1% of the population. Had they been a united people when the Europeans arrived here, I wonder if the story would have been different? Hard to know...especially since this continent was set apart for greatness and the restoration of the Gospel. My point is that the tactics of the adversary have not changed. He loves the "divide and conquer" technique. The gospel is the thing that unites us....and the four-fold mission of the Church is what can save us. If we can succeed at that, it won't matter what is going on around us. The Savior will return when His Church is prepared to receive Him. God bless.

I have an interest in this Natasha, and would love if you could share more.

[natashacaptain of 1,000]

Can you be more specific, Rand? What are you interested in?

[jonesdecaptain of 1,000]

As long as opinions are not enforced by violence, then I agree... we don't have to agree. That's the beauty of voluntary interaction with other people.

As soon as a policy is enforced by violence then the stage is set for two guaranteed outcomes:

1. those who are harmed by that violence are suddenly forced to disagree and fight the policy
2. once the system of violent enforcement is in place, it can be turned on those who originally used it for what they considered to be "good" to actually disallow that "good"

As long as we agree to live in peace, we can disagree about pretty much everything else and still have a stable and free society. When I say peace I mean peace as the path, not peace as the goal... justifying force to pursue peace is not peace at all.

That said, I'd be surprised if "we" as people who participate in this forum can even agree to this... and for those who don't agree with peaceful voluntary interactions as opposed to force, they are the ones who force confrontation over disagreement.

Jonesde,
I believe that the those who have been spiritually born again will seek to put the Kingdom of God before anything else. This includes political differences, candidates, and philosophies. I'm only talking about us on this forum for right now...I truthfully feel that we can overcome this division based on our foundation of Jesus Christ. Do you not feel that this forum is capable of that?

No, I don't feel that the people on this forum are capable of that sort of agreement, especially as soon as we talk about details and don't stick to a high level where we gloss- or paper-over issues.

Even on an issue that should be clear: do we send armies to occupy other countries for our "defense"? There is great disagreement on that among different people who post on this forum.

Take something a little more touchy, and where there is greater disagreement: should we use force to punish people for disobeying laws of God where the act did not involve violence and has no direct victim (this would include substance use/abuse, consensual sexual acts, blasphemy and other controversial or disdainful speech)?

Personally, I believe the commandments of God are meant to guide our personal behavior, not as a guide for behaviors we should enforce on other people. In other words, in our personal lives we should be socially conservative, but when it comes to the behavior of others and enforcement through violence we should be socially liberal. That doesn't mean we can't speak against such behavior and use persuasion or even ostracization in response to such acts, but no, we can't use violence.

Is there any level of agreement on this topic? I don't think so, and it is one of the most basic issues in government.

[kingbmmcaptain of 100]

Please humble yourself and acknowledge that human wisdom will never lead to a full understanding. I don't want to keep debating with you on these issues. We need to acknowledge that both sides have truth.

I ask you jonesde... what do we have in common? What can we build on?

[Col. Flaggcaptain of 10,000]

I have to agree with those who say this thread was needed and a good idea. I'm guilty of pretty some harsh words in defense of Ron Paul over the past several days and need to apologize to Natasha and Bob for some of the things I said in my attempts to disuade from supporting Mitt Romney. We are all entitled to our own opinions and agency, including which political candidate to support, so I will pledge from here on out to focus my energies on continuing to make a case for Ron Paul for president without looking to attack or disuade from supporting Romney. I think it's pretty much a given that there are more of us supporting Ron Paul than Mitt Romney , but considering all of the mudslinging going on between Mitt & Newt right now and the big turn off it is, I am going to cease and desist from doing the same to those who disagree with me politically. The principles, ideas, platforms, philosophies and actions are what we should be focusing on with regards to our preferred candidates, nothing else, so that is what I am prepared to focus on from here on out. Even though Natasha and Bob support Mitt, I know Natasha is conservative and that is a big plus in my book and Bob seems to be a principled man wanting someone who holds the priesthood, so I can respect that. But I'm still going to bat for my man Ron all the way!!!

