There has been a lot of hullabaloo (I love that word!) about the new Windows Operating System, Vista.
This may be the biggest release of freely installed spyware ever and it could also be Big Brother's next big tool to see what you are doing.
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/175801 (News)
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html (Scholarly Article)
http://badvista.fsf.org/ (Site dedicated to stopping adoption of Vista)
http://www.ubuntu.com/ (Alternative Operating System)
I will be experimenting with the "linux for humans" and let you know the results.
I have contacted a local computer store about the issues but have not been contacted yet.
Comments are Welcome
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Monday, January 29, 2007
Nuns, Clergy, (and Parents) are supposed to be better than this.
(Note: This post discusses abortion in the second half for illustrative purposes. This post is not intended to reflect the entire compendium of my beliefs about abortion, or to reflect the LDS view about it either. If you have questions about it, you can consult your bishop. In general, abortion is wrong. In general, killing another person in a premeditated fashion is wrong, but it was OK for Nephi to lop off Laban's head. That's why God is the final judge.)
From merry olde England comes this story.
It is reported in The Telegraph that a hospice run by a nun, "after taking advice from a solicitor, the clergy and health care professionals" and with the approval of the parents, helped a dying 22 year old man born with Duchenne muscular dystrophy to have his dying wish.
It was something he had wanted to do for several years but due to his physical limitations and the nature of his terminal illness, he was unable to successfully pursue his desire. So in his weakened state and with his own money, the hospice staff helped this young man to procure the services of a prostitute while his parents were out of the house. The parents knew what was scheduled to happen in their absence.
It was not the specific desire of this young man to have sex with a prostitute, but just to have sex. After the event in his own words: "[i]t was not emotionally fulfilling, but the lady was very pleasant and very understanding. I do not know whether I would do it again. I would much rather find a girlfriend, but I have to be realistic."
Further:
As a Christian you are prohibited from aiding and supporting sinful behavior. What these hospice workers, the nun in charge of the hospice, the clergy and the parents did definitely crossed the line.
The title of the article is "Hospice helped dying man lose his virginity". The article is not clear what role the hospice played in helping him because he contacted and paid for the prostitute on his own. The title of the article and the part about ensuring his physical safety implies that they were providing medical support of some kind for the event. Sexual activity can be stressful, medically speaking. The specific risks from this disease include suffocation and heart problems. According to WebMD: "Most boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy need a wheelchair by age 12 and die before age 20 of a lung infection or heart problems."
This encounter with a prostitute was a sin that may not have been possible without the aid of trained medical professionals. The nun, clergy, and parents chose to enable this sinful behavior and I am sure it was out of heartfelt concern for their dying patient and son.
What is worse is that the Nun described this man as "delightful" who had as his dying wish to have sex at essentially any cost. What a colossal failure of judgment on several levels.
This is a very sympathetic case but sin is still sin. And God will ultimately judge all of the people involved (and me too). This was still a poor and sinful decision on the parts of many of the parties involved.
This situation reminds me of The Cider House Rules (CHR). [This portion of the post will contain sarcasm, I am tired of 'bent' movies and stories showing evil as good. I hope it shows.]
CHR is a movie about abortion. It takes place in New England and has a heroic orphanage doctor that performs abortions when they were still illegal. His assistant is a young man that grew up in the orphanage and believes abortion is wrong. The assistant's job also includes taking the fetal remains to the incinerator to be destroyed. The young assistant eventually goes off to a different part of New England to get away from the orphanage and to experience more of the world.
While off experiencing life, the young man gets a job harvesting apples. He is staying with a group of black folk (a family if I remember correctly) and sleeping in "the cider house" where the apples were juiced after the harvest. On the wall was a list of rules ("the Cider House Rules"!) that were written for people too dumb to remember to breathe if respiration were not already an autonomic function, much like outdated laws that prohibited abortion and sodomy.
As the young idealistic (and as the movie shows, misguided) medical assistant works through the harvest season, he comes to find out that the teenage daughter of the family is pregnant, cannot afford medical care for her pregnancy, will not be able to work (causing severe financial hardship on the rest of the family), and was also raped by her father who they both continue to work with each day in the orchard.
Instead of doing the right thing and going to the authorities to have the father arrested and finding a maternity home run by nuns or some other facility to care for pregnant and unmarried women and then giving the kid up for adoption, the young assistant sees the error of his outdated and morally incorrect ways and performs an abortion on the young woman.
Yes, back in the dark ages before the glorious liberation of legalized abortion, there were charitable organizations that took care of young mothers with nowhere else to go so that they could receive medical care and the put the kid up for adoption. Oh, the humanity!!! People taking care of people without government intervention or assistance!!!
