An example of a pencil and how the price system causes thousands to cooperated to make a pencil available to you for a trifling sum.
Wise, Good and Honest
Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; (D&C 98:10)
Saturday, May 27, 2017
Friday, May 12, 2017
I was not familiar with him so I read up on him "Leman Copley and the Shakers" from history.lds.org details his relation to the Shaker movement. Also from BYU Religious Studies Center,
In May 1831, the Colesville Saints, led by Newel Knight, began to arrive in the Kirtland area. Bishop Edward Partridge approached Joseph Smith and asked how to organize the group in light of the principles outlined in Doctrine and Covenants 42. In Doctrine and Covenants 51, the Lord commanded Bishop Partridge to organize the Colesville Saints “according to my laws,” appointing to each family an equal stewardship “according to his circumstances and his wants and needs” (D&C 51:3). Furthermore, the Lord explained that it was a great “privilege” to be thus organized according to the laws of the Lord (D&C 51:15). Following these directions, Bishop Partridge approached a recent convert to the Church named Leman Copley. Copley was formerly a Shaker (another Christian sect involved in communal living in Ohio) and one who owned a considerable tract of farmland (759 acres in Thompson). The law of consecration and stewardship was never fully practiced in Ohio. Nevertheless, at the invitation of Bishop Partridge, Copley agreed to enter into an introductory phase of the law of consecration and stewardship with the newly arrived Colesville Saints (see D&C 48:2–3). Soon thereafter, the Colesville Saints moved onto part of the Copley farm and began building cabins and working the land.
In early June 1831, Copley broke his covenant, turned from the faith, and evicted the Colesville Saints from his land. Newell Knight traveled to Kirtland to receive directions from Joseph Smith. The Prophet inquired of the Lord. In the ensuing revelation, the Lord explained that the law of consecration and stewardship among the Colesville Saints had become “void and of none effect” (D&C 54:4). Furthermore, the Lord condemned Leman Copley for breaking his covenant (see D&C 54:5) and commended the Colesville Saints for keeping theirs (see D&C 54:6). Finally, the Colesville Saints were commanded to travel to western Missouri “unto the borders of the Lamanites” (D&C 54:8). This ended the limited practice of the law of consecration and stewardship in Ohio. It was determined that the Ohio Saints were too spread out geographically to make another attempt at that time.From The Joseph Smith Papers, it says that Leman Copley "Allowed Latter-day Saints from Colesville, Broome Co., New York, to settle on his land under law of consecration; rescinded his agreement, by June 1831." D&C 54 says the same thing.
("Conquest of the Heart: Implementing the Law of Consecration in Missouri and Ohio", 2002, Blair G. Van Dyke )
Agreeing to live the law of Consecration is voluntary. Leman agreed to it and then he backed out of it. I do not know of other cases like this. I am guessing that they are few and far between. Being excommunicated for not agreeing to live the law of consecration let alone agreeing to it and backing out is way less common than having your wages garnished for unpaid taxes.
I would expect that there are no cases of excommunication for even backing out of consecration in the last 100 years plus.
Tuesday, March 28, 2017
I shared this video on my FB wall. I got a lot of push back from my friends. I wrote the following comment clarifying why I posted it.
My point is to be aware of the language we use. It may have meanings and consequences we are unaware of. That we have inherited.
Using 'girl' or 'boy' in some contexts might be fine. In others it may indicate an imbalance of power that would be served being addressed.
In a occupational context if you would use men for males and girls for women, it might mean that you are (unintentionally) perpetuating power structures that do not serve us.
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
From a post of a FB friend
I find this absolutely infuriating.
"Of course they’re going to say if we stop forcing people to buy something they don’t want to buy they’re not going to buy it," Ryan said. "That’s why you have these uninsured numbers, which we all expected."
No. Just no. The drop in coverage is not because people are no longer "forced" to buy health insurance. Yes, there are some, but a much larger reason you are conveniently ignoring is because they can't afford it under your dumb plan! Millions of people are covered under the Medicaid expansion who would no longer be covered, just for a start.My comment was "The market is almost always a better solution"
From 'No, Capitalism Will Not “Starve Humanity”' by 2050, Human Progress 17 Feb 2015, by Chelsea German and Marian L. Tupy
I also want to say that there are cases of extreme greed in capitalism. I think that is one of the ways that humans "grind the faces of the poor" (Isaiah 3:15)
In addition, providing money or benefits to people without requiring work lowers the sights of the receivers. There is only one way out of poverty.
So many good graphs and charts here.
"Why Single-Payer Health Care Delivers Poor Quality at High Cost" Foundation for Economic Freedom, 18 Mar 2017.
From a FB post by American Enterprise Institute. I can easily put all items that have increased in cost into the "caused by government intervention" category except for Food and Beverage and Child Care