[jonesdecaptain of 1,000]

Please humble yourself and acknowledge that human wisdom will never lead to a full understanding. I don't want to keep debating with you on these issues. We need to acknowledge that both sides have truth.

I ask you jonesde... what do we have in common? What can we build on?

I'm not speaking out in pride... not sure why you would think that. I'm just commenting on clear issues that are basic government decisions and where there have been clear differences of opinion on this forum.

Are you saying we should gloss over all such things? Are you saying that if I don't agree with being violent against people who use a substance or have a different religion that I should just be quiet for the sake of avoiding contention with the people who are acting in violent ways without a just cause?

No, I don't think glossing over these issues for the sake of "unity" will be very effective. If that's prideful, sign me up! Consider that there are no perfect people on this earth and that we live in a very wicked world with constant influences for evil. How can we hope that righteousness will bring us all on the same page? Not even Church leaders agree on all things, even within the Lord's literally anointed groups of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. That's why there is a President of the Church who has the responsibility to make a final decision after hearing the opinions of others, and why there are many stories of the Quorum of the Twelve delaying decisions so that they can eventually come to a unanimous decision.

For the rest of us... good luck with the unity thing, unless you aim to do so by avoiding and ignoring differences.

I would hope we could at least agree on the teachings of prophets, and in those teachings some are clearly meant to guide our personal actions and others are meant to guide our interactions with others. Even on that simple distinction people constantly go wrong. We even have revelation that is meant to describe what our governments should do, namely D&C 134 and various parts of the Book of Mormon, but people still search all over scripture and use commandments regarding personal behavior as guidelines for government and what we should enforce on others.

Can we at least agree on that?

The desire to control others on issues of commandments meant for personal behavior concerns me a lot. If we are to have a freedom of religion, then different groups of people will believe in different gods and in different behavioral guidelines. If we all think that it is our duty to enforce the laws of god as we understand them on our neighbors, then war and usurpation of power will be our constant companions.

I'm much more concerned about people being violent towards other people than I am about people verbally disagreeing, or even being verbally contentious. If that is pride, again... sign me up.

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

As the site owner, BrianM, has said (paraphrase) - there is a reason that politics and religion are considered off limits for discussion in polite company. And here we have a website that FOCUSES on these two volatile issues!

And I love the intention and direction of this thread! Let's get away from esoteric discussion (not do away with it completely, it's interesting!) but certainly there are a good many things that we disagree on that don't really matter when the rubber hits the road - things that we will have plenty of time to learn and grow to fully understand and come to agreement on in the eternities.

However, as jonesde and myself have pointed out (and I think others agree) there are some opinions here that run deep down to very foundational principles.

The question is posed, what can we all agree on? Let's look for areas that we can all agree on! I agree with this! But as I examine it and some of the things that have been posted - I struggle to find even what should be very basic beliefs that we can ALL agree on.

I mean sure, I suppose that we can all agree that we should not go to our neighbors and massacre them. But then, some wise guy (like me) will point out that all of God's children are "supposed" to be our neighbors, and clearly there are some here that indeed feel that it IS OK to go to our "neighbors" and massacre them.

And I repeat - not trying to be divisive, but I am trying to keep it real. I want to see these uniting ideals that we can all agree on. I think that finding those common points and then BUILDING on them are precisely what is needed to establish a Zion society. But it won't be established on sand. And I feel that everyone singing Cumbayah together while holding fundamentally opposing views on basic principles is doing exactly that.

[JasonI am a nobody!]

And I hope my post is not seen as a call to division - not my intention at all.

What I am pointing out is that some of the "superficial" differences, such as political candidate, actually go down to a much more foundational level - questions such as "when is it permissible, thru government, to send our soldiers with the intention of killing others on the other side of the world?" need to be answered, and if we are divided on such fundamental questions, there can be no union.