The wise, heroic doctor makes arrangements for the young assistant to eventually take his place at the orphanage when the doctor is getting ready to retire. Unfortunately, the doctor has become addicted to falling asleep with the aid of ether and in an accident o.d.'s on the ether and the young assistant returns to take the place of the old and wise doctor. The wise old heroic doctor had faked the medical records of the young assistant to help the assistant avoid the draft. The wise old heroic doctor also forged documents to make the assistant "qualified" to work at the orphanage. Yet he is still painted as the morally superior of the two because he also does abortions, I guess.
The message from CHR: because there are some people who are raped and are the most sympathetic characters ever, abortion in all other cases should be OK too. Oh, and people are smart enough to make their own decisions so outdated laws that offer commonsensical advice and perhaps even make value judgments were written by people who are so out of touch that those rules shouldn't even be there anymore.
While both stories contain sympathetic characters (e.g. a young man dying of a terminal illness, an essentially powerless black girl in 1940's New England) the subjects of the stories are turned into mere tools to be used by the story tellers to justify a sinful act.
We need to not be confused or misled by our feelings for sympathetic cases. We can have all the compassion in the world for the people, but not be confused or think that evil acts are justified in this one case.
Comments are Welcome
From merry olde England comes this story.
It is reported in The Telegraph that a hospice run by a nun, "after taking advice from a solicitor, the clergy and health care professionals" and with the approval of the parents, helped a dying 22 year old man born with Duchenne muscular dystrophy to have his dying wish.
It was something he had wanted to do for several years but due to his physical limitations and the nature of his terminal illness, he was unable to successfully pursue his desire. So in his weakened state and with his own money, the hospice staff helped this young man to procure the services of a prostitute while his parents were out of the house. The parents knew what was scheduled to happen in their absence.
It was not the specific desire of this young man to have sex with a prostitute, but just to have sex. After the event in his own words: "[i]t was not emotionally fulfilling, but the lady was very pleasant and very understanding. I do not know whether I would do it again. I would much rather find a girlfriend, but I have to be realistic."
Further:
He said he did not discuss his decision directly with Sister Frances, who founded the two hospices. "But I know she gave me her support."I understand that to be Christian requires service to others, regardless of their bad decisions in the past. As a medical professional professing to be Christian, it is appropriate to provide medical assistance to people who are ill. Whether they be ill from cancer, muscular dystrophy, leukemia, AIDS, Syphilis, or other STD's contracted from sinful behavior. As a Christian, I am not there to judge people based on their illnesses and then selectively withhold medical treatment, care, or comfort.Sister Frances described Mr Wallis as "(sic)delightful, intelligent and aware young man".
"I know that some people will say 'You are a Christian foundation. What are you thinking about?'. But we are here for all faiths and none," she said.
"It is not our job to make moral decisions for our guests. We came to the conclusion that it was our duty of care to support Nick emotionally and to help ensure his physical safety."
As a Christian you are prohibited from aiding and supporting sinful behavior. What these hospice workers, the nun in charge of the hospice, the clergy and the parents did definitely crossed the line.
The title of the article is "Hospice helped dying man lose his virginity". The article is not clear what role the hospice played in helping him because he contacted and paid for the prostitute on his own. The title of the article and the part about ensuring his physical safety implies that they were providing medical support of some kind for the event. Sexual activity can be stressful, medically speaking. The specific risks from this disease include suffocation and heart problems. According to WebMD: "Most boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy need a wheelchair by age 12 and die before age 20 of a lung infection or heart problems."
This encounter with a prostitute was a sin that may not have been possible without the aid of trained medical professionals. The nun, clergy, and parents chose to enable this sinful behavior and I am sure it was out of heartfelt concern for their dying patient and son.
What is worse is that the Nun described this man as "delightful" who had as his dying wish to have sex at essentially any cost. What a colossal failure of judgment on several levels.
This is a very sympathetic case but sin is still sin. And God will ultimately judge all of the people involved (and me too). This was still a poor and sinful decision on the parts of many of the parties involved.
This situation reminds me of The Cider House Rules (CHR). [This portion of the post will contain sarcasm, I am tired of 'bent' movies and stories showing evil as good. I hope it shows.]
CHR is a movie about abortion. It takes place in New England and has a heroic orphanage doctor that performs abortions when they were still illegal. His assistant is a young man that grew up in the orphanage and believes abortion is wrong. The assistant's job also includes taking the fetal remains to the incinerator to be destroyed. The young assistant eventually goes off to a different part of New England to get away from the orphanage and to experience more of the world.
While off experiencing life, the young man gets a job harvesting apples. He is staying with a group of black folk (a family if I remember correctly) and sleeping in "the cider house" where the apples were juiced after the harvest. On the wall was a list of rules ("the Cider House Rules"!) that were written for people too dumb to remember to breathe if respiration were not already an autonomic function, much like outdated laws that prohibited abortion and sodomy.
As the young idealistic (and as the movie shows, misguided) medical assistant works through the harvest season, he comes to find out that the teenage daughter of the family is pregnant, cannot afford medical care for her pregnancy, will not be able to work (causing severe financial hardship on the rest of the family), and was also raped by her father who they both continue to work with each day in the orchard.
