I have recently been turned onto some old PBS based presentations by economist Milton Friedman.
Turns out he is one of the most respected under recognized economist of the mid to late 20th century. His presentations on PBS aired in the early 80's.
He really advocates for a more limited government and more free market. Especially, he argues that we need to do it and not wait or try to make the rest of the world go along. He thinks it will benefit us more even if there is unfair competition out there in the world.
His PBS series of ten(10) video segments and debate are very provocative. He purports to not have all the ideas but, uses examples around the world where his ideas of limited government are helping to create a better of citizenry and also sights examples where the reverse is true. He's very good to not make it exclusively about the United States. As we have become more global and interconnected many of his ideas and principals have become more poignant, prudent and relevant.
I'm going to include a link to all 10 episodes. Each one is a good hour long so it is a lot of heavy viewing. He covers topics like schools, free markets, dealing with poverty, consumer regulation, and much much more.
Free to Choose: Part 1: Power of the Market
Free to Choose: Part 2: Tyranny of Control
Free to Choose: Part 3: Anatomy of a Crisis
Free to Choose: Part 4: From Cradle to Grave
Free to Choose: Part 5: Created Equal
Free to Choose: Part 6: What's Wrong with our Schools
Free to Choose: Part 7: Who Protects the Consumer
Free to Choose: Part 8: Who Protects the Worker
Free to Choose: Part 9: How to Cure Inflation
Free to Choose: Part 10: How to Stay Free
Well you may think that some of these topics or elements of discussion are dated. True they seem to be as things have changed. Interstate commerce restrictions seem to have been lifted. Some changes have been made to welfare and the FDA seems to have improved their approval process for drugs. At least more seem to be getting out into the market though it still can take years of testing. However, due to some of things that have been brought up in these discussions may well have help win the election. In light of the points and topics brought up here you might want to rethink Mitt Romney's 47% comment.
He's clearly a libertarian at heart. And a laissez-faire kind of guy.
The ever difficult task is to find that proper balance of Government intervention and the free market. To find the proper blend of hands off economics and general protections we expect to have in society.
I'd say that Mitt Romney was more of a Friedman economics guy then Obama, and clearly we would have likely been better off if he had been elected. Only time and hindsight will tell...........
Just as it will with the whole Gay marriage debate!
So watch the videos if you have not already and become enlightened. It might not make you change your mind completely but it could help you to see things from more then one side.
Well you can say that on November 6th 2012 we had another historic election. Our first US black president was reelected. Our first major party Mormon candidate did not win the election.
One way or the other many things occurred in the election that beg to be analysed.
Due to the fact that we have an electoral college system only about 10 states were in play. What that means is that only these 10 states were close enough in the polling that no one could predict which way the would go there. Places like Utah are in general so conservative that it is a foregone conclusion that the Republican candidate will win there from now till well "Hell freezes over"; basically forever.
Many people complain that the electoral system needs to be removed and that the popular vote needs to be put in place. There are visible down falls to each of these systems. Many complain that "safe" states are only used as piggy banks by the candidates. While others mention that small states like New Hampshire get attention not normally given a small state due to the fact it is in play. The reverse might occur if you have a popular vote scheme.
States like California, Texas, New Jersey, Florida, and New York could determine everything. Places like Ohio, Illinois, North Carolina, Virginia, Michigan etc with larger populations would become the second tier places to court. You would sure have a lot more movement around the nation. But, you can guarantee that states with small populations like Rhode Island, Maine, the Dakotas, Montana etc would be left out all together. Why spend time going after 1 million votes when you can run some ads in Los Angeles and cover 5 million people. Simple economics, and critical mass.
It might be better to do an electoral college based on the the popular vote in each state. Thus Wyoming with 3 electoral votes would have handed them out as follows - 2 for Romney, 1 for Obama. Colorado with 9 would have been as follows - 5 for Obama and 4 for Romney. Why? Near ties and odd numbers gives the extra to the winner. Wisconsin with 10 would have been 6 for Obama and 4 to Romney or something along those lines.
Something to thin about.
So what are my opinions on the election. Several of the so called swing states - Ohio for example had a vote spread of around 100,000. That is dang close in my opinion. If you check out the map of Ohio you see that Mitt Romney won most of the less populated counties, and Obama got just a few counties though the ones with more population. It vary well could have gone either way. There are about a half dozen states that the spread of fairly small. This means that had the turn out been lower likely you'd have gotten a Republican president. Though it all depends on where things are lower in turn out. Sadly, this is one of the worse things about our system.
You have multiple steps to getting a vote as a presidential candidate. First the eligible person has to register, and then they have to actually bother to vote the day of the election or send in their vote via mail if applicable. So most people that vote are fairly informed and are making an effort. The lazy bum, uninterested person with little or no knowledge of the facts is not likely to even go out and vote let alone register to vote. It's the semi-informed people that get swayed by advertising and propaganda that turn into the dangerous voter. That can swing an election and do so sometimes based on emotions, lies, and other poppycock.