To say "But let's just all unite in our faith in Christ!" is to paper over a significant chasm - there must be a fundamental agreement on the rock upon which society will be structured. To say that we can unite in commonly held "faith in Christ" while such fundamental differences remain is pablum and dooms the enterprise to failure.

Would we say, regarding abortion - "Oh well, pro-life or pro-choice - there is no need to agree, we just need to all get along!" ? I hope not.
Because certainly there will be differences of opinion, but surely there is a law irrevocably decreed in heaven, and therefor there is only one right answer. And a society that deviates from that right answer will also bear the consequence of that choice. As our current situation proves.

So I am all for unity. But it has to be a true unity, as the Father and the Son share, not some "anything goes, just so long as we stick together" unity.

Thank you for the voice of reason OI. If things were so simple there would not be individual oil reserves....and a need for a cleansing....starting internally and working outwards.

The adversary also has another tactic....which is COEXIST...which led to the downfall of the Israelites (as well as many other nations)...

This is the principle of Libertarianism that Brent addressed on another thread. The fundamental basis of which is to ignore or allow evil....that we don't have a right to legislate/enforce morality. This was the basic selling point of Korihor - whatsoever a man did was no crime (though perhaps in the modern version constrained by the thought that as long as they don't interfere with others). Go along to get along. Participate and join the crowd....become a part of Babylon.

The assumption made at the beginning of this thread -

We aware of our awful situation, and understand the necessity of spiritual and temporal preparation

...couldn't be further from the truth and is the source of much of the contention. We are not one with Zion because we are not one in principle nor in understanding of such correct principles. Nor are we one in understanding of our awful situation and the history of what brought us to this current situation. We are a people with one foot firmly planted in Babylon. Its easily evidenced in the way we conduct ourselves and the choices we make. Its evidenced by 70% of the population going directly against the council of the prophet (politically - Heber J Grant) quite a few decades ago....and a much higher percentage now on myriad other issues. Its evidenced by the lack of preparation for "what we know" is coming and disobedience to prophetic counsel we've received for a multitude of decades concerning such things as debt. Its evidenced by the discussions on this forum over such things as polygamy or politics (or any number of other topics). The church is to the point where church leadership is forbidden to discuss politics and must vote/donate anonymously.

Behold, the Lord hath forbidden this thing; wherefore, the Lord God hath given a commandment that all men should have charity, which charity is love. And except they should have charity they were nothing. Wherefore, if they should have charity they would not suffer the laborer in Zion to perish.

But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish.

And again, the Lord God hath commanded that men should not murder; that they should not lie; that they should not steal; that they should not take the name of the Lord their God in vain; that they should not envy; that they should not have malice; that they should not contend one with another; that they should not commit whoredoms; and that they should do none of these things; for whoso doeth them shall perish.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/26?lang=eng

Are pre-emptive strikes considered charity? Taking advantage of the poor and needy (third world nations via IMF, WTO, GATT, etc)? Oppressing the hireling in his wages? Government grants and handouts (socialism - theft via force of government)? Support of murder (wars, eugenics, Planned Parenthood, etc)? Participation in schemes/combinations to get gain (from medical to education to food production to business)?

We are a wicked people on the verge of destruction. It is preposterous to think that we can unite (overcoming our selfish desires that have brought us to the verge of destruction).

[patriotsaintcaptain of 1,000]

Although I think the idea of unity is noble and I respect kingbm for his sentiments, I don't think unity begins in an online forum. Unity will only occur as each of us becomes one with Christ in our personal lives. Then we can help spread that through our homes, communities and nations.

Personally, I'm struggling enough right now to become one with the Savior and to help my family accomplish the same. Trying to produce unity among forum members doesn't even register on my radar yet. However, If we put our lives in harmony with the Savior we will naturally develop unity with each other as an inevitable consequence.

I think a much more realistic goal in the short term would be to promote mutual respect and courteous discourse among all forum members. We aren't going to agree on a multitude of topics, but at least we can begin by treating one another with respect and charity. Once I see contention and pride disappear from our discourse on this forum (myself included), then maybe I'll take a plea for unity serious.