Instead of doing the right thing and going to the authorities to have the father arrested and finding a maternity home run by nuns or some other facility to care for pregnant and unmarried women and then giving the kid up for adoption, the young assistant sees the error of his outdated and morally incorrect ways and performs an abortion on the young woman.
Yes, back in the dark ages before the glorious liberation of legalized abortion, there were charitable organizations that took care of young mothers with nowhere else to go so that they could receive medical care and the put the kid up for adoption. Oh, the humanity!!! People taking care of people without government intervention or assistance!!!
The wise, heroic doctor makes arrangements for the young assistant to eventually take his place at the orphanage when the doctor is getting ready to retire. Unfortunately, the doctor has become addicted to falling asleep with the aid of ether and in an accident o.d.'s on the ether and the young assistant returns to take the place of the old and wise doctor. The wise old heroic doctor had faked the medical records of the young assistant to help the assistant avoid the draft. The wise old heroic doctor also forged documents to make the assistant "qualified" to work at the orphanage. Yet he is still painted as the morally superior of the two because he also does abortions, I guess.
The message from CHR: because there are some people who are raped and are the most sympathetic characters ever, abortion in all other cases should be OK too. Oh, and people are smart enough to make their own decisions so outdated laws that offer commonsensical advice and perhaps even make value judgments were written by people who are so out of touch that those rules shouldn't even be there anymore.
While both stories contain sympathetic characters (e.g. a young man dying of a terminal illness, an essentially powerless black girl in 1940's New England) the subjects of the stories are turned into mere tools to be used by the story tellers to justify a sinful act.
We need to not be confused or misled by our feelings for sympathetic cases. We can have all the compassion in the world for the people, but not be confused or think that evil acts are justified in this one case.
Comments are Welcome
Friday, January 26, 2007
Do I really want a clarification from the President?
(Note: many of the links contain bad words because they quote the President of the United States in an unedited fashion. They may also contain other bad words because of the lack of restraint of those authors and the passion these quotes invite.)
I had heard some vague rumblings about something like this, but it was not until today that I decided to find out if it was true and I found out that it is true. I tried to find some kind of rebuttal, denial, or some other kind of clarification, but after the first 40+ hits from this site not showing anything to mitigate the story, I gave up looking.
I also wanted to find out if this was true too, and it is.
These two things together are at the least mildly troubling and have also caused me to wonder what other people I have been mistaken about.
President Bush speaks Conservative. He speaks it very well. But when the Republicans were in control of the House, Senate, and the Presidency, there really seemed to be no program or expense they didn't like. In the words of President Reagan "we could say they spend money like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to drunken sailors." (It has been noted that the President already swears like a sailor, mostly in private.)
What troubles me the most is the President's attitude about the Constitution and his own role and power as President.
The first thing I refer to comes from a meeting in November of 2005. The President was in a meeting with Congressional leaders discussing renewal of the Patriot Act. There was some resistance from Congressional leaders concerned about the Constitutionality of the Patriot Act and also about political fallout. This was the President's response according to this article (edited for your sensitivities and emphasis):
The article claimed verification from three people at the meeting, at least one of which was an aide to the President.
This quote is disturbing because it shows the President's attitude about the Constitution which he took an oath of office to uphold and protect. It also reveals a confusion about the role of the President. He is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Not the Commander-in-Chief of everything.
Another difficulty with the President's attitude and choice of words that "It's just a [g-d-] piece of paper", is the conflict with LDS Doctrine that the Constitution is actually a God-Blessed and Inspired "piece of paper".
The second thing was President's attitude about Donald Rumsfeld, from CNN's website:
By itself, this is not a problem, but when added to his attitude about being the President and Commander-in-Chief, so "do it my way" it seems a little sinister. I have heard other leaders at least mention how they bear responsibility for their decisions, but President Bush only emphasizes his power to make decisions.
The combination of President Bush's statement about the Constitution, how he is the Commander-in-Chief, and the Decider seems to indicate an attitude of Power without Responsibility. Not even a responsibility to follow the Constitution as opposed to being the Decider in Chief.
With regard to the President's statement about the Constitution as just a piece of paper, The Idaho Observer noted:
If they mentioned the role of the Supreme Court I might be inclined to agree with that statement. As I mentioned in a previous post, the current U.S. Government bears very little resemblance to the Constitution.
President Bush is not a friend to the Constitution, even though he has sworn an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution.
Your comments are welcome.
I had heard some vague rumblings about something like this, but it was not until today that I decided to find out if it was true and I found out that it is true. I tried to find some kind of rebuttal, denial, or some other kind of clarification, but after the first 40+ hits from this site not showing anything to mitigate the story, I gave up looking.
I also wanted to find out if this was true too, and it is.
These two things together are at the least mildly troubling and have also caused me to wonder what other people I have been mistaken about.