The election out here in California is a classic example of the semi-informed being lead astray by lies, and the like in ever kind of perceivable of propaganda.
I'm including a link to a few of the bad ones.
So if you watched each these ads you get both sides of the picture. Somebody has to be lying since both sides can't be right in the end, right? That is where things get a little choppy. You end up with so many mixed messages and poppycock. That forces you go go and read the real language of the proposition. Then you open your eyes. But, mister semi-informed will not really bother to go and read the actual language. He'll start believing the ads if he is given enough of them. Or become a little more confused and vote no since that usually leaves things with the status quo.
it's easy to see why people get confused. It's also does not help that the actual propositions are written in such a way as to be confusing. I actually did some digging on Prop 37 the genetic engineered food act. Not to clear in the language that the NO or Yes guys were right. In those cases it is better to leave it alone.
Who knows what the semi-informed voted. Bottom line is that the proposition did not pass.
Beyond the typical proposition with all the associated lies and distortions we had two competing tax measures. Both were to fix the budget cuts that have been laid on the schools over the last several years as California has struggled with the effects of the recession. One planned on boosting the sales tax 1/4 ¢ and hit up those making more them $250,000 for more income tax. The other main claim was that the money would go more directly to the schools (K-12) and it would hit everyone with an income tax increase.
Here are the final results
Proposition 30 - Increase Education Tax
Jerry Brown's Tax Increase.
100% reporting
Option
Votes
Pct.
✓ Yes
4,967,039
53.9%
No
4,251,558
46.1%
Proposition 38 - Increase Tax K-12
Molly Munger's State Income Tax Increase.
100% reporting
Option
Votes
Pct.
✘ No
6,509,127
72.3%
Yes
2,493,398
27.7%
Do you see how one went down in flames and the other passed by a small margin. One might wonder why. I think the analysis I heard on KFIAM640.com would sum it up best.
In essence it states - "We are willing to have someone else foot the bill but, when it comes to effecting us we say 'NO Thanks'."
People don't mind taking that guy seen as rich that lives in another city far away up north. It's not their money so why not force that guy to pay his fair share. The old fair share argument.
That 'Fair Share' argument has come up a lot during this election.
What is a fair share? It likely will be different to the guy making minimum wage compared to the small business owner.
Could this visual example of "Fair Share" logic be where we are heading as a country. We do have an exuberant number of people dependent on the government. From Health Insurance, to social security to Food Stamps. Likely that 47% statement by Romney is not that far from inaccurate. However, not all those benefiting from the government vote for the party more associated with handouts. It all depends on why your getting the benefit.
But, are we turning ourselves in to a bunch of lazy bums. Those that feel they are entitled no matter how hard they work. That the successful must pay their ever growing 'Fair Share'. We have to stem this tide of thinking. We have to rise above and make this country great once again. Get out of this entitlement feeling and go back to the get the job done sentiment of the farming days.
We also have to find more common ground and things we can build on. Not the stuff we can not agree upon.
I like the way the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-days Saints put it.
There has been much to do about the fact that Mitt Romney paid only 14% or so in tax last year compared to the 20-30% many Americans have paid. Then you find out that it was not on typical income but, on capital gains or investment income that is taxed at about that rate anyways; far different then the typical income.
There are those that hem and haw about it being unfair and the like. They may even say that the rich should be taxed more. Well if your rich in the way Romney is it might not make any difference. Jack up his income tax all you want he'd likely have paid more or less the same amount. That is because most of his money is from investments and not from sweating in the fields, or book royalties or other income gains related to direct labor. So when you talk about jacking up the income tax rate on the rich who are you really going to hit hardest? Not likely the one that can find a way to make a load of deductions or the one that make his money off of buying stock or bonds or having some money in a CD.
Have you ever wondered why some CEOs and other Corporate executive are will or can take a salary of only $1? It might be that the related stock options that they will receive or get will compensate. Also since it is taxed at such a different rate it does not hit them as bad as say 2 million in salary.
I was able to read a good article on the subject and why it would not be such a bad idea move toward a flat tax. The issue now with some more well to do people and their taxes is that they don't pay the same rate across the board. They can hire a good attorney or accountant and use this to their advantage.
So one might think - why go with any kind of flat tax at all? Isn't our thousand pages of tax code not working very well. As the article mentions very plainly - there are to many exemptions that have been built into the system over time. Thus those that have the time and money to pay a professional can work the system to their advantage. A average person is kind of up the creek, though not necessarily without a paddle.
So what is the advantage of a flat tax?
Everyone pays the same percentage on their income.
Same tax rate for all income, regardless of origin.
Removes exemptions and ways to work the system.
Now some might say that this would be an unjust burden on the poor. Other would say that the rich would not pay enough. You might sense that this is right. But what is 2% on $10,000 in income and 2% on income of $6,000,000? The difference basically amounts to $200 verses $120,000. You might see a small up tick in the amount coming from lower incomes especially if they are currently not paying anything. You might think you will see less from the richer people. Yep it would seem that way.