[kingbmmcaptain of 100]

And I hope my post is not seen as a call to division - not my intention at all.

What I am pointing out is that some of the "superficial" differences, such as political candidate, actually go down to a much more foundational level - questions such as "when is it permissible, thru government, to send our soldiers with the intention of killing others on the other side of the world?" need to be answered, and if we are divided on such fundamental questions, there can be no union.

To say "But let's just all unite in our faith in Christ!" is to paper over a significant chasm - there must be a fundamental agreement on the rock upon which society will be structured. To say that we can unite in commonly held "faith in Christ" while such fundamental differences remain is pablum and dooms the enterprise to failure.

Would we say, regarding abortion - "Oh well, pro-life or pro-choice - there is no need to agree, we just need to all get along!" ? I hope not.
Because certainly there will be differences of opinion, but surely there is a law irrevocably decreed in heaven, and therefor there is only one right answer. And a society that deviates from that right answer will also bear the consequence of that choice. As our current situation proves.

So I am all for unity. But it has to be a true unity, as the Father and the Son share, not some "anything goes, just so long as we stick together" unity.

Thank you for the voice of reason OI. If things were so simple there would not be individual oil reserves....and a need for a cleansing....starting internally and working outwards.

The adversary also has another tactic....which is COEXIST...which led to the downfall of the Israelites (as well as many other nations)...

This is the principle of Libertarianism that Brent addressed on another thread. The fundamental basis of which is to ignore or allow evil....that we don't have a right to legislate/enforce morality. This was the basic selling point of Korihor - whatsoever a man did was no crime (though perhaps in the modern version constrained by the thought that as long as they don't interfere with others). Go along to get along. Participate and join the crowd....become a part of Babylon.

The assumption made at the beginning of this thread -

We aware of our awful situation, and understand the necessity of spiritual and temporal preparation

...couldn't be further from the truth and is the source of much of the contention. We are not one with Zion because we are not one in principle nor in understanding of such correct principles. Nor are we one in understanding of our awful situation and the history of what brought us to this current situation. We are a people with one foot firmly planted in Babylon. Its easily evidenced in the way we conduct ourselves and the choices we make. Its evidenced by 70% of the population going directly against the council of the prophet (politically - Heber J Grant) quite a few decades ago....and a much higher percentage now on myriad other issues. Its evidenced by the lack of preparation for "what we know" is coming and disobedience to prophetic counsel we've received for a multitude of decades concerning such things as debt. Its evidenced by the discussions on this forum over such things as polygamy or politics (or any number of other topics). The church is to the point where church leadership is forbidden to discuss politics and must vote/donate anonymously.

Behold, the Lord hath forbidden this thing; wherefore, the Lord God hath given a commandment that all men should have charity, which charity is love. And except they should have charity they were nothing. Wherefore, if they should have charity they would not suffer the laborer in Zion to perish.

But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish.

And again, the Lord God hath commanded that men should not murder; that they should not lie; that they should not steal; that they should not take the name of the Lord their God in vain; that they should not envy; that they should not have malice; that they should not contend one with another; that they should not commit whoredoms; and that they should do none of these things; for whoso doeth them shall perish.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/26?lang=eng

Are pre-emptive strikes considered charity? Taking advantage of the poor and needy (third world nations via IMF, WTO, GATT, etc)? Oppressing the hireling in his wages? Government grants and handouts (socialism - theft via force of government)? Support of murder (wars, eugenics, Planned Parenthood, etc)? Participation in schemes/combinations to get gain (from medical to education to food production to business)?

We are a wicked people on the verge of destruction. It is preposterous to think that we can unite (overcoming our selfish desires that have brought us to the verge of destruction).