President Bush speaks Conservative. He speaks it very well. But when the Republicans were in control of the House, Senate, and the Presidency, there really seemed to be no program or expense they didn't like. In the words of President Reagan "we could say they spend money like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to drunken sailors." (It has been noted that the President already swears like a sailor, mostly in private.)
What troubles me the most is the President's attitude about the Constitution and his own role and power as President.
The first thing I refer to comes from a meeting in November of 2005. The President was in a meeting with Congressional leaders discussing renewal of the Patriot Act. There was some resistance from Congressional leaders concerned about the Constitutionality of the Patriot Act and also about political fallout. This was the President's response according to this article (edited for your sensitivities and emphasis):
"I don't give a [g-d-]," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."
"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a [g-d-] piece of paper!"
The article claimed verification from three people at the meeting, at least one of which was an aide to the President.
This quote is disturbing because it shows the President's attitude about the Constitution which he took an oath of office to uphold and protect. It also reveals a confusion about the role of the President. He is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Not the Commander-in-Chief of everything.
Another difficulty with the President's attitude and choice of words that "It's just a [g-d-] piece of paper", is the conflict with LDS Doctrine that the Constitution is actually a God-Blessed and Inspired "piece of paper".
The second thing was President's attitude about Donald Rumsfeld, from CNN's website:
"I listen to all voices, but mine is the final decision," he said. "And Don Rumsfeld is doing a fine job. He's not only transforming the military, he's fighting a war on terror. He's helping us fight a war on terror. I have strong confidence in Don Rumsfeld.
"I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense."
By itself, this is not a problem, but when added to his attitude about being the President and Commander-in-Chief, so "do it my way" it seems a little sinister. I have heard other leaders at least mention how they bear responsibility for their decisions, but President Bush only emphasizes his power to make decisions.
The combination of President Bush's statement about the Constitution, how he is the Commander-in-Chief, and the Decider seems to indicate an attitude of Power without Responsibility. Not even a responsibility to follow the Constitution as opposed to being the Decider in Chief.
With regard to the President's statement about the Constitution as just a piece of paper, The Idaho Observer noted:
President Bush even commented that Dick Cheney is one of his best friends because he doesn’t read about their private conversations in the press the next day.
The truth is that President Bush is right, in a practical sense: The Constitution is just a piece of paper that was superceded by the 14th Amendment and replaced by U.S. Code. However, blatant irreverence for that sacred document is unbecoming of a president.
If they mentioned the role of the Supreme Court I might be inclined to agree with that statement. As I mentioned in a previous post, the current U.S. Government bears very little resemblance to the Constitution.
President Bush is not a friend to the Constitution, even though he has sworn an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution.
Your comments are welcome.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Evil Influences
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet."
--From Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)
Satan..... Beelzebub..... Lucifer..... the Devil..... Old Scratch...... Whatever.
As a Latter-Day-Saint, I have many friends and acquaintances that are able to see evil influences all over society, but then fail to see evil influences in the actions of our own government.
We see evil influences in entertainment.
Some popular music has become much more vulgar, sensual, and degrading than in years past. Some people say that people complained about Elvis saying that he was too provocative for his time and was even filmed from the waist up during his performance on Ed Sullivan because of his hip movement. Just because something has been bemoaned for a long time does not mean that it is not a problem. There has been a long pattern of downward moving values in American Culture. This is easy to see.
Movies have become more vulgar, violent, sexual, profane, and shocking over the years. There once was a Production Code based on what was morally acceptable that film makers followed until 1967 when a rating system was put into place. It had G, PG, and R ratings. The PG-13 rating was added in 1984 because of some movies that were very violent but did not get an R rating. To finish sewing up the movie industry, NC-17 was added in 1990 to encompass the former X rating.
What is acceptable today in a PG-13 movie is far worse than what was acceptable in a PG-13 movie in 1984. For example, movies like Footloose, Gremlins, and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom put pressure on having some kind of in-between rating besides just PG and R. (Footloose actually first had an R rating until that was appealed. The editorial changes to the movie are contained in the link and contains an "F-word", the movie also removed some nudity to get the PG rating.) The movie Doc Hollywood was rated PG-13 and had full frontal female nudity (no link, the ones I tried to find are even more inappropriate than the prior link). Since that time, the movie Titanic with Kate Winslet's performance as a nude model has now more or less set in stone that showing bare breasts is OK for PG-13 movies. I rarely see PG-13 movies any more for many reasons, and this is just one of them.
I recommend Screenit.com if you want to know what is in a movie that gives it its' rating if you want to avoid the problem movies. Again, it is easy to see an Evil Influence in media.
While this entry is not intended to be comprehensive, we can also see Evil Influences in fashion with immodest dress, sexually suggestive thong underwear for 10-yr. old girls, and many other issues. There have been evil inroads with television, advertising, magazines, and other things.