Anyway you look at it; it is still a guaranteed percentage. Easily seen and you can predict in a general sense what you'll pay.
Also the only way to cheat the system would be to falsify the sources of income and not apply some fake or inappropriate exempt you really did not qualify for. I know it would reduce the number of accountants needed and the IRS would likely be reduced some. But, leaner and meaner is better right?
Now there is the other subject I'd like to bring up. It is called tithing. It is the religious way of funding church activities. Some congregations or denominations simply pass a plate around at their meetings. Other like mine, have you pay 10% and it is done via envelop so that the whole world doesn't have to know what you paid. You reconcile with the local leader at the end of each year. A good way to make sure none of the money is being lost or stolen. However, you put it the money is then used to build buildings, maintain building and do any of the many other things that occur in the church. Now what is different here then the flat tax folks is that it is voluntary and no one asks to see your pay stubs. They take your word for it and assume your being honest. If that could only be the case with our government taxes.
In the end it may all amount to how we spend the money and how efficient we are in do that. Thousands if not millions of government money i.e., our tax dollars have been thrown at project that never give a return on investment. Though it is understandable we need government to provide us with things such as roads, police and fire etc. These could be considered a bad return on investment until, your home is saved as it catches fire, or when the drunk driver is removed from the road by police. Under perfect circumstances you would not need them at all.
18 And the Lord called his people aZion, because they were of bone heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.
19 And
Enoch continued his preaching in righteousness unto the people of God.
And it came to pass in his days, that he built a city that was called
the City of Holiness, even Zion.
20 And it came to pass that Enoch talked with the Lord; and he said unto the Lord: Surely aZion shall dwell in safety forever. But the Lord said unto Enoch: Zion have I blessed, but the bresidue of the people have I cursed.
21 And it came to pass that the Lord showed unto Enoch all the inhabitants of the earth; and he beheld, and lo, aZion, in process of time, was btaken up into heaven. And the Lord said unto Enoch: Behold mine abode forever.
So all this is food for thought. Maybe going the route of the Lord's economic plan is best in the end. it is just one way or the other.
Over the weekend we were able to view a session of Meet the Press where they interview Mitt Romney Republican Candidate for President of the United States of America.
I really liked the interview. Not only because Mitt is from my church and religious persuasion. It was more on some of the responses that the provided. Naturally some of his responses had the old political talk with vagueness and non-commitment.
There were mainly a couple points that the interviewer was going after. One was how different will he be in regards to the economy and secondly, a few thoughts on him as a person and the fact that he and his wife are "insensitive" etc.
He brought up a good point in regards to the economy. Basically, you want things to get better. And to solve some of the revenue problems we have at the Federal level we need to get more people back to work and not just tax the rich because they have so much. Yes, per the typical republican response he is not a redistribution type of person. He is more the lift things up from the bottom type of person. If let's say 1 million people become employed and that all of them make $8 per hour. That is a ton of money back into the system. Now some of those people may have been getting assistance from the government or other location. They now with some increased income can begin to buy necessities (Not luxuries and the like). It may be hard to follow but, people employed even at lower rates is better then people that are not employed. It generates a certain amount of tax revenue (income and sales) as well as purchases etc. which then go toward revenue and profits for the companies or institutions.
Unfortunately, he was pressed a bit on what kind of tax incentives/breaks and loopholes he would remove so that we stay revenue neutral when he implements his plans to lower the tax rates of the higher income earners and middle class. He just kept going back to the loopholes and incentives. He did not provide any examples. Now, in reality not providing specifics is a good thing because when you go and have to compromise you might find that one thing you promised has to be taken off the table to get the votes needed for overall reform. So yes he was acting like a typical politician in the end. What does he need to do to not get that evasive branding and that of "he really only wants to help the wealthy"; he needs to provide some things that would be on the table for consideration. Take for example, capital gains taxes, or mortgage deductions, or some types of limits on donations etc. Maybe even increasing the amount of income that is taxed for social security or medicare. Does not mean he would be committing to actually removing those deductions or loopholes. He'd be saying they are things to be considered, things that could make a difference in the overall picture. If in the end it is found that removing the mortgage deduction would have an overall adverse effect then they would not touch that. Until you have some real numbers you should not be promising to touch anything.
Vague may work for a while but, as things get tighter in the race there will be people looking a little more at the specifics. Then as they get a more broad picture of the candidate and his ideas or principles they will begin to feel comfortable with said candidate.
But, making empty promises never helps. It's a kin to lying and no one needs that label.
As for the lack of empathy the Romney family have for the average person - Ann Romney give one of the best responses.
"MS. ROMNEY: Well, I think the-- the thing that I want to communicate
to people, and that it's so important that people understand, is that
Mitt and I do recognize that we have not had a financial struggle in our
lives. But I want people to believe in their hearts that we know what
it is like to struggle. And our struggles have not been financial, but
they've been with health and with difficulties in-- in different things
in life. And one thing that I-- that I again like to remind people is
that multiple sclerosis has been my teacher. It has been at times a
cruel teacher. But it has also been a great gift in my life because
what it has done it has taught me to be more compassionate and caring
for others that are suffering. And I know that people are suffering
right now. And for people to think that we don't have empathy just
because we're not suffering like they're suffering is-- is ridiculous.