Jason,

Both you and I both have been trying to make the Heber J. Grant-prohibition issue for as long as I can remember. I have accumulated dozens of quotes from modern day prophets and apostles about specifically the moral obligation to "legislate moral laws" and it doesn't work. I have tried and tried, but even direct quotes from the leaders of the church can't convince them. Frankly, I can't do any better than supporting the fallacy of libertarianism w/ the words of general authorities. It's the best I got brother. Now we have to take a different route, both sides need to be willing to reason with one another and start building together. This is the only way my friend.

[kingbmmcaptain of 100]

Although I think the idea of unity is noble and I respect kingbm for his sentiments, I don't think unity begins in an online forum. Unity will only occur as each of us becomes one with Christ in our personal lives. Then we can help spread that through our homes, communities and nations.

Personally, I'm struggling enough right now to become one with the Savior and to help my family accomplish the same. Trying to produce unity among forum members doesn't even register on my radar yet. However, If we put our lives in harmony with the Savior we will naturally develop unity with each other as an inevitable consequence.

I think a much more realistic goal in the short term would be to promote mutual respect and courteous discourse among all forum members. We aren't going to agree on a multitude of topics, but at least we can begin by treating one another with respect and charity. Once I see contention and pride disappear from our discourse on this forum (myself included), then maybe I'll take a plea for unity serious.

We all fight our spiritual battles every day, and I respect your humility in addressing that. This forum is a means to an end. If we can cease the political bickering nonsense, and start to foucus on positive spiritual and temporal principles that we all share, then we will have the opportunity to become more active in building the kingdom together- being "do'ers of the word. Is that not possible?

[JasonI am a nobody!]

And I hope my post is not seen as a call to division - not my intention at all.

What I am pointing out is that some of the "superficial" differences, such as political candidate, actually go down to a much more foundational level - questions such as "when is it permissible, thru government, to send our soldiers with the intention of killing others on the other side of the world?" need to be answered, and if we are divided on such fundamental questions, there can be no union.

To say "But let's just all unite in our faith in Christ!" is to paper over a significant chasm - there must be a fundamental agreement on the rock upon which society will be structured. To say that we can unite in commonly held "faith in Christ" while such fundamental differences remain is pablum and dooms the enterprise to failure.

Would we say, regarding abortion - "Oh well, pro-life or pro-choice - there is no need to agree, we just need to all get along!" ? I hope not.
Because certainly there will be differences of opinion, but surely there is a law irrevocably decreed in heaven, and therefor there is only one right answer. And a society that deviates from that right answer will also bear the consequence of that choice. As our current situation proves.

So I am all for unity. But it has to be a true unity, as the Father and the Son share, not some "anything goes, just so long as we stick together" unity.

Thank you for the voice of reason OI. If things were so simple there would not be individual oil reserves....and a need for a cleansing....starting internally and working outwards.

The adversary also has another tactic....which is COEXIST...which led to the downfall of the Israelites (as well as many other nations)...

This is the principle of Libertarianism that Brent addressed on another thread. The fundamental basis of which is to ignore or allow evil....that we don't have a right to legislate/enforce morality. This was the basic selling point of Korihor - whatsoever a man did was no crime (though perhaps in the modern version constrained by the thought that as long as they don't interfere with others). Go along to get along. Participate and join the crowd....become a part of Babylon.

The assumption made at the beginning of this thread -

We aware of our awful situation, and understand the necessity of spiritual and temporal preparation

...couldn't be further from the truth and is the source of much of the contention. We are not one with Zion because we are not one in principle nor in understanding of such correct principles. Nor are we one in understanding of our awful situation and the history of what brought us to this current situation. We are a people with one foot firmly planted in Babylon. Its easily evidenced in the way we conduct ourselves and the choices we make. Its evidenced by 70% of the population going directly against the council of the prophet (politically - Heber J Grant) quite a few decades ago....and a much higher percentage now on myriad other issues. Its evidenced by the lack of preparation for "what we know" is coming and disobedience to prophetic counsel we've received for a multitude of decades concerning such things as debt. Its evidenced by the discussions on this forum over such things as polygamy or politics (or any number of other topics). The church is to the point where church leadership is forbidden to discuss politics and must vote/donate anonymously.