There are Evil Influences in the education establishment. Science teachers are only allowed to teach evolution in Middle and High-School or face termination from their jobs. The topic of evolution can be argued another day if you want to. At the collegiate level, young students are taught that there is no right or wrong, and that diversity/tolerance is the highest virtue. Sex education in public school is still controlled by the States, but the NEA actively promotes acceptance of homosexual and other inappropriate lifestyles under the umbrella of "education". Public school has become a tool to indoctrinate students in attitudes that are "Politically Correct" with regard to science ("there is no God"), abortion ("it's a woman's right to choose"), the environment ("the government/EPA/Kyoto Treaty/UN must save us from ourselves"), sexuality ("do whatever, just do it with a condom, here, take a handful"), follow a bell schedule, do what you are told, and obey authority. Zero tolerance polices are also zero thought policies. (Education rant over, for now.)
Evil influences are in crime, organized and otherwise.
But evil influences in government? Are you sure? Scriptures in the Doctrine and Covenants say that this nation was founded by good men and that the Constitution was inspired of God! Section 134 even has a statement about governments in general.
This is all true, but the present U.S. Government involvement in regulating this country hardly bears a resemblance to the Constitution. The Constitution was a document for The People to establish a government for some very specific purposes. It was a grant of power from the people to the government, not a document to "reign in the government". The government was only to do a few very specific things and that was it.
Some Examples of Government overreaching: 1- The Federal Government is not empowered to fund or regulate education, 2- the Departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Education, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, and Transportation should not exist, 3- it is not empowered to legislate on abortion issues, 4- the EPA, Federal Welfare, Foreign Aid, Farm Subsidies, Pell Grants, Head Start, the National Endowment for the Arts, PBS, and many other things should not be coming from the Federal Government, 5- CONGRESS is supposed to declare war, not the President, the U.N., or NATO. 6- CONGRESS is supposed to coin money and regulate the value thereof NOT THE FEDERAL RESERVE. There are many other things I could say, but I won't get into it for now.
Every one of these new government programs or regulations takes away more of our freedom. Our freedom is eroded because as a nation we are in debt up to our eyeballs and some day we will have to pay it off. Our freedom is eroded because the cost of starting up a new business to compete with existing business or industry is too expensive because of all of the compliance costs.
The War in Heaven was about freedom vs. bondage or agency vs. compulsion. God's plan vs. Satan's plan.
Satan is still trying to implement his plan on an individual and on a collective basis.
The addictive effects of drug use, pornography, gambling, and other activities have been documented. When you engage in these things, Satan is implementing his plan to have you in bondage. For people who have been endowed in the LDS Temple, it should be clear that Satan is working to oppress people on a very large scale. Gentle, passive oppression is still oppression. While we may not feel oppressed because we voluntarily pay our taxes and follow regulations to avoid getting in trouble, we are still being oppressed. Just try not complying. People go to jail for tax evasion, people are evicted from property they have owned for years and years for failure to pay taxes, and the government can even take your home if they think that a different owner will provide more revenue to the government than your house will.
I see an Evil Influence in our government. Do you?
Comments are welcome.
By any other word would smell as sweet."
--From Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)
Satan..... Beelzebub..... Lucifer..... the Devil..... Old Scratch...... Whatever.
As a Latter-Day-Saint, I have many friends and acquaintances that are able to see evil influences all over society, but then fail to see evil influences in the actions of our own government.
We see evil influences in entertainment.
Some popular music has become much more vulgar, sensual, and degrading than in years past. Some people say that people complained about Elvis saying that he was too provocative for his time and was even filmed from the waist up during his performance on Ed Sullivan because of his hip movement. Just because something has been bemoaned for a long time does not mean that it is not a problem. There has been a long pattern of downward moving values in American Culture. This is easy to see.
Movies have become more vulgar, violent, sexual, profane, and shocking over the years. There once was a Production Code based on what was morally acceptable that film makers followed until 1967 when a rating system was put into place. It had G, PG, and R ratings. The PG-13 rating was added in 1984 because of some movies that were very violent but did not get an R rating. To finish sewing up the movie industry, NC-17 was added in 1990 to encompass the former X rating.
What is acceptable today in a PG-13 movie is far worse than what was acceptable in a PG-13 movie in 1984. For example, movies like Footloose, Gremlins, and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom put pressure on having some kind of in-between rating besides just PG and R. (Footloose actually first had an R rating until that was appealed. The editorial changes to the movie are contained in the link and contains an "F-word", the movie also removed some nudity to get the PG rating.) The movie Doc Hollywood was rated PG-13 and had full frontal female nudity (no link, the ones I tried to find are even more inappropriate than the prior link). Since that time, the movie Titanic with Kate Winslet's performance as a nude model has now more or less set in stone that showing bare breasts is OK for PG-13 movies. I rarely see PG-13 movies any more for many reasons, and this is just one of them.