It’s-- it’s ridiculous to think that you can’t have empathy for somebody
that’s struggling.
Our life has always been devoted to those that are struggling more
than we are and I was grateful for the opportunity that we had at the
convention for others to speak up and talk about the kind of lives we’ve
led-- we’ve led. And in particular for Mitt who really has been
demonized in many ways as being heartless. And for people to stand up
and say, excuse me, he was there when my son was dying of leukemia. He
came to my son’s bedside. He did all of these things for my son. And
then another woman saying how Mitt was there for her. So there’re
hundreds of those stories that haven’t been told. And it was refreshing
to me for the American people to finally be able to see the lens
through which I see my husband and the perspective in which I understand
how he operates." Meet the Press Sunday September 9th 2012
Yes it might be hard to think of what is like to be Homeless for them. But, when you begin to consider the other struggles and challenges you begin to see they do have a unique perspective. They are not totally insensitive and callus. And his work as a Bishop and Stake President allowed him to come into contact with a bunch of people from all different walks of life. The labourer or store clerk to the business owner, or operations manager.
And Ann Romney gave another great response earlier on when asked how she would feel if Mitt became the first Mormon President.
"MS. ROMNEY: …I-- I certainly hope so. I mean it's always wonderful
when milestones like that are accomplished. And I think that was why we
were all so pleased with so many Americans. We’re so pleased with
the-- the last election and seeing that a black man was elected as
president of the United States. It made us proud as Americans to know
that those prejudices that we've had in the past are-- are falling away." Meet the Press Sunday September 9th 2012
So let us give him a little slack for all he's being hit with. It's not easy to give your life story and have it examined with a fine tooth comb. Let's look to the good things he has done and hope he can give some more concrete ideas as to how he will fix things. If you go by the view point that Obama has squandered the last several years then we do need a change. But, we need to verify what type of change we are getting ourselves into.
But, as for me it is looking much better to have a change then none at all....... what ever you do please make an informed decision when you vote. Get additional information and verify the facts from both sides of the isle. You'll be glad you did and will then vote with a good conscience.
I only use that title due to the fact that it is so well known and what was used in the recent Bloomberg BusinessWeek article that has caused such a stir. You can read the article in full at the following link - How the Mormons Make Money.
I guess one of the reason there is such a stir is the fact that they continually try and highlight the for-profit businesses that are owned by the Mormon Church (Official name - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints)
As is pointed out in the article and other commentary about the article is that it is very, very hard to talk about and quantify the finances of a religious organization. In the United States and many other countries around the world a religious organization is tax exempt and the contributions make to said organization are also usable as tax deductions depending on how you figure out your taxes. Now there are the typical Religious organization we all know like the Southern Baptists, Roman Catholics, etc. Then you get into the slew of smaller lesser know church and group that in some cases end up in court because they are not deemed to be religious or one reason or another. The majority if not almost all of these entities live off of donations. These can be physical donations of clothing and the like to group like Salvation Army, and monetary donations in the form of Tithing to the more traditional. In some cases you may have a combination of the two which can be fairly standard for those in the LDS Church.
One would assume that most religious groups are not in the business of making money and thus should be given the above mentioned tax break. However, there are some that do appear to be in it for the money or do have some for-profit enterprises and that brings up a whole new animal. Should the for-profit business be taxed and the other parts be exempt? I'd imagine that many would think so until they find out that their church has a for-profit business.
Most churches are a money consuming affair when you look at the face of it. They have a meeting house and need to pay the electrical and water etc to keep things running. They will also eventually replace the roof or other parts of the building. Then you have things like office supplies and church material (Scriptures, manuals, hymnals, publications, etc) that have to be covered as well. You may also have a paid clergy. All this takes money. The property and building don't just magically appear. Nor do the books, and other items that are put into use. This is where tithing comes into play. The members of a religion or church will offer up monies for the sustaining of the church. In a smaller group everything is handled locally. In larger organizations like the LDS Church or Roman Catholics there is a very prominent central church headquarters.
So for the smaller groups you can easily see where the tithing might be utilized - salary, utilities, building maintenance, etc. It is not so easy to see this when dealing with larger religions. Since you also find that many of them run addiction recover and other social outreach programs, seminaries or various schools, as well as having meeting houses spread all over the place and the associated infrastructure to handle these things. It can get quite large depending on the scope and size the church.
Let me mention just a few of the ways that the LDS Church receives funds from local members. Tithing by faithful members, Fast Offerings, and other monetary donations to specific purposes like Temple, Missionary, and/or Perpetual Education Fund.
Now what do I know these funds are being used for?
Tithing the backbone of funds is used mainly for buildings (maintenance, construction, etc) and the running of the unit (i.e manuals, sacrament materials, auxiliary reimbursements, etc.).