Behold, the Lord hath forbidden this thing; wherefore, the Lord God hath given a commandment that all men should have charity, which charity is love. And except they should have charity they were nothing. Wherefore, if they should have charity they would not suffer the laborer in Zion to perish.

But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish.

And again, the Lord God hath commanded that men should not murder; that they should not lie; that they should not steal; that they should not take the name of the Lord their God in vain; that they should not envy; that they should not have malice; that they should not contend one with another; that they should not commit whoredoms; and that they should do none of these things; for whoso doeth them shall perish.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/26?lang=eng

Are pre-emptive strikes considered charity? Taking advantage of the poor and needy (third world nations via IMF, WTO, GATT, etc)? Oppressing the hireling in his wages? Government grants and handouts (socialism - theft via force of government)? Support of murder (wars, eugenics, Planned Parenthood, etc)? Participation in schemes/combinations to get gain (from medical to education to food production to business)?

We are a wicked people on the verge of destruction. It is preposterous to think that we can unite (overcoming our selfish desires that have brought us to the verge of destruction).

Jason,

Both you and I both have been trying to make the Heber J. Grant-prohibition issue for as long as I can remember. I have accumulated dozens of quotes from modern day prophets and apostles about specifically the moral obligation to "legislate moral laws" and it doesn't work. I have tried and tried, but even direct quotes from the leaders of the church can't convince them. Frankly, I can't do any better than supporting the fallacy of libertarianism w/ the words of general authorities. It's the best I got brother. Now we have to take a different route, both sides need to be willing to reason with one another and start building together. This is the only way my friend.

I was referring to the prophetic guidance to get FDR out.....who later compromised and made a deal with hell to get the New Deal....which silenced Smedley Butler on the Business Plot as well as putting the kibosh on the opportunity to knock the gadianton's back several decades (specifically the Bush family - no George Sr or Jr).

I've dabbled in the political stuff....but mostly avoid it as I think its quite pointless given the dynamics (voting machines, wicked majority, president is just one man, million ways to compromise a person, media control, etc etc etc). We got Bob Bennett out and Mike Lee isn't any different. Its quite pointless at this stage of the game I think. If there is any opportunity to make a real difference...its on the local level. Hard to claim we are going to clean up the nation and turn it around when our own house stinks...

As for convincing....I've quit worrying about it. I throw what I know out there - let it sink or swim. We'll all get convinced of some realities in the not so distant future. Just let us hope we aren't found cursing God with rotting tongues....

[MrSciencecaptain of 100]

MAN! This discussion has gone far afield from what I felt it would become this morning when I read it. I was so in hope we could make something good here. Perhaps we need to zero into one narrow area. I understand the heavenly gift discussion has found some unity. For those of you involved in that discussion group, how have they accomplished it. Perhaps instead of saying it won't work....we should just take a stab at it. Some seemed anxious to try.

[kingbmmcaptain of 100]

I have to agree with those who say this thread was needed and a good idea. I'm guilty of pretty some harsh words in defense of Ron Paul over the past several days and need to apologize to Natasha and Bob for some of the things I said in my attempts to disuade from supporting Mitt Romney. We are all entitled to our own opinions and agency, including which political candidate to support, so I will pledge from here on out to focus my energies on continuing to make a case for Ron Paul for president without looking to attack or disuade from supporting Romney. I think it's pretty much a given that there are more of us supporting Ron Paul than Mitt Romney , but considering all of the mudslinging going on between Mitt & Newt right now and the big turn off it is, I am going to cease and desist from doing the same to those who disagree with me politically. The principles, ideas, platforms, philosophies and actions are what we should be focusing on with regards to our preferred candidates, nothing else, so that is what I am prepared to focus on from here on out. Even though Natasha and Bob support Mitt, I know Natasha is conservative and that is a big plus in my book and Bob seems to be a principled man wanting someone who holds the priesthood, so I can respect that. But I'm still going to bat for my man Ron all the way!!!