I recommend Screenit.com if you want to know what is in a movie that gives it its' rating if you want to avoid the problem movies. Again, it is easy to see an Evil Influence in media.
While this entry is not intended to be comprehensive, we can also see Evil Influences in fashion with immodest dress, sexually suggestive thong underwear for 10-yr. old girls, and many other issues. There have been evil inroads with television, advertising, magazines, and other things.
There are Evil Influences in the education establishment. Science teachers are only allowed to teach evolution in Middle and High-School or face termination from their jobs. The topic of evolution can be argued another day if you want to. At the collegiate level, young students are taught that there is no right or wrong, and that diversity/tolerance is the highest virtue. Sex education in public school is still controlled by the States, but the NEA actively promotes acceptance of homosexual and other inappropriate lifestyles under the umbrella of "education". Public school has become a tool to indoctrinate students in attitudes that are "Politically Correct" with regard to science ("there is no God"), abortion ("it's a woman's right to choose"), the environment ("the government/EPA/Kyoto Treaty/UN must save us from ourselves"), sexuality ("do whatever, just do it with a condom, here, take a handful"), follow a bell schedule, do what you are told, and obey authority. Zero tolerance polices are also zero thought policies. (Education rant over, for now.)
Evil influences are in crime, organized and otherwise.
But evil influences in government? Are you sure? Scriptures in the Doctrine and Covenants say that this nation was founded by good men and that the Constitution was inspired of God! Section 134 even has a statement about governments in general.
This is all true, but the present U.S. Government involvement in regulating this country hardly bears a resemblance to the Constitution. The Constitution was a document for The People to establish a government for some very specific purposes. It was a grant of power from the people to the government, not a document to "reign in the government". The government was only to do a few very specific things and that was it.
Some Examples of Government overreaching: 1- The Federal Government is not empowered to fund or regulate education, 2- the Departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Education, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, and Transportation should not exist, 3- it is not empowered to legislate on abortion issues, 4- the EPA, Federal Welfare, Foreign Aid, Farm Subsidies, Pell Grants, Head Start, the National Endowment for the Arts, PBS, and many other things should not be coming from the Federal Government, 5- CONGRESS is supposed to declare war, not the President, the U.N., or NATO. 6- CONGRESS is supposed to coin money and regulate the value thereof NOT THE FEDERAL RESERVE. There are many other things I could say, but I won't get into it for now.
Every one of these new government programs or regulations takes away more of our freedom. Our freedom is eroded because as a nation we are in debt up to our eyeballs and some day we will have to pay it off. Our freedom is eroded because the cost of starting up a new business to compete with existing business or industry is too expensive because of all of the compliance costs.
The War in Heaven was about freedom vs. bondage or agency vs. compulsion. God's plan vs. Satan's plan.
Satan is still trying to implement his plan on an individual and on a collective basis.
The addictive effects of drug use, pornography, gambling, and other activities have been documented. When you engage in these things, Satan is implementing his plan to have you in bondage. For people who have been endowed in the LDS Temple, it should be clear that Satan is working to oppress people on a very large scale. Gentle, passive oppression is still oppression. While we may not feel oppressed because we voluntarily pay our taxes and follow regulations to avoid getting in trouble, we are still being oppressed. Just try not complying. People go to jail for tax evasion, people are evicted from property they have owned for years and years for failure to pay taxes, and the government can even take your home if they think that a different owner will provide more revenue to the government than your house will.
I see an Evil Influence in our government. Do you?
Comments are welcome.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
New Realities (For Me)
I have been reading and thinking and reading and thinking.
I am LDS and as such, I believe in the Book of Mormon and in modern Prophets with vital messages for our day.
The Book of Mormon teaches us about preparing for the Second Coming. Here is a talk by President Bensen about it. The Book of Mormon also teaches us that there are secret combinations that are very powerful and are specifically interested in government power. Simple righteousness was not enough to save the people from these secret combinations, but it did help.
Here are just a few examples of the secret combinations found in the Book of Mormon. (For ease of definition, a secret combination is just two or more people conspiring to do a bad thing).
Laman and Lemuel (2 Nephi 5:1-5): They conspired to murder Nephi to have governance of the people. This is in the pattern of Cain murdering for gain.
The King Men (Alma 51): They wanted to get rid of the Reign of the Judges and to establish a king. Verse 8: "Now those who were in favor of kings were those of high birth, and they sought to be kings; and they were supported by those who sought power and authority over the people." They were put down, and when the Lamanites came to attack again, they refused to take up arms to defend their liberties.
Amalickiah (link to citations here): He could not have accomplished his designs alone. His co-conspirators are not named (other than Ammoron, his brother). He sought power by stirring up the desire for power among the lower judges. When that did not work, he went over to the Lamanites and with a combination of intrigue and murder became the king to prosecute a war against the Nephites to be made a king over them which was his design in the first place.