Fast offerings are used to handle welfare cases. These funds may be directly allocated to help pay the rent, or utilities for someone that has lost a job. It can also be used as part of the Bishop's Store House which provides food stuff and other basics again to people in need.
If you donate to the missionary fund you be either helping to pay the way for a missionary in the field, printing of Book of Mormons or other literature the church gives away. It might also help to maintain the Missionary training centers around the world as well.
Things like the Perpetual Education fund are special in that they to have a very specific purpose. In this case it is to help make small loans for those in underprivileged areas so they can go to school. Under normal circumstances they would not normally qualify to get a loan for school, or none are available like the system that exists in the US.
Same with Humanitarian donations. These are bundled together and help send aid to those areas that have been hit by natural disaster or other unrest. Per the article the amount of monetary funds just for this area since the mid 1980's is well over 1 billion. That fails to include to amount of human service hours that are provided in many of these areas by local members in places like Joplin Missouri. Great article on this In the Aftermath of the Tornado
Now I know that the LDS Church handles finances a little differently then many others. We do not pass around a plate or collection basket during services. We also don't have a donation box located near the front doors. Our donations are placed in an envelop and include a slip that designated what we are donating to and how much. We retain a carbon copy of the receipt for our records. These envelops can only be handed to 3 individuals in a unit; The Bishop or one of his two counselors. Not even a Stake President can take these monies. The monies are entered into the system (Recorded) by a specially called finance clerk together with a member of the Bishopric. Again, controls are in place with regards to the finances. Both these individuals will take the money down for deposit at the bank. Warning messages are provided when no deposit(s) have been made for over a week. Go to many and you'll get a special visit from Church headquarters.
On a quarterly basis a person comes to audit the finances. This checks to make sure outstanding checks have been resolved and that expenditures and donations have been recorded properly.
Quickest way to get thrown out of the church is to miss appropriate funds.
At the end of the year each family will meet with the Bishop in what is called Tithing Settlement. Here you have the the chance to declare if you are a full tithe payer and also to review the records of what you donated. At that time you can bring up any errors. Once again a checks and balances system. For those of the church you might wonder how someone would know if you really did give 10% of your income. They don't. They take your word for it as you never supply pay stubs or financial reports.
The church works off the principle of the widows mite. It's a huge sacrifice to donate and thus the money must be used wisely.
Also I've heard that if they are going to build a new meeting house they will have all the money lined up upfront before construction. Can confirm or deny this but, it makes sense. This can help keep cost over runs and other issues to a minimum. They also use standardized designs that require only slight modifications to better bit a site. In the past the local unit was required to raise a portion of the funds to build the new meeting house. That was the case of the one where I currently meet. Also back then each family had to pay a portion of the unit's budget. Back in the mid 90's they moved to a standardized budgeting system. No longer would there be an assessment to each family. It is mentioned either in the article or other commentary from desert news (church owned) that they are dedicating a new meeting house some where in the world weekly.
Let's just use a simple example and show how much of the monies received in tithing might be expended on a building.
Let us say we have a typical ward meeting house that will house 2 units. Let us also say for argument sake that the building will run 3 million dollars to build. The property is say going to be 1.5 million since it is expensive here in California. So a rough estimate will be in the neighborhood of 5 million dollars to build and outfit a new meeting house. Think of how much tithing you have to collect just to be able to build that building.
If a typical unit has 400-500 members or about 150 families and a portion of those will be inactive. You say drawing on tithing from about 100 people. If on average these individuals are giving $4,000 annually you come up with in the neighborhood of $800,000 in annual tithing. If that unit or units were in need of that building and you wanted to wait till they had all the money in place you be looking at a good 6-7 years time. Thus the up front costs of building is far greater then the monies being received in a given area. However, with the funds being pooled on a worldwide basis you can then construct new buildings and relive the burden from the local members.
I served in Brazil on my mission and in many areas they had buildings and very few members since was very new there. They would have had to wait years if not decades to get a building if it had to come solely from local funds. They had buildings albeit smaller with new ones or expansions being built as circumstances changed. Also the overall income is far different for members living in Mozambique or Fiji compared to Los Angeles, or a well developed country in Europe. Yes, the cost of living in those areas are also going to be different. You'll spend less on utilities, and other things but, overall things end up being similar.
And that does not include all the buildings being used for religious instruction, or the Temples, and welfare related offices.
So you see there are load of expenses that the church has. There is a large amount of outlay just to keep things functioning.
Let alone the need to building new meeting houses and the continued construction of Temples world wide. Check out the churches list of statistics.
But, outside the use of tithing the bone of contention seems to be with the for-profit businesses the church runs. This was highlighted with the recent completion of the City Creek Shopping Complex in March of 2012. The estimated price tag for this redevelopment was 2 billion. That would be a ton of tithing money to spend if that is what they had done. They say all the money for the project came from non-tithing funds. And the article points out why they even decided to do a project like this. They mention urban blight as the main purpose. The number of jobs created were/are 1,700 for construction and 2,000 permanent per city creek's web site.