Thank you Col. You and I have also had various disagreements in respect to Ron Paul and libertarianism. I'm guilty as well, and it's taken some serious soul searching to get to this point. I'm thankful that you can see the need for unity right now.

[jonesdecaptain of 1,000]

Jason,

Both you and I both have been trying to make the Heber J. Grant-prohibition issue for as long as I can remember. I have accumulated dozens of quotes from modern day prophets and apostles about specifically the moral obligation to "legislate moral laws" and it doesn't work. I have tried and tried, but even direct quotes from the leaders of the church can't convince them. Frankly, I can't do any better than supporting the fallacy of libertarianism w/ the words of general authorities. It's the best I got brother. Now we have to take a different route, both sides need to be willing to reason with one another and start building together. This is the only way my friend.

Yes, if you look for quotes to support your position you'll always find something...

How about all of the other quotes and scriptures that speak against doing this? Have you considered, as cboyack pointed out, that perhaps the prohibition instance was an exception and not the rule?

[kingbmmcaptain of 100]

MAN! This discussion has gone far afield from what I felt it would become this morning when I read it. I was so in hope we could make something good here. Perhaps we need to zero into one narrow area. I understand the heavenly gift discussion has found some unity. For those of you involved in that discussion group, how have they accomplished it. Perhaps instead of saying it won't work....we should just take a stab at it. Some seemed anxious to try.

Rocky start brother, but I'm confident we can make something happen.

[kingbmmcaptain of 100]

Jason,

Both you and I both have been trying to make the Heber J. Grant-prohibition issue for as long as I can remember. I have accumulated dozens of quotes from modern day prophets and apostles about specifically the moral obligation to "legislate moral laws" and it doesn't work. I have tried and tried, but even direct quotes from the leaders of the church can't convince them. Frankly, I can't do any better than supporting the fallacy of libertarianism w/ the words of general authorities. It's the best I got brother. Now we have to take a different route, both sides need to be willing to reason with one another and start building together. This is the only way my friend.

Yes, if you look for quotes to support your position you'll always find something...

How about all of the other quotes and scriptures that speak against doing this? Have you considered, as cboyack pointed out, that perhaps the prohibition instance was an exception and not the rule?

Jonesde,
You've got the wrong thread. Go relentlessy debate somewhere else. We are trying to unite, not bicker.

[jonesdecaptain of 1,000]

Jason,

Both you and I both have been trying to make the Heber J. Grant-prohibition issue for as long as I can remember. I have accumulated dozens of quotes from modern day prophets and apostles about specifically the moral obligation to "legislate moral laws" and it doesn't work. I have tried and tried, but even direct quotes from the leaders of the church can't convince them. Frankly, I can't do any better than supporting the fallacy of libertarianism w/ the words of general authorities. It's the best I got brother. Now we have to take a different route, both sides need to be willing to reason with one another and start building together. This is the only way my friend.

Yes, if you look for quotes to support your position you'll always find something...

How about all of the other quotes and scriptures that speak against doing this? Have you considered, as cboyack pointed out, that perhaps the prohibition instance was an exception and not the rule?

Jonesde,
You've got the wrong thread. Go relentlessy debate somewhere else. We are trying to unite, not bicker.

You brought it up... I'm just replying to you. I'm sorry you consider that bickering, and I'm sorry you consider it prideful that I disagree with you.

Hmmm.... where is this unity going to start? Are accusations and contempt the solution? Maybe a better solution would be an "only people who agree with me" type of forum?

[kingbmmcaptain of 100]

If you would like to reasonably discuss our political differences, you are more than welcome to send me an IM or e-mail. I will not, however, debate with you any further on this forum. I have made a promise to myself that I will no longer waste my time in arguing over political differences. I won't convince you, and you certainly won't convince me. I'm trying to be a "do'er" Jonesde. I would love for you to join me in helping to build this bridge between us. If you think this is hopeless or a waste of time then I completely understand.