Notice that Amalakiah was a Nephite by birth who sold out his people to try to become their king, then became king of the Lamanites in a continued bid to enslave the Nephites. Amalakiah was eventually aided by the King Men already mentioned.
Unnamed People in Alma 61: These people were working to undermine from the inside the Nephite efforts to maintain their freedom. These people were continuing to aid Ammoron, Amalakiah's brother.
Kishkumen and Gadianton (Helaman 1-2, generally): These men conspired to avenge the death of Paanchi (who was going to resort to rebellion to obtain the judgment seat), and seek to have their own man (Gadianton) placed on the judgment seat. They succeeded in murdering Pahoran and almost succeeded in murdering Helaman as well. They were chased out of the city, and later formed the Gadianton Robbers.
Giddianhi, the Gadianton leader (3 Nephi 3): The Gadianton Robbers sought to take control of the government of the people.
Lawyers, High Priests, and Kindred (3 Nephi 6):
Jared, the Daughter of Jared, and Akish, (Ether 8-9): This is one of the more disturbing stories of a secret combination. Jared was king and was put out of power. The Daughter of Jared put it into the heart of Jared to have her dance before Akish to "please him" that he should want to marry her and that Jared would allow the marriage on the condition that Akish obtain the head of Jared's father, the king.
The plotting was successful, but here it how it ended for Jared:
These descriptions of secret combinations show that they are regularly seeking government power, often as kings, often to destroy liberty. Always at the bidding of Satan. Satan's plan was to destroy the agency(liberty) of man. The liberty(agency) of man was paid for by the Atonement.
These descriptions also indicate that murder is regularly part of the process for these combinations seeking power. Murder on a grand scale (warfare) or assassination was used by these groups. I am not aware of any scriptures that say when a people is righteous, their government will be free of the influences of these secret combinations seeking government power.
The First Presidency Message for January 2007 speaks about Satan and our power to overcome him. Specifically, Satan is described as being very successful in this day.
From the same article:
What struck me about this final quote is that the article is addressed to the Latter Day Saints, for the Hometeachers to take out to their families. The quote did not say, that the Saints have not been deceived or that we are not gullible. It has made me re-think what things I may have been gullible about.
The United States is not Immune from Secret Combinations: Assassinations of Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy (he had just won the California Presidential Primary in 1968), and an attempt on the life of Ronald Reagan seem to indicate dark forces at work. Given the messages from the Book of Mormon, Pres. Bensen, and Pres. Faust just this month, I have really started looking at things in a new way.
We often think that certain messages are not really intended for us. We look at the world and notice many of the signs of the times like increasing wickedness, wars and rumors of wars, the elements in commotion, the seas heaving beyond their bounds, earthquakes in divers places, and other things, but we(I) have failed to notice the advancement of secret combinations concurrent with time advancing toward the Second Coming. That is every bit a sign of the times just like wars and rumors of wars. The hard part in identifying these groups is that they are in fact, secret and Satan has had a loooong time to perfect his disguise and tactics.
Comments are welcome.
I am LDS and as such, I believe in the Book of Mormon and in modern Prophets with vital messages for our day.
The Book of Mormon teaches us about preparing for the Second Coming. Here is a talk by President Bensen about it. The Book of Mormon also teaches us that there are secret combinations that are very powerful and are specifically interested in government power. Simple righteousness was not enough to save the people from these secret combinations, but it did help.
Here are just a few examples of the secret combinations found in the Book of Mormon. (For ease of definition, a secret combination is just two or more people conspiring to do a bad thing).
Laman and Lemuel (2 Nephi 5:1-5): They conspired to murder Nephi to have governance of the people. This is in the pattern of Cain murdering for gain.
The King Men (Alma 51): They wanted to get rid of the Reign of the Judges and to establish a king. Verse 8: "Now those who were in favor of kings were those of high birth, and they sought to be kings; and they were supported by those who sought power and authority over the people." They were put down, and when the Lamanites came to attack again, they refused to take up arms to defend their liberties.
Amalickiah (link to citations here): He could not have accomplished his designs alone. His co-conspirators are not named (other than Ammoron, his brother). He sought power by stirring up the desire for power among the lower judges. When that did not work, he went over to the Lamanites and with a combination of intrigue and murder became the king to prosecute a war against the Nephites to be made a king over them which was his design in the first place.
Notice that Amalakiah was a Nephite by birth who sold out his people to try to become their king, then became king of the Lamanites in a continued bid to enslave the Nephites. Amalakiah was eventually aided by the King Men already mentioned.
Unnamed People in Alma 61: These people were working to undermine from the inside the Nephite efforts to maintain their freedom. These people were continuing to aid Ammoron, Amalakiah's brother.
Kishkumen and Gadianton (Helaman 1-2, generally): These men conspired to avenge the death of Paanchi (who was going to resort to rebellion to obtain the judgment seat), and seek to have their own man (Gadianton) placed on the judgment seat. They succeeded in murdering Pahoran and almost succeeded in murdering Helaman as well. They were chased out of the city, and later formed the Gadianton Robbers.