Take a week economy and the area around the famed Salt Lake Temple Square going to pot and you see why they would do a project like this. It might make some money but, mainly it was kind of a grand welfare project. They pumped 2 billion into the Utah economy. Sure beats having to fill food orders down the road. Win win in my opinion.
And think why would the church not want to run it own insurance company? There could be many advantages. Any profit would be rolled back into the operation and they could even offer it to other entities.
You have to see the reasoning behind some of the ventures. You have to see the logic, the need, and then you can see why they are in some businesses and not others.
Take the Polynesia Culture Center in Hawaii also mentioned in the article. It is run in conjunction with BYU Hawaii and the students that attend there. Many of the people employed at the center are student from the various areas of Polynesia. They work there to help pay for their schooling. Yes they charge for admission but, if there is any kind of profit it just allows them to improve things at the center or employ more people in the over all operation. Thus more members and in some cases non-members can gain employment and allow them to attend school and become able to be productive in their home cultures/countries when they return home. Another win win over all.
So in the end I'll stay pay my tithing as I need the spiritual blessing and other things that come from being obedient. Also I will not sweat the little things and what is exactly being done in the for-profit businesses of the Church. They provide way more things then one can imagine.
Because they are being wise stewards of the monies received we do the major portion of cleaning a building. However, we learn more respect for said building when we have to clean up that spill we just made.
How many times have you said to yourself - "They just don't get it."?
All to often we find that people just don't understand where we are coming from. You might feel you have almost nothing in common and after a while you feel that is not worth your time to try and get people to see your point of view. And thus it is with our religion.
I've been reading some interesting commentary and articles out there due to the fact that Mitt Romney looks like the "Ordained" republican candidate. What this does is bring the issue of religion especially that of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints many times referred to as Mormons to the front. People want to know what he believes and if that might make a difference in the way he acts as a president. Sometime the minute details are what get people hung up about. They may only be seeing the big picture and not some of the important details.
The following commentary can cut both ways
"But more than that, we — as Mormons — need to avoid judging others who appear quaint and quirky to us.
Those Hindu gods with elephant heads or a dozen legs? They help people rise above the world.
On the surface, such things may appear bizarre.
But they don't look odd to those who go beyond the surface.
Mormons don't like being mocked. We wish people would try harder to see the faith as we do.
And if there's a lesson in that, it may be this.
Mock not if you don't like to be mocked."
As a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints I hate it when people get things wrong. The basic things - Being a cult etc. But, am I giving the benefit of the doubt to those around me. Many times not because I have not gone beyond the surface.
I guess these Jehovah Witnesses we see out on a Saturday spreading the word and want to avoid have gained their conviction or testimony at some point. Who in their right mind would go around a neighborhood all day knocking on doors? That takes conviction.
But, to many of us are so busy we really don't have time to go beyond the surface. That was one of the many challenges I faced as a missionary. Have people that are investigating the church fulfill their commitments. Things like attending church services or reading the Book of Mormon. Just getting beyond that was a major obstacle. And in many cases it was purely that the people in question did not really have the desire to get to the point of going beyond the surface. They had a cursory interest in finding out a little about the church but, not going much further then that.
I think in some cases it was also fear. Fear of what might happen if they really did pray with an open mind and a sincere heart. Just think of it. Would you perform a scientific experiment if you really did not want to find out the result? Experiments are what ones does to get a result. In some cases you suspect things will turn out a certain way and do the experiment to confirm or deny your hypothesis.
The same goes for Pray and digging beyond the surface with religion. You have to perform the experiment (Pray) and then accept the conclusion. It might not be what you expect in the end. And it might not be that super fast all telling, angel visiting, miraculous experience either. Just look at many of the general leadership of the church. They don't go around claiming to have been visited by angels that told them to believe. Mostly they claim to have had a sweet, feeling of comfort and confirmation. NO bells, whistles or hallelujah chorus. Just something simple but, definite.
And in some cases it was not on the first or many even the second time they prayed.
So as the church comes under more scrutiny due to Romney's Nomination we hope that people will go beyond the surface. That they will base their information on facts or information obtained directly from the church and not some ex-member that likely has a grudge or some supposed expert that is not even a member but, just happened to have studied a lot.
On the flip side we should give the benefit of the doubt to those of other faiths as well. Try and see where they are coming from.
We all have our built in prejudices. All based on our background, where we grew up, who we associated with, and the like. At times these "values" maybe a little colored but, not wholly off base. At other times they maybe totally wrong and bordering on down right ignorant or racist.
It's like the fact
"Rev. Jeffress endorses Mitt Romney and shared values". Just a couple of months ago he was saying Romney comes from a "non-christian cult". So now he sees the light? Did he really dig beyond the surface? Or is he more scared of what he feels Obama is and want to throw his weight behind a more "acceptable" candidate? This smells of hypocrisy. I don't think this very genuine. Appears to be more like he's wanting to support the candidate for his party and has to come up with some flimsy things to make it work even though this looks like a back pedal from his stance a few months ago.
That is why I'm glad the church has a stance of political neutrality
This is a good rule of thumb in politics. Find out a bit more about the candidate then what is being provided in the sound bits. Some times you will be shocked at the truth. And also don't keep such a short memory on things promised. My father specified that once a person ran for city council promising to keep large development out of the area. Shortly after he was elected he was doing exactly what he said he would not. Work with a local land owner (the owners of a high end shopping mall etc) to get a 32 story building built near the freeway. Shortly there after term limited were implemented. People were sick of being fed a line and taken for a ride. At least now every 8 years or so you have new blood.
So make and effort to go beyond the surface. And take the plunge if you have not already. Pray and find out if the Book of Mormon is true. You might just want to read it first.
In about 2 months our only daughter will turn 8 and have the opportunity to be baptized. This is a big day for her and she is getting very excited for the whole process.
It is amazing to see how much more now she questions things and is wanting to learn and understand how things work.
She had a great question the other night when we had the full time missionaries over for dinner. She asked: "Why do ladies not have the priesthood?". Boy that is not your typical question, and is rather deep on some levels. This was a first for the missionaries so my wife specified that females have a different calling to be mothers and such. That solved the problem and gave her the answer she needed. We could have gone into scripture and the like but, it would not have helped all that much more.
Now we have been planning the baptismal ceremony. We confirmed with the bishop of the local unit the basic parts.
In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints there are 2 parts to a baptismal ceremony. The first is the actual baptism performed by a Aaronic priesthood holder of the office of Priest or by a holder of the Higher or Melchizedek Priesthood. The second portion is the confirmation as a member of the church and the receiving of the Holy Ghost. If it is a convert baptism that part is now taken care of in the next Sacramental meeting on a Sunday. In my daughter's case it is handled the same day shortly after the baptismal ordinance has been handled since she is a child of record and not yet 9 years old.
Along with the ordinances you usually have someone give a short talk on the importance of the ordinances. This helps the people present to understand the significance of what is occurring. They maybe combined or separate as we will do.
So the only major thing we are trying to resolve is what to do while the people that were involved in the baptism are changing their cloths. We originally though about having a slide show involving pictures from the life of our daughter. Then we came to the conclusion this would be a bit pushy and not very appropriate. Then we turned to things we have seen at other baptismal services. There have been missionary invites, bearing of testimonies, singing of music and short video presentations. We are opting for a short video presentation as this makes sure there is not an awkward time of silence where people are wondering what is going to happen. This also helps if we take a bit long in changing our cloths. There have been short missionary invites that leave a strange amount of dead time when done if the people are not back yet. We also witnessed a pianist and chorister that were not prepared with the needed additional music and it became again awkward.
So we have been thinking hard of a video presentation that would be appropriate while at the same time not too long. It needs to be around 10-15 minutes time so some films like "Prodigal Son" would not work. "Together Forever" is great and has several shorter pieces but, again it is hard to cut it off in the middle of something. So we have turned towards the famous Mormon Tabernacle Choir. We are thinking that a video presentation of them singing along with some inspiring vistas or scenes would be the best. Now we just have to come up with one that fits the best. We want to avoid one of the many wonderful Christmas DVDs that will not fit very well with a June baptism.
Likely it will be their "Historic Nauvoo" or "Songs of America" presentations. But, who can beat their music right? It will just be a great uplift to the service. And in reality they are so famous that several current artists have recorded with them for their Christmas albums - Josh Groban, and Andrea Bocelli
Want to find out what it takes to make an album with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir? Check out here a great article!
I'm going to include links to the two songs we will be using as the opening and closing. Also we are lucky to the a very excellent singer in our unit that happens to be a birthday buddy with my daughter who will sing "I'm trying to be like Jesus". I'm including a like to that as well.
If you'd like to be able to review some of the other wonderful songs in the Children's Songbook and even download digital copies you can do so here
If you'd like to know a little bit more on why we do not baptize our children until they have reached at least 8 years of age - check out these verses in Moroni 8.
If you'd like to get the straight scoop on what members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints really believe you can request to have a missionary visit you - Missionaries Request for Visit
Well it looks like Mitt Romney has won the Iowa Caucuses. And that bring back up the question of - will the evangelical Christians, so heavily touted in the Republican party, accept as their candidate a Mormon?
As was discussed earlier in another post - Are Mormons Christian? the issues of acceptability will most likely play into a final decision by a large but indeterminate block of voters. Not to mention if he goes up against Obama will the larger population have as big a problem with the religion of the candidate as they supposedly have in the primaries?
Ultimately, I don't think that the religion of a candidate should have much bearing on their ability to lead. I do get that it's nice to know a candidate would turn to GOD for help if he feels overwhelmed. I can also see the flip side where they are worried one would turn to GOD for every little thing, or their local ecclesiastical leader.