Giddianhi, the Gadianton leader (3 Nephi 3): The Gadianton Robbers sought to take control of the government of the people.
Lawyers, High Priests, and Kindred (3 Nephi 6):
27 Now it came to pass that those judges had many friends and kindreds; and the remainder, yea, even almost all the lawyers and the high priests, did gather themselves together, and unite with the kindreds of those judges who were to be tried according to the law.This episode led to the disintegration of the Nephite Reign of the Judges and split the people into tribes by family.
28 And they did enter into a covenant one with another, yea, even into that covenant which was given by them of old, which covenant was given and administered by the devil, to combine against all righteousness.
29 Therefore they did combine against the people of the Lord, and enter into a covenant to destroy them, and to deliver those who were guilty of murder from the grasp of justice, which was about to be administered according to the law.
30 And they did set at defiance the law and the rights of their country; and they did covenant one with another to destroy the governor, and to establish a king over the land, that the land should no more be at liberty but should be subject unto kings.
Jared, the Daughter of Jared, and Akish, (Ether 8-9): This is one of the more disturbing stories of a secret combination. Jared was king and was put out of power. The Daughter of Jared put it into the heart of Jared to have her dance before Akish to "please him" that he should want to marry her and that Jared would allow the marriage on the condition that Akish obtain the head of Jared's father, the king.
The plotting was successful, but here it how it ended for Jared:
4 And it came to pass that Jared was anointed king over the people, by the hand of wickedness; and he gave unto Akish his daughter to wife.Ummmmmmmmm, the Daughter of Jared was now in part responsible for the brutal murders of her Grandfather and her Father. I suspect that if she whined about it, Akish knew what to do about it.
5 And it came to pass that Akish sought the life of his father-in-law; and he applied unto those whom he had sworn by the oath of the ancients, and they obtained the head of his father-in-law, as he sat upon his throne, giving audience to his people.
6 For so great had been the spreading of this wicked and secret society that it had corrupted the hearts of all the people; therefore Jared was murdered upon his throne, and Akish reigned in his stead.
These descriptions of secret combinations show that they are regularly seeking government power, often as kings, often to destroy liberty. Always at the bidding of Satan. Satan's plan was to destroy the agency(liberty) of man. The liberty(agency) of man was paid for by the Atonement.
These descriptions also indicate that murder is regularly part of the process for these combinations seeking power. Murder on a grand scale (warfare) or assassination was used by these groups. I am not aware of any scriptures that say when a people is righteous, their government will be free of the influences of these secret combinations seeking government power.
The First Presidency Message for January 2007 speaks about Satan and our power to overcome him. Specifically, Satan is described as being very successful in this day.
The First Presidency described Satan: 'He is working under such perfect disguise that many do not recognize either him or his methods. There is no crime he would not commit, no debauchery he would not set up, no plague he would not send, no heart he would not break, no life he would not take, no soul he would not destroy. He comes as a thief in the night; he is a wolf in sheep's clothing.' Satan is the world's master in the use of flattery, and he knows the great power of speech, a power his servants often employ. He has always been one of the great forces of the world.Given the goal of Satan and his Secret Combinations, it would seem to make sense that he is infiltrating as many governments as he possibly can. And because Satan seeks to maximize his power, he would very likely seek to infiltrate the U.S. Government as well.
From the same article:
I once heard Ernest LeRoy Hatch, former president of the Guatemala City temple, say, 'The devil is not smart because he is the devil; he is smart because he is old.' Indeed, the devil is old, and he was not always the devil. Initially, he was not the perpetrator of evil. He was with the hosts of heaven in the beginning. He was "an angel of God who was in authority in the presence of God.And this gem too: "Satan has had great success with this gullible generation."
What struck me about this final quote is that the article is addressed to the Latter Day Saints, for the Hometeachers to take out to their families. The quote did not say, that the Saints have not been deceived or that we are not gullible. It has made me re-think what things I may have been gullible about.
The United States is not Immune from Secret Combinations: Assassinations of Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy (he had just won the California Presidential Primary in 1968), and an attempt on the life of Ronald Reagan seem to indicate dark forces at work. Given the messages from the Book of Mormon, Pres. Bensen, and Pres. Faust just this month, I have really started looking at things in a new way.
We often think that certain messages are not really intended for us. We look at the world and notice many of the signs of the times like increasing wickedness, wars and rumors of wars, the elements in commotion, the seas heaving beyond their bounds, earthquakes in divers places, and other things, but we(I) have failed to notice the advancement of secret combinations concurrent with time advancing toward the Second Coming. That is every bit a sign of the times just like wars and rumors of wars. The hard part in identifying these groups is that they are in fact, secret and Satan has had a loooong time to perfect his disguise and tactics.
Comments are welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)