So unless they claim to be some kind of devil worshiping, human sacrificing type of person it really should not matter. Though would it be a problem if the candidate claims to be atheist or that he believes in Tree worship? If one goes at least by the 10 Commandments found in the old testament and other scriptures of other religions, or some similar tenants then they should be OK. But, I guess to some a few of the difference among religious sects is enough to turn them off.
Is it enough that a candidate not be Christian to be turned off? That makes for an interesting situation when we get our First Hindu, Muslim or how about an Asian Buddhist candidate with serious potential.
As you'll notice most if not all of these so called "differences" would have any bearing on the ability of one to lead. I'd take in account the honesty, integrity, and voting record of a person. Now some of the weaselly candidates will do what is called a flip-flop in regards to an issue, since they might claim it was good at the time or that it is appropriate for just the state they represented.
Remember that there are times that the information available in hind sight lead someone to head in a certain direction they might not have later if the whole "truth" was known.
But, again does it matter that there is a difference of opinion on whether God the Father has a body and the ability of the person to lead?
This also brings up some sordid questions regarding the primary system used by the parties. Do they bring to the top the extreme left and/or right wing types as candidates try and cater to the "Party Base"? Republicans are always trying to look more "conservative" then the next in primary season. Then they go the other direction and try to making themselves look more "moderate" when it comes to the general election. How in the heck can they really do this? I think many talk of the topics the "base" wants to hear and then in the general election they hope to heck to not have to deal with it or bring it back up. Does not always work that way.
I was recently reading a good article in the Desert news entitled "Mormons, Evangelicals discuss differences" by Joseph Walker.
This article was full of insightful information and in some respects things I had not considered.
I've known for some time that we as Latter-Day Saints are accused of not being "Christian" and that one of our main throw backs or responses is the official name of the church - "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints". What I learned in the article is that our view of being "christian" is not the same as what others deem as being "christian".
"To a Mormon, the claim that they are not Christian is confusing," said Dr. David Campbell, an associate professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame and a leading researcher on faith in American life. "They point to the name of Jesus Christ in the church's official name and wonder how they can be considered anything other than Christian."
"When an evangelical Christian says 'Mormons aren't Christians,' what they are really saying is, 'Mormons don't believe the same things I believe about Jesus,'" he said "They are referring to very specific beliefs. But when Mormons say 'Christian,' they're thinking of a religious orientation that has a much broader meaning, that encompasses a lot of different Christian possibilities. So in a sense you have the two sides talking past each other, using the same words to mean different things." Mormons, Evangelicals discuss difference - Deseret News
So I began to realize that it is more then just them being callus or such. They believe in Jesus but they may for example believe that he does not have a body or that Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Ghost are one. You can argue for days on the topics above. Some seem more logical then others, and some have interesting bible verses to back up one side or the other.
Like for example after Jesus was baptized in the river Jordan he hears the voice of the Father, and the Holy Ghost descends in the form of a dove. So was he speaking to himself out loud? And did he have a portion of himself descend out of the heavens? Neither of these make much sense logically and/or physically but remember when we are dealing with faith we are dealing with - things which are hoped for and not seen; - Ether 12:6
It is because of these sutler differences that some will classify LDS as non-christian and others will accept them as christian in the faith.
One thing that was new to me is the division within Christianity. I did not know there were so many - under the main umbrella you have Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant. Then under the protestant umbrella you have 3 more divisions - mainline Christians (Baptists, Methodists etc), fundamentalists (ultra-conservatives) and then the evangelicals (middle ground guys).
"That's a matter of some debate," Millet said. "Some think we should be a fourth umbrella of Protestant Christianity. Others think we should be a fourth umbrella of Christianity, along with Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants." Mormons, Evangelicals discuss difference - Deseret News
I would kind of lean toward a 4th umbrella alongside the Catholics and protestants. First off since we believe in a corruption of the original church and a falling away we can't join in with the Catholics or eastern orthodox people and since we believe in a restoration we also don't fall under the protestant umbrella. What would we be protesting? The lack of current revelation? The fact that authority was corrupted and/or lost? Or how about that Jesus and God the Father both have bodies of flesh and bones and are distinct beings?
I guess I could see where some would throw us in with the protestants but I'd push for 4th umbrella outside their group.
So back to the over all question brought up in the beginning. Are Mormons "Christians"? I guess that will depend on what your views are as a christian.
"Who has the right to decide whether a man or a woman is Christian?" Millet asked. "Who has the power to gaze into another person's soul and know their deepest desires, their eternal yearnings, the object and source of their faith? Mormons, Evangelicals discuss difference - Deseret News
And I know we are guilty of it in the reverse. My daughter has a hard time excepting others as fellow believers in Christ at school because they have a different view on Jesus. She commonly will state - they don't believe in Jesus. Hard at times to help her realize there are various beliefs and sometimes people just act differently because of it. So we tell her - Unless they state it clearly - "I don't believe in Jesus" then you can't assume anything. And none of this makes them bad people either.
So when some callus person comes round stating junk like "Mormons are not Christians" or things like " they don't deserve 1st amendment protections since they are not Christians" just tell them to do like Jesus would and act like the Christians they claim they are.
